As Twitchy told you, earlier this week, Slate published a piece by Ruth Graham about the White House holding a screening of “gory anti-abortion film ‘Gosnell,'” aka “another bloody anti-abortion film.” Graham, for her part, finds it just “fascinating” that so many people have taken offense to her characterizing the movie as “gory”:

It is fascinating to me that the movie's fans (and stars!) are fixating on the word "gory" here. "Gory" is not a judgment, it is a factual description of this movie, which plays up the promise of horror by calling Gosnell a "serial killer" in its own subtitle. 1/2 https://t.co/y9un1iqRPj — Ruth Graham (@publicroad) April 10, 2019

Here is an excerpt from the positive review from Focus on the Family. Is it a horror film? No. It's primarily a courtroom drama. But it doesn't shy away from showing what Gosnell did. pic.twitter.com/MB0a9z57C4 — Ruth Graham (@publicroad) April 10, 2019

Anyway, I'm confused about why "gory" is seen as a criticism. The anti-abortion drama "Unplanned" is even gorier—it's rated R, while "Gosnell" is PG-13—and it has been widely praised by pro-life activists for its rawness and realism. Both films use "gore" to make a point. — Ruth Graham (@publicroad) April 10, 2019

Perhaps Nick Searcy, who directed the film as well as appeared in it, can explain it to her:

It's because the word "gory" is a lie. There is absolutely nothing gory in @Gosnellmovie. People who have seen it attest to that. You haven't. https://t.co/pfOfebPCii — Nick Searcy, INTERNATIONAL FILM & TELEVISION STAR (@yesnicksearcy) April 11, 2019

Graham’s been asked several times if she’s seen it, in fact:

so you did see it? — Timothy Winterstein (@PrTWinterstein) April 11, 2019

Have you seen the film? — Dean Cain (@RealDeanCain) April 11, 2019

Her Slate piece doesn’t indicate that she’s seen it, nor does her Twitter feed. But she knows for sure that it’s bloody and gory because … well, she just knows, OK?

A certain portion of pro-life Twitter is currently in full outrage mode over my description of "Gosnell" as a "gory" movie. Here's a mini-thread from earlier: https://t.co/ztFeXKSDpB — Ruth Graham (@publicroad) April 10, 2019

I suspect they are just mad because they actually made a concerted effort to not be “graphic” – especially by not showing the court pics of Baby B and such, and feel like you didn’t give them credit for it. But also, that films folk *really* like getting mad at reporters for PR — Robin Marty (@robinmarty) April 10, 2019

Yes, it's primarily a courtroom drama. It certainly could have been gorier, I will grant them that! — Ruth Graham (@publicroad) April 10, 2019

I've been thinking about this since this morning. The only answer I have is that "gory" has been applied to describe typical "godless Hollywood movies" for so long that it reads as a value-laden statement even if it is actually just factual. — Alissa Wilkinson (@alissamarie) April 10, 2019

Yes, and as @robinmarty just pointed out, the filmmakers took certain steps to avoid showing images they could have. I will acknowledge that it could have been gorier. But it was also not NOT-gory. It's an abortion movie about a "serial killer"! — Ruth Graham (@publicroad) April 10, 2019

It’s not an “abortion movie,” Ruth. But yes, it’s about a serial killer. That doesn’t automatically mean it’s “gory.”

What's wild is that "gory" definitionally means showing bloodshed and violence, which *are* value-laden terms, in the *favor* of your detractors' arguments. — Alissa Wilkinson (@alissamarie) April 10, 2019

Graham’s detractors aren’t pissed at the notion that abortion is bloody and gory; they’re pissed at Graham’s blatant mischaracterization of the film.

Right: "Gosnell" is gory, because its argument is that abortion is violence. The film uses "gore" effectively to bolster that argument. https://t.co/S30zL6Nass pic.twitter.com/5izgdXwEss — Ruth Graham (@publicroad) April 11, 2019

Stop digging, Ruth, and put your money where your mouth is:

I would like for @publicroad at @slate to tell all the readers of her lies the exact time code at which @gosnellmovie “depicts second- and third-trimester abortions in gruesome detail,” please. You know, so they'll be ready. — Nick Searcy, INTERNATIONAL FILM & TELEVISION STAR (@yesnicksearcy) April 11, 2019

We’ll let you know as soon as Ruth shares that information. In the meantime, she has yet to provide any solid evidence that she knows what the hell she’s talking about.

Tags this with #showyourwork I do that every time I ask for details. I rarely get them. — TJ (@tj4360) April 11, 2019

is your credibility worth lying about this film? I've watched it twice. the most gory thing in the movie was the un-hygienic conditions of gosnell's clinic and home. — Local Man (@Blackneto) April 11, 2019

I saw the movie. There was not even a hint of gruesome detail in the movie. There was a link given at the end of the movie if you wanted to see pictures of the 2 babies that were referenced in the movie. But not one gruesome picture, scene or verbal description on screen. — Victoria (@VictoriaFachner) April 11, 2019

Clearly, @yesnicksearcy, critics – who’ve mostly not seen ‘Gosnell’ – want your film deemed “GRAPHIC” for political, not artistic, reasons.#TheirTruthers

(IOW: liars) — Adam Baldwin (@AdamBaldwin) April 12, 2019

***

Related:

Mollie Hemingway zings Politico over its take on the ‘graphic anti-abortion movie’ ‘Gosnell’