• news
  • THURSDAY JANUARY 27 2005 4:25 PM

Protest, But Don't Spoil

Submitted by jake_lex

Edited by Christopher

Activists are protesting the movie "Million Dollar Baby," and are demanding that those who review or write about the movie reveal its ending. Click on the Spoiler link below if you want to see the rest of this article, which will indeed spoil the ending.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Late in the movie, Maggie, the boxer played by Hilary Swank and trained by Clint Eastwood's character, Frankie, is rendered quadriplegic by injuries she sustains in a fight. Frankie promises her he will care for her, but Maggie doesn't want to live like this, so Frankie pulls out her ventilator, and gives her a lethal injection of adrenaline, which kills her. Activists for the disabled are blasting the movie as saying that the disabled would be better off dead, and are asking that reviewers of the movie address this.



Kalman Kaplan, a professor of psychology at Wayne State University, wrote a letter of protest to Roger Ebert. He seconded Ebert's praise for the first two-thirds of Million Dollar Baby, the portion Ebert had described in his review. "My disagreement is with what you haven't discussed: the 90 degree turn after Maggie's tragic accident into a naive . . . factually incorrect, out-of-date and dangerous characterization of a disabled person, and its implicit advocacy . . . of mercy-killing of the disabled." He compared Million Dollar Baby to propaganda films made in Germany under Hitler.

Diane Coleman considers herself lucky to have known what was coming. Coleman, president of Not Dead Yet, has spinal muscular atrophy. She's been in a wheelchair since she was 11 and is now on a ventilator at night. "I was the only wheelchair user in the theater, which was packed," she says. "I already knew what I was going to see, and I was pretty much steeled against it in terms of personal pain. But I couldn't stop thinking about all the people I see at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago who are newly injured and how they would react when they were assaulted by the ending.

"The whole thing is so contrived, because people already have the right to refuse treatment. She was on a ventilator, and she had the legal right to refuse it. The role of everyone else is to convince them that life is worth living."



Fueling the fire is that Eastwood himself was sued for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1997 for not providing handicapped facilities at a hotel he owns.

So far, most major reviewers are continuing to refuse to discuss the movie's ending, except in oblique terms that doesn't reveal what happens, citing the anger they'd stir up if they gave away the ending.




All these details were off-limits to critics because they came along in the part of the movie critics forbid themselves to talk about. "There's an unspoken rule you don't reveal reversals in the third act," says Wilmington. Ebert wrote me, "A critic who gives away something like that in his original review will have scorn and hatred heaped upon him by moviegoers. Believe me, I know." On Tuesday he obliquely weighed in on the debate by applauding the documentary Murderball, which is about quadriplegics who triumph as athletes. Ebert and Wilmington both loved Million Dollar Baby. Diane Coleman despised it, and her duty, unlike the critics', was to promptly and loudly say why.



Full article here: http://www.chireader.com/hottype/2005/050128_2.html

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Comments
Cigarette

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH
April 2004

JAN 27, 2005 04:36 PM

That is a shady business practice, my friend. I can't know what's newsworthy about it without knowing what happens? LAME.

inscrutable

inscrutable

Saint Louis, MO
January 2005

JAN 27, 2005 04:45 PM

There's really no way of telling you why people are upset without spoiling the ending. You just have to either go see the movie, or like me, click on the link because you don't care about the surprise ending.

SirPsychoSexy

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004

JAN 27, 2005 04:45 PM

Wow, what a piece of crap. I don't really care about what they did, I just really really hate the stupid "don't tell anyone about the 'twisty twist, oh so twisty' surprise" endings.
I always get the feeling that instead of the portrayed plot insanity being random, or a result of any decision made by a character, it is - in fact - entirely the script writers fault. All rage over the plot occurrence is directed at them and makes the move a huge piece of crap.
"The Sixth Sense" sucked royal ass too.

[Edited on Jan 27, 2005 7:47PM]

jake_lex

jake_lex

Lexington, KY
February 2003

JAN 27, 2005 04:46 PM

Apparently, the twist in the plot is fairly unexpected from the rest of the movie, is quite shocking, and changes the tone of the movie entirely. And there's no way to really address the controversy without revealing it. As such, I put the main text of the article under the "spoiler" tag.

Michael_J_Totten

Michael_J_Totten

Iraq
February 2004

JAN 27, 2005 04:51 PM

I did not click the spoiler link, so take that into account here, but...activists who demand writers write a movie review in a certain way can eff off. How utterly obnoxious. I wrote two movie reviews recently. My editor didn't tell me what to say or how to say it, so why should anyone else? Ptth.

SirPsychoSexy

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004

JAN 27, 2005 04:54 PM

I guess anyone who wishes to respond in context of the spoiler tag should also put any plot spoilers within the spoiler tag.
Like so:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Clint Eastwood is old, he should stop doing movies. If he was giving anyone in that move a 'shot' he should have used a .44 magnum. Jerk.
God I cant stand the commercials for this movie, this plot revelation makes me actively wish to destroy anyone else's wish to see this film.

SirPsychoSexy

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004

JAN 27, 2005 04:57 PM

Also; to anyone who did not click the spoiler tag, you will save yourself 6-9 dollars and about 100 minutes of your life if you do.

A_Violet_Fluid

A_Violet_Fluid

Portland, OR
December 2004

JAN 27, 2005 05:00 PM

I say tell the entire story in the advertising... Then you won't rip ppl off by makin them think that the movie is gonna kick ass... I'm not gonna see this, and probably won't go see a movie in theatres until Doom comes out...

