Unfortunately, it seems impossible to discuss this film without talking about abortion. But reading through the many comments on this site, it seems to me that a whole lot of people viewing the film were sidetracked by the abortion issue, and missed the real heart of the story.
But, just to get it out of the way, let's do this thing. I really don't understand why pro-life people get so up in arms about this movie. I understand finding abortion horrible, sinful, or evil. That makes sense to me. But very few people really look at this film on its own terms. Everyone is reading into it a grand liberal scheme to propagandize abortion, and to make it seem like a good thing. I don't know, maybe there is such a scheme, but so what? The film can be interpreted in any number of ways, many of them without a pro-choice slant.
Many people see the film in terms of an ongoing argument between Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine) and Homer Wells (Tobey Maguire), which, in the end, Dr. Larch wins. In other words, Homer is eventually persuaded of the rightness of Dr. Larch's views and actions. This may indeed be what the author attempted to say (I've never read the book, which would perhaps shed some more light on it), but I really don't think it's as simple as that.
First of all, Homer is never, at any point in the film, your typical pro-life kind of guy. He explicitly says, very early on, that he has no objection whatsoever to Dr. Larch performing abortions. He clearly has moral qualms about the practice, but he only objects to being asked to perform them himself. In modern political terms, he would have to be considered pro-choice. So this film does not represent the victory of pro-choice over pro-life. It represents the victory of pragmatism over idealism.
Homer has a very idealistic vision of his role in life. He wants to be "of use", but he feels that performing abortions should not be necessary to that function. Dr. Larch argues that performing abortions is very necessary, because the alternative is far worse for all involved. Dr. Larch does not advocate abortions to pregnant women. He does not delight in terminating pregnancies. He terminates pregnancies in a manner which is safe to the mother when the alternative is that the mother will find other, more dangerous means to reach the same end. Sure, the world would be better if no one ever needed or wanted an abortion, but they do, and given that fact, we have to adjust. You can't ever eliminate the practice of abortion, so shouldn't those abortions that do occur be performed by competent professionals?
This is the lesson that Homer learns. Incidentally, the specific case which compels Homer to relax his personal moral opposition to abortion is exactly a case to which most pro-lifers admit an exception; the case of incest. So, I really can't comprehend the vitriol with which pro-lifers often attack this film.
But anyway, forget about that. This movie is a coming of age story featuring terrific characters, excellent performances, and a strong story. There's so much more to this film than abortion. The character of Mr. Rose (Delroy Lindo) is one of the most fascinating characters I've ever seen. He is a hideous monster, capable of unimaginable cruelty. But he is also a kind man. This sort of moral contradiction happens so frequently in life, yet so rarely in films. For that character alone, and for the performance of Mr. Lindo, this film deserves high praise.
Basically, I think the film is about a journey of discovery, as trite as that sounds. Homer lives for years in a very stable, organized, structured, and protected environment. He is nurtured, cared for, and sheltered. Once he leaves the orphanage, he enters a world that is far more complex than what he's used to, and that complexity makes a mockery of all of his noble, altruistic aims. "There's no helping anyone... not out there," Dr. Larch says. He's not exactly right, but he's right enough. Homer's simple good nature is unequipped to deal with the moral ambiguities and contradictions of real life. Candy says she loves him, and maybe she does, yet she hurts him mercilessly. Candy loves her husband, but betrays him. Homer, in his simplicity, is swept up into this moral quagmire when he betrays his friend, Candy's husband. His eventual return to the orphanage could be seen as a retreat from the realities of life, but he isn't trying to protect himself from the harsh world. He's going back to the only controlled environment he's ever known, an environment within which he is able to be far more effective in his ceaseless desire to be "of use".
This film has such a simple, graceful arc, and some really lovely cinematography. It has, as I said, strong compelling characters well acted. It has a terrific script full of insight, wonder, sadness, and love. It has Charlize Theron's bare buttocks. [Sorry, I lost my composure for a moment.] If people didn't get so caught up in the abortion thing, I think this film would be much more popular than it is.
