Pro-life Horror

[GGT]

A friend sent me this link. It's so disturbing, I didn't even know how to make the title for this thread.

But the title of the movie is "The Life Zone".

http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.s..._the_life.html

[GGT]

14 views and no comments. Viewers read the article and watched the trailer yet have no comment. Seriously? No one else is disturbed by this movie, or the kinds of thoughts that inspired the making of this movie?

[Dreadnaught]

Pretty much the same thing I thought when I saw the trailer for Lions for Lambs and Human Centipede.

Why? And bad acting, FFS.

[Hazir]

I didn't bother to open the link.

[GGT]

I didn't bother to open the link.

Here's the text. If you want to view the trailer, you'll have to open the link.

http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.s..._the_life.html

Pro-life horror film 'The Life Zone' premieres at Hoboken International Film Festival

"The two people who end up facing the consequences are on either side of the fence and they're unbending. That's how I felt when I first read the script and how I still feel about it," Lindsey Haun, best known for her work on HBO's True Blood, offered as explanation of the ending twist of her latest feature, the pro-life horror film 'The Life one' which premiered Saturday night at the Hoboken International Film Festival.

"The woman who is completely pro-life and who never changes her opinion, and the woman who is pro-choice and never considers the other side, they're so pig-headed in their own views and not willing to debate, so they face the consequences," Haun, who plays pro-choice victim Staci Horowitz, concluded.
And that's one interpretation of the pro-life horror film, a passion project of its writer and producer, HIFF founder and NJ state senate candidate Kenneth del Vecchio. But it's the wrong one.

The Life Zone went viral across the internet Friday after blogs The Frisky and Talking Points Memo picked up on the film's trailer which focuses on three pregnant women who appear to have been kidnapped from abortion clinics and forced to see their pregnancies to term by their doctor and jailor. 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.

The plot as it played out: Three pregnant women wake up imprisoned in a hospital. Their only other contact is with their jailor - a mystery man played by Robert Loggia who occasionally appears on video to answer the women's questions and explain the consequences of their disobedience - and an obstetrician, actress Blanche Baker as Dr. Victoria Wise, who will deliver the captive women's babies whether or not their pro-choice views are changed.

The captive women are clothed in nightgowns and served warm milk and given opportunities to read books and watch movies explaining both sides of the abortion debate. Among the films is Del Vecchio's own 2009 feature, O.B.A.M. Nude, a satire of the Obama presidency.

As Dr. Wise explains it, "we'll have an abortion think tank over the next seven months."

The pregnant women are often tortured by dreams of death and despair - montages of swarming bees, swirling tornadoes and speeches by Hitler one night, African-Americans and foreigners shouting "abort me" in foreign tongues the next - while Dr. Wise experiences flashbacks to the dissolution of her marriage which fell apart when she learned she couldn't bear children. Her parents cursed her for not taking better care of her body, a poor diet, too much work, while her husband - The Karate Kid's bad sensei Martin Kove - divorces her, leaving her for a woman capable of having his children, a moment that pushes Dr. Wise to desperate measures.

Finally two of the three women come to accept human life exists inside them and less anxiously anticipate giving birth. But Staci still refuses to accept that the life inside her is anything more than a fetus. In her third trimester she attempts to injure herself and miscarry. It has unintended consequences.
All three women deliver and finally the first of the plot's twists are revealed. Staci, most opposed to pregnancy, is blessed with two children - twins - while her fellow captives only give birth to one baby each.

Later, Staci wakes up. The two new mothers are no longer captives, they've presumably ascended to heaven with their babies. It's revealed all along the women had been in Purgatory, after having died on the operating table of abortion clinics. But because Staci attempted to miscarry even after a second chance at motherhood, and because she never accepted the error of her ways until she experienced the physical joy of giving birth, of seeing her children for the first time, she will be doomed to eternity in Hell.

