Student Publications
University of Houston
151C Communications Bldg
Houston, TX 77204-4015
713.743.5350

©1991-2007
Student Publications,
All rights reserved.

Last modified:

Contact:
ktruitt@uh.edu

Opinion

'Baby' spoiled by unfair criticism

James Davis 
Opinion Columnist

Spoiler alert: The following article reveals key plot points of Million Dollar Baby. Those who haven't seen the film and wish to maintain a fresh perspective on it are advised to not read any farther.

It's Oscar season, and with seven nominations, Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby is one of the front-runners for Best Picture. Unfortunately for Eastwood, the movie has engendered a flurry of controversy that may detract not only from its chances of winning, but also from its potential box office revenues.

In the movie, Hilary Swank's character Maggie Fitzgerald suffers a boxing injury that renders her paraplegic. After weeks of immobilization, an amputated leg and a failed suicide attempt, Fitzgerald asks her manager Frankie Dunn (Eastwood) to disable her life support. A devout Catholic, Dunn undergoes severe moral anguish before granting Fitzgerald her last wish. Wracked with guilt, Dunn leaves Los Angeles, abandoning the gym he owns and the life he knew before Fitzgerald's death.

While it includes an assisted suicide, this movie is as much about euthanasia as Moby Dick is about fishing; it tells a poignant story of determination, glory and fate. But some have taken the climactic termination of Fitzgerald's life to be a glamorization of human euthanasia. At the helm of this ethical backlash is Michael Medved, syndicated radio talk show host and author of the polemic Hollywood vs. America. In his USA Today essay, Medved denounced the film as portraying "assisted suicide as an explicitly and unequivocally ‘heroic' choice. (Its) success suggests that if Hollywood ever gets around to making ‘The Jack Kevorkian Story,' it, too, would become an automatic candidate for major awards."

In this quotation alone, Medved poses some very broad assertions: "An explicitly and unequivocally ‘heroic' choice"? Why, then, did Dunn contradict his most fundamental religious beliefs to make the choice? Why was he so overcome with guilt afterward that he abandoned the only life he had ever known to find solace in anonymity? If it's the satisfaction that comes with human euthanasia that Medved is so opposed to, he is picking on the wrong movie.

Even more preposterous is Medved's belief that Million Dollar Baby's inclusion of an assisted suicide is the sole reason for the movie's critical acclaim. Apparently, euthanasia is so deliciously hip right now that White Chicks would have been Oscar-worthy if someone had pulled the plug on Marlon Wayans' character. Medved refuses to realize critics are applauding the movie's strength in craft, acting and storytelling, not its supposed endorsement of a controversial practice.

Whether Medved or I enjoyed the movie is beside the point, although it's probably clear by now where each of us stands. My point is that viewing Million Dollar Baby as pro-euthanasia propaganda is unfairly reductive. By labeling the film as a subversive political tract, Medved and other critics deny the film any sense of context and the filmmakers any sense of an artistic voice. 

Of course, it is possible to maintain a life after paralysis. Anyone who has read Christopher Reeve's Still Me can attest to that. Assisted suicide is most certainly not the answer for every instance of severe injury or illness. However, for the characters in Million Dollar Baby, there were no other answers. Dunn and Fitzgerald are not meant to be role models. Their decisions are not intended as an instruction manual, and to view them as such would be unrealistic and unfair.
 
 

Send comments to dccampus@mail.uh.edu