Million Dollar Baby: A complete disappointed (morally disappointing)
A few months ago, I finally got a chance to see A Million Dollar Baby. I
wanted to see what the hype was about. I had the say the presentation
of the movie was good up until when Frankie commits euthansia on Maggie.
Maggie suffer from an injury she got from a fight. It paralyzed her.
Quote:
|
Eventually, Maggie confides to Dunn that she has "seen it all" and asks
to be relieved of suffering. Dunn flat out refuses and begins to
question the morality of it all, even speaking with a priest who objects
(the same priest who didn't believe that Dunn was sending letters to
his daughter). She attempts suicide by biting her tongue multiple times
in an attempt to bleed to death. Hospital staff subdue her attempts,
causing Dunn to realize that her suffering should last no more. Dunn
ultimately commits euthanasia by injecting her with an overdose of
adrenaline.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Dollar_Baby
I don't know what the Hollywood is trying to do, but distorting the
truth and trying to make the culture of death (in this case euthanasia)
is sicking.
I don't know how many of you saw the film, but I became disgusted by it.
Euthanasia my friend is morally evil. A grave sin. I don't care how bad
I am suffering from an illness, but no one has the right to take my
life. Only God can. I believe the character of Clint Eastwood has
committed murder. Playing the sympathic theme by Hollywood has become
too sicking to my stomach.
I don't even know why this movie got a Academy Award. Any film that promotes Mercy Killing shouldn't be rewarded. 
__________________
Call me Emmanuel, or Manny.
Sep 19, '07, 2:10 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: February 26, 2007
Posts: 1,359
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
|
|
Re: Million Dollar Baby: A complete disappointed (morally disappointing)
Quote:
|
First of all, a movie can be immoral and still a great movie
artistically. It is downright foolish to criticize a secular
organization for giving an award (the Oscar) based on artistic quality
to a movie with which you disagree on religious grounds. This is just
another form of political correctness.
|
I have to disagree with you, Contarini; the purpose of man's
artisitic gifts is to glorify god and uplift man's noblest qualities,
not drag them through the gutter.
A just intolerance against sin and injustice is praiseworthy.
So great a patron of art and architecture is the Church that a saying
became current: "There is no art outside the Catholic Church."
This is not "political correctness." The Catholic Church is not solely a
social interest / political / advocacy organization. This is the view
of the Truth of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church that he founded.
The Catholic Church teaches Truth; you may or may not believe that.
From this perspective, grounded on Catholic Truth and Teaching, the
dominos of decadent Hollywood and New York and L.A. produced movies and
television programs begin to fall.
I don't understand why you want Catholic cultural critics to close their mouths and be silent.
Christian people have the right, as free people, under the 1st Amendment
to express there criticism of society, including politics, art, and
culture, if they choose to do so.
Anyways, about the film; it wasn't paying too much attention to it when it was on recently a few months ago.
But from what I saw (I wasn't paying full attention), I don't think
Clint committed murder based on what I know about Catholic teaching in
this area, but the film, in dealing with this important moral issue,
doesn't point out the very specific facts that only apply to Frankie's
situation.
As a result, I think the majority of people leaving the theater were
persuaded that ANY case involving euthanasia types situations where
there is an incapacitated individual, conscious or not conscious, the
individual or their family should be able to choose whether of not the
person should die, and not some outside authority (the hospital, or the
Catholic Church).
The character of the Priest could have been used to explain all this;
the people who write the scripts are very intelligent people.
But it wasn't explained.
It seemed that the female character, Frankie, was on an "iron lung" which was her main form of respiration.
My understanding is that if such is the case, (now, don't quote me on this!!), you can end the artificial means of respiration morally, since it is artificial and not natural.
With Ms. Schiavo, who was only in a coma, we are obliged as civilized
human beings to give her food and water, which are natural and required
by nature for the body to function.
Ms. Schiavo was not on an iron lung; she was breathing naturally.
Ms. Schiavo's body was working as nature and God created it, and
because she committed no crime, destroying her life was an act of
murder, giving sanction by the state of Florida.
|
Sep 19, '07, 2:27 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Location: Richmond, Kentucky
Posts: 17,850
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Million Dollar Baby: A complete disappointed (morally disappointing)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwyer
I have to disagree with you, Contarini;
the purpose of man's artisitic gifts is to glorify god and uplift man's
noblest qualities, not drag them through the gutter.
|
But the gutter is going to be there. Who is going to address the
suffering of the people in the gutter, while artists are getting all
starry-eyed about our "noblest qualities"? Do you want a Divine Comedy
with no Inferno? Do you want your Michelangelo to be all David and no
Last Judgment?
