Three young women wake up, confused and terrified, in a room that looks like a cross between a normal hospital room and the creepy underground lair of some mad scientist from a horror movie. A video screen flickers on and a creepy older man, looking a bit like Academy-award-nominee Robert Loggia, appears on it, telling the women that he’s their “jailer.” The women, you see, had all been getting abortions when their jailer’s shadowy accomplices kidnapped them and brought them to this strange prison, where they will be forced to live for the next seven months until they gave birth. “You were all on the operating table, all ready to commit murder,” announces a mysterious doctor. “Your babies will be given life just as God planned.”
This is the premise of a new horror film called The Life Zone, which recently had its world premiere at the prestigious, er, Hoboken International Film Festival, a festival that was, perhaps not coincidentally, founded and chaired by the film’s writer and producer, Kenneth del Vecchio. In case you think I’m making all this up, here’s the film’s trailer, which makes The Life Zone look a bit like an equal-parts mixture of Saw, Human Centipede, and The Handmaid’s Tale, with Robert Loggia in the role of Jigsaw/Dr. Heiter/The Commander:
Now, if you thought that something seemed really … off about that trailer, well, you’re not alone. For the film is not, as you might have assumed from my description, a warning against the fanatical misogyny of many in the anti-abortion movement.
No, the film – produced by a pro-life former judge, crime thriller author, and Republican New Jersey state senate candidate – is meant as pro-life propaganda. As the offical press release for the film’s premiere put it:
The film, which appears to cut right down the middle [of the abortion debate], examining the topic from both sides, offers a powerful, anti-abortion climactic twist. Del Vecchio and the cast invite pro-lifers to come to this historic event.
During the months the three women are held in captivity, you see, they are exposed to a barrage of films and books intended to, er, educate them about abortion –what their attending obstetrician Dr. Wise describes as “an abortion think tank.” Two of the captive women do indeed convert to the pro-life side; apparently we in the audience are supposed to develop Stockholm Syndrome along with them. The third, as we see in the trailer, tries to induce a miscarriage, which doesn’t go quite as planned.
And this sets us up for the final twist, which I’m just going to go ahead and reveal: once all three women have given birth, Dr. Wise tells them she’s going to sew them all, mouth-to-vagina, into a Human Abortion-pede!
Actually no: the twist is that the “life zone” the three women in has actually been … purgatory! All three “captives,” you see, had died on the operating table while getting their abortions. (Apparently they went to the world’s worst abortion clinic, as first-trimester abortions don’t involve anything more surgically invasive than the insertion of a suction tube; the risk of death from a legal surgical abortion is 0.0006%, one in 160,000 cases, making the procedure many times safer than childbirth itself.) Their time in the “life zone” was a test: the two women who changed their minds were whisked up to heaven, while their miscarriage-attempting, stubbornly pro-choice companion is sent straight to H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks. Dr. Wise, despite being on the right side of the abortion question, also goes to hell for committing suicide. And, oh yeah, their jailer – Loggia – was Satan. Why Satan and a hell-bound doctor were the ones trying to convert the abortion ladies to the pro-life side I can’t tell you; del Vecchio’s theology is evidently more sophisticated than I am.
The real twist here? As Jersey Journal writer Alan Robb notes:
The Life Zone went viral across the internet [last] Friday after blogs The Frisky and Talking Points Memo picked up on the film’s trailer. … But despite garnering more than 20,000 hits on YouTube in the last four days, only fifty people – including the film’s cast and producers – attended this weekend’s screening, and even those who starred in the movie didn’t know how to interpret its twist ending.
It’s impossible to tell from the trailer if the film is bad in a so-bad-it’s-good way, or if it’s just plain awful. I will try to get hold of it when it hits video, and will report back with my results.
In the meantime, if you’re looking for a good horror film set in a creepy hospital, try renting Infection, a Japanese film from 2005. Or, if you’ve got a longer attention span, try Lars Von Trier’s supernatural soap opera The Kingdom, a darkly comic miniseries which takes place in what one might call, paraphrasing Bill Murray’s character in Tootsie, “one nutty hospital.” Both are conveniently available on Netflix instant watch, so you don’t even have to leave your pregnancy dungeon to see them.
