TV

POV: In the Family

Joanna's sister Lisa examines a mammogram. Photo credit: Ines Sommer

Joanna Rudnick's documentary about BRAC genetic testing charts the complicated process of making decisions in her documentary, in ways alternately informative, distressing, and galvanizing.

POV

Airtime: Wednesday, 9pm ET
Cast: Joanna Rudnick, Martha Haley, Linda Pedraza, Olga Flores
Subtitle: In the Family
Network: PBS
US release date: 2008-10-01
Website
Trailer
Amazon
This is 2005. There has to be a better way. The only thing you can do is remove body parts?

-- Linda Pedraza

Joanna Rudnick has a genetic mutation. Inherited from her mother, the gene means she has something like an 85-90% lifetime chance of developing breast cancer, as well as a somewhat lower (in the 60th percentile) chance of developing ovarian cancer. Just 32-years-old, Joanna knows this because she has been tested. And now she has some decisions to make.

Rudnick charts the complicated process of making these decisions in her documentary, In the Family, airing as part of POV on 1 October. Alternately informative, distressing, and galvanizing, the film begins just as Joanna has met a new boyfriend online. Jimmy's sweet and funny, and savvy enough to google her after their first date, at which point he learns about her film project. She recalls their exchange, as he asked why she didn't tell him about it. She reports, "I said, 'Well, I wasn't going to tell you I have a genetic mutation and I'm making a film about it on our first date.'" And yet, there it is.

At first, Jimmy seems okay with it, especially as Joanna has opted, for the moment, for "surveillance" rather than surgery. He doesn’t quite get her concerns (suggesting her knowledge has prompted "a degree of paranoia"), as Joanna weighs possibilities: should she have a mastectomy early, to cut the chances of cancer? Should she wait? Should she keep her ovaries until she has children, and then have them removed? Should she hope for the best? While Joanna is able to discuss these questions with her mother Cookie and sister Lisa (a mother of twins and a mammographer who does not carry the mutation), she's less comfortable talking to Jimmy. When they visit a doctor to hear, essentially, odds, he's stunned. Now he has questions: maybe Joanna likes him because she's eager to have kids. Maybe she'll have to have her body altered in the near or far future. "You can't help but catastrophize when you hear something like that," he says, as she sits across a table from him and watches his face contort. "And it feels awful to think about, what does that mean for me? It feels so selfish."

As In the Family reveals in short order, the gene is not the only wrench in this evolving relationship. So too is the film itself. She takes her film crew on a trip to visit with other women who have had to deal with the same information she now shares with them, members of a group called FORCE (Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered). They gather in a room in Philadelphia: they all have cancer in their families, and most everyone has had surgery, either before or after getting cancer (the group is referring to the film as the BRACumentary on its website, after the mutated gene, BRAC). Touched by Linda Pedraza's story, Joanna goes to see her in Boston, where she meets her husband Luis and their two children, including 16-year-old Nicole -- who will have to decide herself someday whether to be tested for the gene and then, if she does, what to do about it. Luis articulates what Linda and Joanna know all too well: "Once you know that you might have the gene, I don't see how you can go through life without thinking about it."

This is the crux of it. Dr. Mary-Claire King, Professor of Medical Genetics at the University of Washington, puts it this way: "Living with a cancer predisposition is like being a cancer survivor, it's always in the back of one's mind." Whether speaking with friends, family or organizations, Joanna is outspoken concerning her frustrations and questions. Her investigation leads her to meet people she didn't imagine meeting, like survivors of cancer and mastectomies who are posing for a FORCE calendar (masks on their faces, their chests, reconstructed and not, exposed). She spends time with three sisters who get tested and learn their results together (the one who does not have the mutation bursts into tears, feeling "guilty" as well as relieved and guilty for feeling relieved).

Joanna's observations of Martha Haley point out the effects of testing within a black community; according to the film, black women are five times less likely to be referred for genetic testing, a function of culture and, of course, economics. A cancer survivor, Martha promotes testing (as does her pastor, in a scene that underlines Joanna's status as "outsider"), but understands it's a hard sell ("We do compare a lot of testing like this to the Tuskegee," she says). Her sister Marilyn won't be tested. "Do I worry about it?" she says, "No. If it's unknown to me, let it stay unknown."

Joanna has a different sort of encounter with Jeff and Rich, whom she interviews in a bar. They offer their "guy" perspectives on having the mutation, knowing that while their own risk of developing cancer is elevated, the real concern is the prospect that they might pass it on to children. Observing that for men, breasts are "toys," they advise her to wait until after she's married to have the surgery: "Then you don't have to worry about finding a man with tattooed nipples." The camera looks over at Joanna, her face frozen in an unconvincing smile.

On top of underscoring the social conventions that make knowing about the mutation so complicated, Rudnick's film makes two crucial points, almost in passing. For one, the availability of such knowledge can lead to discrimination in getting hired and insured (during the film's making, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act was passed in May 2008). For the second, the patents for the mutated genes -- and thus the commercial interests in processing tests -- are owned by Myriad Genetics, Inc. Joanna puts on her sweetest demeanor as she reports that this "money being made on something that exists in nature" might suggest a less than generous attitude on the part of Myriad's founder Mark Skolnick. He blames it on the market, even as trucks full of Federal Expressed tests arrive to be processed, at $3,000 a pop. No doctors would do the work, he says, if there were profits to be made. Maybe so, but it's a disappointing observation nonetheless.

6

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less
6

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less
Theatre

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less
10

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less
7

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.

rating-image