As the powerful, infuriating, and yet hopeful documentary “Hollywood Does Abortion” shows, American film and television decisionmakers generally round-filed the Spider-Man memo (“With great power comes great responsibility”) when it came to dramatically depicting abortion in mass entertainment. This year’s S.F. Jewish Film Festival Take Action Spotlight film from directors Janet Goldwater, Barbara Attie, and Mike Attie tracks film and television depictions of the medical procedure against real-world events and finds the fictional depictions act as a cracked mirror at best regarding reality. For every “Obvious Child,” there are a dozen films like “Blonde” or TV series like “Law And Order” turning this procedure and its effects into hysterical horror shows.
When the famous “Maude’s Dilemma” 2-parter aired on the Norman Lear-created comedy “Maude,” Roe v. Wade had not yet been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Legalized abortion could be discussed in the comedy series because its setting was New York, one of the two American states at the time to have made the procedure legal. Most importantly, because Lear had half a dozen hit TV series to his credit, he had the clout to tell naysayers to pound sand. But it could be said the strong opposition to airing the repeat of the “Maude” 2-parter would be a harbinger of the headwinds awaiting future TV and film depictions of abortion.
“Hollywood Does Abortion” charts the decades-long pop culture gulf between Norman Lear’s depiction of abortion and Shonda Rhimes’ depictions of the procedure in such shows as “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Scandal.” It would be nice if that gulf had been marked by a smooth ascent in sophistication of depiction. But as Slate film critic Dana Stevens points out, the better image is that of continual starts and stops.
The movie’s plethora of film and television clips are plotted against real world events regarding abortion access. The depressing realization is that the anti-abortion forces have more often succeeded in using pop culture to peddle a hysterical or at least doubt-ridden picture of the abortion procedure that bears little resemblance to the reality actually undergone by women. The “safe, legal, and rare” mantra may have been pitched as a “compromise” political position, but it’s also an implicit endorsement of the anti-abortion movement’s goal of ultimately eliminating abortions. Such frequent story tropes as “abortion is a risky procedure which causes medical complications” (Reality: Only 2.1% of all real-life abortions have medical complications) or “having an abortion results in long-term negative mental health issues such as shame” (Reality: the main long-term mental health consequence of having an abortion is relief) pops up in such shows as “Law And Order,” “Party Of Five,” and “St. Elsewhere.”
It’s rather disingenuous to claim that because these pieces of pop culture are only intended to entertain its viewers, factual accuracy is only a secondary concern. As Soraya Giaccardi Vargas of USC’s Norman Lear Center points out, entertainment has the power to shape attitudes, knowledge, and even support for policies. Abortion is already a difficult conversation subject for many people, particularly when a person lives in a community which shuts down any discussion of abortion (e.g. Texas with its abstinence only sex education model). Seeing a relatable character in television or film who is undergoing the same issues about abortion that an audience member is dealing with allows that audience member to not feel isolated or alone.
Two well-known films cited in the documentary successfully showed this principle in practice. Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character in the high school sex comedy “Fast Times At Ridgemont High” needs to get an abortion. But rather than a life-disrupting event, the film treats her character’s abortion as something normal and ordinary. By contrast, “Dirty Dancing”’s story depends on the dancer Penny getting an illegal abortion in pre-Roe America. Instead of condemning Penny for doing so, her friends are supportive and try to help her when things go wrong.
In a better world, films and television would say the right decision regarding having an abortion depends on the woman’s individual situation. Options shouldn’t be limited to “the woman takes the pregnancy to term no matter what.” The most recent vile example of this trope is the Marilyn Monroe biopic “Blonde.” Not only is Monroe’s abortion procedure treated as similar to a torture scene in a “Saw” movie, but the “Monroe’s conversation with her aborted fetus” scene punishes the actress for making the “wrong” decision.
It’s admittedly depressing to think about the commercial profitability of films such as “Blonde” and the Planned Parenthood hit piece “Unplanned.” But Goldwater et al. finds comfort in relatively recent films that have found new and successful ways to depict the problems of abortion access. “Never Rarely Sometimes Always” focused on the financial difficulties in getting an abortion. “Unpregnant” saw Haley Lu Richardson’s character dealing with the frustrations of traveling nearly 1,000 miles to get an abortion without needing her parents’ consent. “Obvious Child” turned the awkward issues surrounding getting an abortion into the stuff of comedy. In fact, a couple of interviewees see comedy as a way forward towards better fictional depictions of abortion.
Notwithstanding these aforementioned artistic successes, the film shows it would be premature to claim real life and even the best American films and television have reached the same page regarding depicting abortion’s current realities in America. Low income people of color make up the majority of women seeking abortions, not middle class white women. Yet the former usually aren’t the characters taking center stage in film and television abortion stories. Members of the LGBTQ+ community also depend on abortion access, yet except for rarities like Tanya Saracho’s “Vida” that aspect of the access issue is absent from television screens. “Law And Order” continues its abortion misinformation streak with an episode inaccurately depicting the realities of medication abortion. Merritt Tierce, creator of the hit show “Orange Is The New Black,” hasn’t been able to get her follow-up show greenlit because its focus on abortion is considered too controversial even for streaming.
