Ned Benson appreciates how music and memory can become intertwined — how music can bring you back to a certain place, time or — perhaps most importantly — person.

The idea for “The Greatest Hits” — a fairly melodic fantasy-romance film written and directed by Benson that had its premiere last month at the South by Southwest in Austin, Texas, saw a limited theatrical release last week and debuts this week on Hulu — dates to 2008, when Benson read neurologist Oliver Sacks’ “Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain.” According to the production notes for the Searchlight Pictures release, the first draft of the screenplay followed the next year, with Benson picking back up with the project during the pandemic.

In Benson’s occasionally magical tale, Harriet (Lucy Boynton) is still grieving the loss of her boyfriend two years after his death. However, Harriet regularly encounters Max (David Corenswet), briefly traveling back in time when she hears a song from their shared existence and being able to interact with him in a now-altered moment from the past.

We learn that Harriet has been attempting to use these time-bending moments to change what is to come.

“Hon,” she says after arriving back in the passenger seat of a car he’s driving, “I have seen what happens next, and I need you to listen to me: Please, please take the next right.”

“That’s right,” he says dismissively but at the same time lovingly, “you can see the future. I forgot who I was dealing with. You should have said something.”

“I have,” she says. “So many times.”

He keeps going straight and another vehicle slams into his side of the car.

Lucy Boynton’s Harriet uses music to travel back in time to interact with her late boyfriend, David Corenswet’s Max, in “The Greatest Hits.” (Courtesy of Searchlight Pictures)

This seemingly supernatural predicament — it is, of course, possible she’s suffering from a mental condition — not only is psychologically draining and keeping her from moving on, but it’s also downright physically dangerous. Lucy seizes and passes out whenever and wherever she hears one of these songs, so the one-time future music producer has taken a job at a library and wears big headphones everywhere she goes to block out outside noise in the name of safety.

Related Articles

A look at six Minnesota films and events at the Minneapolis St. Paul International Film Festival

Review: ‘The First Omen’ is a prequel with style, plus borderline NC-17 body horror

How Anna Paquin and Stephen Moyer waited years for ‘A Bit of Light’

‘Monkey Man’ review: Patel impresses in front of, behind camera with revenge-fueled film

‘Scoop’ review: Prince Andrew in the hot seat

Nonetheless, she also spends time at home, going through records — via the music-listening setup she’s inherited from Max, including a record player, hi-fi speakers and a coveted but ill-fated used chair — to find the song that may allow to give her the future she desperately desires.

Her life is further complicated when she meets David (Justin H. Min), who takes an immediate interest in Harriet upon meeting her in a grief support group, the former dealing with the loss of his parents. He, too, is a music lover, and soon the two are having a flirtatious argument about who gets to buy a rare Roxy Music vinyl at the endangered record store where her best friend, Morris (Austin Crute), is DJing on this night,

Morris loves Harriet but also is quite tired of her wallowing in the past, but figuratively and literally, and encourages her to try to have something with David.

David, meanwhile, is understandably perplexed when Harriet lets him into her world, gradually revealing what is going on with her.

Justin H. Min and Lucy Boynton share a scene in “The Greatest Hits,” which was filmed in different areas of Los Angeles. (Courtesy of Searchlight Pictures)

Benson, who shares a story-by credit on 2021’s “Black Widow” and is the writer-director of 2014’s “The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby,” walks a fine line with “The Greatest Hits,” encouraging the viewer to both want Harriet to be with the kind David while also not necessarily giving up on saving Max, who is never shown to be anything but a decent fellow himself.

And, at least for a while, it’s tough to envision how “The Greatest Hits” will end, even after Harriet concludes exactly how her particular brand of time travel works.

The film is anchored by the performance of Boyton (“Bohemian Rhapsody,” “Chevalier”), who makes us root for Harriet both when she’s sad and when she’s experiencing a mix of excitement and guilt as things develop with David. She has chemistry both with Min (“The Umbrella Academy”) and Corenswet, with whom she shared the screen in the TV series “The Politician.”

Lucy Boynton stars as a grieving woman in “The Greatest Hits.” (Courtesy of Searchlight Pictures)

(If Corenswet’s name is ringing a bell, it’s likely because he’s been cast in writer-director James Gunn’s highly anticipated “Superman,” recently renamed from “Superman: Legacy” and planned for a 2025 release. We see nothing here to suggest he will prove to be at least a solid choice.)

The lone area where “The Greatest Hits” lets us down is its all-important music. Mileage will vary with this, of course, but, to our ears, so many of the songs chosen by Benson, music supervisor Mary Ramos and DJ Harvey, a music consultant, are relatively bland and uninteresting. Obviously, different folks adore different music, but it’s hard to imagine some of the songs featured would delight audiophiles Harriet and Morris, and you can’t help but wonder if the project’s budget for music were only so robust.

(For the record, we have no issue with the use of 2009 pop hit “I’m Like a Bird” by Nelly Furtado, who appears briefly in “The Greatest Hits.”)

Still, as a love letter to the power of music — as well as to Los Angeles, where the movie was shot entirely on location — “The Greatest Hits” is well worth a spin.

‘The Greatest Hits’

Where: Hulu.

When: Now.

Rated: PG-13 for drug use, strong language and suggestive material.

Runtime: 1 hour, 34 minutes.

Stars (of four): 2.5.

