Million Dollar Baby
At a recent awards ceremony, Clint Eastwood warned left-wing documentary filmmaker Michael Moore that he would shoot him if he ever turned up at his house. The audience laughed, so Eastwood added a dangerous “I mean it” to assure them he was not joking. Clint Eastwood is the only person on this planet who can make being a Republican look cool. He is an American legend who both as actor and director has made some of the best films I have ever seen, from Dirty Harry to Unforgiven. Even his misfires are often enjoyable (I have a soft spot for Firefox among others), so following the excellent Mystic River, I awaited Million Dollar Baby with bated breath, despite wariness over the subject matter.
Early in the film, Eastwood’s character Frankie calls female boxing “the latest freak show” and, not being the most PC person in the world, I have to agree. It was therefore a very pleasant surprise to find this film as compelling, dramatic and heartbreaking as Raging Bull, Rocky or any of the great boxing pictures. In what is one of his best ever performances, Eastwood delivers a riveting performance as Frankie, a gym owner who reluctantly agrees to train trailer-trash with a heart of gold Maggie (the brilliant Hilary Swank) in an attempt to get her a shot at the world title.
This film has already won several awards and there is talk of Oscars. I can understand why. The performances are all outstanding (not only from the afore-mentioned Eastwood and Swank but also Morgan Freeman). As a director, Eastwood’s unfussy, leisurely pace allows the film to take its time and let the characters get under one’s skin, something all too rare in this Jerry Bruckheimer whiplash MTV editing “attention-span-of-a-goldfish” day and age. Above all, it’s a grown-up film which surprises, makes you laugh, think, and cry.
However, my enjoyment of the film was fatally marred by two factors. First; the portrayal of a Catholic priest whom Frankie turns to in desperate need. He is the most useless and unhelpful Christian I have seen in a film for a long time and nearly had me shouting at the screen. His explanation of the Trinity was completely ridiculous, as was his later advice to Eastwood to “forget heaven and hell” and his lack of compassion regarding the emotional torment he was experiencing. I have said many times that I am sick and tired of the way Christians are portrayed in films. Things had begun to look up a little in the recent years, but this was a new low. I appreciate there are some so-called Christians like this in the world, but they are a small minority!
Secondly and more seriously, unlike, say, the anti-violence and anti-revenge morality of Eastwood’s earlier classics Unforgiven and Mystic River respectively, I am unable to cheer the pro-euthanasia message that forms the third act of Million Dollar Baby. It is a shame that someone as intelligent and gifted as Eastwood should descend to propaganda in ways similar to those found in heinous Nazi Germany pictures such as I Accuse (a film that showed a sympathetic husband defending himself against a murder charge for the mercy killing of his terminally ill wife). I Accuse changed the minds and votes of the German people from being overwhelmingly against “mercy killing” to in favour of the euthanasia that at first led to the elimination of many elderly and infirm (the so-called “useless eaters”) and of course ultimately to the killing of millions of Jews. It’s a warning from history worth heeding, especially given current social trends which no doubt will receive a boost as a result of this film. Therefore, despite its undeniable brilliance, in good conscience I cannot recommend it. If you want an Oscar-worthy film go and see The Aviator instead.
Simon Dillon, February 2005
We loved the priest! And despite the pro-choice thing (which I’m not sure I disagree with anyway) it was still a brilliant film. Far preferred it to The Aviator, but perhaps because I’m not a huge Leonardo fan.
Comment by Sarah — 21 October, 2005 @ 10:44 am
Yikes! Getting a bit controversial in here. Not having seen the film yet, I can’t comment. But just wait…
Comment by Sparky — 21 October, 2005 @ 11:48 am
Perhaps. I’m not pro-making-the-choice-for-someone-else, though - which is where pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia is different to pro-choice, if you see what I mean. So I’m not pro-death particularly, but neither am I pro-prolonging life where it wouldn’t normally be prolonged, if not for medical advances.
Comment by Sarah — 21 October, 2005 @ 10:36 pm
And, I think I am pro-choice. I would want to have the choice myself.
Comment by Sarah — 21 October, 2005 @ 10:39 pm
Never really understood the argument of providing choice = providing death. I would presume Simon, that given the choice (which is what some people would advocate) you would never chose death so in the case pro-choice = pro-life. In some cases it will equal death but that is not what is being advocated - choice is.
