13 replies to this topic

[Apparelyzed]

What was Clint eastwood thinking?

He should of known better than to dip his toes into the pond of disability ethics, and do his research first before taking on this film.

The problem is, the big film critics see the words "Clint Eastwood", and the film gets instant praise, even though the film has more holes in it than a Bush poster in Iraq!

---------------------------------------------------------------

Ragged Edge REVIEWS IN MEDIA CIRCUS: Killing Us Kindly

Million Dollar Baby.

Directed by Clint Eastwood. Starring Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman, Jay Baruchel. 137 minutes. Rated PG-13.

Dangerous Times By Steve Drake

I DON'T GET boxing. I don't get why people dream of being boxers. More to the point, I don't get the millions of people who enjoy watching two people punch at each other until one can't punch back any more. I'm not being judgmental; I just don't get it. I may be the only person in the country who hasn't seen either Rocky or Requiem for a Heavyweight.

That's what really bothers me about Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby: The movie pulled me in until the last half hour, in spite of the clichés and uneven acting.

For those of you have missed the hype, Million Dollar Baby is the story of Frankie, an aging "cut man" (Clint Eastwood) who doubles as trainer and manager for aspiring boxers. He becomes the reluctant trainer of a too-old and enthusiastic "hillbilly" named Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank). Morgan Freeman plays "Scrap," an ex-boxer whose last fight left him blind in one eye. The loss of vision is something Frankie feels responsible for and believes is a great tragedy (but he never bothers to ask Scrap how he feels about it).

There's a caricature of a person with cognitive disabilities in the movie, too. Played by Jay Baruchel, "Danger's" only function seems to be to show us how nice Scrap and Frankie are for tolerating his presence at Frankie's gym and how cruel the rest of the world is.

Where was I?

The plot's predictable. Even someone like me, unfamiliar with boxing movies, can figure out what's coming next. Maggie shows up at Frankie's gym and starts to train. Frankie ignores her. Scrap, impressed with her dedication, quietly gives her encouragement. Frankie rants several times about how he doesn't train "girls." Nevertheless, to no one's surprise, he slowly becomes involved in her training and ends up managing and promoting her.

Frankie finds a substitute daughter in Maggie. During a car ride, she tells Frankie about her dad's dog, who dragged his hindquarters around and how she and her brother laughed at the dog. Her dad, ill and with little time left to live, takes the dog out for one final ride, and only Dad comes back. (More on this later.)

I guess I should also mention that Frankie is a practicing Catholic who goes to church every day. It's not really clear why he does this, since mostly he yanks the chain of the priest with questions, not looking for answers, just looking to irritate.

WARNING: We're about to reveal the Surprise Ending!

To make a long series of fights short, Maggie finally gets her shot at the championship. She appears to demolish her opponent, but makes the mistake of turning her back on her when she's down. The other boxer comes up and hits her, knocking Maggie to the floor. Maggie's head hits a bench on the way down, and apparently snaps her neck.

Next scene: the hospital. Maggie tells Frankie she's a "complete C1 C2" and that she'll be "frozen like this the rest of my life." Roger Ebert, in a review of the movie, calls the scriptwriter's choice of the word "frozen" "the single perfect word that expresses what a thousand could not." More on Ebert and his comrades later.

This movie is a corny, melodramatic assault on people with disabilities. It plays out killing as a romantic fantasy and gives emotional life to the "better dead than disabled" mindset lurking in the heart of the typical (read: nondisabled) audience member.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the course of Maggie's treatment and rehab, she develops pressure sores which are treated as inevitable and unrelated to quality of care. One becomes so bad that her leg has to be amputated.

Frankie manages everything for Maggie. He gets her into a rehab facility (looks like a high-end nursing home); he finds courses for her to take at City College.

Turns out Maggie doesn't want any of it. She doesn't want to live like this, she tells him. All she ever wanted to be was a boxer and she got that. She had fans; she was on the covers of magazines. She doesn't want to get to the point where she can't even remember living her dream any more.

As I listened to this drivel, I wondered how Muhammed Ali, whose speech and ability to move are significantly limited by Parkinson's, might react to this. Or his family, for that matter.

Maggie asks Frankie to do what her dad did for the dog.

