[Mr. Silverback]

For give the questioning, but I'm reacting to what I've seen in the threads discussing this movie: Those who defend it demand backup for all assertions against it, but then make sweeping generalizations like this:

Most of the people calling it depraved haven't seen it.

Where's your backup for this? And even if it's true, those who haven't seen it have made their conclusion based on opinions of trustworthy people who have seen it, like Mike Medved and Terri O'Brien.

The movie doesn't present the outcome as something positive or happy.

When have you ever seen Kate Michelman or Gloria Feldt on a talk show saying, "Isn't abortion just a wonderful, wonderful thing?" Only the most hamfisted treatment would try to present this as not only a right choice but a happy one. So, it may not be propaganda, but the fact that Clint's character doesn't do a jig over it means nothing.

Also, how do you reconcile "The movie doesn't present the outcome as something positive" with the Morgan Freeman letter to Eastwood's estranged daughter at the end?

[Borges]

Lots of people have said 'I won't see a movie that...' and so forth. The Freeman character may think what Eastwood did was noble but that doesn't make it so. Fictional characters aren't always right. For example, I think Nick from The Great Gatsby is a callow jerk. He's the narrator. I still love the novel.

Look I really don't have an inclination to defend a movie I wasn't crazy about. It's just the idea of 'immoral art' and what that notion leads to that I dislike. You don't have to agree with the moral vision of a work of art to appreciate it.