Million Dollar Baby

[Pubrick]

Where do you see right-wingedness?

clint eastwood is old.

[RegularKarate]

SPOILERS
JB's post... he see it as conservative (I don't) because of the situation with the welfare mom.  Swank works for her money while her mother is greedy, fat, and lazy and lives off the government.

I don't see it as movie with an agenda like that.  It could be seen from different viewpoints.

[Jeremy Blackman]

HOMICIDAL SPOILERS

Many people are admitting this film is political.  That's what one of those articles I posted a link to is about.  People are perceptive, but they're also whiners.  Republicans hate it.

When I said people aren't admitting how political this is (A) that was a big assumption because I've only tip-toed around this thread and successfully avoided the big spoiler and (B) I meant political in the other direction. The political controversy is all about the euthanasia, which seemed to me so obviously the right thing to do that I didn't give it too much thought. (I think removing long-term life support systems is a bit different from murder.)

It's the American Dream vs. Welfare Queen thing that bugged me, especially because it's so central to the film. The euthanasia means little in comparison. And it's almost a red herring.

I didn't think any part of the movie was manipulative because it was so matter-of-fact about everything.

Obvious manipulation is still manipulation, my friend. That's why I'm surprised more people aren't annoyed by it. I'm fine with meaningful manipulation, but it's this kind of manipulation that annoys me.

The only problem I saw in it was with the family, because they were so one-dimensional, but their one-dimensionality was necessary.

Are you admitting that [what I find to be] the center of the movie is a one-dimensional plot device? It's cold.

JB's taking far too much offense to the film's mild right-wingedness (oooooh how DARE a film have just a little HINT of conservative though... seriously, it's not that bad).

I seriously think it's central to the film's meaning, though. That's why it bothers me. I wouldn't be so annoyed with it were it just a side story.

It sounds to me a bit like you went in to hate it (your knee jerked a bit at the "girlie, tough ain't enough" line from the trailer, when most agreed it's not as bad as you make it out to be).

Believe me, I was sincerely hoping the trailer mischaracterized the movie, but it didn't. That line perfectly reflects that character's attitude. I think what makes it seem mild in context is her reaction to that kind of thing (she was expecting it). That doesn't make it better, and it doesn't improve my view of his character.

You can break down pretty much any movie into the objects that move the plot along, so that's a kind of strawman reason to dislike it.

It would be a straw man if I incorrectly characterized it, but I think I was pretty accurate. The plot moves clinging to a series of objects... or actually, to be more accurate, the characters are defined by objects. And no, I don't think many great movies do that. Name a few for me if you disagree.

Here's a question.  Take Ebert for example.  He goes into great detail as to why this movie is amazing.  How would you respond to his points?

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

Yes, "Mystic River" is a great film, but this one finds the simplicity and directness of classical storytelling; it is the kind of movie where you sit very quietly in the theater and are drawn deeply into lives that you care very much about.

He thinks it demonstrates "the simplicity and directness of classical storytelling." I think it demonstrates the laziness and meaninglessness of one-dimensional storytelling. (What is that supposed to mean, anyway? Classical stories are long, complex, and usually indirect.)

Hilary Swank is astonishing as Maggie. Every note is true. She reduces Maggie to a fierce intensity.

Yeah, she reduces Maggie to persistence and loyalty. I call that one-dimensional (okay, two-dimensional), and I was completely unmoved by her character until the final scene. And why does Ebert keep saying how "true" this movie is? Truth is complex... these people are boring and simple...

And when Frankie sees Scrap's feet on the desk: "Where are your shoes?" Scrap: "I'm airing out my feet." The foot conversation continues for almost a minute, showing the film's patience in evoking character.

I liked the foot conversation. I liked Freeman's character. The other two are totally different. How are their characters built beyond the "directness" and "simplicity" that Ebert so adores? The lemon pie? The speed bag?

