Early on in the film, Director Tony Kaye, shows us a live abortion. The physician's matter-of-fact approach to ending a pregnancy contrasts with the close-up of the aborted products---we see the distinct remains of a small white hand, and a head. That image stayed with me throughout the film. In another part of the film, we are shown late term, dead babies crowded into the clinic's freezer compartment.
My first concern is about the accuracy of these visual whammies. The viewer might catch the fact that the woman was twenty weeks along, which makes the abortion being done midway though the second trimester. No recent stats are provided, and I'm wondering what the real statistics are regarding later terminations. We are given a scene where a religious leader with a number of children are planting a field with many small crosses. Later I learn from The New York Times, Oct. 3, 2007, that according to the film's distributor, the images of the late term (intact), dead babies in the "clinic freezer" had been given to Mr. Kaye by members of the anti-abortion group, Operation Rescue. As far as any body knows they could have been dolls---it's not that clear.
I missed hearing more from women who were having to decide about an abortion. What were the causes for their dilemmas---was it lack of affordable, available preventives? Were the preventives they were using not effective? Was it the situation they found themselves in---poverty, an abusive partner, lack of information? Is our society pushing both men and women to participate in risky relationships---is our media irresponsible and seductive? What were the areas that needed our attention? It would have been informative to know what happened afterward. Were there emotional complications as the Fundamentalists have claimed? Or did most women feel that while it had been traumatic, they had done the best they could, and had gotten on with their lives?
I had the distinct feeling that the first part of the long film, and the last part were done by two different people. Perhaps Kaye changed his view as he went along. We aren't given any obvious hint as to where he stands in this difficult debate. He may have well gone personally back and forth as his film seems to do. The back-and-forth doesn't seem orderly as one would expect a debate to be. At first it seems heavy on one side, and then another, and sometimes you wish he'd settle in and do a consistent, equal time, point-for-point thing. But, I have to say, the film's shock treatment keeps you enough off balance that you begin to realize how complex and big this issue is. Still, I also kept thinking that if anyone were truly serious about doing something about the issue, there were a number of savvy, fairly inexpensive, and effective ways to take care of a lot of the pre-abortion problems---so that abortions would then be needed only for special situations, they would be done safely, and the right to make one's own well-informed decision would be in place.
My first concern is about the accuracy of these visual whammies. The viewer might catch the fact that the woman was twenty weeks along, which makes the abortion being done midway though the second trimester. No recent stats are provided, and I'm wondering what the real statistics are regarding later terminations. We are given a scene where a religious leader with a number of children are planting a field with many small crosses. Later I learn from The New York Times, Oct. 3, 2007, that according to the film's distributor, the images of the late term (intact), dead babies in the "clinic freezer" had been given to Mr. Kaye by members of the anti-abortion group, Operation Rescue. As far as any body knows they could have been dolls---it's not that clear.
I missed hearing more from women who were having to decide about an abortion. What were the causes for their dilemmas---was it lack of affordable, available preventives? Were the preventives they were using not effective? Was it the situation they found themselves in---poverty, an abusive partner, lack of information? Is our society pushing both men and women to participate in risky relationships---is our media irresponsible and seductive? What were the areas that needed our attention? It would have been informative to know what happened afterward. Were there emotional complications as the Fundamentalists have claimed? Or did most women feel that while it had been traumatic, they had done the best they could, and had gotten on with their lives?
I had the distinct feeling that the first part of the long film, and the last part were done by two different people. Perhaps Kaye changed his view as he went along. We aren't given any obvious hint as to where he stands in this difficult debate. He may have well gone personally back and forth as his film seems to do. The back-and-forth doesn't seem orderly as one would expect a debate to be. At first it seems heavy on one side, and then another, and sometimes you wish he'd settle in and do a consistent, equal time, point-for-point thing. But, I have to say, the film's shock treatment keeps you enough off balance that you begin to realize how complex and big this issue is. Still, I also kept thinking that if anyone were truly serious about doing something about the issue, there were a number of savvy, fairly inexpensive, and effective ways to take care of a lot of the pre-abortion problems---so that abortions would then be needed only for special situations, they would be done safely, and the right to make one's own well-informed decision would be in place.