The opening subtitles (in English) are incredibly incoherent. Speaking of a fictitious election, a presumably fictitious and unspecified bill S-18 then another bill S-14 where a parent can decide to have an unruly child with behavioural issues hospitalised, "without due process of law".
Is this S-14 fictitious? If not, was it ever a policy of a party contesting an election.
Or was the film purely about a completely hypothetical situation? I suspect the latter and that there was a typo in the opening scenes of make S-18 and S-14 sound like different bills?
Un film, une émission télévisée ou un artiste est introuvable ? Connectez-vous afin de créer une nouvelle fiche.
Vous souhaitez évaluer ou ajouter cet élément à une liste ?
Pas encore membre ?
Réponse de Fergoose
le 12 janvier 2022 à 12h57
Thanks for the clarification. I guess my point would be if there are elements of society or laws that would inspire the director, why not just base it around one of them. Just seems a hit strange for a non-sci fi film to be based around a fictitious law that hasn't ever really been proposed.