Youth In Where?
Kevin Roderick highlights the LA Times' Tim Rutten column about the issue everybody's ignoring as they celebrate Million Dolllar Baby.
Youth In Where?
Kevin Roderick highlights the LA Times' Tim Rutten column about the issue everybody's ignoring as they celebrate Million Dolllar Baby.
Bull. If one knows the denouement of any film, the impact of the storytelling is gone. Who cares if an important issue is central to the plot? A discussion of an important issue is NOT usually a filmmaker's motivation for making a movie - he or she wants to move people. If people leave the theater moved by "Million Dollar Baby," maybe they'll have some worthwhile discussions about assisted suicide afterwards. Isn't that enough? Does the issue have to be ventilated by film reviewers ahead of time?
As a class, I would say reviewers (or even, TA-DA, critics) produce the least moving writing of any other wordsmiths out there. I say this as a former reviewer.
THE Curtis at February 7, 2005 9:40 PM
Indeed. Why is it somehow okay to give away a climax of a "serious" film, and not okay to do so for a more frivolous one? Part of the skill of Million Dollar Baby is the way it seems to be a frivolous film but then becomes more serious. And anyway, that controversial plot point is no more what the movie's "about" then the boxing -- It's "about" being a man, being willing to open yourself up to pain, facing hard choices, and having to stand up and deal with those choices when loyalty to your friend comes in conflict with loyalty to your own principles or God.
See? I just discussed the theme without actually spoiling any plot detail. It takes a little bit of work, but it's doable.
Besides, readers HATE plot spoilers more than anything. There are many times when an ending utterly ruins a film for me, but to discuss it before the movie comes out is only even borderline acceptable to me if one writes something like "skip the next paragraph if you don't want to know a crucial plot element."
One thing I disliked about this movie was the way some critics were eager to spoil without spoiling, i.e. hinting obliquely in a wink-wink way that made it perfectly clear what they weren't saying. All the while making them still feel noble and free to speak out against those who went one step further.
LYT at February 7, 2005 10:12 PM
Now that I know the Euthanasia storyline, I'm actually more interested in seeing it. Before, I thought it was one of those "inspiring" girl-beats-the-odds movies. Yawn-o.
Amy Alkon at February 7, 2005 10:26 PM
I knew one of the spoilers (there are sort-of two) before seeing the picture, and it didn't really hurt me all that much. Though of course Rutten should fry in hell for giving it and the other one away.
Sometimes it's enough to know that there's a twist. That's all the information I had going into The Sixth Sense, and I figured it out almost imediately. A lot of people saw The Village marching down Broadway, too.
Anybody remember Sheila Benson as The (Los Angeles) Times's movie critic? She seemed to revel in ruining people's sense of discovery.
On the other hand, should there be a point where it's OK? The issue in "Million Dollar Baby" is certainly worth discussing, but when would it be appropriate to discuss in print?
Rutten's Times e-mail address doesn't follow Times protocol. Small wonder. I'd be hiding under the desk, too!
Todd Everett at February 8, 2005 4:15 AM
Leave a comment