Finally, someone gets it: "Million Dollar Bigotry"

[DemBones DemBones]

Demeaning the Poor and Disabled

Million Dollar Bigotry

By SCOTT RICHARD LYONS


(Sorry about the odd spacing in the quotes but it's readable and I don't feel like fixing it.)


"Let February 27, 2005 be remembered as a key moment in the culture wars. It was on that glittery night that "liberal" Hollywood bestowed its most hallowed Oscar to "Million Dollar Baby," one of the most reactionary films since Ned Beatty squealed like a pig in "Deliverance."

<snip, snip>

"No other social group has to endure stereotypes to quite the same extent as people with disabilities. The public has cultivated certain sensitivities toward negative images of race, gender, and sexual orientation. But give moviegoers a suicidal quadriplegic, and they'll respond with a tearful standing ovation. And an Oscar. But probably not more wheelchair ramps."

"That's not the only harmful stereotype in the film, however. There's another group kicked around in "Million Dollar Baby" that I haven't seen anyone rush to defend: namely, the stereotype of the white trash welfare queen and her Jerry Springer brood."

<snip>


"If "Million Dollar Baby" is "Hollywood's best political propaganda of the year," it's certainly not the liberal sort we always hear so much about. Far from it, with its flagrant stereotypes of the poor and the disabled ­ and its euthanizing "solutions" for both ­ it reflects a worldview that is darker and more dehumanizing than anything we've seen for some time. Naturally, in today's political climate it gets Best Picture."


http://www.counterpunch.org/lyons03012005.html



I didn't realize the film was also anti-welfare and/or anti-Southern but I've long suspected the inside of Clint's soul is a dark place. This is not a movie I ever want to see; there's enough ugliness in the news without seeking it out for entertainment.

[REP]

1. Nothing Like Damning a Movie You Haven't Seen

I guess to some people Missouri is the South; I guess to others a movie that makes people think is something to be feared and shunned.

[merwin]

4. Ace Ventura makes you think as well!

Makes you think "how did they ever come up with this crap?". My reasoning for not seeing the movie, and pre-emptively hating it was the plain fact that it's an inspirational sports movie that completely stereotypes a group or type of person.

You can say "don't knock it until you've watched it". My response... I've seen enough of them to know that they're all the same. I can't think of a single inspirational sports movie that didn't grossly stereotype something. That's the point of them. To show an extreme person on one end (the stereotype) overcoming all obstacles to overcome that stereotype. But in the end, the person is still the complete stereotype.

But, that's just my opinion on the matter. Others will disagree, and that's their right :-)

[DemBones DemBones]

5. Thank you. You said it all so well. But I will add that

a movie that makes people think killing the disabled is a good thing IS something to be feared and shunned.

[REP]

9. What Makes You Think That's The Movie's Message?

Because someone's opinion piece told you so? I prefer to make up my own mind, thanks.

[RC]

15. I have seen this movie

Have you?
The person in question was totally paralyzed from the neck down. Before that she was an athlete at the top of her form. All she had to look forward to was whatever view her caretakers pointed her at. The ceiling was getting very, very old. She even tried to commit suicide by the only way she could. This woman even stated her wishes in so many words numerous times.
Just what kind of a life was she living? Was it really living? The body didn't work. Her intelligent, active mind was going numb from sheer boredom. Even though this was just a movie, I could see the frustration in her eyes.
All she had to look forward to was more of the same. Her wishes were carried out by someone who cared about her. So what is the problem here?

[Bark Bark Bark]

17. The Point of Contention

...there are sites like NotDeadYet (sorry, you'll have to Google it, I'm too lazy) that advocate for disabled people and their families, who fear that the whole "mercy-killing" concept--and arguments very similar to the one you made in your post--will one day be used to lock them away, kill them, or convince them that they should kill themselves.

(I'm not criticizing your post, RC--just pointing out what the other side of the argument is concerned about. I started out snarky in this thread, and that was wrong. I'm hoping to make a little peace now...)

On one blog I came across, someone slapped at MDB because the character in question could still meditate--and therefore, was capable of enjoying life, and therefore, should not have "taken the easy way out."

Some people feel that way, I'm sure. I couldn't say for sure how I would feel under the same circumstances, but I think that would be a bit of a stretch for me...

