Somewhere, Spike Lee is mad. Right here, I'm disappointed.

Rating: 4/10 (13 February 2005)

Much like Clint Eastwood's last supposed masterpiece, Mystic River, Million Dollar baby combines stereotypical, recycled characters with overwrought photography and an inexcusable score to create mediocre Oscar bait (check the release date - suspicious). Perhaps the film's worst offense is Eddie, the custodian/trainer at Frankie's gym. The character is a blatant example of what Spike Lee calls the "super Negro" - a wise old black man who uses his uncanny insight and common wisdom to help white people who either take him for granted or treat him like crap. Eastwood even gave Eddie a severe cataract in one eye to emphasize that his vision is not like ours (or Frankie's). I don't know why Morgan Freeman accepts these roles. In Million Dollar Baby, a minor character even uses the n-word against Eddie; it's in a context that strives to be non-offensive, but it only adds to the "super Negro" character stereotype. The other two leads, Frankie (played by Eastwood) and Maggie (Hilary Swank) are just as stereotypical but not nearly as offensive. They are the grizzled old stubborn veteran and the hard-luck, hard-working gal who does things her own way. Eastwood forces the surrogate father/daughter relationship between the characters with corny, overt dialog at tender moments and with the letters Frankie's own daughter returns to him each week. This subplot goes unresolved - it exists only to drive an already obvious point about the lead characters' relationship into our minds.
Eastwood and his pet DP/former gaffer Tom Stern blanket their walking stereotypes in shadows. In some scenes more than 50 percent of the frame remains true black. Stern offsets this with contrived lighting that highlights pieces of objects or faces with no relation to the supposed sources in the story world. For example, Maggie often has a triangular swatch of highlight on her nose and forehead, and in the last hospital scene, the far corner of her bed mysteriously glows in the moonlight while her head, with nothing between it and the window except the glowing sheet corner, remains in complete shadow. I imagine Eastwood and Stern used this high-contrast look to make the film gritty and "real," but with the outrageous point sources and conveniently-placed flags it looks about as lifelike as Jurassic Park III. Perhaps Stern's background as a long-time gaffer made him into a cinematographer who pays much attention to complicated lighting schemes and little attention to composition as a whole. Sure it's nice with Eddie literally casts a long shadow in scenes where he's in a position of power, but it's a bit over the top. I feel sorry for Swank and Freeman for having to act while frozen in those tiny, micromanaged pools of light.
Stern's photography, however, seems masterful compared to Eastwood's score. I thought he did a fine job developing emotion at the key story points through direction and editing, but he seems to feel it's necessary to cue his viewers with grating strings (sad!) or bright piano (happy!) that reflect exactly what's happening a few moments before it occurs on screen. Apparently Clint doesn't trust his storytelling enough to leave his amateurish songwriting skills out of the mix.
Eastwood seems to pay so much attention to craft that I imagine he could make a truly great film instead of overrated Oscar bait in his old age. I wish he would ditch his old buddy Stern, hire a real composer and get a script with characters that are more than tired stereotypes.