Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
> 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.
This is always the case in art. You could argue that Rocky was just about a white meat cutter too.
> 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?
You suspect you're right about that, though it's awfully low profile. More obvious is the point being made that Swank should not expect any help from the rest of her family, who are portrayed as the lowest of the low --- the inference being that the poor deserve to be poor, because they don't have the gumption or smarts or drive to be anything else. That point was loud and clear. What makes Swank a contender is the fact that she wants to get as far away from that as possible. Point being there is absolutely no dignity in being part of the working class.
>
> 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.
Maybe he puts money under the table, but he still can bet on the fights and make money.
>
>
> 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.
That basically only serves to make Eastwood's character look even better.
>
>> 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.
Well you're supposed to accept that, but setting the black man up to vet the righetous soul of the white man is an old trick. From what I can remember, Morgan Freeman also narrates the "Shawshank Redemption" and to equally obfuscating effect.
> 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).
That doesn't contradict my original point that this movie is a fantasy about how the working class and the managerial class can work together to win, without really questioning what "winning" means...as there is no questioning in the movie about how boxers are nothing other than modern gladiators, maiming and hurting each other as a form of spectacle and a means of climbing socially....since, as we all know, there is no other way for the working class. Compare with the classing "The Set Up" with Robert Ryan.
>
>> ....though, of course, his betrayal is not portrayed as
>
> a betrayal but as a salvation.
>
> How is carrying out Swank's desire a betrayal?
In the film's terms, it's an act of love. Stepping back a little bit and looking at the wider picture it's hard to buy that.
>
>> 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?
No. But he does that because he has completely abandoned the idea that it could lead to anything.
>
>> 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?
Because she uses the word repeatedly;
>
>> 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.
Well, the priest says he will go to hell for doing that, but you're supposed to feel rather the opposite.
>
> 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.
No. Actually. Art doesn't work that way. This movie was not a biography of a real person.
Joanna
>
>