Million Dollar Baby

(There are an insane amount of spoilers ahead.  The spoilers that come ahead will ruin the movie if you haven't seen it, so do not read this post if you haven't seen "Million Dollar Baby")

Aubrie linked to this article today about the film Million Dollar Baby.  I saw the film two weeks ago, and haven't really figured out a good avenue by which to approach a review of the film.  This won't be a typical review so much as a comment on one specific part of the film.

I had, unfortunately, heard that the film dealt with euthanasia before I went to see the movie.  It severely dampened the effect the film would have had on me had I not known, but the film was still powerful. 

In the above article, which argues that "Baby" is a form of liberal pedantics meant to humanize murder, the author, Maggie Gallagher, says this:

"Million Dollar Baby" portrays murder as the ultimate act of love, teaching us the crippled human being killed wants death, deserves death, is better off dead. How else to explain the look of almost sexual ecstasy on lovely Hillary Swank's face when Clint Eastwood finally agrees to kill her?

 

And it's not just Hollywood, of course -- audiences love the movie, too. I used to wonder how the Nazis readied normal Germans for legalized murder. Walking out of that dark movie theater, I don't wonder anymore.

First of all, this is sensationalistic garbage, but I'll address it.

The film does not portray murder as the ultimate act of love. Yes, it does portrays euthanasia as an end to the story arc of a particular character, but it does so with great deliberation, and with a proper due to the morality of the circumstance.  It is very possible that Eastwood's character, after performing this act, requested by Swank's character, will never be the same again.  He is filled with an inner anguish about this, and desperately does not want to take part.

This was not a film that portrayed euthanasia as putting to death a useless body.  No, this film deals with the circumstance (something our society should do, when speaking to this issue).  Swank's character has achieved so much more than she ever expected she could have, and certainly more than society would normally have allowed her to.  There are two things that make this possible.  The first his her tenacity. She is an old (by boxing terms) woman who would not be given a second look under normal circumstances.  By stubbornness, and a work ethic that would rival most heavyweight champions, she hones her body into a machine that is rivaled by virtually no one at the time.

The time, by the way, is one of the things the film does brilliantly.  It is set in modern times, but the cinematography, the set design, and the manner by which the characters go about there business could place this film in the 20's, 50's, 70's, or today.  By creating a film with such a timelessness, Eastwood slyly puts us in a position of acknowledging that the issues he will present us with later in the film aren't new, and aren't unusual.  This is simply one of those stories that happen.

The accident that paralyzes Swank takes the one thing she had that made her different, unique, and a champion away from her: her body. She had no luck, no chances, and no special favors payed to her along the way, but through her will, she made her body into something that could separate her from all others.  When this is taken away, that which made her different was taken away.

This could just as easily be anything.  If Hunter Thompson had a stroke and was unable to communicate, it would be the same.  The things that set us apart and make us different and unique, once taken away, can effectively end our lives anyway, even while we are living.

But that isn't the point that "Baby" tries to make, either.  The point it makes is that she achieved everything she could achieve.  This wasn't a tragedy, ending a life before it began.  She'd done what she could do and had become the best.  She had no family but met the one person who she truly connected with in her life.  At one point in the movie, driving back from a fight, Eastwood and Swank are in a car and she says "I ain't got no one else but you."  The look they give each other borders on graciousness, love, sexuality, and connection.  The subtlety which the two act with each other in the scene makes everything else work.  You want to believe they have a connection before this point, but after it, you are forced to concede that he may very well know what is in her heart better than anyone else in the world.

So, when he kills her (and that is exactly what it is), he does it not because she is useless for the rest of her life, but because she has achieved all she could ever have hoped to achieve, and she knows and he comes to accept that the rest of her life will be a slow decline in which the greatness she achieved, achieved for herself internally, will fade until it can barely be remembered.  He allows her to take it all with her, at her peak, with no looking back.  If the look on her face is one of sexual ecstasy, then Ms. Gallagher obviously needs to watch a bit more porn (some really good porn would do the trick... treat yourself sweetheart.  You need to loosen up).  The look on her face can only be construed as one of absolute relief... of knowing that her life was lived, and will now end, on her terms, and that her terms, both in life and death, were dictated by the sheer force of her goodwill and endurance.

Take care when comparing art to dictatorial mass genocide... But chances are, if you are making the comparison, you have missed the opportunity to explore the issues the art has put in front of you in the first place, and maybe an overdose of adrenaline would be the best thing for you too.

