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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
I don't think the Eastwood character in the version I saw felt he had found salvation.
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.
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.
(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")
Here's a clue for you: nobody cares what a clown thinks.
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!
Ping.
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
Just further proof the left is willing to SPIT IN OUR FACE! So what else is new ..??
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.
We?
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.