By Melissa Antoinette Garza
A little over two years ago, there was an episode of The Colbert Report which discussed a film I had never heard of. Stephen Colbert was poking fun at the fact that it was written by a pro-life activist and openly pushed the political agenda.
From the sound of it, I expected something entertaining. The synopsis provided by Stephen Colbert gave the impression it could be on the level of Birdemic (2010) or Troll 2 (1990). I personally adore films that are so ridiculously bad that they are enjoyable to watch. Honestly, I can’t say whether I’m disappointed in the lack of absurdity or impressed with the quality of film.
To be clear, I didn’t think the film would be lacking because the writer Ken Del Vecchio intended on making a statement. I am not one to dismiss the art of one who incorporates their political standpoint into their work. Even when I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement, I can appreciate when it is done well. I’ll even watch documentaries and news programs that continuously promote ideas and ideals I oppose. Many times, I walk away appreciating the delivery if not the message.
There is a single exception to my rule of open mindedness. I have not nor will I ever watch the film Powder (1995). Child molesting douchebag, Victor Salva wrote and directed the film. His victim originally asked for potential viewers to skip the movie which was disturbingly released by Disney. I always thought that fact made it all the sleazier. Though, I have watched Salva’s other work. Clownhouse, (1989), Jeepers Creepers (2001) and the absolutely dreadful Rosewood Lane (2011), I never watched Powder. Out of respect for the abused child and his courage to boycott the film, I never gave it a chance.
Obviously being a disgusting pervert is far different than being against abortion. I just thought it was interesting that so many were up in arms about The Life Zone, while I haven’t seen any recent journalists question the integrity and values of the production companies who release Salva’s work.
To be clear, I am pro-choice. I think it’s important to declare that fact so that readers aren’t assuming my review is bias because of my belief system. That said there are certainly limits. For example, I am thoroughly outraged by Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist who illegally conducted the procedure on women who were in their third trimester. He even went as far as to murder babies who were born alive by cutting the spinal cord. If there is a hell, I’m sure there’s a special place waiting for him.
The Life Zone however deals with a far different situation. The film opens with John Lation (Robert Loggia) and Dr. Victoria Wise (Blanche Baker) holding hostage three women in a dark abandoned hospital. All three ladies have one thing in common. Prior to being kidnapped, they were all about to have an abortion.
Wise explains that it was that commonality which brought them to where they are. The women are advised that for the next seven months, they will be kept at the hospital to ensure the safe birth of their children. To ensure they don’t escape a tracking device that would make them pass out but cause no damage to the child is implanted on the back of their neck.
Staci (Lindsey Haun) is by far the strongest and most defiant of the group. She is introduced as the stereotypical feminist who will not budge on her viewpoint. Despite the dire situation she is in, she is determined to end her pregnancy. Upon meeting the doctor, she berates Wise for being anti-woman. When Wise points out that she too is a woman, Staci replies that gender doesn’t matter. She classifies the doctor as a crazy Christian who is intent on pushing her belief system on the rest of the world.
Wise can hardly argue the point nor does she try. She tells the women that she is doing this to stop murder. She makes no attempts at kindness or understanding. She coldly informs the women that their predicament is their own fault and had they not wanted children, they shouldn’t have spread their legs. Still, she assures them that there is no intention to hurt them and once the children are born they will be set free. She states emphatically that her main goal is to simply save the lives of the fetuses. Though she would be happy if the women had a change of heart on their own, the babies are still her primary goal.
The second woman, Lara (Angela Little) is a trial attorney. She attempts to fool Wise into thinking that she has changed her mind and is willing to keep her baby in an effort to be released. Wise sees through the plan easily. Lara though likable lacks believability. She has this manner of speaking which at times sounds like a child and at other times screams ‘airhead.’ It’s a rather cute voice but it isn’t assertive or direct enough to be an attorney. Picture Jennifer Tilly as a judge, and you’d get the idea. I love Tilly but there are certain parts, she just isn’t right for. The same is true here. If this were a direct to DVD ripoff of Legally Blonde (2001) perhaps having her as a lawyer would be acceptable. Here it’s just odd. Her career isn’t even really important to the storyline. Though there are a few times she’s questioned about the law, the information she provides is common sense. She could have been a sorority girl or an heiress like Paris Hilton and the character would have been far more convincing. Hell, even if she was a legal aid or a paralegal, it would have been more plausible. In one of the saddest and unintentionally humorous moments in the movie, Lara asks Wise what the “relevance” of something is. Wise questions her about using the legal term as if “relevance” is an obscure word. Lara responds by telling her it is not exclusively in the legal dictionary. This is obviously an attempt to give her credibility, but it not only fails but is ridiculous. I have used some form of the word relevant countless times in my life. Never once, has someone confused me for an attorney or questioned why I would be using a legal term.