I’m pro-choice but you can’t possibly infer from that what I think morally about abortion. All you can infer is that I don’t expect people who don’t share my moral standpoint to act as if they do.
Comment by Chris — 22 October, 2005 @ 8:30 am
Haven’t seen the film but have been reading a bit about it as this is a subject that interests me. Warning - there may be spoilers in the next bit.
As I understand it, she was sedated against her will to prevent her from making any more suicide attempts after one failed. This, to me, is clearly wrong, and I don’t know if that would actually happen in real life. Still, it had to be done for the story I guess to force Frankie’s hand.
I’m not at all sure on my position on ’straight’ euthanasia as portrayed in MDB, but I am very pro-voluntary euthanasia/assisted suicide/whatever you want to call it. I think condemning someone to carry on living when their ‘life’ is so abhorrent to them (for physical or mental reasons) is incredibly cruel.
And bringing the deaths of millions of Jews into it is as narrow-minded and sensationalist as people who believe one joint will inevitably turn someone into a heroin addict!
Comment by Alison — 22 October, 2005 @ 8:32 am
And are you saying that without ‘I Accuse’ the holocaust would never have happened??? Clearly it was used as part of the Nazi propaganda but it was the Nazis not the film that caused the holocaust, the film was one tool they used. I don’t think the film (without the Nazi aim for a superrace behind it) would have somehow led to the Holocaust in the same way I don’t think MDB will!!! It’s not The Ring, watch this film and in 7 days all the jews will die.
Comment by Chris — 22 October, 2005 @ 8:47 am
Surely God is pro-choice?
Comment by Steve — 23 October, 2005 @ 7:13 am
Steve, I don’t believe your question has a yes or no answer. Yes, God gives everyone the choice to follow his value systems and laws, but no he isn’t pro-euthanasia or pro-abortion under any circumstances. He alone holds the keys to life and death, and we will never have the power or wisdom to make a better choice than him.
Don’t you wish you could convey the tone of your voice on these things? Mark said my comment could sound very ‘absolutist’ (which, personally, I think post-modernism has turned into a dirty word) but I would never have this conversation as an argument, it’s a subject that requires compassion and conviction. I have had an ‘unwanted’ pregnancy, and have spent many months plagued with suicidal urges myself, but I believe more strongly than ever that God has a better judgement on these things than we do.
Heidi
Comment by Sparky — 23 October, 2005 @ 6:54 pm
Heidi, your argument kind of works for those who believe in a God with supreme power - I do have some sympathy for the view, as espoused by the Bishop of Oxford, that one’s god should have final responsibility for the time of one’s death. But what of those of us who don’t believe in any god?
If the only caveat against an action is “God wouldn’t like it”, then I would feel quite happy to go ahead and do it. I’d be interested to hear any more compelling, non-religious arguments for the immorality of assisted suicide.
Personally, my strong beliefs on assisted suicide are what really finally helped me get over a suicide that happened very close to me and left me reeling, depressed and suicidal myself for months. For me, to condemn assisted suicide woud be the same as condemning suicide, and I just can’t do that any more.
Comment by Alison — 23 October, 2005 @ 7:55 pm
But Heidi, despite the fact that I agree with you about God being supremely wise and powerful, we do often make life/death choices where, if a situation were left, the outcomes would be very different. Mankind plays God in all sorts of situations.
For me, unless I’ve misunderstood something, there is a subtle difference between euthanasia on one side and suicide/assisted suicide on the other, too.
Comment by Sarah — 23 October, 2005 @ 9:00 pm
I had been hesitant about joining in here, because I’m not sure this is the best forum for talking over such an emotive, and frankly HUGE subject, so I should clarify that I was responding directly to Steve’s comment about God being ‘pro-choice’ - I have to agree that ‘Because God says so’ isn’t a meaningful argument if you don’t share my faith. It wouldn’t even be enough for me as a Christian without the WHY God says so that goes along with it.
Heidi
Comment by Sparky — 23 October, 2005 @ 10:29 pm
Hmmm, well there are a lot of complex issues here than I’m not sure could be adequately discussed in the comment of a blog? I would say that I thought this film was fantastic and incredibly moving - Hilary Swank, Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman each added so much and were an absolute joy to watch. I must admit to having cried my way through a vast majority of the film (although that’s not particularly unusual I admit).
