Medved calls Million Dollar Baby, a movie about death culture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fitz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fitz

Guest
Has anyone seen this movie and would it be promoting a culture of death to go and see it? I was curious about the movie and Hillary Swank looks like she did a good job, but I don’t want to support a culture of death if that is the message from Hollywood.
 
Didn’t see it, just heard that Eastwood’s character is Catholic (!) and his adopted daughter is at the end very very near death (why, I don’t know) and he “helps her die”.

Too bad, because I’m a fan of Eastwood, and I’m disappointed by this film being celebrated with such content.
 
Yes I heard about this and I won’t be seeing it, but I don’t go to movies anyway. Maybe I’d watch it if it happened to come on cable TV, from curiosity. I haven’t forgiven Clint Eastwood for “Unforgiven” yet due to his outrageous and totally ahistorical use of the F word by his characters over and over and over…no one talks like that, not even gangstas in da hood.

Let’s face it, Hollywood has a puerile concept of morality. It makes me sick when I realize how much movies and TV formed my “conscience” growing up outside of any church as I did. They really have lost their way, and it ticks me off no end that they’re obviously convinced that we are the ones who don’t get it and that in their minds they’re being “real” and “authentic” when they are actually just sophomoric.
 
A friend saw it. Apparently the main character gets into an accident and is paralyzed from the neck down. She convinces her mentor/trainer to help her commit suicide which is promoted as “heroic” by the narrator of the story.

Aside from any feelings we have about assisted suicide, in most cases even PROPONENTS of this practice limit it to people who are within a short period of dying from an irreversable disease process, are in intense pain and desire to end their lives of suffering (no I do not believe in this practice).

What is the truly horrifying message is that ‘useless’ or incapable people should die, not because they are racked with pain, and nearly ready to go due to natural causes, but because a life of disability is a life not worth living. Apparently some groups representing disabled folks are very up in arms. We can look at many people who on the outside appear disabled–the one that obviously comes to mind is Christopher Reeve. But many of us know Joni Erickson Tada, a Christian singer and the woman who wrote the very inspirational “My Side of the Mountain.” Their physical impairment does NOT mean their lives are not worthwhile. I cannot believe that Eastwood promoted this message intentionally but there you have it.

Medved is particularly upset about this movie because it is NOT packaged as a “suicide” promotion film but as “girl Rocky makes good.” He said that movie critics and reviewers have the duty to let people know what to expect. I happened to hear a caller to his show who was very grateful for his warning. He and his terminally ill wife planned to go to the movie because they like Eastwood films, not knowing that it would have been devastating for his wife to see this woman commit suicide at the end. I think it was very irresponsible of the film promoters to keep the ending a secret

Lisa N (who is NOT planning to see it)
 
I saw it not knowing what is was about. I pulled my wife and daughter along with me telling them it had great reviews.

The ending was horrible.
 
I’m probly gonna get yelled at for this…

-Good cinema is *supposed *to stir up emotion and make you think (or maybe just laugh). I havent seen the movie, but from what I understand and have been told, Clint kills his protege after being paralyzed (?) in the ring. But there is a big difference in featuring and promoting euthanasia.

-Actors play roles, that’s their job.

-Ever thought about maybe you’re not supposed to like the ending?

-If the film Unforgiven is the one I’m thinking about, you’re not really supposed to like Clint in the end. The whole film is basically a lesson in predestination. No matter what Clint’s character does, even after being cured from killing and drinking by his deceased wife, he cant escape himself and his destiny. Calvinism anyone? It’s fairly obvious when you examine the line “Deservin’ ain’t got nothin’ to do with it” and Clint’s character’s degeneration into the sinner he used to be.
 
40.png
Argh:
I’m probly gonna get yelled at for this…

-Good cinema is *supposed *to stir up emotion and make you think (or maybe just laugh). I havent seen the movie, but from what I understand and have been told, Clint kills his protege after being paralyzed (?) in the ring. But there is a big difference in featuring and promoting euthanasia.

-Actors play roles, that’s their job.

-Ever thought about maybe you’re not supposed to like the ending?

