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."
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Ok, I'll concede to consider... but I haven't seen the movie. I wouldn't know. I know my impression of the movie, having seen trailers and some awards show; here's my take.
"Million Dollar Baby" is a story of one woman's struggle to succeed in a male-dominated industry, and is reluctantly aided by an old man in the business. Their relationship turns out to be the healing salve they both needed to fully actualize as human beings" blah blah blah. If that contains a tough decision re: suicide in the end, so what.
Or is the entire movie about that?
I just don't get the hysterical uproar I'm reading here. But then - I don't do much listening to what I call "emotional radio."
As to your other question, I think the difference is both clear and important. A marine giving his life in a suicide attack would far rather not have to give up his life. He would rather go home and raise a family. It is the ulimate sacrifice. He's giving up everything he is and everything he's going to be to let someone else have the opportunity to go home and raise a family. A person who takes their own life because of a disability is not making a sacrifice, but taking the easiest path.
I've had a couple of times that I thought I might die, and IMHO, when death's six blocks away, a lot of people talk big. They aint afraid of death. When he's standing next to you, that's one big SOB.
Facing life in a bed, unable to move, peeing and crapping into a bag and having people turn me every day scares me more, though. I think, in this instance, it takes far more courage to go on living. So, I guess that's my answer to your question about the difference. One choice is made out of bravery, the other out of fear. I won't say the suicide choice is made out of cowardice, because I've never had to face such a choice. I suspect, that like facing the possibility of a quick death, the thoughts that go through your head are quite different from what you think they will be when it's a hypothetical situation.
Hey, quid. Here's another author's take on the same subject:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1344997/posts
Decrying a film for taking a hard look at, and arriving at a different conclusion then, most conservatives, is stupid. Art is just that, art. It is there to discuss, to think about.
MDB doesn't even say that it is right, it merely says that this is what these characters, in this story, do. You can take it or leave it. I would think as conservatives, we would appreciate that sort of candor. Frankly, any conservative who WOULDN'T struggle with the issue if it was their daughter, who was paralized and couldn't breath on her own, and wanted to die, I woudn't trust. I am not saying that it is the right choice, or that it should be legal for doctors to help them, or anything else. But by not at least acnowledging the pain and torment people in that situation go through, we are not only doing a disservice to them, and to ourselves, but our cause.
And Medved shows his PROFOUND ignorance when he calls it a box office flop. By the end of it's run, it will have made more then 55 million dollars. It has probably made over 20 million in foreign markets. It will gross at least half that when it hits DVD. It was made for 25 million dollars. It will make a decent profit. The Aviator, on the other hand, which he praises, was made for nearly 100 million dollars, and has so far made back around 80 million. With foreign markets and DVD, It'll probably break even, but I doubt it will make much of a profit.
Seriously, I'm increasingly noticing that there is no place on this message boards for opinions like this. Heck, I've spend hours trying to explain that I think Max Cleland was a lousy Senator, and a whiny, self-important jerk, but a good GI, and am usually ridiculed for it.
Tell me, is there a place on these boards for such opinions? Because this person, who voted for 1 democrat in the last election, and that only because his republican opponent was a nut whom the State Republican Party Chair as well as our last candidate for Governor, urged us to vote against, is getting pretty tired of this kind of reactionary extremism.
Here's the thing though...I spoke to a friend who saw the movie and is a nurse...the paralysis the character had would have taken all her limbs and eventually her organs would start to fail. She was doomed.
"Art is just that, art. It is there to discuss, to think about."
I think what you said contradicts itself. If there is supposed to be a message, then how can art be "just that, art"?
This maybe brings up a broader issue, the role of art in society. Should it have a moral voice? Or reflect the values of its society? Once upon a time it did. Art adorned churches or palaces; likewise, music was used in rituals. Even folk songs conveyed the wishes & desires of their respective people.
Shouldn't then the movies reflect an attitude? I am not saying that they should be politically correct, either liberally or conservatively. But for a film to be flat out amoral is, IMHO, a waste of time. Unfortunately, that has been the problem with so much current "culture." These days what passes for film, art, literature, or music has left me feeling either bored, irritated, or had.
I didn't see MILLION DOLLAR BABY, although I might have liked to, being an admirer of Eastwood. No doubt the film, like many other current releases, is well made & acted. But without a message that resonates & leaves me satisfied morally in some way, I have strong reservations about seeing it. (Unless it was hinted in the film that the characters' choice of suicide was wrong.)
