Bawdy Bridget Jones’s Baby is boldly pro-life

Movie | Amid profanity and promiscuity, at least there’s no mention of abortion
by Bob Brown
Posted 9/20/16, 09:59 am

Bridget Jones’s Baby is unlikely to win over people who would rather not sit through two hours of expletives and sexually charged innuendos—free popcorn refills notwithstanding. But if members of the pro-abortion crowd catch wind of this film’s take on prenatal parenting responsibilities, they won’t be buying tickets, either.

Renée Zellweger revives her role as Bridget Jones, now 43 and a producer of news programs for a British television station. Focused on her career, she socializes little and rebuffs her mum’s cajoling her to have a child. Still, in the space of a week, Bridget manages to sleep with Jack (Patrick Dempsey), whom she meets at a music festival, and with her married former beau, Mark Darcy (Colin Firth). Pregnancy results, but the identity of the baby’s father remains a mystery until the film ends. To its producers’ credit, Bridget Jones’s Baby doesn’t cop out by making Jack and Mark co-daddies.

The endless double entendres might hinder some viewers from embracing Bridget’s cutesy vulnerability, like when she teeters in high heels across a soggy field and splashes face first in the mud. It’s Bridget’s doctor (Emma Thompson), rather, who steals scenes with hilariously dry (and clean) humor. Promiscuous behavior and pervasive innuendos rob the rest of the film (rated R for language, sex references, and some nudity) of much of any redeeming value.

But not all of it. Although Bridget Jones’s Baby romanticizes free sex, the film also affirms preborn babies’ personhood. During one of Bridget’s visits to her doctor, the camera lingers for at least 30 seconds on the sonogram machine’s screen. Bridget’s eyes light up.

“Hello, you,” she says to her baby. “You’re the best thing I’ve ever seen”—not an ounce of hesitation or doubt.

Although the film overdoses on elements infused apparently to placate pro-gay censors, Bridget’s desire to parent feels far from artificial. She doesn’t consider her baby a modern woman’s accouterment, like a designer handbag. Both maybe-fathers also seem to have at least one priority straight.

“The most important thing is the baby,” Jack reminds Mark as they ponder future arrangements.

Bridget even turns down amniocentesis, which could reveal the baby’s paternity. When her doctor says the procedure might cause a miscarriage, Bridget hops off the table and walks out the door. So much for genetic testing.

The film’s pro-life spirit irked at least one pro-abortion movie reviewer.

“It is absolutely inconceivable that Bridget … never considers terminating her pregnancy,” gripes Laura Goldman, writing for Huffington Post. “It is 2016 not 1950.”

That’s true, but neither is it 1973.

Bob Brown

Bob is a graduate of the WORLD Journalism Institute’s mid-career course.

Read more from this writer

Comments

  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Tue, 09/20/2016 10:20 am

    sure it's boldly pro-life, but perhaps better stated as "pro-reality".

  • PaulC
    Posted: Tue, 09/20/2016 09:58 pm

    Adultery and fornication are still sin.

ADVERTISEMENT