FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » "Million $ Baby" controversy and "spoiling" - Hockenberry on CounterSpin (audio) (Page 6)

  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: "Million $ Baby" controversy and "spoiling" - Hockenberry on CounterSpin (audio)
Farmgirl
Member
Member # 5567

 - posted      Profile for Farmgirl   Email Farmgirl         Edit/Delete Post 
Fine -- you want only the Left to help in your battles? Then I will just step quietly out of the way and shut up because there's obviously nothing I can do....
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
Farmgirl, I know you're upset about the situation in your state right now. But it is the right that steps away from disability advocates and pretends they don't exist.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
"you want only the Left to help in your battles?"

It sounds to me like he only wants people in sympathy with his aims and methods to help in his battles. If his aims and methods are alien to the Right, that may be the same thing in practice -- but I assume that it is NOT.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
In fact, the "Left" has been embracing this movie. I think it's disability activists against the world. Unfortunately.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
mothertree,

it's both the right and the left who are guilty of pretending we don't exist. In fact, the NDY site just put up a link to a great article by Mary Johnson that talks about what "lefty" commentators have been doing to write us out of the MDB controversy.

Having said that - I'd like to point out that I have pointed to conservative news sources and commentators that have acknowledged our voice.

Worldnetdailynews for one. Focus on the Family has as well. National Right to Life quotes us in their newsletter once in awhile.

When I singled out O'Reilly, it was because he has never acknowledged any disability involvement in these issues when he covers them. He's not the only one - just the one under discussion today, though.

I had better go back to work - I think maybe my shortage of sleep, combined with absolutely obsessive concentration on this, doesn't make me fit company for conversation with friends. I'm too close to the battlefield right now. Or at least it feels that way.

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
In fact, the "Left" has been embracing this movie. I think it's disability activists against the world. Unfortunately.
Bingo.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Just a reminder. I know that I posted this in the past. It's a quote from me from an article on the "left" and "disability rights" published a little over a year ago:

quote:
Drake says neither the left nor the right truly claims disability issues as their own. Both "are really just invested in their broader culture war -- with neither side seeing us as part of the culture they're defending. We're simply collateral damage.

"Liberals say, 'we support the social programs that you depend on, that you agree with -- and because we do that, we should have your unqualified support, even when we support every 'better dead than disabled' cause that comes along.' Folks on the right say, 'Look, we're out there on the protest line in Florida; we're fighting for the lives of people like Terri Schiavo, so we should get your unqualified support, no matter how much we cut the social programs you need to function and even survive.'"



Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Stephen, please tell Diane her piece is wonderful. [Smile]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Tough stuff, Steve. I can see both sides of the issue, and am torn by it myself more than a little. While I have the utmost respect for you and the work you do, I also have known people who have argued the opposite side for themselves, and I felt at the time that they had the right to be heard as well, particularily when speaking about their own lives.

There just isn't an easy way of dealing with this stuff, you know? Of course, you know that better than I do, from personal experience.. [Big Grin]

I do know that listening to you has made me think a lot about it again, after years of having made up my mind, and That I have no desire to see this movie now. I even got mad at the radio today driving my wife to work...they were picking Oscar picks, and I got pissed that teh guy, who I usually like a lot, was picking MDB.

So at least you know you have had an effect on one persons decision ( actually, far more than one if this thread is any judge) about this movie, right? [Wink]

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
I dislike those organizations, but I am definetly on your side. Those sorts of attitudes make me mad enough to see red.
What sort of disability does Diane have?
And why are both sides not listening to the disabled?
Several people keep predicting MDB will win, which annoys me because FN deserves it so much.... *Sigh*

[ February 25, 2005, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Anyone get this paper and maybe send me the page with this article by snail mail? Please?

Duane Dudek contacted me a couple weeks ago. He's the only film critic to have done so. This is a well-researched and thoughtful piece (it doesn't cut all our way) that seeks out points of view from people with disabilities and other sources:

Disabilities in films spark debate

quote:
Disabilities in films spark debate
By DUANE DUDEK
Journal Sentinel film critic
Last Updated: Feb. 26, 2005
Any Oscars that will be awarded Sunday to "Million Dollar Baby" and its director and star Clint Eastwood will be over the objections of activist members of the disability community.

If you're unaware of any controversy, it may be because what a non-disabled audience - including film critics, who were loath to reveal its plot - saw as a work of art, some people with disabilities regarded as an imitation of life, their lives, and they didn't like what they saw.