I could probably argue this till dawn. And I hate to be a hit & run poster, but unfortunately it is late, & believe it or not, I have freelance to do.
Interesting observation in light of the injuries that took Gen. Patton's life. I wonder if the old gruff brave warrior would have wanted to live life as a cripple? Especially in those days...
That's silly. I didn't say it was 'just art'. That's like saying it's just an atomic bomb.
Is what I said, was that you don't have to justify something in order to want to understand it and want others to understand it, and you don't have to agree with something to understand it's value in terms of thought.
The best art shows something from a particular point of view, and does it honestly. It doesn't preach, it doesn't pretend it's the only view, or even that the view is right, it merely seeks to explain, and to understand.
I do things all the time that I have questions about. Things I'm not sure are right or wrong, things I struggle with. That's my nature, I'm human. I'm not perfect. I'm gonna screw up more. There has only been one perfect person, and I'm not him.
If I were to tell you my story, the way I see things, I would try to get you to understand why I do things I do, both good and bad things. I wouldn't necessarily be justifying everything I do at all. On the contrary. But I would want you to understand the way I saw things. The way I felt. Maybe you would understand why I acted the way I did.
I think that would be true of anybody's story. Everybody has flaws, everybody does things they arn't sure are right, or things they think are right but arn't.
I won't ruin the film for you, I think you should see it, and I'd look forward to discussing it with you. You seem to be a reasonable sort of fella. It's frusturating for someone like me. I'm conservative pretty much down the line and have been since I've been politically aware. I'm pro-life, for the Iraq war, pro-gun, anti-tax, etc. But my main interests, outside of politics and religion, is art, and I find it increasingly difficult in conservative circles to suggest that perhaps the latest 'family friendly' offering from Hollywood isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread merely because it shows a loving mom and dad and doesn't have any swearing or nudity.
I loved 'The Passion of the Christ', and I really like M. Night Shyamalan's films, and his films are more conservative, at least they portray religious people in a penetrating, but non-judgemental and positive light. But beyond that, I'm always fighting with them, and it gets very frusturating. Medved, frankly, wouldn't know a good movie, or a good work of art beyond the obvious classics, if it bit him. I use to be a big fan of his show, but his shrill and usually ill-informed opinions on movies is part of what drove me away from him.
Anyhow, I'm sorry if this is way too long, this topic really hits a nerve with me. I guess it's just hard being a conservative on most things, but having 'blue state' interests.
However, in order to know whether to like it or not, I need to know what it is about (not necessarily the ending). If it turns out the movie's message is something I don't approve of, I refuse to contribute to the commercial success of the movie. The commercial of this movie is surely hiding the end. That's why I really appreciate the sharing from those who have watched.
It's a split budget. Eastwood and Lakeshore Entertainment came up with half and Warner Brothers ponyed up the other half plus marketing costs. So WB doesn't have a lot of skin into it.
It's made roughly 46 million, so it's a break even deal.
Worldwide it's 59.7 million and counting. Not too shabby ...
This boy has trouble speaking but you can understand him.
He told my wife, during a candid moment, he hates that people think he has no brain.
This young man has every right to live his life and receive the love and respect of those around him. His is a very worthwhile life and our lives are made more rich by sharing our lives with him and others in his situation.
I've read many criticisms of Million Dollar Baby, but I never see much mention of the obvious difficulty Clint Eastwood's character has making his decision.
Michael Medved is entitled to his opinion and you are entitled to yours.
I met Michael Medved last September when I attended a conservative film festival in Dallas. He is a highly intelligent and thoughtful person but I probably don't agree with him on everything, either.
Conservative film critics are so rare, Michael Medved is singled out for liberal criticism by name.
My beef with fellow conservatives is they won't support the kinds of movies they claim to want to see ON THE FRONT END.
People producing such movies, like me, cannot get conservatives to help finance these projects.
Liberals will continue to dominate movie-making because they will put up the money to make movies.
Conservatives buy mutual funds and real estate and bitch about lousy movies being made by Hollywood.
Eastwood made a great film just because of this solution to end.
Nobody would have start to think about anything if this picture got a happy ending. Therefore it's great art and not only a nice picture.
