Pink Ribbons, Inc.

"Pink Ribbons, Inc." is a far from perfect film but it's also a film that dares to ask many important questions. While the masses blindly buy their pink ribboned products and corporations thereby get richer, this film dares to question many things about this trendy cause. Because it will get you to think, it's well worth seeing. Some of the wonderful questions they pose include: There are some odd associations--such as many of the companies sticking the ribbons on their products ALSO produce carcinogenic products--such as cosmetics.

The percentage of the money from these ribbons that goes to research is negligible. Most folks buying the products and doing the cancer walks assume the bulk of the money is being used for research when it isn't.

Throwing money blindly at a problem may be a complete waste. There is no coordination among researchers and there is an assumption that money will lead to an elimination of the problem--providing a false sense of control.

There also were some parts in the film that irritated me. Either statements were made that were OPINION instead of fact-based bothered me and many important points were never mentioned. These include: The link between chemicals and cancers needs to be addressed. Research establishing links between product exposure and cancer have not been done on many items we use all the time. This was a great point but also problematic and something I disliked about the film. They never even discussed how many (if not most) cancers may be caused by genetics and a few of the people interviewed seemed to ASSUME certain chemicals are leading to higher incidence of cancer. No one mentions that PERHAPS the increase in cancer is simply because people are living much longer and the longer you live, the more likely you'll get cancer.

Oddly, no one in the film talked about how all the attention and money focused on breast cancer may lead to deaths--deaths because less attention and money is being spent on research on OTHER cancers and non-cancerous killers.

One lady asserted that cancer MAY be caused by viruses but, as I said above, the genetic link was NEVER mentioned in the film. This is VERY odd, as the link of genetics with breast cancer is very strong (i.e., it is often passed from generation to generation within families).

So, overall, I'd say the film is a mixed bag. I admire them for taking on a 'sacred cow' but also wish the film had maintained a much tighter focus--in other words, WHERE IS ALL THIS MONEY GOING? and DOES ANY OF THIS REALLY HELP? Worth seeing but don't think the film is Gospel, either.

I went shopping at a local supermarket today, bought roughly forty items, and three of them bare a pink box supporting some breast cancer awareness fund. When does the ambition of creating awareness simply become lucrative glamorization? I hear more about walks, runs, jumps, and efforts to promote charities raising money to donate to a breast cancer organization, but scarcely hear about advances in science, technology, or medicines to try and prevent the disease. Is our money being put to use or is it put to fund another gimmicky public charity? Breast cancer is the leading cause of death of women in America, and cancer in itself is one of the most common diseases among both sexes. I know for a fact I'm personally at risk of developing prostate cancer because of the checkered history in my family. I've long thought if companies really would love to find a cure for cancer, or would that cease in the immense profits that charities continue to turn in? Recently, I watched a documentary on the pitifully disappointing American healthcare system called Escape Fire: The Fight to Rescue American Healthcare. A rare documentary, seemingly lacking a specific political bias, the film featured a female subject that bluntly stated that it's almost as if the system doesn't want you die or get better, but just keep coming back and handing money over the counter.

Pink Ribbons, Inc., based on the 2006 novel by Dr. Samantha King, professor of kinesiology and health studies at Queen's University, explores the possibility and the stunning proposition that the "pink ribbon campaign," whose efforts are directed specifically at creating breast cancer awareness, is only a shameless cash-grab for companies to utilize while contributing very little of their profits to famous organizations. Some companies products that are donating towards breast cancer research include chemicals that possibly contribute higher risk of developing the disease. Not to mention, with so many organizations, big and small, and so many corporations shelling out products apparently with profits being donated to cancer research, it results in very disorganized money patterns. Millions being donated, with little rhyme or reason, and little coming out that is revolutionary.

There comes a point where we can seemingly define the sincerity of companies attempting to fund breast cancer research and some simply trying to bank off a serious disease. When Susan G. Komen and Avon commit to holding a charity event, you almost feel compelled to trust them because they've given millions upon millions of dollars in efforts to find cures. But when we begin seeing pink handguns, we question how we've drifted from sincerity to shallow consumerism. I've frequently seen teenagers walk around with thick bracelets proclaiming "I LOVE BOOBIES. KEEP A BREAST." Do they wear them because they believe in stopping breast cancer, or do they just love having something as provocative as "BOOBIES" on their wrist? The same can go for those brazen "Cancer Sucks" t-shirts. Why? Interviews conducted are with the author of the Pink Ribbons, Inc. novel Samantha King, Barbara Eherenreich, writer of many books around the cancer, who resents the idea of softening the disease into making it "normal and feminine," and my personal favorite, the sassy, shamelessly blunt Barbara Brenner, a health activist, diagnosed twice, and not afraid to attack some corporations' lucrative practices. She makes no hesitation to call out Yoplait Yogurt for their "Save Lids to Save Lives" campaign, where if one were to peel off a lid of their yogurt, clean it up, then mail it back to the company, a dime would be donated to the Susan G. Komen Foundations. Brenner states that if you were to eat three cans of yogurt, everyday, and send the lid back for four months straight, the time the event was going on that, you'd successfully donate only $34 to the Komen foundation. "Bottom line, write a check," she says.

