A Mistake

In writer / director Christine Jeffs' tv-standard New Zealand medical drama "A Mistake" senior surgeon Elizabeth Banks leads a team in an operation in which an error is made, that MAY have contributed to the patient's death hours later. The patient's parents formally complain, Banks & team are scapegoated by the hospital's administration (led by Simon McBurney (excellent)), and their lives begin to miserably crumble. Being so dry, downbeat, & depressing it was perhaps a mistake for star name Banks to get involved. Its noble message is that healthcare workers are over-worked & under-appreciated, but there must be more effective ways of conveying that.

Elizabeth Banks is among my most favorite actresses - her latest movie was a must-see.

But, in hindsight, I am asking why.

1) This movie is set in New Zealand.

First of all, why do so many actors in this movie have an accent which doesn't resemble the Kiwi one? I have loads of friends from New Zealand and none of them sound like in this movie.

If anything, some of the actors sound very British instead.

2) While the premise of the movie is a decent one, the pace of this movie isn't keeping up with it. At times it feels a bit slow and boring.

3) Many of my family members are doctors, nurses or work in key roles in a hospital. While mistakes do happen, the details of the movie aren't likely under many circumstances. The medical devices used, protocols followed, and education/mentorship received is very exact these days and follows a strict regime.

4) Several story elements don't make much sense. Why was it such a big deal that some dog stays with her? How come that a lead surgeon/medical degree holder who isn't into cars drives a BMW E30 (a classic which would need a huge amount of effort/passion/tech to be on the road)? Why the crass language and swearing all the time by a degree-qualified doctor... profanities to show the extreme situation she is in? It can be done with a better script.

Why don't the lead actress and the protege have no chemistry at all?

Elizabeth Banks is still a great actress, but I don't think a medical drama is something she should do often.

Maybe the standards of movie making are lower for films set in New Zealand.

This movie can be a bit hard to watch because of its intensity. It's definitely made to provoke emotion and thought. Even several days later I'm still thinking about it.

On the surface, it's a medical drama revolving around the titular mistake and consequences. But there's more depth and complexity - even the mistake is not as obvious as it seems. Competing forces clash and interact, driven by conflicting motives while we watch Elizabeth Banks' character react, evolve and reach a resolution. Her character development, as well as that of secondary characters, is what makes this movie so powerful. As much as I squirmed, I had to stay to watch it all the way through.

I wasn't completely satisfied with the ending, While not a happy Hollywood ending, I think more could have been done with it. Despite that, the movie was very much worth watching if you're looking for a dark and powerful charactor driven story.

Love medical dramas and this movie was perfectly cast while also showcasing a great understanding of a socialized healthcare system.

That all being said, Elizabeth Banks's obsession with women being the target of "toxic masculinity" in both her personal life and body of work as an actress and director is getting tedious.

IE; She cited that people hated her directorial performance in the Charlie's Angels reboot because of misogyny against female action movie leads and Spielberg never cast a female lead in his career.

Both assertions are categorically incorrect and just sad statements on her capacity for self-pity.

She doubled-down on this position in this movie where her character was some kind of flawless creature that is above making mistakes and any attempt to hold accountable for her medical care can only be attributed to sexism.

Yawn!

Dr. Taylor, a female surgeon at a Wellington hospital, performs abdominal surgery on a young woman suffering from sepsis related to a problem with an anticonceptional device. Taylor's registrar, a surgeon in training, mistakenly cuts a major blood vessel when asked to insert a trocar drainage tube. The operation is extended. The patient dies the following morning. While the premise initially drew me to the film, I soon ascertained that next to nothing about it held my interest, from the main character (a stereotypically arrogant prima-donna of a surgeon) to the less-than-nuanced filmmaking. The narrative was a goner before it had barely begun. One might argue it was dead on arrival. (One needs to have a certain sympathy for the surgeon for a narrative like this to work.)