I found the images of futility and violance in this film to be most compelling, especially when police forces were turned against the people, and a person was shot in the leg, causing an apparent open fracture, which he later succumbed to. The images of death and effected children were obviously used in this film to tug at "heartstrings" to promote an emotional response.
The corrective action suggested by the film is to strengthen public health networks and response capabilities in liberia by means such as constructing more hospitals and health facilities and training more doctors and nurses to take care of the large numbers of effected people in epidemic situations.
Liberian emergency responders are portrayed in the film as being completely overwhelmed by the situation at hand and unable to cope with the nature of the illness, people's innitial denial to the extreme communicability of the disease, and the sheer number of patients. Most predominantly, first responders are illustrated by 2 abandoned ambulances on the side of a road and by the story of a woman saying that an ambulance was called to a dying pregnant woman and they ended up leaving her on the side of the road for an ebola crew to respond to, which came too late.
More scientific data and perspectives from public health officials could be used to broaden the perspective of this film and change its purpose from being an emotional film to being a more educational film.
The stakeholders discribed in the film was the general population of Liberia. They had shared experiances of seeing the effects of ebola, innitially being in denial of its severity, then finally seeing the entire liberian public health system be overwhelmed and fail by an apparently unstopable and horrifying disease. The people effected needed to make difficult decisions about how to avoid contracting the disease, how to protect their families, and how to deal with the emotional strain placed on them by the epidemic.
Perspectives of public health officials, goverment workers (excluding the president), and international aid organizations such as doctors with out borders and the united nations (both of which are depicted), are not included in the film. More scholarly perspectives are also not included.
This film is designed to have an emotional appeal. Very little scientific evidance is provided, and most of what we see are images and naratives about the effects of ebola from the public's perspective. Powerful images and stories, such as the death of a pregnant women on the side of the road, the closing of hospitals, and the turning away of patients are predominantly displayed. Much of this movie is told from the perspective of a student of the University of Wisconsin, and there was a large amount of dialouge about how he tried to get his family out of the effected zone. The only notable statistics given in the film was at the end, when the number of effected and the number of deaths were compared.
I feel that this film would be best suited for a general public, non-scholarly, audiance. While it provides great, compelling, emotional stories of first hand accounts of ebola, it does not look at the disaster from an objective, scholarly, perspective.
The main arguement of the film is that the development of stable and adequite public health networks is as important to the greater good of the population as the prevention of civil war.
I found the images of speaches by the liberian president to be out of place and not compelling. I also found the apparent lack of hard numerical and scientific data in the film to be offputting.