Review of “Gates of Hell”
UPDATE 3/28, 1:15p: Molotov has sent me his thoughts and given permission to post:
I’m sorry to hear that you didn’t love it. So far, roughly 90-95% of the pro-life leaders who’ve seen it have loved it.
If you’re going to write a critical review, keep in mind that “Gates of Hell” was designed to manufacture tension. It dramatically creates a crisis so disturbing that comfortable, apathetic moderates are forced to confront the injustice at hand, for better or for worse. Much like Jesus Christ, anyone who watches the film will love, hate or fear it, and that’s by design. Indifference is just not an option.
As MLK said, justice comes before peace!
3/27, 6:55p: The movie Gates of Hell has been controversial among pro-lifers since its trailer was posted almost a year ago. In February the film was released on DVD “in honor of black history month.”
Set in 2016, Gates of Hell is a fictional documentary that follows a band of black domestic terrorists known as the Zulu 9 who literally set their sites on abortionists and abortion workers after learning blacks have been purposefully targeted for abortion for generations….
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU45KI8sC4U[/youtube]
Gates of Hell was written and directed by Molotov Mitchell, a gifted pro-life filmmaker who went terribly astray this time.
Things got personal when Mitchell took apart friend and site moderator Gerard Nadal for coming out against the film after watching the trailer. Mitchell mocked Gerard for basing his review on just the teaser, promising there was more to the movie.
There wasn’t. I really wanted to like this film but have watched it twice now and have been deeply disturbed each time. I’m a provocative pro-lifer who likes to push the envelope, but Gates of Hell goes too far.
The film is quite simply about black terrorists who murder any and all abortion workers they can find – an abortionist leaving his house, an abortionist sitting at an outdoor cafe, etc., etc.
The most disturbing scene is when the Zulu 9 burst into a Planned Parenthood, indiscriminately picking off staff in their offices. I could only think of Columbine.
Ryan Bomberger has written a review of Gates of Hell from a black perspective:
I actually had to hit pause several times throughout this obvious shockumentary, because I was repulsed by what I was seeing and so angry that this creation could even be considered “pro-life”. One of my colleagues, and pivotal figures in the fight against the epidemic of abortion in New York City, Dr. Gerard Nadal, was excoriated by Molotov for daring to react to the trailer. Nadal was attacked for somehow misinterpreting the contents of a trailer that accurately reflect the entire movie.
How would I describe the film in a single word? Detrimental.
The glorification of violence, as a means toward an end, makes the film’s primary message appalling. Molotov, starring in his own film as himself, was the only person in this story who was not a fictional character. He cannot claim a fictional nature for the film, but instead one of seeming advocacy with a deeply disturbing and highly suggestive solution to a cause.
Watching the entire movie not only reinforced my own negative reaction to the trailer but also strengthened the argument that the film does not consider the overall racism that it, too, conveys.
I get that Molotov was trying in the most attention-getting way possible to spotlight the atrocity of black abortion genocide. But that is not what people will be talking about.
Molotov owes Gerard an apology.
I give Gates of Hell one star, only for its display of Molotov’s unique story-telling talent. I look forward to the day Molotov channels his creative energies into a project of value to the movement. This one wasn’t.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Sounds like a take off on ‘inglorious basturds’.
I would be turned off by a dramatization of someone taking a baseball bat to Mary Poppins, but when James Caan hit Kathy Bates in the head with that typewriter in Misery nearly everyone in the theatre clenched their fists and utterred an audible affirmation.
I am sure that is what the makers of the movie intended.
Call it soulishly sadistic or pandering to the flesh, but the thought of Nazi’s and their collaborateurs getting a bullet thru the brain produces that same sense of satisfaction in me.
Our problem is the present barbarism is not a theatrical re-enactment.
We are contemporaries with the barabarians and the innocent victims celebratory moments are few and far between.
Thanks, Jill.
The movie was a missed opportunity to put forard a vision in line with the non-violent efforts of members of the Black Pro-life Coalition:
Alveda King
Ryan Bomberger
Catherine Davis
Walter Hoye
Arnold Culbreath
Johnny Hunter
Stephen Broden
LaVerne Tolbert
Clenard Childress…
…to name but a few.
The “vision” put forth in this film is a repudiation and betrayal of the life’s work of these black leaders and all that they stand for. I also agree with Ryan that this stereotyped black males, as I mentioned in my original review. The one thing that Molotov did well was to make a trailer that accurately depicted the arc of the movie.
Gerard, I have not seen the film, but I have read your review, Jill’s review and Ryan’s review, and I have watched the trailer. I can see many of your points, and your interpretation of the way the film will be received but I am not sure I understand why you wouldn’t want people to see it. It is a fiction, and I say this film is satirizing the way pro-choicers view pro-lifers. Pro-lifers have been characterized as extreme due to the extreme actions of a few people who have killed abortionists. To me I would think this movie is trying to show that violence begets violence. I would think this film alerts people to the strong feelings many pro-lifers have. Society does seem unconcerned about acknowledging the pain many pro-lifers feel. In fact, the feelings of pro-lifers are often mocked.