Loggia is Satan and he informs Staci she will spend all eternity in a cycle of pregnancy and childbirth and Dr. Wise will forever be her doctor, as the movie's final twist plays out: Wise too will spend eternity in Hell. She was so weak she committed suicide when her marriage collapsed and must suffer the fate of forever bringing life into the world, endlessly having to appreciate what she did not value on Earth.

"It was not a dramatic turn," Del Vecchio explained yesterday of the film's final moments - the triple-birth scene scored to a swelling crescendo which drowns out the revelation that Staci has given birth to twins along with the revelation of the doctor's suicide - all obscured by sound and editing issues director Rod Weber was still working to smooth out through the night. Del Vecchio explained The Life Zone is simply the classic straightforward story with a twist.

"It's like the Twilight Zone. Life, like pro-life; zone, like the Twilight Zone. And if you've seen Twilight Zone episodes, it punches you in the face in the end," Del Vecchio added, though he was quick to note he still felt the film's presentation of the issues was balanced. "I think the audience will walk away not knowing what the filmmaker's position is, it gives both sides of the coin."

But the filmmaker is no more shy about promoting his political positions in his films than he is promoting his films on the campaign trail. Del Vecchio's campaign website clearly states his belief abortion is mass murder, but before encountering his position statements, visitors to www.kenforsenate.com see a sidebar of trailers for his films as well as a campaign commercial featuring some of his films' stars, including pro-life actor Robert Loggia.

When we caught up with Loggia on the way out of the theater Saturday evening, he seemed to have a better sense of the plot than the campaign however. "I didn't know what the finished product would be," he admitted, all of his scenes shot in Los Angeles, apart from the main production in Brooklyn. "but it dealt with abortion and birth and it leaves you very challenged to find the proper attitude toward abortion."

Asked what prompted him to support Del Vecchio for State Senate and why he is in a campaign commercial for the Republican candidate, a confused Loggia suddenly experienced a plot twist of his own. "I don't know, I am?"

[NGS]

I'm not disturbed, it's just another shameless piece of propaganda--and apparently support-drumming for the director's upcoming election. People won't see this movie.

[earthJoker]

I wonder if/when this ends up in one of our evil anti-amerikan newspaper articles.

[Lewkowski]

In general I watch movies for entertainment. I hate when movie directors, actors and others think that their movies should influence people to do something. Its a 2 hour movie, it changes no lives. You are entertainers, revel in that fact and stop your preaching.

That being said the plot sounds reaaaaaally bad to this.

[earthJoker]

I disagree: Books, theatres, music, operas, comedy... all of those have been used as criticism of politics and society since ever. Actually the most famous pieces are full of them from Shakespeare to Brecht. Why should this be different for movies?

But this just sounds plainly stupid.

[Lewkowski]

I disagree: Books, theatres, music, operas, comedy... all of those have been used as criticism of politics and society since ever. Actually the most famous pieces are full of them from Shakespeare to Brecht. Why should this be different for movies?

But this just sounds plainly stupid.

I go to a movie theater to be entertained. I don't go to get preached at it about one issue or another. I also like to point out that directors, producers and actors are glorified circus clowns. They do not make a difference other then making life more enjoyable for people. Which isn't a bad thing at all, it serves a useful purpose in society.

[earthJoker]

I like chocolate ice cream, does that mean that every ice cream should be chocolate? No, some other like coffee ice cream which I don't like. That's why we can choose which movie to watch, and you don't have to go to it.

I for myself want to see something different from pure entertainment from time to time. But not preaching. Do you think Romeo and Juliet is preaching?

[Lewkowski]

I like chocolate ice cream, does that mean that every ice cream should be chocolate? No, some other like coffee ice cream which I don't like. That's why we can choose which movie to watch, and you don't have to go to it.

I for myself want to see something different from pure entertainment from time to time. But not preaching. Do you think Romeo and Juliet is preaching?

Well its more like like a tolerate the preachy parts and enjoy the rest of the movie if its worth it. If people want to watch a movie that preaches to them, that's fine go watch any number of movies that are blatant about their point. Moore's movie ect ect. My real complaint is when they get people into the show on the premise of entertainment but then start trying to push their wold view while they have a captive audience.

