Posts
AFTER TILLER:
Synopsis: George Tiller was an
American physician, one of only a few left in the US able to provide late-term
abortions. He was assassinated in Kansas
in 2009, after which only four doctors were left in the US who could provide
late-term abortions. These doctors now
have the dubious distinction of being the number-one targets of the “pro-life”
movement and fight to keep these services available to women across the country.
This film follows them as they try to do
a job they believe in despite the danger to their lives.
My thoughts: OK, first I
will get out of the way a problem with semantics… I hate the use of the phrase “pro-life,”
as if to say that people who are “pro-choice” are not also “pro-life.” For the record, I am resolutely pro-choice
and cannot imagine a single thing happening in my life that could change
that. I am also pro-life – I do not know
any woman who’s had an abortion who’s taken it lightly. I know nobody for whom it’s been nonchalantly
used as birth control. If the “pro-life”
side of this debate were more honest, they would describe themselves as “anti-choice,”
at least. Because they are anti-choice.
That out of
the way, I will say this. After Tiller is exceptionally
good. It’s kind of a quiet documentary
for such a heated subject. The only
zealotry – and I do not mean this in a complimentary sense – is that of the
anti-choice forces, who seem to see absolutely no irony in their murder of
doctors who perform abortion. These are
doctors who do take very seriously their Hippocratic Oath… we all know the
line, “first, do no harm.” And that is
what they do. Agree or disagree, it’s
worth watching this one just to see how very conscientiously and ethically they
approach their work, how compassionately they treat their patients.
“Late-term
abortion” is a bit of a red herring, though – the anti-choice folks seem to be
taking the position that a woman can go to a doctor who provides abortion
practically up to her due date and get that abortion just because she wants
it. It’s not that simple. Nothing ever is. Late-term abortion has great restrictions, not
the least of which is the physical difficulty just in accessing a doctor who
provides it. Fewer than 1% of all
abortions performed in the US are ‘late-term’ procedures. The documentary follows a few people – some very
young, some not so much; some are single women, some are married couples – and tells
their stories. Late-term abortions are
not available “just because,” and all but 1 of the people whose stories were
told in this work were dealing with the knowledge that if they continued the
pregnancy, the baby would be born profoundly disabled, both mentally and
physically, and in most cases might expect to live only weeks after birth… and
those weeks would be spent in a hospital, with medical intervention at every
step that would, in the end, still have a dead baby. The people whose stories are told here are
not people who didn’t want a baby – quite the opposite, in fact. And that’s actually the case with most
abortions, even those done very early on in a pregnancy. Another thing that the anti-choice folks
prefer not to dwell upon.
We see
post-abortion follow-up, and we see how lovingly that care is offered by the
physicians and their staffs. And I
wonder anew just why it is that so many people are utterly convinced that the
greatest value of a woman who seeks abortion is that she should become an
incubator for a baby, whether she wants it or not; whether she’s able to care
for it or not.
So overall, you’re saying? The verdict’s in. See
this film.
BUYING SEX
Synopsis: Recent Canadian court
cases are used as a framing device to dig deep into the morality of selling
bodies for pleasure. Ranging far afield to New Zealand--where prostitution was
legalised--to Sweden (where the government clamped down), this NFB production considers
the true costs of the trade. Nicely
photographed, with music by Asif Illyas (who is developing quite a reputation
for theatrical scores, and deservedly so! Check him out at www.theshire.ca and www.asifillyas.com ).
My Thoughts: The AFF blurb for this film says, “Buying
Sex is one of those films that promises to inspire a torrential discourse on an
enduring global social problem.” I don’t
think that my expectations of the film were quite that great, but I did expect
rather more than was ultimately offered.
Written by Teresa MacInnes and directed by MacInnes and Kent Nason, I
had high hopes that it might live up to its promise. It really didn’t, and it was in the Q&A
period after the film that I figured out why.
Both MacInnes and Nason said more than once that they were careful not
to take sides in the debate… and technically,
they did not. Nowhere in the film does
either of them say on camera, in words, that they don’t approve of buying
sex. Yet, that’s the overwhelming sense
I got (as did the friend with whom I saw it).
They
interviewed a number of sex workers, past and current. One woman who had what is arguably the most constant presence in the film
was a sex worker, she said, for 15 years.
She is now vehemently against prostitution and has become an activist in
this field. Kudos to her. She’s fairly articulate, and though I’d never
heard of her, she’s done quite a lot of writing on the subject as well,
apparently. Two of the Canadian women
interviewed are currently sex workers.
