‘Million Dollar Baby' Is a Neo-Nazi Movie

The forerunner of "Million Dollar Baby" was the very entertaining Nazi movie "I Accuse," which won the top prize at the Venice Film Festival and was the propaganda that Dr. Goebbels used to convince the German people to switch their vote from "vehemently opposed to the holocaust" to over 60 percent in favor of so-called "mercy killing." In fact, "I Accuse" is a very subtle film that inspired the killing of millions of people.

Dr. Joseph Goebbels was the National Socialist (Nazi) propaganda minister from 1933 to 1945. He exploited radio, press, cinema and theater in Germany to destroy the Jews, evangelical Christians, handicapped Germans and other groups. In 1994, the Discovery Channel aired "Selling Murder," an important documentary investigating how Goebbels used mass media to influence the German people to accept the mass murder of human beings. The documentary shows that at a time when a majority of German people rejected mercy killings (a euphemism for murder), Goebbels produced the movie "I Accuse," an emotive feature film about a beautiful, intelligent woman who is dying of an incurable disease and begs to be allowed to commit suicide.

After the movie was released, a majority of German people said they had changed their minds and now supported mercy killings. After a few more of Goebbels' films about invalids and handicapped people, the German people became strong believers in the efficacy of mass mercy killings.

While the attempted annihilation of Jews by the National Socialists is well documented, the atrocities did not stop with the Jewish race. The main focus of "Selling Murder" is a group that has been somewhat overlooked: the mentally and physically ill of Germany. In 1939, Hitler ordered the killing of the mentally and physically disabled, labeling them as "life unworthy of life."

His reasoning was that the cost of keeping them alive in asylums and hospitals was too great. The real reason, however, stemmed from the government's determination to eliminate any threat to its idea of producing a superior race.

"Selling Murder" is must viewing for every moral person concerned about the use of the mass media of entertainment to influence societal behavior. Similarities between the National Socialist use of film and "Million Dollar Baby" are frightening.

In a January 27, 2005 article in the Los Angeles Times, Marcie Roth, executive director of the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, a national advocacy group with 13,000 members, was quoted as saying that "this narrative development spreads a socially irresponsible message. The movie is saying ‘death is better than disability.'"

The Los Angeles Times continues: "The group contends that the movie is part of a larger bias Eastwood holds against the disabled. A press release on its website carries the headline, ‘Eastwood Continues Disability Vendetta with "Million Dollar Baby." Labeling the movie a ‘brilliantly executed attack,' it also details a 1997 lawsuit in which a disabled woman sued the actor-director, saying he did not provide handicapped-accessible restroom facilities at the Carmel, Calif., resort he owned."

The press release goes on to divulge the movie's plot. "Our responsibility is to the half-million people with spinal cord injuries, not to moviegoers or moviemakers," Roth said.

Rush Limbaugh blasted "Million Dollar Baby" as a "million dollar euthanasia movie." Critic Michael Medved told USA Today that he had revealed the plot twist because "there are competing moral demands that come into the job of a movie critic. We have a moral and fairness obligation to not spoil movies. On the other hand, our primary moral obligation is to tell the truth."

Medved, who says he "hated this movie," also remarked, "They didn't want to tell people what it is [about] because no one would come." Jewish columnist Don Feder says that "the screenplay could have been smuggled out of Dr. Jack Kevorkian's prison cell."

Furthermore, my wife has been on chemotherapy for ten years and is in great pain. California is now considering a so-called "doctor-assisted suicide" law. The connection is too horrible.

Love should never trump conscience. Murder is not excusable, even when it is art. And the renowned director of "Million Dollar Baby" is not conservative (contrary to the witless commentary in the Los Angeles Times), except in the sense that the National Socialists were branded as conservative. In truth, real Christian conservatives support life, not murder.

What a goof-ball article. Next thing they'll be saying Shakespeare was a leftist operative transported back in time to corrupt modern day English students.

Million Dollar Baby is a great movie. The key word being "movie".

Lando

Godwin's Law material

I believe that's been paraphrased, in this instance, and in so many, to mean that any mention of the old Third Reich, and what they believed, in a thread about the Holocaust is a sure sign that those wishing people not to forget have already lost the argument.

