“Gates of Hell” creators fire back at Dr. Gerard Nadal over film critique
This movie is not for the sake of promoting violence against the abortion industry; it points out the violence the abortion industry has brought to us!
Even though this is fiction, this movie is not for entertaining a fantasy for exacting violence against abortionists. So instead of putting so much energy into reprimanding and trying to “strangle” this project in its crib, as one so-called pro-lifer by the name of Dr. Gerard M. Nadal put it, how ’bout this: the sales of music with misogynistic lyrics are astronomical. The porno industry isn’t doin’ too bad, either.
Is it just coincidence that every two minutes a woman is raped somewhere in America according to the US Department of Justice?
Sounds like people are acting out their fantasies…
Now people like Bill Maher and his rape-minded friends can express their violent sexual fantasies while sexual violence is a real occurring problem in America, and pro-lifers are angry about Gates of Hell?
~ Zo criticizing pro-lifers who criticized the upcoming pro-life film, Gates of Hell, PJTV’s ZoNation, July 25
[Discussion begins at 3:53]
And a response from filmmaker Molotov Mitchell:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T12KZ0dybQ[/youtube]
My original critique of the movie, along with the two trailers it is based on may all be seen here:
http://gerardnadal.com/2011/06/11/pro-life-molotov-cocktail-the-gates-of-hell/
as well as how the movie is being marketed, complete with sales of vests and gun props used in the movie:
http://megasupergood.com/showproject.php?id=26
In the trailers, African Americans are depicted in the same, shopworn stereotypes. Assuming that Molotov was being honest in depicting the arc of the movie, I find this convenient use of a stereotype disgusting, especially in light of the work done by many noteworthy African Americans following in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s path of non-violence. The use of the strangling of the baby in the bassinet was deliberately chosen because it evokes such a powerful response and was apt given the level of violence depicted in the film’s trailers, and the gratuitous use of African Americans and the stereotypes of them.
It is difficult to reconcile Molotov’s objection to this metaphor with the level of violence he depicts, and the enthusiastic marketing of the guns and action figures from the movie.
I stand by every word that I wrote.
8 likes
My original comments on this film are here, and I have to say that Zo gave as complete an answer to my first worry as anyone could possibly hope for. I don’t know if he reads this, but if so, then thanks.
However, I still stand by my other concern. Because the problem is, precisely, that “pro-life” violence is such a miniscule occurrence, not just in comparison to other violence, but also when stacked up against everything that actual pro-lifers do. And yet, the scaremongering still exists. And it doesn’t matter that it is a demonstrable fact that the pro-life movement is the most peaceful social justice movement (or, indeed, movement of any kind) in the history of mankind because the scaremongering still exists. And it doesn’t matter that there is video after video of pro-aborts attacking pro-lifers, stealing from them, vandalizing displays/offices/cars, and behaving in any number of other violent ways, large and small, because the scaremongering still exists. The fact that pro-lifers aren’t violent in reality is, at this point, not stopping the pro-aborts from being afraid that we are anyway. And while I have no doubt that educating those who are ignorant on this point will eventually overcome that mentality, that has not happened yet. I would like to believe that the reality of the situation is sufficient to overcome the lies, but that hasn’t happened yet and there are still a lot of lies to be overcome.
I’m still withholding full judgement. I haven’t seen the movie and trailers aren’t always good indicators of a film’s full potential. I do want to see this movie. It looks interesting and thought-provoking and–at the very least–action-packed. And, as soon as I get the chance, I will be watching it. I am sorry that the film’s creators feel at all under fire, though criticism is inevitable when anything is put before the public. I would hope that regardless of whatever critics they face that this project is successful and that there are more coming in the future. We need more pro-life films and filmmakers, beyond those incidentals that mainstream movies occasionally spin out and then apologize for later. I’m not going to pretend that I don’t recognize the mentality this film is being released against, however I’m also not going to let that stop me from enjoying it, if it turns out to be a film I like.
3 likes
Test. Y.
0 likes
I say watch the movie before you criticize the movie.
4 likes
What I gather is the filmmakers are telling a fictional story with violence to condemn violence. That’s fine. Directors have been doing that for decades with success (Clockwork Orange) and failure (Natural Born Killers). What makes absolutely no sense is to condemn the fictional violence used to condemn violence by … invoking a violent image (strangling a baby). To me, that’s idiotic.
