Million Dollar Baby

[modage]

priest rapes boy.    no problems here.
amercan dream of making something of yourself.    waiiitaminute, thats just not cool.

[Jeremy Blackman]

INTERNAL SPOILERS

priest rapes boy.    no problems here.
amercan dream of making something of yourself.    waiiitaminute, thats just not cool.

Not another dichotomy!

It's not the fact that it happens that offends me. It's the way it's told, and it's that stupid dichotomy that offends me. I've been trying to make that clear.

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.

Do you really think her victory is not over her family, at least in a slightly indirect way? If her victory is defined against her family, and she has clearly had to fight to avoid staying/becoming what her family is... Sure, that can be an internal struggle, but since she's clearly struggling between two distinct things, two very clearly different ways of life, the victory could not happen without the one-dimensional white trash family. And the movie uses those two caricatured extremes to define her victory.

And again, I think that the relationship between Frankie and Maggie is the point of the movie, not her "making it."

Maybe we should be clearer. Maybe I'm really talking about "the message" of the movie. How can you say the central message of the movie is a relationship? What do you think this movie is trying to say? Does that relationship have a message?

I agree that the relationship between Frankie and Maggie is the focus of the movie, but how is it the point? What is the point?

[Thrindle]

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?

JB you are reducing this movie too much, to the point that your argument is absurd.  From what I'm reading you are making this movie, and it's characters, completely one-dimensional.  I suppose you can continue in this vein because insinuating a movie is cliche, is a cop out... but it works.  However, what you can't do is forget Swank and Eastwood's performances.

The nuances were in the slight discomfort for there feelings for each other.  No it wasn't sexual, but the awkwardness when Frankie said he'd propose to her, was.  The way they looked at each other was nuanced.  Nothing about their relationship flat out said, "hey I love you"...  and to me that is nuanced.  For once a relationship wasn't spelled out with a good fuck scene.  There was so much to this, and therefore, there was a lot to feel for.

AND ANOTHER THING:

As for Before Sunset, JB what are you thinking?  A part of great film is capturing truth.  When Ethan Hawke sounds like a bit of a cad while saying he loves great staircases, that is a perfect scene.  Why?  Because he is uncomfortable iwth the silence, because everything about them is awkward and he wants it to be familiar.

You wouldn't get that if he had remained the "perfect" character, and not said a thing.

AND GT:
Your avatar is ugly.

[Jeremy Blackman]

MEANINGFUL SPOILERS

The nuances were in the slight discomfort for there feelings for each other.  No it wasn't sexual, but the awkwardness when Frankie said he'd propose to her, was.  The way they looked at each other was nuanced.  Nothing about their relationship flat out said, "hey I love you"...  and to me that is nuanced.  For once a relationship wasn't spelled out with a good fuck scene.  There was so much to this, and therefore, there was a lot to feel for.

I thought it was a pretty simple father/daughter relationship, and you haven't given me much more to grasp here. "Discomfort" and "awkwardness" are common feelings... I don't find much meaning in their mild existence, especially between these characters. "The way they looked at each other was nuanced"? Isn't this just an interpretive thing? And what is this nuance? What does it mean? People keep telling me there is all this nuance, but they haven't told me what it means or why it's important.

From what I'm reading you are making this movie, and it's characters, completely one-dimensional.  I suppose you can continue in this vein because insinuating a movie is cliche, is a cop out... but it works.

You have to admit that this movie is overloaded with clichés. I've named them. So why all the clichés? How does that serve the nuance? Are they supposed to disguise the nuance? Maybe we've learned that I'm unable to appreciate nuances when they're pointlessly masked in really obscenely stupid clichés and one-dimensional characters. I'm sure it's possible that there's a whole new world of interpretation inside this movie, but so far I haven't seen anything meaningful or valuable.

As for Before Sunset, JB what are you thinking?  A part of great film is capturing truth.  When Ethan Hawke sounds like a bit of a cad while saying he loves great staircases, that is a perfect scene.  Why?  Because he is uncomfortable iwth the silence, because everything about them is awkward and he wants it to be familiar.

I really wish Before Sunset hadn't become a direct comparison in the conversation, because it's not a completely accurate one. I liked that movie. I appreciated its nuances. I recognize that it has plenty. It's just that my emotional interpretation of the movie was radically different from most everyone else's, and all my whining in that thread was basically confusion about how I got such a different feeling from the movie. I thought it was torture. I thought they were torturing themselves with dialogue. I'm sure if I watched the movie again I'd feel ten times less tortured, and I'd probably like the staircase scene.