EDITED: Added some info on the minimal dangers of abortion procedures.
Well Victoria, clearly feminists don’t want men to have any sort of say in abortion issues (look at the many scathing discussions feminists have about men who try to be a part of that decision-making process). Why the hell should men take women’s feelings into account?
This scene from The Life of Brian pretty much sums up why the whole “Choice 4 Men” thing is ridiculous on its face:
I’m saying a woman who has never fought or been affected by a war is no more experienced in war than a man is with pregnancy. A lot of men don’t know shit about wars either, it’s true, but the point is that whole thought process opens a big ass can of worms.
Well Victoria, clearly feminists don’t want men to have any sort of say in abortion issues (look at the many scathing discussions feminists have about men who try to be a part of that decision-making process).
What exactly do you mean ‘part of the decision making process’? If you mean men thinking they get a veto override on what a woman does with her body (or even an equal vote), then you’re right, we tend not to like those men. If you mean a man and a woman who privately decide what to do with an unexpected (or an expected but dangerous) pregnancy, that’s something different entirely.
I think that if a woman is not a bitch and a c-word she will at least consider the father’s feelings on the matter, and I mean seriously consider them.
But see, then you aren’t arguing that war is an issue for MEN, you’re saying it’s an issue for SOLDIERS. And based on your earlier comment that only people who are effected by/have experienced (can’t remember exactly what you said) should be able to be president, does this mean you think we shouldn’t have a president who hasn’t served in the military?
“Well Victoria, clearly feminists don’t want men to have any sort of say in abortion issues (look at the many scathing discussions feminists have about men who try to be a part of that decision-making process). Why the hell should men take women’s feelings into account?”
Citation is your friend buddy.
Oh wait it’s MRAL, never mind then. Please impart your worldly knowledge upon us oh mighty lifeguard of Maine.
I don’t think that, I’m exposing Sally’s feminist idiocy as the Hitler nazi propaganda it is.
we li(v)e in a democracy where everyone’s opinions matter equally, not a female supremacist fascist though(t) police Hitler state.
(sry I had to fix up some of your typos so it’s clear what you said 🙂 )
can you PLZ PLZ PLZ tell that to guys like Arnie and NWO and some of the other ppl here? xD Cuz they RLY dun believe that, and maybe it’ll help if you tell that we do DON’T live in a female supremacist fascist thought police Hitler state 🙂
(why is it specifically a Hitler state btw? o_O What do Feminists have to do specifically with Hitler? It can’t just be regular fascism neways? Is Hitler now a brand name? o_O )
Also maybe you should answer some of the questions above without (as usual) dodging it 🙂 At least you’ve come around on the paper abortion thing, at least understanding it’s more complex than what’s going on and the focus that you’re talking about atm is “omg I dun want to be stuck w/ the kid” rather than the right to your own body thing 🙂
Also… it’s not according to gender, it’s by ppl’s bodies and their body autonomy. I’m a woman, but I’ll never have a right to abortion and I have many male friends who DO. If the law was segregated by gender, then I would and they wouldn’t, but it’s not.
Oh and to everybody else: what’s the opposite of penis envy? Cuz whatever it is, I have it xD In giant huge f-ing spades -_-;;
I’m saying a woman who has never fought or been affected by a war is no more experienced in war than a man is with pregnancy. A lot of men don’t know shit about wars either, it’s true, but the point is that whole thought process opens a big ass can of worms.
Your logic fails again.
Let’s try this again: Most ciswomen have some kind of sex drive. They want to have sex, with men they find attractive. They want to have satisfying romantic relationships with men, which will probably involve some kind of sex life. They also know that one of the potential consequences of sex is pregnancy, and that raising a child is a huge commitment, which might interfere with a woman’s other plans. Therefore, abortion and reproductive choice is very important to women.
Are you going to claim that men have a drive akin to a sex drive which compels them to go out and join other large groups of men which then go on to murder groups of other men who don’t look like them and maybe talk funny and wear weird clothes?
Whatever.
Actually, I do believe men should have the right to sign away their parental rights–as long as it’s early in the pregnancy, and it’s done with the knowledge that they cannot later demand those rights and the mother is under no obligation to provide the child with information regarding the father’s identity. If women have the option to avoid parenthood, so should men. That’s fair. In fact, that’s pro-choice.