4 likes
Molotov seems a bit of a Molotov, but if Zo gives the film a nod, by triangulation I can’t pan it a priori. “Wait and see” seems sane. But yeah — it’s not as if this is going to be a widely circulated film.
Gerard, I think the premature reaction on your part is…premature. The only critique I’d offer your critique is that you say “I don’t want to see any more violence injected into the lives of young Black men, than has already been the tragic reality for decades,” which seems to validate from your own mind something you find lamentable in the trailer: “Once again, Black Americans are portrayed as gangster thugs whose depth is solely a function of how large an ammo clip their automatic weapons possess. ”
If he’s only depicting them in ways you yourself acknowledge they’ve experienced “for decades…”
You might want to clarify.
And this is NOT schadenfreude: I thought Molotov’s video response to you was funny. He was unfair — I think, perhaps, as unfair as some of your premature judgment — but once one sets feelings aside (easy for me to do, as a bystander), the skirmish is a bit amusing.
I’d counsel taking it in good humor. Frankly, Gerard, you ought to ask for a ticket to the premiere. I can almost guarantee Molotov would give you one. That would be a tacit acknowledgement that your strident judgment was not fully informed, but it would also leave a lot of folks waiting for your post-screening review. Seriously. You’ve put yourself at the center of something, and fair play would suggest seeing it through. Critics of your premature review aren’t taking exception with your content — yet. They’re taking exception with the prematurity of it. You’d not be caving on your judgments to see the film, you’d merely be acknowledging the legitimacy of the critique that an uninformed judgment ought to be a provisional one, not a final one.
See the film. With Molotov. Go have a beer afterward.
As for the trailers, I’d infer a novel and deft political twist. The left only knows how to critique Black conservatives by calling them “Uncle Toms” who betray their own downtrodden people — who are obliged, of course, to be big-government liberals, dependent on big-government largess.
But what happens when the capitalist “Man” (abortion providers seeking profit) and the government “Man” (the funding engine of big government) seem complicit in genocide of blacks? And so zealous that even in a down economy, defunding this genocide is evidently not an option? Is such genocide really that important?
And if blacks react to this oppression with violence, how does the left critique them? As Uncle Toms? Tough to do. What’s the critique? That narrative has been taken off the table. If any public controversy emerges from a film with inevitably limited distribution, I’m sure the public face of its defense will be largely black. And with Uncle Tom off the table, the narrative’s initial trajectory is in the control of the filmmaker.
It’s this “transformation of the narrative” that’s the holy grail in the American conversation over huge public policy issues, and it’s rare that catalysts provoke a genuine change. Will this film be such? Dunno. It seems unlikely. But I think understanding the film as aiming at that — by forcing critique on new ground (not “Uncle Tom” bigotry from the left) — is a good working hypothesis if not a premature judgment. ;-)
Also, if there really are action figures to go along with this film, that reinforces my view. Pity the poor liberal abortion advocate who raises THAT issue. And another thing (lotsa thoughts) — the left is generally capitulative to terrorism. If they threaten your institution over a cartoon, you pull the cartoon. So…darnit, the thought is too inchoate. Can’t articulate this. Moving on…
The film seems to require a counter-apologia from abortion advocates: why should this not be seen as genocide? The left laments the disproportionate number of blacks in prison and calls that systemic racism, but would cast the disproportionate number of black abortions as proof that they care more about minority health care? Wow.
The film seems designed to do just this: turn heads toward pro-choicers with one word: “Well?”
One last question though, Gerard: “I especially don’t want this movie to cause white pro-lifers to distance themselves from our African-American brothers and sisters…” Why would it do that? If anything, I’d think it’d bring ’em closer (though that’s a premature judgment on my part). I don’t understand what intuition leads you to the contrary concern.
I’m definitely intrigued by anything that’s a future documentary, and I’d hope it’s well done. I weary of bad film (coming from any quarter).
Let’s wait and see.
4 likes
Gerard’s not the only one who posted a pre-review of this film: http://feministing.com/2011/06/24/new-anti-choice-film-about-black-terrorists-killing-abortion-doctors/
I’d seriously hate for this to be more fodder for the other side, but it appears it is going to be.
If they’re hung up on “Black & Beautiful” billboards, can you imagine the response to this movie?
Yeek.
P.S. – Way to keep it classy with the demon eyes and evil laugh at the end of the video, Molotov.
