Million Dollar Baby Review

Wow…
I saw this movie for the first time this past weekend and I was left speechless.
Let me start by analyzing the artistic aspect of the movie itself. The lighting in the movie played a huge part throughout. Depending on the lighting in the gym it would set the mood for that specific scene. It is key to note that Maggie was usually in the light and I think that's because she brought a sense of life and in a way light to what was a lifeless scene. The constant narration throughout by Morgan Freeman gives perspective to each scene and of course at the end we realize that the constant voice throughout the movie serves a purpose that I am not willing to to expand upon for those of you that haven't seen the movie…

Now for the tough part, which is to somehow discuss the ethics and morals throughout the movie without picking a side. The first question is if it was really alright that Frankie wouldn't train girls and the way he viewed female boxing clearly as something less than it really was? It is clear the biologically males and females are not structured the same so a competition between men and women who play at the same level would be quite unfair, although it should be kept in mind that women can beat men in sports. Frankie eventually gave in and broke his rule of not training women after he saw that Maggie brought the fighting attitude with her to every fight and that she wouldn't be willing to cave in, this of course was something that worried Frankie as we later find out from Eddie (Morgan Freeman). The loaded question here is if men and women can truly be treated as equals when there are certain clear differences? It is possible to answer the question in a very simple and clear manner by saying no, but couldn't it be argue that certain activities and competitions such as sports are geared more towards men than they are for women? A great example is basketball, which consists of skills and height. Males on average are taller than females, which makes the fact that the rim is 10 feet above the ground a little bit of an unfair advantage . I think that if men and women were compared and placed in situations that were proportionally fair for each then the comparison would be possible.

The second ethical issue/moral issue is that of Billie "The Blue Bear" who hit Maggie illegally throughout their fight together and of course delivered quite the blow to her at the end of the fight. What Billie did can be seen as something completely immoral just because she was simply fighting dirty. It could be argued that boxing as a sport promotes that competitive environment due to the nature of the sport, but that final punch thrown by Billie clearly carried certain implications with it that she couldn't have imagined. The issue here is how can we make certain decision if we can never truly control the outcome of the decision? In any decision we make it's possible to have a negative and positive outcome, and although we might have an idea of which is better to take how can we ever truly know that it's the right choice? When Billie made the decision to take a shot at Maggie after the round had ended could she have possibly imagined the following chain of events? Taking it a step further is it possible then to ever justify our next action if deep down we have a reasonable enough doubt? I thought long enough and came to the conclusion that it would be easier to just not make any decision or pick a side, until I realized that by doing that I would be taking a decision with implications that I might not be able to take into account, in which case I realized that I was screwed no matter what I do.

The third moral question is of course the decision that Frankie is faced with at the end of the movie. He based his choice off of what Maggie wanted, but how can one follow through on such an action in general? (I am trying not to say exactly what happened for those who actually want to see the movie) What if the person asks you to, but you love them? Does the idea of human nature being selfish come into play or do we have to overlook our selfishness and try to make a decision based off what the person in that current situation would want? Frankie based his decision off of what Maggie wanted and although it could possibly bring him endless regret he knew that it would maker her happy. What if the situation had been different though? If Maggie hadn't have been able to communicate what she wanted to Frankie or anyone else how would one make that decision? If she was in a coma then of course the decision would be different because you don't know if she will come out of it or what she wanted deep down and it would make for further complications. Continuing with the idea of human selfishness I will try to tie in the Fitzgerald family as well because they clearly lacked ethics as a whole. They had been in town for almost a week knowing Maggie's situation and decided to visit on the last day with a lawyer with the intentions of taking advantage of Maggie's financial situation. As a mother or even as a family member how can one sink so low as to try and do what the Fitzgerald family tried to do? Does human nature truly get to that point of selfishness or was that one extreme case that rarely occurs? It can be justified that the Fitzgerald family wasn't financially fortunate, but Maggie had done what she could to try and take care of her family and even with that unselfish attitude they tried to take more from her. This then leads me to the question do we enable selfishness in each other? By being kind to others does that enable them to take advantage of us? I think that there are a variety of ways of looking at this question and in various different contexts which makes the question hard to answer, but at least in the context presented in the movie the Fitzgerald family aside from Maggie lacked any decency, morals, and or ethical values.

