Strangely enough, it went well, from at least the one person I talked to who heard it. He's "Howard Sternish" kinda guy, and, frankly does stuff I find offensive and don't like to listen to. (A running gag, on the show, I gather, involves phone calls from an allegedly "mentally challenged" man trying to get Mancow to go to lunch with him.)
I came in prepared for the worst.
Here's the thing.
He took my side. He agreed with me. After my initial introductory statemtents, he and one of his staff mostly went on and on about sick stuff like this coming out of Hollywood.
For the most part, I decided to shut up. He was the best authority in the ears of his listeners. He was telling them he supported our own message and that Warner Bros. was fooling them with "Chick Rocky" campaign.
I have told everyone I know about this movie and the issues surrounding it.
Me, I'm not going to see it so I can't speak out against it (kudos to you, by the way, for encouraging people who criticize it to see it first, it drives me crazy when people speak out against stuff they haven't even seen)
But then, I wouldn't have seen it anyway. Boxing disgusts me in and of itself, so I'm not going to support a movie that glorifies it. This just gives me another reason.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just trying to understand it, Belle. It sounds like this Maggie character has trouble with seeking permission from authority. So she has to either check out on her own or manipulate someone who "loves" her to do it for her. I am curious to know from people who have seen it if that is the case.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Fitz, I'll get around to answering you, but it will take time because there are a lot of misstatements and assumptions to wade through when I do, and I don't have much time right now. It would be tempting to ignore you, since you keep going beyond what we've actually said or written.)
Dag,
Thanks!
Live radio is always hard, since it depends on your instant response to questions you don't know (even though you try to guess) in advance.
The word we have right now is that NPR's "Morning Edition" is scheduled to do a story on the "Baby" controversy on Monday morning. Breaking news could always bump the story, of course. We have no guarantees that any of Diane's interview will air, but I suspect it will, since the disability efforts around this movie originated with us.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: (Fitz, I'll get around to answering you, but it will take time because there are a lot of misstatements and assumptions to wade through when I do, and I don't have much time right now. It would be tempting to ignore you, since you keep going beyond what we've actually said or written.)
I enjoyed the way you inserted a passive little insult there, without actually posting anything of substance. I'm not in any hurry, so take all the time you need to compose an argument.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That wasn't very passive, and it's not inaccurate. Perhaps he mentioned it to give you a chance to correct it yourself?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fitz, what do you make of the fact that the movie neglected to mention (if I read the review right) that Maggie could have just asked to have her vent turned off? I would assume it's because it isn't as heroic or gripping.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Perhaps he mentioned it to give you a chance to correct it yourself?
I don't feel there's anything to correct.
quote: Fitz, what do you make of the fact that the movie neglected to mention (if I read the review right) that Maggie could have just asked to have her vent turned off? I would assume it's because it isn't as heroic or gripping.
She wanted Frankie to do it, in the same way that many people would ask a family member to do the deed. Granted, they went about it in a sloppy manner. I never argued that.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was that a complaint? I'm just looking forward to sndrake's real response, if he does indeed decide to provide one.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess she loved Frankie enough to want him to face jail. Turning the vent off is a legal medical procedure. Doing it on your own is murder. Probably not cold blooded murder. But unless she provided a written directive, it's still murder.
My grandma was burned over 60% of her body in a propane explosion. There were times in her recovery when she voiced the desire for someone to just end it for her. But she got a lot of enjoyment out of the next 17 years.
For this movie to pass over the legal possibility of having the vent turned off should put it in the same class with movies like HULK and Independence Day. Moving, but ultimately a fantastical and flawed hollywood showcase. But the fact that it is being elevated to a compelling drama that tells us something deep about "the secrets of life and death" indicates something wrong with our society. All dependent, of course, on what I read and not on having seen it.
