My Darling, My Blood: Million Dollar Baby

Intellectual Conservative ^ | 18 February 2005 | Nicholas Stix

[mrustow]

If you give Million Dollar Baby half a chance, you're gonna cry.

"You're gonna cry," the ticket-seller, a Spanish lady in her late fifties, told me. And she was right.

Million Dollar Baby is about two kinds of hunger: The hunger for glory that gnaws at those who seemingly have no chance at it, and the hunger for the love that bonds a father and a daughter, even if the two are not father and daughter.

Clint Eastwood is hot again. In 2003, his movie Mystic River, in which he did not act, was up for all of the major Oscars, and won Tim Robbins an Academy Award for best supporting actor. (That Oscar may have been a payoff for Robbins' years of leftwing political agitation.) Mystic River, a murder mystery set in Boston, was good, but not as good as its press. Its script, by the usually top-notch Brian Helgeland, was full of red herrings, and contained a scene involving the suspect (Tim Robbins) that, taken in isolation was great, but which contradicted everything else we were shown about the character. Typical for Eastwood's movies, however, the acting was uniformly excellent.

During the early-to-mid 1990s, the man who learned his trade from Sergio Leone and Don Siegel was the best director in the business, turning out three masterpieces in a row: The western, Unforgiven (1992), for which he won Oscars for best director and best picture, and was nominated for best actor; the road/crime story, A Perfect World (1993), which bombed at the box office and was ignored by the Academy (Kevin Costner gave the performance of his career, but it was too late to win back his lost fans); and the story of romance and adultery, The Bridges of Madison County (1995), a commercial and critical success, which however was only nominated for best actress for Meryl Streep's revelatory performance, but which I think should have won a passel of Oscars. Pretty good, all in all, for a guy who got his start playing roustabout trail boss "Rowdy Yates" on the TV western, Rawhide, back in 1959.

After Bridges, Eastwood lost his way. He made the entertaining but lightweight Absolute Power (1997), and deteriorated to the point of the muddled Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (also 1997). He was more effective as a moviemaker in True Crime (1999), but too old for the role of reporter "Steve Everett," in which he botched some good lines. In Million Dollar Baby, Eastwood recaptures that '90's glory, as producer, director, actor and even composer.

Baby is a boxing picture, only the fighter is a girl. With "Maggie McNamara," Hilary Swank paints the most intense portrait of a fighter since Robert DeNiro's Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull (1980). Maggie was born and raised as white trash. With her father dead, the lifelong waitress is burdened with an overweight mother, a street scum convict brother, and a sister that gets by through welfare fraud. She never had a chance. But she makes her own luck ... to a point.

Eastwood's "Frankie Dunn" is the greatest "cut man" in the business, and a sometime manager who often hurts more for his fighters than they do. A devout Catholic, though he doesn't look or preach the part, Frankie goes to mass every morning, prays for his estranged daughter and another female (dead wife? ex-wife?) every night, and grieves over an earlier boxing mishap. Frankie is a difficult man, who terrorizes his young priest with snarky metaphysical questions, to the point of provoking the young man to cuss him out, and tell him to skip mass.

Frankie: Father, that was a great sermon ... made me weep.

Father Horvak: What's confusing you this week?

Frankie: Oh, it's the same old, "one God-three God" thing.

Father Horvak: Frankie, most people figure out by kindergarten that it's about faith.
Frankie: Is it sort of like snap, crackle, and pop, all rolled into one big box?

Meanwhile, Maggie just wants a chance. Frankie tells Maggie, "I don't train girls," but she is not to be denied.

With "Scrap Iron's" help, each comes to fill the void in the other's life.

Some critics, like the Daily News' Jack Mathews, have said that Eastwood's Frankie Dunn is the performance of a lifetime. They're right. But Eastwood will almost surely lose the best actor Oscar to Jamie Foxx for Ray. (Since I have yet to see Ray, I can't say who deserves it more.) Eastwood is up for best director, and as producer, for best picture. His main competition in those categories is director Martin Scorcese, and producers Michael Mann and Graham King, all of The Aviator. (Aviator is up for eleven awards to Baby's seven; many observers think Scorcese will win based not on quality, but sentiment and memories of his superior earlier work.)

I had never seen Hilary Swank act before, but somehow I felt as if I knew her work, before I even entered the theater. All I knew of her was her pathetic Oscar acceptance speech for Boys Don't Cry (1999), when she pleaded with the world "to embrace diversity!," the winning appearance she gave a few months ago on a late night talk show (probably Letterman), and the ads for Baby. Sometimes you can tell in seconds that a performer has no talent -- think Sean Combs, Jennifer Lopez, Ben Affleck. Much more rarely, in just a moment, you can tell that a performer has it, whatever "it" is. From those promos, I knew that Hilary Swank had it.

