As for "people having the right to risk their lives for their dreams" -- fuck -- what are we talking about here? Who goes into boxing except the poor? And doesn't it furnish just the perfect allegory: get your brains beat out and maybe you can get a little piece of the pie, but just so no one gets confused about any of this, let's make sure that you're never anything more than a piece of aspiring bloody battered meat. Cause after all, what else is the working class?
...and make "their choices when things go bad" --- I'm not even going to touch that piece of obscenity.
Joanna
BklynMagus wrote:
>Dear List:
>
>Nathan writes:
>
>
>
>>I'm not sure how I feel about the message of
>>
>>
>the film, but the clear message is that people
>have the right to risk their lives for their
>dreams and make their choices when they go
>bad.
>
>And that people have an obligation to create the
>circumstances where those dreams can be fulfilled.
>Scrap/Freeman creates a safe space for Danger
>at the gym. He allows him to pursue his dreams of
>boxing within his ability/disability. When that safe
>space is violated by Shawrelle, Scrap/Freeman
>immediately rectifies the situation. However, the
>film allows Danger to choose whether or not to return
>to the gym, now that the full implication of his
>disability vis-a-vis boxing has been made apparent
>to him.
>
>In this way, Eastwood contrasts the two different
>choices that diabled characters make. He validates
>each and challenges the audience to do the same.
>
>It is also interesting that a film about a singer with
>diabilities (in this case blindness and drug-addiction)
>who changed the music business and is regarded as
>one of the greatest entertainers of all time has been
>ingnored in this flap over disability rights.
>
>But I forgot. "Ray" is about a diabled BLACK man.
>Can't go praising that film can we now.
>
>Brian Dauth
>Queer Buddhist Resister
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>.
>
>
>