Moneyball
I've always maintained that people shouldn't get their history from movies. You want to know about the American Revolution? Don't rely on The Patriot. And so on... So I have to be really careful to divorce the fictionalized (or "based on a true story") story of Billy Beane presented in the movie Moneyball with the real-life account of Billy Beane, the actual General Manager of the Oakland Athletics... especially because I'm not a huge fan of Billy Beane... the real life version. I've always kind have found him to be a bit too (damn) egotistical for my take- as though he thought that he single-handedly changed the face of baseball. (As though he really would have if he hadn't been forced by Oakland's economic circumstances... and never mind the contributions of folks like Bill James... and never mind the fact that the whole Moneyball approach has really only worked to a point and that a hybrid of approach of traditional values blended with the newer statistics-driven evaluation techniques is probably- in my mind anyway- a far better way to build a ball club). But I digress. So the issue here was for me to keep an open mind while watching the movie without getting hung up on the potential hero worship and insignificant factual mistakes/misrepresentations.
How'd I do? Well, I liked the movie- which is a start (but also not so surprising considering I like the film's co-writer Aaron Sorkin, star Brad Pitt, and most of all baseball). I wouldn't say it's a perfect movie by any stretch, but it was quite good. For the most part, I think Director Bennett Miller and company do a pretty good job of avoiding too much hero worship. It's there, but they also seem pretty unflinching when it comes to documenting Beane's all-too-evident over-inflated ego. I can't say that I'm thrilled with the movie's premise that Beane was inspired to change the talent evaluation game within the game of baseball because a bunch of traditional scouts were wrong about him (touted as a can't-miss prospect, Beane's big league career just never took off). I'm not 100% sold on this idea. And I don't think the movie sold it particularly well either. It seems to me that there would be a myriad of other reasons that the Billy Beane of the movie would want to change the system. His own experience and the complications that arose due to the scouts getting it wrong with him would seem to be a minor factor. The ability to change the game, financial pressure, reading the about the work of Bill James, these- to me- would serve as more plausible explanations. In truth, it probably was a mixture of all of these factors that help drive Beane (though I still believe the fact that Oakland just didn't have the money to play by the traditional rules was the primary motivating factor) to "create" the Moneyball system. I guess in terms of the film- which addresses Beane's history with broken evaluation structure through intermittent flashbacks- the problem with this approach is that it becomes a bit distracting to what makes the film fun to watch; that it pulls back the curtain on the behind-the-scenes world of baseball.
That well-scripted glimpse into the day-to-day life of baseball management is really the film's bread and butter. The dialog (as typical of Sorkin) snaps, the pace is spot on, and baseball as many fantasy baseball-playing buffs would like to know it is put on full display in an incredibly enjoyable way. My absolute favorite scene in the movie is the one where Beane is attempting to work out some trades at the trade deadline. Most any baseball fan would LOVE to be a fly on the wall in such a situation and here Miller and crew put you in that scenario... though I doubt it's really that much fun in reality.
I guess when it comes down to it, the movie works because there are a number of scenes just like the trade-deadline scene. The behind the scenes stuff... it just feels right. The whole movie actually feels right. I know that's a pretty ridiculous way to assess the movie, but I don't know how else to say it. The movie has an outstanding feel to it. I suppose that's created by a well-written script, excellent performances, incredible pacing, and the like. Miller, Sorkin, and company also refrain from delving into the more sugary sweet cliches that accompany most sports movies. The whole underdog overcoming insurmountable odds. It's true this is an underdog story on a couple of levels, but that's not the story's one trick pony.
All that said, there were some glaring problems with the movie. For one, the whole story might have been too recent for the film's good. No, not because there hasn't been time to acquire the necessary space and prospective with which to properly evaluate the whole Moneyball ideology, it's actually simpler than that. There is abundant images, video, and photos of what all these folks looked and sounded like, and aside from the fact that the look of the baseball action presented here is pretty solid, physically, not many of the people here look (or sound) a damn thing like the folks they are portraying. This might be a petty criticism... after all, how often do any actors really resemble the actual people they are portraying? Not all that often, I suppose, but being as aware (as a HUGE baseball fan) of what these people looked like, it was pretty distracting wondering who they could have gotten that would have looked the part better. (the biggest culprits? Stephen Bishop playing David Justice and Royce Clayton playing Miguel Tejada... .... ok, so I don't remember actually seeing Royce Clayton in the movie, but he was listed in the cast credits... and it is that Royce Clayton- the one that played a decade of major league ball... and I can tell you, they don't look a thing like each other. So they used one of Tejada's peers...one that doesn't look especially like him.... to play Tejada... why not just get Tejada? Couldn't have been any worse playing a younger version of himself on screen than he was this past year playing the current version of himself on the field). Among the other minor flubs were the fact that the film seems to suggest that Beane's young daughter Casey wrote and recorded the song "The Show" (actually written/recorded by Aussie folkster Lenka... and released something like 5 years after the movie takes place). And the fact that they claimed that rookie 1B Carlos Pena was having a monster/incredible year when he was traded away to force manager Art Howe to buy into the Moneyball method. While Pena was a promising young talent, he was NOT having an all-star start to the year. Hitting .218 with something like 7 home runs and 18 RBI at the time he was dealt? Wasn't going to be elected to any all star team with those numbers.
You know what? These are all pretty well petty criticisms. Splitting hairs really. The fact is that the film isn't perfect. But, you know, it was damn good. And that's plenty enough for me.
Grade: A-
No comments:
Post a Comment