P.S. Fitz, sndrake isn't available right now, so you don't get to crow about him being unable to reply to you. At least, not without looking silly.
posted
I think a major problem on Hatrack is that we read a little too much into things. My intention is not to 'crow' sndrake. I really do look forward to his reply. If my other posts were confrontational, it was only in response to kind.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess she loved Frankie enough to want him to face jail. Turning the vent off is a legal medical procedure. Doing it on your own is murder. Probably not cold blooded murder. But unless she provided a written directive, it's still murder.
No disagreement there.
quote: My grandma was burned over 60% of her body in a propane explosion. There were times in her recovery when she voiced the desire for someone to just end it for her. But she got a lot of enjoyment out of the next 17 years
That's great. She decided to fight through it, and I find that inspiring. On the other hand, I don't begrudge anyone their right to choose death. Maggie was adamant enough in this pursuit that she attempted suicide.
quote: For this movie to pass over the legal possibility of having the vent turned off should put it in the same class with movies like HULK and Independence Day.
I think you mentioned in a previous post that if this were brought up, the movie would lose its heroic aspect. Maybe not so much the heroic aspect, but rather Frankie's inner turmoil. Maybe Maggie was told about the legal possiblity, maybe she wasn't. Let's not make any more assumptions. Maggie wanted Frankie to do it because of their father-daughter connection; the same as the connection she saw between her real father and his dog. Whether we find this ignorant or silly is irrelevant. That's just her character.
quote: But the fact that it is being elevated to a compelling drama that tells us something deep about "the secrets of life and death" indicates something wrong with our society
Is it being elevated as such? I personally didn't feel that it offered any insights about life and death. I just enjoyed it as a pretty good boxing movie, with characters who had to make some difficult decisions. I don't feel that it demeans people with disabilities, but I can see how my perspective would differ from yours.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I am swamped, but if you read my article, you'd have known the quote you are asking about was part of Roger Ebert's review of the movie.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read your article a few times. I just don't consider Ebert's opinion capable of elevating the status of any movie. Perhaps he'll influence the sheep of the world, and I can see how this would be disturbing from your point of view. From my POV, no worries.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Our local paper Entertainment section ran a front-section-page splash about this movie today -- in an apparent review they picked up from another Knight-Ridder paper - the Philadelphia Inquirer.
posted
I have to say that, after wrestling with this a lot, and despite not actually having seen the film, I tend to side with Fitz in that Eastwood most likely has no anti-physically-challenged-people agenda that has prompted him to somehow maliciously and subtly suggest to individuals afflicted with paralysis that they kill themselves. More likely, I would argue, the director (notorious for his old school, heavy-handed audience manipulation) simply wanted to tell a dark tale of the extreme measures to which people in unusual "families" (friendship networks) are willing to go for each other. This same theme was covered in Unforgiven and to some extent in Mystic River, to mention a few more recent selections from his body of work. If you don't like the film, Steve, that's cool with me, and you certainly have the right to point out its inconsistencies and frankly to protest and agitate against it all you like. However, I think your imputation of dark motives to the film's creator is probably ill-advised.
As a quick aside, I don't see anything immoral in people in such situations wanting to end their lives, and I find it plausible that they would want someone close to them to do it. And I can understand, from a creative and symbolic point of view, why Swank's character might want to go out by adrenaline injection (think of what she wanted her life to be) rather than her vents' being closed.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
The NPR piece has been put off until sometime after Feb. 15 and the "Baby" controversy will be a small piece of a general story on portrayal of disability in films. (we don't think the NPR person is all that disappointed)
On other fronts, though, the news is good. Eastwood was forced to respond to the disability protests in an article in the LA Times that is available to subscribers only. But here's a quote:
quote: 'BABY' PLOT TWIST ANGERS ACTIVISTS
A group alleges that the movie is part of a 'vendetta' by Eastwood.
