A One Mann’s Movies review of “Life After” (From the 2025 London Film Festival). (2025, 4.5*, ’12’).
Great documentaries should be able to challenge your preconceptions about a topic. And “Life After”, made by the disabled film-maker Reid Davenport, does just that.
I’ve already notice that, one paragraph in, I’ve already prefaced Davenport’s name and occupation with the word “disabled”. And that is partly the point with this riveting documentary that challenges our preconceptions about disability, the ‘quality of life’ and the controversial topic of assisted dying when applied to disability.
One Mann’s Movies Rating:
Plot:
In 1983 Elizabeth Bouvia, who was severely disabled, sought the right to die in a Californian courtroom. She was denied that right, but then seemed to vanish off the scene. Director Reid Davenport set out to find if she is still alive and challenges our pre-conceptions about the topic of assisted dying.
Certification:
UK: NR; US: NR. (The film has not yet been rated by the BBFC but it is a film that I think could gain a 12A certificate. It has one f-bomb in it, but I think the topic would be valuable to present to a young teen audience.)
Talent:
Directed by: Reid Davenport.
Running Time: 1h 39m.
Summary:
Positives:
- Really clearly and cleverly presents its arguments through one-on-one case study interviews.
- Both depressing and uplifting in equal measure: not the doom and gloom watch you might expect.
Negatives:
- It’s pretty perfect and I was close to giving this one 5 stars.
Full Review of “Life After”:
What is ‘quality of life’.
The film challenges a lot of things that I, as an able-bodied person, might view as “obvious”. They are things that make the legal decision (ongoing in the UK) about giving people the right to die so difficult to argue, with points for and against.
The legal around which the film is structured is that of Elizabeth Bouvia from California . We see her court appearances in 1983 and then the subsequent search by the director, Reid Davenport and his partner/friend/carer (it is unclear) Colleen, as to whether she is alive or dead and whether, in retrospect, she would have regretted taking her own life 40 years previously.
We see some toe-curling interviews on TV with Ms Bouvia with a particularly awful one, with “creepy” Mike Wallace on ’60 Minutes’, where he complements her on her looks and then demands to know why she would have applied make-up if she didn’t care enough about herself to want to live. Ugh!
Another sound-byte echoes “Was she fighting, or simply giving up?”.
The deathly M.A.I.D.
Significant time is spent discussing the Canadian scheme called “M.A.I.D.” (Medical Assistance in Dying). The scheme effectively allows people with a disability to apply to end their lives, with rules and regulations attached. It was originally drafted as only being for people who’s disability could be shown to shortly prove fatal, but has progressively being watered down through amendments to make the act possible on more of a whim.
Davenport points out that people without a disability might consider themselves not to have a good ‘quality of life’, but would not be given access to the opportunity to end it. So why should disabled people? Where’s the difference? The financial implications to the state of permanently removing those that cost the most to maintain is also raised as a motive: a numerical figure was presented as a part of the bill’s “research”.
Things seem bad.. but sometimes things change.
On a more upbeat, but bittersweet, note, the film illustrates how that however dark life can sometimes get, things can have a way of turning around.
Bouvia is quoted as the first example of this, where – through the judicial system denial – her death was not progressed. But she later went on (through admittedly some terrible trials) to live a life that, through her sisters’ testimony, had value.
In the second, even more extreme example, a guy called Michal Kaliszan applied to M.A.I.D. purely because of financial reasons… he could no longer afford the healthcare charges allowing him to live at home and saw the alternative – institutionalisation in a care home – as a fate worse than death. This was after the death of his caring mother and government reductions in available budgets through Covid. But his application was rejected (as Kaliszan states, rather glibly, because “they were too busy killing people”). Six months later, when he was offered to apply again, he didn’t…. since his situation had improved. A bureaucratic delay saves a life!
Who wants it – the disabled person or their ‘carers’?
Another disturbing case study concerns the case of Jerika Bolen of Appleton, Wisconsin. In her case, the disabled young lady was only 14 years old but – in the words of a commentator for disabled people’s rights, was “surrounded by people who thought she was better off dead”. We get to see the whole community participating in an organised “Prom” for the girl who would never get one.
An interesting view on doctors and disability.
As well as the whole assisted-dying argument, the film also prods at our views about disability in general. Davenport interviews disabled people who point out that a disability is constantly being viewed as a ‘defect’ that doctors are constantly wanting to treat. They perceive that their standard of living, whatever it is, needs to be ‘improved’ when perhaps their standard of living is fine as it is. As one participant puts it, “Disabled people aren’t threatened by our bodies… we are threatened by other people’s bodies”.
In relation to this, another case study considers the case of Michael Hickson in Austin, Texas, who his wife considers as having been murdered by hospital doctors who considered his life not worth living during Covid.
You also sense Davenport’s own frustration with his own capabilities being mis-judged. The film has footage of him being questioned whether “he is alright” (in, I must say, a very polite and respectful way), by an NYPD cop as people have expressed concern about him. He was just a filmmaker, on the streets, doing his job!
Summary Thoughts:
This was a terrific documentary from an impressive documentary filmmaker, who clearly faces far more challenges than most. It covered a wide range of topics and succeeded in shedding light on all of them making it one of the most thought-provoking films of the year.
Did it change my view on allowing assisted-dying in the UK (which I am generally in favour of). No. I still believe we need to ability for a person to opt to die with dignity in situations where all hope is lost and – if the patient was a cat or a dog – you would generally conclude it a ‘blessing’ to have the animal taken to a vet and humanely put down. But the film really did make me focus on the importance of the rigorous legal process around that decision such that whim, 3rd party pressure and – worst of all – NHS budgetary concerns never get to play any part in such matters.
This one is very much recommended. The LFF showings on Thursday 9th October and Saturday 11th October are currently sold out, but here is the web page in case any additional seats, or additional showings, are scheduled.
Where to watch?
Trailer:
The trailer is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb1P1wQQQp4.
Subscribe
Don’t forget, you can subscribe to One Mann’s Movies to receive future reviews by email right here. No salesman will call!