But when it turned out others had different reasons for not liking the film, the debate became hijacked by constituencies still gnawing on the bones of the electoral carcass.

All this puts the film - which is nominated for seven Oscars, including best picture - in a box, and puts the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in a bind.

Win or lose, the question can be asked: Was it judged on its merits or was it affected by the controversy?

Whatever the outcome, it is not the first time, and surely not the last, that people with disabilities will have found themselves at odds with Hollywood. Nor, for that matter, at odds with Eastwood.

Oscar history is a roll call of disabilities, including a blind Al Pacino, a quadriplegic Daniel Day-Lewis and a developmentally disabled Tom Hanks and Dustin Hoffman.

Other nominated films this year that deal with some type of disability include "Ray," about the blind singer-musician Ray Charles; "The Aviator," about the obsessive-compulsive eccentric Howard Hughes; and Spain's nominee for best foreign-language film "The Sea Inside," about a suicidal man with quadriplegia played by Javier Bardem.

If you're in the mood to stretch a point, you could even argue that the two men in "Sideways" are in some way developmentally arrested.

"Unless I'm missing somebody, I don't think anyone was nominated" for playing a disabled person "in the first 20 years" of the Academy, said Damien Bona, author of "Inside Oscar."

"And the first person to win was someone who was" disabled, he said, referring to Harold Russell, a double amputee who won best supporting actor and honorary Oscars for 1946's "The Best Years of Our Lives."

In recent decades, Oscar voters have favored roles with disabilities "because it's obvious the person is acting," said Bona. And actors are drawn to them, he added, because "once you clue into the disability, that's all there is to it.

"But it's more or less a gimmick. It's by and large surface acting."

Tragedy begets controversy
What this has to do with "Million Dollar Baby" requires an explanation that those who have not seen the film may want to avoid.

The film, adapted from a short story by F.X. Toole by Oscar nominee Paul Haggis, has elevated the kind of plot twist found in "The Crying Game" and "The Sixth Sense" - the woman's a guy and the guy's a ghost, respectively - into a moral debate.

A disclaimer
The film's plot twist will now be revealed and explored.

On the surface, and in the advertisements, "Million Dollar Baby" is the story of a female boxer, played by Oscar nominee Hilary Swank, and the trainer, played by Eastwood, with whom she develops a father-daughter relationship. Midway through the film, Swank becomes paralyzed in the ring. And what was an uplifting underdog story turns into a tragic portrait about her choice of death over quadriplegia and of the agonizing struggle that Eastwood's character, a practicing if conflicted Roman Catholic, goes through in deciding whether to assist her.

And that has turned the film into a tug-of-war between abortion opponents and abortion-rights supporters.

"The religious right and so-called progressives would like to define these issues as part of their culture war," said Stephen Drake, a Forest Park, Ill., research analyst for the disability group Not Dead Yet. "Neither side wants to respect our stake in this issue."

And their stake is a matter of life and death.

Discussions of euthanasia revolve around "certain people, the old, the ill and the disabled," and the assumption that "these lives are less valuable," said Drake, who has hydrocephalus, caused by a brain injury at birth.

"What are we supposed to think if 'The Sea Inside' and 'Million Dollar Baby' win best picture awards for their categories? Are we supposed to believe, through a startling coincidence, that those were the best movies made this year, or is something else going on with people's attitudes?"

Uneasy cultural surrogates
Cultural portraits of disability are problematic at best. Films like "Stuck on You" or "There's Something About Mary," both by Bobby and Peter Farrelly, "take disability and give it this culturally accepted stereotypical portrayal and use it for humor," said Chris Smit, an assistant professor at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich.

Smit teaches media theory and criticism and edited "Screening Disability," a collection of essays on film and disability.

Since many in the disability community "have a myopic focus," said Smit, it's no surprise that they find film portraits of disability to be "negative and oppressive."

Often, the role is used to provide "inspiration" or to enhance our understanding of a villain, Smit said.

For instance, "Rain Man" - in which Oscar winner Dustin Hoffman played a developmentally disabled man - "could be seen as negative because it stereotypes people with autism, makes them mystical and spiritual, with an extra ability in terms of math skills," said Smit.

But when looking at "disability within the framework of the entire film" and as a portrait of human relationships, "autism works in the narrative as a way to develop our understanding of how we interact with difference," said Smit, who has spinal muscular atrophy.

