Eastwood has made sure that his cinematography and lighting mirror the subtle, minimalist tone of the film, with dark grays and deep blues that creep in and around each frame and half shadows that reflect the more ambiguous scenes. He’s also coaxed excellent performances from Swank, who will no doubt receive a Best Actress Oscar, and Freeman, who has a harder role, by its supporting nature, but who pulls it off with great aplomb. Swank never overacts, always hits her marks and has a plausible Southern accent – a rarity. She is compelling, lovable and, quite simply, mesmerizing. Freeman is just as convincing in his role, and it’s a delight to watch this triumvirate interact, whether together or in pairs.

As an actor, Eastwood is also at his best, aided by a well-rounded character of infinite subtlety. Frankie may hide in the corners of life, but he’s a thoughtful, prayerful man. At church, he hammers his impatient, surly priest (Brian F. O’Byrne) about theology. With infinite foreshadowing, the script has Frankie ask about those supernatural paradoxes that plague us all, like the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception. That Frankie is a doubter, there is no doubt, but who isn’t, at one time or another? And while he may enjoy bantering with the cantankerous priest, he appears to be a true seeker. That his priest does not provide answers is perhaps the tragedy that leads to the tragedy of the film. And the priest’s insistence, in a latter scene, that Frankie is fast approaching the limits of God’s grace, demonstrates exactly what bad theology does. It hurts people. And in this case, the damage is irreparable.

“Million Dollar Baby” makes a strong case for euthanasia. It presents an unambiguous situation where an innocent victim is completely paralyzed with no hope for recovery. That person also very much wants to die – at least in the moment – and even attempts suicide, which exacerbates the injuries. Because of the overwhelming pull of the situation, the euthanasia is presented as the only option for anyone with a shred of compassion.  Without a doubt, if there is a case to be made for euthanasia (despite the rarity of these clear-cut circumstances), this is it.

As Christians, however, we believe that God, not us, is the author and giver of life. We also believe that this God, who is not distant and unreachable, but personal and present, longs to give us hope and comfort in our darkest hours. A panacea, He is not. But a place of new beginnings, even in the most devastating of circumstances, He most definitely is – should we choose to embrace and trust Him. That process, euphemistically called the Christian Walk, is one of continually looking to ways (often, incredibly complex ways) that are higher than our ways, and that stretch our character to the limits. This is one of those situations.

The challenge, of course, is how we discuss such matters, and of not insisting upon superficial answers (which Christians are often perceived as offering, particularly when we have no answers). We live in a culture where life has little value, and where “quality of life” – an ambiguous term, if ever there was one – supercedes all else. Condemning without conversing, therefore, will accomplish only alienation. Instead, we must be slow to speak, slow to anger and quick to listen. After all, the motive of those who believe in euthanasia is compassion – a bridge of opportunity between the two sides in this complicated issue.