posted
I'm in the Atlanta area. It may have been reviewed today, though I haven't caught it in the AJC, yet. I've pretty much gotten my letter written. Maybe they won't like it. The usual AJC reviewer REALLY liked League of Extrordinary Gentlemen, so anything's possible.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll keep my eye out for it in central Iowa stuff, but if you notice any feel free to give me a heads up and I'll write.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While it still makes up just a small percentage of the total coverage of "Baby," the issues being raised by NDY and NSCIA are becoming news. We're putting up links to the major stuff at our website:
Coming soon: A media "hall of shame" for demonstrably inaccurate news stories. Or, as in the case of USA Today, writers that bend over backwards to write the disability voice out of the story.
Demonstrably inaccurate: a recent AP story used the term "brain dead" in reference to Terri Schiavo. No medical authority in any of the court actions has ever made that claim. "Brain dead" is distinct - medically and legally - from "persistent vegetative state." But reporters all over the country will pick up that misinformation from the AP wire story and reproduce the error.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steve, having seen those flyers, I'd like to be involved in a protest in my area. Do you have ideas as to how I can get in contact with people in my area that feel the same way?
(I'm probably making you do more work on your day off. Sorry.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I may not get one of those for a few weeks. (no sad face here. Yeah, it's hard, but it means there's a real discussion starting to happen.)
KQ - I have calls to make tomorrow. I'll see if there are any Dallas folks we can dig out of the woodwork to get on this. Once I get some, I can hook you up.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Steven, did Eastwood win or lose his lawsuit about his hotel being compliant to the ADA? One of the articles you linked says he won, one says he lost.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Here's what I got from someone that seems pretty accurate:
quote:Technically, he may claim "he won that" -- meaning he didn't have to pay damages -- and then activists look like we are wrong. Although there's no question there were access violations found, and the jury said there were. (Anyone who wants the details can read http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/09/30/MN111950.DTL
So: We emphasize that the jury found violations.
Eastwood: Emphasized no damages awarded (damages apply under Calif. law, not federal ADA, though). And he said in the LA Times that the case was "dismissed."
Good question - which I hope I'm answering honestly.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Eastwood's big beef is the "notice" issue. During congressional testimony, there were claims that complaints were made via certified mail and he admitted he declines certified mail directed to him by people he doesn't know.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't have any problem with anything else you have said, sndrake, but lets be honest....
If I were him, that famous, I wouldn't accept them either.
Thank you for the article, I enjoyed reading your take ion it. I agree with most of it, and I am glad I read your review before I went to go see it...I was planning to, but now you couldn't pay me to see it. Not just because of the disability issues, but because of the dishonest marketing ploys used to promote it.
As far as your personal and professional views about this type of thing, I can see where you are coming from, and I agree with most of it. However, I do think that people should have the final say about what happens to themselves, and that not everyone would choose to fight on.
As far as bed sores and pressure sores, good care can make a world of difference, but sometimes they can't be avoided in long term patients. They should never go unnoticed, or untreated, but I have seen patients in high-end care units with them, even with all the modern gadgets in place to minimize the risk of them. I am NOT saying that the movies portrayal of the complications were accurate, mind you... ....but rather I am replying to some other peoples questions earlier in the thread.
Once again, thanks sndrake. I know that a lot of the time you are at Hatrack you need to take a break from all this stuff, but I am glad you mentioned this.
posted
Sometimes unsolicited mail can be important. It just doesn't make sense to exclude it all. As far as I can tell, people usually have folks to read their mail for them...
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think that you have some legitimate points, but I think you might be going a little too far in a few places. First, I really think that it's pushing it to imply that Eastwood is trying to further an anti-disability agenda with this film. The fact that the movie is so compelling probably does highlight a latent prejudice in our society, but the reason that such a prejudice would be so prevalent is that it's a story that's so easy to believe. The ability to walk and to manipulate objects are two abilities that are pretty fundamental to most people's concept of themselves, and consequently it's very easy for us to imagine being severely, possibly inconsolably, depressed were we to lose those abilities. So much of our identity is wrapped up in what we do that the idea of losing the ability to do those things is pretty abhorrent. I'm not saying that this is the way it ought to be, just that it makes a lot of sense. So even though this may not be representative of most disabled people's experiences, it does help to explain why stories like this are so compelling, especially since most people are not familiar with disabilities and the people who have them.
