Abortion and the Silver Screen

I haven’t seen Knocked Up, but apparently quite a discussion has developed in the blogosphere (is this term still in use?) about the politics of the film. 

Dana Stevens, who in her initial review of the film posited that abortion was not even presented as an option in the film and that this was likely a decision based on marketing, has written a follow up in which she discusses some of the abortion-related hubbub surrounding the film now. 

Again, I would like to point out that I haven’t seen the film, so it would be hard for me to comment on who is right or who is wrong when it comes to the politics of the film.  I don’t mean to say who is right or who is wrong on the issue of abortion, which I also wouldn’t dare to say.  What I’m talking about here is the rightness or wrongness of various commentators who are espousing their believe that the film itself is pro-life or pro-choice. 

I have no opinion on this, obviously, as I haven’t seen the movie.  I would point out, though, that it is at least possible (call me crazy) that the film takes no stance on the politics of abortion at all, and instead is just a story about individuals in a particular situation rather than symbols of a larger movement and issue.

It’s interesting that Stevens brings up Citizen Ruth in her discussion.  I don’t know how many of you have seen that movie, but it’s a send-up of this very thing:  the politics of abortion and how this woman gets caught up in the middle of the debate with everyone treating her not as an individual in a difficult situation but a pawn in the game of abortion, to be moved and used to either side’s advantage.  She brings it up, and acknowledges it for what it is, but doesn’t connect it to Knocked Up and the fact that this film doesn’t seem to do that with the issue at all.  It seems like the film isn’t trying to be political about the issue at all, and there’s absolutely no reason why it should be, in my opinion. 

Of course, she also criticizes Citizen Ruth itself for skirting the issue of abortion by having the main character miscarry before going through with the abortion.  Only, I don’t think this is exactly fair.  First of all, it would seem the only way to end it, since you have these two sides warring and both sides are painted fairly unflatteringly, so to end it with her making the one choice or the other would only give creedence to one of the sides which I don’t think a film in that particular situation could properly afford to do.  Also, the truth is, the character does decide to have the abortion.  She’s pretty clearly made up her mind, as I recall, and it’s only at that point that the decision is taken out of her hands.  It doesn’t matter, to me, that she doesn’t have the chance to go through with the abortion itself.  In this respect, the film does plant itself squarely in the pro-choice column, even if it is disdainful of some of the tactics of that movement’s more vocal members. 

In some ways, I agree with Stevens.  It strikes me as highly unlikely that a woman in this particular situation would not give more consideration to having an abortion than she seems to in the film.  Only, it would, I think, change the whole tone of the movie.  Again, I haven’t seen it, so maybe there is a way it could have been done, having a more thoughtful and serious discussion and consideration of the abortion option while at the same time ultimately having the character choose not to have an abortion.  (She has to have the baby, or there’d be no movie at all.)  But I would think any kind of prolonged consideration of this issue, viable option or not, would put something of a damper on all the fun.  Even if abortion should be a legitimate option for a woman in this situation, there’s just nothing funny about abortion.  And since we’re talking about having to have this consideration toward the beginning of the film, when the woman first finds out she’s pregnant, I really think the entire tone of the film could easily be ruined.

Perhaps, after I see the movie, I will revise my opinion.