Skip to main content

Worth - film review

 Made for Netflix drama called 'Worth' is based on the events of Sep 11 2001.  The movie tries to address the quintessential philosophical question - How much is a human life worth?

Lead role is played by Michael Keaton as the democratic leaning Jewish lawyer Ken Feinberg, based in Washington to serve as special master - a role that determined the monetary allocation for loss of life in the attack to the victims' families.  

Many a research suggests that if an average adult was fried to a crisp and its mineral and metal content weighed it would amount to a princely sum of about $5, at today's market rate.

Of the 3,000 or so people that died in the attack (and likely were fried to a crisp) and the couple thousand more that suffer health issues as a direct result of that attack, the job for President Bush was to determine a solution that did not take down the American airline industry or put millions out of work as a result of this tragedy.

So while the cases and situations of victims were too many to count the net result had to be a value for each life lost that the family could accept and move on.  The primary basis for this calculation that Feinberg used was the estimated loss from future earnings per life lost.

The message the movie imparts is that there are no winners here and it is not about a victory of any sort but simply an attempt to do the right thing.

And in so doing there had to be a calm, calculating voice that remained impartial but focused on efficaciously resolving the quagmire of expectations, emotions like fear and anger, business risk to the presidency and get the victims' families what they might be entitled to.

The average amount in case of death due to the attack came to around $2M tax free to the victims' family.  The determination was made in two years time after the attack took place.

Watchable movie.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

But What If We're Wrong?

I attempted to read this book by author Chuck Klosterman backward to forward but it started hurting my brain so I decided to stop and do it like any other publication in the English language.  Start from page 1 and move to the right. Witty, caustic and thought provoking this is a book you want to read if you believe that the status quo might, just might be wrong. At times bordering on being contrarian about most things around us it tries to zero in on the notion of what makes anything believable and certain in our minds.  The fact that there is a fact itself is ironic.  Something analogous to the idea that you can never predict the future because there is no future. Many books and movies have tried to play on this concept - best that I recollect (I think I am) was 'The Truman Show'.  This book by Klosterman attempts to provoke the reader to at least contemplate that what they think they know may be wrong. He uses examples like concept of gravity, and how it ...

You are important to us

Followed by piano music.   Followed by 'we are experiencing heavier than usual call volume'.  Sounds macabre like bleeding during menstruation or after a ghastly attack with a weapon on a hemophiliac.  Sorry Mrs. Johnson but it appears little Gertrude here has been bleeding heavier than usual what with her night time activities competing with the woodchucks in your neighborhood. Some services even go as far as to pick a random day to say - 'if you were to call us during the Chinese lunar month when the moon is axiomatically hugging the polar star with Jupiter intravenous when call volume is light'.  Well I will be damned.  I thought  I had checked with my astrologer before I placed this well focused call but  I guess this is what you get for listening to a quack. Umph! I am not sure which marketing genius came up with this personal touch concept of informing the caller that you are really a jackass for actually calling the customer serv...

Of Jims and Johns

Here is another essay on the subject of first names. As in birth names. Or names provided to an offspring at birth. While the developed world tends to shy away from the exotic like Refrigerator or Coca Cola for their new production there is a plethora of Jims and Johns and Bobs or Robs. Speaking of which I do not think there is a categoric decision point at the time of birth if a child will be hereafter called as Bob. I mean have not yet met a toddler called Bob or Rob for that matter. At some point though the parental instinct to mouth out multiple syllables runs out and they switch from calling the crawler Robert to simply Robbie to Rob. Now speaking of - it is strange that the name sounds like something you would not want Rob to do - i.e. Rob anyone. Then why call someone that? After all Rob Peter to Pay Paul is not exactly a maxim to live a young life? Is it? Perhaps Peter or Paul might want to have a say in it? Then there is this matter of going to the John. Why degrad...