Lake of Fire

I engaged in an old-fashioned Internet argument today on somebody's blog comments page. Righteous indignation. Nothing quite like it.

On the other hand, even engaging with those who invariably believe only what they want to believe seems futile. Maybe that's why I've given up joining the chorus of idiots on the News-Gazette letters page. Why encourage them? (See Nicholas Kristoff's recent essay on anti-intellectualism in America. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30kristof.html)

And then again, on the OTHER other hand, I watched the abortion documentary "Lake of Fire" this morning, one of the most astounding, even-handed, two-and-a-half hour movies this side of Frederick Wiseman. This is how dialog and debate were meant to be done. It is not a film always easy to watch. It is also impossible to turn away, it is so well-made and consistently enriching and challenging, even (or especially) for a subject that you would think was well-played out, with both sides firmly dug into their trenches. Lake of Fire could shake up what you think you believe.

Smart people -- from Nat Hentoff to Noam Chomsky -- speak intelligently and persuasively from many different points of view. The movie does not take sides. The Religious Right is fully and fairly represented. One of them argues as to why abortion doctors (and blasphemers and gay people) should be executed. Later he is convicted of the murder of a doctor and is given the death penalty. That's disturbing, too. When is killing justified?

Fundamentalists are likely to walk out during a female punk rock singer performing nearly naked, jamming a clothes hanger into her G-string. However, the all-male singing group of Promise Keepers, led by Randall Terry, is almost more disturbing. I don't know which performance has the higher ick factor.

Near the end of the film, the entire process of an abortion is shown. I'm not talking about medical procedure only, but the woman's decision making, her intake interview (extensive), the care she receives during the procedure, and her emotional state following the procedure. That section of the film in itself may make you think about abortion in a new way than you ever have before.

Ultimately, Lake of Fire does seem clearly to be on the side of tolerance, convincingly revealing that no one can state with certainty or ultimate authority how to resolve something that is almost never done thoughtlessly or recklessly. I think my favorite analysis came from Noam Chomsky, who posited a line of actions, from a woman washing her hands (thus destroying potentially useful skin cells) to the killing of a three-year old baby. Somewhere within that continuum of extremes, it would seem clear that the taking of life is wrong. But no one can say where that point is.

Lake of Fire made me confront my own attitudes. It's a rare movie that actually helps one clarify one's position and yet feel empathy for almost everyone involved (certain Bible-thumpers excepted). I came away thinking I could call myself pro-life AND pro-choice.

I just looked up Ebert's review. It deserves to be read. He says, "This is a brave, unflinching... documentary that makes such an effective case for both pro-choice and pro-life that it is impossible to determine which side the filmmaker stands on."

British director Tony Kaye spent 17 years on and off making this film. It has been his life's work.