I struggle with the idea that this film was pro-death or pro-ethanasia - the medical intervention that was needed in order to ensure life was maintained was just horrendous and personally I would find keeping a loved one alive in this way tramatic and I think possible even unethical and I wouldn’t want to be kept alive this was myself. I know in the film he “speeded things up” a bit but the end result was the same only without the physical pain.
Having had two close family members in ICU wired to machines, and having to help make the decision to switch off the life support machine in one case, I think it’s easy to underestimate the heartache and soulsearching that goes into making those types of decisions. I’m sure there’s some very apt saying here “Judge not, lest ye be judged” or something like that (never a good idea to comment after wine!).
Also, thought the portrayal of the priest was good - liked it - would have been much lesser a film had he been the “perfect man of god” type figure.
Comment by Allie — 23 October, 2005 @ 10:42 pm
Again, I think this is a difficult place to really talk about this without hurt or misunderstanding- definitions get in the way of people’s real moral viewpoints because we all interpret things slightly differently. Alana, I think, is right to say that switching off life-saving machines can be a valid choice in certain circumstances- the way I see it you’re taking your faith out of man’s accomplishments and putting it back in God’s hands (or letting nature takes its course if you don’t share my faith) but here I’m unsure if that is strictly considered ‘euthanasia’ (or any other term you have to describe it) in every circumstance? I have tried to be sensitive in this, and I know that this is a subject that has a personal resonance with, I imagine, just about everyone. I must re-iterate Simon’s point, though, that when we set up this blog we did clearly say that we were reviewing movies from a very specific moral viewpoint, so expect to disagree or be challenged sometimes…
Heidi
Comment by Sparky — 24 October, 2005 @ 10:36 am
Simon, I think calling this a “fuss” is incredibly patronising.
Comment by Alison — 24 October, 2005 @ 8:25 pm
Spoiler alert - info below about the end of the film!
Right, well, we having now seen the film, I thought I could add my comments on it (leaving to one side some of the discussion there has been over the past few days). Firstly, I agree that at the beginning of the movie the priest is an unhelpful and irritating portrayal of faith (who speaks the only instance of foul language in the whole film - that wasn’t an accident on the part of the scriptwriter), but I disagree that he is without compassion - what he says at the end, and the way he forces Frankie to think properly about the situation show that he does actually know what will fall on deaf ears and what won’t.
Secondly, I must agree with Simon about the protrayal of euthanasia in the film - it seemed like one was supposed to feel that this was the morally right choice in that situation, and I did not. It was a huge shame that Clint’s character went against his deep-seated convictions because of his affection for Maggie, and her selfishness. The truth was that Maggie still had her sight, hearing, power of speech and ability to think. On top of this, as she herself pointed out, she had had the chance to live, see the world, be successful for a time. I can’t ever imagine that what she went through physically, mentally and emotionally is pleasant, but my personal feeling was that she still had plenty to live for.
Please note that I am in full agreement with my wife on the point about debates like this one being very difficult in this format - without always knowing one another properly, or hearing tone of voice, or knowing precisely the definitions we are giving to certain terms we will almost certainly cause misunderstandings at times. We must bear with each other on those.
By the way, on a totally different note, very excited to see that people from the US, Germany, Greece and the Netherlands are viewing the site. It’s a worldwide phenomenon!
Comment by Sparky — 25 October, 2005 @ 4:17 am
I don’t think this should be a place for non-Christians to ‘kick off’ because they don’t agree with peoples views…
http://moviesforchristians.blogsome.com
MOVIES FOR CHRISTIANS !!!
I, as a Christian would not leave a comment on a website called www.moviesformuslims.com or www.moviesforhindus.com, as I am neither a muslim or a hindu.
Christians should no longer allow themselves to be shouted down or mocked. The Christian nations of this world, are CHRISTIAN nations, and should have Christian views and morals, not a ‘wishy washy’ lazy excuse for a value system.
Sarah, you’re an argumentative person, who, ironically, has written a ‘bible’s worth’ of words, but fails to have actually made any decent points.
GIVE UP… YOU KNOW YOU AGREE WITH US DEEP DOWN !!!
