In the 1980s, Elizabeth Bouvia became a prominent figure in the right-to-die movement when she went to court and asked the state of California to allow her – and only her – to decide whether she would live or die. Bouvia had cerebral palsy, was in a lot of pain, and wanted the hospital to allow her to starve to death rather than keep her alive.
In 2021, Canada expanded its Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program to apply to not just people with terminal illnesses, but also those with incurable conditions – even if there is no death date in sight. “Life After,” a new film from filmmaker Reid Davenport, uses both of these stories as roads into questions about the morality and ethics of the right-to-die movement, and what it tells us about how society at large treats the disabled population.
“Life After” is an overtly political film. Davenport, who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, has a very clear take on the MAID expansion, arguing that by embracing the idea that disabled people should be able to take their own lives, governments are taking a terrible, easy way out – allowing people to die instead of spending the time and money needed to properly care for them.
The movie leaves no question about how Davenport feels about the subject, but “Life After” is more interested in raising the necessary questions and allowing viewers to come to their own conclusion than it is giving any easy answers. Rough Draft Atlanta recently spoke with Davenport and producer Colleen Cassingham about the making of the film, which opens at the Tara Theatre in Atlanta on Aug. 4.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Reid, when did you first hear about Elizabeth Bouvia, and when did you decide that you wanted to make a film about her?
Reid Davenport: I had known there was this contingency of disabled activists who were opposed to assisted suicide, and yet very progressive. I was very interested in the friction of those two ideologies, particularly as a vehicle through which I could tell the story of the film. Then, I read about Elizabeth … as I started searching on the internet, I realized we didn’t know anything about her … including whether she was dead or alive. I knew that there was a movie there.
This documentary has an interesting task. It reminds me a little bit of the recent Sally Ride documentary in that way, which had to balance these two perspectives – you’re making a movie about someone who has passed away, so you’re trying to put her voice into the story. But at the same time, with your personal connection to this, you’re putting your own perspective in the story. How do you go about navigating what it’s like to not necessarily speak for someone, but put yourself in her perspective, and help people understand that perspective without her being there?
Davenport: The short answer is that it’s really hard. We wanted to honor her, and we didn’t necessarily outwardly agree with her. We definitely had our perspective, and still didn’t see a need to vilify her. In the end, you see, that she actually agreed with our thesis, that it wasn’t her body that made her want to die. It was the bureaucracy that she was trapped in that made her want to die.
One thing I really like about this film is I feel like you have a very clear point of view, and I feel like I understand where you stand on this issue. But I think within the documentary, you are more interested in raising the necessary questions around the issue rather than definitively trying to come to any conclusions – particularly questions around government support for people with disabilities, or the ways in which society views people with disabilities. My question is another balancing question – how do you keep that clear-eyed view, which I think a documentary like this needs, while still working to open up the conversation and be mindful of other perspectives?
Davenport: I think you try to meet people where they’re at. I think you really have to deconstruct the argument and hold people’s hands to get them to see what you’re saying. That’s not being condescending to the audience, but actually being mindful of how strong their convictions can be, and the amount of knowledge they’re bringing to the film.
I read that you initially didn’t want to be on camera for this movie, and that you, Colleen, were also sort of hesitant. I think it was an interview with you, Reid, where you said that because your last film, “I Didn’t See You There,” was intensely personal, and you were on screen in that film. Was there any kind of one moment that helped you come to the decision that you needed to be a part of this movie?
Davenport: It came down to being a conduit – being two progressive people interrogating the progressive view of assisted suicide, and trying to relate it to the audience.
One of the parts of this documentary I found really striking is the section where you, Reid, are filling out the application for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID). You bring up the fact that if you didn’t have a good support system around you, how would you feel, trying to answer these questions. Colleen, you chime in with the fact that you would also feel terrible, if you didn’t have a good support system. But you can’t fill one of these applications out. I think, as a non-disabled person, that was really eye-opening for me. I also read that this was filmed on the last shoot day, which is kind of wild, because I think it’s so crucial to the film. Could you guys talk a little bit about that moment?
Colleen Cassingham: That was a really powerful scene. This idea of Reid filling out the application form himself had been something we’d been tossing around for a little while, as we figured out exactly what kind of connective tissue the film needed as the pieces fell into place, and what kind of articulations we could bring on camera based on how the puzzle pieces were coming together. We filmed that in a pickup shoot on the last day, and you’re right – it was both very powerful to film in the moment, and to have that interaction between me and Reid, and between Reid and the application of Reid himself play out. It also encapsulates the thesis of the film, in a way. Reid and I aren’t necessarily invested in repealing all of the assisted suicide legislation that’s on the books … but we’re trying to draw attention to the irony of how the legislation is operating. It’s not being applied equally. If we would place an equal amount of value on all lives and society as we claim to do, it wouldn’t be operating this way.
Was there anything that you wanted to make it into the documentary that didn’t, whether that was a scheduling issue, or someone didn’t want to speak with you? And when you’re working on something like this, how do you get past any hiccup like that?
Davenport: For me, it would have been powerful to be able to interview a doctor from Canada who is performing MAID, and who full-heartedly believes in Track 2 MAID for disabled people or not-terminally ill [people]. But you know, the film is 100 minutes.
Cassingham: That perspective was one we did pursue, but it didn’t work out. That was one where someone didn’t want to speak to us on camera. We understand that, even though our approach, we feel, was really fair and not misleading. I think it would have been powerful to hear a pro-MAID doctor speak on their own terms, and to have that sit within the body and the commentary of the film.
An interview we filmed that I wish there had been room in the 100 minutes for was an interview we did with an activist named Ingrid Tischer. She is so funny. She’s a satirist, basically – she does this satirical writing, and some comics and things like that that poke fun and call out the aspirational lifestyle-ization of assisted dying. We see that a little bit in the film, where there’s the scene about the PR campaign being built around MAID in Canada. We see the Simons ad, and it’s a fashion commercial about – When I see my death, I see bubbles, and all of these things. It’s like, why are we making this an aspirational branding issue?
Gallows humor was what kept me and Reid going over the years of making the film. We had to bring levity internally to our team and our process, but humor only made it into the film in a couple of moments. [Humor] is, I think, a tool and a key form of resistance within the disabled community and all marginalized communities, that is valuable and creative. It would have been nice to have a little bit more of that in the film.
Reid, something you said in an interview really stuck out to me. You said you believe that the space for political films feels like it’s shrinking, and you want to carve out a space for those types of films. I was curious, do you have any thoughts on why that space is shrinking?
Davenport: I would say about five to 10 years ago, there was a documentary golden age, where there were all these artsy documentaries being bought up by all the major streamers. That age is over, and we’re seeing streamers doing in-house productions of true crime and celebrities [documentaries]. With that, we also have the threat to our public television … and organizations that fund documentaries. There’s really less of an appetite and less money in going into these independent political documentaries.