Easily, the most intimate shot of the picture involves an obese African-American woman who struggles to walk at one of the sponsored breast cancer walks. We are unaware if she's diagnosed with the disease, knows someone who is, or simply walks out of the goodness of her heart. For about thirty seconds, we watch as she pursues on, through sweat and exhaustion; something about that scene made me want to help her along or sit her down and give her the resources necessary to complete the walk. It is one of the most affecting shots in any documentary I've seen, mainly because of the impressionistic prints it leaves on the viewer.

The speakers we see in the film are mostly women, understandably so. One thing I caught early on that, beneath their deep intelligence and their wide range of talents, lied an angry, seemingly bitter core, in someways throwing the documentary a curveball. These women are mainly angry at the glorification of a painful disease that deteriorates the energy and body of a woman, but it seems they occasionally talk down to those who participate in walks and runs for the charitable organizations of the disease when they appear to be doing nothing but trying to take part in a community event to raise money or simply partake in the activities to memorialize a loved-one. It seems unfair to pull the "you don't understand suffering" card to those who are benefiting those who are actually suffering, don't you think? Starring: Barbara Brenner, Barbara Enherenreich, and Samantha King. Directed by: Léa Pool.

Only among the left-wing lunatics that make documentaries for the National Film Board of Canada could one find the kind of person who would complain that the experience of getting a deadly disease is made somehow less dignified because of its association with corporate giving. Author Barbara Ehrenreich, cancer survivor, complains about everything she can think of: that anti-cancer activists are annoyingly upbeat, that some of the products sold to support breast cancer research are cuddly or cute, that the grim, sad, angry sorts of cancer patients out there don't get enough airplay. This documentary remedies that with several wrenching interviews with weeping cancer patients suffering from end -stage cancer. See, audience? What do you think of those stupid little ribbons now, huh?

Samantha King even goes so far as to call an upbeat attitude in he face of the disease "tyranny." As in "tyranny of cheerfulness."

The Susan G. Komen Foundation ran afoul of feminists a few years back by daring not to support Planned Parenthood's abortion-on-demand factories. It seems Lea Pool and her backers at the National Film Board have fired a dark and angry salvo back at the "pink ribbon" industry that, if the film's subtext is anything to go by, is guilty mainly of making it more difficult to politicize the disease and make it the realm of angry feminists with anti- capitalist leanings.

Well-produced, but probably not a fair portrayal of mainstream and corporate anti-cancer efforts. Cynical and borderline juvenile in its contrarianism. C+.

[...]The film looks at the issue from many different aspects. It looks at the marketing of a disease, and what could be called the "breast cancer industrial complex," in which many corporations are profiting from women's pain. They, of course, look at the amount of money that Komen spends on marketing, legal battles, and executive salaries versus the comparatively small amount that it contributes to research. It also examines the environmental hypocrisies of the pink ribbon movement, including the fact that many of the corporate sponsors of the movement have historically used products linked to cancer, such as Yoplait using RBGH-containing dairy. It looks at the fact that so little funding is designated to examining potential environmental causes such as pollutants, and the clear conflict of interest that would involve given the industrial contributors to Komen.

The film also explores the problems with Komen's messaging. They speak to a support group of women living with stage four breast cancer, who talk about how it feels to have cancer paraded as something pink and pretty and normal. (The filmmakers typically juxtaposed these interviews with shots of people at Komen race events waving pink pompoms and streamers and cheering.) They spoke candidly about how they feel that there is not a place for them in the current dialogue surrounding cancer, as they are viewed as the "angel of death" in a typical group of people living with breast cancer. They also touch on the sexualization of the disease, speculating that one of the reasons that it receives so much media attention is that it affords people the opportunity to say "breast" on the news. All of these interviews were incredibly poignant, articulate, and at times heart-wrenching, and while in general I would have liked to have had interviews with more people overall, the subjects that were featured were chosen very wisely.

This is an exemplary work of activist documentary filmmaking. Unlike some other examples of the genre, it does not beat you over the head with emotional pleas (though some moments are incredibly emotional), but rather calmly lays all of the rational arguments out before the viewer. It is a difficult task to take down a giant like Komen, but this film firmly does so with elegance and grace.

Read the full review here: http://mattreviewsstuff.com/2012/04/28/pink-ribbons-inc/

While I don't agree with some of the main points made by the documentary, I appreciate the film's honesty in discussing the corporate culture that has become pervasive in breast cancer fund-raising. I find it bizarre that there is this culture in the US that seems to think that throwing money at a cause with inevitably lead to solutions. The film makes a great point about holding the health and research industry more accountable. People are pouring money down the drain funding basic science research and incorrect mouse models that will never be translated into treatments for human beings. They are supporting monolithic institutions like the research and health care industries that have their own self-interests at heart. Researchers and medical professionals make their livelihood off of this funding. The majority of them don't have any real interest in finding a cure when they can milk the cash cow for their own benefit for years.