I also worry that this film does represent someone’s career. It may be bad, but someone’s livelihood is at risk.
Finally, I think the film prompts the following question: are the actions of Zulu 9 wrong? (Just war theory) For attempting to even ask this question, I think the film probably deserves some consideration.
With the above said, my biggest reservation about this film would be the fact that some could see the film stereotyping African Americans. These kind of stereotypes we could do without.
Tyler, I understand all that you say. However, Molotov took pains to point out that he was presenting a vision of what the future could look like through a fictionalized version (is there any other kind?) of future events.
It’s not satire at all, and pro-lifers who have seen the film find themselves sympathizing with the pro-choice woman in the film denouncing the terrorists. I’ll be watching the movie this coming weekend and will write my own review of the movie. Stay tuned.
There are two things I am confused about with respect to this film. First, the trailer suggests that the violence done by Zulu 9 occurs after abortion is made illegal. Is that explained in the movie?
The producer has also said this film “casts a cinematic vision of what a post-abortion America could look like.” Does it ever envision a peaceful, more positive post-abortion America? I would think the violence of Zulu 9 would occur in an America where abortion exists and is legal! Does the movie fulfil the claim made by the producer in a positive manner?
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/new-anti-choice-film-fantasizes-about-black-terrorists-murdering-abortion-doctors
Well, considering it took a civil war on American soil to ultimately end slavery, I see what Molotov was going for, frankly. Also, in regards to what Tyler said, yeah, all the Pro-Choice side talks about is how Pro-Lifers just love organizing to kill abortion doctors, as if the actions of a few whackos represent us all. I think this shows the contrast of their fiction to the truth of reality. I don’t have a problem with it, personally, and I can’t blame any African American for being upset enough to sympathize with this film. I’m personally ashamed when I hear about the abortion rates of Hispanics.
This movie sounds awful and it isn’t pro-life. It doesn’t appeal to man’s better nature, it just lives up to the trash that comes out of RHRealityCheck. Shameful.
Sure, some of us may hate it, but isn’t any filmmaker allowed to tell his or her story his or her own way? If we want more kind and gentle pro-life films, we need to make them and/or attend them.
That being said…
Pro-choicers had over 40 years to deal with us, the peaceful, the non-violent, the soft and fuzzy. In 40 years, violence has ended the lives of abortionists an average of one every 4-5 years, and we all unanimously condemn it.
Well, pro-abortioners, it’s a new day. It’s a new generation. You should have ended abortion on your own, peacefully. You should have dealt with us in a civilized manner while you could. Instead, you’ve mocked us, marginalized us, gone on witch hunts against prosecutors and lawyers that dared bring legal proceedings against you, and most importantly:
you have painted us all in the media as violent extremists.
Be careful what you wish for. Be careful of your self-fulfilling prophecies.
I hope the film will be just a thought provoking example of fiction. But, maybe it’s not such a bad thing that pro-abortioners are nervous and upset. Maybe they want time to think things over. You’ve had over 40 years to think things over. It’s a new generation and they ain’t all gonna be grannies with rosaries…
Whoa, ninek. Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but your last post reads like a threat.
No. It’s not a threat at all. Is the movie a threat? Will abortion advocates see it that way?
Let’s face it, I’m not getting any younger. Who’s going to fight for life when us middle aged and older folks are gone? If abortion doesn’t end soon, who’s going to fight the fight after us? I’ll tell you who: the younger generation.
We can’t even force people to stop killing helpless babies. Do you think we can force the next generation to keep on doing things exactly as we have done them? Really?
Look abortion advocates: you can’t kill off a third of a generation and expect no one in that generation to notice. Just because you don’t think babies are people doesn’t mean that others won’t see those babies as their siblings, their cousins, their friends, their people.
Molotov here with a couple points of clarification/rebuttal. I’d like to say that while we may disagree concerning “Gates of Hell”, I greatly appreciate Jill and can understand how she came to her conclusions about our film. Unlike Gerard’s fast-and-loose hit piece, hers was written after actually screening the film (and she kindly refrained from calling the film a “baby” that needed to be “strangled in its bassinet”). BTW, in the comments above, Gerard included Rev. Johnny Hunter as a “missed opportunity” in the black coalition list, but Johnny was, in fact, the first person I ever screened the film for. We watched it together in my own home, and he loved it. And though she may not appreciate the film now, Alveda King was actually supposed to star in the film herself, but missed the multiple shoots we set up for her. She may not approve of the film’s plot now, but she did when she agreed to be in it. Finally, unlike Ryan’s review, Jill’s did not accuse us of racism, which was…refreshing.