Comments

[Aubrie]

I don't think I explained myself very well in my own post. I think that the point was exactly what you said: she had made herself into something great and someone she could be proud of, and when that was taken away, she wanted to leave while she was still "on top" (for lack of a better term.)
I had a hard time with that column because Ms. Gallagher brought a hard point to light for me -- she says that human beings should be appreciated for what they are, not what they do. And most of the time I agree. But it makes me think about myself in that situation. I wouldn't want to live my life like Swank's character after the accident. I would probably rather end it too, even though others would argue that I still have contributions to make. But I guess I think about the fact that "what I am" revolves around "what I do." I've worked hard to be where I am in life and if it was all suddenly taken away, I don't know that I would have the drive to reinvent the wheel (or myself).

I am an OT. I am a woman who wants to have a family. I want to be a contributing member of society in a physical way, not just an intellectual one. A spinal cord inury like that would take everything away and I don't think that "what I am" would remain. Simply because I can't do anything anymore.

So when I asked the question, I wondered, does "what you are" really matter? Or is it more of "what you do?"

[Lori]

Beautifully articulated, Dylan. (And Aubrie).

The Finn and I saw the film Saturday night and were very moved. When I woke up on Sunday morning I could "feel" that Pasi was awake and I said "what are you thinking about?" and he said "I'm just thinking about the movie. I'm still so sad." I knew that there was an issue of euthanasia, and so I wasn't so shocked. For people who weren't expecting it, I can't imagine how shocking the moment her neck hit the stool must have been.

I come down, of course, strongly on the side of "if someone wants to end their own life, that should be their right." But what I like about the film is that it has people talking and, better yet, THINKING.

OK, I'm really going to bed now....

[julia]

I guess I just didn't get this movie. It was boring, and everything Clint Eastwood mumbles is supposed to be profound, but I found it to be rather insipid. I just can't compreheand that this deserves best picture.

I felt the same way about Donnie Darko. Didn't understand the hype or Christ-figure imagery there either.

That's my two cents.

[Ms. Q]

Thanks for the spoiler! I mean that. I didn't really want to see this movie, but my friends tried to get us to go last weekend. If I took Mr. Q without this knowledge, he would probably never forgive me! He works in hospice and the last thing he wants to see on the weekend is more death no matter what the context.

This is a timely issue today with the Supreme Court hearing the Oregon physician-assisted suicide case.

[Dylan]

Alright, lots of comments to address here. I'll go in order received.

Aubrie: I didn't disagree with what you said originally, I strongly disagreed with the article you linked to. I am a strong proponent for euthanasia, under strict regulation. To me, it is a testament to the movie that it can make well-thinking people have deeply thoughtful conversations like this one. One of it's strengths it shows that, just as there are some circumstances in which the right thing to do would be to allow them to take their own life, there are also times when it isn't the right thing to do.

By the way, nice job... your blog is barely a week old and it sent me off on a rant. You are catching on quickly.

Lori: That is exactly right. I was pissed off when I left the movie because Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson had created such a stink over the issues in this movie that it spoiled the emotional impact the movie could have had on me, if I'd seen it uninformed. But the film still had an effect because of the thoughfulness and deliberation it approached the subject with.

Julia: You are not the only one with such a view of "MDB." Read here and here for some other interesting viewpoints.

And you SERIOUSLY need to give Donnie Darko another try. I'm not saying it is a world-changing movie, but if you take the messianic insight away from it and watch it as a time-travel, science-fiction movie, it has a lot more secrets. And this is coming from a guy who's Catholic School/Baptist upbringing makes him automatically try to seek out all scriptural undertones in every movie. Don't believe me? Try getting me talking about Vanilla Sky someday.

Mrs. Q: It is a worthwhile film to see, especially for someone in your husband's position because of the way it handles it. Eastwood's character decides to assist Swank into death, but it really makes it hard to discern if this is the morally correct decision or not.

Thank you everyone for your thoughtful comments on this!

[Julia]

I'll TRY to give Donnie Darko another chance, but *shutter* I honestly disliked it the first go-round.

Go see BRIDE & PREJUDICE everyone! It's super cheese fantastic!!

[clearissa]

Hi, I was wondering where the stroyline came from for Millon Dollar Baby. Did it come from a book, was it based on a true story, or did Clint, Eastwood just make it up because he was bored one day.

[Connie]

Perhaps behind in seeing this movie while it was "hot" but after my daughter kept insisting I see it we grabbed a bowl of popcorn and dove in. I see how some people can simply tear this movie apart claiming the political issues. I wish we could all just allow a movie to go beyond great without ripping it apart. This movie was one of the most powerful movies I have even encountered. The ideas that it protrays murder as the ultimate act of love never entered my mind. I found myself so enrathed with the actor as they played their roles and the plot of the movie debating on the hidden messages never came apart of the experence of this movie. I have seen years and years of movies but this one left a mark on my soul.

[vodkaSpy]

vodkaspy.com

email me: vodkaSpy @gmail.com

vodkaspy.whimit.com