Bastardo

Bastardo

Boston, MA
January 2005

JAN 27, 2005 05:15 PM

Oddly enough, this article doesn't mention if Hilary Swank gets naked in this film. surreal

SomethingStupid

SomethingStupid

North Hollywood, CA
March 2004

JAN 27, 2005 05:43 PM

SirPsychoSexy said:
Wow, what a piece of crap. I don't really care about what they did, I just really really hate the stupid "don't tell anyone about the 'twisty twist, oh so twisty' surprise" endings.
I always get the feeling that instead of the portrayed plot insanity being random, or a result of any decision made by a character, it is - in fact - entirely the script writers fault. All rage over the plot occurrence is directed at them and makes the move a huge piece of crap.
"The Sixth Sense" sucked royal ass too.


It's not really a surprise ending, per se. The "ending" is the entire third act of the movie. It's more an unexpected plot development that you shouldn't tell people about so as not to ruin the emotional impact of it.

As far as the rest of it goes...

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
The woman makes a personal choice. Yes, she could have refused treatment, but I had assumed (I really wouldn't know) that that would not be a quick and painless death. So she asked him to do it for her. It made sense along those lines. Also, the movie doesn't say that what happens is right at all. Actually, a priest advises him to do exactly the opposite. What I liked about the movie was that it followed a story to a conclusion, for better or for worse.

The rest of it, I just think this is bitching along the same lines as A Beautiful Mind a while back; taking the story as overall advice for people in that situation (in A Beautiful Mind, he decided not to take his medication for schizophrenia) rather than a specific story. I'm never very sympathetic to that.



I anyway thought the movie was outstanding, but I'm going to have to check out what that woman mentioned. We'll see.

SomethingStupid

SomethingStupid

North Hollywood, CA
March 2004

JAN 27, 2005 05:48 PM

A_Violet_Fluid said:
I say tell the entire story in the advertising... Then you won't rip ppl off by makin them think that the movie is gonna kick ass...


NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO

Stop that! That's what they do like half the time and it sucks and it's horrible and most movies are so disgustingly formulaic. I like watching a movie and not knowing where it's going to go. It's the best, when you see a great movie and you don't know what's going to happen next. It's rare, but it happens.

Cigarette

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH
April 2004

JAN 27, 2005 06:18 PM

SirPsychoSexy said:
Also; to anyone who did not click the spoiler tag, you will save yourself 6-9 dollars and about 100 minutes of your life if you do.



I'm not sure I can argue with 92% Fresh rating on Rottentomatoes

Crim

Crim

HOPEFUL

Portland, OR

JAN 27, 2005 06:50 PM

I'm still mad at the Lord of the Rings trilogy

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Gollum was addicted to the ring, and chose to kill himself to get it for 2 more seconds. This sends a horrible message to any addicts. I wish I had known about this, I would have boycotted the movie. I mean, I'm an alcoholic, so it really hurt me. Bastards. I wish the reviews told me the whole story.


Oh wait.

no.



I guess I'm an ass.

Falling_Jon

Falling_Jon

Phoenix, AZ
March 2004

JAN 27, 2005 07:57 PM

I think people need to focus their anger on real-life issues rather than "make-believe" situations in movies. Yes, if that was the situation in real life, I would expect people to be angry/ sad/ whatever, but in a piece of fiction that exists only to entertain/ show a different viewpoint from the everyday, I wouldn't bust out my anti-whatever signs and tire-slashing shiv.


The movie business would be even more lame if they tried to keep everything out that might offend, bother, or scare certain portions of the population.


The end.


robot

SomethingStupid

SomethingStupid

North Hollywood, CA
March 2004

JAN 27, 2005 08:38 PM

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
Does anyone else think that Not Dead Yet is an incredibly bad name for a group of people who are severely disabled? Jesus Christ, I'd fuckin' kill myself if I were visited by a group of that name.

I was working, so I didn't really get to read the article earlier, but now that I have, I'm pretty convinced that the person who wrote it is an idiot. First of all, they say that the movie plays as an endorsement of assisted suicide, which is as close to wrong as I can think. The only advice Eastwood gets on the subject, actually, is from a priest who tells him in no uncertain terms that if he does it, he will be haunted for the rest of his life. Which is absolutely true, as this is a man who is already haunted by a past. But more importantly, one of the issues that the article takes is against the romantic nature of Eastwood's character to Swank's. I can see how you could downplay the priest's advice, I guess, but I really don't see how you can argue that the relationship in the movie was the slightest bit romantic. It was father/daughter. It was so clearly father/daughter. She doesn't have a dad and has a shitty family, he has an alienated daughter who he writes letters to every week. They are their own surrogate family, that was the point. And so when he takes her life, he is basically killing the only family member who cares about him. And then he disappears - leaves everything he's ever worked for behind. And that's the end.

My thing is, if that's supposed to be an advertisement for euthanasia, it's a fucking shitty one. The man already couldn't forgive himself for something (it's never clear exactly what happened between he and his daughter, but it doesn't really matter what it was) and now he's going to spend his remaining years that much more tortured. Whee!

Oh, and the article also says that his hotel's violations of handicapped accessibility were minor, and that the reason it pissed people off is because afterwards he tried to get a bill passed that made it so that a hotel had ninety days to fix whatever the problem was before it can be sued. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

featured interviews