Second, I think that your interpretation of the "Danger Barch" character may be a little biased. In my opinion, Danger provides an important contrast to the boxer who beats him up. True, he is the comic relief--and that definitely speaks to the kinds of prejudices that the average audience member holds--but I think that the character's pluck in coming back to the gym after appearing to lose hope is meant to be mildly uplifiting. As Morgan Freeman's character makes such a point of saying, the kid has heart.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll try to get back to some discussion later. People are bringing up some good points. Unfortunately - or fortunately - depending on how you look at it, today is looking as bad as every other day for the past few weeks. Got waylaid yesterday by a narrowly derailed migraine-wanting-to-happen.
So... New developments:
There's an article about the controversy in today's edition of the NY Times. If you have access to a print copy, it's on the top of the front page of the "Arts" section. There's a picture of two protesters from the Chicago Action, one of them being my own Diane.
Additional irony - on January 28th, the NY Times ran an article titled "For Disabled, It's Hooray for Hollywood."
Another flash. Diane will be appearing live on "Your World" on the Fox News Channel ( ), hosted by Neil Cavuto. She's scheduled to appear at about 4:38 pm ET, 3:38 CT pm CT, etc. Should last about five minutes.
Farmgirl: There's a link to a review of "The Sea Inside" on our website. I haven't seen it. It came to Chicago while we were out of town visiting my folks and left town shortly after. It's not hanging around long in most places - a common fate for foreign-language films with subtitles.
Not seeing it makes it hard to comment on, though. I've been urging people in the disability community to see the movie rather than take the word of NDY or NSCIA so they can get riled up all on their own. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm at work and wasn't able to see it. Hopefully, I'll be able to see a tape tomorrow. Can you give me a rundown?
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cavuto questioned her why she was upset with the movie, she mostly gave answers already mentioned, for example that it implied a gap between those who are disabled and those who aren't. In order to address the issue he just said that euthanasia was an issue in the movie, no details on how it was carried out. Diane's quote was in response to Cavuto trying to make the point that while she was brave for living with her disability others might not be. She basically countered saying that living was not "brave." There wasn't any mention of Eastwood being anti-disability in the past.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if anyone has posted this already, but I just saw sndrake being mentioned on rogerebert.com:
quote: And Steve Drake of Not Dead Yet wrote a detailed review of the film that included suggestions for what like-minded readers could do to protest the film. Among them: “…there's always the option of audibly saying ‘bulls—t’ and similar things at particularly absurd or offensive points while you're watching the movie. It's rude, but trying to focus on the sentimentalized killing of a disabled person while another disabled person is escorted out of the theater would make a unique viewing experience for the audience.”
I appreciate the point of view of these activists, but they are grossly oversimplifying the movie -- even at the level of its crudest cliches. Does the movie really impose such a clear, strong statement on its characters? Or is it a story about individuals making terrible, difficult, dramatic choices that are not so clear-cut -- and the consequences of those hard choices? Does anybody honestly think "Million Dollar Baby" -- faults and all -- can be reduced to the equivalent of a political tract handed out on a streetcorner? If it were truly Eastwood's intention to lash out at the disabled, surely he would have been able to further his alleged grudge a lot more effectively than by making this particular movie.
posted
Actually I think the difference is that we're supposed to be revolted by the incest, we're at the very least supposed to sympathize with the decision made in MDB.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not directly related, but Fox's show "House" had an episode tonight that involved a paralyzed musician who wanted to be taken off life support than live without being able to play music.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We didn't get to see the end of the show. There's a crisis of the tragic kind in Diane's family right now. Which is really all I can say since it's not my story to tell. Not a good evening right now.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true. It relates better to whether or not people are able to objectively decide about taking their own lives.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(substantially re-edited after typing way too early and on my first cup of coffee)
Someone on an email list suggested that maybe Eastwood was confusing Hamlet with Oedipus Rex.
I have a couple radio things scheduled for later today, and I believe they're both available via webcast. The one in the afternoon is on a DC station and will entail about 30 minutes of discussion with a member of a pro-assisted suicide organization. That should be interesting.
Details are on my desk at work. I'll try to post them later.
quote:I don't know if anyone has posted this already, but I just saw sndrake being mentioned on rogerebert.com:
Here's the thing. The piece by the editor of rogerebert.com never appeared in the paper itself. Ebert did a "response," which is pretty much a classic example of marginalization and rationalization. Physical marginalization in fact.
