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

[Age of Reason]

Lopez is uggggggggly.

[mrustow]

Let me guess: You run the box office at the local Cineplex?

LOL -- well, at least you have a sense of humor! I've gotta give the Devil his due.

[mrustow]

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

I plan to buy the book, as soon as I get back from vacation in mid-March.

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.

They don't know anything about either. Their empty rhetoric is as bad as a tenured Marxist.

[paleocon patriarch]

I've seen all five "best Picture" nominees and Million Dollar Baby is, hands down, the best picture. Not as good as Passion of the Christ though.

Passion of the Christ will still be viewed as a classic in 100 years. Million Dollar Baby will be just another good old movie.

[mrustow]

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.

I look forward to your observations AFTER you see the movie you're bloviating about.

[cyborg]

LOL Why is Lopez ugly?

[Zack Nguyen]

That quote from the movie about the Trinity is so trite. Why is it in these movies that no one ever defends the faith effectively? Because that's the point of the movie.

No, I'll not be seeing "Million Dollar Baby."

[mrustow]

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?

It is not pro-euthanasia, and Eastwood has not called it a boxing movie. He calls it a father-daughter story.

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

Wrong again. It's not anti-Catholic. Frankie just likes to give everybody a hard time.

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

There's no leftwing agenda in this movie. If there were, the priest would have been depicted in a negative way, which he isn't. Actually, although he's young, he's something of a throwback. Very no-nonsense. And he's no fool -- he's got Frankie sized up. And nobody's forcing you to spend one thin dime at the concession stand. Most movie theaters have free water fountains.

[mrustow]

P.S. In about a month, it'll be out on video, and then you can rent it for only 4 or 5 bucks.

[Tribune7]

Matt Damon

[mrustow]

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?

No, the problem is when someone condemns a movie he knows nothing about. I almost never go to the movies. I do rent 20 or so videos per year. But I don't rant about movies I've never seen. If you don't care about movies, that's fine. But then don't set up a soapbox to scream about movies you haven't seen.

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.

Your last three paragraphs are beside the point.

[baseballfanjm]

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?

I don't think that about you. However, arguments about a movie are more productive when both sides have seen the film and know the content first hand. That goes for any debate. If I wanted to tell someone that I dislike Forrest Gump, it wouldn't work if I hadn't seen the film.

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.

I can only speak for myself here. I love movies. They're something I greatly enjoy. It's on par with my love for, say, the Red Sox. In fact, people who are sports fans are typically just as passionate, if not moreso, about sports than movie fans are about movies. You wouldn't put me down for loving the Red Sox, would you?

They love to live in fantasy land

What? A good book is even more of an immersive "fantasy land" than a movie. I find movies to be rather detached, meant for observation. Books are what immerse you. If that is a negative in your mind, target books.

I mean, seeing a film once in a while is good but some people go way overboard.

How many movies you like to see has no bearing on what others should do. I'll agree to some extent that there are people who'll see everything for the sake of it. But still, what is "overboard" for you?

Films and TV are so overrated.

That's your opinion. I might think something is overrated, but I won't start bashing people for it.

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

I'm sure any film fan would agree. Netflix allows for one to spend more of their life doing something rather than spending time going to the video store. You get home, and the movie is there already. Time is precious.

[andysandmikesmom]

Well, for myself, I dont rely on anyone elses idea of how good or bad, a movie may be....I might watch a few reviews of it on the TV...may read a few reviews of it in the newspaper...may talk to a few people who have actually seen the movie...but in the end, I make up my own mind, as to whether or not I wish to see a movie...

Those folks who come on here, and give us their own biased opinion of the movie(often it seems, they have not even seen the movie) and rag on what the movie purports to push forth as an agenda, are frankly a waste of time to me(and then of course, some of them try to say they are trying to save us from wasting our money on that movie)....

Because to me, reviews of the movie, other peoples opinion of the movie(I only consider the views of people who have actually seen the movie) are basically just loose guidelines...Perhaps I am saying this badly, but what I mean, is that reviews and other peoples opinions about a movie are given a modicum of consideration...then I decide for myself...I would never let someone else try to decide for me, whether or not I would like to see a movie, or whether or not I am wasting my money to see a movie...I will make my own decisions, and never based on someone elses opinion...

I have to agree with those here, who are saying, that a movie, is just a movie after all...and those movies which may have issues, and themes which are considered to be hot button issues, can and do and should provoke conversation, can and do and should make us examine and re-examine our own biases on the position taken in the movie...

And often I can watch a movie, whose conclusion or ending I may find directly in contradiction to my own beliefs, and yet if the acting and directing and such are well done, I can still appreciate the movie...and Clint Eastwood, Hillary Swank, and especially Morgan Freeman, are three fine actors...

I am definitely against euthanasia...but because Clint Eastwood in his character role, actually commits euthanasia, that is not a reason to keep me from seeing this movie...I am able, as are most adults, to appreciate a fine film, while perhaps disagreeing with the outcome of the film...

[Age of Reason]

I am not one whose vision is influenced by celebrity status: I see with my eyes.

People subconsciously desire a mate that they think other people want.

And because of that, their brains fool them into thinking what they see is beautiful.

Which explains that other dog, Farah Faucett Majors, of the 1970s and 80s. I never fell for the hype concerning her, either.

[cyborg]

I see your point. You're the first person I've met who doesn't like Farrah.

[YaYa123]

I'm happy to read a movie review of Million Dollar Baby, but I have 1 strict rule about movies.

Avoid Boxing Movies

[walden]

Was Dirty Harry a pro-shoot-people-in-the-head-with-a-44-magnum movie?

Yes, of course it was. And, it partly succeeded for exactly that reason. The audience bought the idea that sometimes justice must be swift and deadly. Agree or disagree, that was the subtext, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if some who had initially disagreed were persuaded to some extent to change their minds based on the movie. Ideas have consequences, art has consequences, the popular culture has consequences. The left has always understood that better than the right.

[mrustow]

movie hater

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

Show me where I do. I reckon, this is the first thread where I ever did. And I did so, because it's fit and proper. And all you can do is come up with that tired old line? Take some Geritol, or a shot of something. It could only help!

[Hildy]

There's a difference between a movie that has characters going on about the benefits of euthenasia and this movie, which is not ABOUT euthenasia. Go rent WHOSE LIFE IS IT, ANYWAY? Now there's a movie 100% about euthenasia. This movie isn't.

[Hildy]

The prune-face crowd here can't stand to even hear about something they don't agree with.