Reality-check time: In Maggie's story, there is no suggestion that the dog was suffering or wanted to die. Maggie and her brother laughed at the way he "flopped" to get around, though. It's pretty likely Dad's motivation in killing the dog was that he couldn't count on anyone to care for it after he couldn't do it himself any more.

Frankie prays. He talks to a couple of people. He decides to "help" Maggie, even though he doesn't want to. He doesn't want to be "selfish" in keeping her alive. He sneaks in to the rehab facility in the middle of the night. No guards, no locks, no alarms. He wakes Maggie up and tells her he will do what she wants. He'll shut off the ventilator, she'll fall asleep and then he'll inject her with something so she "will stay asleep." We hear Scrap's voice, telling us the substance is "adrenaline." Yep, that was the sequence: Turn the vent off first, then inject with a stimulant. This is, in reality, a recipe for an agonizing death, combining suffocation with your heart feeling like it will explode.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reality-check Time II

This movie is set in contemporary times, yet the only place she can live is a glorified nursing home? This expensive care still results in a level of skin breakdown so severe it requires amputation? No locks on the door at night? No guard? No alarm? No warning buzzer when the equipment is shut off or Maggie's heart stops?

Anything wrong with this script?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reality-check Time III

Frankie allegedly "helps" Maggie because she can't do it herself. Bullshit. We can assume, just from seeing the cars on the street in the movie, that this is post-1990. All Maggie has to do to die is to ask. No kidding. Court rulings in the 90s say that a person who uses a vent can request the vent be shut off, and the staff will give them a sedative and shut the vent off just as they start to lose consciousness.

It's that simple. It's already all legal. We've seen it play out too many times already in real life.

So what's this "Frankie helps Maggie die" about? Why is it part of the script?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The near-universal adoration of critics

Eastwood released Baby with an eye on the Oscars, opening in December so it could compete for the 2004 awards. The National Society of Film Critics has just named it best picture of the year. It did well in the "director" and "actors" categories, too.

A quick check of the Rotten Tomatoes website revealed only three negative reviews out of over a hundred listed.

Most professional reviewers have raved about Baby, but I'll focus on Roger Ebert. Ebert may be the most well-known movie critic in America. He also writes for the Chicago Sun-Times here where I live and work. This makes Ebert both a national and local "problem." (Chicago has another well-known critic, Richard Roeper, but no one is surprised when he's this shallow. He called the execrable United States of Leland "powerful stuff.")

Ebert calls Million Dollar Baby his no. 1 movie pick of the year. Guess he didn't notice -- or didn't care about -- any of the manipulation or plot holes, especially relating to the ending:

What else it is, all it is, how deep it goes, what emotional power it contains, I cannot suggest in this review, because I will not spoil the experience of following this story into the deepest secrets of life and death. This is the best film of the year. (Read review.)

Ebert thinks he "gets" disability. He's participated in a couple of fundraising events for a local disability advocacy organization here in Chicago. And a couple of his reviews have shown some sensitivity about disability. Here's a snippet from his review of The Other Sister:

The Other Sister is shameless in its use of mental retardation as a gimmick, a prop and a plot device. Anyone with any knowledge of retardation is likely to find the film offensive. It treats the characters like cute little performing seals . . . " (Read review.)

The same could be said for Baby's cartoonish character "Danger." But apparently Ebert was so enthralled with the movie that he didn't look at the use of mental retardation with the critical eye he applied to Sister. Like so many people outside of our community who feel that they've finally "gotten it" about disability, Ebert, it appears, doesn't think he needs to learn any more -- even when the audience is being asked to look at the murder/suicide of a disabled person as a deep, emotionally satisfying experience.

Nor does Ebert question the authenticity of the onslaught of medical complications besetting Maggie, or the quality of her care, or the plausibility of Frankie sneaking unnoticed into a facility in the middle of the night.

Ebert and his colleagues also seem unaware that all someone in Maggie's situation need do is ask that their vent get shut off. Didn't any of them read the biography of their friend Chris Reeve? He talked about it. Of course, Reeve never went so far as to have his vent turned off. So it probably never registered with any of them.

Another thing that critics probably weren't aware of is Clint Eastwood's long battle against the Americans with Disabilities Act. Eastwood has been at the forefront of efforts to weaken the ADA by building in a requirement that businesses be notified 90 days before being sued for inaccessibility, even though they've been supposed to be accessible since 1992.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can we respond?