Overall the film itself was inspirational throughout, but it was packed with endless amount of moral and ethical values that I couldn't possibly cover in the span of this blog (Shawrelle vs Danger). I don't really suggest this movie for anybody that isn't willing to go through a bit of an up and down roller coaster and accept that life isn't always full of happy endings.
Great performances though.

Morality in Clockwork Orange

Please watch one of the following films carefully. Keep one eye on the ethics portrayed in the film, both by the characters and the filmmaker. Keep the other on the artistic elements of the film. Then consider this: Does the film have a moral vision? Should art be moral?

When approaching the question of whether or not the film "A Clockwork Orange," directed by Stanley Kubrick, has a moral vision, we first have to define what exactly is to be moral. To have a moral vision is to be concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior, strongly relating the ethical philosophers we studied, where their goal with their philosophies was to define what exactly is right and wrong behavior, and, in some cases, how to achieve it. Therefore, I will look through some of the lenses such ethical philosophers provided to see if the film has a moral vision, before answering the second question, which relates to art and morality in general.

The central theme in this movie, as uncomfortable and unmoral as it may seem, is exactly what constitutes morality? Betrayal in many cases is seen as an immoral act, just like corruption would be. When discussing about ethics, some extreme cases, such as psychopaths, often occur as counter-arguments to some of these philosophers' reasonings. What if their true happiness is to kill and rape people for no reason than for the sake of violence itself? This is definitely not the case for everyone, but these exceptions make things difficult to make concrete. Alex was living a perfectly happy life, in his eyes, until his friend's betrayed him and he was caught by the police. Is betrayal always immoral? In this case, in the eyes of society, it definitely is not -- if it weren't for the four friends' backstabbing, the police may have not apprehended this killer. 

Another instance of immorality in this movie is when Alex opts for the anti-violence treatment after 2 years in prison. There, the doctors would make him undergo experimental aversion therapy, where they would give him medicine to feel sick, make him watch a film with extreme violence, so later his brain would associate the feeling of sickness to the simple act of watching those images. This brings up a first order question which is "Is moral corruption better than forced morality?" If we had a morality pill would we all take it? And most important, should we? 

Immanuel Kant's "categorical imperative" would state that if we let Alex kill and rape whoever he wants, as soon as the protagonist made those decisions, he agrees that everyone else in the world would. On the other hand, if we delve deeper into what exactly goes on inside Alex's head, what drives him to make these decisions and whether that makes him truly happy, then the categorical imperative would shift to "let people do what makes them happy" instead of "let people kill and rape each other." Although, Alex being the psychopath he is, I don't think he would mind other people killing and raping each other, as was seen in the movie. 

Clearly, this film has many criticisms regarding how people perceive morality, how things are not black and white in life, and how sometimes people act morally, yet still do not achieve Bentham's utilitarianism, regarding other people's happiness, such as is the case of the end of the movie. At first, this film may seem very heavy and extremely violent, but sometimes these brutal aspects of the movie are needed to portray the message of morality that the director attempts at, and to make this film truly a piece of art.

The most controversial pieces of art, especially those of the modern times, challenge something about life, whether it is the government, capitalistic system, or what. And as I mentioned earlier, if art was moral, then the message would not necessarily be transmitted because as we will see later in the art unit, shock is an art factor for beauty (not too much of it, though!). On the other hand, there are several pieces of art that are completely moral, yet have a very controversial message to send to the audience, and the morality is just the camouflage for the piece, whether it is a book, a song, or a play. Now, the camouflaged morality actually becomes beautiful in the public's eyes. 

When judging whether art should be moral, I think it depends on the intention of the creator -- making my argument a very relativistic one. Still, from what I have seen in my time, the more immoral art is, the more beauty people find in it. 

