Skip to main content

Call Jane review: A rousing, relevant drama

Elizabeth Banks wears sunglasses in a car in Call Jane.
Call Jane
“Call Jane is an entertaining and undeniably important social drama that, nonetheless, feels a bit too predictable and safe to leave the kind of lasting mark that it should.”
  • An incredible true story, competently told
  • Elizabeth Banks' confident, layered lead performance
  • Standout supporting performances
  • An abrupt ending
  • A shaggy second act
  • A script that feels a bit too safe

Call Jane has a habit of sneaking up on you. The new film from director Phyllis Nagy is a reproductive rights drama that, thanks to the events of this year, has become far more relevant than anyone involved could have ever predicted it would become. Despite that fact, Call Jane is a surprisingly understated, often unsentimental drama, one that prefers to lull you into its rhythms before it hits you with the power of its biggest moments or, in the case of one harrowing abortion scene, smallest details.

That approach becomes clear in Call Jane’s first scene, which follows its protagonist, Joy (Elizabeth Banks), as she quietly walks through the building where her husband, Will (Chris Messina), is celebrating his latest promotion. The film’s camera follows Joy as she descends down an escalator and then makes her way silently across the building’s ground floor to its entrance. Once outside, we’re surprised to find Joy standing behind an unwavering police line. In the distance, the sound of chanting grows increasingly louder.

We never see the riot that inevitably breaks out. Instead, all we see are the silhouettes of bodies pressing up against the frosted glass of the building’s front windows as Joy is hurriedly rushed back inside. As far as openings go, Call Jane’s introductory sequence proves to be a perfectly explosive introduction to a film that is primarily concerned with confronting, among other things, the kind of painful and celebratory truths that America’s political leaders would rather keep buried beneath the surface.

Elizabeth Banks talks into a landline phone in Call Jane.
Wilson Webb/Roadside Attractions

As its first scene establishes, Call Jane’s protagonist lives the kind of sheltered, traditional life that is often expected of 1960s American housewives like her. Joy’s world is turned upside down, however, when she discovers that she has a heart condition that is worsened by her own pregnancy. Joy is told there’s a high chance she’ll die if she remains pregnant, but her request for an emergency abortion is then summarily denied by the heads of her local hospital. In response, Joy begins seeking out a way for her to secure a safe abortion procedure on her own.

Her pursuit eventually leads to Joy crossing paths for the first time with the Jane Collective, a female-led underground network of women who make it their mission to provide women with illegal but safe abortions. The collective, which really operated in America throughout the late 1960s and early ’70s, is run by Virginia (Sigourney Weaver), a chill but commanding feminist. The collective provides Joy with the abortion she requires, but her relationship with the organization doesn’t end there.

Enlivened by the support and community provided by the Janes, Joy becomes increasingly embedded in their operation, even going so far as to form a relationship with the collective’s chosen doctor, Dean (Cory Michael Smith). In doing so, Joy opens the door for the Janes to become less dependent on Dean’s egotistical, financially-driven perspective toward giving women access to safe abortions. From there, Joy embarks on a rise that never feels quite as daring or provocative as it should, even though Call Jane repeatedly reminds us of the gaps that Joy’s secret life with the Janes has the potential to create between her, her husband, and her teenage daughter, Charlotte (Grace Edwards).

Sigourney Weaver looks at Elizabeth Banks in Call Jane.
Wilson Webb/Roadside Attractions

Despite the achievements that its female characters make throughout Call Jane’s 121-minute runtime, the film’s plot unfolds in a way that feels, at times, disappointingly straightforward and predictable. The relevance of the film’s story is undeniable, but in its attempts to normalize a topic that deserves to be discussed more openly and frankly, Call Jane ends up feeling strangely sanitized and safe. Joy’s transformation from content housewife to fierce activist goes largely unchallenged throughout the film, and while Call Jane occasionally feints at provocative detours and topics, it never fully grapples with the thorns that linger at the edges of its story.

That’s not to say that Call Jane doesn’t tell its story in a competent or compelling way. The film is, with the exception of certain shaggy sections in its second act, an engrossing and entertaining drama that moves through its story at a consistently brisk, upbeat pace. As the film’s director, Nagy makes the most out of certain sequences throughout Call Jane, including its impressive opening and the sequence in which Banks’ Joy gets her abortion. The latter scene plays out at a patient pace, one that wisely forces the viewer to sit in the room with Joy as she struggles to not let her nerves overwhelm her.

