Posted on 02/27/2005 4:01:31 PM PST by topher
Tonight is oscar night.
So the million dollar question is Clint Eastwood going to get Oscar for Best Director?
This will be revealed in a few hours.
But Million Dollar Baby is a Hollywood flick that is anti-Christian. Eastwood -- not as director -- but as star, kills his lover in this film.
How can Eastwood be a good guy and kill his lover? The plot is basically that he is a love with a brain injured woman [before the injury]. He feels the need to take her life. [Please note I have not seen the movie -- but that was the summary given].
He is also portrayed as a Catholic who goes to Mass everyday -- supposedly a good Christian.
But direct killing of a loved one is never a Christian thing to do -- killing someone who is attacking your family or defending people is Christian.
Given that about Million Dollar Baby winning an Oscar [or more than one], then how does Terri Schiavo fit in?
The media may play up Million Dollar Baby as a way to justify Michael Schiavo killing his wife -- to clear the way for his lover, and getting all of the money from judgements in the Terri Schiavo case.
So is Clint Eastwood winning an Oscar a good time or a bad thing for the Terri Schiavo situation.
In terms of the MSM, it is my belief that they will try to justify imposing the death sentence on Terri.
But Christian preachers, from the pulpit, can use both stories to teach their flocks -- teach them that killing Terri Schiavo is wrong and teach them that what Hollywood put in a motion picture is not a good example for living our livings.
The Christian preachers must get in the pulpit and clear the air -- tell people that the plot of Million Dollar Baby is all wrong.
God bless and hopefully Chris Rock will not profane the American airways -- too much!
In a sense, Terri Schiavo is a million dollar baby -- Michael Schiavo won a million dollar judgement because of her and is using that money to kill her.
In an interview yesterday, Eastwood said he's only exploring the issue, not making a statement. He said his personal views are most closely expressed by the eloquent priest in the movie who stood foresquare against euthanasia.
For myself, I prefer the old Eastwood movies. They were definite good-vs-evil black-and-white morality plays where nobody doubted who the bad guys were, and could root for the good guys. They were always pick-me-ups and NOT downers. That's what I pay my money for anyway.
To what end do you go to save someone's life? Ultimately, the girl dies, but Eastwood does find where she was left to die by torturing the villian.
Maybe Clint should go to Florida and support Terri -- at least I would hope he might...
I do not think the Hillary Swank character is his lover, she is just someone he loves very much. But of course, regardless, the movie is tripe and propaganda and Micheal Medved, et al were correct to say the ads were grossly misleading. Thank heavens we don't go to the movies regularly or I might have seen this and caused a scene. Another anti-Catholic bit of cr*p, I'm very disappointed in Clint Eastwood as are so many others.
Unfortunately the flick will probably win best pic, fortunately I'll probably be in bed by then.
"But Million Dollar Baby is a Hollywood flick that is anti-Christian. Eastwood -- not as director -- but as star, kills his lover in this film."
First of all, let me state MY bias from the start: I'm sick of people piling on this film, especially Freepers, who are indeed an ornery lot, but should know better. Here you've gone and led off a gratutious post by saying the Eastwood character "kills his lover." She's not his lover. Not a whiff of that going on here, it's very much father-daughter.
It's also very clear you haven't seen the film. Eastwood's character is estranged from his real daughter, Swank's character misses her dead father...and they fill in those roles for each other. Kills his lover?
As for the sanctity of life hoo-ha I've been hearing here for weeks and weeks...the way it's portrayed in the film, Eastwood's character struggles mightily. It wasn't his idea, it was the now-paraplegic Swank character's idea. Maggie begs him, he refuses. She begs him, and gives all her reasons. Yes, her reasons.
He struggles. He sees his priest. He is clearly torn. It's also clear, moral issuewise, that either choice just sucks. It's clear that, no matter what he does, he's a lost man. Go see the movie, you'll see a masterpiece performance of a man struggling with a profound moral dilemma.
"How can Eastwood be a good guy and kill his lover? The plot is basically that he is a love with a brain injured woman [before the injury]. He feels the need to take her life. [Please note I have not seen the movie -- but that was the summary given]."
Horsecrap, if that was the "summary given," it has as much value as your observation--which is to say, it had to have been made by a brain-DEAD observer, or someone who hasn't seen the film.
Remember all the BRAYING on this forum about all the lefties who criticized The Passion WITHOUT EVEN SEEING IT!! Double-standards, people.
And another thing: I have literally lost count of the folks here who have signed onto the idea that "Hollywood" "misled" America by not telling us it was a..."euthenasia film." My God, if this idea weren't so intellectually feeble it would be hilarious. Every bit of marketing for this pic is so gloomy it makes you want to reach for an antidepressant. It's a downer from the opening frame...and only goes further down. It was never "stealth marketed." To say otherwise is to join in the hysteria. Freepers tend to read all sorts of things into mass market products, including and especially movies. Did the movie makers want "to change America's mind" about mercy killing? Please. The movie makers wanted to make a compelling movie. Its whole violent world is BOXING, where the participants can die, or get crippled, or...brain- or neurologically damaged. Secret message? What is it, boxing's dangerous?