[earthJoker]

You mean like Shakespeare?

[Enoch the Red]

Are you arguing with Lewk just to argue?

He's saying he doesn't like feeling manipulated when he goes to see a film. Why should you take exception to that? Why should that offend you?

[earthJoker]

I am not offended, I just disagree with:

You are entertainers

For some movies this might be true, but I want to see others as well.

[Enoch the Red]

I am not offended, I just disagree with:

For some movies this might be true, but I want to see others as well.

I don't think he's telling you what movies you do or don't want to watch.

[Aimless]

No, he's saying what movies should/shouldn't be made.

[earthJoker]

No, he's saying what movies should/shouldn't be made.

Correct. And if only popcorn cinema is made, how can I watch what I like?

[Enoch the Red]

No, he's saying what movies should/shouldn't be made.

If people want to watch a movie that preaches to them, that's fine go watch any number of movies that are blatant about their point. Moore's movie ect ect

He's saying what movies he does and does not like, and the ones he would go see. I'm somehow missing where he says they shouldn't be made.

[Illusions]

I'm somehow missing where he says they shouldn't be made.

I hate when movie directors, actors and others think that their movies should influence people to do something. Its a 2 hour movie, it changes no lives. You are entertainers, revel in that fact and stop your preaching.

They might be referring to this.

[Lewkowski]

No, he's saying what movies should/shouldn't be made.

Yes in my opinion these movies shouldn't be made that way. However unlike you big government liberals I in no way intend to abuse government monopoly on force to get my way. It's an opinion get over it.

[Illusions]

Yes in my opinion these movies shouldn't be made that way.

You do realize that stories, regardless of form, have inherently had lessons to be learned in them/from them since when we first started making them thousands of years ago? Maybe your problem is with blatant, clubbing you over the head levels of trying to teach something. For instance Michael Moore's messages in his movies are far more blatant than the one in say True Grit, or There Will Be Blood (I'm assuming you like or enjoyed those two).

[Lewkowski]

You do realize that stories, regardless of form, have inherently had lessons to be learned in them/from them since when we first started making them thousands of years ago? Maybe your problem is with blatant, clubbing you over the head levels of trying to teach something. For instance Michael Moore's messages in his movies are far more blatant than the one in say True Grit, or There Will Be Blood (I'm assuming you like or enjoyed those two).

Didn't watch True Grit or There Will Be Blood.

Look if they want to do something subtle I'm not going to horribly offended. Its when they inject obvious political/social view points into a movie that is completely unnecessary. The entertainment industry should realize that they are there to entertain us not teach us. The glorified circus clowns should realize what they are.

[Illusions]

Didn't watch True Grit or There Will Be Blood.

Uh, okay I guess.

Look if they want to do something subtle I'm not going to horribly offended. Its when they inject obvious political/social view points into a movie that is completely unnecessary.

Why don't you tell us some recent movies you've watched that you think lack messages, and we'll tell you whether or not they do. This should be an interesting experiment.

The entertainment industry should realize that they are there to entertain us not teach us. The glorified circus clowns should realize what they are.

Some people find knowledge entertaining.

This is also your limited opinion, and you seem to keep ignoring the fact that storytelling has been used for thousands of years as a method of teaching while also entertaining. I do not understand why you think this has to or should change simply because the modern form of it now includes projected images coming from a mechanical box.

I guess the idea of a target audience also escapes you, or do you also find it offensive and/or stupid that someone dare make something that is not intended for you?

[Enoch the Red]

They might be referring to this.

Where he states an opinion about what he thinks directors should do to make their product appealing to him? You read that as him forcing directors to only make the types of movies he likes, and movie-goers to only go to the movies he approves?

Really?

[Illusions]

Where he states an opinion about what he thinks directors should do to make their product appealing to him? You read that as him forcing directors to only make the types of movies he likes, and movie-goers to only go to the movies he approves?

Really?

