Just some disclosure: I have mild autism, the part of the spectrum formerly known as Asperger's Syndrome. Personally, I don't think it's useful to consider Asperger's as autism. There is a world of difference between the wordless, gurgling, infantile severely autistic and the kooky weirdo Asperger's people. This kind of inclusive diagnosis throws off statistics, and when people like those in this documentary say that 1 in 250 children are diagnosed with autism, and present this as a horrible thing, I take it as an insult; I know that they are thinking of the severely autistic, who are difficult and a little frightening, but I get the sense that they don't see a difference between that and people like myself.
Anyway, the documentary itself: it is not an all-out anti-vaccine screed. It specifically targets the triple strand MMR vaccine. More to the point, it argues that the particular vaccine as currently produced has major problems that those higher up refuse to do anything about. The film sums up its agenda at the end, and since it asks the viewer to have their children receive the single strand vaccines instead, it is clearly not saying to never vaccinate your children. The problem, of course, is that this nuanced view is not what most people, particularly its primary audience of those who already refuse to vaccinate, will take from it. The film doesn't help its case here, since the parents it presents hold this general anti-vaccine view, and it shows a couple of PSAs that warn against vaccines overall, rather than targeting the suspect MMR.
Andrew Wakefield is the director, and he also presents himself as one of the main interview subjects. He does an excellent job of selling himself: not knowing beforehand, I thought he was the most sensible subject in the film and thought the director would have done well to focus more on him. Well, he's clearly a scientist/activist, not a cinema man. If he is sincere in his intentions, he could have done a lot to improve his film.
For instance, he spends at least a third of the film on "heartbreaking" stories from parents of autistic children. This is mainly communicated through the parents telling the camera about how difficult it was. I don't have enough space to discuss the film's perspective on autism at length, but suffice to say that I don't feel it made a convincing case that it is something to worry about. The black boy who accidentally got a double dose of the MMR vaccine was a prime candidate to demonstrate how horrible autism is. His facial expression looks mentally disabled and spends all of his screen time watching Blues Clues on a laptop. However, the film gives greater prominence to a white boy who is only mildly autistic. This boy was undoubtedly difficult to raise, but, judging by what we are shown of him, he could easily get a decent job and live a good life if someone taught him social skills. I found it offensive that the film equated this level of autism with honestly severe cases and it undermined the film's presentation. And here's a thought: why doesn't the film show the effects of measles, mumps or rubella? If autism is so much worse, it couldn't hurt to show it, and it gives parents a better chance of making an informed decision about what is best for their children.
Vaxxed rubbed me the wrong way when addressing autism head-on, but that is not the whole film. At heart, this is a conspiracy story in the mould of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Whether or not you agree with its conclusions, Moore's film was entertaining and excellent cinema. The same cannot be said of Vaxxed. That's inevitable, since the implications of its conspiracy aren't as drastic (what's scarier, your child getting autism or being sent overseas to die for a meaningless, profit-driven war?) but there is still much room for improvement in the presentation. The driving narrative device of the film is the surreptitiously recorded confessions of Dr. William Thompson, but the film is neither dynamic enough to turn his whistleblowing into a compelling conspiracy narrative, nor is it neutral enough to be intellectually convincing. It's possible Wakefield watered down his original vision to make the film commercial: perhaps he added the emotional arguments because he heard that's what convinces people, and just isn't talented enough a director to simplify scientific issues without becoming dumbed down.
As is probably evident, I don't have strong opinions on the vaccine debate, though I feel that they could come up with a better argument against than autism. It's not really necessary to see the film if you can get an objective summary of its contentions. Namely, the MMR vaccine may cause autism, this being less likely if given later; there aren't strict enough regulations for vaccines relative to other pharmaceutical products; and there is corruption in the CDC, an example being their attempted cover-up of the alleged link between the MMR vaccine and autism. I have tried to judge this film as a self-contained work, since I lack the knowledge and interest required to address the factuality of its content.
In short, I disagree with its presentation of the problematic nature of autism and, as cinema, it is about average. Hardly worthy of the controversy it stirred up. 5 out of 10.
Anyway, the documentary itself: it is not an all-out anti-vaccine screed. It specifically targets the triple strand MMR vaccine. More to the point, it argues that the particular vaccine as currently produced has major problems that those higher up refuse to do anything about. The film sums up its agenda at the end, and since it asks the viewer to have their children receive the single strand vaccines instead, it is clearly not saying to never vaccinate your children. The problem, of course, is that this nuanced view is not what most people, particularly its primary audience of those who already refuse to vaccinate, will take from it. The film doesn't help its case here, since the parents it presents hold this general anti-vaccine view, and it shows a couple of PSAs that warn against vaccines overall, rather than targeting the suspect MMR.
Andrew Wakefield is the director, and he also presents himself as one of the main interview subjects. He does an excellent job of selling himself: not knowing beforehand, I thought he was the most sensible subject in the film and thought the director would have done well to focus more on him. Well, he's clearly a scientist/activist, not a cinema man. If he is sincere in his intentions, he could have done a lot to improve his film.
For instance, he spends at least a third of the film on "heartbreaking" stories from parents of autistic children. This is mainly communicated through the parents telling the camera about how difficult it was. I don't have enough space to discuss the film's perspective on autism at length, but suffice to say that I don't feel it made a convincing case that it is something to worry about. The black boy who accidentally got a double dose of the MMR vaccine was a prime candidate to demonstrate how horrible autism is. His facial expression looks mentally disabled and spends all of his screen time watching Blues Clues on a laptop. However, the film gives greater prominence to a white boy who is only mildly autistic. This boy was undoubtedly difficult to raise, but, judging by what we are shown of him, he could easily get a decent job and live a good life if someone taught him social skills. I found it offensive that the film equated this level of autism with honestly severe cases and it undermined the film's presentation. And here's a thought: why doesn't the film show the effects of measles, mumps or rubella? If autism is so much worse, it couldn't hurt to show it, and it gives parents a better chance of making an informed decision about what is best for their children.
Vaxxed rubbed me the wrong way when addressing autism head-on, but that is not the whole film. At heart, this is a conspiracy story in the mould of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Whether or not you agree with its conclusions, Moore's film was entertaining and excellent cinema. The same cannot be said of Vaxxed. That's inevitable, since the implications of its conspiracy aren't as drastic (what's scarier, your child getting autism or being sent overseas to die for a meaningless, profit-driven war?) but there is still much room for improvement in the presentation. The driving narrative device of the film is the surreptitiously recorded confessions of Dr. William Thompson, but the film is neither dynamic enough to turn his whistleblowing into a compelling conspiracy narrative, nor is it neutral enough to be intellectually convincing. It's possible Wakefield watered down his original vision to make the film commercial: perhaps he added the emotional arguments because he heard that's what convinces people, and just isn't talented enough a director to simplify scientific issues without becoming dumbed down.
As is probably evident, I don't have strong opinions on the vaccine debate, though I feel that they could come up with a better argument against than autism. It's not really necessary to see the film if you can get an objective summary of its contentions. Namely, the MMR vaccine may cause autism, this being less likely if given later; there aren't strict enough regulations for vaccines relative to other pharmaceutical products; and there is corruption in the CDC, an example being their attempted cover-up of the alleged link between the MMR vaccine and autism. I have tried to judge this film as a self-contained work, since I lack the knowledge and interest required to address the factuality of its content.
In short, I disagree with its presentation of the problematic nature of autism and, as cinema, it is about average. Hardly worthy of the controversy it stirred up. 5 out of 10.