“Gates of Hell” was designed to manufacture tension, precisely the kind of tension MLK described in his letter from Birmingham Jail. Critics have attempted to paint this film as an act of violence, but of course, it’s quite the opposite. One of the main concepts of the film is that violence is not glamorous; it’s grotesque, in or out of the womb. And indeed, violence begets violence. More importantly, “Gates” dramatically aims to create a crisis so disturbing that comfortable, apathetic moderates are forced to confront the injustice at hand, for better or for worse. Much like MLK or Jesus Christ, anyone who experiences the film will love, hate or fear it, and that’s by design. Indifference is just not an option.
When we screened this film for a black audience in Los Angeles, they absolutely loved it. People were literally on their feet, at times. Most had never even heard about “black genocide” and were patently outraged. While there are excellent products out there that address the topic of black genocide, “Gates of Hell” is the only narrative, feature film to do so. You must see it firsthand to understand it. And as we continue to screen it in black theaters and festivals across the country, as we continue to manufacture tension in a fresh and artful way, I’m certain that it will continue to move hearts and minds. I encourage everyone to screen it and please send us your thoughts…or don’t! Either way, God bless you and God bless the babies!
Haven’t seen the film, so I might be way off base. Personally, I’d hope the film is readable in more of a Tarantino way but with a twist: “Why not kill abortionists?” A shocking question, right? That’s because questions may be taken two ways. As a rhetorical question, it definitely borders on being a threat — or, better said, revealing that the one posing it is thinking dangerously. But as a rational question, it’s merely expecting that there are good answers: why should abortionists not be killed? Most folks would protest that the question is idiotic; abortionists shouldn’t be killed for the same reasons no one at all should be. But if the film showcases the protagonist(s) rationale for killing abortionists, the question and its answers are no longer abstract, and beg explication. Why are they killing abortionists, and what proffered argument could counter their motives? The film on that reading is a gedanken experiment — not careless advocacy or an exercise in indifference to the value of an abortionist’s life.
But again, not having seen the film, for all I know it’s asking that question rhetorically. Which would be a shame.
The ghost in Dickens put it differently to Scrooge: “It may well be that, in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than MILLIONS like this poor man’s child.” But the ghost’s project was not those millions — it was Scrooge. And his intent was not deadly, though his words were merciless, quoting Scrooge to himself with words any pro-choicer might intone: “If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.” To which the ghost gave us one of the many memorable lines in the book: “Oh God — to hear the insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust.”
Yes, abortionists are vile creatures. But they are as much God’s project as any of us sinners, whose ledgers all were heavily in arrears with debt beyond our means to repay.
Personally, I would far rather hear a former abortionist’s someday-gratitude to God for his/her redemption, than to hear the lamentation of their family and see their allies double down.
The ghosts posed arguments and imposed existential crises. This also worked for slavery. It will also work with abortion when its enemies mirror their redeemer’s righteousness and love their enemies.
“I hope the film will be just a thought provoking example of fiction. But, maybe it’s not such a bad thing that pro-abortioners are nervous and upset. Maybe they want time to think things over. You’ve had over 40 years to think things over. It’s a new generation and they ain’t all gonna be grannies with rosaries…”
Right. We have a place for the kind of people you’re vaguely threatening to unleash on a society that refuses to be cowed by your “peaceful” brand of activism instead. It’s called prison.
Wow, ninek. Wow. Your post actually sent chills down my spine. This is the “pro-life” world you’re looking forward to? “You should have ended abortion on your own, peacefully.” Talking about how it HAS BEEN peaceful and soft and fuzzy but we’re looking to a new day?
I cannot believe you can call yourself pro-life with those kind of threats. If you can ever justify taking any lives to end abortion then you aren’t pro-life at all.
Molotov, this movie won’t be seen by millions of moderates, and it won’t do anything but make them more apathetic. This project is only about glorifying your name. Perhaps I’m wrong, but your review of Dr. Nadal’s review pretty much spells that out. Maybe others don’t want to make that charge, maybe your sugary appeals to the coattails of Jesus might make others feeling bad about criticizing, but brother, this film is not good fruit. And it won’t move the ball down the field one inch. With what everyone else has said about your talents, I would think you could do much better.
Clenard Childres gave an amazing sermon at the Cathedral of the Angels this past January preceding the back2back Oakland & San Francisco March’s 4life. I was blessed to be able to get it on film though, I confess I didn’t ask for permission.
The topic: The GATES OF HELL–pretty funny now, I guess, but his powerful message was this: We are blessed. As pro-lifers and children of Christ, we, like Peter are given the prayer and wisdom to enter heaven, but the keys are behind another set of gates–the gates of hell. And we have to rescue the brothers and sisters behind those gates before we can get to the other gates. Like Peter, we are called to be missionaries.