-If the film Unforgiven is the one I’m thinking about, you’re not really supposed to like Clint in the end. The whole film is basically a lesson in predestination. No matter what Clint’s character does, even after being cured from killing and drinking by his deceased wife, he cant escape himself and his destiny. Calvinism anyone? It’s fairly obvious when you examine the line “Deservin’ ain’t got nothin’ to do with it” and Clint’s character’s degeneration into the sinner he used to be.
Good point
 
Argh,

This is certainly interesting insight.
In MDB, Clint has a quite strange relationship with a Priest. Sort of a love/hate thing going on.

I won’t tell any more about the story so as not to riun to anyone who does chose to see it (although the latest threads pretty much tell all), however, there is reason to believe there may be a hidden agenda. Only brought to my attention via yor post. Interesting, either Clint is a sadist that enjoys making dark meaningless movies, or he is a genuis and is pulling one over Hollywoods eyes. Hmmmmm
 
Hidden agenda…I think you are refering to my Unforgiven observation. I could see an actor choosing roles to promote his/her line of thinking.

I not sure if youre refering to all dark movies as “meaningless” or just these few in question. I think dark movies are appealing because the typically feature the hero/main character brooding with the emotions inside him/her (typically a “him” though…strange). What person hasnt dealt with conflicting emotions, struggled with the past, etc ? These dark movies tend to have endings a la Greek tragedy where no one wins or the hero loses miserably. I’ll have to see MDB now and see for myself though.

This kinda begs the question, why do I and many others like depressing movies? Ever see House and Sand and Fog? Now that’s an incredibly well acted and directed depressing film featuring suicide and killing.
 
40.png
Argh:
. . .-Actors play roles, that’s their job.

. . . QUOTE] I am reminded of Boopsie’s comment in Doonesbury many years ago about some actress who “wasn’t a stripper, she just played the role of a woman who stripped.” :rolleyes:
 
Lisa N:
What is the truly horrifying message is that ‘useless’ or incapable people should die, not because they are racked with pain, and nearly ready to go due to natural causes, but because a life of disability is a life not worth living. Apparently some groups representing disabled folks are very up in arms. We can look at many people who on the outside appear disabled–the one that obviously comes to mind is Christopher Reeve. But many of us know Joni Erickson Tada, a Christian singer and the woman who wrote the very inspirational “My Side of the Mountain.” Their physical impairment does NOT mean their lives are not worthwhile. I cannot believe that Eastwood promoted this message intentionally but there you have it.

Lisa N (who is NOT planning to see it)
I am rather upset that I almost saw it. I don’t go to many films, and I am very paticular. I really want it to be a good message film. My husband and son gravitate towards sports movies and I almost went to see it last weekend because of that.

It is not that I don’t think a movie could be made about the subject, it is just that I would prefer not to see it. I thought it was a feel good movie about a girl that escapes a bad life with this boxing. However, I thought that was strange too, but I was willing to see it. I won’t now. It is more horrific from the descriptions I have read here.

If I went to a movie about this subject it would not be one that ended with an assisted suicide. I just couldn’t watch it.
 
Lisa N:
Medved is particularly upset about this movie because it is NOT packaged as a “suicide” promotion film but as “girl Rocky makes good.” He said that movie critics and reviewers have the duty to let people know what to expect. I happened to hear a caller to his show who was very grateful for his warning. He and his terminally ill wife planned to go to the movie because they like Eastwood films, not knowing that it would have been devastating for his wife to see this woman commit suicide at the end. I think it was very irresponsible of the film promoters to keep the ending a secret

Lisa N (who is NOT planning to see it)
I had thought it was a girl Rocky movie myself, based on the ads. I’m glad I read here that it’s not.
 
suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref12.html
http://images.suntimes.com/images4/sectionheaders/news/otherview-hd.gif
**Movies about disabled keep myths alive **
February 12, 2005

**BY STEPHEN DRAKE AND MARY JOHNSON **Advertisement
on error resume next plugin = ( IsObject(CreateObject(“ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.3”)))if ( plugin Clint Eastwood’s ‘‘Million Dollar Baby’’ has scored seven Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director. Alejandro Amenabar’s ‘‘The Sea Inside’’ has come away with two, including Best Foreign Language Film. What links both movies? The message that it’s kind to help a paralyzed person die.