[Thrindle]

And what is this nuance? What does it mean? People keep telling me there is all this nuance, but they haven't told me what it means or why it's important.

1 : a subtle quality
2 : sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value)

Ok, I've seen this movie once, and I'll dig for the memories.  The awkwardness that I refer to is when (like I said) Frankie jokes about proposing, and when Maggie jumps on him and wraps her legs around him.  He is slightly uncomfortable.  Now, to me this says quite a bit.  Obviously he loves her like a daughter, but the discomfort also says that his character has seen her as a woman too.  Some people will argue me on this, but I did see a slight romance.  This was nuanced.  Thank god, because human relationships are complex, and don't always get spelled out.  Thus the use of the word nuance.

You have to admit that this movie is overloaded with clichés.

And so is life.  Stereotypes are shitty, and our liberal minds hate them, but they do come from somewhere.  Perhaps a little truth?

How does that serve the nuance? Are they supposed to disguise the nuance? Maybe we've learned that I'm unable to appreciate nuances when they're pointlessly masked in really obscenely stupid clichés and one-dimensional characters. I'm sure it's possible that there's a whole new world of interpretation inside this movie, but so far I haven't seen anything meaningful or valuable.

So then what do you want to watch a movie about?  Every idea has been done.  This movie happened to do its theme well.  Theme?  Redemption, love, pain, hurt, unfairness of life, unfairness of actually being a stereotype.

I really wish Before Sunset hadn't become a direct comparison in the conversation, because it's not a completely accurate one. I liked that movie. I appreciated its nuances. I recognize that it has plenty. It's just that my emotional interpretation of the movie was radically different from most everyone else's, and all my whining in that thread was basically confusion about I got such a different feeling from the movie. I thought it was torture. I thought they were torturing themselves with dialogue. I'm sure if I watched the movie again I'd feel ten times less tortured, and I'd probably like the staircase scene.

I'm not trying to beat you into submission.  And yes, I get your nuanced sarcasm.  All I'm saying is that MDB was good in it's own right.  In a time where movies are overblown and everything needs to be spelled out, I felt that MDB really made me feel something.  My feelings were intense, and so I assume that the movie created a relationship well.

[matt35mm]

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.

Do you really think her victory is not over her family, at least in a slightly indirect way? If her victory is defined against her family, and she has clearly had to fight to avoid staying/becoming what her family is... Sure, that can be an internal struggle, but since she's clearly struggling between two distinct things, two very clearly different ways of life, the victory could not happen without the one-dimensional white trash family. And the movie uses those two caricatured extremes to define her victory.

I agree.  But I don't mind that.  I agree that they are a one-dimension white trash family, and I agree that what needed to happen "could not happened without the one-dimensional white trash family."  Yes, they could have been fleshed out more, but it might've added some fat to this lean movie.  Now perhaps you want some fat, and there's nothing wrong with fat, but Eastwood was obviously trying to make a lean movie, and I appreciated the lean-ness of it.

I would never try to change your mind; I am only clarifying what I think about it.  I absolutely respect your opinion.  All I can say is: what didn't work for you worked for me (and a whole mess of other people).  Although I'd rather not be accused of being "fooled" into liking this movie.  I know you're not directly accusing anyone of that, but sometimes your wording makes it sound a bit like that.  I think it's a simple matter of agreeing to disagree.

And again, I think that the relationship between Frankie and Maggie is the point of the movie, not her "making it."

Maybe we should be clearer. Maybe I'm really talking about "the message" of the movie. How can you say the central message of the movie is a relationship? What do you think this movie is trying to say? Does that relationship have a message?

I agree that the relationship between Frankie and Maggie is the focus of the movie, but how is it the point? What is the point?

I don't think it's a message movie.  I think the movie actively avoids giving a "message."  Therefore: No Message.

