The folks at Icarus Films wrote the following in their review/description
of Live Free or Die:
"The mounting tension and danger begin to take their toll on Goldner.
As
his family watches the news of the murder of fellow abortion provider Dr.
Slepian, the picketing continues [emphasis added]. His wife receives
hate mail and email, his children are harassed and a colleague receives
a death threat, all underscoring the pressures doctors who perform abortions
face on a daily basis." - From http://www.frif.com/new2001/free.html,
the Icarus Films site.
THE FACTS:
Nearly everyone who sees the film comes away with the impression that the picketing of Dr. Goldner's home took place at the same time as the murder of Dr. Slepian. We noticed, in watching the film, discrepancies in seasonal clothing and in foliage that lead us to believe that the two events could not have taken place at the same time. We checked the record and discovered that the New Hampshire Right to Life picketed Dr. Goldner's home exactly once, on January 4th, 1998. The murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian took place in New York in October of 1998, eight months after the picket of Goldner’s home. Dr. Goldner’s family could not possibly have been watching the news of the murder of Dr. Slepian as the picketing continued.
THE QUESTION:
Why did the Icarus reviewers make this mistake? It looks very much like the filmmakers lead them to this error by cutting and splicing footage from the two events in a manner that linked them inextricably together in the mind of the casual viewer. Remember the stated goals of the filmmakers? "We set out to make a film about the abortion provider crisis, how violence and harassment have driven more and more doctors away from doing abortions." To meet this goal, they needed to present evidence of violence and harassment. It must have been an irresistible temptation to splice the footage of the peaceful Goldner picket together with the horror of the Slepian murder.
Many reviews of the film remark upon the drama of the Goldners' watching
the news of the murder of Dr. Slepian as they cope with the picketers outside
their house. Yet this never happened. The filmmakers set
out to show violence and harassment as it affects abortion doctors, but
Betty Breuder and the New Hampshire Right to Life -- Dr. Goldner's real
life adversaries -- gave them neither. So they created the illusion of
violence by splicing together footage in a manner that creates a dramatic
effect while staying just this side of downright deception.
Dr. Goldner falsely alleges that he wore a bulletproof vest to teach sex education at McKelvie School because Betty Breuder had threatened him.
Dr. Goldner is shown in Live Free or Die dramatically interrupting the Bedford School Board meeting to tell why he had worn the bulletproof vest: "It was a call from Dennis to me that Betty called him and said they would ‘do something’ if I taught." The film depicts Dr. Goldner’s community supporters breaking out into shouting and clapping when he makes this dramatic assertion.
THE FACTS:
We obtained the entire footage of the school board meeting at which Dr. Goldner made his dramatic interruption. The filmmakers, who included in Live Free or Die the dramatic outburst from Dr. Goldner, neglected to include a direct denial of the veracity of Goldner's account which took place later at that same meeting. Superintendent Dennis Pope – the "Dennis" Dr. Goldner refers to as having told him of a threat – was called to the podium to clarify the allegation that it was a call from him to Dr. Goldner that precipitated the wearing of the vest. Dennis Pope denied that he knew of any threat to Dr. Goldner. "If the question was: did I call Wayne Goldner and inform him that there were going to be picketers in front of the school, the answer is yes I did that. I had thought the question was: did I know of a threat to Wayne Goldner, no I did not. He would have to explain for himself the issue of a threat and how that all came up."
Dennis Pope's testimony directly refutes Dr. Goldner’s assertion that it was his phone call that prompted Dr. Goldner to wear the vest.
View the actual video footage of Dr. Goldner's allegation and Dennis Pope's denial.
THE QUESTION:
Why did the filmmakers not include Dennis Pope’s denial of telling Goldner of a threat, when they had so ostentatiously included Dr. Goldner’s assertion that Dennis had told him of a threat from Breuder? Remember the stated goals of the filmmakers? "We set out to make a film about the abortion provider crisis, how violence and harassment have driven more and more doctors away from doing abortions." In Dr. Goldner, the filmmakers had found an abortion activist whose sphere of activity was the classroom, the committee meeting, and the hospital. He was unversed in the ways of non-violent protest, unused to being the object of a peaceful picket, and scared by the fact that violence does exist on the fringes of the pro-life movement.
This is not the first time that peaceful activist groups have been tarred
with the same brush as the small but media-attractive, violent groups that
exist on the fringes of any movement of social protest. In his autobiography,
Dr. Martin Luther King wrote: " In the aftermath of the riot [Chicago,
July 1966] there were concerted attempts to discredit the nonviolent movement…
there was a concerted attempt to place the responsibility for the riot
upon the Chicago Freedom movement and upon myself."
"Protesters begin to show up at the local middle school where Goldner teaches an abstinence based sex education class. After months shouting and picketing, the school board dismisses Goldner, citing student safety." - From http://www.frif.com/new2001/free.html
THE FACTS:
All of the school picketing took place in May of 1996, after Ms. Breuder
had been refused her request of the Superintendent's office that she be
allowed to sit in on a presentation of Dr. Goldner’s sex education class.
There were no months of shouting and picketing. Not only that, but all
the shouting came from Dr. Goldner’s camp. Not a single instance is shown
on camera of the picketers even raising their voice in anger. Like the
men and women who marched and picketed with Dr. Martin Luther King, Breuder
and the NHRTL picketers were disciplined in the practice of non-violent
protest.