Their basic concerns, however, are valid. The disabled are already treated like crap by our HMOs and government, and we've all heard horror stories about what happens under other governments. And surely we're all aware that our government is looking more and more like THOSE governments every damn day.

I feel that the only viable option is to preserve free, educated choice. It's the "hard work" option, the "constant vigilance" option, so it's bound to be less popular than going the Nanny State route, where the media is told it can't say or show certain things because it scares some people.

The slope's slippery in both directions. One side doesn't want euthanasia presented as an "attractive" option, lest it be forced on them. The other doesn't want euthanasia utterly demonized, lest it be denied them should they desire it.

[KamaAina]

26. Not Dead Yet: The Resistance

http://www.notdeadyet.org

here's NDY on "Kill the Cripples Night" at the Oscars:

http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/oscarsPR022805.html

Feb. 28, 2005 -- At last night's Academy Awards ceremonies, Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby swept the awards, winning for Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Director and, finally, Best Picture. Alejandro Amenabar's The Sea Inside was voted Best Foreign Film. The message from the Motion Picture Academy voters? the best "cripple" is a dead "cripple." Both films centered on sympathetic portrayals of the killing of quadriplegics.

"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."

You know what would have been cool? If they could have given Eastwood his Oscar inside a miniature, Oscar-sized coffin. "We're terribly sorry, Mr. Eastwood. We dropped your Oscar on a cement floor on the way over here. We tried to glue it back together, but..." :-)

[DemBones DemBones]

29. I don't intend to support Clint Eastwood's anti-disabled people agenda by

paying money to see this movie, nor do I have any desire to see a propaganda film that pushes the idea that a disabled life isn't worth living. I also submit that only a quadriplegic can really speak to what it's like to live as a quadriplegic.

The fact that most quadriplegics don't choose suicide tells me more than a work of fiction can. And, by the way, those who don't want to go on living connected to a ventilator can request that it be turned off; they have that legal right. Of course, that would have left Clint's character without his starring role as her compassionate executioner.

Two things you wrote kind of puzzle me:

"This woman even stated her wishes in so many words numerous times."

and

"Even though this was just a movie, I could see the frustration in her eyes."

Hold on, she's an actress. When she said she wished to die, she was only saying what was written in the script. And showing "emotions" with her eyes is part of acting; it's not real. She just made herself imagine being frustrated. If you're trying to say that the disabled character asked Eastwood's character to kill her, I am aware of that, am aware of the plot details. Reviews I've read point out that it was part of the plot that she was poorly cared for, as if that were an inevitable part of a disability. It's not. Of course, it made her situation all the more pitiful and apparently made many audience members comfortable with, even pleased with, Clint causing her death.

Don't you wonder WHY, as you put it, "an intelligent, active mind was (portrayed as) going numb from sheer boredom"? That's not an inevitable consequence of disability, not even of quadriplegia, according to quadriplegics themselves.

If you look a little further here in the Disability Issues & Activism Forum, you'll see a thread about a new study showing (again) that disabled people are pretty happy, specifically no less happy than healthy people. The Reuters article about this study cites an earlier study showing that quadriplegics are just about as happy as lottery winners.

[pop goes the weasel]

30. oh please

I know plenty of pwd who are essentially shut-ins. Want to know what makes them, from time to time, wish they were dead?

People who should care, but don't.

People who can't bother their self-centered ego to visit. Know anyone like that?

People don't get bored and frustrated when they are surrounded by people who engage them intellectually, who help make life worth the living. Who when they visit, want to talk about new things and debate and generally add a bit of excitement. Not who come in and start reading some boring book in a language the disabled person doesn't even understand because that takes the place of actual engagement.

[Bark Bark Bark]

2. Wow

Lefties and Righties both got bugs up their asses about this film. Must be pretty good. I'll have to go check it out.

First massively overused term for 2005: "...Gets it." Definition: "agrees with me."

[DemBones DemBones]

6. Obviously you DON'T get it why disabled people are upset about this

movie. Give it some more thought and maybe you'll understand.

[Psephos]

3. This film is extraordinary

Forget the tiresome political tropes. This movie is the best thing I've seen out of Hollywood in years. Your heart will pound, you'll find yourself sitting on the edge of your theater seat, you will be forced to think about what makes one life seem aimless and another overflowing with purpose. Likely, you will cry a little, too. Ultimately, when you get up and leave as the credits roll, you will feel good and right, in all the quiet ways.