"He is also portrayed as a Catholic who goes to Mass everyday -- supposedly a good Christian.
But direct killing of a loved one is never a Christian thing to do -- killing someone who is attacking your family or defending people is Christian."
Thank you for clearing that up. Do you really think someone who goes to mass every day could not one day, through unforseen circumstances, come up against an impossible moral dilemma?
"Given that about Million Dollar Baby winning an Oscar [or more than one], then how does Terri Schiavo fit in?"
She doesn't. It's a freaking movie, grow up.
"The media may play up Million Dollar Baby as a way to justify Michael Schiavo killing his wife -- to clear the way for his lover, and getting all of the money from judgements in the Terri Schiavo case."
Uh...is this another Schiavo thread?
"So is Clint Eastwood winning an Oscar a good time or a bad thing for the Terri Schiavo situation."
I'm sure, if she were cognizant, she'd be thrilled for Clint.
"In terms of the MSM, it is my belief that they will try to justify imposing the death sentence on Terri."
You really need to spend several years with a Webster's, so you can make your points, such as they are, with words that mean what you think they mean.
"But Christian preachers, from the pulpit, can use both stories to teach their flocks -- teach them that killing Terri Schiavo is wrong and teach them that what Hollywood put in a motion picture is not a good example for living our livings."
Yeah, okay. Is this for Christian preachers in a particulary region or country, or throughout the known world?
"The Christian preachers must get in the pulpit and clear the air -- tell people that the plot of Million Dollar Baby is all wrong."
Actually, the plot is dead-on-perfect, pardon the pun. It's a STORY. If you don't like this story, write your own.
"God bless and hopefully Chris Rock will not profane the American airways -- too much!"
Finally, something we agree on.
Keep saying, It's a movie, it's a movie, it's a movie. Keep saying, The First Amendment guarantees moviemakers' rights to tell any drama they want, even if a fraction of the population chooses to get all exercised about it without ever seeing it, or even making an honest effort to find out what goes on in a film. (And, yeah, the FA also gives you the right to speak out completely erroneausly, I know.)
Keep remembering: How pissed off we were when so, so many passed judgement on The Passion...without even seeing it.
"But of course, regardless, the movie is tripe and propaganda and Micheal Medved, et al were correct to say the ads were grossly misleading."
I'll give you the short version: the ads were NOT grossly misleading. The ads are gloomy, sobering, not one bit "uplifting." If your definition of an "honest" movie ad is one that tells you every twist, turn and development that goes on in the movie...dude, that's not an ad, that's the movie itself.
"The ads are gloomy, sobering, not one bit "uplifting."
I'll grant that this is subjective, but that's not how they came across to me. I was even actually thinking about seeing this movie, because of the ads, even though I am opposed to women boxing.
But I must state for the record that I actually ended up watching the sympathetic female boxing plot on an episode of Johnny Zero, so that was ironic in a way.
Okay, I hit you too hard. Sorry.
And I applaud what you wrote -- you were factual and giving some good insights.
The only problem is that when I was growing up, movies and TV had a moral influence on me.
Of the older generation, many good Christians may have seen Love is a Many Splendid Thing with William Holden and Jennifer Jones. One couple I know did not realize that this was really about a married man having an affair with a single woman.
That means -- for Christians and Jews -- it is all about adultery.
In that 1950's movie, Hollywood twisted the plot to justify the adultery.
You have pointed out that Million Dollar Baby would not be like that -- but that was my original concern.
Some people are today deceived by the god of the TV or the god of movies -- even if they strongly believe in going to church on Sundays and believe they live a Christian life.
The analogy is Catholics believing in what Senator Ted Kennedy believes on abortion or Senator John Kerry -- versus what the Catholic church and its leaders are clearly telling Catholics.
Thank you for your post.
If you are harsh on me, I don't mind -- which I don't think you were. You were more upset with how Freepers often react to things.
God bless!
I WAS too hard on you, topher. Apologies. Your response is measured and classy. How I love disagreeing with Freepers! God bless, good night. (And prayers for Teri, I hope I never suggested anything other than that.)
In that movie -- as the Indians are about to close in on the stagecoach, and everyone is almost out of ammunition, one person is going to shoot a woman so that she is not violated by the savages or whatever.
As he is about to shoot her with his only bullet left, there is the sound of the bugle -- the cavalry arrives in the nick of time.
For someone with some injury begging someone to kill them, there might be a medical breakthrough to help that person -- if they just survive the hard times or try to.
I am opposed to Euthanasia for the same reason I am opposed to abortion -- human lives are valuable.
You didn't and I don't mind someone disagreeing with me with they can point out how wrong I am -- and I tend to be that quite a bit.
You're incredibly ignorant, or willfully blind if you think movies can't influence the public. Undershirt sales plummeted after Clark Gable went without one in one of his films. The Klan experienced a rebirth after "Birth of a Nation." IF this Eastwood film presents euthanasia as an acceptable option -- and from your description of the film, it sounds as if it does -- then it could have a very malignant influence on our society. I'm pretty sure that's why so many critics -- including on all-liberal Air America -- have been pushing it to such a remarkable degree.