Because "the disability activist rights movement has not garnered the social attention" of other minority groups and "the number of disabled people who are visible in society is quite small," Smit said, people have a limited understanding of the disabled and films become a sort of cultural surrogate.

A backstory of contention
Enter "Million Dollar Baby," whose sentimental material "is very much in Clint's tradition," said Patrick McGilligan, the Milwaukee-based author of "Clint: The Life and Legend." "The story construction creates an emotional wallop that is sympathetic with the hero, which is a constant factor in his work."

Drake said Eastwood "stacks the deck" in "Million Dollar Baby" by building "a scene of horrors that gets the audience emotionally on board with him by the time the killing happens. (Swank) is in total isolation. It's not bad enough that she's paralyzed; this healthy woman with top-flight medical care gets pressure sores and has an amputation."

But what some dismiss as dramatic convenience, others condemn as a sort of payback.

"Clint Eastwood has a history of problems in the disability community," said Mary Johnson, editor of Ragged Edge, a disability-rights publication founded in 1980 that is now an online journal (www.raggededgemagazine.com). "The National Spinal Cord (Injury) Association has been infuriated with that man for years."

Johnson said that after Eastwood was sued for not providing wheelchair access at an inn he owns in at Carmel, Calif., he "pursued a scorched-earth policy" against the Americans with Disabilities Act "and gained a lot of enemies" in the disability community.

McGilligan doesn't think the disability community is wrong in seeing a connection.

"They've interpreted the film according to the filmmaker's previous work and ideas," he said. "There's a thin line between saying, in 'Dirty Harry,' 'You're a disgusting criminal and I'm going to shoot you' and 'You're a wonderful spunky boxer who's going to have a horrible life.' "

When "disability is painted darkly or as the end of something, it gets a lot of people in the disability community nervous," said Smit. "On the other hand, is this story trying to tell us something? I'm sure Clint Eastwood isn't saying disability should be the end of everything. Maybe he wants us to grapple with that (issue)."

Smit is "a proponent of the idea that art . . . is there to make us deal with difficult questions, and if you take away that ability, which I think some people are . . . that to me seems scary and totalitarian."

Spoilers and surprises
Drake said he was surprised by the response to the protest by commentators and critics who reacted "as if revealing the end of the movie was like yelling fire in a movie theater."

"Artists can say whatever they want, but we have rights to free speech, too," he said.

Smit, for one, believes that "we are moving toward an era in film and TV in which the portrayal of disability is becoming more sophisticated and . . . a little more positive."

And one of the best such films is yet to come.

"Murderball," a documentary about wheelchair rugby players, is scheduled to open this summer.

One of its stars is Mark Zupan, a tattooed and charismatic civil engineer from Austin, Texas, who lived in Pewaukee during the 1980s. Zupan was the toast of Park City, Utah, when the film premiered during the Sundance Film Festival last month.

"Murderball" "breaks down barriers" and "answers questions people won't ask," said Zupan, who was paralyzed in a traffic accident.

He has not seen "Million Dollar Baby," but he feels strongly that "Murderball" will heighten awareness of disability sports and improve perceptions about people with disabilities.

"It's not just a good movie," he said. "It's about how you can (confront) something that's certainly life-changing and start a new life, and then take it far beyond what your life was before. You find out what you can do, and don't let the thing you're sitting in ruin your dreams.

"I've done more in a chair than I've done out. I've met more people, done more things and had more experiences. I've affected people in ways I don't think I ever did in the past.

"I wouldn't," Zupan said, "change my life."



Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scythrop
Member
Member # 5731

 - posted      Profile for Scythrop   Email Scythrop         Edit/Delete Post 
[Oh, and this is Imogen here. Being lazy.]

Y'know (and kind of off the topic)

quote:
Other nominated films this year that deal with some type of disability include "Ray," about the blind singer-musician Ray Charles
I can see the problem/issue with casting non-disabled people in roles playing disabled people in most cases. In What's Eating Gilbert Grape, why not have an actually intellectually disabled person playing the role instead of Leonard DiCaprio?

But in the case of Ray Charles, an actual person, I think casting on the basis of appearance and voice similarity has to win out over casting on the basis of blindness.

