Roe v. Wade is a rather controversial political drama directed by Nick Loeb. Before we begin in earnest, unless you have been living under a rock, and never heard of Roe v. Wade, you should know the following:
“On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in favor of Norma McCorvey (“Jane Roe”) that held that women in the United States have a fundamental right to choose whether or not to have abortions without excessive government restriction and struck down Texas's abortion ban as unconstitutional.”
This movie is touted as “based on a true story,” however, during my research I found some discrepancies of the so-called facts and many that seem to be a bit skewed or slanted as to promote a more favorable right to life viewpoint.
The film takes place in the late ‘60s/early ’70s, during the heated Women’s Liberation Movement and begins with a re‑enactment of a 1985 interview held by Phil McComb of the Washington Post at the home of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, portrayed by Nick Loeb, who tells the audience, “if you want to know the real story of Roe v. Wade, then I will tell you”. Dr. Nathanson was the co‑founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL); the infamous former surgeon that performed over 60,000 abortions, who made $20 million or more in the process, and then became a Pro‑Life Convert Anti-Abortion Activist.
Dr. Nathanson states his reason for performing abortions as a surgeon, was that when he was younger, his girlfriend had died from an illegal abortion, so he dedicated his life to ensuring that woman could have safe, legal medical procedures.
Having this story told from Dr. Nathanson’s perspective, instead of from the women that would directly procure and benefit from the services of the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade, and/or even possibly being told from the perspective of Planned Parenthood, another major player in Roe v. Wade’s decision as well, for me, makes the entire film a bit subjective. Although, the producers would say that the story is presented fairly, from both sides—that too is subjective.
So, as the story goes, the real fight for a Women’s right to choose began in New York in 1970 after they passed the first legislation giving women the right to have safe and legal abortions in the State of New York. The battle was then next taken up in the Northern District Court of Texas with Jane Roe, a woman that was hand-picked to represent women in need of an abortion, and wanting the right to make that decision. In June of 1970, a 3‑Judge Panel ruled in Roe’s favor that Texas’s abortion ban was illegal because it violated a constitutional right to privacy. Texas then appealed and the case went before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the film, there was a lot of back-and-forth discussions and meetings, mostly led by men, and their champion tool females that fought on the front lines, in and out of court, on both sides. On the right, there was the Black Harvard alum Dr. Mildred Jefferson, co-founder of the National Right to Life Committee (NRTLC), portrayed by Stacey Dash, and on the left there was Debbie Friedan, leader of Planned Parenthood, portrayed by Lucy Davenport, and Jane Roe’s attorneys Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, portrayed by actors Greer Graham and Justine Wachsberger. Lastly, there was the Catholic Church championing the right to life with the presence of Father James McHugh, portrayed by Tom Guiry, who I thought gave one of the better performances in the film.
The first half of the film I found to be more like a theatrical documentary rather than a regular moving story. While the second half was much more interesting when it moved into the Supreme Court negotiations held in 1972-1973. I wondered how much of the seemingly private debates/discussions amongst the justices were true and/or fabricated; one will never know.
However, in the end, the historic case was decided by an all-male Supreme Court 7‑2 in favor of Norma McCorvey (“Jane Roe”) with Justices Rehnquist and White as dissenters. In this review, no real spoilers are necessary. We all know the outcome before it happens and, you know the purpose of the film clearly from the trailer itself.
What you don’t know is how you are going to feel after seeing it, as presented from Dr. Nathanson’s perspective, unapologetically and laid on pretty thick. And, to that end, I think some of the graphics were unnecessary to make the point. However, I do believe that the purpose of the film is to gain proponents to the cause of right to life, as we are also led to believe reports that one actor purportedly converted during the filming stages, as he was so moved by it. Hmmmm.
However, I personally don’t believe for one minute it will change anyone’s mind that isn’t already familiar with the issue at hand. Even so, I am sure it is a project that some people will love, and just as many might abhor, citing it as straight propaganda.
I give Roe v. Wade a 3 out of 5 Stars.
But, since this is still America, and as in the Roe v. Wade decision—whether you watch the film or not; or choose to believe in left or right of the issue; in the end, that is still your right to choose.±
* * * *
And, by the way… if you haven’t subscribed to my channel what are you waiting for; I would love to have your subscription on YouTube @ Reviews with Faye Renee, where you simply hit the RED Subscribe button and check the little bell, and you will be notified whenever I drop the next super-unconventional, fun and informative review.
Roe v. Wade is now available for pre-order on iTunes, @ Roe v. Wade the Movie
Comments