Diagonaldi Very well executed

GazerRise Fantastic!

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

TeenzTen An action-packed slog

jzappa There are contradictory values. Apart from each other, each value is considerably rational. The value of preserving human life, or for that matter any other organism, is a value we should accept. You should not ever go readily kill some animal because it's to one's liking. On the other hand, most of us are in unison on stomping a roach. This is generally the case. The values we hold are not definite. They are ever conditional because life is comprised of problematic scenarios and compromises that collide with our values. If you apply yourself to an individual abstract value, it may sound valid, and maybe it is, but you have to ask what it means under exacting circumstances. So freedom to choose is valid, defending life is valid, and sometimes they come into collision. That is the issue of abortion. Those who regard passionately the issue of abortion in America, no matter which side they are on, may complain that Tony Kaye's graphic powerhouse documentary tells the other side.This is a bold, unintimidated, occasionally almost unwatchable documentary that makes such a compelling illustration for both pro-choice and pro-life that all you can deduce at the end is that both sides have productive supporters, but the pro-lifers also have some disquieting people on their side. One is a sincere young man named Paul Hill, cleancut, aviator glasses, who says we should kill all abortionists. He doesn't stop there. We should also execute all blasphemers. Anyone who says God dammit should be executed? "Yes," he answers solidly. In awhile, he murders a Florida doctor who performed abortions. It's one of two murders in the film which conclude with the death penalty, which pro-life champions tend to advocate. Other pro-lifers purchase property next to abortion clinics and fashion platforms so they can climb onto them and scream over fences at young women entering the clinics.They judge abortion to be murder, clear as day, and they are also against birth control and sex education, which have shown to decrease unplanned pregnancies and hence abortions. On behalf of their effort to convince, Hill shows vivid footage of abortions and their aftermath. The scene that struck me most gravely has a doctor sifting through a pan of blood, fluid and body parts to be certain he has withdrawn all of a fetus. Tiny hands and feet can unequivocally be seen. Throughout the film, we see more than enough to persuade us that what is being aborted is not seldom unmistakably human. The most rational words of argument on the pro-life side come from Nat Hentoff, the veteran left-wing writer for the Village Voice, characterized as a civil libertarian and an atheist. He contends from a lucid, not religious, perspective that when a sperm and an egg merged, a human is being conceived, and the development should not be infringed upon. His detached assertions, whether or not you agree with them, are a levelheaded kernel in a riotous whirlwind.Another key witness in the film is Norma McCorvey, who was the anonymous Jane Roe in the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. She was a pro-choice activist for years, had her home and car shot at, felt practically a prisoner in her house, and then there was an unforeseen occurrence. But we also meet, anonymously, some of the young women who requisition at abortion clinics, and hear their stories. And we hear very real and very true statistics: If abortion is made illegal again in America, the abortion rate will stay essentially the same as it was before Roe v. Wade, but the fatality rate will begin to increase. Before the Supreme Court decision, the foremost means of death among young women was not cancer, not heart disease, not car crashes, but secondary responses of illegal abortions. These are the vital facts Kaye took the responsibility to include.This depressingly real expose has been a life's work for Kaye, a British citizen who filmed it on and off for 17 years, and who has said that he still does not know his own personal feelings about abortion. He shoots in 35mm wide-screen, using black and white; take one wild guess as to why that's of integral significance to the way we view the film's content. As in his great narrative feature American History X, he uses Anne Dudley's almost overwhelmingly emotional score only in scenes of an unequivocal nature, never to manipulate our feelings one way or another. He interviews brilliant voices of our time such as Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz. At two and a half hours, his film doesn't feel prolonged, as at every moment something arresting, alarming, dumbfounding or maddening is taking place. Correct, he attacks neither side of the argument. But what he shows by chance is how the practice of diplomatically reciprocated views and civilized discourse in America has been usurped by fixed, hard-shell true believers who ignore and disdain voices of composure and equilibrium.

