Morality and Art in Sophie's Choice

Annie Groth

IB TOK bl. 5

Ms. Hunt

Does the movie Sophie’s Choice (1982) have a moral vision? Should art be moral?

            If a “moral” choice is defined as one that forces people to choose between what is neither wrong nor right, then how can we justify which option to pick? Such is the case in Sophie’s Choice, a movie which explores the theme of morality through the main character’s decision of which child she will spare in a concentration camp in Nazi Poland. Whether the film has a “moral vision” will be interpreted as if it explores morality, but not necessarily that it defines what is the best kind of morals to have. While Sophie’s decision can be primarily analyzed through the area of knowledge of ethics, history and art also play an important role in the film and so will be further explored.

While at first ethics may seem like the clear area to turn to in making a moral decision, there are so many different views of morality by philosophers that in the end they make it harder to decide. For example, John Stuart Mill, with his utilitarian view, would argue that it would not matter which child Sophie chose to save, as long as she decided against not making a decision and both would die instead of one. However, it can be argues that this first moral decision, of saving one child or none, is easy for Sophie because she wants one of her children alive. The movie shows then moral vision that, to some extent, doing what is moral is not doing what is fair.  Otherwise, Sophie would have chosen the option of equal treatment for her kids and let both die. Sophie decides then to turn to logic and bases herself on the assumption of which child would actually survive, because sending one to the children’s concentration camp would not necessarily mean they would not end up dying there anyways. She chooses the boy, who is older and so has more chances of survival, and morality was defined using circumstance and logic for Sophie.

History and art are also used to portray the writer’s and director’s moral vision. Given the context of the story—Nazi Poland—there are moral implications that are historically acknowledged that what the Nazi’s did was gruesome, inhumane, and unethical. Had it not been for this historical setting, Sophie might have never been forced to make a decision. History can then play an important role in morality because it can provide the decision with context. Though perhaps the author could have used any situation which violated human rights, it is hard to compare one to what it was like in an Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp because of the choices it forced people to make. Sophie’s Choice author, William Styron, and later the movie’s director, Alan J. Pakula, were using history as an artistic choice. Using flashbacks, they chose to set the story both in present-time 1979 in the United States and past-time 1940 Poland. The contrast between the two time frames shows how Sophie’s decision had long-lasting effects on her as she later committed suicide, even though she was only forced to make a decision because of the historical context she was placed in. Artistically, this was done through images of both settings, and also choosing to portray the more positive ones (in the U.S) first then the negative ones (in Poland) to further shock the viewers. The initial artistic image of Sophie was more relatable to viewers, a healthy, romantic and enthusiastic girl living in New York. Her past history though makes viewers surprised and uncomfortable, with Sophie being shown as skeletal, hair-less, and desperate. These artistic choices, which used History, enhanced the movie’s moral vision, portraying the context of Sophie’s ethical decision.

Though it is clear Sophie’s Choice has a moral vision, a different question arises of whether art should be moral. In this case, the movie shows how art can be moral but to generalize that all art should also be more is, in my opinion, not appropriate. Determining art should have a moral element would limit art, such that many things would not be produced. For example, my classmate Alejandro Torres showed us a painting he made of hanging organs and explained they represented his identity. His piece did not have a moral vision, rather, it was an abstract interpretation of himself. He did not have any need or use in having to morally justify himself to others and if he did, that would have changed the meaning of his work. However, the moral element to Sophie’s Choice is vital in the movie, otherwise without it the plot would also be completely different. Just as a moral choice depends on various things such as ethics and history, so should art depend on each individual’s use of knowledge.

The Million Dollar ethics

The film I decided to look at is Million Dollar Baby. This is considered to be a sports film within the cinematic world. What makes this interesting about this sports film is that it doesn't have a happy ending or something the main character overcame. Usually within these types of movies, the protagonist defeats the biggest opponent for wins the championship. Lately within society, sports films are becoming more and more about the ideas behind the story rather than them achieving the greatest victory. A more realistic story if you ask me. People learn at some point or the next that not every story has a happy ending and this is one of them.

