The House of God

I've read a lot of comments that include the fact that this film was made on-location at a hospital in Philadelphia. Maybe so, but some of the exterior shots and at least some of the principal photography was done in Boston, at a construction site that would become the hospital complex there. I should know: I was there as an extra. I was hired for a couple of days work, mainly walking around an actual construction site being used in the film. The best part of the experience is that for one day, I was Tim Matheson's stand in. I was the "right size" and they used me to set lights and camera angles for a scene inside a partly constructed building. Ironicallly, I've neber seen the movie, so I don't know if I'm "in" it.

The House of God is based on the actual experiences of Samuel Shem when he was a medical intern at Harvard's Beth Israel (as in 'House of Israel') Hospital in Boston in the mid-70s. Shem is a nom de plume (the word Shem is Hebrew for 'name'). In medical school I spent some time at the BI and got to know the doctor who inspired the Leggo. His description in the book is accurate except for the giant purple birthmark on his face which didn't exist in real life. I later trained at a different Harvard hospital in the early 90s and one of the internists there trained a year after "Shem" and corroborated many of the details. One rumor I heard about why the film wasn't released was that Harvard Med School threatened legal action. Don't know if this is true since all the names of people and institutions were fictional in the book and movie but who knows?

...which I discovered immediately after finishing my own internship. As a reflection of what the medical training experience was like in the '70s (before the concept of diagnosis-related groups - DRGs - changed the way in which we hospitalize patients, particularly GOMER'd Medicare clients), the novel was the absolute truth, up to and including the rutting behavior of 'terns and residents trying to compensate for too much stress by going after too much sex.

Remember, it was not only pre-DRG (which first began testing in New Jersey in 1980 before going nationwide in 1983) but also pre-AIDS (which first began to manifest with epidemiological significance in 1981). By 1984, however - when this movie is considered to have been released, even though it had been finished in 1979 - its subject matter (and the novel's approach to it) simply wasn't topical any longer.

With the DRG system rammed down their collective throat by HCFA, hospitals no longer got revenue by performing all sorts of procedures and hanging onto patients for weeks on end (charging by the day). Instead, they began to be paid a set amount by third-party "health insurance" carriers according to the diagnosis-related group into which the particular patient fell. Explanations of DRG are available all over the 'Net, and I suppose Wikipedia's entry is good enough for most folks' purposes.

The whole thrust of the DRG system can be summed up as discharging each patient "quicker and sicker." A nasty situation for the admitting physician, who has to balance his/her best appreciation of the patient's needs against the hospital administration's pestering to do as little as possible as rapidly as possible to get the patient stable enough to wheel the critter out the door.

As for the matter of sexual promiscuity.... Well, that all went bye-bye when we discovered a sexually transmitted disease that transcended the status of "treatable inconvenience" to become a death sentence. If there's substance to *The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS* premise so beloved of the conservatives, have you ever wondered why the hell all us heterosexual doctors (most of us classifiable as "Hard Right" political conservatives even as college students) have practically welded our zippers shut over the past twenty years and more?

None of this, however, fully explains the failure to make the movie commercially available except on cable TV. There are certainly enough potential purchasers worldwide who are interested in the novel and would like to own a copy of the movie adaptation on home video, no matter how badly produced it might have been. So why is this film so spectacularly unavailable?

THE HOUSE OF GOD is a great deal of fun; a black "dramady," with more truths about hospitals and the medical profession you would ever expect to hear in a Hollywood movie. Which, is probably why THE HOUSE OF GOD was never released in theaters, is not now nor ever been available on VHS, DVD or laser disk, and is never shown on Turner Classic Movies (which has the rights to the entire United Artists collection).

How this film was ever made is a mystery. Made during the hectic (and waning days) of United Artists (about the time of HEAVEN'S GATE), THOG is a scathing indictment of crass commercialism and techno-insanity that infects the medical industry in this country. The

profession can stand being seen as arrogant (THE DOCTOR, CHICAGO HOPE), incompetent (THE HOSPITAL, BRITTANIA HOSPITAL) or irreverent (MASH, PATCH ADAMS). However, apparently it will not tolerate being

portrayed as being largely composed of money grubbing ghouls.

This movie is MUCH better than most fare released in theaters. Lisa Pelliken is SCARY as a technology obsessed resident. Charles Haid is wonderful and Tim Matheson is fine. Some of the other acting is a bit too much on the buffoonish side, however. The film is mounted and photographed a bit too much like a made-for-TV movie, as well. Nonetheless, this movie is too fine and true to put down too much.

WARNING: If you DO obtain a copy of this movie (I got mine off SHOWTIME), DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT, loan it to anyone without making a backup copy. YOU WILL NOT GET IT BACK!

Samuel Shem's novel "The House of God" is a classic in the world of medicine, a must-read for all new doctors, a biting satire that is hilarious and horrifying, highlighting in very stark terms how dehumanizing medical training can be, both for the patients and the doctors themselves. It is a work of sheer brilliance.

The movie version is none of those things.

It is never easy to adapt a novel into a movie, especially when the novel itself is a classic. However, the filmmakers here did not even try. Instead of a story, what we have here is a disjointed series of events with no connecting threads. This movie doesn't tell a story at all. It references a few key scenes from the novel to show that it was really based on it, but then throws in many, many new scenes that do nothing to contribute to the story or the richness of the film's message.

The message of the novel is entirely lost in this film, there is not even a single moment worth laughing with or laughing at, and there isn't even a story here worth following.

There could not possibly be a starker contrast between the ingenuity of the original novel and the sheer banality of this film. It is truly awful.