To our knowledge, few critics have picked up on the films’ shared ‘‘right-to-die’’ message. Had the plot been racial or homophobic killing, however, we’d be hearing an outcry (if the movie ever got made at all). Why the silence? We think it’s because much of society believes it’s the right thing to do, to grant the wish of any severely disabled person who asks us to help them die.

To us this exhibits an appalling lack of knowledge of severely disabled people, and an even more appalling lack of interest in questioning why films with this message are winning awards.

Amenabar’s film is at least clear about things: It’s the story of Ramon Sampedro, ‘‘who fought for his right to end his life with dignity and respect.’’ In Eastwood’s film, it comes at us like a sucker-punch: Boxing sensation Maggie, paralyzed in a match gone horridly wrong, asks for and gets Frankie’s (Eastwood) help ending her life.

Without going into detail – we know by now how much critics hate that – be forewarned that the ‘‘peaceful death’’ Frankie gives Maggie would be anything but. In reality, that sequence is a recipe for an agonizing death: You suffocate, while your heart feels ready to explode.

This is Frankie’s act of love.

more to follow
 
continued

In real life, Maggie wouldn’t need Frankie’s clandestine aid. Courts have ruled since the 1990s that a person on a ventilator can simply ask, and a nursing staffer will administer a sedative and then turn off the vent as consciousness ebbs. Eastwood got the sequence wrong.

It’s the 21st century, and the only place Maggie can live is a glorified nursing home? Even with the best of care, she gets a pressure sore so severe it requires amputation? Literary license aside, had the boxing moves been wrong, critics and boxing buffs would think less of the film. Details of Maggie’s life after injury, though, evidently seem too unimportant to check for accuracy, merely scenes to imprint on us the horror of the paralyzed life.

Even had Eastwood bothered to get his facts straight, it’s hard for us to sit in a theater looking up at the man who continues to fight disabled people in his backyard along California’s Central Coast, vowing to get the state – and Congress – to pass a law forbidding people paralyzed like Maggie to sue businesses over access violations under the 14-year-old Americans With Disabilities Act without first waiting yet another 90 days, even if he is a truly great movie actor and director.

‘‘Baby’s’’ corny, melodramatic plot is engineered to feed a romantic fantasy, giving emotional life to the ‘‘better dead than disabled’’ mindset lurking in the heart of the typical (read: nondisabled) moviegoer.

That mind-set explains why ‘‘The Sea Inside’’ has been such a hit with critics. These are the stories about disability that society wants to believe. The killings are always acts of love, selfless and heroic, fueled by the myth that ‘‘nothing can be done about the undignified lives of people with disabilities except to help them die,’’ as Chapman University’s Art Blaser puts it.

They don’t reflect the typical disability experience, which, for most of us, is just the experience of living our lives. As efforts to gain acceptance for assisted suicide (which is really legalized medical killing) move from the courts into the mass entertainment media, the vehicle they are driving in on is the vehicle of severe disability. In these films, it’s paralysis. Earlier this year, it was the ‘‘United States of Leland,’’ in which the stabbing death of an autistic teen was portrayed as an act of kindness.

**Stephen Drake is research analyst for Not Dead Yet, a Chicago-based advocacy group for people with disabilities. Mary Johnson’s latest book is **Make Them Go Away: Clint Eastwood, Christopher Reeve and the Case Against Disability Rights. **She edits **www.ragged edgemagazine.com

How does this compare to the Terri Schivo case? It is really sad how quickly our society is accepting mercy killing of less than perfect people.
 
Thanks so much for this post. I had no idea this movie was about this! My sister is paralyzed and this would have deeply offended me and my family!
I was already upset about the oscars excluding The Passion of the Christ from all the big categories. But I should have know about Hollywood and the culture of death by now.
 
I don’t recommend this movie to those who are sensitive to anti-Catholicism.

…Finally saw it on the weekend after Hollywood really peddled it to us with those awards they hand themselves. Save your time and money from this trickery.

The story tries to portray euthanasia & suicide as compassionate, by presenting an extreme situation – no loopholes- the victim is paralysed from the neck, w/respirator in throat, amputated leg, severe bed-sores, rejection and betrayal from mother/siblings, dead beloved father, crushed dreams, and last but not least - no signs of faith in the victim, and no real faith from Eastwood’s main character who supposedly devoted himself to daily mass for the past 23 years. In the end, he injects her with poison.

