Lake of Fire

Lake of Fire

Lake of Fire

Lake of Fire

Early on in the film, Director Tony Kaye, shows us a live abortion. The physician's matter-of-fact approach to ending a pregnancy contrasts with the close-up of the aborted products---we see the distinct remains of a small white hand, and a head. That image stayed with me throughout the film. In another part of the film, we are shown late term, dead babies crowded into the clinic's freezer compartment. My first concern is about the accuracy of these visual whammies. The viewer might catch the fact that the woman was twenty weeks along, which makes the abortion being done midway though the second trimester. No recent stats are provided, and I'm wondering what the real statistics are regarding later terminations. We are given a scene where a religious leader with a number of children are planting a field with many small crosses. Later I learn from The New York Times, Oct. 3, 2007, that according to the film's distributor, the images of the late term (intact), dead babies in the "clinic freezer" had been given to Mr. Kaye by members of the anti-abortion group, Operation Rescue. As far as any body knows they could have been dolls---it's not that clear. I missed hearing more from women who were having to decide about an abortion. What were the causes for their dilemmas---was it lack of affordable, available preventives? Were the preventives they were using not effective? Was it the situation they found themselves in---poverty, an abusive partner, lack of information? Is our society pushing both men and women to participate in risky relationships---is our media irresponsible and seductive? What were the areas that needed our attention? It would have been informative to know what happened afterward. Were there emotional complications as the Fundamentalists have claimed? Or did most women feel that while it had been traumatic, they had done the best they could, and had gotten on with their lives? I had the distinct feeling that the first part of the long film, and the last part were done by two different people. Perhaps Kaye changed his view as he went along. We aren't given any obvious hint as to where he stands in this difficult debate. He may have well gone personally back and forth as his film seems to do. The back-and-forth doesn't seem orderly as one would expect a debate to be. At first it seems heavy on one side, and then another, and sometimes you wish he'd settle in and do a consistent, equal time, point-for-point thing. But, I have to say, the film's shock treatment keeps you enough off balance that you begin to realize how complex and big this issue is. Still, I also kept thinking that if anyone were truly serious about doing something about the issue, there were a number of savvy, fairly inexpensive, and effective ways to take care of a lot of the pre-abortion problems---so that abortions would then be needed only for special situations, they would be done safely, and the right to make one's own well-informed decision would be in place.

I'm not going to comment on my views on pro-choice or pro-life and the rather different stances of anti-choice and anti-life. I will be commenting on how I felt about this documentary as a film and how I felt about some of its content. I was attracted to this documentary because it presents itself as being balanced and unbiased. In contrast, is the content of the film. There is entirely too much time devoted to the ramblings of fanatical 'pro-life' men. They were hateful, homophobic and sexist. I'm pretty sure there are rational minded pro-life people who believe in their cause because of a reason other than god - but according to this documentary, they don't exist. The bias factor kicks in when the filmmaker talks about his reaction to a particular pro-life nutjob, and calling him 'evil'... which he is, but the audience can figure that out themselves. There is also a noted lack of variety in the interviews. Almost everyone is a white male. Some are white females. Almost everyone, I'm certain, talked about god and Christianity. I'm sure people of different ethnicity and religions (or atheists) have something to contribute to the topic. The abortion procedure along with the images of the foetal organisms are graphic. They were eye-opening and have the ability to sway people in their beliefs. The worst bits, however, come when someone showed the archaic contraception and abortion tools. There is one particular picture of a woman dead with a hanger down there that actually brought tears to my eyes. Other than that, I liked how the film was set out and although sometimes the time-line wasn't clear or the issues started rambling, it is a good documentary. I just feel that people should be aware of the flaws of the film itself. If I was undecided before the film, I'd be pro-choice after watching it. The horrible and creepy pro-life men in this film make it very undesirable to be a part of their fight. It's also a concern that they actually might be winning (if this documentary is to be believed). It's filmed in black and white, with a lot of close-ups, giving it a look of bleak timelessness. It's something I haven't seen in a documentary film before and I'm not entirely sure I want to see that sort of film-making in documentaries again. Watch it but be wary of the disgust you feel when those men start their rants and when you see the graphic images.

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!!!

While watching it i was pretty open and i watched the whole thing. however, at the end i realized that basically the side of the pro life movement had been given short shrift. the worst elements of the 'pro life' movement were put on full display. and that is not what the pro live movement is. that is certainly not what individual people who are pro life are. the 'experts' were all from the liberal perspective. people who are naive would probably be persuaded by them. however, the bible is the word of God. what it says is real and true. hell is real. heaven is real. the abortionists who were killed are in hell now. they will be there forever. the woman at the end did evil. abortion is murder. the devil is real. we will all go to the judgment of God. Jesus Christ is Lord. one of the ploys of people who are in the pocket of satan.. such as chomsky.. though he doesn't even know it i am sure.. because he is deceived by the father of lies.. is that they think they have the right to discuss things they have no right to discuss. they do not understand that their words are foolish. they do not understand that their talking about whether pro life people care about how foreign governments are treated by the usa has nothing at all to do with whether abortion is wrong. but they want to detract. chomsky is a bitter old soul about to go to hell forever. also.. the one woman.. who is also damned, who talks about abortion and mentions the catholic church.. (she is part of catholics for free choice or something) which is a false church.. says something like.. 'most people don't know the catholic church has never made a decree about when life begins.' it is hard to state how stupid a statement like that is. she is deceived. but willfully. it doesn't matter what the catholic church has made a decree about or not. it's a false church. the bible is the word of God. anyone who reads it knows the catholic church does not follow it. and as for her bringing up the stupid issue of 'when life begins.. ' no one gave her the right to bring up that issue or speak those words. they are incredibly foolish words. the reality is that if you bring up the issue of 'when life begins.. ' you are saying that it doesn't begin at conception. it's the old ploy of satan. question, question, question. hath God really said? deny. sow doubt. obviously it is an incredibly stupid question. it is an evil question. abortion is murder. God kills murderers in the lake of fire forever. it's called the second death. woe unto those who call evil good and good evil.

