Rain Without Thunder

In the year 2042 a young college student is arrested with her mother under a new law charging them with 'fetal kidnapping', after flying to Sweden to terminate the girl's pregnancy. The set up might suggest nothing more than a thinly veiled pro-choice propaganda lecture, but the remarkably even-handed approach to a volatile subject helps make it one of the more provocative dramas in quite a while. First-time writer director Gary Bennett set himself a demanding task by designing the film to look like a documentary-in-progress, with the issues set forth through candid interviews with family, friends, lawyers, legislators, and so forth. The challenge was to write talking-head monologues that had to sound unscripted, and direct a cast of recognizable faces to look as unrehearsed as possible. The ominous music cues don't suit the mock-documentary format, and some of the pro-life fundamentalists are a little too unspeakably inhuman, but for the most part the film is a fascinating blend of science fiction with social fact, offering a compelling speculation into an all-too plausible near-future scenario.

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.

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).

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 is a movie everybody who's even remotely interested in abortion should see, especially male persons. the actors are brilliant (I've never seen Jeff Daniels in a movie like this...) and the story is, though filmed with modest means, very compelling, even exciting. the story takes place in a future where abortion is illegal in the USA. a young women who's pregnant goes to sweden in order to abort her baby and gets convicted for her abortion when she goes back to the states. the movie's filmed in an interesting way. it's mostly made of short scenes where the people involved directly or indirectly in the story talk about their experiences and thoughts and what has happened and why they think it has happened to a female reporter.