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)?
"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?