A young boy tests the first smallpox vaccine.


JAMES is used with permission from Claire Oakley. Learn more at [ Ссылка ].


In 1796, James Phipps is a young 8-year-old boy living in Gloucestershire, England. Smallpox is rampant, killing and disfiguring many people. His father works as a day laborer for Edward Jenner, a prosperous physician who has noticed that milkmaids who contract the milder disease of cowpox don't get smallpox. Jenner believes giving people a small amount of the milder disease will keep them from contracting the deadlier smallpox. After getting James's father's permission, Jenner uses James as his first test subject.

James is unwell after the first inoculation, feeling weak and fevered, but he eventually recovers, a promising sign. But when it comes time to test the vaccine by injecting smallpox into him, James resists, putting a strain between his father and Jenner that may challenge their struggling family even further.

Directed by Claire Oakley from a script written by Felix Levinson, this richly imagined short drama brings to life a faraway but significant event in scientific history. Many narratives celebrate Edward Jenner, the physician who created what's widely considered the world's first vaccine. This short, however, examines the young boy who was Jenner's first test subject, giving him a voice and emotions and raising insightful questions about scientific ethics and agency.

In many ways, the storytelling is both perceptive and spare, with the writing focusing on James's emotions and perceptions instead of deluging viewers with background information. Well-placed visual details, rendered with richly naturalistic cinematography and camerawork, paint James's world as one of rural isolation and hard-scrabble poverty. But the specter of smallpox makes this life especially troubling for James, who watches with trepidation as many of the young children he knows in his community die from the disease.

This quick but sharp portrait of a struggling family contrasts with Edward Jenner, who is an educated and prosperous gentleman, and Jenner wastes no time commandeering the young James as his test subject for an unprecedented experiment, only perfunctorily asking for James's father's permission. The event of the experiment itself is presented matter-of-factly but with little explanation to the young boy, and James struggles between being dutiful and giving in to his terror. And later, when James has an adverse reaction, his worst fears are confirmed, in a sequence that's brief but memorably nightmarish.

Young performer Jack Hollington has an appealingly sensitive, thoughtful presence as a young boy who says very little but notices much. James is rightfully frightened at the prospect of getting smallpox. But when he observes his father's resignation at losing his job on Jenner's estate because of his refusal -- and how precarious the family situation will become as a result -- James decides to put his family before himself.

The titular character of JAMES emerges as the quiet hero, whose willingness to be the subject of a potentially dangerous experiment eventually saved countless lives. But it's not a straightforward triumph, with the film noting the socioeconomic disparity between Jenner and the Phipps family, along with the entitlement of wealth versus the resignation of being poor. These elements raise troubling questions about ethics, consent and experimentation. But it also notes the undeniable importance and consequence of James's part in a profound human achievement: smallpox remains the only infectious disease to be completely eradicated in world history, thanks in huge part to Jenner's vaccine and the young boy who was its first test subject.

свернуть