I noticed that there are people with morals who watch this film might get offended by. First off, Frankie said at the beginning of the movie that he will not train girls. As for as viewers might think, it might be a sexist act towards women. From a filmmaker's perspective, this is an obstacle that the protagonist must tackle. Ethics here is a very common problem that the world has taken on. Women within sports competitions and gaining respect for what they do. What role has women played over the years? They have mostly played the housewife or the ones who work in kitchens. So, when Maggie tries to become a boxer instead staying a waitress, it is a real role change. Would an old fashioned boxing coach stop from training big guys to women trying to make a name for them? That is what Frankie did in the movie because he seemed to try to replace his daughter with her. Does that make it right for him to take on Maggie as one of his own? We can see that he does when he kills her in her sleep. Once she was paralyzed, she could not take the news. Is it or was it right for Frankie to kill her? When he sought help from his priest, he said that if he goes through with this injection it is a grave sin and will be lost forever if he goes through with it. But, if you look at it from an athlete's point of view, some say that they would rather die what they loved rather than die a painful death of not playing at all. It is interesting to say those kinds of things. I personally think that Maggie had the right to live, even if she couldn't box ever again. But, under her own judgement, it was her call whether or not to die.

As a film student, I believe that films have a moral behind them but it depends on the target audience the filmmakers are trying to relate to. A moral is about the right or wrong principles of a persons behaviour. This is obviously not a children's movie so this movie is targeted to the older crowd. These people might have different morals than little kids. The moral of this movie for me seemed to be the quote that Frankie gave to Maggie, "you should protect yourself in the ring at all times". For the moral, I believe it is the meaning of the story that is the universal idea that should be taken away from the movie. But that's just me. For others, it might be to not box because you could get seriously injured.
Now sticking with the topic of morals, art as a whole is "apparently" about how the artist feels about their work and what it represents to them. I say this because I really don't understand art. I feel like I understand the type of art in history because it is straightforward and it means exactly what is in the picture. Nowadays, modern art can mean multiple ideas and theories. So when you ask me for all art to be moral, I clearly can't answer that. I believe in class we watched a video on youtube by Brazilian comedians on modern art. It showed a man wrapped in wires on a blank canvas which was hung over the observers. When they lady explained what the piece was, she said that it was called something along the lines of "In Pain". What made the buyer interested was because it was called a "unique piece" and it was "one of a kind". The man said that this was wrong and was inhumane to the man in the art piece. Now, the difference between these two people is that they both have different viewpoints and morals towards this piece of "art". This shows how individuals can have different perceptions and schema's on morality. For me, art is always moral according to whom it appeals to. Art is focused for the specific group that the artist intended to draw, paint, or sculpt for.

This movie presents a lot of new ethical dilemmas as well as moral judgement and ideas. With this movie, it is now considered more of a ToK film rather than just a sports film.

Million Dollar Baby - Julia Ribeiro

The movie kicks off with what seems, a scenery of redemption, where each character is trying to figure out a way to "pay" for his or hers past mistakes. First we have Frankie Dunn, an ex-boxer who owns a gym in a "forgotten" place of LA, lives with the guilt of letting his friend Scrap continue a fight that cost him his eye, and has distanced himself from his now grown daughter. Then we have Maggie, a poor waitress who is trying to change her life through the art of boxing - as if this was her last chance to achieve at least some success.

To me, it seems like when Maggie comes along (not initially though), Dunn sees a chance to redeem himself from past mistakes - as if he had a second chance of "re-doing his life". This is because with Maggie he will get to take risks emotionally and professionally. He can create a connection with Maggie, that can un-do all his wrong doings in relation to his relationship to his daughter. Professionally, he can try to achieve success, try to prove to himself, maybe to others, that he is an experienced professional in boxing, and that he can win the gold. Who knew however, that this would lead to a fateful dilemma that would end in tragedy?

