2 of 3

Indeed, what makes these films so viscerally pro-life are their depictions of the actual act of childbirth, and the joyous results therein (the babies themselves). The birth scene in Children of Men is a strikingly powerful moment when the chaotic turbulence of the world falling apart all around gives way to the intimate moment of one tiny soul fighting its way into existence. The tone and setting of the scene—a dark, dirty, stable-esque room—hearkens back to Bethlehem in more ways than one, as the tiny newborn brings with it a hope and light for both its mother and the world. In Waitress the scene in the delivery room is one of chaos and catharsis, as Jenna simultaneously fights off the annoyingly physical attention of her husband and agonizes to push the baby out. When the penultimate moment finally comes and she holds the baby in her arms, Jenna has not only a new child but a new confidence in her ability to forge the path she was never brave enough to go down before. Similar catharsis happens in the hilarious and poignant Knocked Up birth scene, in which the arrival of a healthy baby fortifies the strength of its weakened, battered-down parents who at once see life in a different way.

In each of these cases, giving birth to a baby provides the characters a stimulant of purity and clarity—an impetus to do better, try harder, and love more. It is an end that more than justifies the pain, labor, and baggage of the means—a perspective that can only come after the encounter with the awesome event that is childbirth.

So what is going on here?  Is it just a coincidence that these films are coming mere months after the U.S. Supreme Court's significant decision in Gonzales v. Carhart to uphold the federal partial-birth abortion ban, a decided victory for the American pro-life movement? Is this all part of a pro-life upswing in terms of cultural authority?

It would be naïve to assume that the "pro-life" messages (if we can call them that) of these current films are at all indicative of a shift in Hollywood to the right. It is more likely that Hollywood is simply doing what it has always done—making films of a particular kind for audiences of a particular kind. Hollywood doesn't have to care about pro-life causes to understand that there are large amounts of money to be made by throwing the occasional bone to the mysterious Red Staters whose support can propel a film (Passion, Narnia) to the box office stratosphere. Hollywood is all about target marketing and maximizing profits, and as Ty Burr noted in a recent Boston Globe article, they are keenly aware that "religious people and other audiences with strong right-to-life views do buy [movie] tickets, and lots of them."

In 'Knocked Up,' the baby's birth helps its parents see life in a new way

Still, this logic doesn't really explain how a film like Knocked Up, a hard 'R' that is decidedly family-unfriendly, is expected to bring in the evangelical audience. It's not. If it's true that the studio executives in Hollywood are the ones behind the pro-life aspects of these recent films (in effort to appeal to conservative or religious audiences), you'd think the films would be more generally "Christian/family friendly" and not chalk full of profanity and otherwise offensive material.  Furthermore, I doubt that the audiences going to see Waitress and Children of Men (rather indie-minded, specialized films) are dominated by conservative evangelicals.

next page... |  2 of 3