Hopkins Center Shows “Reversing Roe”

            The Hopkins Center has a unique role at Dartmouth, acting simultaneously as the cultural epicenter of campus and as a facilitator of important discourses through the art it brings to the Upper Valley. The Hop goes far beyond just bringing an impressive lineup of performances and films to Dartmouth each year, as it often offers exclusive opportunities for students and community members to interact with performers, directors, and artists of all kinds that might not be in the Upper Valley otherwise. The January showing of Reversing Roe, a provocative documentary film directed by Dartmouth alumnae Ricki Stern ‘87 and Annie Sundberg ‘90, exemplified the Hop at its best.

            Reversing Roe is a captivating film. The cinematography brandished Stern and Sundberg’s artistic prowess that has carried them to awards for previous films at the Woodstock, Nantucket, Nashville, and Chicago Film Festivals, along with an impressive lineup of nominations at the News & Documentary Emmy Awards. The film is based around the historical narrative of abortion in 20^th Century America and the path to overturn Roe v. Wade. There is a balance between the rigor offered by scholars — including Dartmouth’s own Professor of Religion Randall Balmer — and the personally impactful anecdotes of doctors, clergy, and activists. At a reception after the film, Sundberg explained, “Abortion has been around since antiquity, but we decided to begin the historical narrative when the issue was thrown into the public spotlight in America in the decade before Roe v. Wade.” This early history was particularly interesting, as it is often not discussed beyond the clichéd “coat hanger abortion” narrative. Starting with the fascinatingly nuanced story of Sherri Finkbine, the film traces the politicization of abortion in the years following the expansion of abortion legality and access under Republican Governors Reagan of California and Rockefeller of New York. While the most flagrant “political” bias of the film might actually be its constant insistence that abortion is not a political issue at all, but simply a medical one, Reversing Roe actually offers relatively — and unexpectedly — equal portrayals of all sides of the issue. Stern herself said that she was “not sure if this documentary is balanced,” and indeed I don’t think she necessarily intended it to be, but her attention to detail and historical accuracy made it inevitable that she would fairly include as many opposing narratives on the issue as could reasonably fit into a 90-minute film. Sundberg shared a story from the film’s showing at Telluride in which a group of people got up and left during the screening. While she had assumed they were people who were pro-life/anti-choice, they turned out to be ardently pro-choice. They had left because they felt the film gave to much screen time to anti-abortion activists and politicians.

            Sydney Stowe, the Director of Film at the Hopkins Center, commented, “I wanted to bring this film to campus to initiate discourse. I am always willing to bring films from a variety of backgrounds, and I hope this one will push the conversation forward for people on all sides of the issue.” Stowe praised the film for its accessibility, both practical (it is on Netflix) and intellectual (it is heartbreakingly entertaining without losing its basis in factual accounts). “I don’t think most people would say on a Friday night, ‘Hey, let’s watch a movie about abortion!’ But, I think that Annie and Ricki clearly did a good enough job to have several hundred people say exactly that tonight.” While The Review is often skeptical of attempts by administrators to “facilitate discourse” on campus, I actually think Stowe succeeded in her goal. First, cheers to her, because I think that makes her the most effective administrator at the College. Second, there was an interesting discourse that occurred during the film itself. With most of the theater throwing out social decorum and viewing etiquette, every time a part of the movie resonated with pro-choice audience members above a certain threshold they cheered and clapped loudly. In response, a lone pro-life student decided to fight the hegemony of the pro-choice audience by clapping during the parts of the movie that resonated with the pro-life movement. Those in the row behind him gasped, but they maintained respect for him. Even after the film, the only people who said anything to him was an elderly man who made a sarcastic remark. Admittedly, I expected confrontation, and I was surprised when he was not accosted by a mass of angry women. In part, I think this speaks to a growing distaste for inflammatory displays on campus among students on all sides of the political spectrum, especially after the vulgar but altogether ridiculous protests during the David Horowitz talk this past fall term. But, I also think that most people in the room were not insecure enough to be bothered by the presence of dissenters in the audience, and for that I applaud them sincerely. The success of the Hop’s goal to initiate conversations about the issue requires, at the very least, the acceptance that dissent exists and that those dissenters should be treated with civility.

            Sundberg was concerned about the way that pro-life supporters would view the film. She explained that all the pro-life activists featured in the film were genuinely interested in working with them, and that she and Stern had fostered a relationship with them based in mutual trust and respect. “I hope this film helps us work towards finding what’s best for everyone,” said Sundberg about how she hopes her film is received by audiences. Reversing Roe is available in one hundred and ninety countries.