My 'Million Dollar' Answer: Why would a conservative criticize Clint Eastwood's latest work?

The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal ^ | February 17, 2005 | Michael Medved

[quidnunc]

I'll tell you.

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."

-snip-

[NormsRevenge]

Raging Bull meets Raging Baloney

[conservative cat]

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.

[richmwill]

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.

[Andy from Beaverton]

Medved almost single handed has dealt a death blow to this pitiful deceitful movie.

[Brimack34]

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.

[This Just In]

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.

[mcg1969]

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.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Because some think it is better to live as a non-functioning brain-dead vegetable than to die with some dignity.

Those same people believe that laying around in your own gurgle goo is similar to "living a productive life".

[Ciexyz]

Another good one from Michael Medved.

[This Just In]

LOL!!!!!

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.

[goldstategop]

The movie's theme is morally reprehensible. And as a disabled person, I resent the message my life isn't equal to the worth of people who aren't disabled because I can't do all of the things they can. I am entitled to the pursuit of happiness as much as they are. What passes for liberal compassion these days is quick and merciful death to those society deems too burdensome - and not the picture of perfect health. That's the message of Million Dollar Baby and no amount of deceptive bait and switch advertising will conceal it. Michael Medved has earned the right to say what he thinks without fear or favor. It has nothing to with Clint Eastwood's politics or party affiliation or anything extrinsic to the movie. The movie just plain sucks.

Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."

[DJ MacWoW]

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.

[eddie willers]

Medved almost single handed has dealt a death blow to this pitiful deceitful movie.

What kind of box-office has it done?

[mcg1969]

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.

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.

[bdeaner]

First, I agree with Medved that there is nothing subtle about the message of "Million Dollar Baby." The film evokes sympathy for a character who commits assisted suicide, and, in doing so, sends a message that quadraplegics have no life to live--a message which, by all scientific standards, flies in the face of reality. Surprisingly, most people who undergo such tragedies soon recover a lust for life and, in empirical research, demonstrate higher happiness scores than lottery winners. Christopher Reeve was a living example.

So, I completely reject the message of the film.

On the other hand, Eastwood is without doubt one of the most skilled film directors in Hollywood today. He has had his share of duds (i.e., Bloodwork), but within the past decade, he has directed some of the most mature and outstanding examples of cinema in recent memory. "Unforgiven" and "Mystic River" are particular standouts.

The cinematic craftsmanship of "Million Dollar Baby" is top notch in every respect. Most outstanding of all is the cinematography and lighting of Tom Stern, who really hits his stride with this film. Eastwood's musical score is subtle and just right. With the exception of Jay Baruchel, who overplays the mental retarded kid, the acting is superb in every sense. Both Swank and Eastwood display the apex of their talents on-screen--and, consider Eastwood's acting history, that's saying a lot. The editing is well-paced. For the most part, the writing is crisp and original, perhaps with the exception of the almost campy family of Swank's character.

It is possible to distinguish the craftsmanship of a film from the message of the film. If I were to grade "Million Dollar Baby" on ethics, it gets an F. But on filmmaking, it deserves an A.

[NormsRevenge]

Weekend Box Office Actuals (U.S.) - FRom Yahoo Movies

Feb 11 - 13 weekend

This Wk	Last Wk	Title	Dist.	Weekend Gross	Cumulative Gross	Rlse Wks	# of Theaters
1	-	Hitch	SONY	$43,142,214	$43,142,214	1	3575
2	1	Boogeyman	SONY/GEMS	$10,235,785	$32,768,501	2	3052
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
8	6	The Aviator	M'MAX	$4,671,646	$82,323,907	9	2196
9	8	Sideways	FOX SEARCH	$4,472,135	$52,777,699	17	1619
10	7	Meet the Fockers	UNIV	$3,456,245	$269,946,550	8	1883

[Question Liberal Authority]

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.

[FoxInSocks]

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.

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.

[F16Fighter]

Good post.