Clint Eastwood Made My Day

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Feb 27, 2005.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Clint Eastwood Made My Day
    By Ruben Navarrette, San Diego Union-Tribune
    February 23, 2005

    Clint Eastwood made my day. It happened during a recent interview with The New York Times in which the actor-director said he was baffled by the controversy surrounding his latest film, "Million Dollar Baby."

    What Eastwood finds frustrating is that a movie that isn't really political has had to endure political fallout from right-wing talk show hosts who insist that the film – in a plot twist already revealed elsewhere – pushes liberalism by promoting assisted suicide.

    Given that Eastwood is the former Republican mayor of Carmel and a movie star who once played hard-nosed Police Inspector Harry Callahan, a.k.a. "Dirty Harry," the irony is palpable. But what caught my attention was what Eastwood had to say about the ruckus. He harkened back to an earlier time when politics were more cordial and the discussion of all things political wasn't so all-or-nothing.

    "Maybe I'm getting to the age when I'm starting to be senile or nostalgic or both, but people are so angry now," Eastwood said. "You used to be able to disagree with people and still be friends. Now you hear these talk shows, and everyone who believes differently from you is a moron and an idiot – both on the right and the left."

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/navarrette/20050223-9999-lzle23navar.html
     
  2. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    I agree with Clint Eastwood wholeheartedly in his comment that we as a society no longer are allowed to disagree with one another without it being a major issue...however I disagree with him or perhaps, I am simply disappointed in his lack of intellectual honesty, about his film, which was excellent, by the way.

    If a director like Clint Eastwood picks a film to work on, he does so because he feels the film is important. Eastwood doesn't make films like "Boogeyman," or "the Spice Girl movie," he makes films that he cares deeply about, movie he feels express important aspects of humanity, or a story that he feels needs to be told...

    *Spoiler Alert*

    At the turning point of Million Dollar Baby, Hillary Swanks character, paralyzed from the neck down, asks for Eastwoods character to help her commit suicide. He considers the matter carefully, and does it. The closing monologue is about respect, and how important it is for a person to have and keep the respect they have earned.

    The movie sends the direct and unmistakeable impression that while Eastwood, who represents in many ways the audiences feelings on the matter, is devestated by his decision, that decision is the correct one...the moral one...(in a very "moral relativity" type of way).

    You can disagree or agree with the idea of euthanasia, that is not what my post is addressing...what I really have been bothered by regarding this film is the Hollywood communities (and Eastwoods) inability to say..."yes, this film ends with the message that euthanisia was the right decision, the respectful decision, for this young woman."

    What are they so afraid of? If they claim that they are interested in pushing the social envelope...as they have in so many films...then they should be able to discuss this film and its implications in all seriousness...but instead, Eastwood and others have shyed away from this...preferring instead to shrug and say, "it is what you make it."

    Did Swank take such an apathetic attitude towards "Boys Don't Cry?" Did Clint Eastwood shy away from discussing the morality issues raised by the infidelity in "Bridges of Madison County?" or the issues raised in "Unforgiven?" Nope...they unabashedly discussed what their films MEANT...what the message was, unequivovally...

    Are the truly afraid of a little honest debate from people who disagree with euthanasia? Are they afraid of losing middle American viewers if they come out and say, "Yes, this movie shows a strong women exercising her right to live and die as she sees fit."

    I don't know what the answer is...but I do feel that such a well-done film deserves its director and those who starred in it to be willing to take a stand for it.
     
  3. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511

    He's just getting old and turning into a wuss.
     
  4. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,165
    Did anyone really doubt that the film with the most political controversy would be the winner? Come on we are talking about Hollywood here.
     
  5. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    I think Eastwood’s words and Navarrette’s article were about the dire need to fix political discourse in this country rather than about euthanasia, although I am aware that the extreme right has made this an issue regarding Clint’s movie.

    As far as the movie is concerned, my opinion is that it is just that: a movie which tells a sad, tragic story. The final decision is an emotional one, made by one person, based upon the request of a loved one. I do not feel that the movie was promoting euthanasia or that euthanasia was the focus of the movie. A majority of people would not have made the decision made by Clint’s character in the movie. The paralyzed young woman was not brain dead; she was still in possession of her mental facilities and could have determined the end she desired by herself. If her desire was to die rather than live as a paraplegic, she could have had a legal document drawn up wherein she spelled out her desire to have life-saving measures withheld from her. We all have this right as long as we are in possession of our mental faculties.

    As far as the need to fix political discourse in this country is concerned, both Eastwood and Navarrette are right on track. The current state of acrimony is quite troubling and accomplishes absolutely nothing worthwhile. Politicians in both parties have got to change their mindsets and start making efforts to work together for the best interest of our nation before it is too late. Can you imagine what could have been accomplished if all the energy, effort and intellect put into the acrimony had been put into finding an alternative energy source for our country or finding ways to reduce our national debt to an acceptable level? One thing you learn at the local level in politics is that nothing gets done unless you work together to seek the common good.

    Citizens can make it clear to their elected politicians that they want this “one-upmanship” ended; that they sent them to Washington to work for the good of the country and not for the good of their political party. Only if elected officials in Washington hear this repeatedly from wide areas of their constituencies will they make the effort to change the current political discourse. If they don’t make the effort, then you have the power to retire them from public office.
     
  6. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    The acrimony is fine. The acrimony exists because the right has finally had enough of the socialism and blatant antiamerican of the left and are willing to engage it openly. The acrimony will end when libs give up their insane, illogical, anti american, anti freedom, socialist agenda. But everyon DOES seem to enjoy all that unity blather, don't they?
     
  7. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    I prefer that the acrimony be replaced with something more worthwhile in time and effort. I am very happy that conservatives now have a loud, influential voice in the national media. I think down the road this is going to have an effect in ending liberal socialism in this county. Once the Democrats learn that a majority of Americans don't agree with their views, they will change their tune. The conservatives' job is to see that alternative thinking to the liberal MSM's views keeps being available to the American people, but we can do that without name calling and acrimony. We should be using our brainpower to come up with solutions to solving our problems rather than constant battling with the libs. Just my two cents' worth.
     
  8. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Acrimony must be endured when libs continue to lie through their teeth, and villainize conservatives with horrible lies, using everything they've got in their arsenal of deceit to implement their socialist schemes. Peace comes through victory.
     

Share This Page