Ebert's response began with an overview and long rant against conservatives. It wasn't until you physically turned the page that you got to disability concerns at all.
Classic elements (paraphrased):
*Some of my closest friends have been disabled; they've taught me a lot. *I found one disabled person who liked the movie. I didn't find out until just now that he was disabled! *I saw this great documentary on disabled athletes at Sundance; it taught me a lot. *I've promoted great movies on disabilities; they'll teach you a lot.
quote:Javier Bardem mention No. 2: interesting that there's been a loud cry of protest about the treatment of a disabled character in "Million Dollar Baby," but hardly a word about "The Sea Inside." Bardem delivers an astonishingly moving performance as Ramon Sampedro, who was paralyzed as a young man and spent 30 years fighting for the legal right to end his own life.
But, I guess it's easier for activists to go after Clint Eastwood and a fictional story than a film based on true events.
Neither film advocates euthanasia. Neither film exploits or disrespects the disabled. Neither film "sends the wrong message," whatever that means. "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Sea Inside" are two splendidly told films about two individuals and the choices they make. Why would anyone think the characters played by Hilary Swank and Bardem are representing everyone who's disabled?
***
Later this month, the film "Rory O'Shea Was Here" arrives in theaters. James McAvoy brings fierce passion to his role as a wheelchair-using rebel who's in the tradition of Jon Voight in "Coming Home," Tom Cruise in "Born on the 4th of July" and Eric Stoltz in "The Waterdance."
Many of the main characters in "Rory O'Shea Was Here" are in wheelchairs. Some are strong and free spirits; others are depressed. None are suicidal. This doesn't mean "Rory" is a better film than "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Sea Inside." (It's a good film, but not quite in the same league as the other two.) But none of these films has an obligation to represent an entire segment of society in only the most positive light. That's not the job of cinema. That's the job of public service announcements.
Speaking of public service announcements, there's this oddly coincidental PSA at the end of Roeper's column:
quote:On Feb. 12, Richard Roeper hosts a fund-raiser at Soundbar for "Friends For Steven," supporting pediatric cancer research at Children's Memorial Hospital. For tickets go to www.friendsforsteven.org
No, not going to attack "Friends for Steven," but this wouldn't have been half as self-serving had it been attached to a different column.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many of us, looking back, were really glad that Titanic won? Because of the flaw in how this movie is put together (the legal option of refusing intervention is not dealt with) this movie should be considered as sentimental but irrelevant as Titanic. IMHO. What did Titanic winning tell us about our society? What does this film being nominated tell us about society?
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have here two recent messages. One is from a woman who read a Medved essay in USA Today which seemed to be about another topic, and then, without warning, bluntly revealed the secret of "Million Dollar Baby." She is enraged at him. Another is from the mother of a quadriplegic who was injured in 2003. She wrote to the national spinal cord injury association (NSCIA), in response to an NSCIA press release warning that the movie’s final act could have potentially harmful effects on people with similar disabilities, depending on their state of mind. Her son became a quadriplegic after a 2003 accident, she writes, and they were looking forward to seeing the film, but "after learning here of its content, I now feel I must find the way to distract him from watching it; it would be too damaging."
Groups like the NSCIA have a responsibility to the people they serve, to address issues which, for them, transcend the need to keep a plot secret. The mother got the information she needed, and is acting on it.
quote: Thanks, I just found the Ebert article you are talking about.
I gave you the Cliff Notes so you wouldn't have to read it.!
From Ebert's "response":
quote:Groups like the NSCIA have a responsibility to the people they serve, to address issues which, for them, transcend the need to keep a plot secret. The mother got the information she needed, and is acting on it.
This is such a complete load of BS for anyone who is actually familiar with what NSCIA said and did. They didn't issue a warning to their membership - they issued a statement of public protest. And he implies there is some sort of social contract in which - apparently - everyone recognizes some "need" to keep a plot secret.
Anyone else remember taking that pledge? I must have been out when they came around.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A pledge so deep it must be transcended, as though it were original sin or the pain body. :chuckle:
Surely there is a rating that can reflect that the dramatic appeal of a movie is derived from one of the main characters dying. LS would do fine.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
New Stories in the Austin American Statesman, which claims to be the same as the NY Times story by Waxman. It's not really, because it incorporates quotes from a column in the Denver Post.