Anyways, here’s the CHILDRESS sermon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqE9v3q3YCE
joan: “you’re vaguely threatening to unleash” – Huh? Joan, who does ninek have on a leash?
Ninek said, concerning her own and other pro-lifers’ judgment of the killing of abortionists, “we all unanimously condemn it.” Present tense.
Ninek’s claim seems to be that if a “new generation” of anti-abortionists is not so peaceful, then those who’ve perpetuated abortion are to blame.
I disagree. It’s certainly true that if abortionists stopped doing abortions, a “new generation” of their opponents would have no reason to commit acts of violence against them. But that doesn’t imply that such violence would be warranted in the case that the abortion juggernaut keeps rolling.
But Ninek is not advocating such actions herself. At least, not in her remarks so far. Her remarks might raise some eyebrows, but your trolling insistence on making everything seem extreme is not helpful.
rasqual I don’t know what world you live in but ninek’s post WAS absolutely threatening. Horrifyingly so. You may not like Joan (or me) and you may be more inclined to put good faith in ninek because you know and like her but look at that comment again. I’ve never seen such a blatant threat.
Not really “good faith,” Elizabeth. Rational parsing of words. Joan has a stake in making pro-lifers look bad, so her reaction is easily explained. For anyone else, ninek’s remarks might seem threatenING, but it’s not ninek threatening. It’s more like a weather reporter’s remarks sounding “threatening,” or a prophet being resented because they bring bad news. They’re not the cause, they’re just the messengers.
You’d have to find something in her remarks that contradicts “we all unanimously condemn it”. I couldn’t find anything that rationally contradicts that in the least.
Admittedly I’m multitasking at the moment…
“But Ninek is not advocating such actions herself. At least, not in her remarks so far. Her remarks might raise some eyebrows, but your trolling insistence on making everything seem extreme is not helpful.”
Insinuating that violence is inevitable if America’s institutions don’t roll over and give the “pro-life” movement everything it wants sounds pretty extreme to me, with or without the boilerplate “But I personally don’t endorse such violence, oh no!” qualifier. It would be a bit like me giving a friendly warning to the many self-styled “sidewalk counselors” here that while I myself wouldn’t have them arrested and indefinitely detained, I can’t promise that the people who control the levers of government in the future will feel the same way, and so they may want to reconsider their hobby while they still can.
Also, I think reminding any would-be Eric Rudolph’s reading this site that they can look forward to spending their days sleeping on a concrete bunk in a supermax is very much helpful.
joan: “It would be a bit like me giving a friendly warning to the many self-styled ‘sidewalk counselors’ here that while I myself wouldn’t have them arrested and indefinitely detained, I can’t promise that the people who control the levers of government in the future will feel the same way, and so they may want to reconsider their hobby while they still can.”
So it’s like that? Do you realize that you’ve just argued, then, yourself, that ninek’s remarks are not actually threatening?
Y’know, sometimes easy arguments are a nice break. Thanks! ;-)
I never claimed her remarks were a personal threat or promise of violence. If I felt that they were, I would have explicitly said so. No, rather, they’re exactly as I described them: an insinuation of future violence from an unspecified third party. You’re just being pedantic in order to intentionally divert focus from the obvious problem with her post: its intent. Does it matter whether she is promising to carry out violence herself? Not for our purposes, because the intent of her post is intimidation.
Well if intimidation is the only fault with her remarks, she’s hardly risen to the standard set by pro-aborts’ use of RICO against peaceful pro-lifers.
Ya just can’t resist getting histrionic when the pro-lifers get uppity though, can ya — troll?
I don’t condone violence. But! We have a long way to go before our race as a whole is non-violent. That’s not a threat. That’s just the truth.
I don’t use my real name here because family members of mine do NOT approve of my pro-life activity and would prefer I not “out” stories of my own abortion because it makes them uncomfortable. So glad. Because if I did, Spike Lee might publish my address online and tell people to come and get me. But hey, I’m the one who’s horrifying.
How many lives would you guys be okay with sacrificing to end abortion? If there was a civil war, like xalisae seems to be looking forward to, or just a group like the one in Gates of Hell? I want an honest answer. If you could end abortion RIGHT AWAY how many post-born lives could you justify for those of the pre-born?
Ninek: Seriously, why do some people not understand simple logic? When someone makes remarks of any length, certain remarks rule others — some propositions are normative and some depend on the normative propositions as context. A good rule of thumb is that, although people can err (we all do, so this isn’t an academic point) and some people don’t think well, an assumption of coherence should rule our reading; that is, what a person says is internally consistent if they’ve thought well.
Now if you really were making threats, as Elizabeth claims, it should be terribly easy to find something in your posts above that contradicts your simple declaration concerning violence against abortionists: “we all unanimously condemn it.” Yet nothing in your remarks contradicts this in any way, regarding your own attitude.