Don't you think Dostoyevsky glorified God by his novels?
Quote:
|
This is not "political correctness."
|
In the context of our society, yes it is. If you are seriously
maintaining that Catholicism should be the state Church and all other
points of view should be banned, then I can respect that (although I
would disagree with it). But in our society it is accepted that
different points of view can be expressed. So the only way to shut down
opposing points of view is to claim to be offended by them--hence my
reference to political correctness.
Quote:
|
I don't understand why you want Catholic cultural critics to close their mouths and be silent.
|
I don't. I want them to speak intelligently with respect for the
difference between art and propaganda (Flannery O'Connor's essays called
Mystery and Manners are a good place to start), and with
awareness of the fact that a work of art that does not entirely conform
to Catholic teaching can still be profound and valuable.
If you choose to take a different approach, of course you have the right to speak--but I have the right to disagree.
Your equation of disagreement with an attempt to "silence" you is
another example of political correctness. I have the right to try to
persuade you to change your mind--that is not trying to "shut you up"
except with the legitimate weapons of reason.
Quote:
Clint committed murder based on what I know about Catholic teaching in
this area, but the film, in dealing with this important moral issue,
doesn't point out the very specific facts that only apply to Frankie's
situation.
As a result, I think the majority of people leaving the theater were
persuaded that ANY case involving euthanasia types situations where
there is an incapacitated individual, conscious or not conscious, the
individual or their family should be able to choose whether of not the
person should die, and not some outside authority (the hospital, or the
Catholic Church).
|
On what do you base that opinion? And what do you think the people
believed going into the movie? And if you agree that art and propaganda
are different, why is this the primary consideration?
The question to ask about a work of imagination is: did this work
illuminate some aspect of reality? Did it help us understand (on an
imaginative, intuitive level) our lives as human beings? I think this
movie did. It presented certain characters and their decisions, and
confronted us with them in a powerful way. What lessons we draw from the
movie are going to depend primarily on our broader philosophical and
theological framework. If we think that compassion is an absolute good
and that the only evil is for a person to suffer, then we are going to
think Frankie did the right thing. But that's not the movie's fault--if
anything, I think the movie challenges that assumption quite
surprisingly, by indicating that Frankie has done something quite
disastrous to his soul by helping Maggie kill herself. But perhaps I
only conclude this because of my overarching presuppositions going into
the movie.
Edwin
Sep 19, '07, 7:43 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: May 26, 2007
Posts: 26,712
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Million Dollar Baby: A complete disappointed (morally disappointing)
As a Christian, and as a writer who knows he has been given a gift from God, this is my guide:
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are
honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure,
whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if
there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
Philippians 4:8
Good will battle evil until Christ returns and the inventions of men are temporary. What I put into my head matters.
God bless,
Ed
|
Sep 19, '07, 7:52 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: February 26, 2007
Posts: 1,359
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
|
|
Re: Million Dollar Baby: A complete disappointed (morally disappointing)
Quote:
|
But the gutter is going to be there. Who is going to address the
suffering of the people in the gutter, while artists are getting all
starry-eyed about our "noblest qualities"? Do you want a Divine Comedy
with no Inferno? Do you want your Michelangelo to be all David and no
Last Judgment?
|
Dante and Michelangelo were not glorifying or giving their stamp
of approval to the sin the was punished by God's justice in the Inferno
or The Last Judgement.
The film "Million Dollar Baby" may be a work of art because it is a
film, but most meaningful artwork has a message that it is trying to
convey to its audience.
"Million Dollar Baby," took millions of dollars in bucks to produce;
usually when one is spending millions of bucks, they are doing so for a
purpose.
The purpose of this film (which I saw some of), it seemed to me, (ok, I
didn't really watch it all, and I wouldn't spend good money to rent this
and watch it), was to evoke sympathy for Frankie and his decision to
end Maggie's life, even though she was being kept alive on an artificial
respirator, and even though it conflicted (at least according to the
film's theology, which, as I mentioned above, is, as far as I know, not
the actual Catholic teaching on the subject) with the teaching of the
Catholic Church, and the moral advice of his parish priest.
More generally, I think the movie was trying to show, through Frankie's
and Maggie's example, that people who commit acts of euthanasia or who
are incapacitated and want to do end their lives, do so with the best of
human intentions.