Then there was the priest. I’d say priests are typically LESS sheltered than the rest of us because life’s issues are always in their face in one way or another. But the movie portrays the Priest’s character as pasty white, youngish and unfamiliar with people’s dilemmas. Also he’s an impatient, arrogant character who curses (f— you) while wearing his vestments, walks out on the protagonist in most scenes, asks the protagonist why the h— he would attend daily mass for the past 23 years “I know that anyone who attends mass every day for 23 years must need to forgive themselves for something.” (the priest was at the same parish for at least 23 years, yeah okay.)

I would say that the writer’s knowledge of Catholicism couldn’t fill a thimble. I guess if you can squint wisely in front of the camera you’re set.

And this is minor, but I have no German ancestry and still I must say the “Germans are evil” subtheme does wear rather thin, and they display the giant American vs German flags at the boxing matches and also pit the Irish against the Germans for added measure.

Yuck, eee, blahh.
 
I personally loved this movie. I don’t really see it as pro-euthanasia … the character played by Clint Eastwood made the choice (against the advice of his priest, who accurately stated the Church’s position), but I don’t think that that choice was portrayed as a positive OR a negative thing. It was tragic – she died, he disappeared and was never heard from again by any of his friends. If he made such a great choice, why did he run away, basically?

Yes, I would have preferred it if she had decided she was going to fight her paralysis and one day walk again, and she eventually did, but then, we probably wouldn’t be talking about it, would we?
 
40.png
Argh:
I’m probly gonna get yelled at for this…

-Good cinema is *supposed *to stir up emotion and make you think (or maybe just laugh). I havent seen the movie, but from what I understand and have been told, Clint kills his protege after being paralyzed (?) in the ring. But there is a big difference in featuring and promoting euthanasia.

<<so what are we supposed to “think” here? That life is meaningless unless we have full use of our bodies and are free from suffering?>>>

-Actors play roles, that’s their job.

<< the point being??>>

-Ever thought about maybe you’re not supposed to like the ending?

<<The problem isn’t aesthetic, though it was with Unforgiven’s anachronistic dialogue. The problem with the ending is that Hollywood sees this as a good, and that even the Church is brought into it to show how “out of it” we are. A cinematic resort to suicide as a cure for plot problems also bothers me.>>

-If the film Unforgiven is the one I’m thinking about, you’re not really supposed to like Clint in the end. The whole film is basically a lesson in predestination. No matter what Clint’s character does, even after being cured from killing and drinking by his deceased wife, he cant escape himself and his destiny. Calvinism anyone? It’s fairly obvious when you examine the line “Deservin’ ain’t got nothin’ to do with it” and Clint’s character’s degeneration into the sinner he used to be.
Calvinism…great. If that’s true then that’s another strike against it because as a Catholic I believe in free will. Frankly it’s been a while since I saw it and all I remember is the horrific opening scene, the language, and the subject matter. I think what’s really going on here is that Hollywood people are so pampered, so cut off and so inauthentic that they constantly reach for the grossest grisliest most shocking plot twists to make their tired old souls feel alive again. Kind of like Viagra for the spirit.
 
40.png
rubycanoe:
Thanks so much for this post. I had no idea this movie was about this! My sister is paralyzed and this would have deeply offended me and my family!
I was already upset about the oscars excluding The Passion of the Christ from all the big categories. But I should have know about Hollywood and the culture of death by now.
This has been Medved’s main complaint, not that it was a horrible movie (although he says it’s pretty ordinary) but that the promos are in effect false advertising. It does sound like “Girl Rocky” and very uplifting. Without Medved’s disclosure of the euthanasia aspects many people would have seen it who would been quite upset or offended.

I am particularly disgusted by the theory that this woman’s life had no value beyond her athletic capabilities. Considering the inspiration that Christopher Reeve was in continuing to work and contribute to society and his family life, I cannot imagine Eastwood providing an opposite message. Reeve said he originally wished he HAD died but with therapy, the love of his family and the support of his many friends and fans, he was able to have a fulfilling life. Imagine others who have had head trauma or spinal chord injuries seeing this film. UGH!

Ordinarily I like Eastwood’s films. They can be violent in a rather madcap fashion (Dirty Harry) or very dark as with Unforgiven. But this one was just very very odd.

Lisa N
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top