Very few politicians would proudly state they oppose healthcare. Yet despite the opinions of many medical personnel that abortion IS healthcare, these same political figures see nothing wrong with supporting abortion bans. Such bans are a legislative way of shouting to the world “I disrespect women.”
Then again, compared to late Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell, such abortion ban supporting legislators could claim a minuscule degree of clean hands and composure. According to “Hollywood Does Abortion,” Falwell glommed onto the anti-abortion bandwagon only because pounding the anti-Black racism drum had started yielding diminished political returns. The current anti-transgender hysteria unfortunately shows this hateful playbook still works.
***
A paying gig to support making art becomes something much more in Bar Cohen’s short film “Photos Of Her.” It eventually turns into a visual conversation about being comfortable in one’s own skin.
Photographer Lidor is doing a paid maternity photographs gig for the pregnant Shiri and her husband Doron. When the man heads off on an extended errand, the conversation between the trans photographer and the pregnant woman turns into a photo session allowing both photographer and subject to talk about and possibly transcend their internalized negative images of their respective bodies.
Doron’s early departure from the film’s story will not be surprising. His body language during the photo shoot (e.g. a tentative holding of his pregnant wife’s protruding belly) leaves the impression he’s very uncomfortable acknowledging the reality that his wife is pregnant. Rather than enjoying the experience of taking the pictures, the husband’s reactions suggest the photoshoot was his wife’s idea and he regrets coming along for the ride.
The husband’s way of gingerly touching his visibly pregnant wife contributes to her sense of self-consciousness about being pregnant. Along with constant messages to watch her calorie intake, Shiri feels on an unstated level like a freak. Touching a delicious-looking frosted cake contributes to the pregnant woman’s self-consciousness by making her look like a pig. It takes Lidor’s saying “You’re just pregnant” in a neutral way that allows Shiri to feel the normality of her condition. The result: Lidor’s photographs of Shiri demolishing the cake isn’t an ode to gluttony, but a celebration of taking joy in life with all its messy details.
There’s an irony in Lidor displaying self-consciousness about her own body. Someone who doesn’t see Shiri’s body as grotesque to her and is also working on an exhibit about bodily modification would not seem subject to personal bodily insecurity. Yet when it comes to the idea of having nude pictures taken of her, Lidor feels there’s nothing to see there or even take pride in. It takes Shiri’s reversing the photographer and subject roles with her that allows Lidor to find the long-missing ease with her current form. As has been pointed out by local writer Charlie Jane Anders, bodily transition is sadly not a magic wand which erases bodily self-consciousness.
***
This year’s S.F. Jewish Film Festival includes a programming sidebar dedicated to Israeli director Netalie Braun. One of the films shown in the sidebar is the disturbing and sometimes infuriating feature film “Shooting.” The film is actually a triptych of short documentaries looking at the intersections between war and pop culture media.
The Six-Day War was a military victory for Israel which also had the effect of doubling the country’s physical size. The conflict also generated the popular cinematic blockbuster “Six-Day War.” Several IDF heads attended the premiere of this cinematic account of the recent military conflict. But as “Shooting”’s first segment “Remake” shows, the film was anything but a documentary.
Work on the film didn’t begin before or even during the war. As producer David “Didi” Goldstein explains, the project began a couple of days after the war’s end. The Chief of Israel’s Northern Command, who happened to be an old buddy of Goldstein’s from the Palmach (a Jewish commando paramilitary group from the British Mandate days), grumbled about the lack of film images of the Golan Heights battle. Goldstein asked to borrow actual IDF personnel and equipment to solve his friend’s problem. In other words, “Six-Day War” was a recreation.
Hearing from such “Six-Day War” personnel as cinematographer Adam Greenberg, “consultant” Freddy Steinhardt, and participant Rafi Goren makes clear how much this work could never be counted as a historical document. Greenberg remembers shooting the footage on 16 mm film without a soundtrack. Goren was an Israeli soldier who really didn’t want to re-enact the recent war he fought in. But orders were orders.
Steinhardt may have been called a consultant in “Six-Day War”’s credits, but his function was that of a director. He positioned the cameras for filming. He set up the smoke machines in places that would make the battle scenes more visually dramatic. Such sound effects as radio chatter and explosions were later added after filming by him. The only reason Steinhardt wasn’t called a director was that nobody wanted to say out loud the film was staged. That omission allowed footage from “Six-Day War” to be later foisted as period documentary material.
It’s amusing to hear of IDF generals letting their inner hams loose by asking Goldstein to film their Six-Day War battles too. But the viewer’s smile quickly fades once Braun turns the film’s attention to Quneitra.
