Posted on 02/16/2005 12:40:53 AM PST by beaversmom
Seattle's most influential film pundit, Michael Medved, is picking a fight with Clint Eastwood. The conservative radio host and Wall Street Journal contributor first laid into the Oscars for snubbing The Passion of the Christ in favor of bad-values movies: abortion (Vera Drake), sex (Kinsey), and assisted suicide (The Sea Inside, Million Dollar Baby). Being the brightest Oscar hopeful among that group, Eastwood's MDB instantly became the central casus belli. Both Rush Limbaugh and Mercer Island's Rabbi Daniel Lapin soon joined Medved's side, while some disabled groups bitterly protested the film's ending, in which Bellingham-raised Hilary Swank chooses death after getting paralyzed in the ring. The organization Not Dead Yet claimed the film "promotes the killing of disabled people."
Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd swiftly counterpunched Medved in The New York Times; so did Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper, and Jim Emerson, the Seattle-based editor of the RogerEbert.com Web site. Meanwhile, Medved is promoting a big new book, Right Turns: Unconventional Lessons From a Controversial Life (Crown, $26.95). This prompted Emerson to write on the Ebert site: "These guys are partisan opportunists, not movie critics, and assuming loud and outraged positions is how they make their living."
In a recent e-mail exchange, Medved insists he's misunderstood. "The idea that I've been leading some sort of 'jihad' or 'crusade' against Eastwood is absurd. I admire Eastwood, just as everyone else does. I do believe, however, that Million Dollar Baby takes an unmistakably sympathetic view of assisted suicide."
But in his e-mail, Medved cites it as only one of many examples of Hollywood's "longstanding hostility to religious traditionalism." In USA Today, he lambastes an "almost pathological discomfort with the traditional religiosity embraced by most of its mass audience." He believes that Eastwood's studio, Warner Bros., sneakily tried to trick audiences into thinking MDB is upbeat, triumphalist entertainment. "It's a very dishonest film," he told The Jerusalem Post. "It's been marketed like an updated Rocky, when in reality it's a right-to-die movie."
IN REsPONSE, Ebert and many others protest that the studio and critics didn't reveal the choose-death plot twist because spoiler- hating viewers would storm their offices like the torch-wielding villagers in Frankenstein. This spoiler aversion prompted The Los Angeles Times to ridicule the entire film-reviewing establishment for meekly serving the industry instead of acting like grown-ups covering the news. Medved mostly agrees with the Times position, though he—like Seattle Weekly's January review—danced around the movie's essential facts to minimize spoilers.
Is that more or less dishonest than the studio ads? Is Medved trying to have it both ways? Emerson, who once spent two hours debating Medved, complains to SW, "He just backs off when somebody offers a counterexample or contrary opinion." Then there's Seattle critic Jeff Shannon, a quadriplegic who's written in The Seattle Times and nationally about MDB: "I can see where Medved is coming from. As a moral watchdog, he has a reason to do this." But Shannon busts him on a factual error: "Medved says the movie overtly states that what Frank [Eastwood's character] does is heroic, and that is nowhere in the movie. Eastwood's personal view is that Frank didn't do the right thing, and he's a doomed man. It's like a film noir." Shannon says Eastwood had this to say about "that guy Medved" and his punditry: "If you hate something so badly, maybe you should look within."
Shannon calls himself "schizophrenic" about the film. As a critic, he loves it, yet he winces at the way it stacks the deck against a quadriplegic being able to lead a productive life. In an e-mail to SW, he argues, "While everyone is buzzing about right- to-die issues, plot spoilers, and morality in popular culture, the very legitimate concerns of the most neglected and misunderstood minority on the planet are de-emphasized or completely dismissed. It all boils down to this: The concerns of the disabled protesters are justified, but there's more than one way to interpret the film."
In his e-mail, Medved accuses critics of "ginning up this controversy out of nothing—in order to boost the movie's Oscar chances. . . . They're trying to gain sympathy for Eastwood by portraying him as facing a furious assault by a brigade of archconservative mountebanks. By voting for Clint and his movie, you can cast an emphatic vote against Medved and Medvedism."
Perhaps the best way to approach the controversy, and much more, is to emulate Shannon, whom Ebert quotes in his Web site essay on the MDB contretemps: "I look at life the way I look at a good movie—I can't wait to see what happens next."
tappelo@seattleweekly.com
Medved ping. Anyone who would like to be on the Medved ping list, please send me an e-mail.
Why would anyone want to watch such a downbeat movie anyway?
Dirty Harry has gone Hollywood.
On the off chance that Swank actually was snuffed in the film so that we don't have to endure another 40 years of such bilge (Boys Don't Cry etc.) with her as the starring weirdo. Other than that, no reason at all.
Not only bad values, just plain bad.
I have not seen the film, but i think eastwood is a good film maker and is usually the antithesis of the hollywood liberal,. especially in his older films. But his latest ones are getting a lot of love from hollywood meaning they are turning into sappy socially critical crap.
MULTIPLE CHOICE:
A: For entertainment - to see if she wins a million bucks - and then to be able to jump into the fun of talking about the flick. When someone does not give away the ending, you do not know what to expect, that it is 'downbeat' or whatever.
B: To learn how you should mimic every thing that happens in a fictional story. That is, to give you more options than you would of considered, having not seen the flick.
Medved is a brilliant man an a dedicated Jew. His wife is equally brilliant and witty.
Well, hold on to your hats, ladies and gents!
This is the first time ... the very first time ... Hollywood has tried to "trick" people into paying for something that was less than advertized.
The shame of it all.
I've seen MDB and enjoyed about 2/3 of the movie. Then the film drops the first of several gob-stopping bombs on a paying audience.
But here's the truly weird part for Hollywood:
Fine. You got my money. Ha, ha! Ya fooled me. So explain the movie.
Okay! Ya got my money. I don't get it. Explain it to me!
Hey! I paid for the privilege! EXPLAIN IT TO ME!
(Okay, weird rant off.)
See? They set you up for a sucker punch movie, and then don't bother to explain it.
"Oooh," the critics say, "It's too powerful to be explained in a clear, concise manner. Ooooh, weren't you SURPRISED? Ooooh, WE never see that in REAL life."
True, a critic walled off in his internet cave probably WOULDN'T see that in real life. But we on the "outside" that pay attention to real life know already that, sometimes, life's a big ugly one and then you die.
No, I shouldn't have been surprised. I shoulda KNOWN that a movie that the critics love that isn't even available to watch during the holiday lead-up to the Oscars was yet another pointless, human train-wreck story in disguise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.