Sometimes, it IS appropriate to mention a caution, a reminder, about the substance and goals of Nazi propaganda.

Next thing they'll be saying Shakespeare was

A racist. He wasn't. But why do you think Merchant in Venice has never before been put on film? See it.

The key word being "movie".

Goebbels apparently won a number of awards - for "key word being movie". His movies, which apparently were instrumental in shaping the opinion of the entire German nation. Movies and tv can do that to a polity. The founders counted on pamphlets to achieve much the same - key word being 'pamphlets'. But you knew that.

"The movie was based on a story written by a real-life boxing cutman, so it hardly emanates from the "Hollywood Propaganda Machine."

F. X. Toole's story was fiction. Maggie Fitzgerald was a fictional character.

Million Dollar Baby is a fictional movie based on a fictional book containing a fictional character written by a real-life boxing cutman.

Medved, who says he "hated this movie," also remarked, "They didn't want to tell people what it is [about] because no one would come."

I just saw the movie this weekend. This may be the first time I ever disagreed with Medved on a movie, but I didn't see it the same way. Since I have heard all about the movie, almost to knowing the script from start to finsh from interned posts, I already knew how it would come out.

I thought it was an excellent movie, and I didn't support the decision the Eastwood character made. This may be a religious thing, but I always felt the Lord will take us all in his own good time, although I don't personally want to be kept alive artificially if I am bound for ashes.

I just didn't see this as a movie in support of euthanasia any more than The Green Mile was anti-capital punishment.

My flaw in thinking may be that I went expecting to hate it.

I haven't seen any FReepers who have stated they've actually seen the movie say it's euthanasia propaganda.

I saw the movie and thought that it was outstanding.The assisted suicide is a small part of the story of a woman who will not accept the life that her family lives, primarily scamming the government for welfare and not taking responsibility for themselves, and chooses to make her life different by using the only things that she has, determination and a fierce desire to win, and becomes self-sufficient.

When she can no longer do this, she chooses to not live a life that makes her reliant on others for even her every breath.Eastwood assists her because he loves her and does not want her to live the way she is.She is not euthanized against her will.Great movie , great acting.Why no mention of welfare reform ?

"I have not seen the movie.....but I have told my family if I ever tun into a drooling, brain dead plant....kinda lika a dim....spare me and pull the plug."

But of course you and the others with these sentiments PUT IT IN WRITING, for insurance. . .

Exactly why? I have issues with DOCTOR assisted suicide which I think can be abused by the state (ala Europe), but I don't have issues with a friend helping a friend who is obviously in severe pain and wants to die, die. I really don't think that Hillary Swank character was going to make it; she had pretty severe bedsores, which as we all know are what killed Christopher Reed. Plus, outside Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman, Hillary Swank has no support system/family to care for her; when they die, she's probably going to end up in an institution somewhere which, to me, isn't living at all.

I think that the movie isn't at all anti-disabled and most definitely is not Michael Moore style propaganda. The accident/ euthanasia portion of the movie doesn't come until the end of the movie; plus, we don't even know if Clint Eastwood is all that happy about the choice he has made because the ending is pretty ambiguous.

Obviously, you have made the decision that if you are left in the condition Christopher Reeve was in that you will burden your family financially and emotionally for possibly many, many years. That's fine...that's your choice.

My brother and I dealt with my mother in almost the same medical situation for three years. Her quality of life was awful. She was at home with 24/7 nurses. (We worked fulltime and couldn't care for her.) I saw evidence of abuse and theft. One of the so-called nurses cleaned my mother's bedsores with Lysol. It was a blessing when she passed from pneumonia. I vowed to never let that happen to me. That's my choice.

if you are left in the condition Christopher Reeve was in that you will burden your family financially

I think you misunderstand the man's situation. People around him didn't want to murder him - and were SURPRIZED when he died. He, in fact, vowed that he would one day walk again. Let's just say, at any rate, that Chris Reeves wasn't a tongue-chewer. The crazy lady in the film was. That it moved you, again, is only to wonder if either you or Clint would really, truly take offense - or not - if the academy created a new category called the Joseph Goebbels Award for Excellence in Film-making. Because apparently Goebbels, himself, was a credible film-maker, who won awards for his moving films. But it's not a message that a civilized society should take to heart, even for the tears.