" I'm a Pro-Life Conservative ... and think that Clint Eastwood's character did the RIGHT THING with his "adopted" daughter ..."
You think Eastwood did the right thing by murdering her?
You are NO Pro-Life Conservative...
Ed
"She was doomed."
Like Joni Erickson Tada is doomed???
I cannot believe the culture of death that pops up in Freepers at times like this...
Ed
Michael Medved ping. Anyone want on or off the Medved ping list, please send me an e-mail.
Thank you for the ping.
Perhaps it is this film's replay of an old theme
that makes those with some historical memory a bit
uneasy.
http://across.co.nz/YRReviewersNeo-Nazi.html
Friday, February 11, 2005
WHY ARE REVIEWERS PRAISING A NEO-NAZI MOVIE?
By Dr. Ted Baehr, Publisher of MOVIEGUIDE®
HOLLYWOOD, CA (ANS) -- Recently, I received a letter complaining about another critic's review of the movie MILLION DOLLAR BABY. The letter notes writes:
"Dear Ted,
"…The latest issue) reviews "Million Dollar Baby." The reviewer gives the film an A-, concluding that it is "one of the year's best films." The discussion of the film’s ending is as follows:
"Another interesting aspect of the film is displayed near the end and takes many audiences by surprise. The events that occur demonstrate the solemn realization that acting in the interest of love must override everything - desire, and sometimes even conscience. This statement by itself makes sense because pure love is entirely selfless. The way this idea plays out in the film, however, is its only debatably frustrating aspect."
"…One blogger simply writes, "A remake of the Nazi I ACCUSE. How novel."
"…I ordered a cheap DVD copy of "Ich Klage An" and am watching it as I type. I ordered it on the Internet when I saw the review and compared it with yours. …there was just a loving scene in which she died in her husbands arms after he poisoned her.
"I just thought you would be interested if you have not seen the paper."
Sadly, the reviewer was not media-wise and did not understand that 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% 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 a movie called 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’s 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 their 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 concerned "that this narrative development spreads a socially irresponsible message. “The movie is saying 'death is better than disability,' she said.”
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 that “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.
Don’t Shrink Back in Fear
Love should never trump conscience. Murder is not excusable, even when it is art. And, the renowned director of MILLIN DOLLAR BABY is not conservative (contrary to the witless commentary in the Los Angeles Times), unless except in the sense that the National Socialists were branded as conservative. In truth, real Christian conservatives support life, not murder.
© baehr, 2005
http://www.normemma.com/arsenate.htm
IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY
It was a story that touched the feelings of the entire nation.
A woman was losing control over her own body
as she lost ground to a degenerative neurological condition.
Her husband and another close male friend looked on as she begged for help
to release her from her suffering, but the law would not allow them to give her mercy.
Finally, one brave man defied the law
and permitted her to die with dignity
This is the story that a challenged the nation to change its law in the name of humanity.
This story may seem familiar to Canadians, but it is not the story of Sue Rodriguez, and the country is not Canada. It is the central plot of Ich Klage An (I Accuse), a major motion picture written by a T4 Nazi death-doctor and produced by the Nazi propagandists to legitimize their euthanasia program. The film, directed by Wolfgang Libeniener, won international awards for excellence and attracted an audience of more than 15,000,000, a major success of its day. At the end of the film, Thomas, the husband who assisted his wife Hannah to commit suicide, stands before the court accused of homicide and says,
No! Now I accuse! I accuse the law which hinders doctors and judges in their task of helping people. I confess... I have delivered my wife from her sufferings, following her wishes. My life and the lives of all people who will suffer the same fate as my wife, depends on your verdict. Now, pass your verdict.
The film ends at that point, inviting the German people to make their choice between a cruel and archaic law or a humane step toward a better world. It challenged the German people to accept assisted suicide and mercy killing, and as history shows, they took the "humane" step. In doing so, they opened the door to the ruthless murder of a quarter of a million people with mental and physical disabilities. Ultimately, the ideas, people, and apparatus developed to run this assisted-suicide program served as the basis for the later mass killings of Jews, homosexuals, communists, and many other minorities. When the war was over, the mass graves were opened. The German people said that what happened was not what they expected and not what they had approved. It was not death with dignity or rational suicide; it was mass murder. Many German people said that they did not know the truth or that they were poorly informed, and some have suggested that they did not want to know the truth.
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.