Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Required Viewing: Lake of Fire

I tend to respect films that make me cry, and Lake of Fire did just that, but not by manipulating my emotions as a lesser documentary might. I cried because, after a two-and-a-half hour assault of imagery, debate, testimonials, and philosophizing, the film ends with a woman who gets an abortion and cries.

Kaye does not wax Michael Moore and tell us why she is crying, but I believe I know. I think it is because there are a host of people out there preaching at her FROM EVERY CORNER giving her blanket assessments about what is right, what is wrong, what choices are good and what choices are bad. I wanted to jump through the screen and put my arm around her and tell her I’m sorry. Not because I oppose abortion, but because I don’t do enough to prevent its necessity. I wanted to apologize for the ridiculous perversions of my belief system-the bombings of abortion clinics and the assassinations of abortion providers. I wanted to apologize for the adamant pro-lifers who live with their heads in a cloudless sky where abortion is never necessary. I wanted to apologize for the pro-choice advocates who not only think that a woman alone should be shouldered with the burden to choose, but treat such a choice as both an inalienable right in the causes of rape, incest and the woman’s health, and a privilege that can save the woman from discomfort, responsibility and inconvenience. I wanted to apologize that both sides of the issue have fought so hard to reduce her struggle to two simple words when her decision is rife with complexity.

This film is not an agenda documentary; it embodies what the term “documentary” should mean, but has been lost in the current quagmire of films that pass as documentaries: one-sided diatribes that use the image either as a bludgeon to beat the other side into submission or as a salve to comfort fellow ideologues. Critics who watch Lake of Fire typically complain about it being biased, but you know they are wrong because the claims of bias tip to either side of the scale. Some claim it is too conservative, while others claim it is too liberal. But in attempting to peg Kaye down, they only reveal their own bias, and they succumb to the same type of reductionist rhetoric that made this film a necessity. They think that in their paltry review they will be able to do what Kaye could not do in 154 minutes: solve the abortion issue. In doing so, they miss the whole point of this film-this issue is too complex to solve with picket lines and one-liners. It is deeply moral, deeply theological, deeply philosophical, and deeply personal and until we start listening, we are not going to get anywhere, and that goes for everyone, not just those bigoted pro-lifers.

The film has not received much buzz because it is just too hard a sell I suppose, and that is why you must watch it. I am prone to overstatement, but here I go anyway: this is one of the most important documentaries in the last decade, because it refuses to settle for simple answers and trendy naïveté.


At first you will wonder if Kaye is pro-life with his heavy reliance on religious symbolism at the film’s beginning and perhaps even his choice of title, but it all comes together as the movie progresses, and you are forced to deal with arguments that will both madden and impress you. You are treated to the best and worst of both extremes of the debate, but also cogent analysis from those more moderate voices who have given much thought to the issue.

This film is not for the faint of heart. Kaye shows footage from two abortions and presents an expert who gives graphic explanation of back-alley abortions along with a photo of a woman who dies as a result. Both sides will squirm at these images, and we should be forced to do so. See no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil is no longer an option with this issue. It is time we took this thing head on.

After railing against the pros for using their reviews as a bully pulpit for their own easy answers, it would be hypocritical for me to do the same, but I will say that this film helped me see through the muddy waters a bit more clearly and made me realize a few things.

As I mentioned earlier, I was struck with the notion that we who are against abortion must do more to prevent abortion than seek its illegalization. I think Christians need to take leadership again in this issue instead of being drug along by a political party who is using abortion as a means to coerce us to vote for them. The type of leadership we must take, however, cannot be the type we have sought in recent years. If we are to be followers of Christ, it will mean that we suffer for others, and holding a sign is not close enough to the kind of suffering Jesus emobodied. There are promising things happening. Locally, we have the House of Grace, crisis pregnancy center, which is designed to truly give girls another option, instead of the one choice abortion advocates seem to think is the only logical possibility. We need more of those safe houses, and less blockades at abortion clinics. We need more men who will treat sex as a privilege that entails responsibility, not an inalienable right devoid of consequences. If all the men who claim to be Christian or pro-lifers actually made a few simple (perhaps not easy) choices themselves before having sex (i.e., don’t, wait, use a condom, buy birth control) to ensure that unintended pregnancies don’t happen, I am quite certain the million or so complex and difficult choices women must make every year would be reduced significantly.

But on the whole, this movie further confirmed that we all really need to listen a lot better than we are, and if you are someone that finds yourself on either end of the abortion spectrum, Lake of Fire would be a great place to start.

Proceed to Closing Thoughts-Sounding Off

Return to Destructive Interference Issue 1

The Watchmen

While my current quote may be a far too cutting indictment on Benjamin Button, I really liked Matty's word picture there. Very well put. I have yet to see the film, so I cannot offer my opinion yet, but I'm planning on posting my thoughts on the Oscar films once I've gotten the last few on the checklist. It will not be totally all-encompassing because I live in Panama City, and many of the films never have come and probably will never come here, but I am going to try to give the most thorough treatment I can.

In the mean time, I thought I'd give my thoughts on the upcoming adaptation of the graphic novel Time magazine named (for better or worse) as one of the top 100 novels of all time.



I have seen the theatrical trailer twice now, and though I was excited the first time, I now have no faith that Snyder has done the source material its due justice. Perhaps the first time I was swayed by the music (I have a soft spot for Muse’s undulating ostinatos), or maybe I was just excited to see imagery from the book translated to the silver screen. But the second time I noticed every flaw, and I have good cause to assume that this film will not work.

Even during the first viewing I was distracted by Rorschach’s voice. Apparently Snyder did not hear all the complaints concerning Bale’s guttural whisper as Batman. Most people were willing to forgive Batman’s grunting delivery because they liked the film, but why in the world did The Watchmen’s filmmakers decide to copycat that element of the Batman franchise? But aside from copycatting the tone of Batman’s voice, what really frustrates me about Rorschach’s wheeze is that it does not match his character at all. (SPOILER WARNING)

In the book Rorschach, when not wearing the mask, looks like Opie-a red-haired spindly thing whose voice probably cracks-but they have to make him sound like a throat-singer in the film. In the book he is a force to be reckoned with, not because he sounds menacing, but because he does things no one else has the stomach for. He’s a sociopath who happens to have a moral compass (of some sort). And though it seems the movie forgets, he is not a superhero. The film shows his mask morphing from ink-blot to ink-blot as if he has some kind of special ability or cool gadgetry. But no, it's just a big sock with an ink-blot on it.(CORRECTION: Actually, I just looked back at the graphic novel, and Rorschach's mask did change its images-So...it looks like the filmmakers were a bit more perceptive than I gave them credit for...mea culpa ) The Watchmen was not a comic book about superheroes, but vigilantes who wear suits. They had no special powers (except for John). But from the trailer, it is evident that Snyder wants to take the superpowers angle and exploit it.

There is a scene in which Rorschach Jackie Chans a scaffold, and a certain character tosses The Comedian across a room and out the window as if they reside in a world that abides by the gravity laws of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I understand that Snyder is going for style here, but it is the wrong style.

The Watchmen was meant to be the ultimate noir. Dirty and depressing, its pages were rough, and its images as coarse as 12-grit sandpaper. But in its film incarnation Snyder opts for glitz over grit, giving us airbrushed explosions (that he manipulates with that trite fast-slow Matrix time technique as if the umpteen uses in 300 were not enough) and sleek costumes.

Trailers can mislead, true, but I am going out on a limb here to say that this film will not live up to the hype.