Bella | Steven Greydanus on the award-winning movie

Bella | Steven Greydanus for August/September 2007 Catholic World Report                

It's the kind of against-all-odds success story every film school student hopes and dreams about. Three first-time film producers—a first-time writer–director, an actor, and a co-writer—set out to make a film with a script and no money. After connecting with entrenpreneurs and getting financing, they shoot the film over a little more than three weeks in New York. The finished picture is selected for a major film festival—Toronto—gets some press, and winds up scoring the People's Choice Award, catapulting it into the spotlight and leading to additional honors and success, including theatrical distribution (set for release in the fall. See the website at http:// www.bellathemovie.com/).

Talk to director Alejandro Gomez Monteverde and his colleagues—actor Eduardo Verástegui, writer–producer Leo Severino, and producer Sean Wolfington—and it's clear that they're as thrilled to be in their shoes as any first-time producers and filmmakers would be. At the same time, it's also   clear they have a shared perspective quite different from most filmmakers, whether inside or outside the Hollywood establishment.

Read the entire article...

Comments

[W.]

What is the release date for the film? I keep hearing different dates.

[Sandra Miesel]

It was also selected for the Heartland Film Festival in Indianapolis next month.

[Mark Brumley]

End of October--October 26 in ten major markets around the country. Keep an eye out on the Bella site for more information. If the film isn't showing in your area, contact your theater and ask that it be picked up.

[Barb N]

This is the most significant and telling line in the piece:

"Is Bella a pro-life film? That depends on one's understanding of the term."

It is what it is....

[Mark Brumley]

BELLA is a "prolife film", but it's not propaganda. It tells a story that highlights the prolife implications of existence, the "is's" and the "oughts" of being here.

[Barb N]

Mark -

It could also be said that Bella is a "pro-choice" film.

People who are pro-choice seem to think it is. I read one review early on that said something to the effect, "This film shows an ideal universe in which a woman is supported in the choice that is right for her."

That people who are both pro-choice and pro-life think the film is theirs is not a plus. It is evidence of thematic confusion resulting from lack of creative control.

Whatever. The film won't do any harm. But in itself, it certainly doesn't deserve all the gushing.

[Carl Olson]

That people who are both pro-choice and pro-life think the film is theirs is not a plus. It is evidence of thematic confusion resulting from lack of creative control.

Oddly enough, many people who are "pro-choice" also claim the Bible is on their side. So do many homosexual activists. Would we then say that the Bible exhibits thematic confusion resulting from lack of creative control? Which is not to say that "Bella" isn't confused (I've not seen the movie), but that this line of criticism is, if not confused, at least misleading.

[Mark Brumley]

It could also be said that Bella is a "pro-choice" film.

I don't doubt that some prochoicers will try to "spin" the powerful story of BELLA and say it doesn't really imply the rightness of the prolife position. But of course their saying it doesn't make it so.

People who are pro-choice seem to think it is. I read one review early on that said something to the effect, "This film shows an ideal universe in which a woman is supported in the choice that is right for her."

That may be the prochoice claim, or the claim of some prochoicers, but I think the case is strong that the storyline, characters, and thrust of the film clearly want us to see the choice to have the child as the morally right choice. It isn't simply an exaltation of "freedom of choice", per se, no matter what the choice. It helps the viewer see that if the character chooses to give birth to her child that this is the morally right choice in itself, and not just for her, because children are valuable and good in themselves. The objections the character Nina raises to having the baby are answered through the unfolding of the story. That's why it isn't propaganda and why it is a prolife film. It helps us see the prolife fabric of the world, that we have a choice about how we respond to it, and that the options before us are not morally equal or indifferent.

That people who are both pro-choice and pro-life think the film is theirs is not a plus. It is evidence of thematic confusion resulting from lack of creative control.