"Million Dollar Baby" does a lot that's wrong; it doesn't show the Truth
about this moral issue; it depicts a devout Catholic man who goes to
Mass everyday blatantly rejecting his Church's teaching, going against
the moral advice of his Priest; it doesn't get the Catholic Church's
teaching on this moral issue correct (I'll have to look it up sometime);
the Catholic Church, despite the impression of the movie, in certain
circumstances, and to my not so expert knowledge (so don't act on this
advice), does allow its members to end their lives if the medical
treatment that is used to prolong the life involves some sort of
artificial, and not natural, means (like an artificial respirator, for
example).
Frankie's ignoring of his Priest's and the Church's moral advice is
scandalous; the creation of sympathy for murdering the weak, infirm, and
terminally sick, without seriously giving an in depth discussion of the
issue, is scandalous
Quote:
|
Bad shows, whether on the stage or the screen corrupt more subtly than
immoral conversation, because what one sees leaves a stronger
impression. Moreover, bad shows represent evil in attractive garb.
|
(My Catholic Faith: A Manual of Religion, Bishop Louis Laravoire Morrow, S.T.D.,1958)
This movie, without having discussed the moral issue, will cause a lot
of confusion in peoples' minds as to what they should do in a similar
situation; and seeing the actor Clint Eastwood, the glamorous Hollywood
star, disregarding his Spiritual Director and end Maggie's life, they
may be more inclined to follow his example than the teaching of Christ
in their own lives.
I base this conclusion on common sense and as a reasonable person; like
any work of art, you have to read between the lines, in order to
understand the point the artist is trying to make, even in a bad work of
art. Art and films are not science.
No one here has said the Catholicism should be the state religion and
that all contrary opinions should be banned (some one suggested the film
shouldn't in good taste have been made, but they didn't say the
producers shouldn't legally be able to make the film).
We're just criticizing the film from a Catholic Christian perspective, grounded on Catholic Truth.
You said:
Quote:
|
It is downright foolish to criticize a secular organization for giving
an award (the Oscar) based on artistic quality to a movie with which you
disagree on religious grounds. This is just another form of political
correctness.
|
If we want to criticize the Academy Awards that's is our freedom
to do so. If we want to express our opinion to an important cultural
organization that is the lynchpin of the film industry , especially with
a film that depicts in a positive manner a member of the Catholic
Church disobeying the moral teaching of his Church on an important moral
issue of our time, I don't see why that is "downright foolish" or a
form of "political correctness" (whatever that means; some words someone
jumbled together).
The people who made this movie have the right to make it and can spend
their money the way they please; but the movie undermines the moral
authority and true teaching of the Catholic Church by its depiction of
Frankie and Maggie; and that needs to be pointed out; and that is why
this film is offensive to many Catholics.
|
Sep 20, '07, 8:07 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: August 20, 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,539
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Million Dollar Baby: A complete disappointed (morally disappointing)
Let's just cut to the chase. Million Dollar Baby was just a plain
stupid movie. No patient in her condition would've been left to
languish on life support like that against her will. A patient has the
right to refuse exceptional means of continuing life.
Since the movie was ostensibly a boxing movie but was really a shallow
and insipid study of a "hard issue," it seems appropriate to compare it
to a deliberate hit below the belt.
-- Mark L. Chance.
__________________
Tiber Swim Team - Class of '05
Two errors: to exclude reason, and to exclude all but reason. - Blaise Pascal.
Help throw the bums out. Don't vote for a single incumbent in 2016.
Sep 20, '07, 8:56 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Location: Richmond, Kentucky
Posts: 17,850
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Million Dollar Baby: A complete disappointed (morally disappointing)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwyer
Dante and Michelangelo were not
glorifying or giving their stamp of approval to the sin the was punished
by God's justice in the Inferno or The Last Judgement.
|
You have yet to show that the movie puts its stamp of approval on
anything. I don't see much approval in the ending of the movie.
Quote:
|
The purpose of this film (which I saw some of), it seemed to me, (ok, I
didn't really watch it all, and I wouldn't spend good money to rent this
and watch it), was to evoke sympathy for Frankie and his decision to
end Maggie's life, even though she was being kept alive on an artificial
respirator, and even though it conflicted (at least according to the
film's theology, which, as I mentioned above, is, as far as I know, not
the actual Catholic teaching on the subject) with the teaching of the
Catholic Church, and the moral advice of his parish priest.
|
Sure. But evoking sympathy is not the same thing as saying it's
right. That is why I found the movie impressive--it doesn't try to
justify the deed. I can't say I'm immensely fond of it--too dark and
gritty--but it won my respect precisely by not being propaganda. And
dark and gritty have a place in a balanced aesthetic diet--they just
shouldn't dominate.
