User reviews

We've been taught to believe that the purest and best documentaries are those that take a definitive stand on an issue. Such a one-sided approach is supposed to bespeak a righteous passion on the part of a filmmaker - as if dogmatism, in and of itself, were an indisputable virtue. But what if the issue at hand is so morally complex that it simply doesn't lend itself to the strident arguments and easy answers of a black-and-white diatribe? Might it not, then, be best to drop the "know-it-all" posture of the partisan zealot and, instead, attempt to look at both sides of the issue from a position of objectivity and fairness?

Well, that is exactly what filmmaker Tony Kaye has done with "Lake of Fire," a documentary on abortion that attempts to examine both sides of the issue in as unbiased and evenhanded a way as possible. For once, the impassioned spokespersons in both the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" camps are free to have their say and to make their case, without commentary or condemnation from a judgmental third party. In so doing, he has fashioned an unflinching and uncompromising look at one of the issues that most divides Americans today - and will surely do so for a very long time to come..

Watching "Lake of Fire" is a bit like being a ping pong ball in a high-stakes table tennis match. Just as we find ourselves agreeing with a representative from one side of the equation, we are bandied back to the opposing side by what appear to be equally compelling arguments emanating from a spokesperson there. And back and forth we go. For while there are "nutcases" and "screwballs" on both sides of the divide (and they certainly get ample opportunity to voice their views here), many of the people who are interviewed offer sound, reasoned arguments for the positions they take. At a lengthy two hours and thirty-two minutes, Kaye's film has plenty of time to take us into the emotionally-charged world of abortion politics, represented most vividly by the impassioned rallies and protest marches that all too often devolve into name-calling shouting matches that cloud the issue and further alienate those in the political center. Moreover, in what is essentially a new American "civil war," both sides come to the battlefield armed with gruesome images of those who have already perished in the conflict - the pro-lifers of dismembered fetuses, the pro-choicers of murdered doctors and victims of "back alley" abortions.

Kaye is to be particularly commended for not sanitizing or sugarcoating the actual abortion process, clearly assuming that we are grown up enough to face the truth without the need for coyness or comforting filters. Intriguingly, Kaye has opted to film his movie in black-and-white rather than color, a very shrewd and wise decision, since the stark imagery serves to underline the seriousness and gravity of the issue.

If there's a weakness to the film it is that there may be a bit too much emphasis on the movers and shakers in each of the groups and not enough on the ordinary, average citizens whose lives have been directly affected or severely altered by abortion (or the lack thereof). The movie does, however, end on such a note, taking us along with a young woman as she goes through the step-by-step process of an actual abortion. It reminds us that, after all the speeches and marches, all the clinic protests and killing of doctors, the issue finally comes down to an individual woman and the agonizing decision she alone is being called upon to make.

With his film, Kaye clearly wants to make us think, but he doesn't tell us HOW to think - and that's what separates his work from that of so many of his film-making contemporaries. How people will react to this film is anyone's guess. All I know is that, no matter which side of the struggle you may come down on - or even if you have somehow managed to remain scrupulously neutral about it up to this point - "Lake of Fire" will indeed make you think long and hard about the issue.

It seems fitting that I watched this on the very day that I read about the atrocious state of child protection in Oklahoma. It is a reminder of the definition of "Pro-Life" that I believe so strongly: they only care about life before it is born, and are not concerned with life after birth.

It was an outstanding documentary that gave both sides of the issue, even to the point of showing an actual abortion being performed. I could have done without that. This is however, the definitive film on the issue.

Some may consider it slanted as it showed the pro-life advocates as crazy loons, but when they are self-confessed bigots like leader Randall Terry, and Klan members/ministers like John Burk that consider murderers "patriots," what else can you call them. This film will give you a good picture of where this issue started, and why it continues to this day. You will learn just who is keeping this alive and their reasons for doing so. You will also be well informed on the types of people who are using this issue for their personal causes.

Great film to educate you on this sensitive issue.

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.

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+

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!

I saw this film at a Toronto Int'l Film Festival industry screening and thought it was one of best documentaries I have EVER seen! I've read a couple of reviews that have called it the definitive film of the subject of abortion - I completely agree. I've never seen anything so complex, complete and emotionally wrenching as this epic work. It stayed with me long after the screening. In fact, roughly 10 days have passed since I saw the film and it continues to haunt my thoughts. I weeped at the end. My only criticisms are it's length (far too long) and it's use of music, which often bordered on excessive and manipulative. But, those are relatively small concerns when weighed against the film's many positives.

