Posted on 02/28/2005 7:07:01 PM PST by metalmanx2j
Sunday night’s Academy Awards going to “Million Dollar Baby” for Best Film, to the movie’s stars Hilary Swank for Best Actress and Morgan Freeman for Best Supporting Actor, and to the movie’s director Clint Eastwood sounds a clear signal that Hollywood has taken on another project -- promoting the culture of death.
In Florida, helpless invalid Terry Schiavo’s parents fight to keep her alive. At the same time in D.C. the nation anticipates a Supreme Court appeal ruling to protect Oregon’s 1998 law allowing doctors to assist their “clients” in committing suicide.
And in Hollywood, the world watched American society pick up downhill speed as it bestowed its highest awards to “Million Dollar Baby,” a film promoting mercy killing.
All the while, committed Christians jealously guard their daily lives feeding their families, attending church service after church service and finding comfort in the knowledge they are not a part of the evil around them.
What’s wrong with this picture?
For decades, the vast majority of committed believers have stubbornly rejected Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer’s urgings to infiltrate today’s post-Christian society. They continue to safely hide in their dark, dungy rabbit holes, leaving the world of both politics and entertainment with little light of Biblical truth.
This sad truth became even more evident as the closing credits began to roll for Clint Eastwood’s Oscar award winning film “Million Dollar Baby.” I felt as if I had been punched below the belt. No one warned me that the film glorified euthanasia.
“Million Dollar Baby” is an insidious vehicle that will surely widen the cracks in our culture’s confused thinking about life -- and death.
Drawn to the theatre as a longtime Clint Eastwood fan, I was willing to bear through a boxing theme to enjoy the 74-year old’s brilliance in acting and directing. But it wasn't “Million Dollar Baby’s” ongoing and strenuous fight training scenes that caused shortness of breath as I left the theatre.
It was the knockout blow of a plot taking a dark, dramatic twist midway through an engaging three-main character screenplay adapted from longtime boxing coach F.X. Toole’s memoirs entitled ”Rope Burns.”
Up until the critical juncture in the movie, one could only cheer for Hilary Swank, whose convincing role as Maggie Fitzgerald, a woman in her early thirties (considered too old in the boxing world), worked and sacrificed toward her goal of becoming a champion fighter.
The movie was exhilarating as Maggie and her at-first resistant coach Frankie Dunn (played by Eastwood) persisted through adversity and together overcame personal disappointment, only to become a winner.
But the movie’s ending is a breathtaking disappointment and one few are yet publicly decrying: the nobly-portrayed choice of dutifully ending the life of the one person in the world Dunn cared about the most - his beloved protégé.
Men in the audience came seeking a thrilling Rocky-type sequel, all the while suspecting the “chick flick” factor of a disdained “girlie” competitor to soften the one-on-one ring action.
But when a stunning blow during the title bout with a renowned dirty female fighter turned the movie instantly dark, the mood plunged into sympathy for a paralyzed victim who would rather die than fight back yet once again.
She asked her coach to end her life. The film brilliantly instills empathy for those about Maggie who would be faced with a tremendous and ongoing burden of caring for her.
Frankie visits his paralyzed protégé one evening with a case of syringes, doses her with death-causing adrenaline and quietly leaves the hospital. No repercussions for his actions were portrayed, except for a narration extolling his moral virtue for killing Maggie.
One wonders if something similar happened earlier in his life, something with which he agonizes deep inside and remains unknown throughout the story.
With the dramatic turn, the film’s sad agenda becomes clear - to promote mercy killing. No other conclusion can be drawn.
The movie’s ending is not the result of the Maggie character’s natural progression. The same woman who fought against poverty, humiliation, physical weakness and emotional emptiness to rise to the level of a million-dollar purse gave up in despair as she threw in the towel for the first time when faced with living paralyzed.
The film is about the inner strength and deep loyalty between friends who have learned to fight against all odds. But sadly, the love that grew and enriched their lives in happier times ended in the ultimate betrayal - that of preferring death above all.
Had the film ended with acceptance of fate’s hand the film could have been powerful and inspiring. Others have faced similar challenges, and rather than end with hopelessness, they fought back.
Joni Erickson Tada, a quadriplegic as the result of a diving accident, continues today to urge fellow sufferers to rise above all expectations.
Now an outspoken opponent against embryonic stem cell research, Mrs. Tada is a prolific author and a talented artist who holds her brush in her teeth to create inspirational artwork.
On a recent appearance with television talk show host Larry King, Mrs. Tada shone light on the problems invalids face when she said that when she began to comfort others who faced even more difficult situations than hers, she began winning a psychological battle with chronic depression.
And therein lays the deepest tragedy of “Million Dollar Baby.”
No one addressed the fact that the paralyzed Maggie was dealing with understandable and deep depression. Rather than the film addressing Maggie’s heart agonies, providing treatment for the mental trauma she was facing, Frankie is lauded for hearing her plea and ending her life.