What you do go on to suggest, though, is that others may come who do not share this conviction. They will not be the pro-lifers that histrionic pro-choicers have enjoyed abusing for decades (use of RICO among the worst abuses). They will embrace what the rest of us reject — violence as a means to their ends. (Note: pro-aborts present will entirely forget the “may” in this paragraph’s first sentence, zoning in entirely on the two instances of “will” that follow, purposefully refusing to let the normative may rule the conditional will)
And what happens? LOL Elizabeth attributes the dangerous attitude of purely hypothetical parties to you, with absolutely no warrant and against your disclaimer that you reject violence against abortionists.
That’s what I mean by abuses. Any stick to beat a pro-lifer with will do.
Credit Joan +1 for not going there, Elizabeth -1 for going there.
Cooper: “If you could end abortion RIGHT AWAY how many post-born lives could you justify for those of the pre-born?”
That’s a ludicrous question. We’re not gods moving chess pieces about. The moralities aren’t abstract.
How about asking “how many people would you be willing to kill to make it happen?” Why not? Merely because it’s inflammatory? Problem: Not asking the only relevant question, merely because it sounds dangerous, is unhelpful. Asking morally bizarre questions doesn’t illuminate, and it’s a weird thing to do for the sake of not sounding dangerous. “I’m going to ask a ridiculous question because I’m too timid to ask one that might actually be relevant!”
No answer to your question could possibly be meaningful. To my mind, the only relevant answers would be:
0
1
100
1000000
I wonder what Lincoln’s calculus was for preserving the Union…
How about this — 1000 terminally ill Oregonians will volunteer to leave early if abortionists are willing to stand down and avert war. Hey, ’cause it’s all about deaths, right? SOMEONE has to atone and die so that the unborn can live. We can’t have, like, life triumph with no death involved at all. That would be . . . pro-life. Eww! How gauche!
I dunno. I’m having a hard time coming up with a ridiculous enough answer to the ridiculous question. You come to a pro-life blog and ask that dumb of a question? Please.
How many lives would I be willing to sacrifice to end abortion?
One.
My own.
If God said to me today, “I’ll end abortion forever, but you will die in one minute. What say you?” I’d say, “Thank you for all the time I’ve had so far. I’m ready.”
LOL
Ninek, you rock.
(my own reply to the question, in moderation, is a pale, stupid response in comparison)
As Theodoret had it:
Honorius, who inherited the empire of Europe, put a stop to the gladiatorial combats which had long been held at Rome. The occasion of his doing so arose from the following circumstance. A certain man of the name of Telemachus had embraced the ascetic life. He had set out from the East and for this reason had repaired to Rome. There, when the abominable spectacle was being exhibited, he went himself into the stadium, and, stepping down into the arena, endeavoured to stop the men who were wielding their weapons against one another. The spectators of the slaughter were indignant, and inspired by the mad fury of the demon who delights in those bloody deeds, stoned the peacemaker to death. When the admirable emperor was informed of this he numbered Telemachus in the array of victorious martyrs, and put an end to that impious spectacle.
It’s possible for one life to make a difference. But Telemachus acted with no promise of an outcome. He just did what was right.
Reagan offered one of the tale’s variants at the National Prayer Breakfast in 1984.
If you could add together the power of prayer of the people just in this room, what would be its megatonnage? And have we maybe been neglecting this and not thinking in terms of a broader basis in which we pray to be forgiven for the animus we feel towards someone in perhaps a legitimate dispute, and at the same time recognize that while the dispute will go on, we have to realize that that other individual is a child of God even as we are and is beloved by God, as we like to feel that we are.
This power of prayer can be illustrated by a story that goes back to the fourth century. The Asian monk living in a little remote village, spending most of his time in prayer or tending the garden from which he obtained his sustenance — I hesitate to say the name because I’m not sure I know the pronunciation, but let me take a chance. It was Telemacus, back in the fourth century. And then one day, he thought he heard the voice of God telling him to go to Rome. And believing that he had heard, he set out. And weeks and weeks later, he arrived there, having traveled most of the way on foot.
And it was at a time of a festival in Rome. They were celebrating a triumph over the Goths. And he followed a crowd into the Colosseum, and then there in the midst of this great crowd, he saw the gladiators come forth, stand before the Emperor, and say, ”We who are about to die salute you.” And he realized they were going to fight to the death for the entertainment of the crowds. And he cried out, ”In the name of Christ, stop!” And his voice was lost in the tumult there in the great Colosseum.
