MovieChat Forums > You Don't Know Jack (2010) Discussion > No real opposition in the movie

No real opposition in the movie

posted 14 years ago by Aeronnen
27 replies | jump to latest

I liked the movie, it was well directed, well paced and wonderfully played. I think it was a fresh breath for Pacino after the truly awful Righteous Kill. I am a physician and I understand and agree with the need for eutanasia. The only thing that bothered me a little in "You Don't Know Jack" was that out of all his opponents in the movie there was not at least one intelligent and consistent character. They were all either religiously delusioned or carеer motivated. One of the most important moments in the movie was Sarandon's character line about the need for rules - evaluation by many doctors, psychiatric help etc. I'm not saying Jack was agaist this but there was no real discussion in the movie about the actual reasons what he did could be considered bad. It was implied many times in differnt ways but none of them was likable thus leaving the spectator with the easy choice to sympathise with Kevorkyan. And that shouldn't be an easy choice. Nice movie though.

[–] pacinoyes 14 years ago

Well......first I don't think Righteous Kill is "truly awful". More like "truly mediocre" and the problems in that film are director/script related rather than acting related (I find Pacino and DeNiro to be on form there - not great, but solid and good - not sure what they could have done to make that film better?) I would describe "88 Minutes" as truly awful however.

Anyway, to your point, I agree, and I think that more panoramic approach got whittled down when the project length got cut to the 2+ hour mark. The original intent was to have this as a mini-series and I know that the Mayer Morganroth attorney role was far bigger in the original conception of the film for example.

I am not sure it damages what is actually done in the existing film in dramatic terms since what's there works so well.......but there's an argument to be made that the framing of the issue within the drama could have been different.

[–] gabby_bm 14 years ago

I agree as well. Granted, it's a focus on Kevorkian, but the issue is really at the hub of the story and should have been explored from both sides. It felt like more of a Michael Moore film in that it portrayed the opposing view as buffoonish, hateful and narrow-minded. An intelligent discourse would have been preferred with a more difficult decision to be made by the viewer.

Oh well. What's done is done.

I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

[–] jeanniemotherof3 13 years ago

you mean Michael Mann, lol.

[–] tansut 12 years ago

I don't think there is an intelligent argument against euthanasia, only a religious dogma. They are the ones who force their believes on other people. If they don't want to kill themselves when they are sick, it's their choice. The problem is they cannot accept the right of others to decide for themselves because of their dogmatic God and religion.

[–] bigbadwolf666 14 years ago

the law did that enough. if you wanted a true opposition check out the bio. this film was about jack, not about what people thought of jack, you dont know jack.

You've fallen in love with all the things in life that destroy men!

[–] calsnowskier 14 years ago

I agree 100%. It was a good, entertaining movie, well done from an entertainment POV.

I am a conservative who believes that euthanasia is basically good, but this movie was WAY too preachy. It was only one telling one side of the story and portraying the opposing POV as spiteful and full of zealotry (I don't necessarily disagree with those portrayals, but that hurts the argument, IMHO).

[–] This_Is_My_IMDB_ID 13 years ago

I only saw the end of this movie but I'd have to agree. From what I saw, the audience was never really given a choice to come up to their conclusions.

Cutting away from the court scene at the end to have people comment about how wrong the judge was wasn't necessary. It's hard to take a move seriously when it's that pointed.

...And this is my signature...

[–] pacinoyes 13 years ago

"From what I saw, the audience was never really given a choice to come up to their conclusions."

Maybe not but that isn't a requirement in a film - a point of view often is however. What conclusions do audiences draw in 99.9 % of all films? The film (amd filmmaker) aren't obligated to present each "side" - it isn't a debate after all. They are meant to be in service to the drama of the material.

The film does that quite well.

[–] greatwareagle 13 years ago

I don't know if this was intentional, but I felt that the film forced me to realize the opposition and moral, ethical, and social consequences on my own.

And I'm sure, to a point, the film had that effect on everyone. Surely at some point, to some degree, you had considered why this can be problematic. If you didn't - then there's probably something wrong with you. If you did - then I think the film succeeds.

[–] gloucestermonster 13 years ago

As a vaguely religious person, euthanasia is fascinating to me. Certainly I understand the benefits to the individual, but religiously it is forbidden to take ones own life (in Christianity certainly).
That said, is the bigger picture not also to set ones loved ones free of the burden of nursing/coping with the situation?
Is it not also morally correct to free up services/funding for those more able to benefit from them?
The film was certainly provocative. I'm glad I live only a hop away from Holland... ;-)

[–] jeremybrsmith 13 years ago

It was an intelligent film, and enabled you to pick up and think about the issues for yourself - thus, the issue of the unhelpful vagueness of the term "terminal illness" was dropped in about an hour into the film and the audience is able to ponder this without Kevorkian telling them what to believe.

Similarly, the counter-arguments were mentioned - for example, the idea that families might lean on disabled relatives to accept suicide as a way of avoiding medical bills - but not laboured.

OK - the antis were represented as a baying mob, shrieking for revenge and unable to listen to anybody else's views. I'm afraid that in the real world there are people who behave exactly like that and they take a high profile, interrupt interviewers on TV and prevent a proper discussion of the issues. The thoughtful pro-lifers don't get noticed, and it must be embarrassing for them.

You just never get a baying mob calling out for the right to die, do you?

Don't worry, pro-lifers - the world looks kindly on baying mobs these days. You'll probably have your way.

[–] technotrone 13 years ago

Exactly! Really the only 'opposition' is 90% likely to be religious zealots and they don't have anything new to say.
They can never allow themselves to think what do the sick and their families want - only their bibles - and their 'side' was shown.

I never felt that no opposition existed because this was not about Jack, this was about life vs legal framework which simply doesn't accommodate what Dr. Keworkian was trying to achieve. That's why he went to jail after all.

[–] im-weasel-819-592057 13 years ago

I think that in this subject there have to be no place for debate.
I always try to be open-minded in any situation and think about "why" certain classes act the way they do. I thought about Euthanasia so much and I don't see ANY logical reason to leave it illegal.
If you have one, I'll be happy to listen to it.
This is not a movie about "Jack Kevorkyan against..." this is a movie about your own freedom of choice: that's why I don't believe there shouldn't be a debate about this, because the only right choice about yourself is only yours, not doctor's, not religious'.
Why they want to keep euthanasia illegal? because it's about your own freedom and indivisual freedom is very dangerous for religions. The party in favour of euthanasia is everyday growing, but governs keep fighting against it, because the religious lobby (and probably also pharmaceutical) has still a strong word in your/mine govern.
I am italian and I know what I am talking about, since we have these parasites living here...
and sorry for my bad english.

[–] Cyanr 13 years ago

This movie has no real opposition because there is NO REAL OPPOSITION. I have yet to hear any rational argument pertaining euthanasia and while I'm always trying to think objectively about any issue, I can't come up with any arguments against euthanasia.

You might say religious, but it's not rational. Not. at. all.

"Are you not entertained?!"

[–] blitzhard56 13 years ago

Totally agree, Cyanr. Funny how the people complaining about the lack of 'real opposition' in this movie conveniently omit anything specific. It's just lip service.

Religiously rooted ideals represent 95% of the argument against euthanasia. The other 5% is represented by financial morals (people wanting to die to save their family on medical costs.)

There is nothing else. And if there is, none of these idiots complaining about the movie have mentioned it. They just like to complain - most likely because they can't escape those religious ideals that were hammered into their heads as children.

Sad...