By Chris Lee Special to the Times
The plot twist that occurs about two-thirds of the way through Clint Eastwood's boxing drama "Million Dollar Baby" hits moviegoers with the unexpected force of a stiff uppercut. Movie reviews and stories have honored that, largely keeping mum about the movie's conclusion. ***
For his part, Eastwood said he has no vendetta against disabled people, adding that he has contributed time and money to their cause. And he contends the attack on him by the disability group is a cheap shot: "I've put my money where my mouth is with the disabled, so I don't feel like I have to apologize for that," he said.
Eastwood also noted that the lawsuit filed against him was ultimately dismissed.
As for the movie, Eastwood said, there is no hidden agenda. "I'm just telling a story. I don't advocate. I'm playing a part. I've gone around in movies blowing people away with a .44 magnum. But that doesn't mean I think that's a proper thing to do.
"I think its opportunism," he said of his critics.
There's a lot in that response we can work with.
Also, Mike Miner of the Chicago Reader did an article on the controversy. Miner's beat is the media itself. He's widely read and well-respected, especially by those within the Chicago media. He covered us two years ago when we hammered two Chicago newspapers over their coverage of the murder of an elderly woman by her husband, and a couple other issues.
Today's issue of the Reader has a small picture of me on the front cover. But here's a link to the story, Dubious Conclusions:
quote:From things Eastwood's said to the press since Million Dollar Baby came out, the movie he intended to make is the movie Ebert was imaginative enough to see. "The two characters made a decision," Ebert told me. "It may have been the wrong decision. It may have been the right decision. The movie invites us to decide." But Not Dead Yet didn't see that movie, and neither did I. Thanks to the star power of Swank and Eastwood, the film was an endorsement of Maggie's death. "Because it's Clint Eastwood, we tend to accept it as the right thing to do," Wilmington allows. (Me: Wilmington is the movie critic for the Chicago Tribune.)
This is the project and script Eastwood picked as his project. It's not just something he signed onto. There are stories talking about how he essentially bullied Warner Bros. into accepting this as the film he was going to do.
Then there's the whole issue of the misleading advertising...
What you say is true for Freeman and Swank, though.
I wouldn't be surprised if all Eastwood and his costars all show up on Jerry Lewis's Telethon this year, though.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is nothing more dangerous (or beneficial) to the spirrit of our society as a good story, compellingly told.
THAT's why I agree with Mr. Drake. It's insidious. Maybe Eastwood doesn't have an axe to grind. Maybe it's some sort of aging man's phobia coming to light ("Good GOD I'm glad I'm not a cripple" sort of thing).
Either way, it's bad. That he said, essentially, "I gave you money, so shut up" is insulting. And this is coming from me, a person who is reasonably healthy, with all her parts factory original and functioning within normal parameters.
Yeah, I used to work across a desk from a lot of people with diabilities, but mostly I think of my co-worker wwith Friedrichts (sp?) ataxia. Our building was "accessible" by federal guidlines, but she still had to struggle with every damned door in the place, every damned day. I mean, we helped. It was no big deal to hold the door so she could drive through. The "accessible" employees' bathroom stall was at the far end of a narroww bank of stalls. It was a tight corner, requiring twice as much maneuvering as I've ever had to do with my truck, even in narrow downtown parking spaces.
It pissed me off that it was that way. What was worse was that the disease made her typing slow, and we could all see the managers maneuvering to fire her. Not change her to a less time-senstive position, just fire her. "No job exists in this agency that she is capable of doing in a timely manner." Even annswering phones at the call center? She was bilingual, for Chrissake.
Anyway, I'm surpirsed this isn't as clear to others as it seems to me. I mean, no-brainer clear. I'm questioning myself because of it. I mean, what is MY beef that this makes me so angry? If it isn't that clear-cut, then why does it seem so to me?
I dunno. I'm eather right or wrong, and either way I suppose I must go with my gut. *shrug*
posted
I agree Olivia, I feel the same way. I feel stupid talking to the people around me about how much this movie that I haven't seen has offended me, but it has.
The problem I have with this is that Clint Eastwood would never direct a film where a depressed person committed a sensationalized suicide and it was an emotional climax, and even if he did, people wouldn't call it moving or an exploration of the darkness of human experience.