[matt35mm]

I DON'T THINK THESE ARE SPOLIERS

I don't think that Maggie's family was the central point of the movie at all.  I, too, felt that it was a bit simplistic, but it's there to show the hole that Maggie dug her way out of.  It's a personal victory for Maggie when she does finally tell them off.  But I think it's there to show where Maggie came from and who she is in her life now.  I don't think the welfare thing is that big of a deal for the movie; it's mostly to show a bit of sleeziness on the mother's part.  Maggie felt that she was trash, and the movie does beat a one note idea to make it clear that that's because Maggie's family is trash, trash, trash.  Maggie isn't the type of person who would think of herself as better than her family; she assumes herself to be trash, too.  Only in the end does she realize otherwise.

I think the main main main focal point of this movie is the bond between Frank and Maggie.  Maggie's family is just a simple and, yes, stereotypical portrayal of "trash," to make it a clear, quick point that Maggie feels that she is like these people.  It explains why a woman with such determination hasn't gotten further in life--she's been kept down.  It's a character development thing, not a political statement.  Maggie's personal victory is not over her family--it's over her sense of being trash that came from her family.  It was about breaking herself free of her ideas of who she was and seeing with clearer eyes who she really is and what she is really capable of.

If Frank and Maggie's relationship didn't work for you, then the movie just wouldn't work, and that's a more reasonable reason to dislike the movie.  But hell, it worked wonders for me.

[SHAFTR]

Say what you want JB, but nearly every character reminded me of someone I know or have known in life.

[Jeremy Blackman]

TONGUE-BITING SPOILERS

I don't think that Maggie's family was the central point of the movie at all.  I, too, felt that it was a bit simplistic, but it's there to show the hole that Maggie dug her way out of.  It's a personal victory for Maggie when she does finally tell them off . . . Maggie's personal victory is not over her family--it's over her sense of being trash that came from her family.

Maggie's victory is the central point of the movie, and that victory is defined against her family. You've basically said as much... her family is there to show what she had to fight against. The dichotomy is still there... the American Dream vs. the Welfare Queen. It's a pretty black and white distinction between two ways of life.

We end with her victory, which is a victory over the Welfare Queen and that way of life, as the movie repeatedly makes clear. Sure, the conflict ends on a positive note and it's characterized a bit differently (she "made it," in Morgan Freeman's warm and fuzzy words), but the dichotomy is so obviously and persistently there.

If you agree that her "making it" is the point of the movie, you have to admit that that victory is clearly and repeatedly defined against her family.

Another thing... (little unrealistic things usually don't bother me, but since I dislike this movie I'll complain)... I understand why Frankie would disappear, but why would he leave his house and his gym and his money and everything? It's dramatic, but it doesn't make sense. And remember that scene when the Welfare Queen is there in the hospital room with her lawyer, and toward the end of her lecture she suddenly says something unusually legally specific? Why would she do that if she's trying to trick someone into signing?

[Thrindle]

JB - I don't agree with your review, but you reviewed it well nonetheless.  

You've forgotten to include your thoughts on the personal relationship between Maggie and Frankie.  In my opinion that relationship transcended manipulation, simply because so much of it was nuanced.  You are not gonna agree... so let 'er rip.

As for your TOUNGUE BITING SPOILERS... dude, you aren't usually a dink...

[Jeremy Blackman]

PERSISTENT SPOILERS

You've forgotten to include your thoughts on the personal relationship between Maggie and Frankie.

I think this summed up what I thought of their relationship...

So his character, at best, is a cold-hearted bastard, very stubborn and very masculine, whose heart is ready to be partially melted by a replacement daughter figure. Profound.

Maybe it didn't help that I was scoffing at the "reluctant trainer" scenes. I didn't get into their dynamic, if you can call the relationship between two one-dimensional characters "dynamic." So I think she filled the daughter gap, which made his life a little more complete and made him less of a cold-hearted bastard, because she's like his daughter now. I don't see any more meaning there. Tell me if I'm missing anything. I mean, Maggie's character never changed... she remained equally persistent and loyal throughout the movie. If the point is that she's onetwo-dimensional and doesn't change, well that's boring.

