I still haven’t seen it, but Ms. Lauren gives it rave reviews. There’s an interview with the director, Cristian Mungiu, in the LA Weekly, and he makes a few comments I’d like to highlight. Mungiu says,
It didn’t start from the idea of making a film about abortion. I hope that it speaks about this period and how people adapted, as you say. And I also hope it speaks about something that is not just connected with that period. For me, it’s also a film about responsibilities and decision making, and I think these are things which are very universal, and I believe that is why there is this sympathy for the film in lots of places. Even in places where people don’t know much about what was going on in Romania, people still relate to this.
I like that quote because it highlights not only the connections between anti-abortion laws and oppression generally, but because Mungiu talks about abortion, reproduction and other forms of personal decision-making as “responsibilities” that “are very universal.” That’s true, obviously, and it shouldn’t be surprising or new to hear it — but in a country where “taking responsibility” inevitably means “having a baby even if it’s the least responsible thing you can do,” that quote is refreshing.
He also makes the controversial decision to show an image of the aborted fetus. He says:
When I wrote, I thought I was going to show it, but later on I doubted myself, so I shot the scene two different ways, just to make sure that I had the option in postproduction. But once we were editing the film, it was obvious to me that it had to be there, because it is part of the story. Sometimes I wonder why people ask about this, because if you understand that I’m talking about a character who comes to understand something because of what she sees, it’s very obvious for me. I never thought about this in terms of some political debate. It’s part of what I wanted to say and part of my story. I thought that it was necessary to show things that are more terrifying when you see them than when you imagine them. It’s up to you to find your own conclusion.
[...]
It’s a very controversial subject and scene. For me, it’s the right thing at the right time. It’s about an author’s vision, and you don’t question that. Whether you like it or not or you think it’s necessary, it’s not any of our business. That’s how we chose to show it to you. If it’s too painful to watch, that’s your problem. Those are the facts. This is what a fetus looks like. It’s not to say, “Look, it has eyes and hands — it’s already a person.” Don’t make that mistake. It’s not saying it’s wrong to have an abortion or it’s right. To me, it has something to do with the past and the future. They say if you don’t understand your past, you don’t have a future. I don’t know if that fetus represents the future or the past, but we’ll see. Romania is still very young as a free nation.
Reading this, I was reminded of a conversation I had with a young woman (about my age) when I was in Tunisia. We’ll call her Ella. It came up that I was a feminist blogger/writer, and that I wanted to eventually go into a career in international women’s health. We started talking about abortion, and Ella told me about her time studying in the Netherlands, and how a good friend of hers, who was also an exchange student there, got pregnant. I don’t remember where the pregnant woman was from, but it wasn’t Europe and it wasn’t Tunisia, and it was some place where abortion is generally illegal or highly limited. So she was scared. She went to someone at the school, and that person (a counselor or administrator or something along those lines) explained the liberal abortion laws in the Netherlands, telling the woman that she simply had to make an appointment at the local health clinic and that everything would be taken care of. Ella went with her. They had an appointment, so there was no multi-hour wait. The clinic was clean, friendly and well-maintained. First the woman had a counseling session, wherein the counselor explained the process of abortion, and also detailed her childbirth and adoption options. The counselor told Ella’s friend about the Netherlands’ many generous programs to help families and low-income people so that she was fully informed of her options. The counselor made sure that no one was pressuring her to terminate the pregnancy, and they discussed how she felt about the abortion. It was a time for the woman to just have someone listen to her in a completely non-judgmental way.
Ella was allowed to hold her friend’s hand in the operating room. The doctor, she said, was nice, and made reassuring comments throughout the procedure. Nurses were on-hand making sure that the woman was ok. When the procedure was over, the doctor asked if she would like to see what he removed. He explained that some women come across pictures of supposedly aborted fetuses online or elsewhere, and that not seeing what the products of abortion look like can be difficult on some women — they have nightmares or they imagine something that doesn’t resemble reality. So Ella and her friend looked. And for her friend, Ella told me, seeing what abortion looked like — and it didn’t look like a baby or even a fetus at that early point, but it did look like surgery — set her mind at ease. For her, it was healing.
It sounds like the fetus imagery in this movie is more graphic — and probably more disturbing — than the reality of what most abortions look like. Most of the abortion imagery I’ve seen has come from anti-choice protests and websites, and much of that is fake — they’re usually pictures of full-term stillbirths or very late-term miscarriages. And while I oppose abortion imagery used to push an anti-choice agenda, I’m not sure that showing the reality of what abortion looks like is always a bad thing. Ninety-nine percent of the time, I think it’s a pointless thing — after all, lots of medical procedures are ugly (check out an open heart surgery or an organ transplant sometime), but that doesn’t make them morally wrong. The main difference, of course, is that people aren’t standing outside of hospitals screaming at you with bloody open heart surgery pictures in their hands. So abortion images have become very loaded, and I’m always hesitant to support their use, even in an attempt to portray a complex reality. But Mungiu’s explanation — “To me, it has something to do with the past and the future. They say if you don’t understand your past, you don’t have a future. I don’t know if that fetus represents the future or the past, but we’ll see” — resonates with me.
I haven’t seen the film yet, but it’s on the top of my list. Anyone else seen it or have thoughts? (No spoilers, please!)