They would say, and rightly so, that it was glorifying an alternative to suffering that is, to say the least, frowned upon.
When you boil it down, the reason that this is wrong is because it's obliquely saying that suicide is somehow more OK for people who are limited in some way.
I, personally, am of the opinion that people who are suffering from prolonged diseases from which there is little chance of survival should have the right to end their lives at which time they see fit. But this should be a choice that this person makes in full knowledge of their disease and what it means, with a psychologist or therapist at their side, who, along with their doctors, would be unbiased about the prognosis and about society's "use" for such a person.
The reason that this character didn't ask to have her ventilator turned off is because maybe, just maybe, the doctors would have sent someone to counsel her instead of just allowing her to die. Maybe she could have gone on to live a productive life. But Eastwood wanted to keep his movie in this world where real life had no meaning, a parody to get his point across. Whether his point is that paralyzed people have no reason to live or not, it's bad storytelling and bad filmmaking.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is always disturbing when people seem to enjoy a movie so much that makes so little sense. It makes me . I mean, I can see how the ending could be "powerful" in a superficial kind of way, but it wouldn't leave me satisfied. Even the dog part (base manipulation) doesn't make sense; the dog probably just needed his anal glands expressed to function normally. Yes, let's shoot him instead of giving him appropriate care. Oh, and then let's do it to a person, too! Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The terrible thing is that it isn't bad storytelling or bad filmmaking. It's compelling. It makes you care, and feel. The damaging thing is that it makes you feel pity, even for those people who deserve much better than pity.
Plus, anyone deemed mentally sound can refuse medical treatment, though various jurisdictions are different in how they deal with it.
Obviously, I believe in the right to die. I sat with my mother, day and night, during the week it took her to die after medical treatment ceased, in accordance with her wishes aand living will. The family had to consent to it, of course, and we all agreed. She made no secret of under what circumstances she would want treatment stopped, and I mean twenty years ago when she was as hail and hearty as anybody. Mom was friendly, outgoing and talkative. I bet people she met in queues who didn't even know her name knew she had a living will.
The hardest thing I've ever done in my life was to sit in that meeting with the doctor and all my family, and be the one to speak. To be the one who spoke the words that ended her life.
That isn't the problem I have with this. The problem I have is attitude toward people with disabilities, how we are encouraged to feel pity for them, and say aww, how kind and loving a person you are to put up with these poor people.
And I think he DID make a movie about a depressed person killing themselves spectacularly, though that doesn't really bother me at all. It's the implicit idea that this is how a person should deal with diability (by getting depressed and dying) and how subtly we are manipulated into agreement that makes me angry.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even the dog part (base manipulation) doesn't make sense; the dog probably just needed his anal glands expressed to function normally. Yes, let's shoot him instead of giving him appropriate care. Oh, and then let's do it to a person, too!
The dog/person comparison is standard fare on the part of euthanasia proponents. It's also got a longer history. I'm hoping to put together something this weekend discussing the use of the animal/person comparison in an older movie - a classic, in fact. One based on something written during the heyday of the eugenics movement here in the U.S. (Note, most people reading or watching this particular work are oblivious to the popularity of eugenics during the time it was written and how strongly the classic relies on those eugenic themes. Stay tuned, unless someone can guess which classic I'm referring to. )
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's the implicit idea that this is how a person should deal with diability (by getting depressed and dying) and how subtly we are manipulated into agreement that makes me angry.
Are you willing to entertain the possibility that you and others are reading this "implicit idea" into the text of the film?
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are you willing to entertain the possibility that you and others are reading this "implicit idea" into the text of the film?