I LOVE documentaries and have seen nearly every major work produced in the past 20 to 30 years (as well as not so major films). "Lake of Fire" may well be my favorite - I'm still deciding if any of the other films I've loved delivered the same unrelenting, yet profoundly emotional punch to the gut that this one did.

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.

Unlike some here, I'd say it's quite obvious which side of the debate Tony Kaye himself lies on; that of pro choice. Although it presents both sides of the argument, the only sane representatives are on the side of choice. Now I don't know enough about the pro-lifers to know if they're all as nutty as the people presented to us in this film. Some aren't quite as crazy, for instance Norma McCorvey, whose reasons for now being pro-life can be understood (she was basically pressured into feelings of guilt for her part in Roe v Wade) if not supported.

What most of this boils down to is religious fanaticism. The vast majority of the pro-lifers use religious 'teachings' as their argument for abolishing abortion rights. I say that it's unwise to base any serious decisions on something as debatable and dubious as anything the bible has to say. After all, the bible at various points would have whole tribes of people wiped from the face of the earth, it would sacrifice daughters to prevent men from making sodomites of themselves, 'god' turns a woman to a pillar of salt for the heinous crime of looking back at her home. Good grief, what a terrible sin! Almost as bad as committing blasphemy for which crime some in this film seemed to think it was acceptable to face the death penalty. We need to be worried about the religious fanatics in this country, not complacent about them. With Bush's encouragement they have grown in strength and the abortion fight is just a part of their whole game.

Tony Kaye did a brilliant job here of showing us all of that. Pro Lifers can't possibly be happy about this film, even though it doesn't candy coat anything - we get to see abortion in all its gory glory. Nevertheless, I feel that if someone is sitting on the fence about the issue and sees this film, they're unlikely to want to associate themselves with the crazies portrayed herein, especially the lunatic priest in Colorado who claims that abortion doctors are Satan worshipers who dangle the expelled fetus by the leg and then barbecue it. Clearly he's one or two marbles short! To summarize, this is an absorbing if somewhat long documentary which presents various arguments for and against abortion and satisfactorily raises most of the issues. Rent the video and devote an evening to watching it but be prepared to run the gamut of your emotions (whichever side of the issue you support), from anger to frustration, fascination to sadness.

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.

I think this documentary would be far more balanced if it were expanded into a TV miniseries. The theatrical version presents the logical arguments from both sides of this massive issue, but it also shows over an hour of the footage related to the violence committed by the most irrational anti-abortion individuals and organizations. In that way, it seemed to me that the most sensationalist, visceral footage was being left in the theatrical release to make it more entertaining.

And yet, there are incredible moments in the film that are not sensationalist, or unfair to the anti-abortion side. For example, the film begins at the Capitol Mall in 1993, with a peaceful protest aganst abortion, with participants sharing stores and speaking out. A male speaker was microphoned beautifully and we see and feel his genuine emotion, even if it seems irrational to supporters of abortion such as myself. (I should add that the sound in this movie is first-rate - voices in various mediums are captured beautifully, so much so, I was conscious of just how good the audio was). And another example of the film being fair to the anti-abortion side was showing us how a ministry in Dallas was able to befriend Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) and give her a happier life. It clearly shows how the pro-abortion side failed her. The "Jesus Freaks" didn't snatch her away. The pro-abortion side let her go while we are all into ourselves celebrating the legalization of abortion. She was home alone, receiving death threats, afraid to go out. And who came to her aid? Not my side. Amazing how this film reveals that (there is a shot in this movie that just has to be seen to be believed - you will know it when you see it....it shows Norma McCorvey at her new job....pay attention, it is amazing).

The film ends with a real procedure performed on a woman in Minneapolis who is less than 10 weeks pregnant. We see everything, including the blob of tissue that is taken from her womb. But more important, we see a 5 minute shot of her, telling us how she is relieved and tired, but also saddened and in emotional pain. It brought the theater to tears, and I can see how people on both sides of the issue will find some vindication in that final shot. On one hand, the patient is clearly relieved and has no regrets. On the other hand, she is saddened because she has made a momentous decision to choose her life over the life of an unknown child (a 'what if'). It is incredibly powerful film-making.