Where is the help for these troubled souls, Christians? Where is the light in this ever darkening world? “Let your light so shine before men that they can see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven,” the New Testament teaches.
Instead, the window of opportunity to fight back the culture of death in America is slowly closing.
Great read and some excellent insight.
I won't go see the movie but I have a different ending. Right after Eastwood's character "mercy murders" the woman the next week researchers invent a way to cure her. But alas, she's dead.
"No one warned me that the film glorified euthanasia. "
How could you not know it ends with euthanasia? People have been talking about this ever since the day after the movie came out.
I haven't seen the movie, nor do I intend to, but does anyone else see this as overreaction (as they both did)?
meanwhile, for two millenium, committed Catholics have been living out the Lord's prayer, being salt and light in everyday places, standing for life, standing against abortion.
Or could be that "the quality of life" or "freedom of choice" or "none of your business" is being promoted?
For an excellent view on this pro euthanasia film visit the website of Not Dead Yet- an organization serving and protecting the rights of the disabled. They also did a friend of court brief for Terri Schiavo.
"Joni Erickson Tada, a quadriplegic as the result of a diving accident, continues today to urge fellow sufferers to rise above all expectations."
I read her autobiography. She wrote about begging a friend to kill her--repeatedly. And her story was a triumphant one in the end. "Million Dollar Baby", by contrast, ended with total defeat.
"Now [Mrs. Tada is] an outspoken opponent against embryonic stem cell research."
If we heard about Mrs. Tada's opposition to embryonic stem cell research half as much as we hear about Mrs. Reagan's support of it...
"People have been talking about this ever since the day after the movie came out."
I don't think that timeline is accurate. People who saw the film may have discussed this with others, but I didn't know about this until the flap about Medved and some others revealing the ending started. That was weeks, for sure, after the film opened. Roger Ebert loudly critized Medved for revealing the ending, indicating that he (ebert) and many others had reviewed it without revealing this plot twist.
So if this woman saw the movie right when it came out, even in the first week or two, she may well have been surprised by the ending.
I never go to the movies, but I do keep up with the reviews!
Perhaps one shouldn't condemn a movie without seeing it, but I was persuaded by Terry Teachout's review. The movie definitely advocates euthanasia. Regardless of what a bit player priest may have said, if Clint Eastwood stands for euthanasia that basically means that the most forceful, sympathetic, and authoritative character in the film supports euthanasia. That's how movies work.
Time for Orange revolution in America, clean the filth and bring the sanity back!
Well... but I liked the movie. And I don't really see an agenda here.
So killing paralyzed people falls under "quality of life", "freedom of choice", and "None of your business" (whatever you mean by that)?
I saw the movie. I liked it. I don't think I'm any more predisposed toward euthanasia now than I was before I saw it. I don't think there is time in a movie to develop some of the ideas discussed in this thread. Maybe a skillful writer could have, and i am wrong about that.
On a segue, it seems to me that the female boxer in the movie is smarter than Hillary Swank sounds in real life.
Regardless, I've recommended the film and will likely again.
You can't have it both ways. You can't justly condemn the LM for refusing itself to condemn Eastwood's propaganda and then remember that it is the . . LM, or leftwing's mainstream as that which you condemn for failing to behave responsibly. The whole point of the LM is that people must pass political tests in order to GET into the public arena, or at least before that public, and which obviously includes the above author.
There have been nothing but legitimate objections aimed at this film in the conservative press, on the web, here on FR even, in numerous threads. I once asked if Eastwood would REALLY object for any genuine reason if the academy had created a Joseph Goebbels Excellence in Film Award, and given it to Eastwood for his Goebbelian effort? He's already won best director. But he never won that. And after all, ole Joe apparently won an award for a similar film (maybe not about boxing). It obviously moved a lot of people to tears. Very moving. I can only imagine his acceptance speech at the Venice Film Festival - I wanna thank . . well. I don't know if they were doing the 'sig-thing' at that point.
It may have a backlash effect, however, and turn more people against it than toward it.......especially now that Hollywood (whom everyone in red state America respects SO much), has honored the film with so many Oscars.
In any case, I'm not planning to see it, so I'll have to take others' word for it on this one......
O'Reilly (whom I agree with sometimes, but many times not) said he didn't see that the film had an agenda one way or the other.
Seems some here agree with him.....
Nice find.
What kills me about "Million $$ Baby" is that for the character to obtain salvation he has to go against the teachings of the Church.
And find salvation in taking the life of another.
So how many posts is this about the film? And yet has one to be accurate? How many on here who have actually seen the movie find it to be pro-euthanasia? It doesn't seem like too many do. For the most part it seems only those who haven't seen it think this way about it. The film is very good and not much else.
After looking at all of these posts about this movie I can't wait for Be Cool to come out. It must be liberal eco-terrorist propaganda with it prominently featuring a hybrid right? That is in the trailer no less.
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.