[As I said - off the topic. And probably not contentious. Oh well. [Smile] ]

Posts: 466 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeni
Member
Member # 1454

 - posted      Profile for Jeni   Email Jeni         Edit/Delete Post 
I get the Milwaukee JS. You can email the address in my profile.
Posts: 4292 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
Jeni, he posted the address he needs it sent to above (for me). He told me he needs just the page(s) the article in question is on (so it has the name and date of the publication on it). I think that's probably what he needs from you, too. [Smile]
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Address again (not private at all, it's all over the internet):

Stephen Drake
Not Dead Yet
7521 Madison St.
Forest Park, IL 60130

Thanks! Yes - just the page. I like the article. He's a very unusual film critic. They probably wouldn't let him play in critic games here in Chicago (strained "Rudolph" analogy).

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
Saw it.

What an entirely bizarre movie this was, when you think about it. The driving premise for the big denouement is so unreal that the film becomes almost Felliniesque.

Yes, her surrogate father must inject her with epinephrine and unplug the vent, because of course there are no other options. And the flying pigs smoking candy cigars were bound to fly out of Eastwood's bum, too, because that is where he keeps his secret passage to the Pentagon.

WTF??

I need to write my review.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
There you go spoiling again, CT...at least all the other critics manage to save some suprises for us, but no-you hav to go and reveal ALL the plot devices.
[Wink]

My favorite was the pink flying pigs with the cigars.

[ February 27, 2005, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
[ROFL]

I mean, seriously, the plot twist is so outre that at one point it also brought to mind Eraserhead.

Thanks, Clint. 'preciated that, too.

The film should be reviewed as an out-there surreal art film student flick. I think that's exactly what I will do.

[ February 27, 2005, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
If the film created a realistic hypothetical that presented difficult questions, I wouldn't have nearly as big a problem with it even if the decision were the same. As Dana said, this movie went out of its way to avoid dealing with the question.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Well...the academy of motion picture arts and sciences just displayed a collosal lack of something. Not sure what.

Having actually NOT seen the film, I can't say much about it, but I'm disappointed that it won so many awards.

Sorry Steve.

[Wall Bash]

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Narnia
Member
Member # 1071

 - posted      Profile for Narnia           Edit/Delete Post 
As well as the Sea Inside...two films about assisted suicide won major awards this year.

[ February 27, 2005, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]

Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I mean, seriously, the plot twist is so outre that at one point it also brought to mind Eraserhead.
Wow! Someone else has seen Eraserhead and survived!

CT...I thought I spotted a certain hollow, haunted look behind your calm exterior. Now I know what caused it.

Eraserhead is one of only two movies I have ever walked out of.

[/derail]

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
You know, I didn't actually want it to win so many awards, but it really was an outstanding movie in more or less every way other than the story. In fact, if it weren't such a good movie it wouldn't be so controversial.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Silly me..I thought movies were all about the story.

That explains a lot, I guess...

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
I haven't been keeping up with this threat, but:

quote:
If you're in the mood to stretch a point, you could even argue that the two men in "Sideways" are in some way developmentally arrested.
You know, if you're in such a mood, you might as well go ahead and say that every movie ever made has been about characters who are in some way "disabled." And as long as you're going there you might as well argue that all fiction is about such characters.

quote:
"But it's more or less a gimmick. It's by and large surface acting."
Writing off all performances that portray a character with a disability with a one-liner in this fashion is, in my opinion, ludicrous. If you can call Jamie Foxx's performance in Ray "surface acting" then you have no ability to be reached by film.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Silly me..I thought movies were all about the story.
If that were the case then there would be no need to have actors. No need for actors of any quality anyway. You could just hire any bunch of people off the street and point some cameras at them while they read the script.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Annie
Member
Member # 295

 - posted      Profile for Annie   Email Annie         Edit/Delete Post 
I try to not care much about what the Academy says. I see very little of it as actual objective evaluation - it seems that every year there's an agenda to push.

This, though, did make me sad. [Frown]

Something Imogen said reminded me of a recommendation -
quote:
why not have an actually intellectually disabled person playing the role?
A French film from 199(6?) actually did this. It's called Le Huitième Jour (The Eighth Day) and won a dual Best Actor award at Cannes for Daniel Auteuil (you may know him from Jean de Florette) and Pascal Duquenne, a remarkable actor who actually has Down Syndrome. It's one of my favorite films of all time. Last I checked, it hadn't come out on DVD in America, though there is an American video version so chances are a good rental store will have a copy. I highly recommend it.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
I usually love the Oscars, record them and watch the good bits over and over. I sat out this year, which I've only done one other time when "American Beauty" was the odds on favorite. I'm not sure how I would have reacted if I had boycotted the Oscars and MDB didn't win. But it did so (_|_) Academy.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Sax, I didn't say that all the rest didn't mater. I just said that to me it is all about the story. Bad acting can ruin a movie, no doubt...but I have rarely (if ever) see a movie where the story sucked that I felt was worht the price of admission.