when i first heard that Tony Kaye – who, let's remember, first made the scene as a self-proclaimed "hype artist" – was releasing a documentary about abortion, i was understandably skeptical. turns out my apprehension wasn't necessary. this is a level-headed, even-handed analysis of a difficult and complex subject. regardless of where you might fall on the spectrum of debate, this film will raise questions that deserve reflection. and, needless to say, this is an issue which warrants attention and discussion – at the heart of the issue are some of the most fundamental questions about life; surrounding the issue, however, are myriad paradoxes, contradictions, and dilemmas... if the details and gray areas seem unresolvable, how does one contend with the big picture? the speakers assembled represent the range and nuances of the debate well; some of the images are graphic but integral; and for the most part the irrationality and unhinged emotion that often cloud this subject are avoided. i wonder about the use of B&W, both from a theoretical standpoint (the obvious point that this is not a B&W issue, for instance – or is that meant ironically? – but also the fact that some footage from primary sources had to be manipulated into B&W which might raise some thoughts about documentary technique) and from an artistic standpoint (B&W often providing a feeling of remove between viewer and image, lacking the immediacy of color... although, with this subject, perhaps making use of this sense of remove is a wise choice). this is a film which deserves to be seen – which also deserves to be widely shown in schools – but will probably never find a large audience. and – i'm only speculating here – my guess is that most of those audience members will be primarily from one side of the spectrum.

Lake Of Fire was stunning! This film literally took my breath away and left me feeling physically ill. I can easily see why it took Tony Kaye fifteen years to complete it. Filmed in stark black and white, this documentary about abortion is almost entirely made up of direct shots that do not suggest any bias on the director's part and it is never clear which side of the fence he falls on in this debate. It does, however, illustrate what can be wrong with either being pro-life or pro-choice. This film enraged me, sickened me, scared me, and even made me tear up a little bit. Really all it left me with was this feeling that any choice regarding the abortion issue would be "wrong" in some way instead of everyone being "right", as one of the speakers (Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Criminal Law at Harvard University) so eloquently put it. I have always considered myself to be pro-choice, although I have never believed that abortion was an option for me. This film highlighted many of the reasons why I feel this way, both that I feel that modern women need to have the right to choose and that I feel that abortion is in many cases horrific, and should not be taken lightly. On a purely visual level; the shots were flawless, the color choice (or lack of a use of color) was enthralling, and the editing flowed seamlessly back and forth between two sides of an issue that heeds extreme opinions on both ends. I found this to make for a very taut viewing experience. Just as you were digesting a scene from a Leftist point-of-view, the focus would shift to a speaker or compelling event from the right. It wouldn't surprise me if this were deliberate, as it made it hard for me to connect with the statements being made and forced me to pile every argument on top of another in my mind. I was elated that Kaye chose to close the film with a woman's emotional response after her abortion procedure. It very clearly illustrated that women are not just running out to get abortions on a whim, that they are difficult and painful decisions even for women that know without a doubt that they are making the best choice for themselves.

I fell upon this "documentary" strictly by accident. I wasn't too surprised that the work, which was supposed to show the abortion debate from "both sides", was decidedly slanted to the pro-abortion end of it. Except for the wonderful story of how Minister Flip Benham, & his child, were used by God to bring Norma McCorvey out of her misery into hope, this film seemed to be fixated with the murders of 3 abortionists by fringe people who had affiliated themselves with the pro-life movement. As just 1 example, it doesn't even mention that John Salvi not only shot the people in the abortion mill, but also threatened the pro-lifers outside. However, we did get a wonderful reading of a scripted dissertation by the guard who exchanged fire with Salvi. When going back & forth between the 2 sides, I noticed that the film maker continued to use lettered-people (professors & such) for the pro-abortion side, but failed to reciprocate for the pro-life side. Legitimate source such as Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist & partner of abortionist Bill Baird, was nowhere to be found to counterpoint Baird's presentation & to address the false assertion of the numbers of women who allegedly died due to using coat hangers to abort. Nathanson was a founding member of the North American Abortion Rights Action League (NAARAL), which is now the National Abortion Rights Action League(NARAL). He could have recounted how those figures were pulled out of thin air by the NAARAL group. To be balanced, they could have shown at least one of the numerous families who have multiple adopted children, adopted with no regard as to culture (race). Instead many of the "pro-choice" side were allowed to continue with the canard that pro-lifers only cared about white children & didn't care about children at all after their birth. My wife & I would have gladly interviewed for this segment. Or, I could have put them in touch with at least 1/2 dozen other families who have done as we have done. That would have been presenting both sides. I can only say that, as it was alleged that this would show both sides, I must assume that there will be a part 2, as this part didn't live up to the hype.