Maybe you could go back and actually read what you wrote, where you're asking Minx where Lewk says these movies shouldn't be made, and instead telling him that Lewk meant what movies he would and would not see...since what you wrote here isn't what any of us are discussing with you. Perhaps you should also go back and read that snippet you skipped where Lewk states:

Yes in my opinion these movies shouldn't be made that way.

So yes, while he isn't saying Movie X shouldn't be made, he is saying that Movie X shouldn't be made in its current form.

I guess it might have been confusion of language, but this might be a wake up call to you but when a few of us on this forum use the word "should" we're not backing it with the force of a government.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes in my opinion these movies shouldn't be made that way. However unlike you big government liberals I in no way intend to abuse government monopoly on force to get my way.

Well, let me the first to disappoint you, but I just came back from abusing big government to force to get my way and I'm afraid the movies you like will never be made ever again. Sucks to be you

You really do say the darndest things kddo

[Enoch the Red]

Maybe you could go back and actually read what you wrote, where you're asking Minx where Lewk says these movies shouldn't be made, and instead telling him that Lewk meant what movies he would and would not see...since what you wrote here isn't what any of us are discussing with you. Perhaps you should also go back and read that snippet you skipped where Lewk states:

Or, you could go back and read what Earthjoker wrote, specifically where he said that Lewk was trying to dictate what movies he could/could not see. Lewk's opinion on how movies should or shouldn't be made is no more binding then your decision not to go watch the new Sarah Palin flick. Just because you don't support it, and might not even think movies should be made that way, doesn't mean you are dictating what others do or don't watch.

This isn't rocket science, this is people being purposefully obtuse to try and score points against Lewk.

So yes, while he isn't saying Movie X shouldn't be made, he is saying that Movie X shouldn't be made in its current form.

I guess it might have been confusion of language, but this might be a wake up call to you but when a few of us on this forum use the word "should" we're not backing it with the force of a government.

Essentially Lewk shouldn't be able to have an opinion about what movies he would or wouldn't like to watch, and why because... why exactly?

[Ominous Gamer]

In general I watch movies for entertainment. I hate when movie directors, actors and others think that their movies should influence people to do something. Its a 2 hour movie, it changes no lives. You are entertainers, revel in that fact and stop your preaching.

I know Lewk is coming across as a shallow ignorant dumbass, yet again. Yes I understand how he is basically saying he is against any art ever being made because he is that god damn stupid.


but...
There are actual studies that have been done where shit like this is used to determine if someone is conservative in nature. They absolutely hate being told directly what to do. They are much more open to manipulation when its done in a round about away. All the way down to being so obvious in their nature that you can pick one out based on the fact of if they follow your finger when you point at something. They hate being told what to do that bad.

[Illusions]

Or, you could go back and read what Earthjoker wrote, specifically where he said that Lewk was trying to dictate what movies he could/could not see.

And...? I'm not debating Earthjoker. I'm debating Lewk's statement that movies shouldn't be anything other than entertainment, and should not include a message or lesson. Why am I debating this? Because I think its a stupid opinion, and one that goes against thousands of years of storytelling, not because I think he's trying to dictate what movies could/could not be seen.

Lewk's opinion on how movies should or shouldn't be made is no more binding then your decision not to go watch the new Sarah Palin flick. Just because you don't support it, and might not even think movies should be made that way, doesn't mean you are dictating what others do or don't watch.

I never claimed he was dictating what others could watch. I am informing him that his opinion is stupid and explaining why. Do you have a problem with that?

This isn't rocket science, this is people being purposefully obtuse to try and score points against Lewk.

Obviously it is rocket science, since you seem to have assumed that Minx and myself thought Lewk was trying to dictate what we could watch, or what should be allowed to be produced, and not calling him out on the stupidity of his opinion.

Essentially Lewk shouldn't be able to have an opinion about what movies he would or wouldn't like to watch, and why because... why exactly?

Again, he's not debating what movies he would or would not like to watch, but is stating his opinion that people involved in movies are no more than circus clowns, and should not be engaging in anything but producing entertainment. The rest of us think this opinion is stupid and are stating why we think it is.