My Own Country

/The latter part of my comment might almost be construed as preaching, but belonging in a risk-group can't leave me emotionally unaffected. I don't think I should feel apologetic about it.

This is one of those films that I would always prefer watching alone or in the company of someone very close.

While to some, Mira Nair's directing and the flow of the story is irritatingly slow; Instead, I think that is actually the idea: It's not about expecting to have a quickie (in whichever platonic sense) from this - The film's slowness does not impede it, but works as a means to absorb the viewer into the story, its scene, its look and feel.

Re-telling the story in my comment might be overdone, considering the fact that some have done it here before me anyways and through the course of time, will probably not be the last ones to do this.

Of course the film is about AIDS back in the 1980's, but it's really almost a documentary reminder of what the disease is actually about - in a world where some people, especially the youth, have not begun considering that they might as well be affected by this.

It's beginning to be sad once the mainstream media narrows (or has already narrowed) its attention span towards this just because the condition is 'less of a pain' or that its status has been degraded to 'chronic'... "Ignorance is a bliss," or what?

The film just shows through its characters that the persons who died of HIV/AIDS, were real and they were not some poor people far away in some distant country. They were the human embodiment of different personalities and types we all can see around us, whom we can well relate to. AIDS (among other sexually transmitted diseases) is one of the more serious ones that could be caught in the road of pursuing [physical] pleasure. We shouldn't stop being careful about it.

By the way, "My Own Country" is also 'one of those' films that I caught watching on Hallmark back when there was cable at where I live.

After reading the previous comments, I think that Rich106 has missed the point in his final comments. The movie remains close to the sentiment expressed in Dr. Verghese's book especially when it deals with him personally. To me, it is not as much about what is going on around him but instead about how these external things impact and change him as both a person and a physician. I've had the opportunity to hear Dr. Verghese speak and the man is truly remarkable. When watching the movie, keep in mind that these things happened and that there is a man out there today who has been transformed by them.

I liked this movie a lot and it was particularly interesting to me as my wife's family lives near the hospital featured in the film. Although this is WELL within the "Bible Belt", I was thankful that the film didn't gloss over the attitudes of these country folk but also didn't paint them all as pin-heads--something a sloppy director and writers COULD have done. Instead, the film, to me, seems less a film about AIDS and rural attitudes than a film about a doctor who is losing his family and sanity because he is too dedicated to his job. The man is very decent and caring but he tries to be there for everyone and is left with nothing for himself or his lonely wife and kids. Excellent acting all around and the same can definitely be said for the writing and direction. The film, by the way, was made by Showtime and is based on the real-life experiences of Dr. Verghese in Johnson City, Tennessee. An excellent and unexpected surprise for a made for TV picture.

I won't summarize the plot, that's been done in other reviews. What is fascinating about the movie is its unique way of filming, the characters that touch one's heart and the choice of people who are in the movie. The setting is removed from the typical AIDS movie set in an urban center, which makes it even more compelling and then you add an Indian doctor who has probably faced prejudice in this country and it's a powerful statement. The 80s were a holocaust for persons with AIDS. No money was available for very much at the time in rural areas. The actor who played the doctor was a remarkable testament to what medicine is about: pain when you can't help someone get well, troubles at home; raw emotions; I would recommend this movie for anyone to begin to understand what having AIDS in the 80s in a rural area was like. Even the smalltown gay bar is/was typical of what the gay bars are like in small towns. Tears roll if you really get engaged with the movie!! If you don't, then you probably don't connect with the issues presented. Another masterful showpiece from Showtime...another perspective from Showtime who also did "Behind the Red Door" this year!! BRAVO!!!

I just caught this on late night cable and stayed up until 3 AM to see the end. I was so moved by the acting - especially Marisa Tomei and Glenne Headly. Naveen Andrews was very fine, too. But Marisa's compassionate character was truly award-worthy, IMO. Hal Holbrook's storyline was beautiful, as well. And I hadn't realized that Marisa's real life brother was an actor (and portrayed her brother in this film).

We have tended to push the AIDS story on the back burner these days, but this was a meaningful portrayal of what one doctor went through, in a very unusual setting. I loved the inclusion of his family and culture into the story. If all the medical staff were really as supportive as portrayed, then it was an amazing place to get care.

One of my favorite lines from the movie was from the Doctor's loyal assistant (perhaps secretary, or clinic manager) who commented (to the effect) that she would give anything to be loved by a man as much as the male gay partners loved each other.

I recorded it so I can watch it again, I missed the very beginning. But I definitely thought it was beautiful and worth watching (and staying up very late to see through!)