Streetballa I saw a few people on here proclaiming themselves as pro-life and panning the film for supposedly being biased against their view.First of all, purely on balance alone I'd say the film is equal to both sides. It's just that most of the stuff which makes you want to be pro-life comes at the beginning of the film while most of the content which makes you want to be pro-choice comes in the second half. It seems to me that they're just upset that their side didn't get the proverbial last word.Secondly, this film is not about balance anyway. It's about documenting the cultural debate in the film about abortion in America. Whether one or two dissenting reviewers of this film are or not, the fact is that most of the pro-life advocates are Christian religious fringe. Of course there are exceptions, and they document that in the movie. Although I don't think Kaye should have given an hour to the secular atheist pro-lifers, because frankly there aren't that many of them.The criticism also seem to come from people who don't even understand any points being made in the movie -- one reviewer claimed that Chomsky was comparing abortion to a woman washing her hands. That's not what he was doing at all. His example was made to demonstrate the relativity involved with the process of placing value on life.In any event, the film definitely is a roller coaster ride, and there are times where you might find yourself at odds with your own opinion. The movie being as balanced as it is, probably wont change a lot of minds, but I would think at the very least it would soften your position one way or another. If it doesn't, you're either just stubborn, or you weren't even trying to pay attention to the message of the film.

MisterWhiplash In Lake of Fire, a film that Tony Kaye- director behind American History X (which he wanted to be named under the pseudonym 'Humpty Dumpty' following a loss of final cut)- has been shooting footage for over fifteen years, is about all you need to see to know the fundamentalist and existentialist ramifications on the abortion-in-America issue. It covers all of the pro-life advocates, the murders of doctors and bombings of clinics, footage of actual abortions, and even an interview with the real-life 'Roe' from Roe v. Wade. It covers about as much ground, in interviews and footage of those at rallies and on the street and so on and so forth, that can be covered in two and a half hours.But what builds up Kaye's film to such a potent focus is that Kaye doesn't let out necessarily what *his* stance is on the issue. I think this was the way to go, and not necessarily because it would be insensitive one way or the other- in order to take as objective a stance as possible (which, in this case, is so next to impossible because of the subjective point for a woman when it comes time to decide on the pregnancy), it works best to let the sides speak for themselves. As it turns out, he doesn't let the pro-choice crowd be the only voices of reason either; one actually sees, when there isn't total crazy Bible-thumping rhetoric, some sound arguments against abortion. And why not? It's one of the murkiest of all issues in the annals of history, not just American. And as we learn painfully in Lake of Fire, no matter what the most savage and hypocritical of the maniacs who try and stop abortion practices and doctors (in the old Malcolm X 'by any means necessary' mold), women will always get abortions if it comes down to it.Kaye's scope is large and all encompassing, with interviews from the likes of pragmatic minded Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershwitz (the latter's parable about the Rabbi hits it the nail on the head, if there could be a nail in this), to intelligent pro-lifer Nat Hentoff, to Roe (real name Norma McCorvey) who got converted to being pro-life after setting the stage for all of this in the 70s, to the clean-cut psycho Paul Hill. Then there's everyone in-between, from radio show hosts to priests and pastors (one of which, an uproarious 'Lamb' protector), and then to doctors and professors. Not one word is wasted, which is staggering unto itself for over two and a half hours.What one sees is the issue of choice in general, but also the nature of zealousness. To be sure, the pro-choice crowd are far less zealous than those who use the bible (or the Pope or just any thoughts about heaven or hell in general and who they think will go to where or not) as a blanket of protection. And Kaye's style for this is like that of mourning for lack of disagreeing to agree, and vice-versa and in-between. His cinematography shoots things in a stark, gray tone, while Anne Dudley's music- very akin to American History X- is that of the utmost tragedy. There are many beautifully shot scenes, from close-ups to cut-aways, but one that strikes me the most is during the Q&A at a doctor's office with a woman who is about to get an abortion.As far as the issue itself and how viewers will take to it... It's not cut and dry. It won't reveal to you anything that might change your opinion, if it's already steadfast, about the issue. What Kaye does do, and it's a brave feat, is to not candy-coat a thing, to be provocative but not to a point of no return, to make clear what is at stake in what it means for a human being to take a life, any life, and how we approach that. As a man I will never have to make that choice of 'do I or don't I' in the first trimester. But as Lake of Fire makes perfectly clear, it's a civil rights issue through and through. It also makes for some fantastic cinema through someone as meticulous and exemplary a filmmaker as the (unprolific) Kaye. A+

antiknock It is a really powerful film and I am glad I saw it. It is the type of film that haunts you.....but it could have an hour, at least half an hour cut out of it and it would have been even stronger.The photography in the film is great and it is worth sticking through as the ending is definitely the best part of the film. I am a fan of Tony Kaye but at over 2.5 hours that was some self indulgent film-making/editing. Tony obviously has problems with editing in long form.Lake of Fire is a term that represents hell and I was in hell as the same points where made over and over and over again!!!