which as we all know are what killed Christopher Reed

You're right. The villain in this film was not the hero of the real life Chris Reed. He had his own foundation, appeared in the Canadian 'superman' tv show, and so on. He was living and hoping for better. Swank's vicious 'devil-in-a-dress' character, while hoping to evoke the same sympathy as apparently Goebbels female 'victim' in his film, was not a sympathetic figure at the end, but rather Regan in full head rotation.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. And I pray few take the message of this film to heart. Let history not repeat itself, as we always seem to do.

Chris Reeve had a loving family to support him and he wanted to live and hoped to walk someday. The Hillary Swank character in the film had no one but Clint, didn't want to burden him and didn't want to live that way. Her own family were only interested in her assets which I hope were left to the Clint and Morgan characters.

BTW, what makes you think she was crazy? I think her decision was very well-reasoned. Clint was not a young man and her family was a bunch of leeches that would keep the money to themselves instead of using it to make her life better.

Regardless, let's agree to disagree.

Saw Million Dollar Baby today and thought it was a well done study of such human virtues as loyalty, conviction, self-worth, and redemption. All this hoopla about the ending is making much ado about nothing. We Conservatives have too many legitimate gripes with Hollywood for a need to scrutinize this one, which was full of redeeming qualities and short on the gratuitous sex, violence, and shallowness that most movies are nothing but.

violence, and shallowness

Don't you consider cold-blooded murder to be a violent act from someone shallow and confused, and confused even more once the lust for that murder has abated? Don't forget that Eastwood's character disappears shamefully in the night without so much as a send my mail here, please. He just drops off the face of the earth, never to be seen again, it is suggested. The man with no name just - vanishes, ultimately. The anti-hero is finally become the cowardly villain.

It is a vague film. It is possible that Eastwood thought he was presenting both messages, unlike Dr. Goebbels who clearly had a particular message in mind. But again, people have been dodging this question. Would you, or do you think Clint would, object to the academy creating a Joseph Goebbels Memorial Award for Excellence in Film-making, with the first annual recipient of the award being Clint Eastwood for his 'fine' propaganda in this film? Again, I haven't seen the Goebbels film being referenced. But I wonder, now, if Clint and friends aren't trying to secure an old copy for their screening rooms at home, if just to see if they made a horrible MISTAKE?

I agree that too many parts of this film were vague, but my point is that euthanasia was not glamorized or posited as a morally acceptable, carefree option for tough circumstances. Clint's character admitted that his motivation was not selfish in nature-- he didn't want to lose her--, nor morally just: he did it out of mercy. Agree or disagree with his actions, portraying an act in such a manner does not necessarily promote a cause. Look at how often "heroes" murder others in movies, and remain heroes in our eyes despite shattering a Commandment in the process.

portraying an act in such a manner does not necessarily promote a cause

That's exactly what he was trying to do. Someone even picked up, in this thread, on the 'family' angle - which I still don't understand. It was propaganda, obviously understood quickly by some, perhaps more than others like myself. But I'm not blind, either. And I'm honest. And the author of the article was spot on.

This idea of the anti-hero somehow operating from a sense of natural goodwill, if only sometimes, is defeated in Eastwood's character. The atheist ends up the villain in his own self-made tragedy because he cannot say no to evil, and will not turn to The Church. The Church, or the trendoid 'church' of these times at any rate, is mocked in this film, and ignored. The priest tells him, don't do it. But Clint is wise, you see? It's not a message a civilized society should ever take to heart. That's been done, before. And it was disaster. Let the other side speak. I'm not declaring for censorship. But the adversary is wrong. Dead wrong.

'The press release goes on to divulge the movie's plot. "Our responsibility is to the half-million people with spinal cord injuries, not to moviegoers or moviemakers," Roth said.'

Oh no, someone gave the plot away!!! Boo freaking hoo hoo! When did it become an unspeakable crime to give an ending away? People act like they're really offended by this losing of their film virginity.

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.