[DemBones DemBones]

7. Maybe you have to be disabled to understand how we feel about MDB. nt

[REP]

8. I Am Disabled. Don't Presume To Speak For Me, EVER.

I can't damn or laud the movie because I haven't seen it yet, but I have read enough about it to come to an opinion completely different from yours.

"The disabled" are not a uniform lockstep block just because our bodies/health have failed, and I deeply resent it when someone presumes to speak for me under the rubric of "well, you just don't know how WE feel." You have no idea how I 'feel.'

[republicannincompoop]

10. After you watch it, could you let us know your opinion?

I've always been ambivalent about Eastwood. I mean, as a small boy, I watched him as "Rowdy Gains" (how's that for a Manifest Destiny type name?) in Wagon Train. Sure, I was a 50's " TV cowboy", a lot of us were.

But, I also lived in California when he ran for, and won, the Mayor race in Carmel.

And I remember his extreme rightwing bs rhetoric then.

I think he decided he wanted to be a director rather than another Reagan.

So, I'd be interested in your opinion of his "statement" made in MDB.

Si Yu'os Ma'ase

(One of the unknown American languages)

[Bark Bark Bark]

12. Can We Be Selectively Pro-Choice/Anti-Choice?

Excellent post, REP.

This isn't a movie where someone goes around shooting blind kids screaming for mercy. This is a movie with an individual character who determines their own fate in a situation where they can't do so without help. (Sick, hah?)

People in similar circumstances have fought in the courts for the right to make that choice. Are they evil? Stupid? Selfish? Should Hollywood and Broadway be told they can't produce "Whose Life Is It Anyway" anymore?

Should doctors who "assist" be threatened? Murdered?

Should "Reverend" Phelps provide his "special services" to the funerals?

There's the can of worms, DemBones. Open at your own risk.

EDIT: OMG--I just read this description of MDB in another blog: "When (the character) is no longer able to box, it's decided her life has no value anymore." That's a misrepresentation of reality worthy of Ann Coulter (I've been to TheMovieSpoiler.com). What a load.

FURTHER EDIT--Quick question for DB: does the ending of "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" advocate the euthanasia of the disabled or mentally ill?

[REP]

13. DemBones *Is* Anti-Choice

I'm waiting for her to condemn "The Sea Within," based on the life of a real person, Ramón Sampedro, and his fight to die with dignity.

I wonder why there is so much controversy over a movie based on a novel and not one based on fact. Maybe it's just that no one's told them what to think about "The Sea Within" yet.

[KamaAina]

27. While you're waiting, I'll comment on "The Sea *Inside*"

"Inside", not "Within"

No, I have not seen it; foreign films from outside the Pacific Rim take a long, long time to get here, if at all.

Disability advocate Art Blaser has, however, "told us what to think" about it:

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/reviews/blaserseainside.html

Ramon doesn't like to use a wheelchair, but is persuaded that using one during a trip to the La Coruna courthouse in northwestern Spain to plead his "right to die" might aid others with a similar death wish.

The court denies Ramon's request that people assisting in his death not be prosecuted, but eventually he devises an ingenious scheme to bring about his death: One person will purchase enough potassium cyanide for a lethal dose, another will mix it with water, and yet another will place the glass on his nightstand. A video camera will film his death.

On January 12, 1998, Ramon reads a statement into the camera: "I will renounce the most humiliating form of slavery -- to be a living head tied to a dead body."...

The film treats "right to die" opposition with gross simplification. A quadriplegic priest in a televised debate asserts what movie viewers already know to be false: that maybe Ramon's family isn't supportive. Later the priest arrives at the Sampedro home to argue with Ramon; the argument is conducted through a younger priest who carries messages up and down the stairs. The priest's opposition to Ramon's thinking is depicted as dogmatic and silly. Although Ramon acknowledges that not everyone with quadriplegia agrees with him, disability rights advocates' arguments are almost totally missing.

"Slavery"?! That's a new one. Ouch. I'm at a loss for words (which rarely happens :-) )

"Doesn't like to use a wheelchair" (i.e. chooses to remain in bed), but is convinced to use one just so he can ask to be killed?! Creepy. Chilling. Don't they offer any counseling at all in Spain?

[DemBones DemBones]

39. No, I am pro-life. I'm opposed to euthanasia, capital punishment,

war, and abortion. I don't believe that causing a human being's death is ever a morally acceptable choice.

