Cancer has claws all over the film industry(Get it? Because cancer comes from the Greek word for crab). From A Walk to Remember to Thor: Love and Thunder, films have been released featuring the infamous illness. This is not just limited to the United States. Cancer is also famous internationally, being featured in films like Ae Dil Hai Mushkil and Let Me Eat Your Pancreas. Although cancer is popular in cinema, that doesn’t mean that it is portrayed correctly.
In many films centering on characters with cancer, the characters almost always die at the end. It is treated like an immediate death sentence, and to cement that portrayal, it is often followed up with that same character dying. This, in turn, shapes public opinion, and when a new patient is diagnosed with cancer, they become frightened and believe that there is no hope at all for them. This attitude could then impact their own health. As evidenced by the placebo effect, behavior plays a role in ensuring positive health outcomes. And little optimism can bring on negative health outcomes, as stated by the nocebo effect. I am not saying that characters afflicted with cancer should not die at all; I am saying that cancer being shown as a disease with no hope of recovery defines the public viewpoint, and when people who are raised in that viewpoint contract cancer, it could have an impact on their own health. Even with characters dying, it is still possible to show how people can survive cancer; the inclusion of other cancer survivors is an example. Furthermore, cancer being portrayed as incurable dismisses the advances made in cancer treatment in areas of chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and early detection.
Another fact about cancer that films tend to get wrong is the fact that most cancer patients are elderly. While there are cancer patients who are young, they are not in the majority. Looking at all the films that are released on cancer, you wouldn’t know that. The National Cancer Institute of the US Government even states that the median age for diagnosis of all kinds of cancer is 67 years old. Why are the majority of characters young? It is usually for shock value. A young person experiencing cancer will tug at the heartstrings of the public more than an elderly patient. This is not because no one cares about the elderly; It is because youths symbolize the future, our salvation in a way. That symbolism makes the young so valued in a way.
It is not just these aspects of cancer that are incorrect in the cinema. Medical subclassifications for cancer are not usually mentioned, and although palliative care and hospice play a role in cancer treatment, they are not often seen. However, after a certain point, pointing out inaccuracies just becomes nitpicky. Movies are primarily entertainment. They do not serve as medical textbooks or documentaries for which accuracy is important. That said, it is undeniable that cinema plays a role in public perception, and if there is an opportunity to be more realistic without detracting from the story, it should be taken. Stretching the truth for simple cosmetic or emotional reasons is unnecessary since stretching the truth is not needed to evoke emotions in the audience. 16.8% of people die from cancer, according to the World Health Organization. In this connected world, everyone will be touched by cinema in one way or another. If we can offer a true portrayal of their disease, they may be able to confront it with more hope and understanding. To enact this sort of change, we can’t sit and wait for it to happen; We have to actively do something to make it a reality.
Leave a Reply