And as the games began, he made his way down through the crowd and climbed over the wall and dropped to the floor of the arena. Suddenly the crowds saw this scrawny little figure making his way out to the gladiators and saying, over and over again, “In the name of Christ, stop.” And they thought it was part of the entertainment, and at first they were amused. But then, when they realized it wasn’t, they grew belligerent and angry. And as he was pleading with the gladiators, “In the name of Christ, stop,” one of them plunged his sword into his body. And as he fell to the sand of the arena in death, his last words were, “In the name of Christ, stop.”
And suddenly, a strange thing happened. The gladiators stood looking at this tiny form lying in the sand. A silence fell over the Colosseum. And then, someplace up in the upper tiers, an individual made his way to an exit and left, and others began to follow. And in the dead silence, everyone left the Colosseum. That was the last battle to the death between gladiators in the Roman Colosseum. Never again did anyone kill or did men kill each other for the entertainment of the crowd.
One tiny voice that could hardly be heard above the tumult. “In the name of Christ, stop.” It is something we could be saying to each other throughout the world today.
Cooper: ”If you could end abortion RIGHT AWAY how many post-born lives could you justify for those of the pre-born?”
Honestly, I don’t think anyone should have to die, born or unborn, in order to end abortion. It can be achieved peacefully through a change in the law. However, in a civil society there would be a moratorium on abortions until the Courts decide the personhood of the unborn.
Furthermore, a question that focuses on the reality that is taking place would be: how many dead children are required to satisfy the blood lust of the pro-aborts? Is 54 million dead children not enough for those who support abortion? Abortion is being done daily, are you ok with the deaths of all those children, if so why?
Rasqual, I find your comments on this thread AWESOME. Thank you.
How did I miss the story of Telemacus? It’s very inspiring.
Folks,
We have been doing a good job at changing hearts and minds at the grassroots level. A majority of Americans now classify themselves as pro-life. It’s been a long haul, but we’ve been making steady progress.
We have been using the truth of science in our educational outreach, we have replaced the vicious loons that used to scream “sluts” and “whores” at women entering and leaving abortion clinics with 40 Days for Life and their prayerful and loving approach. We’ve used the new media and have made great legislative gains.
The best part is that we have done it all through peaceful and non-violent means. Now, especially now in an important election year with so much at stake, is not the time to lose discipline or focus. Now is not the time to start throwing Hail Mary passes in desperation when the tide has turned decisively our way. Now is not the time to become distracted by a film that holds out as “creative tension” a vision of accomplishing our goals through a means that we universally abhor.
Ninek’s original statement could easily be construed as threatening, but worse than that it posits Molotov’s vision in the upcoming generation. Anyone who attends the March for Life can see in these young people an ocean of love and civility. So, no, I don’t think they will turn violent. I think they are less prone to do so than my generation.
The great value in this movie is that it gives us all an opportunity to denounce the means by which the movie shows a futuristic end to abortion. In morality and ethics the ends NEVER justify the means. How we get there matters, morally and ethically.
If so many pro-life leaders indeed endorse this film, I would love to see those endorsements made public so I could know whom never to associate with again.
Does the film endorse violence against abortionists, any more than Quentin Tarantino endorses killing sprees? Good grief, I better screen this thing.
Gerard, I don’t think any pro-lifers are going to turn violent either. But there may well be those who come to be anti-abortion — perhaps even for reasons they perceive as connected to black genocide — who don’t reject violence upon their conversion. Their ethic would not be “pro-life” but merely “anti-abortion.” For some, the value might not be advocating for the powerless unborn of any race, but destroying those they consider enemies of their own.
I don’t think there’s much risk of pro-lifers giving up their value of life, which motivates their advocacy for the unborn, to embrace mere hatred of those who kill “their people.” But there are some folk who are motivated tribally (well, we all are, to some extent, and I don’t mean just racially) and may well act with defending their people as a principal goal.
I have yet to read a review that engages whatever argument the film offers (if any), be it satire or a more ham-fisted whatever.
This isn’t usually the type of topic on which I contribute, but:
1) I can understand how some might have been startled a bit by Ninek’s initial comment (March 28, 1:06 PM); but I also think it’s incumbent on everyone (most certainly including myself) to ask when in doubt, to give the benefit of the doubt in the meantime, and to take any reassurances on that point (which Ninek did offer, repeatedly) in good faith. Ninek’s comment was a bit ambiguous, all other things being equal; but (at least in my mind) her clarifications and qualifiers settled the matter satisfactorily.
2) Re: the idea that “the new pro-life generation will not be violent”. That might be true, as a general theme (God grant that it be so)… but at least two things make me hesitate to use such a sweeping generalisation, even about our own movement and allies: (a) original sin has not disappeared, and we are still fallen, and none of us are immune to the blandishments of the devil if we rely on our own strength (which is all too common a practise); and (b) I’ve seen, with my own eyes (albeit mostly on comment boards) a sort of coarsening and degeneration in the society at large, on both sides of the political aisle (I think, in particular, of the rather revolting degeneration of civility and charity on freerepublic.com, where reasoned argument has, at least over the past eight years, rapidly giving way to profanity-laced snarls, insults, demands for sexual stimulus, threats of violence, etc.)