3 likes
Molotov – pleading to see your work as “art” comes across about the same as Serrano’s “piss Christ”. Controversy (and deliberately fanning the flames of controversy through your video response) as a key promotional ingredient is questionable at best, and actually raises more concerns about your motives.
Your film might have redeeming qualities, but pissing off (on?) your audience is hardly behavior I want to condone by supporting your film. (My original take was to give your film the benefit of the doubt and see it. Your video response above changed my mind.)
There’s another film – The Book of Eli, which uses the Holy Bible as a prop. The main character may know the words, but his obedience to them (and to Christ) is completely avoided in the film. The film message is opposite of the teaching within the Bible. A fellow Christian recommended I see the film, but the trailer told me it was complete trash and was to be avoided. And yes, I need to have a long talk with the brother who recommended that movie.
Contrast Eli with Of Gods and Men. Which one is pure in it’s telling? Which has the beauty of life? That’s the one with the art. The Book of Eli is merely exploitative – and not worthy of my time.
Your response left a similar impression about your movie.
As for Dr. Nadal’s use of the inappropriate imagery of “strangling a baby in the crib” – I’m confident he did that as an object lesson to reveal hypocrisy. Your calling him on that makes his point: why is it wrong for him to use inappropriate imagery, but okay for you? Does calling something “art” give license for ill-behavior? Isn’t your film precisely about inappropriate reactions (violence) – if so, why couldn’t you see the bait?
You could have chosen to take the high ground on the issue by simply stating: “Wait – there’s much more to the film than the trailers depict”, and left it at that.
Apparently, wielding media is like handling a very sharp sword: done skillfully, it is very precise and effective, done clumsily and you’re likely to lop off your own extremities.
Molotov – don’t let pride get the better of you.
6 likes
(*sigh*) Why on earth did Zo, in a fit of pique, start disparaging Dr. Nadal with the title “so-called pro-lifer”? Does a disagreement about the tactical value of a movie somehow remove him from the sincere supporters of life? I hardly think so.
13 likes
Well said, Paladin.
4 likes
If you’re not used to people who love action films and movies with violence you might not realize how many other films use the same kind of action figures, props, and collectibles. Watch Hollywood Treasurs for example.
Haven’t many of us been hoping and praying for an increase in visible pro-lifers? Well, maybe they won’t all talk like us, blog like us, or like the same kind of fiction. I’m going to reserve judgement until I see the whole film. Trailers can be misleading. How many times did you rent or attend a movie based on the trailer only to be disappointed (or even pleasantly suprised?).
We’ve been telling the abortion advocates that they can’t put all pro-life people in the same basket; we’re different from each other. Well, if we try to make other people’s projects align to our taste, we might accidently prove our adversaries right. I’m going to wait and see.
6 likes
I’ll “me-too” Paladin’s remark about Zo’s remark, and Ninek’s insightful last paragraph.
::sigh::
Kel, Chris — I hope it’s occurred to you that the film is intended as a provocation of the left, not on the naive superficial grounds you’re imagining but on a more sophisticated level of subverting a narrative that pro-life has not been able to topple to date. For a pro-life film to work, it has to subvert. It’s possible to do that non-controversially, but the presence of a “bad cop” sometimes complements a “good cop” approach. And “bad cop” doesn’t mean what you’re taking it to mean. It means that an adversary is left to fight on two fronts where an advance on one means a loss on the other.
It’s honestly time for the pro-choice world to be rocked back on its heels. I have no idea whether this film could do that, because I don’t even know for sure what it is (my remarks above pose something that I hope it can be). It’s notoriously difficult to do a leaping double backflip and land just so. But it’s breathtaking to see someone try, and my sympathies are with the gymnast.
Speaking in principle only and not applying it with certainty, a prophet is not welcome in his own country.
2 likes
+1 paladin
rasqual – you go! we must change the narrative – right on!
0 likes
I’m holding out judgement for now, but I’m w/ Chris – I’m so turned off by that response video. He comes across like a complete you-know-what bag and makes it exceptionally hard to believe he has a sophisticated point to make. We’ll see.
Ditto, Paladin.
0 likes
In the link Gerard provided, which Feministing also links to, the producers of the film state:
Finnish filmmaker Ani Juva travels to the United States to better understand the mysterious black power assassins, the bizarre eugenics conspiracy theory that drove them to commit extreme acts of violence and how America’s political landscape was transformed forever. Blending real history and real public figures with a fictitious (yet plausible) future, it is safe to say that you have never seen a film like “Gates of Hell”.