I'm opposed to the message of "The Sea Within" as much as to the message of "Million Dollar Baby" but "Sea," being a foreign-language film, has not gotten the attention in this country that M$$$B has.

[DemBones DemBones]

40. OK, you're disabled and you don't see the harm in this movie.

Does it concern you that Clint Eastwood testified before the Senate AGAINST the ADA in 2002?

Knowing that is enough to make me not want to put any money in his pocket, even for a movie having nothing to do with killing crips.

YMMV

[Enquiringkitty]

11. The movie was based on a book written some time ago and Clint had

nothing to do with the writing of it. Why didn't the Christian right scream bloody murder when it was written? They don't read any but the Bible....didn't know it was out there. It isn't about getting rid of white-trash. It is about a girl wanting to make something of her life with the only way she thinks she can do it best. The Christian right says that only God has the power over life and death. Let's see them refuse treatment and let God decide when it is them. They don't want people to have living wills. I have one. It states no extensive measures are to be taken in the event I am unable to live on my own without medical assistance. I have told all my family that I don't want it. I have nothing against the disabled. Their life is their life and if they want to go on with their lives that is fine but I want to have my choice too. I don't want a church in some other state to hold candles and sing because they now want to take advantage of my condition and "save" my life....they want to run everyones lives.

[DemBones DemBones]

20. This is disability activists screaming bloody murder about it, and

being ignored because some on the Christian right agree with them. READ THE ARTICLE, PLEASE.

What will you do if you happen to find yourself and the Christian right on the same side of an issue? Will you change your beliefs just so you won't be in agreement with "those people"?

You're defending Clint Eastwood here. . . did you know he fought bringing a restaurant he owned into compliance with ADA? Did you know he testified before Congress to take away the rights the disabled have under ADA? Oh, yeah, he just happened to choose a script where he gets to kill a disabled woman --and she's even begging for it!

I'm fine with living wills and people refusing medical treatment for themselves. What I object to, what the author of this article objects to, is a sappy film that teaches that a disabled life is not worth living. That is the message here and it's certainly popular with DUers.

[deek]

23. kick for common sense

thank you, dembones

[Banazir]

32. What I keep wondering in all this...

...see, I've attempted suicide a bunch of times. Obviously I'm bad at it because I'm still here. I have no particular desire to do so anymore.

I was trying it mainly to escape abuse that made my life a living hell. Some of it was abuse that was specifically directed at me because I was disabled. And when I talked to other people who'd been through the same kind of abuse about this stuff, they wanted to help me get a better life, not to help me die. And most liberals would see this as a good thing. So would I.

A lot of gay people are still unfortunately suicidal. I'm sure if I showed up at a gay community center and said I wanted to die because of something related to being gay, they'd be trying, albeit not always in the right ways, to help me adjust to life as a gay person. They'd see the systemic oppression as systemic oppression and fight that. And most liberals would see this as a good thing. So would I.

Then there's disability. If I say "As a severely disabled person, I want to die," there are portions of the disability community that would say, just as those other people would, "Bad idea, but your life can be made better so you won't want to die." They'd try to help me get pain management, a better living situation, and so forth. They'd see the systemic oppression as systemic oppression and fight that, including fighting the idea that disabled people are better off being "helped to die" when we want to die. And most liberals would see this as a bad thing and demand that these people stop allying themselves with the anti-choice right. And that's where I disagree with them and find their views tainted by anti-disability prejudice (which, yes, even disabled people can have).

It really bewilders me, though. People who work so that abuse survivors and gay people don't commit suicide are allowed to be liberal, but people who work against notions that disabled suicide is rational and correct are somehow equated with the anti-choice right wing. Makes no sense at all to me.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. I've always wondered...

how Eastwood keeps working.

From TV through the Sergio Leone westerns, Dirty Harry... his acting range consists of entirely of one twitch which conveys every emotion he can think of. Fortunately, he cannot think of many, or he would hurt himself twitching.

But, the public eats it up. I will admit that even I, who never paid for a Dirty Harry movie, actually put my hand in my pocket for "Pale Rider" just to see if he could pull it off.

He couldn't, although I give him a couple more points than Sharon Stone's attempt at the great cinematic art of the western, and the money wasn't entirely wasted. It was not nearly as terrible as most critics warned.