As we reach the final scenes of the movie, and Maggie is finally going to fight for the title, the surely expectancy of someone who has never seen before, is that Maggie will take home the gold, Frankie's image will be restored, the gym glorified, and Scrap will somehow be able to move on; a happy ending.  However, Million Dollar Baby does not end like a Rocky Balboa movie, and instead as a greek tragedy. The fight climaxes when a round has ended and Billie "The Blue Bear" looks as if she know she will be defeated. The bell has rung and no more punches are allowed, however, she decides to throw one at Maggie. What was supposed to be just one more punch, turn into a broken neck, an ended career, and tearful audience. The rules in sports are clearly there to be followed because many of them can get extremely violent in a matter of seconds. From this punch, I retrieve 3 obvious moral dilemmas:
1) Should the rules ever be broken?
2) Should someone be punished for un-intendended consequences? (I don't think Billie's intention was to break Maggie's neck, but just to hurt her. So should she be judged for her intentions, or for the consequences themselves?)
3) Should someone that has done similar actions as Billie ever be allowed in that sport again?
There can be many more dilemmas coming out of just this scene of the movie, but those are one of the main three, that can even be interpreted a little bit differently.

The audience then learns what they feared the most: Maggie is paralyzed from the neck down. After she loses a leg, she asks Frankie to put her out of her misery, who at first absolutely denies doing such thing. He has grown attached to Maggie, and as mentioned before, sees her as his daughter, so of course he would say no. The chances of him saying yes to her proposition become even slimmer when we take in account the fact he is religious, a serious Catholic - which brings in even more moral dilemmas involving this whole situation he is put in. Maggie argues that she wants to leave this world and remember it for the good things, remember this experience she went through while she still can.

Ahhh, then comes the question: Under what circumstances is it right to end one's life, or help end another's life, because of a loss or disability? That is why this movie was so controversial.
The movie itself, specifically the scene where he turns off her machines and injects Maggie with adrenaline, sets humane values against religious morals, where it's a sin to take somebody's life. Taking it just from a Catholic point of view and alienating all the other factors, this wouldn't even be a dilemma.

However, Frankie is put forth in a situation where he has to outweigh his values, morals, and ethics, to decide which would be the best action to take. Let's say if Maggie were to be his daughter (because that is how he saw her): Would he suffer more with her death, than to see her suffer? Would her happiness be more important than his? Parents usually want to see their child happy, and suffering would be the last thing they would want for him or her. If her happiness was to be gone, then he would have to break his moral/ethical/religious barriers in order to make her happiness an order. So from a parent's perspective this becomes a really hard moral dilemma.

Furthermore, the way this dilemma is solved suggests that a life with disability, or some kind of physical loss is not worth living anymore. Critics' reviews defy Clint Eastwood (the director and Frankie at the same time) even further, claiming that euthanasia or the ending of someone's life was even portrayed as something heroic. However he responds: "The dilemma of finally reaching some revival in his life, and then having to lose it is a tragic situation. It's a tragedy that could have been written by the Greeks or Shakespeare." Clearly suggesting that this was a master-piece, a work of art.

The Shawshank Redemption: Moral Vision

Sorry this is uber-late; GIN trip and what not.

It’s absolutely heartbreaking that I write this on the day that the Velvet Underground mastermind, Lou Reed, passed away. Consistently dealing with dark and morose subject matter—songs that talked about drug use and abuse, sadomasochism, among other things—it can be said that his art wasn’t exactly moral. That doesn’t mean that it was bad art; quite the opposite, his music is brilliant, and has stood the test of time. Except for that solo record, Metal Machine Music. An abomination of the musical kind, it was absolutely immoral of him to even think of making it… It’s so bad it should be illegal. Anyway, this blog post is about Shawshank Redemption, not Lou Reed.