A Moral Look at "I Heart Huckabees"

            The movie I Heart Huckabees portrays several moral and existentialist questions in a very interesting and entertaining way. The film does have a moral vision in the sense that it portrays moral in a specific way to the viewer, and ultimately transcends a very clear core morality.

            Albert Markovski is an activist trying to protect the marshal and woods of his hometown. As he goes about his life he encounters an African guy at three different occasions. He considers this a meaningful coincidence and after, also coincidentally, finding the card of two existentialist detectives in his jacket, he decides to set up a meeting. Upon awkwardly meeting Vivian for the first time, he declares that he wants to know the meaning of his coincidence with the African guy and also, as a plus, the ultimate truth of the universe. A TOK connection becomes very clear in this initial scene. Vivian asks Albert if he is sure that he wants to know the truth about his perception of reality. She says that most people, upon briefly seeing the truth for the first time, are scared and would rather simply remain in the surface of things. Albert, very determined, says that he wishes to know the truth, even if it’s not consequently a happy ordeal. This reminded me of how we should “go to the swamp” when analysing something with TOK eyes. Albert wanted to, and certainly did, go to the swap in this movie. And boy - What. A. Swamp.

            The idea of infinite interconnectedness is first introduced by Bernard through the blanket analogy. A random blanket symbolizes the infinity of the universe, and the composition of the blanket is meticulously sewed together in the same way that everything in the universe is connected. Albert has an epiphany when shown this and, in a cathartic moment of truth, says: “Everything is the same even if it’s different.”  Well if that was it then the movie could have just ended there and there would be no swamp – but also no self evident and contended truth. In the movie, Albert first recognizes interconnectedness and then severely deviates from it while he spends time with Caterine, a mysterious and dark French existentialist philosopher. However, he comes back to it by the end of the movie.

            The “real life situation” of the movie is that Albert is trying to preserve the marshal and woods while cooperate man Brad is not so willing to support environmental issues. This is technically a moral dilemma but a very straight-forward yes or no dilemma compared to everything else that appears in the movie. The more important dilemma of the movie is: is everything infinite and interconnected, or is everything nothing and meaningless? Existentialist philosophers, and married couple, Vivian and Bernard will argue that there is no nothing because everything if part of the fabric of infinity. Dark French author Caterine will argue that there are moments of connection with the universe but there is always going back to human drama, desire, and deceit. To her, human existence is “chaos, cruelty, and meaninglessness.” She makes this very clear when she, right after Albert has a moment of pure being in which he stops thinking and just feels, engages in sexual relations with Albert.

            Albert was doing fine with Vivian and Bernard at the beginning of the movie. He underwent moments in which he faced his mind and thoughts while in the magical black plastic bag, and also tried to understand what his detectives were saying. However, this all went downhill (or down-swap) when Brad and Tommy (and eventually Caterine) come into play. Brad, in a cooperate move, uses the detectives to drive Albert away from his job. Tommy, after reading Caterine’s book, influences Albert with very dark ideas about the nothingness of being. Albert is now in a very award place. Who is he? What is the meaning of everything? It holds to Albert that in order to learn the truth, he must give up his everyday perceptions and usual identity. However, this gets way out of hand when Albert is presented several different perceptions. He gets lost in the midst of opposing and divergent philosophies, for some time he lands on the confusion of existence because he cannot decide between the philosophies.