Both of them affirm that they chose the job, that they have no issue
with doing the job, and that it is… just a job.
I don’t know that I could be that blasé about it, but I also don’t think
that I could take the position of the activist (whose name I didn’t note) that
every person who becomes involved in the sex trade does so because she is
drug-addicted and/or was molested as a child.
Again, it’s just not that simple.
The picture
in New Zealand is very different – prostitution is legal there, and there are
brothels. One young woman observed that
after just a couple of years in the trade, she would be able to buy a house…
but her university degree had opened no doors for her in obtaining traditional
employment. Anti-sex-trade activists
argue that this is proof that the world is more misogynistic than we believe,
because women should be able to buy homes based on traditional (non-sex-trade)
work.
And in
Sweden, the clamp-down on the sex trade has been really serious. The Swedish government would tell you that it
doesn’t exist – but really, you can hear the eye-rolling. It might have gone back underground, but it
certainly exists. As one of the Canadian
women pointed out, having been in the trade for more than 30 years, the only
way to get rid of prostitution is to get rid of sex AND get rid of money. I suspect she’s right.
So overall, you’re saying? You can see the film if you are so inclined on the website of
the National Film board of Canada. For
my money, I was really disappointed, and mostly because the writer and
directors said that they took no position either way, when it seems very clear
to me that they don’t approve of it. I
didn’t come away with any feeling, one way or another. Nobody’s argument was persuasive enough to me
to convince me of its relative rightness or wrongness. I don’t really know if it’s right or wrong,
though I am leaning more towards being ok with it than not, provided that it
truly is something freely chosen. Don’t
think that I’d do it – but don’t think I could judge people who do, either.
REACHING FOR THE MOON
Synopsis: We are in 1950s Rio de Janeiro for this story of the passionate love
affair between Pulitzer prize-winning American poet, Elizabeth Bishop, and
Brazilian architect, Lota de Macedo Soares. Bishop was born in Worcester, MA,
in 1911 and died in 1979; she spent several years in Great Village, Nova
Scotia, a place which she loved greatly and where she experienced the greatest
rupture possible to a child – the hospitalization of her mother in a mental institution
in Dartmouth, NS, when Elizabeth was only 5 years old. Her mother, diagnosed as permanently insane,
never saw Elizabeth again. That alone
would be the stuff of which great film is made.
But the film
is not about that and touches only very lightly on her childhood. Reaching
for the Moon is based on the best-selling Brazilian novel Rara Flores, and follows Bishop
(Miranda Otto) to Rio, where she stays with her friend Mary and Mary’s partner,
Lota (Glória Pires). As you might
expect, chemistry is involved, and Elizabeth and Lota engage in a passionate
affair. Although Mary is devastated, Lota is determined to have both women at
all costs. The ménage-a-trois is thrown off-balance when Lota starts work on
her biggest project to date, designing Parque do Flamengo in Rio. Eventually,
their relationship strained, Elizabeth moves back to New York in 1967 to take a
teaching post, and after Brazil's military coup Lota's life is never quite the
same.
My Thoughts: It would be a spoiler to tell you what
happened to the three women involved in this story, so I won’t. What I will say is that I went to see this
film with no particular agenda other than to spend some time with friends. I am SO glad that I did. It’s a remarkable film about a rather
incredible story. Think about it – 1950s
Rio, where a Pulitzer Prize winning poet was the 2nd of two intimate
partners of a woman who was obviously doing very, very, very well as an
architect. There’s another film there, in Lota’s life! The filmmakers do a great job drawing the
life of a poet – Bishop didn’t just sit at her desk and pen a few verses. Every line was crafted to be a very specific
piece of art. We see her striding back
and forth in her studio, smoking and sometimes drinking, muttering to herself
as she works out a poem. We sort of know
that writers of longer works do this – we expect it, for instance, of
novelists. The realisation that of course it’s just as much work for poets is in the end a bit of an eye-opener!
Bishop is
never drawn as saintly, nor perfect. She
is often very tightly-wound, more than a little selfish. She is profoundly complicated. And of course, she’s a lesbian. What was that like for her in the US in the
1950s? Are we surprised that she wound
up in Brazil for such a long time?!
Beautifully
wrought, beautifully filmed, an awesome story.
I’m not sure there’s really anything about this film that I didn’t
like. The character of Lota, played by Glória
Pires, was at first somewhat offputting, I’ll admit – I found her brusque and
not altogether attractive as a human being.
