Posted on 02/07/2005 3:03:09 PM PST by EveningStar
Medved on O'Reilly tonight to debate Million Dollar Baby.
Fox: 8 Easter / 5 Pacific
Katheryn Bigelow, Sofia Coppola, Jodie Foster, Jane Campion, come readily to mind as directors with serious bodies of work. If success is the measure, all but a few male directors would love to have a string of movies like Big, Awakenings, The Preacher's Wife, Absolute Power, etc, which are all directed by Penny Marshal.
Learn some manners, kid, or get ready for a vacation.
Body Building is an interesting one, let's look at that one. How much is too much? C'mon, any gradeschool kid could see that this one is totally subjective. Fit women are better looking than unfit women, period. However, for most of us, myself included, there is a point where it just becomes too much. The problem is that we can't accurately define how much is too much.
You are correct. I thought about that a bit and realized that there were some 'good' women directors. I just haven't heard from them in a while 'cept for Sopia Coppola. Notwithstanding that I don't like any of their movies....
1. "First of all, the Academy Awards (and most every other critical prize) are not bound to honor a film due solely to it's "financial success".
Nowhere in my post did I state or imply otherwise that income should be the main or only reason for nomination in major categories. In fact, what I DID say (assuming you read my post accurately) was, "....IF based solely on its FINANCIAL SUCCESS...." Please re-read my original post for verification. Additionally, my opinion of the movie is that I recognized the movie as an exceptionally well-produced, artistically beautiful, THOUGHT-PROVOKING, well-acted, cogent film, even if one DIDN'T know what the ending was. And you (or maybe NOT you, but SOMEBODY out there) would have to admit it was powerful, whether you agree with it or not.
2. "Oh, and your outrage over the Oscars dismissing the Passion based "solely" upon disagreement with it's religious content is hilarious coming from someone who is obviously supporting the Passion to such a fervent degree SOLELY because of your agreement with the same religious content. Don't you see the latent hypocrisy in that argument."
No, I don't see latent hypocrisy in my statement. Conversely, your "argument" proves my point. [Another smaller point, but nonetheless, where do you see (my) "outrage"? Where - exactly? Point it out for us all to see. Please.] You do accuse me of essentially having a "knee-jerk reaction" (again, see my original post) to this film based solely on my identifying myself as one whose spiritual viewpoint is similar to that of the movie. That's not very open-minded of YOU. So, you think I am incapable of making an educated judgement of a well-produced film because I agree w/its basic theme? Example: If I were to tell you that I thought, say, GHANDI was the best film of the year, would the fact that I DISAGREED with Ghandi's spiritual beliefs give me more credence in your eyes? So, if one DOESN'T agree with the stated spiritual position in a film (any film) and THEN say one liked that same film, etc., it gives one's statement validity??? Based on THAT argument? Are you kidding? Again, you immediately dismissed my opinion as being impressed with the (a) movie SOLELY based on my stated religious similarity to it. Not a good argument.
"3. Oh, and the film was "offered" up for consideration at this years Oscars, where it scored three nominations in technical categories. Unfortunately, the Oscars just happened to think that there were 5 better films and performances in all major categories this past year.
As stated in my original post, 1st paragragh; ...."deserves to be considered in more important categories than the three it has been entered in.....", 3rd paragraph: ".....should have been offered for consideration to the Academy member to vote on in those categories....", i.e. best picture, director, etc. Our family did see other good films this last year, and some were nominated, some were not. But none had the impact that The Passion did. At least, not in the same way. I would make the correlation to the impact Ben Hur had in my (personal) life. (As an aside, FYI-Richard Dreyfuss is on record as REALLY REALLY liking Ben Hur AND Charleton Heston in the title role, if that means anything to you. Get it?)
YOUR passion about The Passion is interesting at best. It's amazing how those who disagree get to be so nasty about this film and the people who liked it. All I mentioned, at length, was that I thought the film should have a CHANCE (i.e. be NOMINATED) at the big prizes along with the other 3 or 4 or 5 movies in the same categories. Since it doesn't matter to you and you get obviously pretty hot about anyone saying anything to the contrary, well, all I can say is, "Have a nice day."
4. "Why do you hardcore Passion fans seem to think that the Academy should hold your personal opinions any higher than the rest of ours?
Did I (or "we") say that? When, exactly?
5. Is not the disappointed Eternal Sunshine or Incredibles fans's case for inclusion as compelling as your own?
I thought the Incredibles was a pretty cute film, actually. Stacked up against the rest of them, I would have to say I don't think it qualified as a GREAT movie. I'm still sad that Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind was shut out of the Awards way back when, and I'm not even Jewish! So there you go.