Anyone who was old enough to know what was going on during the 1970s, beheld a colossus in the young Robert DeNiro. He was both a life force and the hungriest actor in the business. DeNiro was always challenging himself, and always willing to sacrifice more for a role than anyone else, whether it was spending weeks learning Sicilian for The Godfather Part II (1974); learning the saxophone for New York, New York (1977); or training for months before filming, and then putting on 60 pounds in the middle of filming Raging Bull, in order to play boxer Jake LaMotta, both as middleweight champ and as a fat, middle-aged, has-been. Hilary Swank, who reportedly put on 20 pounds in training for Baby, has that sort of hunger, ambition, and talent. Her ring work is every bit as good as DeNiro's (maybe better), and in and out of the ring, she will break your heart. She's a prohibitive favorite to win her second best actress Oscar. Behold the new colossus!

Morgan Freeman's one-eyed, old pug, "Eddie 'Scrap Iron' Dupris," has been like a wife to Frankie for about thirty years. Eastwood exploits Freeman both on-camera and as narrator, which is a great advantage for any movie (think Se7en and The Shawshank Redemption). As narrator, Freeman's pipes sound the worse for wear, but he still uses his voice better than anyone else in the business, managing somehow to give brilliant, clean, line readings in an even tone, yet without falling into a monotone. (Compare that to lazy George Clooney's monotone.) And Freeman has a stage presence where he can command attention, while doing "nothing." He is physically convincing as an old man who fought 109 prize fights, and wasn't retired until the age of 39. His "Scrap Iron" and Frankie trade barbs with the dark humor of survivors who have lost much, but who have not thrown in the towel. Such a dark movie requires as much humor as possible. I'm reminded of O'Neill's A Moon for the Misbegotten, and the gallows humor of the ill-fated "James Tyrone Jr." and "Josie Hogan" (the late Jason Robards and Colleen Dewhurst).

Freeman is up for best supporting actor, his fourth nomination (following Street Smart, Driving Miss Daisy, and Shawshank), and is favored to finally win it. I hope he does.

The picture has a lean, powerful screenplay by Paul Haggis (thirtysomething, EZ Streets), who does dark better than anyone, based on the stories Rope Burns, by the late F.X. Toole, himself an old cut man (and surely, like Frankie, an Irish Catholic -- Francis Xavier?).

While Million Dollar Baby was filmed in color, for much of the movie, you wouldn't know it. As shot by Tom Stern, it is a study in shadow and light. It has a powerful yet restrained score, also by Eastwood, that works on the viewer like Larry Holmes' jab, and which, like Stern's cinematography, inexplicably was not nominated for an Oscar.

Eastwood used much of the production crew that has been his mainstay for years. (He founded his own production company, Malpaso, over thirty years ago.) Thus, the editing is by Joel Cox, the production design by Henry Bumstead, and Lennie Niehaus, who used to also score Eastwood's movies, arranged and conducted his score. You've come a long way, Rowdy!

If you give Million Dollar Baby half a chance, like the ticket-seller lady said, you're gonna cry.

New York-based freelancer Nicholas Stix has written for Toogood Reports, Middle American News, the New York Post, Daily News, American Enterprise, Insight, Chronicles, Newsday and many other publications. His recent work is collected at The Critical Critic.

Email Nicholas Stix

Send this Article to a Friend

[Heyworth]

Gotta love those straw man debates in movies. Ever see a shamrock, Clint? Next St. Patrick's day, ponder how he explained the Trinity to the Irish.

As you'd know if you'd seen the movie, Eastwood's character isn't asking this question with any sort of sincerity. He's yanking the priest's chain as he does, apparently, every day when he goes to mass. The priest is on to him, though, and doesn't put up with it.

The priest also tells Eastwood's character that the only people who show up for mass every day, as he does, are people who can't forgive themselves for something. We never learn what Eastwood's done in the past. It may be something to do with the daughter he writes to every week and who returns the letters unread. But Eastwood's character is clearly damned, if only by himself. I think that part of the reason he's able to do what he does at the end is that he feels his soul is already lost.

[Darkwolf377]

"I'm just hoping you didn't do Film Studies in college."

I didn't. I've just shot, edited, and sound mixed film and video for my own independent films and short subjects and had my film writings published. You go off and take courses, I actually make films.