Compare this level of character development to Closer, and you'll see why I'm complaining. (kind of an extreme example, though.)

In my opinion that relationship transcended manipulation, simply because so much of it was nuanced.  You are not gonna agree... so let 'er rip.

I'm willing to learn. What nuances?

As for your TOUNGUE BITING SPOILERS... dude, you aren't usually a dink...

"Tongue-biting" was an... adjective...   ...

[Ghostboy]

Yes, "Mystic River" is a great film, but this one finds the simplicity and directness of classical storytelling; it is the kind of movie where you sit very quietly in the theater and are drawn deeply into lives that you care very much about.

He thinks it demonstrates "the simplicity and directness of classical storytelling." I think it demonstrates the laziness and meaninglessness of one-dimensional storytelling. (What is that supposed to mean, anyway? Classical stories are long, complex, and usually indirect.)

Classical stories can be complex, long and indirect, and generally are, but from them one can cull a series of common themes which in their proliferation throughout history also fall under the definition of classical. The proper adherance to these thmes can render a story classical even as it paints them in broad strokes. That's the simplicity and directness he's speaking of. Star Wars is an example of this just as much as Unforgiven, Mystic River and, to a slightly subtler extent, Million Dollar Baby. They all play on levels that could be considered mythic.

I haven't read one review which doesn't acknowledge that the white trash family is one dimensional. But whether or not they were, Maggie's rise would inherently be contrasted against them, because that's where she came from. I don't see anything wrong with that. If they were sympathetically downtrodden, Maggie's success would be seen more as a result of luck than hard work; okay, that could have added texture of some sort. Where the movie maybe dropped the ball is at the end, in which an extra layer of conflict could have been added between the family (had they truly wanted her to live) and Clint, who would not trust them to make the right decision.

On the other hand, as RK said, the one dimensional stereotypes are also (sadly) very true to life, and their inclusion isn't necessarily a propogation of that stereotype - after all, isn't the very dichotomy you find fault with in itself a defeat of that stereotype (that all white trash folks are lazy and ungrateful)?

[Gold Trumpet]

I haven't read the details of any reviews yet, but let me say I am happy that JB of all people doesn't like this film. The way this film was being generally accepted by everyone with no argument did favors to no one, mostly the film itself.

[Jeremy Blackman]

On the other hand, as RK said, the one dimensional stereotypes are also (sadly) very true to life, and their inclusion isn't necessarily a propogation of that stereotype - after all, isn't the very dichotomy you find fault with in itself a defeat of that stereotype (that all white trash folks are lazy and ungrateful)?

Do dichotomies ever defeat stereotypes? This is just a matter of nomenclature, anyway. When she transcends "white trash" do we call her "white trash that succeeded"? Or do we say that she was never really "white trash," that she was just born into a "white trash" family? Either way, there are two classes, they're opposites, and she's in one while her Welfare Queen mother is in the other. It propagates both stereotypes. (Though this only really offends me on the storytelling level.)

[Ghostboy]

PERSISTENT SPOILERS

You've forgotten to include your thoughts on the personal relationship between Maggie and Frankie.

I think this summed up what I thought of their relationship...

So his character, at best, is a cold-hearted bastard, very stubborn and very masculine, whose heart is ready to be partially melted by a replacement daughter figure. Profound.

Maybe it didn't help that I was scoffing at the "reluctant trainer" scenes. I didn't get into their dynamic, if you can call the relationship between two one-dimensional characters "dynamic." So I think she filled the daughter gap, which made his life a little more complete and made him less of a cold-hearted bastard, because she's like his daughter now. I don't see any more meaning there. Tell me if I'm missing anything. I mean, Maggie's character never changed... she remained equally persistent and loyal throughout the movie. If the point is that she's onetwo-dimensional and doesn't change, well that's boring.

Compare this level of character development to Closer, and you'll see why I'm complaining. (kind of an extreme example, though.)

In my opinion that relationship transcended manipulation, simply because so much of it was nuanced.  You are not gonna agree... so let 'er rip.