And some people thought THE PASSION was antisemitic. If there are people who really think the film prochoice, then that is unfortunate. But their thinking it doesn't make it so. And while their thinking it may be a sign, as you say, of "thematic confusion resulting from lack of creative control", it may also be a sign of an unwarranted interpretative confusion on the viewer's part or wishful thinking or rhetorical spin or half a dozen other things resulting from the viewer having a set of presuppositions and biases flowing from strong feelings about a highly controversial subject. It is also quite possible that whatever people tell themselves about the prochoice nature of the film, that many women contemplating abortion will think twice about whether the choice to abort is really the kind of choice a morally good person would make.

Whatever. The film won't do any harm. But in itself, it certainly doesn't deserve all the gushing.

Of course whether gushing is happening, how much if so, and whether it is deserved are all other questions.

[Barb N]

Mark -

I understand that one of the people who thought that Bella was pro-choice was the lead actress, Tammi Blanchard. But what does she know, right?

The comparison of Bella as art to the Bible (and even The Passion of the Christ) was the kind of puerile rejoinder I probably deserved from appealing to the argument from authority in the first place. And yet, (here I go again) the fact remains that the ultra-liberal Toronto Film Festival would never give an award to a film that the attendees felt was even subtly pro-life. I suspect the award had much more to do with the fact that the story portrayed tacit acceptance of a woman's right to choose from a traditionally Catholic constituency (Latinos).

That the woman has her baby doesn't make the movie pro-life. As feministblog.com pointed out about the movie, "This just makes the movie pro-choice." Indeed, I can imagine a movie in which a woman has an abortion that could be strongly pro-life. The point is, the movie never articulates the life of the unborn child as something that should be taken into consideration. It's all what is right for the woman. (This defect in the piece certainly comes from the fact - as related to me by one of the producers - that the dialogue was 80% improv on the set by the actors - and the main actor - Blanchard - is vehemently pro-choice.

Didn't it bother anybody else that Eduardo's character escorts the woman to the abortion clinic? He sits there in the lobby hoping perhaps she won't do it, but there for her anyway? We don't get to do that as, um, it is still a mortal sin. In a Catholic world view anyway.

Again, whatever. We're already making too much of the piece here. The truth is, what is being sold here is the story of the filmmakers as a way to make back the initial investment on the project. And they have a right to market it whatever way works for them. But if any of us just strayed into the theater and caught this movie without all the "GREAT CATHOLIC/PRO-LIFE MOVIE!" set-up, we would think it was a slow-moving, uneven piece, lacking in narrative necessity and production design, but with some charming elements. We certainly wouldn't be falling all over it.

I do certainly hope the filmmakers go on to make more films as they have had a $5 million dollar film school experience in this piece. I'd really like to see what the director could do with a screenplay next time.

[Mark Brumley]

I can't reply at length since I am traveling. However, one easy item re: Tammy Blanchard, see Ian McCellan's comments about Gandalf and LOTR. Why should I think he knows anything about Gandalf and LOTR or anymore than, say, Magneto does? Why should I think TB would think anything other than what she says?

[Alex]

To "Barb N."

I write this with a heavy heart for you. To give you the benefit of doubt, i believe you must unknowingly be attacking an inspired work... Have you even seen the film? Seems you haven't, given the way you've misconstrued critical plot points to make your case. Do you really know the producers? Seems you don't, or else you would NEVER say the sorts of things you are accusing them of.

YOU SAY I understand that one of the people who thought that Bella was pro-choice was the lead actress, Tammi Blanchard. But what does she know, right?

THE TRUTH IS - You're wrong and, without any certainty whatsoever, that is incredibly imprudent and irresponsible to post. Tammy, currently pregnant, is ardently pro-life... Her uncle is a pastor and i heard once from people involved in the film that they had to really reign her in at a screening when someone asked about the film to not all but say "i took this role in order to help save babies" - and of course, if you know anything about the film industry, the actors aren't necessarily involved in the writing or producing of the film - i'm sure many in the cast and crew were not pro-life - what difference does that make?

YOU SAY The comparison of Bella as art to the Bible (and even The Passion of the Christ) was the kind of puerile rejoinder I probably deserved from appealing to the argument from authority in the first place. And yet, (here I go again) the fact remains that the ultra-liberal Toronto Film Festival would never give an award to a film that the attendees felt was even subtly pro-life. I suspect the award had much more to do with the fact that the story portrayed tacit acceptance of a woman's right to choose from a traditionally Catholic constituency (Latinos).