It’s absolutely true that there is a new and burgeoning movement of Christian pro-lifers (and others of good will) whose motives are pure, and becoming purer… but there are also (forgive the phrase) “bed-fellows” of the pro-life movement who are not so self-controlled, and who are not open to the grace from God which safeguards against “moral entropy”. In my mind, the “neutral and uncommitted and bland” are becoming less and less, and the battle lines between life and death are being drawn ever more sharply (with even the “neutral” people becoming more and more prone to protect their indolence with violence and evil… and joining the forces of death, somewhat by default). It is utterly naive to imagine that, in the face of unjust persecution over an extended period, the weaker and less self-sacrificial allies of the anti-abortion cause (which largely overlaps, but is distinct from, the pro-life cause) will refuse to endure it indefinitely… and will take up arms against their foes. Ninek’s general warning is well-placed; and I would echo it. But do not make the mistake of thinking that I (or Ninek, or any other faithful pro-lifer) would REJOICE in the fulfillment of that grim prediction. Perhaps those who’ve jumped to conclusions might ask Ninek if she WOULD rejoice, in such circumstances? I strongly suspect that her answer would be “no”…
Paladin: “Is this you, you troubler of Israel?”
;-)
Ninek: “Where are your accusers?”
;-)
:) Hey, hey! No calling me “Ahaz”, y’all!
I love how Gerard wants to know what pro-life leaders support this film, so he can know “whom never to associate with again”. Good thinking, Gerry! If you don’t defend babies EXACTLY as Gerard Nadal, PhD does it, don’t even BOTHER talking to him again! You are cut off, sir! BANISHED! No, this pro-life movement must stay the dull, ineffective course. Change is bad. You heard the man! Slow but steady wins the race (even if it means millions will continue to die). Viva status quo!
Mr. Mitchell, you’d better hope that some tortured soul doesn’t find inspiration in your cinematic version of the future and decide to use it as a personal road map.
If that happens, not only will your career be finished, but the pro-life movement will be stopped dead in its tracks as well.
Not withstanding Gerard’s “meta” remarks, Molotov, his substantive engagement with your film does represent the concerns a lot of people have.
I think you two kind of deserve each other. I’ve seen little by way of conceding the possible value of your film on his part, and little acknowledgement of the risks your project courts, on yours.
I’d like to see a more sophisticated engagement between you both. Since I haven’t seen the film yet, why don’t you both host a public screening/debate?
And please do it in the Chicago area. ;-)
mp: Not too sure of that. It would be an opportunity for pro-lifers to distinguish themselves from those who are merely anti-abortion. “There. THAT’S what you pro-choicers have been calling us for years while we peacefully objected to abortion. Now that you’re decrying what we never did, perhaps you’ll be capable, in the future, of better distinguishing genuine violence from peace, death from life, and indifference to life from cherishing it.”
I’m not saying that would be a good that would justify the evil. I’m just saying that I don’t think it would seem very credible for pro-choicers to go on a PR binge trying to link praying grannies with domestic terrorists.
I have not yet seen the film, and I don’t know if I will (there are a lot of films made by pro-lifers that I haven’t had the chance to see yet), but I’m a little disturbed by the comment Molotov made in his follow-up comments to Jill, comparing the film to feelings about Christ – either we’ll love it (Him), hate it (Him), or fear it (Him).
I hope the implication isn’t that if you don’t love the film, you don’t love Christ. It just seems like… a really bad comparison, maybe?
Er… is it only me, or is the comment box stuck on “right-justify”?
Kel: No, that wouldn’t be the implication. He’s just saying that the film provokes a crisis in response — that as with reactions to Jesus or MLK, fence-sitters are forced to make a decision. Indifference is not sustainable. His film is not, he is claiming, something you can just walk away from with a “meh.”
Paladin: Yeah, somethin’s weird…
I wouldn’t celebrate violence; it’s counterproductive to use vigilante force to end abortion. But I do watch movies, some of them are violent. I don’t think pacifists “turn” violent, though I suppose it’s possible in theory. But, what about a person who might be prone to violence that becomes pro-life? Is it a fact that such an element exists? Well yes, and abortion advocates accuse us of celebrating such violence (even though 9 abortionists murdered vs millions of babies murdered doesn’t even register on an abortion advocate’s radar) I don’t look at the faces of the youth at the March for Life and imagine them “turning” violent. But we live in a world where violence does exist. It’s not a threat for me to say so.
If there is a woman or man in medical school today that would like to be an abortionist but doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to do it, out of fear of criminal pro-life violence, then I’m not going to boo-hoo. However, in an ideal world abortionists should stop immediately because it’s simply the right thing to do. I wish someone like Cecile Richards would have a great big conversion experience. But I’m not going to be a pollyanna about the world I live in.
