Rain Without Thunder

I think that most of the people who don't like this movie don't know a little bit of the background regarding one reference - Margaret Atwood's book (and movie) The Handmaid's Tale. Notice that Linda Hunt's character is from the Atwood society. Without that reference, I'm not sure everyone can understand the full weight of this film.

Moreover, I think anyone who wants to really know if this film has a basis in reality should just look at what's happening (slowly, but apparently surely) in the USA regarding abortion laws today. Yes, this could happen in the USA and that makes it the most scary movie I've ever seen.

A must-see for anyone who is interested in abortion issues (although pro-lifers will certainly call it bunk).

Firstly in 1992, when this film was made, and today, the US has and does give MORE rights to women when it comes to abortion than Sweden does. Yet this bizarre film has the protagonist going to Sweden to get an abortion.

Newsflash: in Europe people LEAVE Sweden to get abortions. today and for decades in Sweden after 18 weeks women cannot have an "at will" abortion, there must be a threat to the woman's health. In the US the average is 20-22 weeks.

I caught this movie by chance because the TV was on . . . knew nothing about it. I saw the "2042 A.D." notation at the beginning and I decided to watch it since I like science fiction.

Only a few minutes in, the film revealed its pro-choice propagandist objective. Since I pay close attention to social issues in politics, I continued to watch. At the first commercial break I read reviews written at the time of its release, which mostly remarked that it was the most boring 85 minutes a person could experience.

However, now after more than twenty years, the film is quite interesting -- not for its quality but for its "hits and misses" at predicting the future. For example, there is mention of economic expansion through the end of the twentieth century, followed by a pull-back causing Americans to believe that the nation needed to be reclaimed -- apparently by criminalizing abortion. The writer correctly predicted the pro-life trend in America for the next few decades, but attributed it to the wrong reasons. In reality, ever since 1973, science has provided ever-increasing evidence that life begins too soon after fertilization for most Americans to support abortion on demand even at ever-decreasing gestation periods.

A more reasoned prediction would be that IF the unborn in America were defined as persons with the constitutional right to life (and thus Roe v. Wade overturned), it would happen BECAUSE society as a whole gravitated in the same direction (as opposed to increased polarization), and thus the extent of the punishment for illegal abortion would be less controversial than this film presents.

Although abortion advocates may see the film as showing both pro-choice and pro-life viewpoints, I could find only one instance of a pro-life message: A Catholic priest describes the gruesome details of tearing a fetus limb-from-limb in the womb or alternatively burning it to death with chemicals. Otherwise, the film is 100% pro-choice and anti-Christian.

The writer's prediction concerning feminism (and male/female relations) was far from the mark, at least for the first 20 years after release of the film. Certainly feminist advocacy has shifted since 1992, but to predict that women would lose so-called rights and societal stature was ridiculous -- apparently it was presented as an extreme claim in order to prompt a reaction.

As a disclaimer, I should note that I am a friend of the director, who, by the way, is a wonderful person and very fun to work with. His film, however, has it's issues. The soundtrack is really terrible, and the all-interview, talking-heads format is limiting. These things, however, are obviously the result of a very small budget, not just bad filmmaking. The story was what impressed me, specifically the way Bennett describes the series of small changes in the political and religious arenas that could very plausibly lead to a reversal of Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately the film was released right after Clinton was elected, and people were feeling very comfortable and safe under a new, liberal administration. I think the purpose of _Rain Without Thunder_ is not "preach to the choir" but rather to keep the choir from growing complacent. And even if you're unimpressed with the plot, it's lots of fun to spot now-stars like Ming-Na and Steve Zahn (not to mention that woman from the Nicorette ads).

Sure, this film, like "Bob Roberts" and some others I could name, indulges in a bit of preaching-to-the-choir... But, then, one could argue that the drivel they peddle on CBN and those inane Tim LaHaye books do the exact same thing, for the Church Lady Crowd. What's truly scary about this film isn't its absurdity, but rather its plausibility- some of this would doubtless become reality if certain forces and groups in our society had their way. Our modern world is full of examples of once relatively progressive, modern secular states that fell into extreme repression at the hands of religious fanatics. Afghanistan is only the most blatant, recent example. For those who are "pro-life", but maybe haven't thought through the full implications of enshrining their agenda into law, I would think this film raises some pretty pertinent questions, like- would an IUD, which can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, be considered a "murder weapon"? Will women have to be locked up to insure that they don't commit "crimes" against their fetuses? Just how will the legal apparatus deal with regulating the sex lives and reproductive systems of millions of Americans? It's all well and good to talk about "saving the babies", but these questions will invariably come up if the radical right is able to implement it's plan of making abortion (and, for some "pro-life" groups, all forms of birth control) a crime. Everyone should see this movie. It's not a "liberal's nightmare", it's the nightmare of everyone who doesn't want Big Brother hanging out in their bodies and bedrooms.