Quote:
|
it depicts a devout Catholic man who goes to Mass everyday blatantly
rejecting his Church's teaching, going against the moral advice of his
Priest;
|
Are you suggesting that this doesn't happen in real life, or that
even if it does movies shouldn't show it so as not to give people ideas?
Quote:
Frankie's ignoring of his Priest's and the Church's moral advice is scandalous;
|
Look, if you think you can't portray bad Catholics in fiction,
you'd have to wipe out most of the Catholic fiction produced in history.
Quote:
|
the creation of sympathy for murdering the weak, infirm, and terminally
sick, without seriously giving an in depth discussion of the issue, is
scandalous
|
You keep assuming that the movie is supposed to be propaganda. I don't think it is.
Quote:
|
No one here has said the Catholicism should be the state religion and
that all contrary opinions should be banned (some one suggested the film
shouldn't in good taste have been made, but they didn't say the
producers shouldn't legally be able to make the film).
|
Fair enough. And similarly, I'm not denying people's right to
express any opinions they choose. I'm just arguing that the criticisms
are a bit narrow and misguided.
Quote:
|
If we want to criticize the Academy Awards that's is our freedom to do
so. If we want to express our opinion to an important cultural
organization that is the lynchpin of the film industry , especially with
a film that depicts in a positive manner a member of the Catholic
Church disobeying the moral teaching of his Church on an important moral
issue of our time, I don't see why that is "downright foolish" or a
form of "political correctness" (whatever that means; some words someone
jumbled together).
|
We all know that the movie industry is driven by money more than
anything else. Protesting a movie is a form of implicit financial
pressure. I think it is unwise to do this except when the movie is
genuinely a work of propaganda. The DaVinci Code, for instance, was a
work of trash built on lies from beginning to end (I'm speaking of the
book--I didn't go to see the movie precisely because I didn't want to
support it). It's fair for Catholics (and other Christians) to say, "We
are not going to go to see such a movie, and we lose respect for those
who produce it and condone it." I am saying that this approach should
not be overused--it should not be trotted out any time a movie questions
or possibly contradicts Catholic teaching on some point. There is a
clear difference (though not without fuzzy borders) between
controversial, thought-provoking art/entertainment and offensive,
propagandistic trash. I am expressing the opinion that MMB is in the
former category rather than the latter.
Edwin
|
Sep 20, '07, 9:05 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: January 27, 2007
Posts: 4,059
Religion: Catholic but at the moment seperated from the sacraments
|
|
Re: Million Dollar Baby: A complete disappointed (morally disappointing)
Quite true. Flannery O' Connor comes to mind here.
Some people strain the gnat and swallow the cammel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Contarini
First of all, a movie can be immoral and
still a great movie artistically. It is downright foolish to criticize a
secular organization for giving an award (the Oscar) based on artistic
quality to a movie with which you disagree on religious grounds. This is
just another form of political correctness.
In the second place, it's not at all clear to me that the movie is
taking some kind of stance on euthanasia. To me, the movie does anything
but glorify it--it shows the decision essentially destroying Frankie.
As I see it, you are criticizing a movie for addressing a tough moral
issue, or at least for not doing so with a clear Catholic message. This
is highly unfair. Again, the moviemakers are presumably not Catholics
and not obligated to present things from a Catholic perspective. But
they are to be commended for presenting this disturbing story as
disturbing and not giving easy answers.
Movies and novels often deal with tormented people making morally flawed
choices. That just comes with the territory. These things happen in
real life, and fiction needs to deal with them. People hurt. It's as
simple as that. You are implying that a movie can't show people hurting
unless they deal with their pain in a morally correct manner, or unless
the movie hammers the audience over the head with the evil of what the
characters have done. (As I said, it seems to me that Charlie's decision
to administer euthanasia is presented as evil, though perhaps I read it
that way because that's what I believe--the point is that the movie can
be read that way.)
Edwin
|
|
-----
Help throw the bums out. Don't vote for a single incumbent in 2016.
|
|
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,
because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior
Jesus Christ,.." - St. Ignatius of Antioch, "Letter to the Smyrnaeans",
paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D." - Manny
|
No comments:
Post a Comment