Over on The Hot Blog, David Poland has the weekend box office numbers up, and the one thing that popped out at me, probably because I just saw and reviewed the film last week, is that Lake of Fire, which opened at Film Forum in NYC this weekend, did not do nearly as well as might have been expected. There's some discussion in the comments on Poland's post speculating on the whys and wherefores of the film's less-than-stellar opening, the main gist of which is that either the film did not appeal to people because no one wants to see the abortion process on a big screen while they're munching their popcorn, or because the film doesn't take a side on the abortion issue, and people who are passionate about it on one side or the other do not want to see the other side treated fairly.

I pondered this for a while this morning as I lingered over my Monday morning coffee. As I noted in my review of the film, Lake of Fire does give both sides of the debate equal weight, but I also think that the way each side will be perceived is in the eye of the beholder. I could see the film playing well in red states, because the film doesn't portray right-to-lifers (on the whole) as a bunch of nutcases. Sure, there are some some interesting folks in there, but there are also attractive women in there talking about why they are pro-life. And even the folks that a liberal might view as off-their-rocker (such as Assembly of God preacher John Burt and Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry) would probably be viewed by a lot of fundamentalist Christians as good, God-fearing guys who are simply passionate about their beliefs on the subject.