It’s in moments like that, when Joy’s toughened exterior briefly fades away, that Banks’ performance shines brightest. Opposite her, Sigourney Weaver leans all the way into her character’s chill, late-1960s hippie vibe, bringing an unwaveringly calm presence to Call Jane that acts as the perfect counterbalance to the fierce, prideful energy present in Banks’ Joy. Outside of them, Wunmi Mosaku also turns in another reliably memorable supporting performance as Gwen, the only Black member of the Jane Collective.

Call Jane | Official Trailer | In Theaters October 28

Ultimately, Call Jane’s impact is dulled slightly by its own limited scope, as well as its disinterest in seriously investigating the darker parts of its characters’ lives. For that reason, it’s Call Jane’s opening scene that seems to best reflect the film itself, which dazzles and entrances in parts but remains content only ever alluding to the tougher aspects of its plot. The film’s lively, infectious energy, combined with its inherent relevance, makes it well worth seeking out. Don’t be surprised, though, if you find yourself disappointed by just how non-confrontationally the film brings to life a story that could have benefitted from being told with a bit more attitude.

Call Jane is now playing in select theaters.

Editors' Recommendations

Alex Welch
Alex Welch is a TV and movies writer based out of Los Angeles. In addition to Digital Trends, his work has been published by…
Meet Cute review: Peacock’s time travel rom-com falls flat
Kaley Cuoco stands next to Pete Davidson in Peacock's Meet Cute.

Meet Cute wants to be a lot of things at once. The film, which premieres exclusively on Peacock this week, is simultaneously a manic time travel adventure, playful romantic comedy, and dead-serious commentary on the messiness of romantic relationships. If that sounds like a lot for one low-budget rom-com to juggle — and within the span of 89 minutes, no less — that’s because it is. Thanks to the performance given by its game lead star, though, there are moments when Meet Cute comes close to pulling off its unique tonal gambit.

Unfortunately, the film’s attempts to blend screwball comedy with open-hearted romanticism often come across as hackneyed rather than inspired. Behind the camera, director Alex Lehmann fails to bring Meet Cute’s disparate emotional and comedic elements together, and the movie ultimately lacks the tonal control that it needs to be able to discuss serious topics like depression in the same sequence that it throws out, say, a series of slapstick costume gags.  The resulting film is one that isn't memorably absurd so much as it is mildly irritating.

Read more
Pearl review: a star is born (and is very, very bloody)
Mia Goth stares at the camera in the poster for Pearl.

Pearl is a candy-coated piece of rotten fruit. The film, which is director Ti West’s prequel to this year's X, trades in the desaturated look and 1970s seediness of its parent film for a lurid, Douglas Sirk-inspired aesthetic that seems, at first, to exist incongruently with its story of intense violence and horror. But much like its titular protagonist, whose youthful beauty and Southern lilt masks the monster within, there’s a poison lurking beneath Pearl’s vibrant colors and seemingly untarnished Depression-era America setting.

Set around 60 years before X, West’s new prequel does away with the por nstars, abandoned farms, and eerie old folks that made its predecessor’s horror influences clear and replaces them with poor farmers, charming film projectionists, and young women with big dreams. Despite those differences, Pearl still feels like a natural follow-up to X. The latter film, with its use of split screens and well-placed needle drops, offered a surprisingly dark rumination on the horror of old age. Pearl, meanwhile, explores the loss of innocence and, in specific, the often terrifying truths that remain after one’s dreams have been unceremoniously ripped away from them.

Read more
The Woman King review: a thrilling period epic
Viola Davis holds a torch in The Woman King.

The Woman King opens purposefully and violently. The film’s first sequence, which brings to life a brutal battle from its sudden beginning all the way to its somber end, is a master class in visual storytelling. Not only does it allow director Gina Prince-Bythewood to, once again, prove her worth as a capable action filmmaker, but it also introduces The Woman King’s central all-female army, sets up the film’s core conflict, and introduces nearly every important character that you’ll need to know for the two hours that follow it. The fact that The Woman King does all of this within the span of a few short minutes just makes its opening sequence all the more impressive.

The level of impressive craftsmanship in The Woman King’s memorably violent prologue is present throughout the entirety of its 135-minute runtime. For that reason, the film often feels like a throwback to an era that seems to reside farther in the past than it actually does, one when it was common for all the major Hollywood studios to regularly put out historical epics that were, if nothing else, reliably well-made and dramatically engaging.

Read more