First -- and it hurts me to say this -- it's hard to criticize a movie without actually seeing it. So the first thing is to see it. But don't go alone.

If you agree with any or all of the criticisms listed here, you can do any of the following:

Leaflet a theater showing the movie.

Write letters to the editor in your local papers offering an alternative to the favorable reviews.

Publish articles in your own organizational newsletters about the movie, along with Eastwood's history with the ADA.

Turn that article into an op-ed piece and submit it to your local newspaper sometime before the Oscars (which are February 27 this year).

Publish your own reviews on the web and in organizational publications.

Think hard -- we are -- if there's anything we can or want to do about the Oscars, where it's sure to be on the list of contenders.
Aside from these things, of course, there's always the option of audibly saying "bullshit" 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kinda puts a different spin on things, doesn't it? Imagine this piece of dialogue at Maggie's bedside:

"I'm tired of staying in this room, Frankie."

"Well, I'd take you to my resort, but I haven't made any of the guest rooms accessible yet as a matter of principle. Maybe I could order us some take-out."

The cynic in me says that maybe the most accurate label we can put on this movie is "Clint Eastwood's Revenge." Hey, if we kill 'em, we don't have to make our resorts accessible!

This movie is a corny, melodramatic assault on people with disabilities. It plays out killing as a romantic fantasy and gives emotional life to the "better dead than disabled" mindset lurking in the heart of the typical (read: nondisabled) audience member.

That's the truth and we need to deal with it. It explains why movies such as Whose Life is it, Anyway? become immensely popular. It explains why The Sea Inside was such a hit with critics. These are the stories about disability that society wants to believe are true. And critics are part of society.

These films don't reflect the typical disability experience, which, for most of us, is just the experience of living our lives. Books and movies about our simple struggle to live life in an oppressive society receive little notice from the public, press or critics. It's only when a disabled person, real or fictional, says they want to die that the movie becomes a hit, the book a bestseller.

It's going to be a long, hard, cold year in the movies. We're lucky U. S. audiences don't have much interest in subtitled movies or we'd be dealing with a double whammy right now with The Sea Inside.

But hold on! A filmmaker is working on a feature film of the life of Jack Kevorkian she hopes to release this year. And we've been contacted by still another filmmaker planning a documentary on Kevorkian; she's hoping for a release date this year as well.

Talk about living in dangerous times.

Posted Jan. 11, 2004

Steve Drake is Research Analyst for Not Dead Yet. Read his article, From 'mercy killing' to 'domestic violence': Shirley Harrison, the Chicago Media and Not Dead Yet.

WHAT DO YOU THINK of what you've just read?

© Copyright 2004 by The Advocado Press

This Website produced by Cliffwood Organic Works

[esther]

Thanks for posting that Simon. That's 11 bucks I will be saving not seeing that movie...despite the reviewer's advice! ...I knew there was a reason I didn't like Clint Eastwood

[kanga2433]

Wow! I've certainly not heard of that moview; yet! is there no limit past which Hollywood will go to make a movie? Well, I certain;y wpon't be at any showings.

[mcferguson]

I saw this movie before my accident and I didn't like the ending then either. I can say now, though, that I understand more how unfun life can be when you're paralyzed. I was totally oblivious to the health issues and how poorly they were portrayed, but thought it was hokey how there was no alarms going off when her vent was turned off.

[qbounce]

I liked the movie. I didn't see all the issues it had that wouldn't make it PC, or even all together unrealistic.

I think it took a moral stance on how we see ourselves and how we cherish our lives.

Being AB then, I didn't really think of the negative aspect of a disabled person wanting to die . . . just THAT one.

I STILL don't.

Hey, didn't "MURDER BALL" come out the same year?

[Tinbasher]

This Movie takes on a more worrying tone when you become aware of Eastwoods real life stance against Disability Rights such as the ADA. Try reading Mary Johnsons book...

http://www.makethemgoaway.com/

Make Them Go Away: Clint Eastwood, Christopher Reeve and The Case Against Disability Rights. By Mary Johnson. 296pp. $16.95. Softbound print book and electronic text formats available
ISBN 0-9721189-0-X

Tin

[Tetracyclone]

My 2 cents: Most of Simon's points are important ones, yet fr me the underlying issue of "is it better to be dead or disabled?" is beyond political correctness. (Ouch. I hate that phrase. Doesn't mean anything. It's just a form of name-calling. OK, I find it a question worthy of attention.

