so I finally saw
Million Dollar Baby yesterday:
Before I had seen it, I knew everything about the plot (as did most people who didn't see the movie as soon as it was released, because it ignited a big controversy over the assisted suicide and many people were discussing it in public), so I am not going to give the movie a rating, cuz it's too difficult to judge it objectively having known the whole story before I began watching. For some movies, knowing the story is not all that important, but for others, it is very important, and this is one of them.
To the best of my ability to try to be objective here, I will say that I thought it was alright, but not a masterpiece like so many people believe. But again,
I will absolutely admit that it's impossible for me to know how I would have felt if I had gone in not knowing anything about the story.IMO, Swank is good but not incredible. (I didn't see any of the other Oscar-nominated actresses from that year, so I can't saw whether or not I thought Swanks deserved to win; but if you wanna use the phrase "Oscar-worthy" as a general phrase meaning "great," then no, IMO Swank was not Oscar-worthy. And I don't think Eastwood's performance was worthy of an Oscar nomination.
As a movie, I definitely prefer
The Aviator.
I am absolutely not gonna get into a
normative debate over assisted suicide; that's for each of you to deal with on your own terms, with your own conscience, religious leader, morals, family, friends, etc. I'll just discuss some
positive issues (as in positive vs. normative) about the movie's controversies.
Cinematically, I thought the ending was very powerful. Definitely, those last few scenes are the best part of the movie.
I'm not sure if the whole storyline with Eastwood's estranged daughter was even necessary at all; I can see a lonely old trainer taking on a project like Swank even if he didn't have an estranged daughter; I am not sure if the estranged daughter adds anything to the story.
btw, I remember when it was first released, my roommate in college was talking about it, and said, "i refuse to see that movie; it's just a pro-assisted suicide propaganda." Now, I don't know if I would have seen it anyway -- at that time, I was a casual movie fan at best, and hadn't seen any Eastwood movies; all I knew about Eastwood was that he had acted in some movie called GBU that had this song called Ecstasy of Gold that Metallica walked to every concert to, and that at some point down the line, I therefore wanted to see GBU
...) -- so there's a damn good chance I never woulda seen it at that time anyway, but then I was reading all about the controversies, including in sports magazines, and read about the ending, and whatever, I just never had an interest in seeing it.
Until now.
After seeing the movie, I will say this: I do not think it is trying to in any way justify assisted suicide, or take a position one way or another on the matter. The point is, I think everyone can agree that it's possible that a person in Swank's situation would want to die, and that a person in Eastwood's position would be tempted to help her, and maybe even do so, even if he has strong reservations about doing so. This is about how one man acted in a a particularly awful situation, and I don't think the movie was trying to make a point that said action was justified or unjustified.
Put it this way: this movie is certainly not making any point in a blatant way like Michael Moore's movies are anti-Bush, or
An American Carol is anti-Moore,
October Baby is anti-abortion, or
Full Metal Jacket is anti-Vietnam.
Assisted suicide is obviously a very controversial and emotional issue, and perhaps I can see how someone who is staunchly opposed to it can believe that this movie justifies it, but IMO this movie is just about how one man acted in one situation, and I don't know if the movie necessarily is trying to justify it.
Finally, and this is something I feel very strongly about: there were a lot of disabled/paralyzed people, and groups representing those people, who were protesting over how they believed the movie is saying that a person is better off dead than paralyzed. That is absolute total bullshit. All it's talking about is one girl in one situation. Is it plausible that a girl in Swank's situation would want to die? Certainly. True, many people in her situation do not want to die. But the fact is that it is certainly plausible that someone in her situation would want to die -- people commit themselves over far less problems than paralysis -- and therefore, the story is plausible. This movie in no way, shape, or form is making the point that if one is paralyzed, he/she is better off dead. It's just about how one woman and one man were confronted with a devastating situation, and how they acted in that situation.
I guess
Unforgiven and
Million Dollar Baby are generally considered Eastwood's masterpieces, but for me, nothing can touch
Mystic River and
The Bridges of Madison County.
