Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Distributed by The Video Project, 145 - 9th St., Suite 230, San Francisco, CA 94103; 800-475-2638Produced by Chris MetzlerDirected by Bradley Berman2022, Streaming, 73 mins In 2016 The California End of Life Option Act (EOLOA) made it possible for terminally ill patients in California to receive drugs for physician-assisted death. The right to die with dignity has been explored by numerous physicians and journalists - perhaps most famously and controversially by Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a United States physician who was tried in court repeatedly for assisting in suicides and given the moniker “Dr. Death” in the late twentieth century. Recently, the subject was explored in-depth by journalist Katie Engelhart in her book The Inevitable: Dispatches on the Right to Die, in which she interviews physicians and patients from Europe and Australia as well as North America. Jack Has a Plan documents the life and death “plan” of lead subject Jack Tuller in California by his filmmaker friend Bradley Berman. It is a very personal and close-up look of someone with a brain tumor deciding to end life on his own terms. Despite the heavy nature of the subject matter the filmmaker attempts moments of levity with old black and white archival footage and a jazzy score. The archival footage often feels out of place and undercuts the subject, which may have been the intention of the filmmaker who, according to the film, somewhat reluctantly records Jack’s journey. Director Bradley Berman, who also served as editor along with Quinn Costello and Byron W. Thompson, inserts himself into the film as documentarian. Berman explains through direct address to the audience that he was convinced by the main subject Jack Tuller to begin filming after the recurrence of Jack's brain tumor. Berman shows himself going through boxes of material (videos and such) from Jack’s younger, healthier years. He presents a clip from one of Jack’s music videos and uses footage from his wedding in the film but otherwise fails to incorporate much of this source archival footage. The audience cannot help but wonder what is contained in all of those boxes and what stories could be told, which would be an interesting question to raise in a documentary class. Berman barely touches on the complicated process of the California End of Life Option (EOLOA) outside of a small scene with health officials as they provide Jack with the drugs needed and a few scenes with palliative care specialist Torrie Fields who helped to enact EOLOA in California. The scenes with Fields are not traditional interviews but mediated through Jack. It is, after all, Jack’s plan - and Berman as documentarian seems somewhat hamstrung by Jack as subject. Additionally, Berman chooses not to expand on the ethical dilemmas associated with the decision and does not really dwell on Jack’s health deterioration. Jack’s wife is featured prominently in the film and is an incredible asset to Jack throughout the process - and to the film viewer, in terms of navigating what the film does not explicitly depict. There is something performative and deliberate about Jack’s appearance in Jack Has a Plan which is reminiscent of Jason in Shirley Clarke’s 1967 documentary Portrait of Jason. Quite different from the famous Maysles brothers’ cinema vérité exemplified in Grey Gardens or Salesman, this is a film heavily mediated not only in the edit but also onscreen by the filmmaker and the subject. Despite the clear conclusion of the film, it is a documentary that raises many questions without providing many answers. I would recommend it for a class on documentary filmmaking but due to the limited scope it would not necessarily be sufficient for a class on health policy or bioethics. Awards:DC Independent Film Festival, Jury Award, Best of Fest Award; Oneota Film Festival, Jury Award, Best of Fest; Boulder International Film Festival, Jury Award, Impact Award; Dances with Films (LA), Jury Award, Best Documentary; Alameda International Film Festival, Jury Award, Best Documentary Feature; Mystic Film Festival, Jury Award, Best Documentary Feature; Oceanside International Film Festival, Jury Award, Best Documentary Feature; Atlanta DocuFest, Jury Award, Best Documentary Feature; The Poppy Jasper International Film Festival, Jury Award, Best Documentary Feature; Newburyport Documentary Film Festival, Jury Award, David Kleiler Cinephile Award; San Luis Obispo International Film Festival, Jury Award, Best Feature in Central Coast Filmmaker Showcase; Calgary Underground Film Festival, Audience Award, Best Documentary Feature; Lake County Film Festival, Jury Award and Audience Awards, Best Documentary Feature; DOCUTAH International Film Festival, Audience Award, Best Feature ; South Georgia Film Festival, Jury Award, Best Documentary Feature; Twin Cities Film Festival, Jury Award, Best Documentary Feature Finalist; Ojai Film Festival, Jury Award, Best Documentary, Honorable Mention; New Jersey Film Festival, Jury Award, Honorable Mention
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».