Less Than a Choice
Stephanie Daley reveals the fallout from an unwanted pregnancy.
By Caroline Hagood
Wednesday May 23, 2007
Stephanie Daley, a film that raises difficult questions about pregnancy, was released just two days after the Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales v. Carhart to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Act. The Court obliterated decades-old protections for women’s mental and physical health, and set a dangerous precedent, by ruling that states can deny a woman the right to choose some abortion procedures unless she is at risk of death. But even before the Carhart decision, American women lived in a landscape of limited reproductive choices. 87 percent of U.S. counties, and 97 percent of rural counties, have no abortion provider. Stephanie Daley presents a nightmarish vision of what can happen when a young woman feels she has no options.
The film tells the fictional story of a 16-year-old girl (played by Amber Tamblyn) accused of killing her newborn child on a high school ski trip, a crime for which the media distastefully dubs her the “Ski Mom.” Stephanie won’t take a plea bargain, claiming she didn’t know she was pregnant and the baby was stillborn. Lydie Crane (Tilda Swinton), a pregnant forensic psychologist, is assigned to Stephanie’s case; her own previous pregnancy resulted in a stillbirth three months earlier. It’s not surprising that Stephanie’s plight becomes intertwined with Lydie’s maternal desires, and director Hilary Brougher uses the tension between these characters to great dramatic effect.
Through working with Stephanie, Lydie gains insight into her own identity as a woman and mother. With graceful use of close-ups, dialogue, and flashback, the film traces the roots of its two main characters’ predicaments to their haunted present. The film enters the private realms of women’s struggles in our society. Lydie is dealing with doubts about her husband’s fidelity while Stephanie is faced with a crumbling family.
"Choice"—as defined by second wave feminism—is not a concept readily available to Stephanie, since both having a baby and having an abortion would stigmatize her within her community. Lydie determines that Stephanie was aware she was pregnant and had the resources to deal with it. But as viewers, we are meant to understand that Lydie’s assessment doesn’t take Stephanie’s environment into account. Stephanie’s world is one in which her health class balks at the idea of premarital sex. When students at her high school discuss The Scarlet Letter, Satin (Caitlin Van Zandt as the local outcast, whose greatest sin seems to be having a mind of her own) raises her hand and observes that it’s unjust that the priest is revered for ruining a woman’s life. The teacher maniacally responds that great literature is only about Man and God. This is the kind of environment that could cause a young girl to hide her “sin” for fear of being forever branded.
The film doesn’t shy away from examining personhood, an issue central to current abortion debates. Lydie appears to be plagued by guilt concerning her lost baby. She notes that at 23 weeks her fetus was considered a stillborn child rather than a miscarried fetus and she feels that she should have given it a funeral service.
What makes this film remarkable is its candid portrayal of female grief and suffering. Swinton and Tamblyn cover a broad emotional range. There is a primitive bravery to Stephanie giving birth in a bathroom stall on the ski trip; her silent face is a labyrinth of pain as gossipy girls clomp in and out of the bathroom in ski boots. Lydie is equally heart wrenching; her face doesn’t so much register emotions as become them. Director Hillary Brougher deftly avoids the drudgery of the "after school special," elevating her subject matter to a profound meditation on motherhood—both willing and unwilling.
Stephanie Daley is not merely a vehicle for a political message. Abortion is a highly charged issue, but the film forces the viewer to consider what kind of life an unwanted child leads and the horrifying ramifications of bringing a child into a world without choice. The film raises, a crucial question for the viewer to ponder in light of the recent Supreme Court decision: How does one define what grows within a woman’s body, and under whose jurisdiction does it fall?
--------
Comments
|
!
Wow, that was certainly an agenda driven appraisal of this movie. The movie has nothing to do with abortion. I have heard many good things about this movie and I plan to see it if given the opportunity. However, I will not be viewing it through the same prism.
— Mark Shaffer - May 23, 08:28 PM - #Mark,
— Stuart - May 23, 11:59 PM - #I advise you to see the film before you comment. Although abortion is not it’s central theme, the film raises questions that are central to the abortion debates.
Caroline,
Without having seen the film, I wish to address three issues raised in your post.
First, it drives me crazy that the lack of OB/GYN care available, especially in rural areas, is only discussed in the context of abortion. The fact is this area of medicine carries such a high legal premium that it is no longer financially viable outside the environment of an overly large patient load. I also suspect many medical school graduates opt for other fields for this very reason.
One can draw the obvious negative conclusions inherent in this sphere of choices. However, I suggest the necessity of putting the context of abortion aside while addressing tort reform and oversight of insurence providers.
Secondly, it is true some practioners avoid abortion because of political pressure. It is also true that many hold legitimate moral convictions against the procedure unless it involves the life of the mother. Your link to ‘no abortion provider’ insinuates they be compelled to do so. I would counter by pointing out that such a constraint would result in more professionals opting out of this all-important field.
Lastly, your link enumerates the incidents of violence and harassment directed towards abortions providers. Such statistics share a commonality with other movements such as environmental activism. As a product of the sixties, I am a big fan of NON-violent civil disobedience. People should never have to fear for their physical safety but I defend the principle of displaying signs of chaining oneself to a clinic even though I personally would not do so.
I will finish by saying the quality and access to women’s health care has diminished over the past decades. It is imperative that we step outside the context of abortion and ardently pursue solutions to restore what I see as medical inequality.
Sincerely,
— RAGGEDSTEP - May 24, 09:48 AM - #Robert W. Stephens
After 30 years you would think the Catholic church and otherfundamentalswould be concerned with feeding the poor, ministering to their souls and truly care about people. Not likely and ultimately a tragic sadness. Women will do what they need to do guided by conscience, their belief system and their wholeness as a woman.
— Jeri Rasmussen - May 29, 10:01 PM - #