At least if the story is good I might be able to read the book it is based on.

Kwea

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
Fair enough, and there are plenty of people out there who feel the same way. Just bear in mind that there are also plenty of people who don't.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
(aside: mothertree, I'm one of the few people I know who really can not stand American Beauty, but I never really understood why. Why don't you like it? I don't want to hijiack the thread, but I'd really like to know another person's opinion on the film that is less than one of praise.)
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Annie
Member
Member # 295

 - posted      Profile for Annie   Email Annie         Edit/Delete Post 
I hate American Beauty and I've never seen it. But I suppose that doesn't make me very qualified to chat about it. [Smile]
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
Is there something in it that is objectionable to you, Annie? I just never understand why I could not bring myself to like it...
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
I didn't like it at all, and I did see it.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Annie
Member
Member # 295

 - posted      Profile for Annie   Email Annie         Edit/Delete Post 
I just read the reviews and got mad about society in general and the kind of things we find acceptable.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
The one frustrating thing about American Beauty is-

Spoiler-When watching it with a group of people usually they will groan in agony when that guy kisses the other guy, but when Lester is pawing at that skinny little girl, they don't say a word...
This bothers me for some reason.
Lots of things bother me.

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, it probably needs edits, but here's the draft press release. I'll deal with it again after I get a few hours of sleep. I took a nap tonight, but I have a feeling I'm not going to feel like I got enough sleep tomorrow - again.

Press release (just title and body):

quote:
Disability Advocates Call Oscars "Kill the Cripples" Night

According to Motion Picture Academy voters, the best “cripple” is
a dead “cripple.” The two awards for “best motion picture” – foreign
and American – both went to movies centered on sympathetic
portrayals of the killing of quadriplegics. “The Sea Inside” won best
foreign film. “Million Dollar Baby” nearly swept the awards – with
Oscars awarded for best actress, best supporting actor, best director,
and finally – best picture.

“This is a clear statement on the Hollywood industry’s opinion of
people with disabilities,” says Diane Coleman, president of Not
Dead Yet, a national disability rights group opposed to legalization
of assisted suicide and euthanasia. “They grudgingly made
accessibility changes when Chris Reeve complained about accessibility
at the Kodak Theater, where the Oscar event is held. They love us if
we’re begging for a cure or begging to die. Once we start talking
about our rights, we see their interest and sympathy disappear.”

Fortunately, the American public itself might not be as enthralled
with the “kill the cripple” theme as members of the Hollywood industry.
According to a Harris poll released on February 23, respondents had
“The Aviator” and “Ray” in a close race for their top choices, with
“Million Dollar Baby” a distant third.

“It’s clear the Hollywood industry loves nothing more than a story
about a disabled person begging to die and having a nondisabled
‘friend’ do it,” says Stephen Drake, research analyst for Not Dead
Yet. “There are many films with great acting, better scripts and
better direction. They don’t get awards. The reason “Sea Inside”
and “Million Dollar Baby” end up winners is that obviously the
theme hits a deep emotional cord, at least with Hollywood industry
members and movie critics.”

Drake also credits critics and commentators for helping to build the
film’s popularity. They did, that, he says, by marginalizing or
eliminating mention of concerns about the movie coming from the
disability community. Commentators on the right and left portrayed
the controversy as one of conservatives vs. Hollywood. Such
politically diverse figures such as Roger Ebert, Michael Medved,
Frank Rich, Rush Limbaugh, Maureen Dowd, Pat Buchanan and
Gary Thomson all found one thing they have in common: Their
willingness to ignore and marginalize the disability community to
bolster their own volleys in their “culture wars.”

“I guess we should be grateful for one thing,” says Drake. “At least
there wasn’t an animated feature about killing a disabled person.
We’d be looking at a clean sweep then.”

###


Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
I liked the touch about the animated freture about it, Steve....

Although they might take up the challenge on that if you goad them into it... [Big Grin]

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kama
Member
Member # 3022

 - posted      Profile for Kama   Email Kama         Edit/Delete Post 
From the biggest Polish newspaper (translation by Kama):

quote:
In the recent weeks, when the movie was becoming more and more popular, it evoked a noisy protest campaigne of conservative right TV commentators and talk-radio stations. It was accused of promoting the idea of euthanaia. However, this type of protests could only help Eastwood's movie, instead of harming the Academy votes.



