Cabaret

Liberalized sensibilities accompanied by the dismantling of centralized film censorship prompted the presence of more challenging politics in American movies during the ’60s and ’70s. Sidney Lumet’s The Group (1966) perhaps illustrates these changes most directly in relation to women’s rights as a film about second-wave feminism posing as a film about first-wave feminism. But even during the heyday of women’s liberation, the Weimar Germany-set Cabaret emerges as one of very few high-profile films to deal matter-of-factly with the reality of abortion.

In the 1950s-set Godfather Part II (released one year after Roe), Kaye (Diane Keaton) mentions an abortion largely as a narrative device to further illustrate Michael’s (Al Pacino) descent, contribute to the film’s pitch-black tone, and demonstrate her interpersonal revenge against Michael’s moral vacuity.

During the decades that followed, films that dealt most directly with abortion looked to the past to examine the ongoing risk entailed in a society for which abortion is not a constitutional right. Dirty Dancing (1987), the Ireland-set Circle of Friends (1995), The Cider House Rules (1999) and Riding in Cars with Boys (2001) all take place during the mid-twentieth century or before, and illustrate abortion’s illegality as a severe medical risk to desperate young women.

These films, in short, make up for abortion’s conspicuous lack of representation since Men in White, showing the risky, compromising circumstances of past times that films avoided showing in their own time. Such films posit abortion’s illegality as a problem of the past; meanwhile, echoing the days of the MPPC, the legal era of abortion is almost as absent in American movies as the pre-Roe era was.

High Fidelity 1

Of course, there is at least one notable exception. In 2000, Audrey Fisch made a case that High Fidelity, not The Cider House Rules, was the true pro-choice film of the year because of its purely interpersonal, moral-handwringing-free, contemporary-set depiction of abortion as a matter-of-fact circumstance involved in a couple’s otherwise long and complicated history. As stated by Fisch:

“High Fidelity, in a context free of dogma and high drama, represents Laura’s abortion as a brief moment of crisis that does not doom her to eternal unhappiness. In fact, the film gives Laura and Rob a happy ending. That is radical. When has a movie ever suggested that a woman can have an abortion and move on with her life?”

Based on the previous few paragraphs, Ms. Fisch, until High Fidelity, probably never.

The conspicuous absence of contemporary legal abortion as a relevant topic worth addressing in mainstream cinema became part of a larger cultural dialogue in 2007, with the release of Knocked Up and Juno. Both unexpected pregnancy comedies were criticized for not taking seriously the topic of abortion. In Knocked Up, Katherine Heigl’s Alison is a textbook example of a privileged woman who might seriously consider an abortion: she is an ambitious, young, seemingly progressive, sexually active and career-driven woman whose pregnancy, a result of a one-night stand, was the outcome of an encounter with a lazy, goal-free nobody whose failure to use protection was a consequence of his own moronic misunderstanding. (Also, does anybody know why Alison wasn’t on birth control? Plot holes, people.) Yet abortion is only mentioned through the mouths of men attempting to tell Alison what to do; Jonah Hill can’t even find the will to properly say the word. Alison seems strangely content to give up this life so that Seth Rogen finds redemption and purpose. (Judd Apatow received similar criticism for last year’s This is 40.)

While Juno faired better against feminist critiques (A.O. Scott referred to the film as the “feminist, girl-powered rejoinder and complement to Knocked Up”) and places the title character’s choice to initially pursue an abortion as a valid matter of her own choosing, Juno’s equally valid choice to keep the child is, oddly, motivated by the familiar protestations of a quirky pro-birth activist. Yes, “there wouldn’t have been either movie otherwise” and so forth, but it’s telling that even in the twenty-first century, even in lower-budget and supposedly worldly comedies, it’s unimaginable to have a protagonist that treats seriously, much less goes through with, her right to an abortion.

This is not to say that comedy and abortion are incompatible. Alexander Payne’s feature debut Citizen Ruth deals with the issue head-on in a screwball satire about a brain-dead substance abuser (the fantastic Laura Dern) who becomes an unlikely pawn in a game of ideological warfare between pro-birth and pro-choice activists. But Citizen Ruth is interested in abortion as an issue; namely, its depiction of two camps speaking absurdly over one another. By giving Ruth a secret miscarriage, Citizen Ruth delivers the point that its title character’s own private decision is hardly the point of such a debate. Yet by relinquishing itself from the responsibility of answering “will she or won’t she?,” Citizen Ruth can be rightly criticized for not actually confronting its own confrontational topic. While very funny, the film’s agnostic and false-equivalence-making satire has the insight of a 22-minute episode of South Park – that’s not a slam, but simply to say that it doesn’t ultimately contribute much to the conversation it depicts.

In N+1’s excellent article about the regrettable state of a contemporary feminist discourse (and gay rights activism) largely articulated in conservative terms, Mark Grief foregrounds the role of “sentimentalism” in the language of contemporary progressive politics in a way that may provide some insight into the depiction of abortion in movies:

“Same-sex marriage and the minimalist defense of abortion are both tactically sound for now. But the strain one begins to feel in public discussions is that people of good sense are being compromised by sentimental rhetoric originally adopted to convince bigots. Sentimentalization may be effective in a Hallmark regime, but it’s a bummer at home. Around the kitchen table, we ought to speak plainly…the point of abortion rights, in the ‘pro-choice’ position, should truly be abortions. Abortions need to occur concretely, readily, until the day contraception is magically universal and perfect; the idea that they’re inevitably tragic is just false.”

While the films discussed above hardly constitute a comprehensive survey of American films that depict the subject and/or practice of abortion (such an imaginary list would have to include this), one thing is perfectly clear: the mandate set by the MPPC is largely, albeit unofficially, still in effect. Contemporary legal abortion is not perceived to be a topic worth addressing in mainstream American cinema. High Fidelity’s notable exception proves the rule that abortion (as a matter-of-fact personal choice that in no way vilifies the person who makes that choice) is a social reality that mainstream American movies have failed to develop as part of their lexicon.

This is not to invalidate select films that evenhandedly address abortion as a complex, difficult, even regrettable scenario for the given individual (see Tony Kaye’s incredible documentary Lake of Fire), or the films that depict the horrors of a pre-Roe past. This is simply to say that, as far as movies go, we don’t know what a post-Roe society looks like in everyday terms. Perhaps such blindness has something to do with the terms of the current debate.


ARTICLE TAGS
Like this article? Join thousands of your fellow movie lovers who subscribe to The Weekly Edition from Film School Rejects. Our best articles, every week, right in your inbox!
  %
%  
Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!
Some movie websites serve the consumer. Some serve the industry. At Film School Rejects, we serve at the pleasure of the connoisseur. We provide the best reviews, interviews and features to millions of dedicated movie fans who know what they love and love what they know. Because we, like you, simply love the art of the moving picture.
Comic-Con 2014
Summer Box Office Prediction Challenge
Got a Tip? Send it here:
editors@filmschoolrejects.com
Publisher:
Neil Miller
Managing Editor:
Scott Beggs
Associate Editors:
Rob Hunter
Kate Erbland
Christopher Campbell
All Rights Reserved © 2006-2014 Reject Media, LLC | Privacy Policy | Design & Development by Face3