Viewed from every single angle, The Shawshank Redemption is a brilliant dig at some of the most pressing (quasi-paradoxical) moral dilemmas we see today. In that sense, yes, the film has an entirely moral dimension to it. Obviously, it’s not as simple as that. There’s a quite intricate complexity to the moral vision in the film, both that displayed by the characters and the filmmaker, Mr. Frank Darabont.

            I will tackle the prompt for this blog with the word “moral” being defined as that which we—students at Graded—are most accustomed to: behavior that is considered “correct” or acceptable in a society. Thus morality for the characters and for the filmmaker is very different.

            On the face of it, The Shawshank Redemption appears to portray a very strong good vs. bad dynamic, which defines its basic moral compass. In the Shawshank penitentiary, convicts of all shapes and sizes are placed together to struggle in living hell, headed by Samuel Norton, Shawshank’s very own Beelzebub. In the world we’re accustomed to, we’d be inclined to loathe prisoners—after all, they did commit heinous crimes—but not in this film. Frank Darabont sets the movie in such a way that the antagonists become Samuel Norton, the corrupt warden of the prison and Byron Hadley, the vicious captain of the prison guards. The good guys, for the most part, are the convicts and the bad guys are the higher-ups. Funny. This in and of itself presents a strong moral vision of the filmmaker: he is trying to get the general audience to understand that our perception of morality is not necessarily a correct or good one. He uses this overly simplistic good versus bad moral view as a way to satirize our very own moral view, which is just a simplistic: we think convicts are bad and that those in charge of prisons and whatnot are the good ones.

            However, within this simplicity, there are many complexities to this basic moral vision, summed up by protagonist Andy Dufresne telling his convict friend, Red: “I had to come to prison to be a crook.” Andy was completely innocent of his crime and, yet, was given the life sentence for supposedly murdering his wife and her lover. Is this a flaw in the system? Or is Andy simply collateral damage in an otherwise perfect framework? Once in the penitentiary is when he begins doing dirty deeds: Red helps him infiltrate items he wants, he helps the guards’ finances and aids the warden in his acts of corruption in order to receive favors within the prison walls. From this we can gather a pretty strong idea of the filmmaker’s moral vision. It appears that, in his view, the prison fails as a correctional facility—one that instills morals in otherwise immoral people—and ends up doing just the opposite: it forces them to depend on a system that is just as immoral or more so (considering the warden and his principal guard mistreat the prisoners, partake in corruption and even murder a convict) than the crimes they have committed. In the words of the wise Red: “These walls are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, you get so you depend on them. That's institutionalized.”

            Morality is such a pressing issue in the film that even within the convicts themselves, moral visions can be found. Within hours of arriving, Andy is seen as a target for the prison’s “bull queers,” also known as “The Sisters.” They sporadically rape Andy over the course of several years, acts which are never directly shown on screen—this is an artistic way in which the director is able to show that rape is a deed so immoral that it doesn’t even deserve screen time. Despite the entirety of the prison being made up of felons convicted for the most diverse reasons, nobody condones the actions of “The Sisters.” In that sense, they have a moral compass that is more correct, so to speak, than that of the correctional officers. However, they fail to do anything about it, despite it being a fairly common occurrence. This is a parallel with what happens in real-life; time and time again people fail do to anything when they are in a position in which they easily could. By pitting us with convicted felons, the filmmaker tries to show that, at least in the moral spectrum, we are more similar than we’d like to believe.

            During the movie, we see prisoners who have been discharged unable to enjoy life on the outside. In fact, Brooks ends up killing myself and Red deliberates doing the same. Both of these are symbolized by the moment Brooks releases a black crow out into the wild—those who leave are bound to find darkness and bad luck. Is “rehabilitation just a bullshit word” as Red claims, then? If a prison fails at doing its most basic job as a correctional facility, is it morally justifiable to maintain it as it is? Probably not. And this is what filmmaker Frank Darabont wants to believe. Finally, what does it mean to be moral? To do as the warden and guards tell you? Or to lock a guard in the toilet as he’s minding his business and play Mozart to all your fellow convicts? It appears to be the latter—the authorities, though they maintain this façade, are not the ones who determine morality.

