Lake of Fire (2006)

User Rating:

8.5/10   

Director:

Tony Kaye

Writer:

Tony Kaye (screenplay)

Genre:

Documentary

Plot:

A graphic documentary on both sides of the abortion debate. |

Plot Keywords:

Abortion | Protest Sign | Doctor | Protest | Religion

Awards:

3 nominations

Cast

Bill Baird	...	Himself
Flip Benham	...	Himself
Dallas Blanchard	...	Himself
Dr. John Britton	...	Himself
Pat Buchanan	...	Himself
Noam Chomsky	...	Himself
Frederick Clarkson	...	Himself
Alan M. Dershowitz	...	Himself (as Alan Dershowitz)
Michael F. Griffin	...	Himself
Nat Hentoff	...	Himself
Paul Hill	...	Himself (archive footage)
Roger Hunt	...	Himself
Frances Kissling	...	Herself
Douglas Kmiec	...	Himself (as Douglas Kmiec)
Emily Lyons	...	Herself
Norma McCorvey	...	Herself
John Salvi	...	Himself (archive footage)
Peter Singer	...	Himself
Randall Terry	...	Himself
Sarah Weddington	...	Herself

Runtime:

USA:152 min | Canada:152 min (Toronto International Film Festival)

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Black and White

Certification:

USA:Unrated | Canada:14A (Manitoba/Ontario) (DVD rating) | Canada:G (Quebec) (DVD rating)

Filming Locations:

Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Company:

Anonymous Content

essential viewing... if you can take it.

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.