Million Dollar Baby Discusson: Buchanan - SPOILER ALERT!!!!

[Bake]

Buchanan says "what's wrong with this film" is that it "promotes euthanasia and assisted suicide."

OOOH, PAT! IT'S BAD BAD BAD!!

Don't let anyone HEAR about possibilities in moral choices. Don't let anyone HEAR about, much less THINK ABOUT difficult choices or hard cases.

No, Pat, just keep making sure everybody swallows the conservative line.

The "liberal" on Pat's panel at least TRIED to make her point, but Pat was having none of it. This is MSNBC -- the home of Olbermann?

Bake

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Clint Is A Conservative...

Now they are eating their own...

[TomClash]

2. He's mellowed and . . .

. . . the middle of the raod has shifted rightward. I'm not so sure he's so conservative any more.

[alittlelark]

3. He may not be a consevative much longer

after seeing these people for who they really are.

PS - Million Dollar Baby is certainly in my 'top ten' movies ever... possibly in the top 5.

[sonicx]

6. he's a libertarian...

he's for gay marriage, for example.

[autorank]

14. Thank you!!! and he HATES ARNOLD THE GROPINATOR!!!

He was willing to run ads for Davis opposing the recall and slamming Arnold. Davis goofed and turned him down.

Hey, Pat, "Make my day!"

[Bake]

4. When I studied ethics we would have been REQUIRED to watch

Million Dollar Baby. Why? As a springboard to thought and discussion about the ISSUE!! Why why why are the Pukes so afraid of anyone actually exercising their brain cells??? Nevermind, I know the answer to that one.

Oh, by the way, I studied ethics under Prof. Henlee Barnette (a legend and an icon among those who know about him) at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. But that was before the fundies took over ...

Bake

[blonndee]

5. But there is a problem with the movie.

My problem with the movie is not that it discusses the "right to die" issue, but rather that the movie perpetuates the idea that "disabled" people are better off dead, or want to die. Something to think about.

[sonicx]

7. no...

it's one person's choice. Others choose other directions.

[blonndee]

8. My point is that the movie perpetuates a harmful stereotype, not that

people don't have choices. I'm also not saying the entire movie is useless, only that it might be enlightening to consider other things the movie is "saying" other than the overriding and obvious message of right to die.

(Edited for grammatical error)

[alittlelark]

9. I cannot understand what you are trying to say

Eastwood made his statement clear in the movie... 'choice'. I saw NO OTHER disabled people in the movie, nor did I hear and issues concerning then. I heard a discussion between 'father' and 'daughter'.

[blonndee]

10. OK, maybe I'm not being articulate enough.

What movies "say" doesn't have to be discussed by the characters or be posted on the screen for the audience in order for their various "messages" to be present. If you (collective you, not individual you) get past what movies, TV shows, news programs, etc., "say they're saying," and look at it from a more interpretive position, you can see the ideology(ies) at work, which don't necessarily have to be intentional on the part of the creator(s) of the work.

Another example might be Victoria's Secret catalogs. The message is...? That we have underwear for sale, right? But there's more to it than that, obviously, just like there is in all advertising. Another is Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. I wrote a research paper on it for my Cultural Studies class. There are several obvious and articulated "messages": They say it's about making you "better," and it seems to be about gay guys and straight guys getting along. So it's partly positive. But one ideology at work is consumerism, because making the guy and his life "better" requires buying things. It also "soothes" gay-straight relations by making the "difference" between gay and straight obvious in the context of the show, by relying heavily upon gay stereotypes, and by not portraying any ACTUAL threat of sexual boundary-crossing.

Does that make sense?

[Bake]

11. The point is to make people THINK about the issue.

Regardless of which side you come down on. Think about the issue for yourself. Talk about it with others.

That's the thing the Pukes fear. Because they know -- or at least suspect -- that they're on the wrong side of the issues. So instead they simply want to dictate what we are to think. Don't allow people to think for themselves.

Whether you ultimately disagree with whatever position you perceive the movie to be advocating (if any), the point is to make people THINK!!

Bake

[walldude]

12. Well sort of

But the thing is while you may have gotten one message from the movie, someone coming from a completly different perspective will get an entirely different message. You get out of it what you bring into it and everyone brings something different, so different that 2 different people could possibly get the exact opposite message from the same movie...

[Bake]

15. Let them get whatever message they WANT!!

As long as they fucking THINK FOR THEMSELVES about the issue, and maybe, just maybe, they'll TALK about it.

Put the damn messages out there in the marketplace of ideas, and see what flies! That's what free speech is all about. That's what America is supposed to be all about ...

Oh well, fuck it. Please, someone, tell me what I'm supposed to think! This is just so HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD!!!

Bake

[blonndee]

18. Did anyone advocate ANY kind of censorship? Please. I was

(and others were, I think) simply pointing out a different take on the movie. Never once did anyone try to tell anyone else what to think, or say people shouldn't be able to say whatever they want. And why the cursing and screaming?!?

[Emboldened Chimp]

19. That's not what the movies is trying to do or say...

...it has nothing to do with a right-to-die discussion. It is simply a moving drama about certain people making choices in life. Swank's desire to die fits the character--it's not a decision forced upon the audience to prove a point.

[Rapcw]

13. LOL they love their game of grasping at straws

[DemBones DemBones]

16. Disability rights groups are upset about the film because it

presents the old stereotype that living with a disability is worse than being dead. Swenk's character says her life is over because she can no longer box. People who aren't disabled assume they would want to die if they became disabled and this film does not get them to think more deeply about disability; it just reinforces their poorly-considered opinions that assisted suicide would be the answer.

It's very disturbing to be disabled and see how "your kind" is portrayed in movies and on TV. It's very disturbing to know that other people think that "people like you" ought to just do themselves in instead of working for a better life for themselves.

It is also interesting that back in the 1980's Eastwood fought having to make his restaurant accessible to the disabled, fighting it in court. He later testified before Congress and helped influence them to make some changes in legislation so that the disabled were less protected. The man is no liberal when it comes to disability issues.

[sonicx]

17. Eastwood didn't write the movie...

plus it's an adaptation. Eastwood on the matter...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/23/wclint23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/01/23/ixworld.html

<<While promoting the film, Eastwood has avoided talking about the issue of euthanasia. In his only comment so far, he told an interviewer: "How people feel about that is up to them. I'm not a pro-euthanasia person and this is a story about a giant dilemma and how one person had to face that.">>

also from the link...

<<Unexpected support for the film has come from the Catholic News Service, which reviews all new films from the point of view of the Catholic Church in America.

The reviewer, David DiCerto, said: "The movie's morally problematic end may leave many Catholic viewers feeling emotionally against the ropes."

But he added: "The film is not a polemic in favour of assisted suicide," and, "Given the dire circumstances, our sympathies and humane inclinations may argue in favour of such misguided compassion.">>

Ebert on it: http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-ebert29.html