I'm willing to learn. What nuances?

I think you jump to conclusions to quickly, Jeremy, which prevents you from seeing those nuances. The very simplicity of the relationship between Maggie and Frankie is what made it nuanced and profound; the point at which it would become one dimensional and boring is the point at which they have to spell everything out in words, which did not happen. If your intuition immediately fills in the development - and it's true, it becomes obvious very quickly that Maggie will become a surrogate daughter to Frankie - and scoffs at the simplicity, you may fail to catch the slow masterful development of that very development.

I'm thinking now, as an example, of your complaint about Before Sunset, that they never stop talking. You mention explicitly the scene on the staircase and Jesse's comment about how he loves old staircases ruining the potential of a silent moment of contemplation - but did your immediate reaction to that line of dialogue distract your from the fact that he actually says it at the beginning of the scene, and that they then spend about a minute ascending the staircase in complete silence, and that the development between the two characters that occurs in the simpe blocking of that scene is nearly the equivalent of all that has occurred in the film at that point?

Sorry to digress there - I just think I'm beginning to understand why you dislike certain movies I love (although I may be completely off)

[Jeremy Blackman]

The very simplicity of the relationship between Maggie and Frankie is what made it nuanced and profound; the point at which it would become one dimensional and boring is the point at which they have to spell everything out in words, which did not happen.

But it's totally spelled out in words, explicit and explained, unless I'm missing something huge. Every crucial character development seems to be marked by a snappy little Morgan Freeman monlogue (in person or narration). He mentions something about "always protect yourself" and we understand that Frankie is dealing with his obsession with that. Oh God, that's a boxing-as-life metaphor, isn't it?

I'm thinking now, as an example, of your complaint about Before Sunset, that they never stop talking. You mention explicitly the scene on the staircase and Jesse's comment about how he loves old staircases ruining the potential of a silent moment of contemplation - but did your immediate reaction to that line of dialogue distract your from the fact that he actually says it at the beginning of the scene, and that they then spend about a minute ascending the staircase in complete silence, and that the development between the two characters that occurs in the simpe blocking of that scene is nearly the equivalent of all that has occurred in the film at that point?

That's a great point, and I know you're at least partially right... but I was still horrified by that scene. He totally preemptively ruined it. During the silence I was thinking "did he just say that?" It was like these two people have been drowning in dialogue for an hour and they just surfaced for a deep breath of air and he just coughed up water in her face or something.

[matt35mm]

TONGUE-BITING SPOILERS

I don't think that Maggie's family was the central point of the movie at all.  I, too, felt that it was a bit simplistic, but it's there to show the hole that Maggie dug her way out of.  It's a personal victory for Maggie when she does finally tell them off . . . Maggie's personal victory is not over her family--it's over her sense of being trash that came from her family.

Maggie's victory is the central point of the movie, and that victory is defined against her family. You've basically said as much... her family is there to show what she had to fight against. The dichotomy is still there... the American Dream vs. the Welfare Queen. It's a pretty black and white distinction between two ways of life.

We end with her victory, which is a victory over the Welfare Queen and that way of life, as the movie repeatedly makes clear. Sure, the conflict ends on a positive note and it's characterized a bit differently (she "made it," in Morgan Freeman's warm and fuzzy words), but the dichotomy is so obviously and persistently there.

If you agree that her "making it" is the point of the movie, you have to admit that that victory is clearly and repeatedly defined against her family.

I explicitly stated that Maggie's victory is NOT over her family.  Her victory takes place entirely inside Maggie.  The family only shows WHY Maggie feels that she's trash.  And Maggie "makes it" when she finds a way to elevate herself above that, in her own heart.  It's internal.  Telling her family off was not the victory; it was a result of the victory that happened inside of her.

And again, I think that the relationship between Frankie and Maggie is the point of the movie, not her "making it."  And the victory is defined against Maggie's sense of self-esteem--not her family.  We're talking about two different things.

[Alethia]

i really liked this alot.  it totally worked for me.  eastwood is an american master.  that last shot is a beauty.