Lake of Fire

I saw a few people on here proclaiming themselves as pro-life and panning the film for supposedly being biased against their view.

First of all, purely on balance alone I'd say the film is equal to both sides. It's just that most of the stuff which makes you want to be pro-life comes at the beginning of the film while most of the content which makes you want to be pro-choice comes in the second half. It seems to me that they're just upset that their side didn't get the proverbial last word.

Secondly, this film is not about balance anyway. It's about documenting the cultural debate in the film about abortion in America. Whether one or two dissenting reviewers of this film are or not, the fact is that most of the pro-life advocates are Christian religious fringe. Of course there are exceptions, and they document that in the movie. Although I don't think Kaye should have given an hour to the secular atheist pro-lifers, because frankly there aren't that many of them.

The criticism also seem to come from people who don't even understand any points being made in the movie -- one reviewer claimed that Chomsky was comparing abortion to a woman washing her hands. That's not what he was doing at all. His example was made to demonstrate the relativity involved with the process of placing value on life.

In any event, the film definitely is a roller coaster ride, and there are times where you might find yourself at odds with your own opinion. The movie being as balanced as it is, probably wont change a lot of minds, but I would think at the very least it would soften your position one way or another. If it doesn't, you're either just stubborn, or you weren't even trying to pay attention to the message of the film.

Caveat: I have been a pro-choice activist for many years in my home country of Canada, and attended the "March for Women's Lives" in Washington D.C. in 2004. Obviously I have a pretty solid opinion on this issue, but below I have tried to just talk about the film itself.

I saw this a couple of days ago at the Toronto Film Festival. I think it is an unflinching look at the how the battle over abortion rights has played out in the United States over the last 15 years or so. It was intended to be unbiased, an even-handed look at both sides of the issue. By and large, I think Kaye succeeded at this, but I would very much like to attend a screening of this film before an audience of committed pro-lifers to see what they think of it. I couldn't help but think that nearly all the pro-lifers interviewed came across as deeply disturbed, with a couple of exceptions.

The film clocks in at over two and a half hours and could easily loose 30 minutes without taking away from the impact of the film. Similarly it ends dreadfully - overblown music and an utterly inconsequential shot - the director having missed the perfect spot to end it 5 minutes beforehand.

Shot entirely in black and white, there are several moments of stunning beauty, contrasting with the frequently dull and suburban backgrounds in which such a passionate battle is being waged by both sides.

Overall I would definitely recommend this film, but only after it is re-edited from its present version.

A last note: Tony Kaye was present at the screening and gave an utterly bizarre performance during the Q&A at the end of the movie. He stood at the mike, rubbing his face vigorously, making little sense and often at a loss for words. We were planning to ask questions but he was so out of it that we decided not to waste our time!

when i first heard that Tony Kaye – who, let's remember, first made the scene as a self-proclaimed "hype artist" – was releasing a documentary about abortion, i was understandably skeptical. turns out my apprehension wasn't necessary. this is a level-headed, even-handed analysis of a difficult and complex subject. regardless of where you might fall on the spectrum of debate, this film will raise questions that deserve reflection. and, needless to say, this is an issue which warrants attention and discussion – at the heart of the issue are some of the most fundamental questions about life; surrounding the issue, however, are myriad paradoxes, contradictions, and dilemmas... if the details and gray areas seem unresolvable, how does one contend with the big picture? the speakers assembled represent the range and nuances of the debate well; some of the images are graphic but integral; and for the most part the irrationality and unhinged emotion that often cloud this subject are avoided. i wonder about the use of B&W, both from a theoretical standpoint (the obvious point that this is not a B&W issue, for instance – or is that meant ironically? – but also the fact that some footage from primary sources had to be manipulated into B&W which might raise some thoughts about documentary technique) and from an artistic standpoint (B&W often providing a feeling of remove between viewer and image, lacking the immediacy of color... although, with this subject, perhaps making use of this sense of remove is a wise choice). this is a film which deserves to be seen – which also deserves to be widely shown in schools – but will probably never find a large audience. and – i'm only speculating here – my guess is that most of those audience members will be primarily from one side of the spectrum.