Subtlety is not a concept he is familiar with, though.

Having said that, I'm tempted to pull out my wallet again to see what all the fuss is about. I have been reading that there is, if not subtlety, genuine discussion of many issues in this film that the various proponents of particular agendas tend not to see in context.

This phenomenon of people seeing just what they want to has happened before, and it is a hint of possible greatness.

I must see for myself. I am usually pleasantly surprised when I do.

Even with Pale Rider, I was expecting something far worse than I actually saw.

[MSgt213]

16. If the film has provoked debate no matter what its message really is then

it has done its job very well as art.

[Jonathan_Hoag]

18. It's really about who owns your life ...

If you do than you have a choice about when to end it. Fundies disagree, they think God owns everyone's life and can do as he pleases with his "pots" (to use Paul's imigary.) What does the Left of counterpunch's ilk think about who owns the lives of individuals?

A person in possesion of their physical faculties can chose and execute their way out themselves. Like Hunter Thompson. But a severely disabled person might not be able to. What is wrong with such people receiving assistance for ending their life if they chose to do so?

Many severely disabled people do want to live and continue to lead productive lives - look at Christopher Reeve and Stephen Hawking. But others do not. And I think we should respect that too.

[DemBones DemBones]

19. The trouble is that most people see a death like

Hunter Thompson's as tragic but if some poor crip offs himself, why not? What kind of life can a disabled person have, anyway? Surely they can't really want to live like that? It must be like being black or something like that. . .

[Jonathan_Hoag]

21. Of course that totally misrepresents what I said

Try again

[TreasonousBastard]

22. Step back a bit...

relax, and remember the difference between asking the questions and giving the answers.

You well know that the disabled, like any other group, does not think with one mind about all things.

Should some look for a particular way out, we ask why and we ask if it is a good or proper way out.

All the while, though, we know there are no satisfactory answers, but we don't rail at the lack of answers, just the questions themselves.

Why is that?

[deek]

24. Actually...

MOST people with severe disabilites see this as another step toward devaluation of their right to exist.

*'s social services policies, as well as the medical/insurance system(s) are heading in this direction also.

Check out Eastwood's history re disability rights. It's not pretty.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. Is that so?

Actually, from what I can gather, MOST people with disabilities haven't seen the movie, but are basing their opinions on what others, many who have also not seen the movie, are saying.

MOST people without disabilities seem to be doing the same thing.

I have no love lost for Clint Eastwood, but I would rather see the movie before passing judgment.

If, as some have said, it merely asks the questions without giving definitive answers, then what's the problem?

It's no secret that many see disabilities of all sorts as making the sufferers as not just less than perfect but less than human. We know this is wrong, and we know what the Reich, and others, did to the disabled. And we know the President-like object and his minions have not only no compassion, but actual contempt.

But, stretching this to condemn a movie not seen is exactly what we complain about the other side doing.

[Banazir]

31. Anyone who can move enough...

...to request "assisted suicide", can theoretically move enough to commit suicide. If they're not given enough technology or freedom to move around that much, that may in fact be why they're suicidal in the first place. I don't see why we should be making suicide some kind of priority for disabled people when we haven't even got living in freedom down as a priority yet.

Then there's the fact that other suicidal people aren't guaranteed a so-called "dignified" death, they're just legally allowed to try. Whether they succeed and what the death is like isn't guaranteed in any way other than how they do things. People talking about assisted suicide seem to want the "right" to succeed, and to succeed with the minimum apparent mess, handed to disabled people on a silver platter. Pretty disturbing, especially since for many non-disabled people, a split-second moment at the end gives them a chance for their survival instinct to break through and stop them, and they may choose methods that aren't entirely lethal because they're still, like most suicidal people, ambivalent in some way about death. Assisted suicide takes away both the ability to choose non-lethal methods and the ability to change your mind at the last second (struggling is generally subdued by other people). Basically giving non-disabled people the freedom to screw up at suicide, but not disabled people, which is a double standard.

Many quads have already remarked that if they really wanted to end their lives, they could. It would just take the same amount of determination and risk of failure that it would take anyone else, and I think where real equality comes in is that disabled people need to be guaranteed that it would take the same amount of determination and risk of failure as for non-disabled people, not that it would be made easier for us. Suicide is difficult, dangerous, and non-guaranteed for most people, and while I think suicide is a right, I also think it should keep those three qualities.