But in the end, I realised that Pires had gotten it right.
So overall, you’re saying? You should
most definitely see this film. It’s kind
of long (118 minutes), but you will not notice the time pass, because you will
undoubtedly become engrossed in the film.
And when you leave, I’d lay odds that like me, you’re gonna go to the
library and get some Bishop books out so that you can read more of her
work. At the very least, you’re gonna
Google her!
ADORE
Synopsis: Two women, their sons, a love story and
morality play, all in one. You will
laugh, you will cringe, you will wonder why this movie wasn’t made before. And I really can’t tell you much more about
it without spoiling the plot! Naomi
Watts (Lil) and Robin Wright (Roz) have been BFFs since their idyllic childhood
in some unnamed Australian beach town. Their sons have a similarly deep bond, quickly
drawn in a few emotive scenes in the early part of the movie, when one of the
boys’ fathers dies unexpectedly. The story takes us through changing and intersecting lives.
My Thoughts: This film is really about the events
which begin to unfold in one particular summer. Time passes, as it generally
does, and in one pivotal summer, lots of things explode… Roz’s marriage, for
one. But lots of other things as well. There is love here, and loss. Pathos and passion. Right and wrong – or is it wrong? There’s
definitely an “eww” factor with this film, which comes THISCLOSE to being about
incest but which ultimately is not. By
the time the “eww” occurs to you, you may find that you’re already invested in
the characters and willing to take the journey with them. You probably won’t be sorry that you did.
So overall, you’re saying? Definitely see this film.
Besides the acting (excellent), besides the scenery (breathtaking), the
film pushes the limits as to what’s acceptable and what might not be. Probably even better if you see it with a
friend, so that you can dissect it afterwards!
(Presently in theatrical release in Halifax, so you can see it in
theatres for the time being. Go get your
tickets.)
PRISONERS
Synopsis: Hugh Jackman and Terrance Howard (in a
very understated performance) are facing every parent’s worst nightmare. Their young daughters disappear, and it seems
that the only lead is a dilapidated RV parked on their street earlier in the
day. Jake Gyllenhaal’s Detective Loki
arrests its driver, Alex Jones (Paul Dano, in an incredible performace), but a
lack of evidence forces his release. Time passes, and the more time that passes,
the less chance there is of the children’s being found alive, or at all… what can worried
parents do? And what’s with Gyllenhaal’s
(literally) buttoned-up character? What’s
the deal on visible neck tattoos on a police officer? Very unlike his usual
roles.
My Thoughts: Another rather long film (2 h, 26 m!)…
and I have rarely heard a full theatre so still. Occasional gasps, even a couple of giggles,
but in general, silence. This is a
gripping psychological thriller, not to be missed. How far would you go to find your missing
child? What lines would you cross? And how could you ever be ok in the end?It’s not giving away a plotline to tell you that the Alex in the story is himself a victim, though no graphic detail is given – in fact, we’re not even certain of that until almost the end of the film. In addition to the stellar performances of the male leads (you won’t even care that neither Jackman nor Gyllenhaal never appear shirtless, I promise), I want to pay some attention to the female leads. Granted, this is a story driven by the men, most particularly by Jackman’s character. But it felt a little odd that the mothers of these children seemed so peripheral to the story. Maria Bello’s Grace Dover was pretty much sedated through the film, and far from feeling sympathy for her, she really got on my nerves. There was little credible or likeable about her even before her daughter was kidnapped. Viola Davis’s ability was kind of wasted on her small role as Howard’s onscreen wife, Nancy Birch.
The work of
Melissa Leo, on the other hand, as Holly Jones, was simply incredible. Honestly, though she looked familiar to me,
she so inhabited the role that I didn’t realise who played the part until I
read the full cast & crew list on IMDB!
She’s had a pretty impressive career and struck my radar first in Will
Smith’s “21 Grams,” though I was pretty much unaware of her after that until Mark Wahlberg’s
“The Fighter.” I’m predisposed to like
Leo, but I had no idea she was in this film and didn’t twig to it until after I’d
actually seen it, so good was she in the role.
Oscar-worthy performance (not that they’ll ask me!)
So overall, you’re saying? Go see this film. The
story’s awesome, acting by the main characters is superb, and it will grip your
attention right until the end… It’s also, near as I can figure out, the first
really big-budget work from Canadian director (Denis Villeneuve, of “Incendies”
repute).
No comments:
Post a Comment