Joanna writes:
> I left the movie fairly disturbed, not because of its
misrepresentation of life after disability (I am too
ignorant to be upset by that) . . .
MDB did not misrepresent anything. Eastwood portrayed one particular character's story -- at no point did he make the claim that this story was universal or should be regarded as representative of all disabled people. In fact, Eastwood's mise en scene works directly against this interpretation.
> The movie is basically a riff on the rags-to-riches
story but hardly a critique of its logic.
So the fact that the injury occurs by Swank falling on a stool emblazoned with the name "Everlast" (product placement as disabler) isn't a critique? Eastwood's comment to Freeman that he should buy the cheaper stuff and not Clorox is not an undermining of the very prodiuct placement it is highlighting?
As for rags-to-riches, Eastwood has to pay money under the table for the fights even to occur.
> You are rich or you might as well be dead.
Where in the film did Eastwood represent this through mise en scene? You are really reaching here and imposing your narrative on top of the one that exists without any cinematic evidence to support it.
A question:
Why does Eastwood give narration to Morgan Freeman? It is the first time in Eastwood's career that he uses voice- over narration and one of the rare times in a Hollywood movie that that the controlling consciousness is that of a Black man. Essentially, the entire film is Freeman's mindscreen of what occurred.
> Swank and Freeman are presented as worthy aspirants &
Eastwood as the middle-white-professional man who can help make it happen if the grunts are willing to work hard enough, to suffer enough, and to want it hard enough.
Again, since the movie is Freeman's mindscreen, there is no objective presentation. It is a totally subjective film in that it unfolds in Freeman's mind as he is writing a letter.
> the hero of "Million $ Baby" is actually Eastwood, and
what is being celebrated here is his betrayal of both
Freman and Swank
Huh? It is Freeman who offers Swank the number of the promoter who can get her the bigger bouts -- he betrays Eastwood (as he did earlier in the film with another boxer).
> ....though, of course, his betrayal is not portrayed as
a betrayal but as a salvation.
How is carrying out Swank's desire a betrayal?
> If Easwood stands in for the managerial layer of the
working class
A big if. Again, what in Eastwood's mise en scene leads you to conclude that his character is a stand in for the managerial layer of the working class? Does the managerial layer leave the business to its workers as Eastwood does?
> what this movie tells us is that in response to the innocent
faith and brutal work of Swank, the greatest thing that her
"boss" can do is to liberate her right out of this world.
Why do you but the word boss in quotes?
> And though the movie pits Eastwood against the
conventional religiosity of the Catholic church -- it is clear
that the solution he offers the disabled Swanke is meant to
be understood as a "higher" solution than that allowed by
the church itself, and therefore in a sense, also holy.
Again, evidence from Eastwood's mise en scene would be appreciated. It is clear that Eastwood is confronting Catholic dogma and its demands for strict obedience. But he does not offer a solution to Swank: he carries out her wishes. He is not a deus ex machina imposing his own will (as the priest wants him to do), but honoring Swank's request. The scene, shot in low-contrast lighting eschews any sense of holiness -- you are confusing Eastwood with Spielberg and his cathedral lighting effects.
Alessandro writes:
> Disability cannot be considered as a condition that forgets the
intrinsic fact that it deals with singularities not just groups,
categories of people.
A point underlined by Eastwood's mise en scene. Many scenes are bathed in light and surrounded by darkness; many characters step out of darklness to participate in scenes or to make their presence known. With this technique Eastwood particularizes his characters and their actions: they are not representatives of some larger group, but specific characters in specific circumstances.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resiser