[pop goes the weasel]

33. that's a very good point

There's no reason a quad can't maneuver a wheelchair out onto a highway or onto a dangerous slope. A little imagination, and as grisly a death as anyone's can be the prize. If the MDB boxer really wanted to kill herself, she should have showed some real determination. She could have learned to use a chair, gotten out of the institution, and bit her tongue off where there would be no one around to help her. She could have gone outside during a blizzard and frozen to death. She could have maneuvered her chair down a flight of steps. Some fighter she turned out to be. As long as she was doing something that was easy for her (and boxing was easy for her character--something within her physical and psychological capacity to excell at), she was determined. As soon as she had to handle something really hard, she completely wimped out. Wuss.

[Banazir]

34. Not a wuss exactly, but...

...definitely the sort of person I'd be mad at if she were real. If people want to kill themselves, as far as I'm concerned that's their own business. If they want to kill themselves while blaming their membership among a class of people I also happen to belong to, without taking oppression into consideration in their statements, and while drawing on all the worst stereotypes of that class of people, then I start seeing them as selfish. Not because they killed themselves, but because they're not doing a thing to not reinforce the "better off dead" mentality, because their act then extends beyond them and into public perception of the category I happen to live within, and that ends up creating real danger for my life and the lives of people I love.

I remember once talking to a quad on a suicide hotline, he was the volunteer, I was the caller. Instead of saying "Oh of course you're suicidal because you're disabled," he gave me practical advice on getting services and a properly-fitting wheelchair. I'm really glad he was the volunteer that day.

I'm pretty intimately acquainted with suicide. I know how hard it is to bypass the survival instinct even if you really feel like you want nothing more than to die. And I think it's hard for a reason. If suicide were easy, everyone would be doing it. That's one reason making suicide easy for a class of people I happen to belong to scares me. I have no doubt that I could make a "rational" argument for my death if I tried, although I know even at my worst I wouldn't do that to other disabled people, because it does hurt disabled people when one of us blames our body for our suicide.

And you're right, there are plenty of ways for a quad to do that without assistance. Besides asking that the ventilator be turned off, there are plenty of other things. I even know someone who can move only her eyes and part of her face, and could probably kill herself if she tried. (She has no desire to, but people in her position are often considered a low priority for medical treatment by doctors, so her life is at risk if she goes to the wrong one. That low priority is a direct result of the same prejudices that play out in that and other movies.)

Basically I see characters or people who kill themselves and blame their disability, as people whose expression of their internalized prejudice harms the rest of us. That, not someone's individual choices (as if choices are made in a vacuum, but that's a whole 'nother discussion), is what gets to me about these movies glorifying these "choices". People shouldn't push for a particular access to easy "assisted" suicide on the grounds that they're disabled. If they're suicidal they should either find a way to do it or, like me, possibly try and fail a bunch of times before realizing that their survival instinct might be there for a reason. Non-disabled people don't have the "right" to command someone to bypass their survival instinct, and neither should we.

[happyslug]

28. The Art of propaganda

I have not seen this movie (and probably will not I just do not like movies with sad endings even if it is only a sad side ending) but I want to make some comments on Propaganda.

The key to propaganda is to get people to hear or see your message, thus any good propaganda movie is always entertaining. The classic Propaganda movie is "Casablanca". It is so good as a propaganda movie that people even today will say it is not but watch it, it has a message, that message is sacrifice for the war effort and once the Nazis are destroyed everything will be better. Rick gives up the love of his life, his love goes off with her husband even through she Really wants to stay with Rick. Her husband has sacrificed everything is his trip from Prague to Lisbon. Even the French Police Chief has to give up his post to help defeat the Nazis. The message of Casablanca is sacrifice for the war effort. Now it is also a very entertaining love story, but that is the hook to get people to watch the message. Once hooked by the entertaining movie they do not only see a love story but the propaganda message.

Now people who have seen the propaganda movies from Soviet Russia, or even the WWII American Propaganda (And there are some bad American WWII propaganda movies) like to point out Casablanca is no where near those propaganda movies. That is true but even Goebbels and Hitler joked to each other on how Stalin did not understand propaganda and how Stalin was losing the Propaganda war based on his inability to understand the above. Stalin's biggest problem is he did what I call "Church" propaganda. I call it "Church" Propaganda for most old time religions use the same techniques he did. The problem with that type of propaganda it only reaches people who already believe in that message. The purpose of "Church" propaganda is NOT to convince new people of new ideas but to support the existing beliefs of the people seeing the message. Such "Church" Propaganda does is directed to the faithful NOT to convince the unfaithful. Thus the various church ceremonies, masses, pageants, passion plays, held by various groups throughout the world (including Soviet Russia in the heydays of Stalin-ism).