P.S. Eternal Sunshine? Are you for real? That movie STANK. (Now don't go to pieces. I'm just having a little fun here.) :)
Had you not responded in an unkind manner in YOUR first post, I would not have taken the time to write this for posting. But you did, so I have tried to respond intelligently. I hope you've enjoyed this as much as I have. It's been fun, really. :) And if you choose to respond to this post (but don't you think we've talked enough about this now?), please remember to be respectful even though we all know you don't agree with my position. OK? Have a nice day.
It seems you are upset (at least one reason) because the plot twist of this movie was (apparently) given away by Micheal Medved. This simply isn't the case.
I realize this thread started 2 days ago, but even then I knew it was about euthanasia. I knew it was about that last week. I knew because I heard it talked about on the Don & Mike show last Friday (I think it was. Maybe it was Thursday. Anyway, it was last week sometime).
The point is, I'm sure there were other outlets out there already that were "giving away the secret", so it's not like Medved was the first.
As far as the "ethical" concern about him giving away the movie's ending (or content) at all, if even not the first? Well, to that I'd say when I saw this show advertised on Fox, there were repeated warnings to the viewers that Medved was going to talk about the movie and "what it's really about, and it's not what you think!" I didn't see the actual interview, but I'm sure the warning was repeated.
If you happened to just tune in after the final warning was given, and just as he was talking about the movie, well, then all I can say to that is, "Sorry, life sucks though, you know?"
Besides, it's just a movie. :)
You realize of course in the movie that it is Swank who wants to die and Eastwood recoils at the idea. He does not want her to die because she fills a need for him. So in the world of the movie Eastwood wouldn't be trying to kill you either. If anyone wanted to see you die I don't think it would be because you are paralyzed.
Again, not a euthanasia propaganda piece.
Did you see it? DID YOU SEE THIS MOVIE? Because I just got back from the theater. It was a masterpiece. As far as an agenda? Give me a break. It's a story of two people and their choices. Pushing an agenda? BULL. BULL. And I don't understand why somebody does not have the right to die if they want to. I certainly would not want to live like the woman in this movie. If I ever found myself in this situation, I hope I have someone like the Eastwood character who respects me and loves me enough to do what I ask.
This movie is not about euthenasia...it's about the spirit and the will and the relationship of two people. I suppose if you're a superficial asshole, you'd think it was a movie ABOUT euthenasia.
This is not about the other people. This is about the choices we make in our own lives. If I don't want to live on a respirator, with a useless body that people have to clean and turn and wipe my ass. If I feel I have lived the kind of life that was enough for me why can't I make the decision to end that life. Why do I have to live so everybody else can feel good about themselves? Answer me that.
'Cuz by doing that, you have to get someone to murder you. I guess they could murder and eat you too, like those German guys, if that is what you want....
Why do I have to live so everybody else can feel good about themselves? Answer me that.
It's not all about you. You can make your own choice--just don't expect me to praise it or make a movie about it if it is a craven and cowardly choice.
If you talk someone into snuffing you 'cuz you are unhappy, don't expect me to talk about what 'heart' and 'courage' you had--which is my beef with this movie...
How dare you suggest that somebody who doesn't want to live in a state as this character was in is cowardly. She had no choice but to ask her best friend to help her. She was unable to do ANYTHING for herself. Now, if you want to live like that, hats off to you. That is YOUR choice. Sometimes the people who say they care about other people the most are the people who are the cruelest of them all.
I'm not suggesting it. I'm saying it outright--it doesn't matter what you want at that point. Getting someone to murder you 'cuz you're unhappy is craven and cowardly. It is to be condemned, not celebrated.
Sometimes the people who say they care about other people the most are the people who are the cruelest of them all.
I guess she should have never stepped into that ring if she couldn't live with the possible consequences.
Who ever thought women were boxers anyhow?
I pray you never find yourself in a position like this character was in or have to take care of someone you love knowing they are in pain and misery. I have done the latter and if he asked me to help him, I would have because I loved and respected my brother more than anyone in the world and the thought of imposing my beliefs onto his life would have been impossible and unthinkable.
That's what is so goofy about this movie--all that 'heart of a champion' nonsense. Obviously not! When it came to a real challenge, everybody folded like cowards.
Honor and courage is about what you do when you are broken and lost.
Oh shut up.
If I'm ever broken like that, may God grant me the strength to keep living in breathing. If I chicken out, don't celebrate my courage and heart....
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.