            More than most movies we watch, The Shawshank Redemption is a work of art. Cinematography played a huge role in the storytelling. One scene stands out in particular, as brilliantly executed as any great painting: the one in which Andy plays Mozart’s “Canzonetta sull'aria” from The Marriage of Figaro to all the prison inmates. This scene contains a magnificent aerial shot of the countless inmates standing on a vast, enclosed patch of hopeless dirt; it appears that they’ve been stripped naked of any sort of life they once had. This all is contrasted by beautiful, soaring music—symbolic, in this case, as it is the scene in The Marriage of Figaro where Countess Almaviva is reading a letter intended the husband of the countess, in order to expose his infidelity—that instills hope, a hope that begins to show on the prisoners’ faces as the camera zooms in. This all is too in contrast with Andy Dufresne, who is extremely nonchalant on his chair, appreciating the music as well as the guard, who is interrupted in the middle of his defecating. As I said before, this single scene presents a twist on morality as we know it: Andy is the moral one, despite going against the warden and all his guards, because he’s doing what he can to bring back hope to a hopeless world. I also said that the music was symbolic, but I’ll make myself a bit clearer. First off, Andy’s wife cheated on him, the most obvious point of comparison, but infidelity can be seen throughout the film, especially in the warden, who betrays his honor and duty for money and power.

            All that said, there will be those who claim that art is a mere collection of visual (and sometimes sonic) artifacts that are in some way beautiful and thus, do not meddle into issues such as morality. This is very true and it could very well be that Frank Darabont went into this movie simply wanting to create an audiovisual experience that would entertain the masses for two hours and twenty minutes. After all, the film is adapted from Stephen King’s Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, so it can be said that any moral views presented are simply inherited from the novel it borrows from and are not really part of the art itself. The art, if movies are considered art, comes from collections of shots and not the messages that can be extrapolated from it.

            However, if art has to encompass everything situated within the piece of artwork, even that which it implies, then it is clear that in The Shawshank Redemption’s case, morality is prevalent. The big question, then, is: is it moral? Given the fact that it criticizes our view of morality, but remains within our moral schema (things that the director shows as bad, we understand as bad) I think that the answer is yes. That said, should all art be moral? I don’t think so. Beautiful art came about in Nazi Germany (the “Art of the Third Reich”), influenced by romantic realism, and it can be said that that art was not particularly moral. However, is it still art? Definitely.

This finally presents a bigger knowledge issue: should we consider and appreciate immoral art? Part of me wants to say “yes, but only the aesthetic part,” but that is utterly ignorant of me, for art to me, is not just the work itself, but the totality of it, complete with its literal and implied meaning. I think I’m in the swamp. Help.

Shawshank Redemption

Carlo Krell

            As soon as I woke up this morning, I watched a long and detailed preview of today’s anticipated Él Clasico match between Real Madrid and FC Barcelona. Usually, these previews are most often the same when it comes to these two Spanish teams battling against each other – politics, finances, money, transfers, Lionel Messi on one side, and Cristiano Ronaldo on the other. However, there was one small difference today: Neymar is going to play against his team’s greatest rival for the first time. Fortunately, I believe the producers were aware of the redundancy of their previews because today’s show was almost entirely about the Brazilian youngster rather than the game itself. “He was meant to play soccer. Even before exiting his mother, Neymar was destined to revolutionize the way of playing this sport.” That’s all I heard today. Gratefully and coincidentally the day I was going to write this blog.