Many of us thought about it in the hospital and continue to think about it. Given the state of modern medicine you HAVE to think about it to avoid "unnatural suffering". It is one of life's basic questions and reflects our desire to have control of our lives. I thought about it as an AB. I thought carefully about it in the hospital, defining what degree of function I considered livable, and enlisting a friend willing to help if I did not achieve that degree of function. For me it was the ability to live at home, which economically required the ability to be by myself during the day while my husband works.

These definitions depend on life experience, and that mine heavily depended on my long-years as a very able-bodied, very outdoors-oriented person. I heartily confess that my standard is based in my life as able-bodied, nor do I think it requires an apology. It is just a part of me I don't wish to give up. My tastes should not be shared by others- its just me.

So I guess I find the movie to be about an able-bodied person's vision of what they find livable. And about the movie makers ignorance of the right to die, as Simon pointed out.

[StillFingers]

The original post mentioned the movie The Sea Inside as well, a movie I quite liked. Although I did not agree with the gentleman's decision to end his life after his SCI, the movie explored the complexities/depths of despair quite well and did it's best to convey the profound loss many of us feel each day.

Most of us do move on enjoying life and there have been movies that delve into the joyous possibilities after SCI; Joni and The Other Side Of The Mountain were two movies that came out in the early eighties, there have been a few TV movies here in the USA as well.

I'm glad we get to see both sides, its important to do so. This SCI dance is not easy.

Edited by StillFingers, 18 November 2009 - 08:49 PM.

[wheeliebear75]

NOBODY 'has to" live in a nursing home. There is this lovely service in the U.S. called IHSS In Home Support Services & I'm sure UK probably has a similar service! It is cheaper to pay someone to come & stay with a person who is unable to be by themselves than it is to be in a skilled nursing facility. Even if a person was a C1 complete 100% vent dependent they could STILL live in their home; so long as they can get in & out of their home (OK 4th story apt. in Bronx New York with no elevator wouldn't work......but 90% of homes & apt. CAN BE made accessible enough to stay out of nursing homes as a permanent living solution). SCI didn't cause someone to loose their leg to infection.......not being turned often enough caused THAT!

I had NO idea about Clint Eastwood being so anti-ADA. I suppose 7+ years wasn't enough advanced notice......they need a special memo? Well Mr. Eastwood is getting up there in years........anyone suppose he'll do us all a favor & ask someone do to him what Maggie had done when he has to have hip replacements? After all........he might be grief stricken by not being able to go up stairs anymore.

[edlee]

Those were Steve Drake's points, puff,, not Simon's. He may agree with them,,, or not.

Me,,, I saw the movie post injury. Wasn't my favorite Eastwood flick,, but not for the reasons in Drake's blog. Perhaps I'm in the minority here,, but I find him to be talented,, more so in his directing than his acting,, but I generally will go out of my way to see either.

What many don't seem to want to see,,, and I'm not talking about just here,,, is that movies are not meant to be a guide to social engineering,,,, well, some are, but they generally don't sell well ( see An Inconvenient truth). They are supposed to elicit an emotional response. Guess what,,, this one did here.

There are a lot of movies that are a waste of celluloid in my opinion,,,, anything in the horror genre comes to mind,,, but so what. People vote with their feet,, or wheels,, you don't like it,, leave,, warn your friends.
ed

[Ratticis]

But now even more people "Know what you're going through"

[E-DOG]

I saw it pre-injury and thought it was OK.
But then I don't go to movies to sit there and dissect, analyze, critisize and get pissed off at.
They're just movies. Artistic license, the magic of Hollywood, divine intervention are all part and parcel of the cinematic experience.

If I want a message I'll read a book.
Eastwood may not be America's greatest living actor / movie maker (that distinction goes to Dolf Lungren, of course) but there ain't a whole lotta flicks he's in that I haven't seen. Bridges of Mad Cow being one of them.

E

[mcferguson]

E-DOG, on Nov 19 2009, 12:28 AM, said:

Eastwood may not be America's greatest living actor / movie maker (that distinction goes to Dolf Lungren, of course)

E

Hail Dolf! His movies are sooooo gooooood! Lets see, there was that great scene in....hmmmmm, well, he also did this great movie called....and who could ever forget....well, come to think of it..., his movies were a bit to artsy for me. I prefer mind candy.