The only thing important missing from the film is the impact that overturning Roe v Wade might have on the infertility industry. My husband and I had to resort to in vitro in order to conceive our twin boys. Four fertilized eggs were implanted in me. Fortunately, only two remained viable. But what if all four survived? I would have chosen to "reduce" the embryos. As it was my pregnancy was difficult. I went into pre-term labor at 28 weeks. At 32 weeks they had to induce as my babies were starting to kill me. Imagine if I hadn't had the option to "reduce" and all four implanted. What if the law required me to carry the fetuses until my life was in danger instead of "reducing" early in the pregnancy? Or, what if I had 14 embryos, 4 implanted and 10 frozen? Would the frozen ones then be considered "alive" and therefore could not be discarted? What would be the option then? Would I be prosecuted for 10 counts of murder? So I think the film needed to cover this aspect of the debate. Otherwise it was an exceptional documentary.

In Lake of Fire, a film that Tony Kaye- director behind American History X (which he wanted to be named under the pseudonym 'Humpty Dumpty' following a loss of final cut)- has been shooting footage for over fifteen years, is about all you need to see to know the fundamentalist and existentialist ramifications on the abortion-in-America issue. It covers all of the pro-life advocates, the murders of doctors and bombings of clinics, footage of actual abortions, and even an interview with the real-life 'Roe' from Roe v. Wade. It covers about as much ground, in interviews and footage of those at rallies and on the street and so on and so forth, that can be covered in two and a half hours.

But what builds up Kaye's film to such a potent focus is that Kaye doesn't let out necessarily what *his* stance is on the issue. I think this was the way to go, and not necessarily because it would be insensitive one way or the other- in order to take as objective a stance as possible (which, in this case, is so next to impossible because of the subjective point for a woman when it comes time to decide on the pregnancy), it works best to let the sides speak for themselves. As it turns out, he doesn't let the pro-choice crowd be the only voices of reason either; one actually sees, when there isn't total crazy Bible-thumping rhetoric, some sound arguments against abortion. And why not? It's one of the murkiest of all issues in the annals of history, not just American. And as we learn painfully in Lake of Fire, no matter what the most savage and hypocritical of the maniacs who try and stop abortion practices and doctors (in the old Malcolm X 'by any means necessary' mold), women will always get abortions if it comes down to it.

Kaye's scope is large and all encompassing, with interviews from the likes of pragmatic minded Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershwitz (the latter's parable about the Rabbi hits it the nail on the head, if there could be a nail in this), to intelligent pro-lifer Nat Hentoff, to Roe (real name Norma McCorvey) who got converted to being pro-life after setting the stage for all of this in the 70s, to the clean-cut psycho Paul Hill. Then there's everyone in-between, from radio show hosts to priests and pastors (one of which, an uproarious 'Lamb' protector), and then to doctors and professors. Not one word is wasted, which is staggering unto itself for over two and a half hours.

What one sees is the issue of choice in general, but also the nature of zealousness. To be sure, the pro-choice crowd are far less zealous than those who use the bible (or the Pope or just any thoughts about heaven or hell in general and who they think will go to where or not) as a blanket of protection. And Kaye's style for this is like that of mourning for lack of disagreeing to agree, and vice-versa and in-between. His cinematography shoots things in a stark, gray tone, while Anne Dudley's music- very akin to American History X- is that of the utmost tragedy. There are many beautifully shot scenes, from close-ups to cut-aways, but one that strikes me the most is during the Q&A at a doctor's office with a woman who is about to get an abortion.

As far as the issue itself and how viewers will take to it... It's not cut and dry. It won't reveal to you anything that might change your opinion, if it's already steadfast, about the issue. What Kaye does do, and it's a brave feat, is to not candy-coat a thing, to be provocative but not to a point of no return, to make clear what is at stake in what it means for a human being to take a life, any life, and how we approach that. As a man I will never have to make that choice of 'do I or don't I' in the first trimester. But as Lake of Fire makes perfectly clear, it's a civil rights issue through and through. It also makes for some fantastic cinema through someone as meticulous and exemplary a filmmaker as the (unprolific) Kaye. A+