But, just to get it out of the way, let's do this thing. I really don't understand why pro-life people get so up in arms about this movie. I understand finding abortion horrible, sinful, or evil. That makes sense to me. But very few people really look at this film on its own terms. Everyone is reading into it a grand liberal scheme to propagandize abortion, and to make it seem like a good thing. I don't know, maybe there is such a scheme, but so what? The film can be interpreted in any number of ways, many of them without a pro-choice slant.
Many people see the film in terms of an ongoing argument between Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine) and Homer Wells (Tobey Maguire), which, in the end, Dr. Larch wins. In other words, Homer is eventually persuaded of the rightness of Dr. Larch's views and actions. This may indeed be what the author attempted to say (I've never read the book, which would perhaps shed some more light on it), but I really don't think it's as simple as that.
First of all, Homer is never, at any point in the film, your typical pro-life kind of guy. He explicitly says, very early on, that he has no objection whatsoever to Dr. Larch performing abortions. He clearly has moral qualms about the practice, but he only objects to being asked to perform them himself. In modern political terms, he would have to be considered pro-choice. So this film does not represent the victory of pro-choice over pro-life. It represents the victory of pragmatism over idealism.
Homer has a very idealistic vision of his role in life. He wants to be "of use", but he feels that performing abortions should not be necessary to that function. Dr. Larch argues that performing abortions is very necessary, because the alternative is far worse for all involved. Dr. Larch does not advocate abortions to pregnant women. He does not delight in terminating pregnancies. He terminates pregnancies in a manner which is safe to the mother when the alternative is that the mother will find other, more dangerous means to reach the same end. Sure, the world would be better if no one ever needed or wanted an abortion, but they do, and given that fact, we have to adjust. You can't ever eliminate the practice of abortion, so shouldn't those abortions that do occur be performed by competent professionals?
This is the lesson that Homer learns. Incidentally, the specific case which compels Homer to relax his personal moral opposition to abortion is exactly a case to which most pro-lifers admit an exception; the case of incest. So, I really can't comprehend the vitriol with which pro-lifers often attack this film.
But anyway, forget about that. This movie is a coming of age story featuring terrific characters, excellent performances, and a strong story. There's so much more to this film than abortion. The character of Mr. Rose (Delroy Lindo) is one of the most fascinating characters I've ever seen. He is a hideous monster, capable of unimaginable cruelty. But he is also a kind man. This sort of moral contradiction happens so frequently in life, yet so rarely in films. For that character alone, and for the performance of Mr. Lindo, this film deserves high praise.
Basically, I think the film is about a journey of discovery, as trite as that sounds. Homer lives for years in a very stable, organized, structured, and protected environment. He is nurtured, cared for, and sheltered. Once he leaves the orphanage, he enters a world that is far more complex than what he's used to, and that complexity makes a mockery of all of his noble, altruistic aims. "There's no helping anyone... not out there," Dr. Larch says. He's not exactly right, but he's right enough. Homer's simple good nature is unequipped to deal with the moral ambiguities and contradictions of real life. Candy says she loves him, and maybe she does, yet she hurts him mercilessly. Candy loves her husband, but betrays him. Homer, in his simplicity, is swept up into this moral quagmire when he betrays his friend, Candy's husband. His eventual return to the orphanage could be seen as a retreat from the realities of life, but he isn't trying to protect himself from the harsh world. He's going back to the only controlled environment he's ever known, an environment within which he is able to be far more effective in his ceaseless desire to be "of use".
This film has such a simple, graceful arc, and some really lovely cinematography. It has, as I said, strong compelling characters well acted. It has a terrific script full of insight, wonder, sadness, and love. It has Charlize Theron's bare buttocks. [Sorry, I lost my composure for a moment.] If people didn't get so caught up in the abortion thing, I think this film would be much more popular than it is.