Do the filmmakers think the black abortion rate is a conspiracy theory? And do they believe that terrorism by “Black Power” is really a plausible future?
I don’t have a problem with Zo’s response. He was able to disagree without personally attacking anyone (well, except for the “so-called pro-lifer” part, which was wholly unnecessary). Molotov’s “response” on the other hand, was WAY over the top and it causes one to wonder – why not take on Feministing for their opinion? Why personally attack someone you don’t even know, who wrote his opinion – not about you, personally, but about how he believes this movie could backfire on the movement?
Anyone who puts demon eyes and an evil, laughing voice in an attack video on another pro-lifer needs to take a serious look at himself and his motives. I had respect for Molotov before I saw this video. That respect is gone, along with my desire to see anything he creates in the future.
5 likes
Trailers can be misleading.
Ninek, in this case, I truly hope the trailer is misleading.
1 likes
What I see as the basis of this conflict is Dr. Nadal’s passion to see black men and their contrubution to the African American culture in our country transformed. Dr Nadal is keenly aware of the impact the entertainment industry has creating and perpetuating black male stereotypes which contribute to selfish, irresponsible and even criminal behavior. He recognizes that the continued promotion of this negative imagery is destructive and attacks the core of his vision for the future of the African American community. If change/reformation is to be realized, someone with courage has to take a stand, make a statement and then endure the arrows that are the inevitable reply of launching the first volley in the culture wars.
Dr Nadal, you are in good company with other great reformers like Wilberforce, King and Lincoln. While you may not presently have a platform with which to effect a revolutionary change, you certainly share their spirit, and your commentary obviously “struck a nerve”. Your contribution should not be underestimated.
I believe the filmmakers are out to sell an edgy, hip, action-packed movie with a pro-life theme and while creative and talented, they seem to lack the maturity to understand the ramifications of their “art”. And perhaps we will all be pleasantly surprised and the film will include numerous examples of black role models with integrity and strong, godly character. This would provide an excellent commentary and would be a welcome contribution to the morality of the film
I just wanted to encourage you Dr. Nadal that when you’re leading the charge and facing the brunt of the enemy’s counterattack, the ridicule and mocking is par for the course. Take comfort that Our Savior and His followers over the centuries have all received the same treatment and many received much worse unto death.
Keep fightin’ Brother!
2 likes
Pro aborts will scream about anything and everything pro-lifers do. But I’m convinced that they do not fear violence from us – they fear the effect of our prayers.
That said, we should avoid criticizing other pro-lifers. Let the black pro-life community run their aspect of the movement as they see fit; they understand their community better than I do. We are not trying to convert so-called pro-choicers; we are trying to reach those who are on the fence.
2 likes
I dislike even the thought of this movie. I don’t think we need another stereotype of violent “pro-lifers” and African-Americans. Really rude of the guy to question Dr. Nadal’s pro-life credentials because he disagrees with the movie.
4 likes
PS. Mel Gibson took a lot of flack before the release of “The Passion of the Christ” and he still takes alot of flack. But the movie is a classic and has reached countless people who really thought Jesus is some sort of a “girly-boy” (no offense, ladies).
0 likes
Trying to justify violence by calling it “art” is just spraying perfume on a pile of you-know-what. There is no place in the pro-life cause for violence. I share Dr. Nadal’s concerns that the “fictional” violence against abortionists in this movie will come back to haunt us in a terrible way.
I have no problem shocking people with the truth, because where abortion is concerned, folks need to be shocked out of their ignorant stupor. But the only violence we need to show is the violence done to the babies every single day.
6 likes
The protagonists in this movie are going to have to have one heckuva big epiphany to keep a pro-life message. I would think that would be much easier done with “pro-choice terrorists”.
Why not a pro-life movie where an abortion “provider” or supporter sees the light? If they’re not going to try writing a movie like that, I guess I’ll have to.
2 likes
Humans are stupid and sometimes we say and do things that make us look more or less stupid than we really are.
I kind of like ‘Book of Eli’ even though, challenged as I am, I tumbled to the schtick of Eli’s disability early on in the movie.
The antagonist did not want to destroy the ‘book’. He wanted to utilize it to manipulate and control spirituallly ignorant people with ‘religion’.