            I see “moral vision” as what one is inspired to do; something that is right; when one seeks to make a change in what he believes is right. The Shawshank Redemption, the movie I chose to watch, by this definition expresses a very strong moral vision. Before anything else, however, what does Neymar have to do with this? Well, his destined moral vision – albeit not essentially moral - was to play soccer and do what he thought was best for his team and for his nation (it was a great, realistic, and modern way of portraying a “moral vision”). Basically, the movie is about an innocent man, Andy Dufresne, being convicted of murder and becoming another prisoner’s best friend. Both imprisoned men spend a number of years together, finding solace and eventual redemption through acts of common decency through thick and thin.

            I would love to talk about many aspects of the movie, but I don’t want to “steal” what others, like Luiza and Yugo, have already said. Consequently, I’m going to innovatively try to split the rest of my response in two parts – aesthetic/artistic film aspects and ethics. Yet, both sections will be based on the same premises, which will unfortunately resemble other responses. First of all, Shawshank prison is an extremely corrupt environment with different echelons, including in the prisoner society. In addition, people are only recognized for what they do rather than for what they are or what they represent. Moreover, although paradoxically stated, many of the characters developed in the film were satisfied with their confined lives, even Red, the second protagonist, when asking his boss at the supermarket for permission to go to the restroom. Likewise, most of the prisoners had no aspirations given that they were “satisfied” with their ordinary, redundant and dreary routines – that is why Andy (the outlier) is always in spotlight.

            Just like in the paragraph above, the film portrayed prisoners as the “majority” of the environment’s society. Few of them had voices, very few actually. That I can think of, I heard the voices of probably two handfuls of prisoners all throughout the film. Furthermore, they are all portrayed as one, rather than a collective group of individuals. This is primarily shown through the plot of the film and through the camera angles. In about five occasions, the filmmaker placed his camera on a wire over the prison. This upper angle focused on all the prisoners down below on the prison yard, making the spectators (free humans outside of prison watching television) look down upon the ant-sized prisoners. This introduces me to another artistic approach to prisoners, which is that they are tremendously weaker than prison and authority. Once again, the plot already suggests this, yet the meaning is augmented when the plot is aggregated to the movie’s filmmaking tactics. When the prisoners are going back inside from their “recess,” they always look up to the prison walls – the filmmaker even made the camera seem like prisoners’ eyes.

            In terms of non-film art, a few things stood out as well. When Andy was carving his chess horse, he expressed one of his likes through emotion. For him, his geological hobby was a way of keeping his mind busy and focused even when placed in a state of potential chaos. Seeing something that he loved again – chess, rocks, and carving – made him feel more comfortable. This suggests that art is a way of finding solace and of expressing emotion, something we’ve already studied and agreed on. In addition, Andy, as well as all other PRISONERS (and not authority figures), expressed delight and emotion towards the classical music that played out loud. Andy even said “music is beautiful since it’s kept inside us. Both up here (in our minds) and right here (in our hearts and souls).” There are other artistic aspects of the film that need to be mentioned, yet I’ll tie them in to the “ethical” section for the purposes of your understanding.

            The first “ethical” characteristic of the movie appeared right in the beginning. Andy was convicted of murder because his wife was cheating on him. The Lawyer that convicted him even considered cheating a “sin.” With “sin” in mind, another huge “ethical” part of the movie was religion. As soon as Andy entered prison, Warden Norton (the prison’s manager) said “Trust the lord.” This suggests that God is the supreme moral lord, the one who determines what’s right and wrong. This is a religious approach to human nature, similar to many different philosophies we’ve studied. However, even though Norton was extremely religious, he ordered his employed troops to do immoral things. When in authority, you can do whatever you want to someone (a prisoner) – hitting, throwing cold water, killing, inter alia, are acceptable. Another huge aspect of human nature was also portrayed in the movie. The prisoners, even without paper money, found a way of commercializing with cigarettes and contraband. Not only does this suggest that humans are selfish, but it also shows that humans are willing to do immoral things for their own pleasure (living a good life in a corrupt society). Outside jail, Norton was also a ridiculously corrupt individual, once more emphasizing this perspective of human nature. With egocentrism in mind, another scene of the movie struck me. The police officer in charge of all cells did not (pardon the bluntness) give a damn about a “fat man’s” sadness. In reality, he killed the “fat man,” as he was called, because he was tired of seeing him cry. In the following morning, when everyone was talking about his death, Andy asked if someone knew the “fat man’s” name. The response was “why would you care?”

