I know Robert Novak isn’t exactly “hip,” but I didn’t think it was possible for someone to be so thoroughly disconnected from reality. His column this week is about a movie called Bella, in which a pregnant woman decides to - wait for it - give birth. This, Novak says, “offers hope for the beleaguered antiabortion movement to reverse the political tide running against it.”
Now, Novak himself notes that there are no tirades against abortion in the film. It seems relatively apparent that it was made with a conservative bent, but I’m not sure how having a baby somehow strikes a blow to the pro-choice movement, given that childbirth is, you know, a reproductive choice.
But we’ll give Novak the benefit of the doubt and assume that he thinks any movie which shows a woman giving birth is a point for the anti-choicers. Which is why I’m confused as to how Bella is any different from nearly every other movie released this year, most of which include women who are pregnant, giving birth, or living with children, and very few of which portray abortion as a valid medical decision.
I suspect that the differences lies in the fact that the main character in Bella is not only pregnant, but unmarried, poor and Mexican. In other words, the kind of woman that men like Robert Novak assume account for all the abortions in this country.
But after that’s established, the rest of the column spirals into such confusion that I’m wondering if Bob is playing a little trick on us because it’s Thursday Opposites Day at WaPo. To wit:
The loss of numerical strength on Capitol Hill reflects a public relations and political victory by the abortion lobby. Republican politicians tend to give only lip service to the issue, typified by President Bush’s silence on abortion. Republican candidates have accepted support from pro-life forces — and then kept quiet about abortion, leaving the field open to pro-choice advocates.
Say wha? Sure, President Bush has been silent on abortion, if by “silent on abortion” you actually mean “declaring the anniversary of Roe v. Wade ‘National Sanctity of Human Life Day‘.” And Republicans have indeed given only lip service to the issue, if by “lip service” you mean “passing all kinds of restrictive legislation that makes it far more difficult for women to get abortions, and unconstitutionally banning an abortion procedure.”
“Bella,” unknown to the general public, has generated excitement and anticipation in conservative Catholic and other antiabortion circles. The problem is getting the film in theaters around the country for its public premiere early next April. That is never easy for an independent film with no box-office names, but the problems are magnified when its message runs counter to the social mores of Hollywood.
Because the “social mores of Hollywood” promote abortion at every turn. Which is why I can think of exactly one recent film that portrays abortion in a non-judgmental way (that film would be High Fidelity), without moralizing or lecturing or agonizing. I’m sure there are others, but it would be hard to argue that abortion is flippantly promoted in Hollywood today. How many actresses do you know of who have spoken publicly about their abortions? How often have the words “Celeb Abortion Craze!” graced the covers of Us Weekly and People? By contrast, those magazines survive off of spotting baby bumps and getting pictures of celebrity children — and even argue that pregnancy is the new hot look, and is good for your career.
They may be shallow, and I may feel bad for their kids, but I wouldn’t say that the Hollywood standard is to promote abortion and shun childbirth.
But even with the Toronto prize, which in the past has led to Academy and Golden Globe awards, it is hard to get the film in movie houses, and it may be necessary for the filmmakers to form a distribution company. The avowed reason for the difficulty is the inexperience of the director and a cast with names unfamiliar to American moviegoers. But the film’s producers say the same left-wing Hollywood establishment that attacked “The Passion of the Christ” is sniping at “Bella,” which lacks a Mel Gibson in support.
Hollywood is indeed hostile to religious films right now.
If the crucifixion in “The Passion” was hard for non-Christians and some Christians to take, “Bella” on one level is a drama without religious overtones. But while the audience at Monday’s screening was moved to tears, reaction from a commercial theater audience — including women who have chosen an abortion — could be different. The pro-life movement hopes, in the absence of effort by supposedly pro-life politicians, that it will point to a different way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.
Because pregnat women have never learned that they could give birth if they wanted to.