Best Supporting Actor - Morgan Freeman
Best Actress - Hilary Swank
Best Director - Clint Eastwood
Best Motion Picture
I agree--it's a movie, and an incredible script and story, extraordinarily done.
No matter where we each fall on the Terri Schiavo situation (which bears no resemblence to this movie's story)...nothing is changed. If a movie's critical success is threatening to us, we are weak and foolish. If a movie's content is not in keeping with our personal values, we are free to walk out (or not see it at all). Who is forcing anyone to pony up their $7 bucks and sit through Million Dollar Baby (or any other movie, for that matter)?
I think it is really great that Clint Eastwood and Hilary Swank won Oscars -- I like them both.
As for being influenced by movies/TV, there was a movie where there was a playing chicken stunt was done by laying down in the middle of the highway and letting cars pass over you.
Needless to say, a teenager [about 16/17] did this, and was killed.
I will go see the movie -- because I am an Eastwood fan and a Hilary Swank fan. It is now important, at least in my opinion, in the Terri Schiavo case -- because some in the media will point to it, and say -- see, she should be killed just like in Million Dollar Baby
If TV and movies are not influential, then why have the portrayal of cigarettes as cool been banned from movies/TV for almost 30 years now and the banning of cigarette commercials?
Nobody.
I am concerned about the spread of Euthanasia. And even if Adults have the common sense -- do children that might see this film? They may see it as a noble act to kill someone with a disability. Would a 14 year old?
But when a picture wins best picture, it will cause people to want to see it to find out why it won the oscars.
It may be that the discussions around this movie and Terri Schiavo will help stop the growth of Euthanasia.
There is a professor at Princeton that advocates allowing parents to kill babies up to the age of two years old. If the baby has birth defects, allow the parents two years to find out what health problems the baby may have -- at least according to Peter Singer -- though it may be the MIT professor that is advocating the 2 year length -- Singer might be advocating less.
Peter Singer is a professor at Princeton University.
And these are powerfully people who are respected for these beliefs. Planned Parenthood and NARAL will want to help these people support these beliefs in killing the disabled.
Ironically, that is how Richard Widmark got his start -- his role in a late 1940's film was to wheel a grandma in a wheelchair down a flight of stairs to kill her [he played a very nasty villian in that first film].
Many folks fought hard in the last election because they thought morality was going down the tubes, and would not want things to continue in that direction.
Conservatives are now the advocate for human rights -- whereas the liberals seem to be more interested in animal rights and wacko ideas.
But without the right to life any other right or issue is backseat to that.
"You're incredibly ignorant, or willfully blind if you think movies can't influence the public."
I never said they couldn't. Not once. Didn't even imply that. But now that you've brought it up: I think the real tragedy would be if movies "influence the public"...but are never actually seen by that public. I guess you'd call people who make pronouncements about the movie without seeing it...oh, I don't know, incredibly ignorant...maybe even willfully blind?
"Undershirt sales plummeted after Clark Gable went without one in one of his films." That's crap. He wore a sleeveless t-shirt (AKA "wife beater"), and sales moved up a bit on them, but they didn't "plummet." It's urban legend, like wife abuse goes up on SuperBowl Sunday.
"The Klan experienced a rebirth after "Birth of a Nation." "
Wrong again. Really wrong.
"IF this Eastwood film presents euthanasia as an acceptable option -- and from your description of the film, it sounds as if it does -- then it could have a very malignant influence on our society."
It doesn't present it as an "acceptable option." It presents it as something this character thinks he must do. It's also very clear that it is not "acceptable" to him. By the way, it's clear that you don't see movies you judge in public, but maybe you could at least read what other people who have seen them post? It's NOT clear from my "description of the film" that euthanasia is presented as an "acceptable option."
Very malignant influence on our society? Let's avoid any and all malignant influences by ranting hysterically about things we're not fully informed about, and then suggest, by extension, that certain kinds of commercial art should be, in one way or another, restricted.
"I'm pretty sure that's why so many critics -- including on all-liberal Air America -- have been pushing it to such a remarkable degree."
A minority of "critics" are slamming it, but the majority is not. And get this: Some critics have actually judged the movie on its artistic merits.
Some day, when I get the time, I will finish and post my essay, "Why Some Freepers Should Not Be Allowed to Post Bupkus About Movies They Haven't Seen, Just Because They Think They Know Everything About Them, Including How America Should Think About Them."
"Willfully Blind," huh? Is that on your t-shirt, your bumper sticker, or both?
But my particular criticism of this movie IS the suject matter. I hate the idea of female boxing and TOTALLY ABHOR the idea of Euthanasia. Thus, the film is not appealing to me and I am NOT going to see the movie.
If somone wanted to criticize the Passion because they disliked the subject matter (and let's face it that's what really bothered MANY of the people in HOLLYWOOD but they weren't honest about it), Jesus, so be it. But that wasn't the issue. The kinds of claims people were making about the movie, were claims that couldn't be made unless one actually saw it.
Excellent points, you made in post #19.
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.