"Church" propaganda is good at maintaining the support of people who already believe, but is terrible at convincing people who do NOT believe that they should. This is where Casablanca type propaganda movies come into play, it is to convince people of a new belief system. It shows people who adopts the new belief system in a good light and the people who oppose it in a bad light but always keeps the movie/TV series/ book etc entertaining.

As I said I have not seen this movie, and it appears to be very entertaining (First part of being a god propaganda movie). The next question is the message of the Movie the star (the Boxer) or how to handle the handicap? If it is the later than you have a good piece of propaganda for that message.

[Sugarbleus]

35. Oh Goodie, a hearty debate goin' on here!

I am in total agreement with those who protest MDB and with all the arguments against it's lame plot line.

.......BUT I also agree with REP in terms of ones right to end their existence for whatever reason; at the time of their choosing and/or by directives set forth in a living will/Medical Power of Attorney.

Just had a long talk with hemiplegic hubby. He said that he understands the issues brought up about these movies and books depicting disabled persons "wanting" to end it all (better dead than disabled).

He also said that many disabled people DO get depressed from time to time and DO try to "end it". He has tried it too. He didn't ask anyone to DO IT FOR HIM. He just took a bottle of pills....but I got to him before it was too late.

His close friend, K's health (aggressive MS) is going down hill rapidly. If K could live in the appropriate environment, perhaps he'd feel better. Unfortunately he lives in a "nursing facility" *ugh*. He has a beautiful lady friend who visits him regularly and my hubby takes him out (though less and less as his health fails) for wheelchair races (just kidding), they go shopping and eat out and go to our local Medical Marijuana coop. K is feeling less strong, less energetic, more sickly. K has spoken several times of just running his chair off the seacliffs here. So, people DO feel low sometimes.

But, like someone said here, the "spark of survival" is strong; otherwise these guys would have killed themselves already. The persons we know that have varying disabilities are surrounded by groups/friends of SUPPORTERS. I think that is the key to survival and the willingness to Keep on Trucking.

I also agree with whomever posted about the situations surrounding PT, proper medical care, and LIVING ARRANGEMENTS/environment...This country needs to take much BETTER care of those who have limitations.

Unless one has thee most glorious healthcare plan, person's with various disabilities get pretty rotten treatment by and large. We've had doctors take one look at my guy and watch their faces fall as they fidget trying to find a reason why hubby should seek a different doc.!!!!!!

Housing issues are no better. If you are POOR AND DISABLED, you're pretty much fucked. THIS HAS TO STOP. Let it begin with movies/literature that depict persons with limitations who WANT to SURVIVE, who go on, WHO MAKE IT/succeed. Let THAT be a motivating flick for the rest of the world to get a load of.

Great thread! O8)

[Banazir]

37. Institutionalization definitely can do it

Being stuck in a "facility" is enough to depress anyone, disabled or not. It's the same reason a lot of prisoners become suicidal. And having to spend large amounts of time in poverty (again, disabled or not) can do it too. I knew people who killed themselves in institutions while I was there, and while I wish they hadn't, I don't blame them. I also don't blame their disability. Being in awful surroundings that you don't think you'll ever get out of is enough to do that to a lot of people.

But as I said somewhere else in this thread, this all needs to be treated as a systemic issue, not a better dead than disabled issue. Being institutionalized, poor, homeless, friendless, lacking proper pain management, and a lot of other situations that crop up aren't the fault of disabilities and shouldn't be blamed on them, any more than gay people's suicidality is blamed on gayness by most people who think about it clearly. Nor should assisted suicide or euthanasia be confused with ordinary suicide, or disabled people be part of a double standard in terms of suicide. That's just too dangerous.

[Sugarbleus]

38. I totally agree. Good reply...

Good stuff Banazir; keep on keeping on :toast:

[DemBones DemBones]

36. Interestingly, this is the only thread I've seen the abled posting in. . .

Wonder when we'll see them again?