MovieChat Forums > You Don't Know Jack (2010) Discussion > Okay, Maybe I'm Missing Something...

Okay, Maybe I'm Missing Something...

posted 14 years ago by firemagefm
40 replies | jump to latest

Now I haven't watched this, and I don't have HBO myself at home, but I plan to maybe see it some time however possible.

Just, like I said... Maybe I am missing something. I don't agree with what Kevorkian did at all, and I'm not trying to sit here and bash all sorts of things about him and everything; just I flat out don't agree.

Yet HBO had this and is going to air this. Now someone reviewed this (one on the main page) and said it doesn't tell you what to think either way. Yet the way its previews/trailers have been, and how the interviews about it (on other shows, etc)... They all definitely seem to me like they're screaming that this man did the right thing and that he's some sort of unknown hero that needs to be applauded.

I don't know, it really seems like it's trying to put him in this bright light all of a sudden. And quite a few people are hailing this as some great thing.

Sure, the acting and the character of it all might be great... But it really just seems to be pushing buttons and saying "Hey, this man is great."

I mean, what does everyone else think of this? I think it's very poor, really.

[–] Writer01603 14 years ago

I think it will include debates in it. I'm from the camp that does agree that life is only valuable if a person can choose when they want to die, and that a doctors job should be to end suffering, not prolong life. But I also don't like movies that take one side in the hope of swaying people and beating them over the head with what to think, so I hope it widens its parameters, and tells the story with other people's opinions.

[–] visualgrl 14 years ago

Yes, you are missing something - an open mind. Jack Kevorkian was a man ahead of his time and really is quite a remarkable person. He believed that people should have the right to do what they wanted with their lives regarding living with - or not- incurable diseases. He bucked the system and helped people when traditional doctors FAILED with treatments that didn't work, incorrect diagnosis, unnecessary medical procedures that caused more harm than good. He went to jail countless times for his beliefs and actions. People solicited him after the first assisted suicide became public, not the other way around.
He received thousands of letters from people the world over begging him to help put them out of their misery, with the blessing from their families. He turned away hundreds and never took a dime in payment.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jgarnett-2 14 years ago

this movie is VERY one sided, and plays very fast and loose with the facts (not surprising, it IS a Hollywood representation of what the REAL story was (is)). I am NOT in favor of Dr assisted murder, but not for the reasons of most people. I think that the abuses that would come from state (National Govt'/Insurance companies) would outway any good that this could do. I hate it, but but I can not see leaving it up to the Gov't to decide these decisions (which would happen in the long run, after case by case, Dr's assisted the ill.) In my opinion, the HBO movie painted Dr. Death in a MUCH better picture than he really should be painted in. I know there are lots of good Drs out there, who could be trusted to help with these decisions, but he is not one of them, and I can no longer trust the Government to decide which ones can.

[–] pbl1 14 years ago

government not deciding -- the individual is. big difference!!! right now, the government is deciding, by not allowing euthanasia.

What the $%*& is a Chinese Downhill?!?

[–] anniebed 14 years ago

Pbl1, you hit the nail on the head. This is an issue of individual rights not government or man dictating others rights. Dr. K. never abused his abilities to assist with suicide. In fact he was sought out and individuals ask for his help. There is a huge difference.

[–] vivlinglee 14 years ago

If you believe that the state/gov/or terminally ill patient families would abuse such power, then I suggest you look at Oregon's record during its years with the "Dr. Assisted Suicide Law". The opponents were sure that there would be depressives et al rushing to commit suicide, they also screamed there would be grievous abuses - BUT - in the years it has been on the books, it has been watched CLOSELY, and there have been no abuses, and the stampede that was predicted didn't happen, it's really quite uncommon, and has been working wonderfully to end suffering and give people who have lead dignified lives have dignified deaths. I voted for the law, and have lived in Oregon the past 15 years.

Another surprising outcome, many people qualify, and receive the dosage needed, but I think it's over 1/4 of them never even use it.

[–] TheHypnotron 14 years ago

Thank you for reminding us about Oregon!

People who express fears about the government or insurance companies jumping in and pushing people to make the decision to kill themselves have succumbed to the fear mongering peddled by the opponents of assisted suicide. Oregon is a working model that proves these arguments have no basis in fact.

[–] anniebed 14 years ago

I agree that the choice is the comforting part of the law, not the actual act. Knowing that the individual is in control to the end and can remain autonomous is the most important aspect. I too have read the statistics, though I don't have them off hand, but know that Oregon's Death with Dignity law has only been used a few hundred times since inacted. Does any one monitor hospice this closely and see how many assisted suicides they perform?

[–] TheHypnotron 14 years ago

Government doesn't decide anything. The patient is the ultimate decider. You want government to stand in the way of a person's right to end their life.. end their suffering.

[–] novimovieman 12 years ago

"ahead of his time"

This is a ridiculous phrase. It simply means the person holds a different opinion not shared by many others. To imply that because his opinion is 'first' or 'new' that it is more correct or carries more weight than currently held beliefs is nonsense. To the opposite, opinions that have been around for centuries have the benefit of being time tested.

