Skip to comments.My 'Million Dollar' Answer: Why would a conservative criticize Clint Eastwood's latest work?
Posted on 02/16/2005 9:11:41 PM PST by quidnunc
As the Oscar campaign comes down to its climactic concluding days, I've been amazed to see much of the ferocious battle for Best Picture improbably and irrationally focused on me.
In recent weeks, some of the nation's most influential cultural observers have chosen to concentrate their Academy Awards commentary on my harsh reaction on radio and TV about the deceptive packaging of Clint Eastwood's boxing-and-euthanasia epic, "Million Dollar Baby." Roger Ebert raised the issue in several columns, attacking my decision to mention the movie's crucial assisted-suicide theme as "unforgivable." Maureen Dowd portrayed me as a witless censor (and even coined a new word, "Medvedized") while suggesting that consistency demanded my objection to classic suicide scenes in Shakespeare. Frank Rich berated me as a leader of "the usual gang of ayatollahs" in a column titled "How Dirty Harry Turned Commie," comparing my criticism of Eastwood's film to the lunacy of the House Un-American Activities Committee investigating 10-year-old Shirley Temple in 1938. In more than a dozen other commentaries, from the Los Angeles Times to the Houston Chronicle, outraged observers expressed not only disagreement but denunciation of my unpopular position as a skeptic regarding one of the most absurdly over-praised movies in recent Hollywood history.
Initially, the condemnation centered on my alleged role as a "spoiler," suggesting that I had maliciously damaged the commercial prospects for "Million Dollar Baby" by "describing its plot in great detail" (according to Roger Ebert). As a matter of fact, I never disclosed specifics on the movie's dark surprise, nor indicated which of its endearing characters chose to exercise "the right to die."
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Raging Bull meets Raging Baloney
My brother, who is a disgusting liberal, hated this movie. He is an occupational therapist and said that the way the character felt was common for those with spinal cord injuries AT FIRST and then their attitude usually changes.
Why would they criticize? Because some think it is better to live as a non-functioning brain-dead vegetable than to die with some dignity.
Where were these liberal idiots when Mel Gibson was getting crucified? Oh thats right they love killing babies and Hate God? They go after the wrong people all the time with such hatred.
A relative of mine, who happens to lean left, saw the movie the other day and expressed outrage over the ending. She said that she had no idea the movie would conclude in such a way and felt mislead. This relative also said that had she known about the twist at the end she would never had seen the movie.
Someone show me the law that says that the media has to comply with the wishes of Hollywood and keep key plot details of movies a secret. I sure as heck wish someone had told me that chick in the Crying Game was a dude, that's for sure.
Those same people believe that laying around in your own gurgle goo is similar to "living a productive life".
Another good one from Michael Medved.
Just as I knew what was to become of the female boxer(I didn't waste my dime on the flick), I knew beforehand about the chick/dude in The Crying Game. Never spent my hard earned money on that movie either.
Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."
I have a friend who was a hospital chaplain. She was talking with a young father who was paralyzed. He focused totally on what he couldn't do anymore for the young daughter that adored him. She focused on the fact that he could be the willing ear when no one else could be bothered. I know I'm saying this badly but she made him realise that he may be paralyzed but he had love and time for his daughter. He saw that he was indeed needed and VERY important.
What kind of box-office has it done?
Oh give me a friggin' break. The boxer becomes a quadrapalegic, not a vegetable. Either you just live to insult people by lumping the brain dead with the disabled or you just don't know what the heck you're talking about.
Feb 11 - 13 weekend
|3||3||Are We There Yet?||SONY||$8,236,727||$61,253,768||4||2810|
|4||5||Million Dollar Baby||WB||$7,447,212||$44,948,277||9||2035|
|5||-||Pooh's Heffalump Movie||BV||$5,805,559||$5,805,559||1||2529|
|6||2||The Wedding Date||UNIV||$5,513,065||$19,421,375||2||1704|
|7||4||Hide and Seek||FOX||$5,408,477||$43,410,777||3||2525|
|10||7||Meet the Fockers||UNIV||$3,456,245||$269,946,550||8||1883|
I know someone who is very sensitive to the subject of suicide. Thanks to Michael Medved's ranting about this movie, I was able to warn her about the theme.
She still saw the movie, but was VERY glad that I told her about it.
It's not a law -- it's an issue of consideration. I don't like knowing too much about a movie before I see it. Even trailers show too much, in my opinion.
I don't think portrayal of an issue equals advocacy. If a movie promotes healthy debate about a touchy subject, fine. Simply watching a movie or seeing something objectionable is not going to change my principles. Clint Eastwood shouldn't be vilified for this fine film.
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.