TRUTH IS - Many films with traditional values have won Toronto like Life is Beautiful and Chariots of Fire and Cyrano. Not sure what previous argument you're referring to "from authority" but this argument is logically sophmoric - they won liberal festival therefore it must be a liberal film. They received the "People's Choice" Award at the festival - do you know the demographic of those attending? Even presuming they were all ultra-liberal, what if, despite what you say below and as intended from the start, these filmmakers actually made a beautiful film that speaks to the human heart and pierces through ideologies? or is God's law not "written on our hearts"??? Your argument is tainted with your vitriol against the film - "it couldn't possibly be that they won the festival (and several other awards) because they made a great piece of art (that i heard made everyone at that festival, and everywhere else laugh and cry). No, there had to be some liberal reason for them winning..." Given your rationale no pagan would ever be inspired by the beauty of the inside of a cathedral, no group of people could ever be moved by art that speaks beyond their ideology... seems you have no faith in art or underestimate its power. would you say the same for the opposite case? can well formed, christian people be influenced and attracted by things unholy? especially in the arts???

YOU SAY That the woman has her baby doesn't make the movie pro-life. As feministblog.com pointed out about the movie, "This just makes the movie pro-choice." Indeed, I can imagine a movie in which a woman has an abortion that could be strongly pro-life.

TRUTH IS - You're right, keeping the baby doesn't make the movie pro-life... what makes the movie pro-life, by ANY measure, is the power and content of the story and the fruits it produces. Let's talk about each. Fruits - Our Lord told us to judge a tree by its fruit. I personally know of two situations where couples did not abort their babies because of the film Bella... it's not even in theaters yet... do you think this film will influence anyone to commit abortion??? In one case, a girl who had an appointment to terminate her child saw the film and was so moved that she cancelled the appointment and named the baby, you guessed it "Bella." This one case alone, which i know to be a fact, is more than enough return on the investment and it should be enough to make any Catholic grateful to the filmmakets. Content and Power - The reason this film is truly pro-life is, ironically, precisely because of some of your ill-thought criticisms. it is EFFECTIVE. it seems they did NOT make it for the pro-life choir - and you're right, no card-carrying pro-choicer would support an overtly pro-life film... but would they a subtle one? one who's agenda they couldn't quite decipher yet who's message, in unspoken words, was stronger and hit the heart harder than ANY propaganda piece... how many people were moved by Million Dollar Baby? It's telling that you visit, nonetheless quote as authority, "feministblog.com" - those who would have an agenda to undermine anything pro-life - but could it really be that Fr. Frank Pavone, Archbishop Raymond Burke, Human Life International, Sisters for Life, CareNet, Heartbeat International, the Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family, Movieguide.org and just about every other pro-life group in the nation (i saw the film at a National Right to Life conference) who have endorsed and are actively promoting the film are ALL wrong and you "Barb N." are right? When Bob Novak in the Washington Post wrote that this film is the best hope for the pro-life movement because it shows the beauty of life in a subtle way without preaching and therefore effectively, is he just dumb? is Archbishop Burke an idiot? Is Fr. Frank Pavone dense? are THEY ALL the ones that really missed the point?

YOU SAY The point is, the movie never articulates the life of the unborn child as something that should be taken into consideration. It's all what is right for the woman. (This defect in the piece certainly comes from the fact - as related to me by one of the producers - that the dialogue was 80% improv on the set by the actors - and the main actor - Blanchard - is vehemently pro-choice.

TRUTH IS - ask the countless people who, when at the end of the film with tears streaming down their faces(spoiler alert) see the little girl, who they thought was aborted, alive and running, and then the interaction between mother and child and adopted father and leave uplifted with a renewed faith in humanity - ask them if this film "never articulated the life of the unborn child as something that should be taken into consideration" You clearly have not seen this film closely. Didn't you notice that his conflict is the taking of the life of a little girl and his redemption is the saving of one? The very thing that leads him to follow this girl all day, take her to his family, speak about his accident and ADOPT HER CHILD, is precisely because of the value of the unborn life. How could you miss this? And there was one little thing that you obviously didn't catch - the film is named after that little child in the womb. It's probably the only film in the history Hollywood that is named after a pre-born child!!! Or does it have to be all spelled out for you directly in the story? if so, then it may become propaganda and then, you're probably right, they may never have won toronto...