No. It's there. I am, however, willing to entertain the possibilty that it's not there by conscious choice of the filmmaker. It's a pervasive thing in our culture. I'm also pretty sure that it wasn't Eastwood's intention to denegrate anybody. Like Howard Cosell calling that guy a 'monkey' wasn't intended as a racial slur. It's just that intentions aren't terribly relevant, sometimes.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So (and remember that I haven't seen this movie yet), it is totally impossible that the apparent anti-disability message is just a by-product of the personalities of the characters played by Eastwood and Swank, that given two people with those psychological make-ups, this sort of solution to incapacity might be inevitable?
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, David, (I have seen it) -- that's certainly not my take on it. It plays more like the ending was preselected and that events are set up to serve that ending and make sure the audience will agree with Frankie's actions in the end.
A nondisability-reviewer wrote some of my all-time favorite comments on the movie:
quote:Then a wholly improbable (and impossibly contrived) tragedy strikes. I shouldn't give away too much here, but let's just say that not only is what happens hard to swallow, the fact that there's never even a hint of illegality ascribed to it is utterly mystifying.
After this turn, Million Dollar Baby becomes too melodramatic to take seriously. In fact, some of it is so filled with clichés and over the top that I kept thinking of Oscar Wilde's assessment of The Old Curiosity Shop: "It takes a heart of stone to read of the death of Little Nell and not burst out laughing."
posted
The audio link to the fresh air review is up.
My favorite line, about Eastwood’s style – “a unique combination of the laid-back and the drop-an-anvil-on-your-head.”
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Nevertheless, Maggie works out at his gym and bends the ear of Frankie's best friend, Scrap (Freeman, who also narrates). Together, they convince Frankie to give her a shot.
I'm sorry, I just thought that was a funny way to put that.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So (and remember that I haven't seen this movie yet), it is totally impossible that the apparent anti-disability message is just a by-product of the personalities of the characters played by Eastwood and Swank, that given two people with those psychological make-ups, this sort of solution to incapacity might be inevitable?
I'm not sure how this is different from the accidental/intentional question I already answered.
It may be an unconscious conceit, but I doubt it. Why else would he go to such lengths to establish Frankie as "genial friend of the disabled" early on in the film? It's obviously the filmmaker's choice to make certain the viewer doesn't see the character as repulsed by disabled people. The cinematic equivalent of, "Some of my best friends are black" and only slightly more subtle.
I sent the following to the reviewer, who noted the "one-note" portrayal of the relatives and gave parental warning for use of a hypodermic.
quote: Judging from your review, this is probably a waste, since you are probably more sensitive to the stereotypical portrayals of people who live in trailer parks than the use of the absolute worst in anti-disability imagery.
Some of us, including the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, noticed things about the movie that apparently were aimed right at your own notions about disability, or you might been a little disturbed. And just maybe, the portrayal of killing a disabled person as an act of love (like daddy's dog) is as suitable for a parental warning as "hypodermic needle use."
Check the website below for links to my own review, press release from the NSCIA, and some thoughtful coverage of the movie.
Sincerely,
(signature)
I'll get back and try to address both David and Fitz specifically over the weekend when I should be a little freer.
The other thing I need the space for is to step back from the mode I'm in full time, which is pretty much "take no prisoners" and not the mode I want to be in when I talk with people here.
Y'all deserve better than that.
But I do need a little transition time. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we help by writing letters to people who have done the absolute worst with their reviews or something? Will you point me to these reviews so I can read them and reply to those who wrote them?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, me too! I can't even express how spoiling-for-a-fight I am about this. So much so that I'm a bit frightened by my own visceral reaction.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's possible that an individual has a moral right to take his or her own life, but the legal hurdles should be left in place. The last thing we should want is for a disabled or terminally ill person to feel pressure to ease the emotional or financial burden on family members—or for family members to apply that pressure. And as Not Dead Yet wants you to know … well, the name says it all.
[ January 28, 2005, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
. I mean, I can see how the ending could be "powerful" in a superficial kind of way, but it wouldn't leave me satisfied. Even the dog part (base manipulation) doesn't make sense; the dog probably just needed his anal glands expressed to function normally. Yes, let's shoot him instead of giving him appropriate care. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
