The whole film is 2 hours and 14 minutes. The 60 minutes I saw last time is exactly the dividing point. It belongs to the narrator, to Dr. Kovaskian, and to what the viewer can bear.
The first half of the film is basically a documentary style, reflecting the original intention of the doctor's behavior to assist patients who can't bear the pain to euthanize themselves in a society without formal medical assistance institutions. Therefore, whether the patient, the patient's family, or the doctor himself has one and only one purpose, to help the patient end the painful life under self-selection. It also involves an example. A young racing driver who had a promising future was paralyzed because of an accident and could not accept the reality. He tried to self-immolate again and asked the doctor to help him commit suicide. Here, the doctor's refusal clearly drew the line. Suicide centers on ending a life of endless suffering rather than a free will choice. very clearly.
Before patient No. 14, the doctor had been in a stage of not colliding with opposing views for purely behavioral purposes. However, the stretched environment made it difficult for the patient to leave, which began to induce the doctor's resistance; the death of his sister Margo made the doctor quicken his consciousness When his own life was limited, several trials on the guilt of assisted euthanasia also made the doctor begin to change, from simple behavior to the establishment of faith. In the second half of the film, you can see the scene of the doctor thinking alone several times. The most prominent description is the part of the prison hunger strike. The reference to the crucible line of the American comedy has very bluntly expressed that the doctor's determination has formed "I am Who, what is my name, you have deprived me of it", a person's name is like the will to freely choose death, who gave it, country? religion? Who has the right to unilaterally decide to let an individual lose his name and the right to choose a dignified death?
From then on, the documentary style of the film and the substitution of patient cases began to fade. The patient's numbering was completely used to play the role of timing. The sequence continued to advance, and the contradictions of the plot began to intensify dramatically. The starring Al Pacino is back here. If the first half is a precise actor who completely abandoned his personal characteristics and perfectly presented the original character, then in the second half, I can see the blindness in "Smell the Scent and Know a Woman". The firmness and fragility of officers are the charm of the lingering performing arts. Reality, no matter how cruel, if it is only a documentary description, it is heavy and depressing, but if a film wants to express his point of view, since he did not choose a documentary, he must have intensification and tension, and break the problem in the outbreak of contradictions. This film made me completely forget the existence of the director team when I starred in the solo play. This is a complete story in time and space, and the characters' thoughts are meticulously cut open for me to see. . . . .
The doctor has fully realized that his single short-term assistance behavior is far from helping all the patients he needs to help. If the service he later emphasized, must have the support of the medical system, that is, it must be incorporated into legislation, which is Why did he choose the method of breaking the boat, comparing himself to Martin Luther King, Galileo, because what he wants to achieve needs to arouse public discussion in an all-round way, and only bloody stimulation can do this. And the turning point of his life also appeared. The reason why he won all the previous trials, and the rigorous and upright Prosecutor Thompson lost his armor and armor, was because the doctor took advantage of the fact that the legislation was vague and the facts were difficult to define. In this case, human favor is the most important thing to the jury system in the United States. And when the doctor chooses to personally take up the position of self-promotion and self-defense, and express his political position in a violent way, he will no longer be benevolent, and the halo of noble and pure will fade away. No law, no matter how vague, will allow contempt for the law. The judge's final testimony is a perfect declaration of the state apparatus "I may be wrong, you are allowed to try to correct me, but I am right until I am corrected, any challenge must be absolutely suppressed, otherwise I don't think I am, no Unbreakable." However, the doctor said before the trial, "for whatever it ends, yes I take it". This is just another kill. If the image of directly killing the patient is not intense enough, the doctor will press his own freedom again, in exchange for that A constant discussion, because the discussion itself is the hope of change. The classic individual act that leads to the awakening of group consciousness. As a country that advocates democracy, the United States may still only stay in domestic democracy, but the attention of the whole people to legislation is indeed an important reason for the progress and development of the country. Personal tragedies may be able to achieve legislative amendments, and perhaps more personal tragedies are just tragedies. However, perfecting legislation and the spirit of ruling the country by law is the ultimate choice for social development.
Dr Jack was released from prison in 2007 after serving eight and a half years without further euthanasia assistance. He died in 2011 without euthanasia. This is a wise Armenian who practises medicine, paints, plays an instrument, as his old colleague and friend Neal sail: Jack, you've got a purpose.
My fascination with the theme of death has continued and will not stop. Whether I have the right to choose death or not, I do not know until the moment when I need to choose.
View more about You Don't Know Jack reviews
