When a naively sentimental clown doctor is approached by an 8 year old cancer patient in the hospital a bond is made and he must find a way to make the boy smile and learn to not get attached himself.
What’s wrong with getting attached? I was attached to my mom. She died. It’s that circle of life thing. No one’s beaten it yet. Perhaps he just needs to get over the taught/learned fear of attachment. And that’s a theme you could reflect in every aspect of his life. God knows fear of commitment (attachment in another form) is a popular rom-com theme.
Of course, my question is if he’s a clown doctor why does he have an eight year old for a patient. Who ever heard of an eight year old clown. Are you sure the kid is not a dwarf? There are lots of dwarf clowns. Either way, seems like a clown medicine is a very limited specialty but one that podiatrists and ENTs would be all over.
Patch Adams was something of a pre-sold concept as it was based upon a true character. Some may view this a faux-copy-cat of the real person.
It seems to me he shouldn’t be a naively sentimental comical doctor. Not knowingly, anyway. At the start of the story, he should come across as the opposite. His character arc would be to open up emotionally, to develop a sense of compassionate humor, perchance, in spite of, in defiance of all the suffering and death he is witness to.
And I also think that rather than have a casual introduction of doctor and kid, have a causal one. Such as (for example) the doctor meets the kid when he is called upon to consult on the case because the kid has a rare form of cancer that is the doctor’s specialty.
And the doctor’s objective goal would not be to make the kid smile. His objective goal would be to save the kid’s life. The smiling would be a bonus, an emotional payoff in the “B” story, the development of the relationship between doctor and patient, the emotional growth and bonding between them.