Yes, I meant focus, then.  The point, however, can't always be simply defined in any movie--nor should it be.  The point of watching the movie could very well be to watch this relationship develop and feel something for them.  That would be a great point, if you're asking "what is the point of this movie's existance?"  It also is about Maggie's triumph, which didn't work for you, but I felt worked because I saw it as more of her internal struggle.  She rose above her "demons."  Yes, her demons were personified very very simply through a stereotypical white trash family, but it's the greater significance of overcoming one's demons, in what I view to be a more internal struggle, that most people are responding to.  It's about knowing what you want and being the kind of person who has what it takes to grab it, which is, I think, a big part of life.  So the movie, to me, also has a big point about living life.  (SPOILER!!!)  She wasn't living when she was just waitressing and being a nobody.  But she finally focused on what she wanted, got it, and she LIVED LIFE.  This is juxtaposed with when she chooses to end her life.  But she could only be so comfortable with dying (and she says that she's been around the world, people have chanted her name, etc.) because she felt that her life has truly been lived at that point.  She'd "done pretty good."  So her choice isn't about giving up, it's about accepting death over another few years of a life unlived in a bed.  In that sense, her life in that bed complements her life before she started "being somebody."  Both times that she escapes that idea of life unlived come from her courage to say, "No more."  Not that it was necessarily the right thing to do, but it's where her choice comes from.

[Jeremy Blackman]

when Maggie jumps on him and wraps her legs around him.  He is slightly uncomfortable.  Now, to me this says quite a bit.  Obviously he loves her like a daughter, but the discomfort also says that his character has seen her as a woman too.  Some people will argue me on this, but I did see a slight romance.  This was nuanced.

That's exactly what I was looking for. But I disagree with your interpretation. Wouldn't simply loving her as a daughter (or coming to terms with that) make him a little uncomfortable? Could it be the awkwardness of transition?. He's probably somewhere between thinking of her as a "girlie" who used his speed bag and accepting her as a daughter. So my problem with this is that his character doesn't necessarily change... the location of his daughter feelings simply changes.

You have to admit that this movie is overloaded with clichés.

And so is life.  Stereotypes are shitty, and our liberal minds hate them, but they do come from somewhere.  Perhaps a little truth?

Of course stereotypes come from somewhere, but I don't think it's wise to use stereotypes to understand the world (which I think this movie does in abundance). You've just expressed an appreciation for complexity... why not extend that to stereotypes? The world is probably more of a spectrum than a collection of stereotypes. Stereotypes are like compensating for one's lack of ultimate understanding... they allow you to understand everything as conveniently fitting a mold. That's offensive. And stereotypes are behind every kind of social warfare I can think of.

So then what do you want to watch a movie about?  Every idea has been done.  This movie happened to do its theme well.  Theme?  Redemption, love, pain, hurt, unfairness of life, unfairness of actually being a stereotype.

Maybe we should distinguish between the theme and the details. The cliché details annoyed me. The emotions didn't bother me as much, because I agree with you that it's tough (though I don't think impossible) to be original with themes and emotions. I guess to get complex emotions, you need complex and deeply confused characters (Exhibit A: Closer). The characters in Million Dollar Baby, being stereotypes, have emotional handicaps... so I blame the characters more than I blame the themes/emotions.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Yes, they could have been fleshed out more, but it might've added some fat to this lean movie. Now perhaps you want some fat, and there's nothing wrong with fat, but Eastwood was obviously trying to make a lean movie, and I appreciated the lean-ness of it.

I think you found the conflict. I did want fat. Lots of fat.

All I can say is: what didn't work for you worked for me (and a whole mess of other people). Although I'd rather not be accused of being "fooled" into liking this movie. I know you're not directly accusing anyone of that, but sometimes your wording makes it sound a bit like that.

You're right to think that, because I have come pretty close to saying that people have been fooled into liking this movie. Maybe what I really think is that people are saying they like this movie because it's fat when they really like it because it's lean. And I agree that we can respect that difference.

I don't think it's a message movie. I think the movie actively avoids giving a "message." Therefore: No Message.

You seem to disagree:

So the movie, to me, also has a big point message about living life. (SPOILER!!!) She wasn't living when she was just waitressing and being a nobody. But she finally focused on what she wanted, got it, and she LIVED LIFE.

Why not just call it a "message"? And isn't that the same as the "making it" message I've been talking about? (Is there a meaningful difference between "making it" and "living life" in this context?)

I mean, really, I don't think it's a stretch to say that her "making it" is the message. Morgan Freeman spelled it out at the end. There's no ambiguity there.

[Thrindle]

I guess to get complex emotions, you need complex and deeply confused characters (Exhibit A: Closer).

That was hitting below the belt.  Refer to the "Closer" thread as to why I thought the movie was trash.  Also, Julia Roberts was hideous in it.  It was like a cheating Erin Brockovich, or chick from "Mona Lisa Smile", or chick from "Notting Hill", or chick from "Mystic Pizza", or chick from "Stepmom"... funny... they all seemed the same.  But I digress.  

JB, you've made your points.  We like different movies for different reasons.  Never kid yourself, I see the cliches that you speak of... unlike you, I didn't feel they deterred the movie from being wonderful.