I thought if Errol Morris sees this, he might kick himself. He has spent 30 years making documentaries and still has not gotten a shot like that in the can. He's still the best documentary maker out there. But to hear Tony Kaye tell the audience in the Q&A that this labor of love is the result of a happy accident after being drawn into a major issue in US society, that's amazing. Great art is often the result of an accident or taking a risk. This is one such example.

This film gives us John Ford / Sergio Leone-like close-ups of faces. That, and the impressive audio, make this a very intimate work.

Everyone who sees this movie wishes it had more information. For example, the Catholic pro-abortion activist featured in the film was ex-communicated from the Church. Would have helped to be told that? I would think so. I would have wanted some clarification on the age of the fetus' shown. There is a graphic abortion early in the film that shows what looks like a 20-weeker having a procedure done. The fetus is torn apart, and we see eyes, legs, hands, feet. I would want movie goers to know that this is a BIG fetus and doctors don't see this every week in the OR or clinic. The vast majority of abortions are done before 10 weeks, in a short procedure in a clinic. And most states have a 22-week limit on abortion. Bet you didn't know that. The anti-abortion side wants you to believe that abortions are legal until the day before birth. That is not true at all. 22 weeks.

So you can see that I wanted more details. Everyone wanted more details. One audience member wanted to see more women being shown on the anti-abortion side. I know they are out there, but like the clinic patient who agreed to be filmed, they are very difficult to find.

This is by far the best film on the subject and on dealing with hard things in general. Black and White and people from all views being allowed to voice their anger and love. From the start to finish the film has people from all over the place talk about their views on what this subject means to them. The thing i find amazing is the counter points from each point of view. The ability to allow people to show how wrong you are yet still remain strong in your view and at the same time see people change their views based on new evidence of something they may not have know about before. When Roe gets interviewed i found it an amazing thing to learn about. Please give it a view. Great conversations will come from it.

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.

There are contradictory values. Apart from each other, each value is considerably rational. The value of preserving human life, or for that matter any other organism, is a value we should accept. You should not ever go readily kill some animal because it's to one's liking. On the other hand, most of us are in unison on stomping a roach. This is generally the case. The values we hold are not definite. They are ever conditional because life is comprised of problematic scenarios and compromises that collide with our values. If you apply yourself to an individual abstract value, it may sound valid, and maybe it is, but you have to ask what it means under exacting circumstances. So freedom to choose is valid, defending life is valid, and sometimes they come into collision. That is the issue of abortion. Those who regard passionately the issue of abortion in America, no matter which side they are on, may complain that Tony Kaye's graphic powerhouse documentary tells the other side.

This is a bold, unintimidated, occasionally almost unwatchable documentary that makes such a compelling illustration for both pro-choice and pro-life that all you can deduce at the end is that both sides have productive supporters, but the pro-lifers also have some disquieting people on their side. One is a sincere young man named Paul Hill, cleancut, aviator glasses, who says we should kill all abortionists. He doesn't stop there. We should also execute all blasphemers. Anyone who says God dammit should be executed? "Yes," he answers solidly. In awhile, he murders a Florida doctor who performed abortions. It's one of two murders in the film which conclude with the death penalty, which pro-life champions tend to advocate. Other pro-lifers purchase property next to abortion clinics and fashion platforms so they can climb onto them and scream over fences at young women entering the clinics.

They judge abortion to be murder, clear as day, and they are also against birth control and sex education, which have shown to decrease unplanned pregnancies and hence abortions. On behalf of their effort to convince, Hill shows vivid footage of abortions and their aftermath. The scene that struck me most gravely has a doctor sifting through a pan of blood, fluid and body parts to be certain he has withdrawn all of a fetus. Tiny hands and feet can unequivocally be seen. Throughout the film, we see more than enough to persuade us that what is being aborted is not seldom unmistakably human. The most rational words of argument on the pro-life side come from Nat Hentoff, the veteran left-wing writer for the Village Voice, characterized as a civil libertarian and an atheist. He contends from a lucid, not religious, perspective that when a sperm and an egg merged, a human is being conceived, and the development should not be infringed upon. His detached assertions, whether or not you agree with them, are a levelheaded kernel in a riotous whirlwind.

