Posted on 01/17/2005 7:47:57 AM PST by JFK_Lib
If you liked "Cider House Rules" you're going to love "$MM Baby".
Never saw Cider House Rules, but I did enjoy Million Dollar Baby. Very good relationship movie and not deserving of the rap it is getting on this website.
I'd rather not have to pay to see political propaganda. Perhaps you don't mind.
It isn't about boxing, and I didn't say it was. I said it was about the relationship between the two main characters. I assume you didn't like Raging Bull either after all it isn't about boxing either.
Didn't get a chance to see Alfie. Either of them actually, but from what I have seen I think Jude Law will struggle to fill Michael Caine's shoes. My point about Raging Bull wasn't that it was propaganda but that it wasn't just about boxing. Most sports movies at least the good ones aren't really about the sport. The sport tells us something about the characters. Think about the first Rocky, how much boxing is really in it, and would you say that it is primarily about boxing or about Rocky? Notice as the films get worse they are more about boxing than Rocky.
"Alfie" and "Cider House" were both about abortion, both propaganda, but from opposite points of view. That Michael Caine was cast in "Cider House" wasn't an accident. Hollywood wanted to hammer home the point that he had come around to their point of view, and so should you. "$MM Baby" is also propaganda. It doesn't have any other reason to be. I didn't like being sucked into paying for something that should have been a paid political commercial. I can't remember if "Alfie" was billed as something other than what it was. I was about 25 when I saw it and my perspective was a bit different.
The remake of Alfie looked like a Romantic Comedy, and the reviews I saw acted like the abortion thing wasn't that big of a deal. More because of how society has changed more than anything.
I didn't find the 15 minutes of Million Dollar Baby that was about her dying to be propaganda. Eastwood's character seemed genuinely conflicted about the decision. Part of relationships is saying goodbye, and this is how this particular story went about it. The advertising should have made a bigger deal of "her life will take a tragic turn" but that was their choice. Personally I was glad I knew what would happen. I might have broken down and cried had I not, and that would have affected my view of my own masculinity. But I still felt that her death was handled honestly.
Was there any other message? The movie was a showcase for the issue. The producers certainly let you know what they thought of the Church's view of euthanasia. The only character to use profanity was the priest, I mean really in a movie about a boxing gym and none of the guys use blue language, except the priest? Why did Hollywood do that? Other than that, the character of the priest could have been Pee Wee Herman's twin. The producers were manipulating the audience to agree with their point of view.
What do you think? Will Hollywood do a movie on that woman who emerged from a mute 20 year coma over the weekend?
I doubt they will do a movie about that woman, but then I imagine it would be pretty boring.
And the decision to kill Swank was her own choice not Clint's choice. He wanted (needed) her to live because she filled a void in his life. But that isn't what she wanted and love does involve putting someone elses needs above your own. And there are other things in real life that can be done before the choice they made is made, but in a movie time constraints exist. And I doubt most people in her situation bite their own tongue off in an attempt to bleed out, and have to be drugged in order to keep them from killing themselves. In that situation (her situation) death was the best answer. But the film doesn't say it is the best or right answer for everyone.
You're right, it doesn't. What is does is dramatize this instance as the best choice for this character. Hollywood makes your heart bleed for her (read your post) you know in your heart that the Eastwood character did the right thing.
The whole movie begs the question, why did Hollywood produce it? What was the point? An artistic work about what? What are they trying to say? Why did the producers pick this story?
Because it is a good story. Just because they may agree with the choice in it doesn't make it propaganda. I fail to see how saying it is the right choice in some cases makes it propaganda. That I thought was true long before I ever saw the movie. There are many other movies I would rather ask why Hollywood made than this one. Son of the Mask, I'm looking at you.
Just because you don't need convincing, doesn't mean that the purpose of the movie isn't to convince. There's a difference between art designed to make you think about an issue and propaganda designed to sway public opinion. Does the line between the two get blurry? Damn right! I don't think it was blurry in this case. The other view was represented by an effeminate, foul mouthed, platitude spouting ineffective priest.
It is funny I thought the preists argument was effective. And I think the cursing by the preist (I don't think it was the only cursing in the movie but it was pretty free of it) was to show the relationship he had with Eastwood. Even the most saintly of people are going to break down at some point when they know someone has been arguing for arguings sake for 23 years, but when Eastwood is faced with a problem the preist is there for him like a friend would be.
I don't feel it is propaganda is because it shows that it is not a consequence free decision. The preist tells Clint what will happen, and that it seems is what did. After he does kill her he can't remain in LA and be reminded of her. He has to leave there, and get away from the pain. Much in the same way that it seems he left his real daughter at some point.
The obvious motive behind every film is to make money. Not all are successful at this. Sometimes a film, like this one, also has good performances. This film was carried by the performances and elevated the material. And comparing this to F9-11 is a joke. For one Moore himself has come out and basically said it is propaganda. The only people saying so about Million Dollar Baby are thos who are biased against a plot element. Is every film with drug use a pro-drug propaganda film?
I find what the film is trying to say is that it is never too late to a) acheive your goals and b) do not close yourself off because you might find fulfillment in a part of your life you have given up on. This film is about their relationship. The entire span of it. The end of a relationship is saying good bye. The way they chose to do it is assisted suicide. It is a questionable act, but it is a powerful one, and I feel used to show how deeply Clint thinks about the girl. He was very horrified about doing so at first, and was never happy while doing it. And we are not led to believe afterwards that he finds peace.
I am amazed that no one has seized on the film being anti-welfare. If it is pro-euthanasia at least someone in the film speaks out against it. The only thing we see about welfare is the scumbag mom.
In order to get their message across, people need to see the film. Yes it has to make money. Nobody sees films that don't. I don't really understand your point.
I didn't compare it to Moore's film. I'm just wondering what your level is before you admit that a Hollywood film is propaganda.
Oh yes, Hollywood never tires of taking potshots at the South. If one only had Hollywood to go by, you'd think the South was one giant trailer park from Little Rock to Tallahassee
In order to get their message across, people need to see the film. Yes it has to make money. Nobody sees films that don't. I don't really understand your point.
I didn't compare it to Moore's film. I'm just wondering what your level is before you admit that a Hollywood film is propaganda.
Oh yes, Hollywood never tires of taking potshots at the South. If one only had Hollywood to go by, you'd think the South was one giant trailer park from Little Rock to Tallahassee
So every film is laden with a message? No film is made simply for enjoyment? What, may I ask, is the message in School of Rock? Pirates of the Carribean? This film is made for enjoyment, and despite being very dark the major message is fairly uplifting.
I'm not sure where the line is drawn for a film becoming propaganda, but I do know that this film is far from crossing it. I guess Half Baked is a propaganda film, but then the only downside it shows to smoking weed is that you might go to jail. Million Dollar Baby declares that there are very real emotional consequences for those left behind, and I think shows that at the end as well.
I think you are hopelessly biased against Hollywood and don't think they can do anything positive in your mind. It isn't anti-welfare it is anti-South. I saw it the other way around, but clarly we disagree about almost every aspect of this film.
Of course not
Of course there are films made for sheer enjoyment and escapism
I did see "Pirates" There wasn't any message. It was OK
No kidding?
You're blind!
Didn't see it
You can't see the forest for the trees.
Hollywood is as far as art is concerned is where it's at. Too bad their message is one sided.
You can't get past the storyline to try and understand that real people wrote it and produced it for a reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.