            The film went against the “all men are equal” philosophy in a myriad of ways. A few of them were already expressed, so I’d like to focus on one realm of this approach. When Andy was taking his first bath, a member of “The Sisters,” the toughest group in prison, admitted he was a homosexual. Instantaneously, Andy fled. This could mean several different things, such as Gay people are avoided, Gay people shouldn’t belong with other men, Gay people shouldn’t be the toughest men at a prison, inter alia, but I will choose not to elaborate on this because it could be a whole other blog.

            One inspirational ethical approach of the film, on the other hand, was that a man is only a man when he has company. Similar to Carol Giligan’s philosophy on human nature, the film shows how humans achieve great things with the help of others. In terms of filmmaking, whenever the lights were already shut down at night, prisoners “left the darkness” and became “enlightened” when they spoke to other prisoners across the hall. Crooks killed himself because he was lonely, even when he was free. These were ways of representing the difference between solitude and company. Likewise, everything that the prisoners did in prison to keep their minds occupied needed others’ aid. Red needed to do his contraband when others needed his help, and the youngster who had tried stealing a television in JCPenney needed Andy’s help to get into college. Initially, the youngster had no hope of getting in, and many other characters lived without hope because, as Red recalled, “hope is dangerous.” However, by the end the film made explicit that all men should have hope because it is what keeps good things from dying.

            The last ethical characteristic of the film I’d like to talk about regards authority. It became clear that with more authority, one is more corrupt. Norton, the police officer, and even Andy at times made this evident. However, one is not born corrupt. When in contact with such a corrupt and immoral world (like that prison), one becomes corrupt as well. As Andy himself mentioned, he became a crook after being convicted as one. The only authoritarian figure that was not shown to be corrupt was God. Yet, controversially stated again, Norton’s corrupt safe was placed right behind a religious statement. Does this mean that money is a supreme power as well, just like God?

            So, what about moral vision? I believe that the movie portrayed such a strong moral vision because it showed us all the bad things of human nature and society. Andy was the outlier – the one who tried breaking the system. He did not abide by the ordinary or the “set of rules.” In the end, when Andy was capable of escaping a horrible world, and freeing himself from his temporary corruption, he showed us what our moral vision should be. We shouldn’t be corrupt because that is wrong. By asking Red to go meet him outside of the USA, Andy also showed us that we should always seek company and friendship. In the end, the film suggests that we as humans should seek was is right for us and for ourselves. We should pursue what we’re inspired to, what we’re destined to. Yet, we should never succumb to authority or to corruption. Rather, we should stick to those beside us, who will definitely take us to the best places, including psychological places.

           I don't believe the film expresses if art should or shouldn't be moral. Yet, based on the moral vision of the film, I conclude that art should have some meaning or objective to it. 

             

            

Morals in "Million Dollar Baby"

The movie presents several ethical and moral little dilemmas as the story goes on. It goes way beyond that "good fight movie" that we all expect it to be. The movie has three main characters; Frankie, Maggie, and Eddie ("Scrap"). All three characters have a rough past, and seem to be forgotten by most people around them. Eddie is a half blind ex-boxer who lives in Dunn's gym, cleaning and attending to it. Frankie is an aging boxing trainer and the owner of a shabby gym, and Maggie is a 'white-trash' diner waitress who dreams of becoming a boxer. Maggie decides to ask Frankie to coach her, and tells him she wants to be the best. Frankie initially does not want to teach her, because she is a girl (the audience might get that idea) - which is one of our fist encounters with a moral "dilemma"-; so Eddie decides to lend Maggie an old punching bag out of pity and because she is very persistent and keeps coming to the gym to practice on her own.


