Roe v. Wade is a 2021 feature film that provides considerable insight from a pro-life point of view into a very important US Supreme Court judgement given in 1973 that the Constitution of the United States “protects a pregnant lady’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction” (Wikipedia). Nearly five decades after that landmark ruling, the decision continues to be fervently debated within USA, between the two main political parties of the country, between church groups and women’s rights groups, and between the National Abortion Rights Action League and the National Right to Life Committee, to mention just a few.
 |
| US Supreme Court Justices listening to arguments... |
 |
| and discussing the case among themselves outside the courtroom (actors Forsythe, Portnow and Davi) |
 |
| US Supreme Court Chief Justice (Jon Voight) in his chambers reflecting on the case |
Cathy Allyn’s and Nick Loeb’s film takes the right to life
argument armed with lots of details from the genesis of the case when Jane Roe
(real name revealed much later as Norma McCorvey) became pregnant in 1969 with
her third child in Texas, where abortion was illegal, unless it was to save the
mother’s life. “Wade” refers to Henry Wade, the Texas district attorney, who
opposed the initial lawsuit of Roe.
Roe’s child was born because the legal machinery took its time to come
to a decision. The Texas laws were challenged in the US Federal Supreme Court,
argued in December 1971, reargued in October 1972, and decided in January 1973.
The key players in the controversial case appear in Roe v. Wade, the film, portrayed by actors Jon
Voight (Runaway Train; Deliverance)
and Robert Davi (Die Hard) as key
Supreme Court Justices who contributed to the final 7-2 verdict in favor of
abortion. Nick Loeb, the co-director of the film, acts in the role of the real Dr
Bernard Nathanson, who made considerable money from conducting some 6000
abortions and was an abortion rights activist initially but eventually converts
to a pro-life activist, authoring a book The
Silent Scream.
 |
| Dr Nathanson (Nick Loeb) conducting legal abortions in New York |
The film Roe v. Wade is useful viewing for those who are not aware of the background of the famous Supreme Court judgement. Where the film treads on disputable territory are the conversations between the Justices amongst themselves and within their families, which are conjectured by the scriptwriters (on the basis of various writings, they claim) but are not real, leading up to their final judgement. For viewers, their ability to sift facts from fiction, will be key to their assessment of the film for themselves.
While viewing the film, a perceptive viewer will note Dr Nathanson walking up to the altar of an empty church orally and rhetorically questioning God followed by a scene of his eventual adult baptism, which are scenes that underscore the Church support for this pro-life film. It is also a film that will recall for the viewer the importance of the recent controversy of political appointments to the US Supreme Court.
 |
| Dr Nathanson getting baptized following a U-turn in his beliefs on abortion |
To evaluate the true merits of the film Roe v. Wade one could compare and contrast the implicit arguments in a recent US film Never Rarely Sometimes Always (2020) directed by Eliza Hittman—a film that won the Berlin International Film Festival’s Grand Jury Prize, the Sundance Film Festival’s Special Jury Prize, and two honors from the US National Board of Review. Ms Hittman’s independent film is not just artistically superior to Roe v. Wade but puts forward the travails of a young pregnant woman, who wishes to abort her foetus in the US State of Pennsylvania, without parental consent, but cannot do so and subsequently travels to New York for the abortion with limited financial resources. The problems of a young mother who wishes to abort her foetus in a geographical territory that considers it totally illegal is probably best conveyed in the 2007 Romanian film 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days depicting abortions conducted under covert conditions increasing the danger to the mother’s life—a film that won the Golden Palm at the Cannes International Film Festival and 41 other awards worldwide, including one from the US National Board of Review.
If one cares to look closely at Allyn’s and Loeb’s cleverly crafted film, the pro-abortionist advocates (Dr Nathanson in his early phase, Larry Lader, Betty Friedan) are developed as prospectors for money and personal acclaim, with Dr Nathanson taking a U-turn on his perspective on abortions towards the end. In spite of the salted script, the actress Lucy Davenport playing the feisty Ms Betty Friedan stood out among the rest. The changes in Dr Nathanson’s views are subtly accompanied by physical changes for the better as the film progresses as though the film was nudging the viewer to like the person as he evolves within the film. (Of course, the version this critic viewed was a rough cut and may differ from the final released version.)
All in all, the filmmakers behind Roe v. Wade, the film, have displayed some talent and have done a good deed in trying to inform a wider public of how the Supreme Court arguments are made and the process of its Justices arriving at a decision. Whether the filmmakers who made Roe v. Wade can make films in future that transcend their personal agenda and avoid making incredible statements such as major US newspapers and magazines can be manipulated to rely on unverified sources of information, or include images suggesting Margaret Sanger, a birth control activist, as a Ku Klux Klan supporter (which innocent viewers might believe to be a fact) only the future can tell.
P.S. Roe v Wade has
won several minor awards including a “Cannes world festival” award for best
historical film from IMDB (not to be confused with the prestigious awards of
the Cannes International Film Festival of France).
No comments:
Post a Comment