JOY (2024) - Mark Reviews Movies

Joy, Netflix

Follow on Facebook | Follow on Twitter | Become a Patron

Review by Mark Dujsik | November 21, 2024

The science we take for granted as part of the everyday world often came with a lot of struggle and controversy. Joy serves as a good reminder of that fact, as the movie dramatizes the development of in vitro fertilization (IVF) over the course of a decade, after many failures, and in the midst of much public outrage about the belief that science was about to go too far. In the scope of history, this isn't that long ago, either, and despite continuing debates about reproductive health, there is at least some hope in the knowledge that, as contentious as the concept recently was, IVF is mostly accepted as a medical option now.

That almost gives Rachel Mason and Jack Thorne's screenplay a perspective of hindsight, though, in that the story isn't really about the science behind IVF or its main characters, the trio of people credited with achieving the first successful birth from the process. It really does feel as if the movie is looking back with broad awe about the accomplishment and general befuddlement about the public's reaction to the very idea of creating a human embryo outside of the womb. It keeps everything at just enough distance that the narrative feels more like a hasty history lesson than an actual piece of drama.

Even so, the cultural context of the research and experiments, taking place between the late 1960s and through most of the '70s, is enlightening. It's actually the foundation for the main perspective of the story, which is seen through the eyes of Jean Purdy (Thomasin McKenzie). She's a nurse looking for some different work and finds it at a laboratory at the University of Cambridge being run by Robert "Bob" Edwards (James Norton). The lab is currently testing the still-theoretical IVF procedure with various rodents, but obtaining human ova is a challenge Bob's lab isn't equipped to handle.

That leads him, with Jean tagging along, to Patrick Steptoe (Bill Nighy), the country's foremost surgeon in the field of women's reproductive health. He's a champion of a new type of scope, and Bob believes that device could be used to retrieve an ovum directly from an ovary. Bob and Jean convince the doctor with the promise of a grant, a change of scenery to a more high-profile and high-tech laboratory, and, of course, the pride of helping women with infertility issues to became pregnant and give birth.

On its surface, the story here is surprisingly repetitive. The three take one step forward, only to face some problem or obstacle, and the cycle repeats itself, as the script jumps year to year. That, obviously, is the way of scientific discovery, so it's probably not fair to criticize the screenwriters and director Ben Taylor for just showing the scientific method for what it is.

The underlying issue, though, is that these characters exist entirely in service of the processes on display. There's little to them, except that they're determined to carry on with the work, no matter how many times they fail, how many rejections for funding they receive, and how much backlash they get from various institutions and people—the government, the church, other scientists, those who believe the reproductive process is something sacred.

Jean faces that on a most personal level, because her mother (played by Joanna Scanlan) is a devout Christian, who sees her daughter's participation in this research as a slight both against her religion and the mother herself. It doesn't help Jean's case that Patrick also performs abortions, which actually gives Jean pause and a reason to reconsider the work.

Even the critiques and attacks, though, start to feel redundant, as Bob makes assorted television appearances, where he's regularly scolded by experts and jeered by audiences, and is a source of much scandal in the papers. The arguments here keep repeating themselves: Many see Bob as interfering with nature, earning him the nickname "Frankenstein," and he points out that women suffering from infertility should have the ability to have children if they want. Meanwhile, women come and go over the course of the decade of the team's research, and while Bob knows their names and understands their pain, the movie doesn't have much time for them and their stories.

It's too busy making the same point over and over again with little variation and only minor interest in the people behind the science. Of the three main figures (all of them performed well by the cast), Jean is somewhat an exception, given the conflict with her mother, her own issues with infertility, and the movie's ultimate point that the real Purdy's contributions to IVF were overlooked or ignored for decades. If the narrative here is meant to set the story straight, it does so in only the most basic way, which seems to be the entire philosophy of the storytelling and filmmaking here.

To be fair, though, the movie does provide the basics of the science of, the history of, and the people behind IVF. That alone is compelling to a certain degree, especially in the way the filmmakers show how much hollow outrage and general ignorance can impact scientific advancement (There's so much of that going around in recent years that the movie feels unfortunately timely). Joy has the skeleton of a good story, but it's not fleshed out nearly enough for it to succeed as one.

Back to Home

Buy Related Products