Maggie sees boxing as her "way out". Although this isn't a clear moral/ethical dilemma, boxing became an escape for her in social standards, because she didn't have a very good education - or at least we assume-. There could have been other ways of her reaching success and get out of the harsh life she has been living. She could have just as easily taken some course, or anything that would qualify her for a better job. However, she chose boxing. She comes from a very poor family, and all she wants is to buy a house for her mom. Her mom is another clear "problem", as she constantly tries to downgrade Maggie whenever she has the chance. Although Maggie does everything for her family, and is caring for others -even Frankie who doesn't show much affection towards her, when she refuses to leave him like his previous athlete, and keep him as her manager/coach-, her mother does not seem to support anything Maggie is doing at all.


Eddie a caring and compassionate character, as it is clear he only cares for others. He takes care of Maggie and also takes care of Danger (a boy who suffers a mental disability and dreams of becoming a boxer). Although Danger has that mental disability, Eddie still cares for him, and supports him. He is able to persuade Frankie in letting Danger use the gym without having to pay, and is also the one who convinces Frankie in training Maggie, after he compares her to Sugar Ray, considered one of the best boxers. He seems to be completely selfless, and it might be because he doesn't want what happened to him, happen to others whom he sees might have a big future ahead of them in the boxing world.


Frankie always seems to find good boxers but is never really recognized for bringing them to the top. Eddie was one of Frankie's boxers and lost his 109th fight and one of his eyes because Frankie did not stop him from fighting. The only reason Big Willie Little took on Mack as his new agent was because according to him, Frankie did not believe in him for not letting him fight in a particular fight. However, what Big Willie Little probably didn't know, was of Frankie's and Eddie's past, and the reason he would not allow the fight to happen. We then get the idea that Frankie doesn't want to initially train Maggie because everyone he has previously trained has left him. Like Eddie and Maggie, Frankie also seems to be alone in the world, as we see his letters to his daughter being returned to him and unread. The three protagonists become each other's family, and the gym becomes their home.


The huge and most obvious moral decision however is when Maggie asks Frankie to pull the plug after she hits her neck on the stool inside the ring after a huge punch during a fight. She becomes tetraplegic, and will barely be able to move, never mind boxing. In the hospital, she tells Frankie that once her family arrives, he will no longer have to take care of her. However, once her family arrives, all they insist for her to do is sign the papers transferring her money to to the rest of her family. Frankie tries to help Maggie, but her family sends him away, and Maggie sends her family away too.


Maggie bites her own tongue in an attempt to bleed to death. Frankie is woken up and asked to go to the hospital. Maggie then asks him to pull the plug on her, and reminds him of the story she told him about her father and his dog. Frankie decides to pull the plug because he sees that it is better than for her to live a suffering life.


Another somewhat hidden key moral decision, was Eddie's decision to write to Frankie's daughter. The narration of the movie was Eddie's letter to her, and we realize that in the end. He writes to her that after what happened, he never came back, but he would like to remind her what kind of man he was, what kind of father. It leaves us wondering wether it really was his place to have done that, but then again, throughout the movie, the audience really does see what type of man Frankie was, and that his daughter deserves to know the truth.


Was it really Frankie's place to have pulled the plug? Personally, I believe so. Maggie and Frankie grew a father-daughter relationship, and it fit perfectly with the story of the dog. Maggie did not want to suffer, and all she ever wanted was to box and be recognized for being good at something -especially since her family was only interested in her when it came to her money-. It was Maggie's wish to die knowing that "maybe she did alright" -according to Eddie.


The whole movie is a whole moral/ethical dilemma, with the constant struggle of the three protagonists to find their place in the world, as the world seems to have forgotten them.