            The ultimate moment of epiphany for Albert about his confusion between clashing philosophies is right after he burns down Brad’s house. He probably burns it down in the first place because he’s been sleeping with a woman (Caterine) who says that nothing that anyone does matters because the universe is cruel and chaotic by nature. He and Caterine are standing outside the burning house when Brad gets home, and Caterine takes a Polaroid of Brad crying. As soon as Albert sees that picture he realizes: he is Brad and Bras is he, they are both interconnected and so is everything else. He says that Vivian and Bernard’s philosophy is not dark enough and Caterine’s is too dark. But by placing one on top of each other two partial and meaningful philosophies are created. He realizes that there is cruelty and suffering, but that neither cruelty, suffering, happiness, or identity are actually separate from one another in the infinite fabric of reality. It’s very interesting that his epiphany happens in the form of a photograph, which is considered art. It is when he sees the photo, and not Brad in person, that he understands the meaning of the situation. This shows that art can be moral, and by portraying something real externally, one might be able to identify its meaning more easily. Brad in the picture showed a very isolated and strong image of suffering. Brad in real life was surrounded by other events and people, which did not isolate the meaning of Brad alone. Therefore, could isolating a particular object give it a different meaning that when it is in the context of reality, or does it create a different, but nonetheless real, reality for the object? Looking at different realities helped all the characters in the movie understand new things about existence. Art does exactly this, it places things in different contexts to portray different (and not one pinpointed) emotions. Art should be moral because, as seen in the movie, viewing morality itself and not only life with different perspectives and lenses helps create a more clear vision of the reality of morality for an individual.

I would like to end with a quote by Tommy (Albert’s other): “Why do people only ask themselves deep questions when something bad happens? Then they forget all about it.” In the movie, Albert does not exactly only ask the questions when he sees Brad suffering, but he does attain a new and fresh perspective which leads him to new conclusions. He joined Caterine’s idea of cruelty in the world when he saw Brad crying with the self-evident truth that he felt of interconnectedness. He showed that both opposing philosophies, of Caterine and of the detectives, are true together but none are true separately.

Princess Mononoke

Does the film have a moral vision? Should art be moral?

            Princess Mononoke definitely has a moral theme of an environmental nature. It deals with the battle between humans and nature, which seems to be opened to the audiences' own interpretation. However, since the direction has a certain moral goal in mind, the anime sometimes vilifies or glorifies aspects of the story.

Further, it raises the point of environmental destruction as being something negative. Yet, one of the questions raised in this anime is whether it is worth destroying a human life for the sake of saving nature. From the director’s perspective, he seems to subtly suggest that it is not. One of the ways in which he depicts that is by making Lady Eboshi's character become grey when humans begin to die because of nature.

In addition, art is another important part of its anime and its theme. Through the use of art such as the fat cat that symbolizes a profit-hungry capitalism, the director successfully makes his point about anti-industrialism and that overall nature should be as intact as possible. At the same time, the movie shows that he also thinks that nature should be preserved without causing any harm to humans. Again, this ties to the idea mentioned above of Lady Eboshi's character changing after humans are harmed to preserve nature. Moreover, since it is an anime, the use of vivid images the characters' built up are key factors for the overall effect on the moral theme.  Through diversified strong colors, the images add emphasis to the moral theme. For example, the grass is overly emphasized as a bright green as well as other nature elements. This contrasts with the second part of the movie as it develops and the theme became more evident. In this second part, I noticed an artistic touch being used to emphasize the ecological morality of the plot. That is, the green forests through which Ashitaka traveled west were replaced by wastelands, which were no longer depicted in bright green colors. Instead, a more opaque and grey scenery was depicted to emphasize the evilness of men in stripping the trees to be used in their furnaces.

Hence art is in fact very much used in this artistic anime to make a moral point and emphasize it. In my opinion, every piece of art carries a morality to it whether intended or not. The moment an artist composes something, he or she is automatically transmitting his/her experience, views, expressions, or references of life into the art piece. It is impossible for him/her to leave these impressions of a lifetime aside in order to compose. In some pieces, the moral theme is more hidden than in others. For example, in contemporary art, the morality behind modern compositions is especially difficult to discern. Yet, there is still one. In Princess Monoke, the artistic morality is less hidden than in modern art and comes forth in many ways. As mentioned above, symbolic images or character were created to specifically emphasize the moral points Miyazaki was trying to make through this anime as it is the case of the fat cat mentioned above. 
Overall, whether Miyazaki is explicit or not in delivering his opinion about the destruction of nature, the anime's moral message definitely comes across to his audience. After watching this anime, I started applying its environmental theme to my own life. I caught myself asked what is my attitude towards preserving nature. This in turn is very similar to what the director is ultimately trying to invite or even push us to do. This probably signals that the movie effectively transmits its theme to the viewer.