 

Michelle Andrews | KFF Health News (TNS)

Companies have increasingly offered generous fertility benefits to attract and keep top-notch workers. Now, the federal government is getting in on the act. Starting this year, federal employees can choose plans that cover several fertility services, including up to $25,000 annually for in vitro fertilization procedures and up to three artificial insemination cycles each year.

With about 2.1 million civilian employees, the federal government is the nation’s largest employer. Now, just as businesses of every stripe prioritize fertility benefits, in vitro fertilization — a procedure in use for more than 40 years — has become a tricky topic for some anti-abortion Republican members of Congress and even presidential candidates.

It was inevitable that disagreements over IVF among abortion opponents would eventually break into the open, said Mary Ziegler, a legal historian and expert on reproductive health.

“The anti-abortion movement from the 1960s onward has been a fetal personhood movement,” said Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California-Davis. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, anti-abortion groups and the Republican Party are grappling with what “fetal personhood” means and how that fits into their position on IVF and other technologies that help people have babies.

The Alabama Supreme Court set the stage for the recent brouhaha with a ruling last month that frozen embryos created through IVF are children under state law. A pair of Democratic senators advanced legislation that would override state laws by establishing a statutory right to access IVF and other such technologies. The bill was blocked on the Senate floor by a Republican opponent.

These events highlight the tough spot in which Republicans find themselves. Many support IVF, and they are keenly aware that it’s extremely popular: 86% of adults in a recent CBS News-YouGov poll said IVF should be legal. The outcry over the Alabama ruling and Republicans’ inability to coalesce around a federal response, however, has exposed fault lines in the party.

Some anti-abortion groups have strenuously objected to measures like that Senate bill, arguing that lawmakers must balance IVF with the responsibility to respect life.

Republicans “are trying to finesse it, which is very hard,” Ziegler said.

About 10% of women and men face fertility problems, according to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. IVF, a process in which an egg is fertilized in a laboratory and later implanted in the uterus, is among the most expensive fertility treatments, costing about $20,000 for one round. Even with insurance coverage, the procedure is pricey, but for some people it’s the only way to conceive.

Related Articles

As medical perils from abortion bans grow, so do opportunities for Democrats in a post-Roe world

Mercury emissions from cremation rise in Minnesota

Burden of getting medical care can exhaust older patients

How do wildfires affect mental health? A new study examines the connection

Menstrual cycles can affect day-to-day suicide risk, study finds

In recent years, the number of companies offering fertility benefits to employees has grown steadily. In the early 2000s, fewer than a quarter of employers with at least 500 workers covered IVF, according to benefits consultant Mercer’s annual employer survey. In 2023, that figure had roughly doubled, to 45%. Employers typically cap IVF benefits. In 2023, employers had a median lifetime maximum benefit of $20,000 for IVF, according to the Mercer survey.

The federal government’s IVF benefit — paying up to $25,000 a year — is more generous than that of a typical employer. Coverage is available through the popular Blue Cross and Blue Shield Federal Employee Program’s standard option. Altogether, two dozen 2024 health plans for federal workers offer enhanced IVF coverage, with varying benefits and cost sharing, according to the federal Office of Personnel Management, which manages the federal health plans.

“OPM’s mission is to attract and retain the workforce of the future,” said Viet Tran, OPM’s press secretary, in written answers to questions. He noted that surveys have found that federal health benefits have influenced employees’ decisions to stay with the federal government.

Starting this year, plans offered to federal employees are required to offer fertility benefits, according to OPM.

But it’s unclear how the emerging political debate surrounding IVF and other reproductive health issues could affect national benefit and coverage trends.

Last month, after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos left over following IVF procedures are considered children under state law, the state legislature quickly passed and Republican Gov. Kay Ivey signed a bill that grants immunity to patients and providers who participate in IVF services. During the ensuing dust-up, a coalition of more than a dozen anti-abortion groups signed a letter drawing a clear line in the sand. “Both science and logic have made it clear that embryos must be accorded the same human rights” as other human beings, it read. The Alabama law didn’t address the underlying issue of the “personhood” of the embryos, leaving open the door for further litigation and potential restrictions on IVF in Alabama and other states, some legal analysts say.

More than a third of states have laws on the books that classify fetuses as people at some stage of pregnancy, according to an analysis by Politico.

It’s unclear whether the turmoil surrounding the Alabama case will have long-term repercussions for employee benefits there or in other states.

“If this were something that were to happen in multiple states, employers would have to figure out how to navigate around that,” said Jim Winkler, chief strategy officer of the Business Group on Health, a nonprofit that represents the interests of large employers. At this point, employers will want to keep a watchful eye on the issue but probably not plan any changes, Winkler said.

A Mercer blog post advised businesses with Alabama employees to review health plan policies related to medical travel and leave benefits. Further, “employers should monitor other states that broadly define fetal personhood and restrict reproductive healthcare,” the blog post advised.

The situation is reminiscent of what happened with abortion coverage following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022. As states imposed restrictions on access to abortions, many companies began providing travel expenses for their workers to seek them.

But what happened with abortion may not be a good predictor of what will happen with IVF, said Dorianne Mason, director of health equity at the National Women’s Law Center.

Following the Alabama judge’s ruling, “the legislature in Alabama moved so quickly to respond to the outcry,” Mason said. “When we look at the legislative response to IVF, it’s moving in a markedly different direction on access to care” than has occurred with other types of reproductive care.

(KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs of KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.)

©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.