theguardian.com
Night Always Comes": A Portrait of Poverty in the US
Night Always Comes" is a Netflix film following Lynette, a woman in Portland, Oregon, who must raise $25,000 in one day to save her home after her mother spends their savings, highlighting the struggles of poverty in the US.
- What are the potential long-term impacts of increasing wealth inequality, and how can future films more effectively depict the human consequences of such disparities?
- While well-intentioned, the film's episodic plot and reliance on trauma to develop Lynette's character weaken its impact. Future films tackling similar themes should focus on more nuanced storytelling and avoid relying solely on shocking events to convey hardship.
- How does "Night Always Comes" compare to other recent films that explore themes of wealth inequality, and what are its strengths and weaknesses in addressing these issues?
- The film contrasts with recent films depicting the wealthy, highlighting the widening gap between the rich and poor. Lynette's experiences reflect the struggles of many facing economic hardship, particularly in the US where social realist stories are less prevalent than in European cinema.
- What are the key social and economic issues highlighted in "Night Always Comes", and how does the film portray the challenges faced by individuals struggling with poverty?
- Night Always Comes", a Netflix drama, follows Lynette's desperate struggle to save her family home after her mother spends their savings on a car. The film portrays the harsh realities of poverty and the impossible choices faced by those on the breadline.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The review's framing emphasizes the film's shortcomings and negative aspects. While acknowledging the film's intentions, the negative critique of the plot, character development, and overall impact overshadows any potential strengths. The headline itself might be perceived as leaning towards a negative judgment.
Language Bias
The review uses strong negative language to describe aspects of the film: "awful," "inert," "less involving and believable," "reckless foolishness," "numbing," "bleakness." These words convey a highly critical tone that could influence the reader's perception of the movie. More neutral alternatives could include terms like "slow-paced," "unconvincing," "improbable," and "depressing.
Bias by Omission
The review focuses heavily on the film's plot and characters, neglecting broader contextual factors such as the socio-economic conditions in Portland, Oregon, that contribute to Lynette's struggles. While the review mentions the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor, it doesn't delve into the specific policies or societal structures that exacerbate this inequality. This omission limits the reader's ability to fully understand the systemic issues at play and may downplay the complexity of Lynette's situation.
False Dichotomy
The review subtly presents a false dichotomy by contrasting the "eat the rich" films with others that seemingly "admire their kitchens." This simplifies the diverse range of films exploring wealth and inequality, neglecting those that offer more nuanced perspectives. It also implies that critiquing wealth is inherently at odds with appreciating aesthetic aspects of a film.
Sustainable Development Goals
The movie highlights the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor, showing the struggles of a woman on the breadline who must resort to extreme measures to save her family home. This directly reflects the challenges of income inequality and lack of social safety nets, hindering progress towards SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).