Masterpiece Of Great Complexity

Rating: 10/10 (31 December 2005)

With Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood made his bid on Greatness as a film creator, and nearly made it. Now, he goes all the way and beyond with A Million Dollar Baby.
The themes, and the story, are n-o-t original. Eastwood aims at the most general rather than the specific. It's a basically a story having been told a zillion times already, about a hero going up like a sun and down like a pancake... oh, that's not the word. We have loads of the usual painfully sentimental stuff.
Still, this is a towering Masterpiece. Why.
It's because of Haggis' Screenplay and Eastwood's exceptional intelligence. Out of this cliché scheme of a story they together dig an amazing profundity, and presents it all in an exceptionally subtle way.
I will here concentrate on that particular feature of the film that made the strongest impression on me, namely the beautifully arranged d-i-s-c-u-s-s-i-o-n of that basic Big Question Of Life the story actualizes.
I see this film as kind of a classical duel debate between Humanism and Christianity; between Truth and Faith; between Realism and paradoxical Hope - and it is not in any way clear on which side Eastwood, the main creator, ends up himself. Both standpoints are presented with great specificity and convincing force.
On the side of Humanism / Truth / Realism we see the two main characters, the boxer-esse, Maggie Fitzgerald (Hillary Swank), and Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood); these two are of course in focus, and represent the realistic view that in extreme cases you must bow to adversity, let go, and give up. This viewpoint is expressed with great force and intensity: the proposition is stated by Maggie, and Frank gives the unwilling acceptance and concurrence in the end.
The opposing standpoint, that of Faith and Hope, is far more subtly advocated by appearance of the priest Father Horvak (Brian F. O'Byrne) and the Gym owner Eddie Srap Iron Dupris (Morgan Freeman). Father Horvak - the role is little but crucial - makes the statement, and Eddie it's practical support.
Thus the philosophical dilemma is rendered a marvelous quadruple structure.
It's not easy to see that the film does not end with a Question, but with it's Answer. It's the latter standpoint that wins.
How is this achieved.
Very subtly. Maggie, the dignified Stoic, draws her conclusion and leaves without remorse or bitterness. Frank bows to her pure will; and this is perfectly logical given the resources available for them both.
Then, we have Father Horvak, the rough, but impeccably orthodox and sincere Catholic priest, who with startling terseness states the opposite case; and then the low-keyed, thoughtful, but beneath the surface uncompromisingly resilient Eddie, who simply, so to speak, quite IS what he believes, with no conceptualization or religious superstructure of ideas whatever.
And, as I see it, TWO short episodes of the movie makes this clear: just a few seconds of Father Horvak saying it with some magical show of personal charisma - and at the very end, where Eddie unhesitatingly and with surprising decisiveness goads the retard poor Danger Barch (Jay Baruchel) on with his impossible ambition.
So: the conclusion and the sens-morale at least to me seems unequivocal: knowledge is not, faith must be there as well, and whatever we think about life, one thing is clear: Reality is not all there is to it!
Oh, there's much more to the movie, of course. Only one conspicuous thing to be added here: the perfection of the cast and the crew. Hilary Swank is optimal as Maggie, that terrific acting ability, that rather brutish still genuine beauty. And who could ultimately well do that calm, unpretentious strongman Eddie if not Morgan Freeman? O'Byrne is just amazing in his rough but convincing appearance. And last but not least, Clint Eastwood himself renders the most really human and complex character of them all, Frank Dunn, with an accuracy to which I can see no improvement possibly being added.
This is a great film. One of t-h-e Great Movies.