Also, USA Today published a story today that makes up for the earlier one that earned them entrance into our "hall of shame." One thing new - there's a quote from a spokesperson for another spinal cord injury group that is agreeing with NSCIA and NDY about the movie.
Edit to add this quote from USA Today article:
quote:Oscar voters would likely agree with the movie's stance, says Us Weekly film critic Thelma Adams.
"They were probably thinking, 'Hurry up with the needle,'" she says. "They were wondering what took so long."
In context, Ms. Adams is saying that like it's either a good thing or at least obvious - maybe both. Funny, that's kinda what we've been saying, but we get our hands slapped or our heads patted (the Ebert approach) when we do.
posted
A related note: Roper's column in the Sun-Times today has an apology for not putting a *spoiler* announcement on his column when he talked about the outcome of Million Dollar Baby. He said he thought that it had been mentioned so many other places that it had been "spoiled" by the time it got to his column.
Wasn't he one of the earlier people to mention it?
I got a call an hour ago from the Sun-Times and they will publish the Op-ed Mary Johnson and I submitted.
I wrote a cover letter complaining that both Ebert and Roeper had misrepresented the views of both our group and NSCIA - and they never mentioned the name of our group - based in the same city - at all.
Suggested that they might want to attempt some open, fair and accurate discussion of the issue.
Musta worked. It might go in Sunday. I'll know later - maybe tonight.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Also sndrake, Vogue ran a piece on Hillary Swank, she's on the cover of my latest magazine. I haven't read it in complete detail but the only mention of milion dollar baby, so far is complimentary.
I don't know if a letter to the editor would be appropriate or not, but it is something to consider.
AJ
(changed this, I didn't see Not Dead Yet or Sndrake mentioned at first but read down farther and they were there.)
quote: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.
Cool.
[ February 07, 2005, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
thanks for the info. It looks like things are building with this story rather than simmering down.
Right now, I'm trying to find the time to hammer out an op-ed zeroing in on Rush Limbaugh and Maureen Dowd - they disagree about MDB, but they are both very comfortable with ignoring the disability groups that have weighed in. Y'all know how I love to bash the left AND the right when I get a chance.
Last I heard, the op-ed I coauthored with Mary Johnson will run in the Chicago Sun-Times this coming Sunday. Suits me fine - since it keeps the issue alive as news.
Also, the word now is that CNN will feature a four-minute story tomorrow - Tuesday, Feb. 8th - on Paula Zahn Now. It airs at 8pm ET. Diane will be on it, although there's no way to know how much of her taped interview they'll use or which parts.
(Lady Jane - I don't know how many other papers did this, but the NC Charlotte Observer deleted that particular quote of mine when they posted the AP article. Maybe they thought it was too radical for North Carolina? )
Been a rough weekend. We had to be with family - Diane's 17-year-old nephew died. The absolute worst reason to be gathering together as family. The kind of hurt it leaves in its wake never really goes away - it just becomes something that people get used to and live with as time goes by.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I talked to a mother at gymnastics class about MDB. She said she wanted to take her daughter to it, because it was a sports movie with a female lead, and those were hard to find.
I then asked her if she was aware that it wasn't just a "sports" movie that had the traditional type ending. She said no.
I warned her that if I told her any more it would spoil the "surprise" ending but she said she wanted to hear it before she took her daughter.
At the end of our conversation, she said it was definitely not what she and her daughter needed to watch - and she would not be spending her money on it. I encouraged her to read about the controversy, and mentioned Not Dead Yet by name. It has the advantage of being easy for folks to remember. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*hugs* for you and Diane. With the Vogue piece it is completely possible it was written before there ever was "controversy" or the film had been "spoiled" And obviously it is a fashion magazine. But they have done some disability sensitive peices (or at least peices they thought were disability sensitive) in the past, including one fashion editor writing about her disabled sister visiting, and how she has as much independence as possible.
The show airs at 8 pm ET and will be the top story.
Evidently, they've been doing the story on CNN and using Diane's interview footage. They wanted a "fresh face" for tonight.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Maybe they won't like it. The usual AJC reviewer REALLY liked League of Extrordinary Gentlemen, so anything's possible.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
), hosted by Neil Cavuto. She's scheduled to appear at about 4:38 pm ET, 3:38 CT pm CT, etc. Should last about five minutes.![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