YOU SAY - Didn't it bother anybody else that Eduardo's character escorts the woman to the abortion clinic? He sits there in the lobby hoping perhaps she won't do it, but there for her anyway? We don't get to do that as, um, it is still a mortal sin. In a Catholic world view anyway.

TRUTH IS - here is where i'm giving you the benefit and presuming you didn't see the film, because again it would be a very irresponsible, imprudent thing to say, bordering on calumny knowing that these guys are devout Catholics. It didn't bother me, because it DID NOT HAPPEN. Eduardo's character does NOT "escort her" to the abortion clinic!!! I've seen the film a few times and know this well. She asked him to go with her at the beach and he never said yes, he said something like "i'll call you". If you would have been paying attention, you would have noticed that she was already at the clinic. He barges in on her and does what? Whispers in her ear the same thing he whispered in his brother's ear - that he wanted to adopt her baby!! He DID NOT take her there - he went there to stop her!!! The opposite of what you claim; he did something heroic. And when she went in anyway, did he just "sit there in the lobby hoping perhaps she wouldn't do it" NO - again, if you would have been paying attention you would have noticed that he PULLED OUT A ROSARY AND STARTED PRAYING... arguably, that's the very thing that ultimately convinced her because that's when she changed her mind and came out. By any measure, what he did was valiant, far from anything remotely close to immediate or formal cooperation with any evil act given, "um, what is it? a Catholic worldview anyway"... i heard that many solid reliable theologians and priests read and commented on the morality of the script... your claim is VERY ignorant and irresponsible and i believe you should make a public retraction of your point on this board.

YOU SAY - Again, whatever. We're already making too much of the piece here. The truth is, what is being sold here is the story of the filmmakers as a way to make back the initial investment on the project. And they have a right to market it whatever way works for them. But if any of us just strayed into the theater and caught this movie without all the "GREAT CATHOLIC/PRO-LIFE MOVIE!" set-up, we would think it was a slow-moving, uneven piece, lacking in narrative necessity and production design, but with some charming elements. We certainly wouldn't be falling all over it.

TRUTH IS - apparently the audience at Toronto, who by your own claim, didn't catch the film with the "GREAT CATHOLIC/PRO LIFE MOVIE" set up, "just strayed into the theater" and didn't think anything of what you thought. they thought it was a masterpiece - as did so many others - including myself and many articles - look on their site and you can see the reviews - reputable people are talking Oscar - i can't help but wonder if there is some other reason you don't like the film - as a good Catholic, i would think you would support films like this instead of attacking them.

Just my two cents, sorry if the tone seemed overly passionate, i just know and love the guys who made the film and have seen it and everyone i know loves it and sees it for what it is - a beautifully pro-life, powerful piece of art. I hope you are who you seem to be, a pro-life Catholic and not some pro-abortion troll who is trying to undermine as Novak said the pro-life movements best hope at finally creating a culture of life by winning people's hearts...

God bless you.

[Barb N]

Alex -

Way too much passion for this piece. Again, whatever.

Yes, I saw the film in roughcut. If they corrected the scene in which Eduardo is waiting for her at the abortion clinic lobby that is a very good thing. I understood from people who had seen the film in recent months that it was still there.

Tammy's comments about having recently wrapped a prochoice film are out there. It was in an interview she did. If she is so ardently pro-life, then why isn't she doing the pro-life bandwagon press for the film?

Yes, I know the filmmakers. At least two of them have impressed me as being deeply committed Catholics. So? I never attacked their Catholicism, unlike you who implicitly attacked mine, as well as my motives and intelligence.

Take a breath. Bella is what it is. It won't do any harm. But if folks just strayed into the theater without all the set-up, they would see it as an uneven piece with various flaws in storytelling, writing and production design, but some charming elements.