“I don’t think that, I’m exposing Sally’s feminist idiocy as the Hitler nazi propaganda it is.”
And MRAL has now broken Godwin’s Law, and revealed new depths of personal idiocy.
Honestly, I’m calling extremely incompetent troll on this kid, just one who notably and stupidly includes his many personal hang-ups with his contrarian garbage.
All this talk of Choice 4 Men makes me want to listen to 90’s r&b.
“I’ll make love to you, like you want me to, and I’ll hold you tight, up until you get knocked up and expect me to stick around but I’ll make loooooove to you…”
I think that if a woman is not a bitch and a c-word she will at least consider the father’s feelings on the matter, and I mean seriously consider them.
And what makes you think that women don’t? If you conclude that women aren’t sufficiently solicitous of their partner’s feelings on the matter, does that mean that you get to revoke their right to an abortion? What about a man’s obligations to take his partner’s feelings into consideration, or the feelings of the potential future child into consideration?
What you’re basically demanding is the right to peer into other people’s private lives and then pass judgment on them.
JohnnyKaje gets a prize! 😀
More prizes to nebody who comes up with the lyrics to a 90s song along that vein! :3
Sarah, that sucks that that happened to you-I probably would have said “hey, you said no sex. That means no sex. Go wank in the woods if you must get off but leave me out of it.”
Then again, I have a rather tart tongue on me.
Also, to add in something which is not MRAL-centric:
I have to really object that this movie qualifies as a horror film. In a horror movie, you’re supposed to identify with one of the characters and then be moved when the character experiences the horror. But, even though I’ve only read David’s summary of the movie, I don’t think we’re supposed to identify with the women. And the horror does not seem to be painted as ‘jeebus, these women have been forcibly kidnapped and don’t know what’s going to happen to them next!’
Instead, this seems to be a movie about punishing women for having sex – even the ‘good’ women, after all, still die.
Actually, now that I consider it, there is a real world equivalent to Mr. Al’s Paper Abortion.
Vasectomy.
Get snipped, dudes, and the issue won’t come up.
Problem solved, now stop your sniveling.
I want to point out AGAIN, that I said cis-men’s opinions are LESS valid, not INVALID, on the abortion issue. And that is an important distinction! I still value and appreciate all sorts of people’s opinions.
And, you know what, I’m really torn on the so called paper abortion. I think in a perfect world a father should be able to opt out of parenthood early on. But abortion is a really, really difficult decision to make. And sometimes people lie and are bad people. And children need a lot of resources to be raised. So, in the end, I think that the father has to just accept the choice of the mother. Even though it’s unfair. But it’s really unfair to everyone. So, I dunno. *sigh*
Big sigh.
All this idiotic blathering by Mr. Al is making me long for back when I was watching “The Human Centipede” trailer. Good times.
I think in a perfect world a father should be able to opt out of parenthood early on.
he can, like I said.
Vasectomy.
Or being the guy in the Human Centipede.
Thanks, Elizabeth. I mean, I did want to sex him up and all. And it was fun in the moment, so not a total wash. It was just his attitude afterwards that stunk.
@Zombie, The thing is, like I was saying earlier, people do make mistakes. And I think there needs to be room for mistakes to be rectified.
But yeah, a lot of these guys whining about getting trapped into child-support should really just get snipped. I got an IUD, and it was one of the best decisions of my life.
Or we could all watch the human centipede? and never have sex again?
One of the problems I see with the “paper abortion” is that a man may willingly sign away his obligations and any and all future rights to a child. But what happens if the child wants/needs to learn his identity later? Would the law require him to provide contact information? Would the child be ineligible until 18 years of age? What if it’s a medical query of pressing concern?
And is the “paper abortion” the only choice Choice4Men is interested in procuring? I mean the opposite end of the argument is that a man should be able to insist that a woman carry a pregnancy to term which would be impossible to enforce outside of some demented scenario like this film in the post. Still, I doubt that Choice4Men is seriously interested in trying to force a woman to have a child. Individual men might want to do so but as a legislative option it has no legs.
Again, reproduction is asymmetrical. Nothing will change that.