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.

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.

Tony Kaye shows that he is prepared to encounter the debate on abortion by covering an incredibly wide range of point of views and doesn't leave out even the most difficult parts. I will start with "harcore" reality details of the abortive presager before I entail my global feelings on how I received this workpiece. I had to stop viewing for a couple of minutes after they showed the fetuses, my heart was pounding, I felt dizzy, sad and mentally assaulted by those images because they just wouldn't get out of my head once I saw them. Nonetheless I still am pro-choice having being hit by that, It forced me to consider the painful reality that go with my own position. This, of course balanced with so many other things that are also thoroughly explored and exposed in the documentary.

Calling Tony Kaye a "biaest" on that matter doesn't do him justice at all. Simply because neutrality in this just has no existence, the relevant material that piles up in the concerned matter as you go further into it, is bound to lead you somewhere. If their is something going on around you and choose not to implicate yourself, you are in fact indirectly making a choice, the choice of leaving it in the hands of those who are ready to carry out decision. I'm not a Christian but I was raised in that manner so I can refer to a story which most of us know and that is the story of Pilate who also took a step back but nonetheless is a part of the picture, that nails down the point that "not to do" is to "let others do" for the best and for worst parts.

This documentary also shows the mind blowing contradictions that inhabits the fundamentalists stirring up on the pro-life side. The fact that they are ready to take on destructive action on the behalf of their posture, stretching a huge focus on that subject while seemingly indifferent to other subjects that involves human choices and it's caused suffering that are by close or by far correlative to abortion. I'll finish by saying that having claims towards even the most wonderful values doesn't suffice at all, being unable to reflect on your own self and the actions you undertake and paying no attention to the conditions of others and more importantly the ones that should justify some of your moral standards is one of the roots of a hypocrisy, denial and egocentric behaviors.

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.