Cheers.

[matt35mm]

I don't think it's a message movie. I think the movie actively avoids giving a "message." Therefore: No Message.

You seem to disagree:

So the movie, to me, also has a big point message about living life. (SPOILER!!!) She wasn't living when she was just waitressing and being a nobody. But she finally focused on what she wanted, got it, and she LIVED LIFE.

Why not just call it a "message"? And isn't that the same as the "making it" message I've been talking about? (Is there a meaningful difference between "making it" and "living life" in this context?)

I mean, really, I don't think it's a stretch to say that her "making it" is the message. Morgan Freeman spelled it out at the end. There's no ambiguity there.

I think there's a difference between a message and a point.  The point refers specifically to her character, and says nothing about what you should do, which is what a message would be.  The movie doesn't say that YOU should live life any more than you've already been living it, it's just about this woman's attempt to start living life for herself.  It's not a stretch to say that her "making it" is the point (or message), but I just don't feel that it is quite that.  Those words don't quite express what I feel the point is.  "Living Life" is better for me.  So it's a meaningful difference to me.  "Making it" gives more of an impression of the American Dream, which you've brought up before.  But I don't think this movie is about her reaching the American Dream.  I don't think what she achieves really is the "American Dream."  As I see it, she begins to live for herself (which I don't think the American Dream is--I think the whole idea of an American Dream is to live up to the standard as defined by our society to determine your success).  She's living up to her own standard and she's living for herself.  There was no "it" to make other than just being happy and doing something that she really wanted to do for once and enjoy being good at it and being loved for it.  She didn't used to be content with herself, and now she is, and that is her victory--not whatever "it" she may have made.

[ono]

I'd like to remind everybody that you can vote ANY film from 2004 as the BEST FILM for the XIXAX AWARDS.

Couldn't think of a good thread to put this in.. so I chose this one.. MILLION DOLLAR BABY.. at random.

Thanks.

[modage]

Yes, ANY film.  Regardless if it was a horror film, or a comedy and certainly if it was NOT a spoof...



Any film will do.

[RegularKarate]

Yeah, it could even be said that you shouldn't vote for EITHER of those two films because they don't deserve it as much as



If you catch my meaning

[MacGuffin]

Critics Enter Ring Against Eastwood

Not everyone is in Clint Eastwood's corner as his acclaimed boxing drama "Million Dollar Baby" heads into the Academy Awards.

(Spoiler alert: The rest of this story could ruin the movie for you.)

Some conservative critics and groups representing the disabled say "Million Dollar Baby" is a sucker punch against the notion that people with paralyzing infirmities can lead lives worth living.

The film's harshest detractors say it's little more than propaganda supporting legalization of assisted suicide. Director and star Eastwood says the characters' choices are rooted in the story and that the movie is not about euthanasia.

"Million Dollar Baby," which is in a neck-and-neck race with the Howard Hughes epic "The Aviator" for best picture, stars Eastwood as old-school boxing trainer Frankie Dunn, who becomes mentor to peppy fighter Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank).

A father-daughter relationship blossoms between the two as Frankie coaches Maggie through a meteoric rise to champion status in the film's feel-good "Rocky"-like first two acts.

The closing chapter presents a cruel twist, however.

(The next paragraph gives it away.)

An opponent blindsides Maggie, leaving her paralyzed from the neck down. Maggie decides she would rather die, and she asks Frankie to help end her life. After some moral agonizing, Frankie does.

Marcie Roth, executive director of the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, said her group has been working to improve conditions for the disabled since 1948, "yet lo these many years later, many people still think having a spinal-cord injury is a fate worse than death.

"Unfortunately, a message like the one in `Million Dollar Baby' just perpetuates exactly what we work so hard to dispel."

The film earned directing prizes for Eastwood at the Golden Globes and last weekend's Directors Guild of America Awards, positioning him as the front-runner for the same honor at the Oscars Feb. 27. Swank received the Golden Globe for best dramatic actress, and she, Eastwood and co-star Morgan Freeman earned Oscar acting nominations.

Fans of the film disagree that it favors assisted suicide. Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert ranked "Million Dollar Baby" as his No. 1 film of 2004 even though he disagrees with Frankie's actions.

Maggie's desire to die and Frankie's decision to help were choices consistent with the nature of the characters, Ebert said.

"It's a movie for grown-up, mature audiences in which people do things we don't necessarily agree with," Ebert told The Associated Press. "What kind of movies would there be if we expected everyone in them to do what we think they should do?"