[ February 28, 2005, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: Kama ]

Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Hey! Where'd the post go about The Incredibles? I thought it was funny and it was nice to have a reason to laugh this morning.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Beren One Hand
Member
Member # 3403

 - posted      Profile for Beren One Hand           Edit/Delete Post 
[Ack, sorry. I didn't know if that humor was appropriate.]

quote:
“I guess we should be grateful for one thing,” says Drake. “At least
there wasn’t an animated feature about killing a disabled person.
We’d be looking at a clean sweep then.”

Well, The Incredibles did hint that life is not worth living without superpowers.

[ February 28, 2005, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]

Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
Does the Eastwood character find peace with himself after killing his surrogate daughter?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Scott, one of the last shots is of a shadowy figure in the diner where Maggie and Frankie enjoyed pie together. The lemon meringue pie there was described as being "like heaven."

The shadowy figure looks like Eastwood and that's probably what the audience is supposed to believe. So where does that leave the Eastwood character?

My personal take is that the audience is that Frankie's killing of Maggie is his "act of redemption" for whatever very real wrong he committed against his real daughter.

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
According to Motion Picture Academy voters, the best “cripple” is a dead “cripple.”
Stephen, I'm pretty sure that the reason you have "cripple" in quotation marks is that it's not the sort of word that should ever be used to describe a person, but it kind of makes it look like you're actually quoting the Academy.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Sax,

my short reply would be:

and your point is...? [Wink]

Look, this isn't a level playing field. Between the columnists at the NY Times, Roger Ebert, the Warner Bros PR Machine, etc., I don't think there's too much chance there will be any misunderstanding here. Frankly, I prefer to argue in terms much more level than say, Arthur Caplan, not that this says much.

If the playing field isn't level and the game is about you, you do what you can within reason to reduce the edge of the other side. We can be inflammatory with our rhetoric and stand a chance of actually getting heard or we can just say polite things and continue to be ignored. Not really a hard choice, is it?

Try reading this thread through. The inflammatory (but justified) rhetoric is a "door-opener" - it allowed for measured, reasoned statements from myself and others through interviews and op-eds.

Until the NY Times and others started pretending we didn't exist, that is.

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
You don't think that misrepresenting your opponent gives people a reason to discount everything reasonable you say?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
It's not misrepresentation - it's dramatic license. More accurately, it's inflammatory.

There's more than one way to interpret the use of quotation marks, btw. When the press release is actually read by someone, it becomes pretty clear they're "scare quotes."

And the technique works.

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
Aside from which, I wasn't even arguing about the actual content of the sentence. I mean, I highly doubt that you could honestly characterize the Academy voters as thinking that "the only good 'cripple' is a dead 'cripple.'" I mean, the awards this year most likely indicate that either the Academy voters are ignorant enough not to notice the plot holes and so were voting based on the strength of the performances and filmcraft, or that they had had the plot holes pointed out and still thought that the performances and filmcraft deserved recognition. Accusing the entire Hollywood machine--or at least that part of it that decides the Oscars--of wanting all disabled people dead is obviously a mischaracterization, and while it makes me uncomfortable to have somebody I respect say things that are so grossly and purposely inaccurate I understand your reasons for doing so and to a certain extent agree. But I wasn't talking about the sentence as a whole, I was just talking about the quotation marks. Leaving them out implies that you are interpreting or paraphrasing their words or actions. Leaving them in makes it look like you are quoting them, which personally worries me that you are opening yourself up to libel charges.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Sax,

I'm really not worried about being sued for libel. I'm not up on the specifics of the law, but the more public the figure, the more flexibility you have in what you can say. (The words in the press release are mild compared to some of the stuff coming from the religious right, for example.) I'm also not sure libel applies to a nebulous group - it's generally applied to an individual. Look up the libel suit Jerry Falwell lost against Larry Flynt sometime, though.

It also just got the Okey-dokey from PRweb, which tends to be careful, even though the have disclaimers about responsibility for content.

Don't assume that reason and rational discourse will get anyone to pay any attention to you unless they already agree with you. It's a pretty foul reality, but it's the real world we need to deal with, not the world as we would have it be.

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
::shrug:: Well, I guess if you're not worried about it then I shouldn't either.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2