Another key witness in the film is Norma McCorvey, who was the anonymous Jane Roe in the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. She was a pro-choice activist for years, had her home and car shot at, felt practically a prisoner in her house, and then there was an unforeseen occurrence. But we also meet, anonymously, some of the young women who requisition at abortion clinics, and hear their stories. And we hear very real and very true statistics: If abortion is made illegal again in America, the abortion rate will stay essentially the same as it was before Roe v. Wade, but the fatality rate will begin to increase. Before the Supreme Court decision, the foremost means of death among young women was not cancer, not heart disease, not car crashes, but secondary responses of illegal abortions. These are the vital facts Kaye took the responsibility to include.

This depressingly real expose has been a life's work for Kaye, a British citizen who filmed it on and off for 17 years, and who has said that he still does not know his own personal feelings about abortion. He shoots in 35mm wide-screen, using black and white; take one wild guess as to why that's of integral significance to the way we view the film's content. As in his great narrative feature American History X, he uses Anne Dudley's almost overwhelmingly emotional score only in scenes of an unequivocal nature, never to manipulate our feelings one way or another. He interviews brilliant voices of our time such as Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz. At two and a half hours, his film doesn't feel prolonged, as at every moment something arresting, alarming, dumbfounding or maddening is taking place. Correct, he attacks neither side of the argument. But what he shows by chance is how the practice of diplomatically reciprocated views and civilized discourse in America has been usurped by fixed, hard-shell true believers who ignore and disdain voices of composure and equilibrium.

I thought this documentary was very fair. Both sides were shown. Some people say it was biased to the left but I do not believe that. I have personally spoken to people who are antiabortion and most of them really do throw their religious beliefs around, like a 2 yr old throws a ball around the house. Basically , the fanatics against abortion , quote every other passage from the bible. Its not the filmmakers fault if these people that are against abortion , come across inarticulate and judgmental and yes for the most part very uneducated as well. The film showed abortion procedures, scenes of crimes, and multiple monologues from people on both sides. The title of the film itself , is proudly proclaimed by the religious right. If these people view this movie they would probably see this as fair. It was a very chilling film , and reinforced the fact that there are people in our very nation that would circumvent the law to push their religion on others. The film was a bit too long and would like to have seen some color to maybe get the true effect , especially on some of the medical procedures and crime scenes. All in all a good film.

Black and white. If you are pro-choice, you will skip or wish they omitted the abortion scene. If you are pro-life that will be your most memorable part of the movie. After, the doctor says "Now she can go on with her life, go to school, without taking on the responsibility of becoming a parent..." CUT to a strainer filled with a mashed up pile of pulpy flesh, yet at center in perfect focus, a tiny, open hand. Burned a permanent image into my retina. Wow.

Many pro-lifers ARE crazy, and they should realize that there is nothing they can do to end abortion. They cannot share their point of view without being judgmental. Black and white.

Note: This review was originally published on Jan. 19th, 2022 and reuploaded on June 27th, 2022. This review has been re-uploaded again on June 24th, 2023 in relevance with Dobbs V. Jackson overturning Roe V. Wade for a whole year.

Two of my topics of interest are movies and the abortion debate. I'm pro-life, but the debate as a whole is fascinating to me. Therefore, when I discovered Lake of Fire by looking up movies about abortion, I knew I had to see it. And I'm very glad I did, as it made my top 10 favorite movies.

Lake of Fire was directed by Tony Kaye, most famous for directing American History X, unseen by me. This was a project of dedication for him, as he took 16 years to gather and edit footage. The movie, fully shot in black and white, shows how both pro-lifers and pro-choicers feel about the controversial subject. We see both sides, back and forth, and the audience simply views it and wrestles with what is presented.

As other reviewers here have noted, Tony Kaye clearly leans towards the pro-choice position of the debate. For example, most of the pro-lifers shown are religious fanatics, screaming damnation for those who get an abortion. (Hence the title Lake of Fire.)

One person opposes abortion but says abortionists should be executed. (Ironically, he shoots an abortionist later on and receives the death penalty for it.) Some pro-lifers believe that those who profane God's name should be put to death as well.

However, there are sane pro-lifers in the film. One is Nat Hentoff, an atheist who argues from biology that once sperm and egg meet and fertilize, the process of human reproduction has begun and this process should not be interrupted.

We also meet Norma McCorvey, the Roe of Roe V. Wade. We discover that some kind pro-lifers made her decide to convert not only to pro-life but also to Christianity, and she has fought against her own court case since. (She is also known to admit to being bribed to be pro-life on her deathbed, but this was revealed past 2006, when this was released.)