As an apologist turned authority I don't defend my comments because I am always right.

[–] mylistsnstuff 11 years ago

"To the opposite, opinions that have been around for centuries have the benefit of being time tested."

Haha, what a silly comment. So the opinion that gays(/women/jews/black people/etc/etc) are somehow evil and should be killed/banished is a favorable one because it has been around for centuries?

Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.

[–] pozzible 14 years ago

You have to remember this is also a movie, and like all movies, especially "historical" movies, they will edit out alot from that person's life. Movies are beautifully constructed to demonstrate how, in certain situations, the "hero" was "right" to choose what they choose, even when the whole world will think them wrong, the "hero", in the end, will be proven right. I haven't seen this movie also, however, I am certain the movie is not going to show Jack performing an assisted suicide where the patient changes their mind the last minute and yet that doesn't stop him, he goes on with the procedure anyway.

This movie is designed, like they all are, to show him in a favorable light, it isn't about what he did, watch the movie closely, it is going to be how he speaks (confidently) against how others speak (arrogantly), it is going to be about him entering from the right side, as opposed to the others who enter in from the left, it is going to be making him look taller, and the others looking shorter. In the end, it is all camera tricks to put him in the "right", and the others in the "wrong". And editing out the events that make him look bad, and showing things that make him look good.

[–] BaltPics 14 years ago

You have not seen the movie!!!! Why don't you wait, see it and then give your opinion. I have seen it and it gave a very fair and accurate depiction of both sides. That is one of the reasons I liked it so much. I thought it was very balanced and tried to give simply the facts. You will decide for yourself.

[–] Antilles-7 14 years ago

What did Jack Kevorkian do that was so wrong? Why do so many people have such a knee-jerk reaction against assisted suicide? Is it all just the result of religious indoctrination/brainwashing?

Take a step back and look at the situation in a rational, logical manner. Why shouldn't we be able to decide when, where and how we die--especially when facing an agonizing, painful ending where we'll lose all dignity and quality of life.

If you thinking ending your life prematurely is a sin, then stick it out until the bitter end. But don't you dare impose your viewpoint on me or tell me what I should do.

[–] IMDeBeauty 14 years ago

I haven't watched the movie yet either (and plan to do so when it comes out) but I don't get the same feeling as you do as far as the movie screaming what to think. All the reviews I have read say that it is neutral. Many people DO believe positively in what he DID (he no longer does and served time in jail for over 8 years) but many of those who acted in or who contributed to the film have the freedom to form their opinions which they may or may not share in interviews but I don't think it's fair to assume the film does (when reviews of the film state otherwise). I also would recommend you watch it when it comes out on HBO.

I would imagine it's kind of like watching a movie on Jeffrey Dahmer. The acter might play him well and the crew might feel passionate about the film but it doesn't mean they endorse what he did (though that's a more black/white example).

[–] filompra 14 years ago

It doesn't take sides. I know it cause I saw it.
And even if the movie did, I don't see the problem. They have the right to say he did the right thing, like you say he didn't.
Isn't this freedom of speech?

[–] ae7641 14 years ago

I don't think you are missing anything. Your reaction is normal. The normal reaction is not to cheer anyone who takes lives. If some think he is good, there is another side of the story.

Come to think of it, we might expect in the future someone else playing the guy, with many factual details that portray him in a different light, an ugly dark light.

[–] Writer01603 14 years ago

Actually it is incredibly normal for us to cheer people who take lives. Lethal Weapon, Death Wish, Watchmen, Dexter, The Sopranos, people love to cheer others on when their killing living people. The same people who are against Euthenasia cheer on the Death Penalty. Most people are hypocrites.

[–] dissipatedfog 14 years ago

Well-said

[–] filompra 14 years ago

I'm pro euthanasia (you spelled it wrong, by the way) and definitely against death penalty.
As a matter of fact the prisoners don't wanna die (and the Government doesn't have, philosophically speaking, the power to take their life away).
For a terminally ill patient the story is quite different, I guess

[–] liketoknowwhy 14 years ago

I share the same views. I'm against the death penalty but pro-euthanasia. If a person is ill and went to Kevorkian, and the family was okay it, who are you to tell them different.

[–] ae7641 14 years ago

I'm talking about real life as this is a real person and you are referring to fiction, writer01603.

And for the reason that he was killing, a lot of people were against Dr. K.
(a doctor saying "I saved the babies life," would not be cheered as a hero if he said, "The baby was so ill I killed it."

"The same people who are against Euthenasia cheer on the Death Penalty. Most people are hypocrites" How do you know this, and how can you prove it? What "same people" are you speaking of? Someone take a poll that shows this?

[–] chrombot 14 years ago

You can't think something is great and disagree with it's sentiment?

http://startrekspoilers.ytmnd.com/ (joke that contains no actual spoilers)

[–] rockmail 14 years ago

Stop wasting message board space with useless uninformed opinions, and try commenting on something you've seen and have an opinion about.

What a waste of everyone's time.