Comment by Joel — 22 November, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Joel, I am more than happy for non-Christians, Muslims, Hindus or members of any other faith to comment on the blog that I set up. I only called it that to give a clear idea of the standpoint from which we would be reviewing films, not to exclude anyone from adding comments. If people leave comments that are offensive or stupid, I will delete them, but not because someone follows a different faith to me.
And while I agree that Christians should be sure of their faith and speak up for it fearlessly, I’m not sure the notion of a ‘Christian nation’ exists any more, whether we feel it should or not.
Comment by Sparky — 25 November, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
Sparky
I think you should rename your website, as it no-longer has any meaning.
It’s your website so it’s up to you, but it now has a pointless name, like if I were to sell apples on a website called www.pearsforsale.com
I agree with you that the notion of a Christian nation hardly exists any more, but that is only because not many Christians stand up for what they believe anymore. Most Christian men would protect their partner/wife etc, but not many are prepared to protect their faith ??? hmmm ??? If I knew your wife/girlfriend and wrote a negative nasty comment on here, about her, I’m sure you’d have a lot to say, but you haven’t for your faith. Be a man !!!
CHRISTIANS UNITE !!!
CHRISTIANS FIGHT !!!
Comment by Joel — 26 November, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
P.S. I might copy your way of thinking and set up a blog called www.moviesforall.com and then ban anyone other than Christians from leaving comments.
Comment by Joel — 26 November, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
I have to say, Joel, I really don’t know where you’re coming from on this one. The point of this blog has always been to review films from a Christian perspective, and cause anyone and everyone who might read it to think about the movies they are watching. Reviews that I and Simon post are whole-heartedly our opinions, informed by our faith, but not impervious to others holding different opinions. And if you read reviews and comments across the site, you will notice a lot of discussions where we as Christians are doing exactly what you say we’re not, i.e. standing up for our views based on our faith. Being a Christian is not about bludgeoning everyone who doesn’t choose our faith into the ground - that was certainly not Jesus’ example. My aim was to have a website that answered the questions I had before going to see certain films - basically, does this movie contain content or themes that I would rather not see?
Please read the reviews and comments properly before making any more rash judgments in the future.
Comment by Sparky — 26 November, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
Good morning Sparky,
I hope you’re well.
At this point I must remember that I am representing Christianity. I think that people are just different, and your opinion on what is right, as a Christian, will vary from mine. This might be because of the way we were brought up, life experiences or any number of reasons.
I would like you to know that I had already read all of the comments on this blog, and so, as you say yourself, I am entitled to share my opinion.
I am a strong willed person who doesn’t always take things lightly. I thought some of the comments above were written to provoke and antagonize. Which is why I also find it strange that the only comment that seemed to annoy you was mine. Who are you defending???
I have written a poem that summarizes all of this for me…
moviesforchristians poem
How easy it is to get confused,
From a film aimed to amuse,
Review written, the comments started,
As though someone had ‘cyber-farted’.
Sparky is the name for an electrician,
But he’s in fact on a different mission,
To enlighten the world through his site,
I was trying to help but got in a fight.
My views not appreciated, that’s nothing new,
People with my views, are now very few,
Perhaps my views are a bit out of date,
Or me and the Internet is a big mistake.
This blog is now just personal attacks,
We forget the film and all the facts,
Our stewardship of the world gone wrong,
A dodgy film, a dodgy song.
If we die and just disappear,
Why bother to comment here?
Surely in something you must believe,
Or what are you trying to achieve?
P.S. Sparky doesn’t like me. Sarah is argumentative. People are in denial and euthanasia is wrong.
LOVE YOU
JOEL
XXX
Comment by Joel — 27 November, 2007 @ 9:56 am
I find this recent spate of discussion very interesting and it is strange how this debate has sparked up again after it being dorment for some time, thats the great thing about films I suppose.
I think both Sparky and Joel have good points but whilst reading this I remembered a quote from Simon’s review of Brokeback Mountain from many moons ago.
“This website is entitled “Movies for Christians” and I am not one to shy away from controversy. I think it’s worth adding the obvious point that despite its cinematic merits, I do not recommend Brokeback Mountain.”
And I must say I agree with Joel and Simon on this one.
Comment by Dave Jones — 27 November, 2007 @ 11:46 am