Nice of you to completely dodge my point and instead make a silly uninformed wisecrack with zero discussion of the point I made, thus proving my point about your sort.

[Nachum]

Better yet, why not read the short story and then see the movie too.

The movie was true to the written story. It was well told, well cast and well acted.

It was not a "message movie". It was a hard luck story and about love. One of the best I have ever seen. Man- -people are now comparing Clint Eastwood to Leni Reifenstall. This is nothing short of idiotic.

[madprof98]

I did respond to the point you made, but evidently you didn't understand the response. Anyone who imagines there is no dramatic conflict in truly effective propaganda fails to understand how propaganda works. Of course, there is conflict. It helps the viewers to get over their own misgivings about whatever it is the propagandist wants us to buy into.

[NutCrackerBoy]

I saw it last night. I teared up mostly when Swank character starts having boxing success. I expected to feel manipulated at the end (euthanasia) and be angry. I wasn't.

[Cicero]

Nicholas Stix is clearly a moral idiot. Clint Eastwood has made a great many movies that are terrific, and profitable as well. "Bridges of Madison County," which he thinks should have won numerous awards, certainly wasn't one of them. It was a commercial success but a moral failure, a piece of dimestore trash.

"Million Dollar Baby" is also trash. It may very well make a lot of money, but morally speaking Clint Eastwood might as well have played the part of an abortionist or a Nazi euthanasia freak.

[madprof98]

Since mention of the Nazis seems distracting, consider another film beloved of the Hollywood elite, "The Cider House Rules." Was there conflict? Of course. In fact, the main character had to be convinced in the most dramatic way possible that abortion was at times truly necessary. And was it propaganda? John Irving pretty much said so. And anyone who thought otherwise is probably someone who already thought abortion was necessary before the film came out for it. I think that's the case here too. The folks who have no problem with "Million Dollar Baby" are the folks who have no problem with euthanasia.

[frogjerk]

I did not see the movie.

Should I see the movie that reports to be one thing "A boxing movie" but is about another "pro-euhtenasia", that the LIBs are falling all over themselves for?

Obviously, from the dialog in the article, it is also anti-Catholic as well.

Let me just rush out and drop $11 for a ticket and $7 for concessions so Hollywood can keep bombarding me with their left-wing agenda. - sarcasm

[Darkwolf377]

"I did respond to the point you made, but evidently you didn't understand the response."

This was your response to my point:HUH??? I'm just hoping you didn't do Film Studies in college. In any case, check out Propaganda in Nazi Germany for a thoughtful commentary on the role of films, some of them technically brilliant (and DRAMATIC) in shaping the consciousness of the Third Reich.

Now where exactly did I say there was no technical brilliance or drama in propaganda? I didn't understand your answer because it was to a point I never made.

" Anyone who imagines there is no dramatic conflict in truly effective propaganda fails to understand how propaganda works."

When did I say there was no dramatic conflict in truly effective propaganda?

"Of course, there is conflict. It helps the viewers to get over their own misgivings about whatever it is the propagandist wants us to buy into."

You've invented a straw man and then claimed I didn't understand your answer. I understood it just fine. You just didn't understand my original point and so you made up a point so you could push your uninformed views on film.

Maybe you should approach a serious post with a careful reading before you start with the snide cracks about "film school: with someone who knows more about film that you ever will. Posting a link to someone else's writing about propaganda so you can pose as someone who knows something about a subject will only get you laughed at. Inventing strawmen as you have just makes you look like a fool looking for a fight, and stepping in it when you try to show up someone who's actually worked with film, sparky ;).

[Darkwolf377]

That's ridiculous stretching. I have no problem with Million Dollar Baby and I'm 100% against euthensia, so there goes that theory.

You really should look at what a film IS instead of what you want it to be to make your point. Million Dollar Baby would be propaganda if the Eastwood character were pro-euthenasia, or if he were against it and then thought it was good after having a part in it. It doesn't; it says he is condemned by his personal religion for doing that. Show me the Nazi propaganda that tells its followers "If you do this you are condemning your soul to damnation."

By your logic the people who liked The Passion are pro-crucifixion. I mean, it shows the crucifixion as a good thing, something willingly entered into, right?

For those ready to scream and shout: I am NOT saying that those who liked The Passion are pro-crucifixion--note the first words "By your logic".

[frogjerk]

Another movie hater. Did you even see the movie?

Why is it that if someone doesn't care to see a particular film, doesn't like the latest movies, or doesn't like what Hollywood is putting out these days is considered dumb, prude, or not with it?