? My input is all jacked-up. ?Anyone else having trouble making comments
joan- You’re cute, acting like Pro-Lifers don’t get threatened all the time outside the clinics. I did my
very first go ;)
Cooper- Pointing out that it took a civil war to end a similar institutionalized injustice in the past is not an endorsement of war as a whole, that war in particular, or any future war that might occur. Thanks for sharing your healthy dose of either ignorance or dishonesty with us. Please read the entire comment next time, perhaps even a few times if you need in order for it to sink in so that you can attain full understanding before speaking in the future.
It’s on “right justify” but if seems to look ok once you hit add comment.
Gerard, I agree with your thesis that the way we achieve our goal matters but I disagree with the criticism of the movie itself
I think the actions of Zulu 9 are wrong but filming those actions so that they can be diiscussed is good.
Perhaps this film is not intended for pro-lifers at all, perhaps it is intended for the pro-choicer who has always treated the unborn as a clump of tissue and not as a developing human being
With all that said I will listen to those who have been in the pro-life movement longer than I have been and who have shown greater wisdom, not only on the issue of life, but also about decent moral conduct
could a mod please fish my comment out for me?
There is work being done on the site today. :)
Crazy huh?
Hope I got it for you xalisae.
You did. Thanks, Carla! <3
Violence is not always a bad thing
. Violence does NOT always beget violence.
Sometimes violence puts an end to conflict.
If I were being assaulted by a person or animal intent on maiming or killing me, I would welcome some violence on my behalf.
Jesus is the Prince of Peace, but HE is not a pacifist.
Jesus did not purge the temple with concilliatory language and a feather duster.
Cooper: “If you could end abortion RIGHT AWAY how many post-born lives could you justify for those of the pre-born?”
=============================================================
Depends. Do I get to pick and choose who dies, or is it just left up to ther randomness of a civil war?
I don’t think it would seem very credible for pro-choicers to go on a PR binge trying to link praying grannies with domestic terrorists.
It has never deterred them before.
I think one of my comments is still waiting for moderation.
Gerard: “It’s not satire at all, and pro-lifers who have seen the film find themselves sympathizing with the pro-choice woman in the film denouncing the terrorists.”
I’ve actually been pondering this since you wrote it. And I’m really regretting that I haven’t seen the film. Because I have to ask — if pro-lifers “find themselves” sympathizing with the prochoice denouncer of terrorists, (a) what’s odd about that? (b) how does that, in any way at all, impugn the film?
It sounds as if the film does not depict the terrorists’ actions as salutary. How else to explain the reaction you cite, among pro-lifers?
Gates Of Hell is groundbreaking innovation that will be realized in the years to come. If it were a Liberal Film attempting to produce a similar affect it would be receiving high honors about the academy’s of the movie industry
<>
mega dittos to molotov for taking a stand. so far, we have watching countless abortions take place, and I hate what has happened. I give Gates of Hell 5 stars for creatively, forward thinking and for making us think. again, this a story based in the future and is fiction. While this could happen, i don’t want it too. It is time to wake people up and be bold and not lame.
I honestly think the critic is dead wrong on this one.
Gates of Hell was designed to confront the black community with the fact that 71% of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics were strategically placed in black neighborhoods. And the fact that Margaret Sanger (Founder of PP) founded PP to exterminate the black population of North America and was even at a couple of KKK meetings.
The critic misses the point, totally. This is meant to SHOCK people out of their apathy regarding abortion. And it has succeeded in doing just that! It shocked the critic so much that her little mind could hardly stand it. 56 MILLION babies have been MURDERED in the united states since 1973. Has this article’s author forgotten that? Has the author of this article forgotten that all legislation to end abortion and overturn ROE vs WADE has failed miserably?!
The author of this review is clearly a kosher nazi and not interested AT ALL in pushing the envelope any farther than her child like mind will allow. Which isnt far.
You see, this is a fictional work. Not real. Just acting and special effects.
But Waco Texas WAS real. And so is the murder of thousands of Yahweh’s children every day!
The author is this critique has explained why she dislikes gates of Hell:
” I look forward to the day Molotov channels his creative energies into a project of value to the movement.”
You see, this video is contraversial. It MAY harm the image of the pro-life movement and its leaders. She has also made it clear that certain materials are valued more than others by the pro-life movement (in her opinion anyways). Like I said, this video is not for the pro-life audience. This is for atheists and the pro-murder false christians that happily allowed George Tiller the Killer into their church and even made him an usher (and never even spoke with him about his profession).
So in my humble opinion, the author of this article is less worried about the thousands of murders everyday of children, and more worried about the reputation of her name and the organization she leads.