"Million Dollar Baby" also has come under fire from such conservative commentators as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved and Debbie Schlussel, who predicted on her Web site that Eastwood's film will triumph at the Oscars "because it's Hollywood's best political propaganda of the year. ... because it supports killing the handicapped, literally putting their lights out."

Eastwood declined an interview request but told The New York Times that the film stuck closely to its source material, a story by F.X. Toole.

"How the character handles it is certainly different than how I might handle it if I were in that position in real life," Eastwood said. "Every story is a `what if.'"

Eastwood's critics say the movie is his latest salvo against the disabled community. In 2000, Eastwood testified before a U.S. House subcommittee asking that the Americans with Disabilities Act be amended to allow businesses such as his hotel in Carmel, Calif., more time to comply.

His testimony came after a disabled woman sued him because his historic inn lacked wheelchair access. A jury sided with Eastwood on all but two minor violations.

While "Million Dollar Baby" has drawn the harshest reaction, many of the same critics are bothered by the Spanish film "The Sea Inside," starring Javier Bardem as Ramon Sampedro, who fought a 30-year campaign for his right to die after a paralyzing accident. The film is among Oscar nominees for best foreign-language picture.

Both movies draw on stereotypes that disabled people cannot lead worthwhile lives, said Stephen Drake, a researcher for Chicago-based Not Dead Yet, a group that has held protests at theaters showing "Million Dollar Baby."

"I really can't imagine this kind of awards attention for somebody who put out a film that relies on the worst stereotypes the audience holds about homosexuality," Drake said.

The high profile of Oscar contenders often brings out the critics.

"A Beautiful Mind," the 2001 best-picture winner, drew complaints for omitting unflattering aspects about the life of mathematician John Forbes Nash. Similar gripes were aimed at 2000's "The Hurricane," which earned a best-actor nomination for Denzel Washington, who played boxer Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, imprisoned nearly 20 years for three murders before the convictions were overturned.

Tobacco companies criticized the whistle-blower drama "The Insider," a 1999 best-picture nominee, saying the film took liberties to place their industry in a harsher light. "60 Minutes" correspondent Mike Wallace also said "The Insider" painted an unfair picture of how he and the news show handled a confrontation with the tobacco industry.

"The Academy Awards are a huge platform for all kinds of people with all kinds of agendas, some worthy and some not so worthy," said Peter Rainer, contributing editor for New York magazine and past president of the National Society of Film Critics, which picked "Million Dollar Baby" as best film of 2004.

"It's an irresistible force for people to try to piggyback on to, to try to walk in that spotlight and get something out of it for themselves," added Rainer, who said he liked "Million Dollar Baby" but that it was not one of his top film choices of last year

[Jeremy Blackman]

I think there's a difference between a message and a point.  The point refers specifically to her character, and says nothing about what you should do, which is what a message would be.

If the point refers specifically to her character, that's the point of her character, not the point of the movie. If you think the point of the movie is her character, that's not very meaningful. If you think the point of the movie is what her character does or how her character changes, that's meaningful, and I think it's enough to make a message. But what really makes it a message for me is Morgan Freeman's speech at the end about her "making it," which assures Frankie that he's doing the right thing. He almost spells it out. If that's not a message, I don't know what is.

"Living Life" is better for me.  So it's a meaningful difference to me.  "Making it" gives more of an impression of the American Dream, which you've brought up before.  But I don't think this movie is about her reaching the American Dream.  I don't think what she achieves really is the "American Dream."  As I see it, she begins to live for herself (which I don't think the American Dream is--I think the whole idea of an American Dream is to live up to the standard as defined by our society to determine your success).  She's living up to her own standard and she's living for herself.

I don't know why you're saying "living life" when the movie says "making it." I mean, that's actually what Morgan Freeman says at the end... "She made it."

And I don't see a huge difference between "living life" and "making it." I think the independence and self-defined success you're talking about is part of the American Dream. It's the warm and fuzzy part, that independence. That's the "it" that she made.

There was no "it" to make other than just being happy and doing something that she really wanted to do for once and enjoy being good at it and being loved for it.

I think that's a perfect definition of this kind of "making it."

I guess to get complex emotions, you need complex and deeply confused characters (Exhibit A: Closer).

That was hitting below the belt.  Refer to the "Closer" thread as to why I thought the movie was trash.

Below the belt? I didn't mean it like that. I sincerely think Closer is a perfect model for the kinds of characters I like... just trying to make my biases clear...