There are sane pro-choicers as well. Nat was introduced to us by Alan Dershowitz, a law professor. He is pro-choice, however he seems to be someone you could peaceably sit down and debate the subject with. Despite his stance, he admits that both sides of the issue make valid arguments.

This is shown in my personal favorite scene in the movie, where Alan says that when he hears people argue in favor of and against "a woman's right to choose", he always remembers the old story of a Rabbi who was dealing with a marital dispute.

He heard the husband's point of view and said: "You're right." He heard the wife's point of view and said: "You're right." One of his students heard this, was confused and said: "But, Rabbi, they can't both be right!" The Rabbi replied: "You know my son, you're right."

Kaye makes seeing both sides more challenging by showing not one, but 2 abortion procedures. The first one, shown within the first half hour, was the most unsettling for me. After a woman checks in as one would for a check up, we see the pregnant woman on an operating table, legs and vagina spread open wide.

A doctor then uses their tools to dismember the unborn child. We see legs with feet, feet with toes, and arms with hands, hands with fingers. We even see a fragment of the dismembered face, with a drooping eye practically staring at us. There's your "clump of cells". (Granted, it's a 5-month-old fetus, but it's still clearly human.)

Some of the reviewers here on IMDB have complained about this scene. One author, who awarded this a 9 out of 10 rating (which is fine within itself), is clearly pro-choice and writes: "It was an outstanding documentary that gave both sides of the issue, even to the point of showing an actual abortion being performed. I could have done without that."

Reading this made me want to re-phrase that: "I could have done without the scene that shows what I support." Sure, it's disturbing no matter your stance, but pro-choicers argue that this isn't murder, and this scene clearly shows that it is.

Another reviewer, giving it 1 star, complains about this scene, and says it made them turn off the film. The reviewer did not give their stance on abortion, but to them, I would say such a scene, revolting as it is, is necessary- as it shows what the fuss is all about. This is what pro-lifers and pro-choicers debate. Is it moral for this to happen to an unborn child or not?

As I said, the movie leans towards pro-choice, but near the end we see another abortion procedure, this one done by suction. A woman is counseled about her decision to abort. The doctor assures her by saying: "A miscarriage happens when your body isn't ready to have a child, and an abortion happens when the rest of you isn't ready." (Except no one supports or seeks miscarriages. I'd like to see someone tell that to a woman who recently miscarried.)

After this meeting, her baby (who is in the first trimester this time) suffers the suction abortion. As I watched, I saw a doctor press her fingers against a tube used in the procedure. I questioned what she was doing, and then I saw the bloody fetal parts ooze out of the tube. I have a strong stomach when it comes to gore in movies, but that image made me nauseous. I didn't need it, but I kept a bucket near me for the rest of the night as that image burned in my mind.

Following the abortion, the woman speaks to the camera and, while tearing up, assures (more to herself more than us) "I know I did the right thing." Then she trails off, and we see something arguably more shattering than the abortions: she hides her face into her hands, and sobs. End of movie, ominous music playing.

Even though she did something that I am morally opposed to, I wanted to hug that woman, and I wonder how her emotional health is now. I truly hope that she is well.

While this movie isn't quite 50/50 on the subject, the ending shows the overall point. We can discuss the debate back and forth as if our way is the only way, but, unlike the movie itself, the topic as a whole isn't always quite black and white. As a result, this movie challenged me as a pro-lifer, and even pro-choicers could be challenged as well.

Do I agree with everything in this movie? Of course not. There are some bias and statements I disagree with (for example, one pro-choicer compares aborting a fetus to removing bacteria when washing your hands, as if that's the same thing), but even then, the film as a whole was riveting and thought provoking. If documentaries are food for thought, then this is a cinematic Thanksgiving feast. This is why it is in my top 10, and a 10 out of 10 for me.

Even at 2.5 hours, since I am compelled by the topic, the pacing was not an issue for me. I was even surprised at one point when I checked and saw that I had passed the 2 hour mark. Despite its length, the film is so compelling that the minutes fly by.

No matter if you are pro-life, pro-choice, or undecided, I dare anyone to stomach the graphic material and see this movie. I felt nearly every emotion in this movie- sad, sick, anger, fear. Even as someone who opposes abortion, I felt challenged by this movie. And for that, I applaud Tony Kaye.

Lake of Fire is one of the finest documentaries I have ever seen, and the definitive film on the subject of abortion.