That rural village and another one named Mansura were both located in Syria. During the hostilities, the villagers hid in underground bunkers while the fighting was going on. When they re-emerged, the Syrians hoped to rebuild their interrupted lives. However, the filming of “Six-Day War” made them think the war had resumed, so they abandoned their villages and fled for their lives. Neither the IDF nor Steinhardt’s people ever explained to the residents of Mansura that the “war” was actually part of a film being made.
Could it be that the Syrians were never informed of the shooting of “Six-Day War” because the IDF wanted to scare them to permanently leave the area? Did the IDF plan to eventually turn the abandoned land over to Israeli settlers? It’s very unlikely hard evidence still exists to support such suspicions. However, there’s also a distinct lack of reasons to abandon holding such thoughts either.
A different sort of manufactured visual reality provides the launching point for the “Action” section. “Jerusalem District” is a “Cops”-like reality show following the activities of Israeli cops working in Jerusalem. One particular episode set in the East Jerusalem district of Issayia involves an early morning raid on a private Palestinian residence which led to a supposedly successful search for contraband. Braun’s film reveals some inconvenient truths not mentioned in the reality show.
The Sleiman family, the residents of the raided apartment, just happened to be engaged in a protracted legal fight with Jerusalem’s Police Department. Saleh Sleiman was 10 years old when he was blinded in the right eye thanks to a rubber bullet shot in his face by an Israeli cop. The boy’s “crime”: “talking back” to the cop during a street protest.
Saleh’s father Samer filed a complaint with the Israeli police’s Internal Affairs Department and later a civil suit. But procedural delays and the suspicious unavailability of surveillance camera video from the day Saleh was shot led to the case dragging on for five years. Samer admittedly nearly succumbed to police pressure to drop the case. However, the discovery of a piece of rubber bullet shrapnel in the boy’s right eye fortified Samer’s and Saleh’s determination to see justice done.
Braun doesn’t need to spell things out. She artfully arranges her facts to spur a reasonable viewer to ask some very logical questions. Was it just a coincidence that two of the cops who took part in the Sleiman apartment raid just happened to be involved in Samer and Saleh’s lawsuit against the Israeli police? If the cops gave Samer a declaration stating they had found nothing illicit, why did the television episode have footage of the cops supposedly finding an IDF rifle in the Sleimans’ chicken coop? Why did this supposed contraband discovery happen during the 15 minutes the cops asked Samer to leave them alone while they “searched” the chicken coop building?
The cops involved do not appear onscreen to give their version of events. But it is very reasonable to suspect from the circumstances that the cops hoped to use the reality show to publicly humiliate the Sleimans or even raise fake suspicions that these victims of police brutality were actually Israeli collaborators.
How Sleiman padre et fil dealt with this bit of public fakery viewers will need to see for themselves.
The film’s final segment, “Props,” brings a more psychological tinge to its portrait of the elderly Shmuel. He’s an IDF veteran who went from having a massive weapons collection to providing gun props to films and TV shows such as “Fauda.”
Sometimes dizzying black-and-white wartime scenes bring in the film’s aforementioned psychological element, as they are the basis of Schmuel’s nightmares. The man’s obsession with guns came from a 1948 childhood trauma involving an unarmed Jewish night patrol slaughtered by armed Arabs from a neighboring village. His desire to “kill as many Arabs as possible” eventually led to his joining the IDF and fighting in every Israeli war up to the first Lebanon War. He also started collecting weaponry from around the world, to the point of needing a house to store his accumulated lethal treasures.
A government initiative to curb the private weapons collections of people such as Schmuel led the veteran to replace his arsenal with replicas having the same weight and feel as the originals. He also started a small business renting out his munitions props to film and television productions. In addition, the combat veteran provided training in the proper use of these lethal weapons. As the film’s subject says at one point, he can’t live without guns.
Schmuel’s wife Margalit understands and accepts her husband even if in some ways she’s his polar opposite. She never learned how to properly shoot a gun thanks to her dislike for such weapons. Nor does she believe that wars ultimately solve anything. However, helping her husband with the paperwork involved in running his business isn’t a bridge too far for her.
Though Braun never uses the phrase “psychological crutch,” that’s the thought that will cross a reasonable viewer’s mind regarding Schmuel’s relationship to guns. The director prefers to let her generally naturalistic portrait speak for itself, including Schumel’s admission to accidentally killing an Arab boy whose rifle was only used for hunting. Whether the nightmares of the film’s central subject can be labeled as signs of trauma or guilt, the viewer must ultimately make that call.
( “Hollywood Does Abortion” screens at 6:00 PM on July 31, 2026. “Photos Of Her” is part of the “Shorts: Narrative” program screening at 6:00 PM on July 28, 2026. “Shooting” screens at 3:00 PM on July 27, 2026. All screenings take place at the Piedmont Theatre.
(For further information about these films and others in the festival, go here.)