The opening scene of the film shows Dr. Goldner at home with his family, reading an anonymous letter that has come to him. The very next sequence shows footage of and commentary on the January 4, 1998 picket of Dr. Goldner's home by the New Hampshire Right to Life. Within the first five minutes of the film, Lipschutz and Rosenblatt have connected anonymous, threatening extremists with peaceful, public protesters through innuendo and sequencing the scenes so that it appears that the hate mail and the protest are linked. Read an analysis of the full transcript of the opening scene to see how the film creates the illusion of connection between the two.
THE FACTS: No evidence exists to link any hate mail to any individual or group of pro-life protesters. When questioned about the hate mail, Ms. Breuder testified that neither she nor the New Hampshire Right to Life knew of the existence of any hate mail until the world premiere of Live Free or Die on public television in the fall of 2000. If Dr. Goldner had suspected Breuder's group of sending anonymous hate mail, surely he would have told the police his suspicions and the police would have questioned Breuder and her group.
THE QUESTION: Why did the filmmakers choose to start their movie with a dramatic reading of hate mail followed by footage from the January picket of Dr. Goldner's home? Remember the stated goals of the filmmakers: "We set out to make a film about the abortion provider crisis, how violence and harassment have driven more and more doctors away from doing abortions." It cannot be stated too often that when a filmmaker sets out to show violence and harassment, it behooves that filmmaker to present evidence of violence and harassment. If none can be shown, then it must be manufactured. Juxtaposing the reading of anonymous hate mail with footage of a peaceful exercise of constitutional rights, and adding innuendo and commentary linking the two, accomplishes the manufacturing of that which did not exist but was necessary in order to fulfill the stated goals of the film.
It would not have been hard to make a film that showed evidence of Dr. Goldner's fear due to the real possibility of violence (cf. the murder of Dr. Slepian), and due to real anonymous hate mail. But Lipschutz and Rosenblatt do not do this. Instead they take every opportunity to link Betty Breuder and the New Hampshire Right to Life to the fear generated by anonymous individuals. The abortion controversy stirs up powerful feelings in persons on both sides of the issue. Lipschutz and Rosenblatt ratchet up the suspicion and hostilities by linking peaceful, public activism to anonymous threats and violence. In doing so, they do a disservice to the public discourse on abortion.
The voiceover narrator, in describing Dr. Goldner's fight to prevent a Catholic hospital merger, says: "Wayne was consumed by the merger fight. As a doctor, he was privy to inside information, making him a vital link between the hospital and community activists." Dr. Goldner, as he tries to get people to sign a petition of support for his appeal to overturn the Bedford school board's decision to terminate him as a teacher, says: "A small minority and its terrorist mentality has imposed its will on the majority." Another man is shown observing the pro-life protesters and then saying, "I think it bothers people to have a few, extreme people trying to impart their thoughts on everyone else."
THE FACTS: The New Hampshire Right to Life and Dr. Goldner were political adversaries, each trying to influence the course of public events towards a positive outcome for their point of view. Dr. Goldner used his insider's status to work with reproductive rights activists and the filmmakers laud this as a good thing. Breuder and her group, who have no insider status like Goldner, take their argument to the sidewalks in peaceful picketing, singing and marching and are described as a small minority with a terrorist mentality. The fact is, this was a local dispute of two matched adversaries.
THE QUESTION: Why do the filmmakers hold abortion rights activism to be a laudatory thing and pro-life activism to be an execrable thing? In this instance it is not a case of manufacturing evidence of violence and harassment, it is a matter of ascribing heroic actions to the designated "hero" of the film and nefarious actions to the designated "villain" of the film. The two forms of activism are equally valid, yet the filmmakers praise the hero's actions while denouncing the villain's. This is in keeping with the filmmakers' desire to dramatize, to stir up emotion, and possibly to deflect attention from the issues raised by those persons who believe that the laws permitting abortion are unjust. Read an analysis of how documentary filmmakers create heroes and villains just as readily as do feature filmmakers.
Christopher B. Kulp writes in his article Demonizing Our Opponents : Vilification of Political Opponents Degrades Public Discourse and Threatens Democracy (Issues in Ethics - V. 7, N. 3 ) : "There are good reasons for concern about this sort of thing [the demonization of opponents]. One reason is the adverse effect demonizing our opponents has on the kind of public discourse democracy needs to succeed. Democratic societies require the free exchange of ideas among a populace willing and able to make informed judgments about them. But if we fail to engage in the rational examination of ideas and seek instead to work our will through vilification and personal attack, the democratic process is subverted".
1As of June 18, 2001 we have completed
only a detailed
written analysis of scene 1 of the film. We intend to analyze
the rest of the film in the same way. Anyone who would like to participate
in this effort is welcome to contact us at [email protected].
2 The New Hampshire Right to Life
is on
public record
denouncing clinic violence . While this denunciation of violence
is not dated, we can presume by its reference to the Atlanta clinic bombings
that it refers to the clinic violence that took place in January and February
of 1998, around the same time as the NHRTL carried out its peaceful, non-violent
protest of Dr. Goldner's home.
| Home | The Film | Film Critiques | Censorship, Sensationalism, & Semantics |
Who We Are | Guestbook |