As for the ‘girly-man’, pacifistic, vegetarian, roller blading, religious sterotype of Jesus which is promoted by some who are interested in manipulating followers of the caprenter from Nazereth into being ‘sweeter than Jesus’.
Have you ever met or heard of a carpenter who was a ‘wimp’?
The SON, like the FATHER, is gentle and kind and friendly.
But HE ain’t no powder puff pushover.
A Pee Wee Herman would never agree to be mocked, scourged, and crucifed to save his enemies.
6 likes
“If they’re not going to try writing a movie like that, I guess I’ll have to.”
Precisely!!
If you don’t like a certain book, don’t write the author and tell her to re-write it. Write your own book. Ditto for movies.
2 likes
Kel, Ed, CT, Chris, et al.
Just back from a very busy day. Thanks for your kind words of support. You’ve read between the lines of my critique very well. At this point, I’ve spoken, and Molotov has spoken. I believe that we have each revealed something of ourselves in what we have said.
Now it’s time to let the movie speak. I pray that I am wrong in my assessment, and that we’ll all be pleasantly surprised. That said, the imagery shown in the trailers depicts the most base stereotype of African-Americans, and unless it is left on the cutting room floor, I don’t see how the filmmakers can escape it.
God Bless.
2 likes
All: Great, above-the-board thoughts and debate. I do look forward to seeing this movie. Whether we’ve wanted to or not, we’ve helped hype it!
0 likes
The new head coach of the Detroit Lions had nearly all the pieces in place to make a run for the playoffs in the new season. But he still lacked a top shelf quarterback.
One night when he was watching CNN new coverage of the fighting in Lybia he saw a young man dart out of hiding and throw a hand grenade 50 yards into a machine gun nest, putting gun out of commision.
Then in another clip he sees the same young man throw a grenade thru a second story window more than 40 yards away and take out a sniper.
In one more clip he sees a car filled with soidiers speeding down the street spraying unarmed protesters with automatic weapons fire. The same young man throws a grenade in the window of the passing car.
The coach says to himself Ihave to sign this guy.
So he goes to Tripoli and locates the young man, Moharahm, and signs him to a one year contract and relocates him to Detroit.
Lo and behold with Mo the formerly happless Lions win the Superbowl.
An excited Mo calls home to tell his mother the good news.
But she says, “I don’t care. You are no longer my son. There is gunfire at all hours, night and day, both your brothers have been beaten to within a inch of their life. Your sisters cannot go outside for fear of being raped. Your father has been mugged and robbed in broad day light.”
“I will never forgive you for moving us to Detroit.”
[The fundamental flaw in this joke is that even a bad muslim would never knowingly touch a ‘pigskin’.]
0 likes
Gah.
Do some of you know how trailers work at all? They’re not bloomin’ synopses. They’re hooks. They’re teases. They use indirection.
:-\
2 likes
Ken, that’s a great movie idea. (but needs a happy ending)
0 likes
What I have seen here is something I hoped never to see. A skirmish within the Pro-life movement. Time and time again, the pro-aborts constantly disagree and are eternally on the defensive, but i didn’t see that as a characteristic of our movement.
Throughout history, there have been individuals looking toward the same good outcome with differing opinions of how to get there. One example is Alexander Hamilton and the great Thomas Jefferson.
However, what i see here are two capable men in a very powerful movement both wishing for the same end, and having two different approaches. Naturally, I side with one over the other, but ultimately, i side with both. Instead, work for the same cause the best way that you can. Instead of focusing on the disagreement, focus on what you both have in common and want to achieve.
Gentlemen, it does not become us to disagree without debate– and by debate, i mean well-mannered and educated discussion. More has been achieved that way than through leaving comments on an internet site.
Good Luck to you both.
2 likes
Hah— the prolife movement is full of internal conflict. It’s just like different religions and denominations sniping at each other.
There are the pacifists and the fighters. There are the ones who want to persuade gently, and the ones who want to show the nasty pics of aborted babies.
Different people are reached by different styles, so there’s room for everyone.
Even watching the interpersonal drama (this conflict, for example) is fun. Who needs Jerry Springer?
The pharmer thinks Alfonzo Rachel is pretty cool – a martial artist, and therefore understandable ;-) He’s also a naturally skilled speaker and musician, and if you haven’t been to Macho Sauce Productions you’re missing something.
Forget trying to please everyone (impossible) and do it your own way.
2 likes