Sucker-punched by "Million Dollar Baby" Anti-Life Message

www.illinoisleader.com ^ | February 28, 2005 | Fran Eaton

[ladyjane]

I had no idea until this thread that it was about euthanasia. I thought it was about IVF.

And I don't understand why they insist on calling it euthanasia. It's murder. Why not call it that?

[balrog666]

So killing paralyzed people falls under "quality of life", "freedom of choice", and "None of your business" (whatever you mean by that)?

You mean those who wish to control their own life, their own destiny? Do you have a problem with that?

My my, how "Christian" of you.

[Alouette]

I think I'll skip this movie and watch Seabiscuit again.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Some people see an agenda in everything. But it's just a movie. Hollywood churns out movies where people kill for far more selfish, cynical, and evil reasons... Why focus on this one?

[rwfromkansas]

Surprisingly, the film reviewer for my college paper told me today (since I inquired about what he was doing in order to get story assignments out in time) that he was reviewing the film positively even though he disagreed with the film's message.

[Kirkwood]

No, that was the stink by Ebert about the ending being revealed by a movie critic (Medved) and by Rush. But really word was out in the public as soon as it hit the theaters, because people were talking.

I also recall from the beginning that it was advertised as a drama about life, death, and choices. It was clear that it was about a boxer who was facing her own mortality. While it wasn't clear that it involved assisted suicide, even the casual movie goer should have had plenty of hints from the ads that it wasn't an uplifting Rocky-type movie.

[stevem]

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.

I don't think the Eastwood character in the version I saw felt he had found salvation.

[bd476]

Fran Eaton the author wrote:

"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."

The first thing wrong is Fran Eaton's offensive portrayal of "committed believers" who hide in their dark, dungy rabbit holes.

Fran Eaton the author wrote further:

"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."

If Fran Eaton wanted to encourage "committed believers" or if she had wanted to receive an answer from Christians to her question "where is the help for these troubled souls?" Fran Eaton might have received the encouraging answer she deigns to seek had she not first sought to insult and condescend.

Fran Eaton's philosophy is as representative of Hollywood as the movie she tries to critique, and her philosophy is much less honest.

[redheadtoo]

Not Dead Yet is a great organization. I have been very impressed by them. I read an article, many years ago, written by one of their members. He was a paraplegic who was in the hospital for minor surgery. A hospital volunteer tried to force him to sign a do not resuscitate order and became very belligerent when he refused. He then yelled at her that he was only thirty years old and did not want to die.

What a stronger movie Eastwood would have made if the character Maggie had exhibited that sort of toughness. But, in the end, it turned out that girlie tough really wasn't enough.

[Irish Rose]

I don't believe you should kill a paralyzed man or woman, even at his/her own request. If this is your definition of controlling your life, controlling your destiny--then I do have a problem with it.

[goldstategop]

The film glorifies less euthanasia than it glorifies nihilism. The movie's world is one devoid of any real beauty or meaning. Its the ultimate expression of post-existentialism. Life is not only absurd; life offers us nothing.

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

[balrog666]

I don't believe you should kill a paralyzed man or woman, even at his/her own request. If this is your definition of controlling your life, controlling your destiny--then I do have a problem with it.

Here's a clue for you: nobody cares what a clown thinks.

[Captain Peter Blood]

I am at a loss to understand why this is now a hot button issue when this same plot has been used in several TV shows and Films.
This plot was used in the TV show "Dallas" several years back when Southfork Foreman Ray Krebbs did what his nephew Mickey wanted when confronted with the same situation and Ray pulled the plug on him but did stand trial for Murder.
In the 1981 movie "Whose Life is it Anyway", Richard Dreyfuss plays an artist who is totally paralyzed and ends up going to court to be permitted to die. Now this really was a pro-euthanasia type picture and I really don't remember any big controversy when this thing came out.
So this is nothing new and I really don't think Clint Eastwood has an agenda it's just a movie with a compelling story.
Also what about Ronald Reagan and his film "Kings Row" where he was depressed enough to want to die after both his legs were amputated?
This theme just makes for a high drama and a story that grabs you and possibly to make you think and ask questions, nothing more.
Also I don't think any of us know how we might face a similar situation. Some would wnat to live and others to die. Are we really going to force someone to live who does't really want to face life with these kind of limitations? I have no answers and I suspect that a picture like this is provoking us to ask those kind of questions because I don't know if there are any right answers. To be fair I have not seen "Million Dollar Baby", but I may when it hits DVD although the main reason I haven't seen it is I just don't like Hillary Swank that much and it's not my kind of film.
I will say the rhetoric on this has gotten way out of hand and I think we have more important issues to worry about.
I would like to know if Michael Medved, who started all of this, saw and had opinions about the examples I have mentioned.

[BonnieJ]

Can anyone explain what was going on between Barbra S. and Clint Eastwood last night? It was strange, way too intimate, and just before that Julia R. was quite affectionate too. For a Republican he sure is loved by some of the most vocally liberal ones there!

[narses]

Ping.

[seniora]

The indoctrination begins. This is one dose of many that Hollywood will be shoving down our throats in order to induce a positive reaction from the unsuspecting public to the idea of euthanasia.

Hollywood is the enemy of western civilization and I recoil when I see, for the most part, anyone or anything associated with this perverted scene

[CyberAnt]

Just further proof the left is willing to SPIT IN OUR FACE! So what else is new ..??

[churchillbuff]

Instead, the window of opportunity to fight back the culture of death in America is slowly closing.""""

Silly advice. For a Christian to try to find work in Hollywood "to fight back the culture of death" is a prescription for a life of poverty and unemployment. Hollywood is a closed company town run by people who hate Christianity (witness their banshee-like attack on Mel Gibson); they're not going to hire somebody who shows up with the agenda that this writer is suggesting.

[isthisnickcool]

I will say the rhetoric on this has gotten way out of hand and I think we have more important issues to worry about.

We?