The last girl and the innocent one of the bunch is Natalie (Nina Transfeld). She is twenty years old and scared to death. She is very impressionable and quickly begins to rethink her stance on abortion. Staci keeps trying to keep her focused on her initial decision.
During their stay, they are given information, movies, and things to read which surprisingly show both sides of the argument. Though most of the compelling and scientific data is one-sided, the opinions expressed in the videos differ. Upon watching one film where a man states that there is no way to determine when a fetus becomes a person, Staci tells Wise it is merely propaganda. She is challenged to debate the topic and states that her body is her own and she can do what she wants with it at any time. She declares that she has a constitutional right to an abortion which trumps all. Interestingly, the writer Ken Del Vecchio has a small role and does quite well as one of the people discussing abortion in the films.
Natalie questions the morality of the law which further aggravates the situation and disturbs Staci.
There are a few interesting twists. One in particular concerning Wise was surprising and I did not see it coming. In a series of flashbacks, we learn about her. It is in then that so much comes together. She gains sympathy and understanding. Her motives and attitude are a little clearer.
Blanche Baker is a fantastic actress. She is able to invoke anger and understanding; sympathy and disdain. I would love to see her in other roles.
The conclusion is expected and the agenda is clear. Without apology this is a movie that promotes the pro-life stance. What irritates me is the backlash the film got because of it. I’m a huge fan of George Clooney. I own Good Night, and Good Luck. Without question that film has an agenda. It’s one I agree with. Just because I happen to disagree with the agenda put forth in this movie doesn’t mean that the writer/director hasn’t a right to his opinion.
People bash him as a rightwing propagandist without doing any research. Ken Del Vecchio has also written a pro-gay marriage movie called An Affirmative Act. He also wrote a film O.B.A.M Nude which is critical of the current administration. Therefore to me, it’s obvious that he has both liberal and conservative views. I don’t see an issue with that. This is America and people have the right to express what they believe in.
I read blogs and hear individuals and journalists grasping onto hope that those involved in the film will never work again. Give me a break! People have the right to their own viewpoint and if they wish to artistically express it, all the better. I watched the movie and walked away with the same belief system I had prior to watching. I wasn’t brainwashed and I respected the way in which Del Vecchio and the director Rod Weber put their point across.
People have to stop wanting to censor or stop what they disagree with. If it bothers you, don’t watch it; but there isn’t a reason to bash it. I can’t stand An American Carol (2008) which I think is one of the most unfunny films made. Still, I don’t want it banned.
The sad truth is that too many people put themselves in a box. They cheer for their political side as if they were cheering for a football team. Issues that have nothing to do with each other are pushed together so liberals are for gay marriage, gun control, abolishing the death penalty, keeping abortion legal, a government operated economy, free or low cost healthcare, etc. while conservatives sit on the opposite fence on all of the issues.
I’m not a Liberal nor am I a Conservative. I would honestly say I’m closest to a Libertarian. I consider myself a human being with a mind. I look at every issue and make a stance on each one. I’m pro-gay marriage and pro-gun rights. I like small government.
That said, there are plenty of Liberal films that I enjoy. Despite the anti-gun message in The Iron Giant (1999), I think it’s a great film. The bottom line is that you don’t have to agree with the message of a movie to find it entertaining.
Now I’m not saying that The Life Zone was perfect. I would have liked Robert Loggia to be in it more. He’s fantastic. He has such a presence. He easily captivates the audience without saying a word. When he does speak his gruff manner of talking draws the viewer in even more.
Another flaw was in the advertising. I really wouldn’t consider it a horror film. I heard some compare it to M. Night Shyamalan which sadly I don’t think is a compliment anymore. Whether they were talking about Shyamalan’s best films (Unbreakable/The Sixth Sense) or the worst (The Happening/The Last Airbender), it doesn’t really matter. The comparison is a bad one. There are virtually no similarities in style, plot, tone or twist. In fact, the only film of his that I see any common thread is Devil (2010) which he co-wrote. Simply because of the spiritual element and the questions of morality that are posed, I can see where the two could be successfully compared.
Others have compared it to SAW (2004) and Hostel (2005) which I can understand but still disagree with. This is not torture porn. Yes a kidnapping was involved but the women were never in any real danger of being physically tortured. One could argue that emotionally they were destroyed which would make me say that it was closer to Cube (1997) or Elevator (2011) Near the end there were attempts to show nightmares and eerie images but it still wasn’t a horror film. I would classify it as a thriller/drama.
IMDB has it listed as a 1.9 out of 10. That’s completely unfair. I would say that it’s certainly worthy of a higher rating. I think viewers allowed their emotions and their own political views to get the best of them.
If you are pro-choice, you just need to go in with the mindset that the person who made this is pro-life. If you can respect someone else’s opinion, you should find at least some enjoyment in the movie. I did.
Scared Stiff Rating: 6/10
