Documentary filmmakers injecting themselves into their own exposé of subjects or subject matter is often ill-advised, transforming otherwise intriguing material into a series of personal grievances or worse, their own misplaced victimhood. Reid Davenport inserts himself into “Life After,” but with less egregious detraction and more so his own views with which we are asked to accept and agree with in an impartial examination of the disabled community, broken healthcare systems and assisted suicide. It’s not so much what the film is about that put me off as much as it’s the definitive conclusions Davenport reaches. He does this by ultimately abandoning the initial, more interesting focus and drifting off into more personal ideas that interest him directly.
“Life After” also isn’t necessarily wrong as much as it just doesn’t include all sides, often times disregarding crucial insights of the debate of some incredibly complex and complicated topics. What begins as a search and understand journey becomes unfocused once Davenport opts to use it as a launchpad for other things more pressing on his own mind. And those things ARE important – namely attempting to reshape our preconceived notions about the disabled community and our healthcare systems that, even when touted as the better solution, still leaves many without the proper care needed to survive and even the will to live. “Life After” begins by recounting the story of Elizabeth Bouvia, a severly disabled woman who in 1983 sought the right to die. After a lengthy legal battle that ended up denying her request, she vanished without a trace. Disabled himself, Davenport first seeks to find Elizabeth and get some answers about her desire for death, and then begins to unravel the systems that lead to her decision.
The film is driven by a passionate filmmaker who really wants the audience to understand his own community better, and were it not for his drawing lines in the sand, “Life After” would be a completely necessary watch for everyone. And to be fair, most of his examinations are arresting and profound, taking a deeper dive into assisted suicide programs like MAID (Medical Aid in Dying), the legislation that lead to allowing these programs to exist, and purports that these systems meant to aid struggling individuals may actually be harmful and removal of choice. “Life After” asks what drives someone – particularly a disabled person – to even explore death as an option, and uncovers massive gaps in healthcare that seem to target the disabled community and essentially execute them as a way of clearing the way for able-bodied individuals. “Life After” is heavy stuff, and while I’m not yet sold on his conclusions, Davenport approaches his documentary with complete abandon and purpose.
I just wish “Life After” offered more from the healthcare side of things, particularly MAID workers themselves and those who believe their services are a kindness without malice. Peeling back the curtain of how inaccessible our healthcare systems are to the disabled community is fascinating, and hearing from individuals who felt death with their only option because the world around them actively pushed them to the fringes of existence is definitely something that needs more attention. But by doing this and ignoring the other side of the conversation, it doesn’t quite balance itself out to make its bold conclusive statements. It also pushes Elizabeth Bouvia’s story to the side entirely, despite it being the catalyst of events to begin with. Bouvia’s story is more interesting than Davenport seems to believe, and it’s a shame because there is clearly some personal connection there between director and subject.
It feels wrong to be so suspicious of the film’s conclusions when its subject matter is so vital. “Life After” is an impartial and imbalanced look at very complex subjects, the likes of which need to be and should be examined more thoroughly and deserve the floodlights that Davenport wants to shine on them. And I don’t even disagree with everything, either. I believe him when he asserts that the right to die in the modern age targets communities it doesn’t deem fit to live in the first place. I just wish “Life After” would let the defenders expose themselves rather than the filmmaker actively shutting them out and speaking for them. I get that he makes no effort to be impartial, and maybe that’s for the best. But “Life After” ultimately left me a bit apprehensive even when it left me wholly engaged and open to new insights into communities I know and knew very little about.
I don’t even know if I should rate something like “Life After.” It is a raw nerve constantly exposed that feels both timely and important but slightly undercooked and incomplete. I guess it’s a testament to how powerful it actually is; “Life After” is a film I struggle to fully embrace and agree with but would also recommend it as a must see.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5 Stars
“Life After” premiered at The Sundance Film Festival and will be select theaters July 18th. You can watch the trailer below.
