Rain Without Thunder

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).

This movie could have been an interesting look at the abortion debate, however what you get is a one-sided movie that is meant to provoke paranoia.

The movie over-indulges in perhaps one of my biggest pet peeves -- instead of letting me decide how I feel about a character and their views, it telegraphs what I'm supposed to feel, which is okay when characters are given dimension, however these characters are all pretty one-sided -- the pro-choice characters are portrayed as good but victimized people, while the pro-life side is portrayed as ominous, evil, vindictive and manipulative. No dimensions, no shades of gray, just black and white, pro-choice good and pro-life bad.

Let me add one caveat, I am not pro-life and my feelings on this movie are not based on my feelings about abortion. I would have felt the same if the movie had reversed the roles and made the pro-choice people "evil", much like you see on TBN or the like...

RAIN WITHOUT THUNDER (dir. Gary Bennett) The title of the film refers to a quote by Frederick Douglass in which he postulates that to retain freedom without a certain degree of vigilance is like 'rain without thunder'. The Abortion Dilemma is the controversial subject of this rather stolid film. The movie is set in the year 2042, and employs an interview structure in which various 'talking heads' are given time to explore their points of view, and there is no 'action' in the usual sense of the term. We learn through the interviews that in this future, Women's Rights have been seriously eroded, and a tenacious female district attorney is able to apply a new law which allows the mother to be prosecuted for 'kidnapping' the fetus after she has obtained an abortion. However, It would seem to me that if Abortion was so aberrant in this future time, then it would be treated as 'Murder', and the mother would be tried and executed for a capital crime. Although the film touches on numerous interesting points, the lame presentation makes the film almost painful to watch.

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.

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.