Tuesday, February 08, 2005

MILLION DOLLAR BABY = AGAIN

Now that MILLION DOLLAR BABY is in wide release, I suppose it will be difficult to keep the ending secret they way the critics so conscientiously did when it first came out. And, from friends whose aesthetic judgment I trust say that the film is even better on a second viewing, when they are freed from the moral jolt that came with the first viewing. Nevertheless, it was sad to see that The New York Times had an article by that great writer and political thinker Maureen Dowd, that did address the ending and its moral implications and gave away the surprise in a headline.

Perhaps because the film does raise those issues contributes to my support of the film. It also helps that I think it was done well. But what kind of man is Clint Eastwood. I assume he's as Republican, whatever that means these days. Part of his persona is the John Wayne go it alone brand of heroism, sort of the more repulsive parts of Ronald Reagon and B ush II . But Eastwood never had the swagger of Wayne. Even his DIRTY HARRY characters carried a sense of moral indignation (who couldn't have been repulsed by the Andy Robinson character in the first DIRTY HARRY?) That, both as character and as director, the moral view has gotten more complex, is certainly a sign of an evoltion, and a consistent one, in terms of vision. After all, his first film as director, PLAY MISTY FOR ME was a film noir, and UNFORGIVEN was too. It's an entire genre filled with moral ambiguity, not at all to be confused with the black and white world of the far right Republicans who dominate today''s political landscape.

The morality of MILLION DOLLAR BABY is disturbing, as is the morality of Mike Leigh's VERA DRAKE. That both films are being received as well as they are speaks well for the atmosphere of tolerance that doesn't seem to exist in Washington. To be sure, not everything in MILLION DOLLAR BABY is entirely worked out. Eastwood.s verbal sparring with the Catholic priest isn't entirely convincing. And there are some "willing suspension of disbelief" isues at the very end.

Nonetheless, for me it remains a powerful piece of work, a product of a seasoned and thoughtful professional, who, if he is a Republican, would be closer to John McCain than the current imposter in the White House. Eastwood has evolved from the more judgmentasl Harry to the more complex and tortured characters of UNFORGIVEN, MYSTIC RIVER and MILLION DOLLAR BABY. In so doing, he shows a deeper understanding not only of what it means to be Christian, but also of what it means to be human.

1 Comments:

Stephen Drake said...

Frankly, Eastwood's latest probably has a whole lot less to do with his relationship to Christianity than with his relationship to people with disabilities. You wouldn't know that from reading Dowd or from listening to Limbaugh, though.

The main voices raising a stink about this movie are people with disabilities, often conveniently ignored.

You can read a response to Dowd and more about what disability advocates have been saying - like the National Spinal Cord Association - at http://www.notdeadyet.org

9:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home