It seems to me that people that are obsessed with movies (especially in the NYC area) and funding Hollywood really don't have much of a life outside of film.

They love to live in fantasy land. I mean, seeing a film once in a while is good but some people go way overboard. Films and TV are so overrated.

There's more to life than sitting at home and waiting for the latest NetFlix package to arrive.

[madprof98]

When did I say there was no dramatic conflict in truly effective propaganda?

Here is where you said it, back in post #10:

But judge it as a movie, not as a pro-euthanasia screed, because if it were that there would be no drama in the decision--if he's doing something the movie's point of view says is a good, right thing, why is it shown as a dramatic decision?

Perhaps you didn't mean what you said, but that is in fact what you said, not some "straw man" I concocted to put down a distinguished film critic like yourself.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

And as best I can tell almost none of them have actually seen it; they're letting Medved do their thinking for them.

So.... do you ever read movie reviews? If so, why?

[madprof98]

Show me the Nazi propaganda that tells its followers "If you do this you are condemning your soul to damnation."

It's a take-off on Mark Twain. Remember Huck Finn's "Then I'll go to hell!" when he takes the side of the runaway slave, Jim. Twain's point was that the character Huck takes the moral high ground by rejecting the (in this case, racial) conventions of his society. The idea became something of a cliche, and it is on that cliche that "Million Dollar Baby" rests.

[NutCrackerBoy]

I try to be as pro-life as I think is reasonable, but with certain major restrictions in place, I favor people having some choices. I would not legalize the instance of euthanasia in the film because it leads to too much danger of abuse. But I do favor legality of first-trimester abortion, with parental consent for the under-aged and doctors never forced to learn the procedure.

All that said, while I found The Cider House Rules to be awful propaganda, I do not think that of Million Dollar Baby. I think it an honest question whether the Clint Eastwood character might act in that way.

[Darkwolf377]

"When did I say there was no dramatic conflict in truly effective propaganda? Here is where you said it, back in post #10: But judge it as a movie, not as a pro-euthanasia screed, because if it were that there would be no drama in the decision--if he's doing something the movie's point of view says is a good, right thing, why is it shown as a dramatic decision? Perhaps you didn't mean what you said, but that is in fact what you said, not some "straw man" I concocted to put down a distinguished film critic like yourself."

Uh, where did I say there was no dramatic conflict in truly effective propaganda?

You can keep up the snide comments all you want, but where did I say it? I didn't.

READ what I wrote:"not as a pro-euthanasia screed, because if it were that there would be no drama IN THE DECISION."

That does not say there is no drama in propaganda. It says if it were propaganda there would be no drama in this one particular MOMENT.

You really, really should read what I wrote, not what you wish I wrote so you could make your silly point. You look like an idiot because you keep insisting I said something I never said, and the proof is right there. I was talking about the drama in one point of the whole script. Never said there was no drama in propaganda.

Stick to whatever it is you can do well, 'cuz it sure ain't debating. Or film.

[Darkwolf377]

In other words, you can't. Thank you for your response.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

movie hater

It appears you have a habit of tossing out the label 'hater' as casually (and inappropriately) as the libs do.

[madprof98]

I hope you are better at making films than you are at making arguments. (Somehow, though, I have my doubts.)

BTW, I used to teach film students. One of the main problems with them was that they didn't read much and didn't care to read much. In that respect, they are like so many of the "artists" today who do not recognize propaganda because the only artwork with which they are familiar (their own and that of their friends) is hopelessly propagandistic.

[Darkwolf377]

It's a take-off on Mark Twain. Remember Huck Finn's "Then I'll go to hell!" when he takes the side of the runaway slave, Jim. Twain's point was that the character Huck takes the moral high ground by rejecting the (in this case, racial) conventions of his society.

Man, you're as bad a literary critic as you are a film critic. Twain's point is that Huck WON'T go to hell, but is willing to do so if that's what convention tells him.

The point in Million Dollar Baby--which you either didn't see or didn't grasp--is that Eastwood's character DOES doom himself by his religious belief, just as his character DOES doom himself in Unforgiven by returning to the ways he turned from to please his wife. If MDB were propaganda using Twain's narrative technique, we would see a scene in which Freeman or another character saying "He doesn't know that the church actually believes euthanasia is ok." But the point is not that he is actually torturing himself over an ultimately correct decision (as is Huck) but that he is making a decision which by his beliefs is sinful.

You might want to actually SEE the movie before stepping out on a limb like this. And get a Reader's Guide to Twain. Bye now. ;)