Joanna writes:
> You suspect you're right about that, though it's
awfully low profile.
Low profile to whom? It is right up there on screen, bigger than life for all to see.
> 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 ---
Yup, pretty low going to an amusement park when your daughter/sister is in the hospital.
> . . . 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.
YOUR inference. Give me one aspect of mise en scene -- a shot, a line of dialogue, lighting, something -- that backs up this view.
> What makes Swank a contender is the fact that she
wants to get as far away from that as possible.
What makes Maggie/Swank a contender is that she is willingly to do the work to achieve the goal.
> Point being there is absolutely no dignity in being part
of the working class.
Maggie/Swank never stops being part of the working class. And Ms. Swank touchingly acknowledged that she was just a girl from a trailer park as she accepted her 2nd Academy Award wearing a divine dress (though once again Halle Berry had the dress of the evening). So clearly she both remembers and honors where she comes from.
> Maybe he puts money under the table, but he still can
bet on the fights and make money.
And maybe Frankie and Scrap have oral sex every night. But there is NO EVIDENCE that either thing occurs within the context of the film.
> That basically only serves to make Eastwood's character
look even better.
Are you positing that when a director uses voice-over narration it is to enhance the audience's view of a particular character?
> 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.
And what examples of mise en scene support this? You say they are presented this way, so I am curious as to which shots/scenes you are referring to support this view.
> 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.
That is a very racist interpretation. Again I ask, what evidence in the film leads you to assert that this is Eastwood's thinking. It makes no difference how a Black narrator was used in other people's movies. What counts is the filmic evidence as to Eastwood's intention in using this device. You are also assuming that Scrap/Freeman is a reliable narrator which is another whole issue.
> 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...
I love it. An actual point of mise en scene that contadicts what you say doesn't actually contradict it. LOL.
> . . . 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
Eastwood didn't make the movie you would have made or emphasize the points you would. So what? He may very well agree with you. From cinematic evidence, what do you perceive Eastwood's view of boxing to be?
> ....since, as we all know, there is no other way for the working
class.
Who is we? Are you part of this we? Am I?
> Compare with the classing "The Set Up" with Robert Ryan.
The comparison being?
> 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.
What wider picture? The only picture is what is up there on the screen. The only terms are the film's terms.
> But he does that because he has completely abandoned
the idea that it could lead to anything.
Again: your evidence for this bit of cinematic mindreading.
> Because she uses the word repeatedly;
And Frankie/Eastwood always tells her not to.
> Well, the priest says he will go to hell for doing
that, but you're supposed to feel rather the opposite.
According to what rulebook are we supposed to feel the opposite? You keep writing in these sweeping generalizations. Who is this "you" that you write of?
You have spun some intriguing fantasies on MDB, but you haven't provided one shred of evidence that these fantasies are the view of Eastwood or his film. You maked reference to abstract "we's" and "you's" and how they are supposed to feel and respond.
I could very well write that after reading Marx I thought he believed that all lesbians should be raped and then killed. Now, I am entitled to my fantasies just as much as you are, but for them to be regarded as serious critiques they need to be grounded in texts -- in my case the writings Marx and in yours the Academy Award winning film "Million Dollar Baby" (Clint, Hillary and Morgan rule!!!).
I guess all good bourgeois liberals will have their knickers in a knot tomorrow since not one, but two movies about people taking control over their lives and deaths took home Best Picture Oscars: MDB and "Mar Adentro" (Best Foreign Language Film).
I bet if Imelda Staunton had won and conservatives complained about honoring a performance about an abortionist who helps women take the lives of their fetuses, all bourgeois liberals who be up in arms.
I guess it is okay to make movies about freedom of choice in matters of life and death in only some areas.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister