Film on Fire: Debate Rages Over Lake of Fire
Agence France Press recently described the film: "Lake of Fire," currently on limited release in the United States, unwinds over more than two and a half hours of interviews with some of the leading figures from the pro-life and pro-choice camps. The film has had antiabortion activists worried because of the film's detailed discussion of antiabortion terrorism, and interviews with convicted murderers Paul Hill and Michael Griffin. As I wrote earlier this year: Kaye's film forces us to contend with the domestic terrorism that has marked the antiabortion movement for a generation. ABCNews.com has a detailed story on reactions to the film.
"I'm confused about the whole thing," [director Tony] Kaye told ABCNews.com. "If you gave me a piece of paper with a pro-life and a pro-choice box, without thought I'd pick the pro-choice box. I think a woman should be able to choose exactly what she does with her [body]. But I still think there's a person being killed, and that's not good." Wanda Franz of the National Right to Life Committee, who had not seen the film, had understandably bland and non-committal quotes in the ABC piece. Not so the prochoice voice:
"This was not a balanced portrayal of the issue," said Carol King, former National Organization for Women board member and abortion-rights activist, who has seen the documentary. "One of the things that has upset me more than anything else is the [comparison] of the anti-choice extremists to pro-choice activists. I have never encouraged in any way to kill people with whom I disagree." ... From the prolife side, a New York magazine reviewer agrees that the symbolism of the dead fetus is powerful, he argues, unbeatable. But, based on reading press reports, Tom Hoopes, executive editor of the National Catholic Register, (and who has not seen the film) says he smells a rat. His collumn at The National Review, is titled: "Lake of Bias: No choice but pro-choice."
He quotes Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz: "Everybody is right when it comes to the issue of abortion," he says in the film. "In the end human beings have to decide. In the end each of us has to decide using whatever resources we have available to us: religion, our mind, our sense of what is right and wrong in society." That may be Dershowitz's view, but it is not (in my view) Tony Kaye's view. In anycase, we have so far seen people well-within both the prochoice and antichoice camps argue that the film slants their way or slants the other way. It is the stuff of which great debates are made. Personally, I think the signficance of the film lies elsewhere -- it is a work of art more than it is journalism. It is intended to stimulate people's thinking on this. I suspect that people's reactions are exactly what interests Kaye. I read that he was outside of one theater filming people's reactions recently. There are undoubtedly many who do not want to discuss Lake of Fire at all. My argument is that the public discussion is going to happen anyway. It matters less which side benefits most in the film itself, and matters a lot more how each side develops considered and effective responses to the film and to public reaction -- whatever that turns out to be.
Film on Fire: Debate Rages Over Lake of Fire | 3 comments (3 topical, 0 hidden)
Film on Fire: Debate Rages Over Lake of Fire | 3 comments (3 topical, 0 hidden)
|
||||||||||||
|