Similar Posts:
- French parents can name fetuses by Jill February 25, 2008
- Good International Repro Rights News by Jill April 11, 2007
- The Running of the Jews by Jill February 18, 2008
- More child rape victims for anti-choicers to torment by Jill June 24, 2008
- “Balka: Women, HIV, and Drug Use in Ukraine” short harm reduction documentary by Clarisse Thorn October 20, 2011
The fetus in the movie is graphic, partly because the procedure makes the woman miscarry the fetus whole, and partly because the fetus was miscarried four months, three weeks, and two days into the pregnancy. Hence the title, obviously. This isn’t the apex of the movie, however, it’s just another awful part of the whole. It’s presented rather matter-of-factly.
I thought the aborted foetus scene was ridiculous, and it didn’t look realistic it all.
It came across as totally moralising, and it made it seem as if the director had no idea what they were trying to say.
I thought it was a really contrived attempt at shocking/upsetting the viewer that lowered the tone of the movie.
I would have really liked it if it WAS realistic, but it looked more like a plastic baby doll than an aborted foetus.
Other than that, though, an excellent film!
There’s a giant “Thou Shalt Not Kill” billboard that went up recently nearby, with a Pro-life group’s number etc. The picture is of a two-three week old baby – obviously quite young, but old enough to be past the fresh-from-the-womb look – posed in the typical fetal position. Because feti are just like three week old babies, you know. Very, very irritating.
The movie sounds interesting.
I don’t feel the scene with the aborted fetus was moralizing.
I think the scene was shocking and upsetting for a reason – that this is what happens when abortion is made illegal.
The only moralizing I felt after the scene was Thank God abortion is still (sort of) legal in the US.
*slight spoiler in next paragraph*
I haven’t done my research, and I’m not sure the procedure that “Dr. Bebe” performed is real (miscarrying the 4month/3week/2day fetus whole after an application of medication to the cervix/uterus, sans supervision for the intact delivery of the fetus hours later), but I don’t need to suspend my disbelief that this exact situation did or could happen. That a woman would do what Gabita did after the miscarriage.
These links are from a horror supply rental,
http://www.bjwinslow.com/gallery/fetus/5_month_fetus
http://www.bjwinslow.com/gallery/fetus/5_month_fetus_6
and look like the prop fetus that was used, if not yet covered in viscera. I don’t know if these are medically accurate either.
I don’t think the movie trivialized this issue at all – I agree with you Jill, that although images of supposedly aborted fetuses are politically loaded, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t know what they look like in reality.
In the theater during that scene, which takes a long, tense time (or it just felt that way) to build up, several people gasped audibly in shock/disgust. My reaction was more, “okay, i’m going accept that this is what an almost 5 month old fetus looks like if aborted whole.” It was mostly upsetting because of the entire situation these woman had to go through to get what should be a safe, routine medical procedure.
Having had an influx of anti-choicers on the blog lately, I can assure you that a lot of them openly seem to think that there’s a tiny baby with a crib and everything floating around in there at 2 weeks.
Do you guys in the US have the “photos of your ickle baby in the uterus” thing? I’m guessing you do.
I heard an ad on the radio the other day.
It makes me want to throw up. I mean it’s a foetus not a baby! It’s not that exciting, it’s just a blob really. It just makes the woman feel bad if she only sees a blob.
As for “thumb-sucking” and “walking” in utero…!
Anyway.
I think we should see what aborted foetuses look like, precisely because there is so much anti-choice rubbish.
The fetus scene is graphic (if a bit unrealistic; you can tell it’s a doll) but far from the most horrifying scene in the movie. It didn’t come across as moralizing to me. It was just another bit of awfulness that the character had to endure.
You should see the film. It’s very well made, and it’s an excellent argument for safe, legal, accessible abortions.
Being a male myself, I found the movie to be nerve-wrecking and too much to handle. While watching, I was expecting the worst (really bloody scenes). But having watched it, I now think the movie was quite dignifying. [I mean with the visuals.] The fetus being shown was unavoidable and I didn’t really mind it.
But here’s the part that might really interest you. I’m a liberal on social issues and have for the most part found the pro-life arguments quite absurd. Especially when it comes from the religious right. But having seen the movie, I feel we should thank the pro-life people for keeping the issue in the public conscience.
More importantly, I find the pro-choice argument that “it should really be the mother’s choice” to be very disturbing. Even in a society where abortion is legal and accepted, I cannot imagine how difficult it’ll be for a mother to make the decision. Its all very easy to talk of ‘responsibility’. I think the moral question should not be raised at all.
The Mother’s health and emotional well being should be the only point of attention. And making a decision all by herself is not good for ‘emotional well being’ at all. Family, public institutions (church etc) and society at large should be available to assist mothers when they make the decision. The Church should actively encourage couples to adopt new borns.
I felt the movie makes a very strong point for the need for safe, legal and accessible abortions. Contrary to “observer’s” comment, I came away from the movie feeling that, when the decision about whether to have an abortion is removed from women, then women are put in a very bad position where their only choice is unsafe, illegal abortions, and they are at the mercy of predatory people like the abortionist in this movie.
How is family, the church and society at large better situated to say what is necessary for a woman’s health and well being than the woman herself?
As for the fetus, I think it needed to be shown, but was not that shocking, by that point in the movie. And, like others, I just kind of accepted that would be what a fetus at nearly 5 months would look like.
I’m a man who saw the movie last night and thought it was excellent. Disturbing, very disturbing, but in a good way. I agree with those here who found it a powerful statement about what can happen when abortion is illegal. Women are going to do it whether its legal or not, so we might as well make it safe. We should also remove religion from the abortion argument, and from our laws.
Macon D
http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/