|
|
June 18, 2013
|
|
‘Moneyball’ Isn’t a Home RunPosted on Sep 26, 2011
A bunch of the boys—the brain trust of the financially challenged Oakland Athletics baseball team—are sitting around chawing tobacco and chewing over prospects for the coming season. They have a problem. The A’s are not a bad team; they just don’t have enough money to compete with better-financed teams (their payroll is about a third that of the mighty Yankees). Their wisdom is traditional, some dating back to the beginnings of baseball, and gossipy. They dis a player for having a not-so-good-looking girlfriend; it shows he lacks confidence. Enter Billy Beane (an adorable Brad Pitt), a failed former ballplayer, currently the A’s general manager, who thinks there must be a better way to field a good team for fewer bucks. He soon links up with a man called, for the purposes of this movie, Peter Brand (an expert Jonah Hill), a Yale economics graduate, computer nerd and baseball geek, who believes statistics driven baseball professionals are looking at all the wrong stats. There are relatively unknown players out there, obtainable for a song, who can deliver what the A’s need (the ability to somehow get on base) and have perhaps other skills that the film “Moneyball” doesn’t particularly go into. The pair set about obtaining these players and, lo, the Athletics quickly transform themselves from also-rans into authentic contenders. There’s more to this story than a brief summary can contain. In mature capitalist enterprises, it is ever the fate of innovators to earn the contempt of standpatters, particularly members of their own organization, especially, in this case, Philip Seymour Hoffman, playing the A’s manager, Art Howe. (Hoffman is underutilized in the role, but boy does he look the part.) Bill James is the avatar of most of the ideas Beane and Brand put into play, and he is mentioned briefly, but he is not yet in the trenches with them (he is now, working for the Boston Red Sox), madly wheeling and dealing for players, as they are in the movie’s most intense scenes. They also have a nice, mentoring relationship, with Beane toughening Brand up, teaching him, for example, how to fire a player as painlessly as possible. As a matter of fact, Pitt is quite wonderful in the movie—cheeky, fast-moving, rarely doubting himself, especially when there are other people in the room. He is the current master of star acting. Whenever he’s on screen he dominates it, but with a sweet appeal that’s all his own. In short, “Moneyball,” like the Michael Lewis best-seller it’s based upon, is a good story and people who have little interest in baseball don’t need to fear it. On the other hand, it has its largely overlooked problems. These include a Hollywood ending, which is mostly true, but is still a sports movie cliché. That, however, is not its deepest issue. The script, well-enough directed by Bennett Miller, is by two of Hollywood’s best writers, Steve Zaillian, with a rewrite by Aaron Sorkin, who cannot resist cliché, particularly in the development of Beane’s character. He is presented as a divorced dad, with a winsome child whom he loves dearly, if sometimes distractedly. (She keeps asking him if he’s about to be fired when his newly revised team doesn’t start winning immediately—a good question that she is the only one in the movie to raise.) I don’t know—this may represent the true state of their relationship, but it is also stale—we’ve seen it in dozens of movies. And it is not the only aspect of this movie that betrays its best impulses. At its heart, “Moneyball” is a very original movie, as suggested by its on-again, off-again preproduction trials. We have not seen anything quite like it before—quirky, slyly funny, insider baseball as it’s never quite been examined on the screen before. This makes its descent into the familiar and the inspirational, shall we say, disappointing. This is not a fatal flaw. In the context of its moment, as we head toward the inevitably disappointing fall season, it is, in fact, quite a good movie. I don’t think it is entirely subversive to suggest that it might have been a little bit better. Advertisement Previous item: Journalistic Objectivity Sours Wall Street Reporting Next item: Malware ‘Worm’ Could Take Down World Internet New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By oddsox, September 29, 2011 at 7:36 am Link to this comment
if you think this movie is just about baseball or statistics, you need to see it again.
..and just enjoy the show.
Report thisBy hideleehoneighborino, September 28, 2011 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
MLBtraderumors.com has a better review of the film
Report thisfor baseball fanatics. Sorry, but Billy Beane is way
overrated. He has yet to win a championship, and his
team is back in the cellar again. Sorry, but baseball
is measured by the intangibles, not the numbers. Take
for example the current Red Sox season. Last night,
they won a must win game thanks to two HRs from a
rookie ball player who will probably spend a career
in the minors or as a utility player. This kid saved
the entire season for the Red Sox, and sabremetrics
would never have been able to account for an unknown
event like that to happen. Whenever human beings try
to pin point the world around them by explaining it
through numbers, the wheels of chaos always finds a
way to humble man.
By SoTexGuy, September 28, 2011 at 10:46 am Link to this comment
I’m not a big baseball fan.. or should I say I’m not a fan of ‘BIG’ baseball.. Yet there are a couple of great baseball movies.. ‘Major League” tops all.. fun and serious about the problems of BIG baseball at the same time.. ‘The Natural’ has a nostalgic attraction and ‘For the Love of the Game’ is one of the better K. Costner vanity films.
This one sounds as if it tries to recapture the energy and fun of Major league.. even so, I’ll wait for the $5 DVD (or cable broadcast).
Adios!
Report thisBy A Bird in the Hand, September 27, 2011 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment
Maliki Aide: Iraq Agrees to Buy 18 F-16 Warplanes From US
$3 Billion Deal Likely to Ensure More ‘Trainers’ Will Stay
antiwar dot com
Report thisBy elRey, September 27, 2011 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“it might have been a little better..” yeah, my thoughts exactly… this is an
entertaining movie but, at times the pacing was painful, we all know the team
would turn around, it took FOREVER… the Art Howe character was a bitter enemy
of Pitts character, but when/how did he get on board with the new method? Where
was the reversal? Howe’s was a one dimensional character, no arc. What’s the point
of conflict without resolution?
And when they broke the record it was stretched out SO painfully, slow-
Report thismotion/parallel action/ flashbacks/ audio dropping out/ dip to black layered one
on another until they finally got that last runs. 2 hrs and 6 min is way too long to
tell this story, it could easily be told in 90 min.
By Don, September 26, 2011 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
You don’t know squat, Art Howe was a very quiet non demonstrative and well like manager and would never have gone over the top as Hoffman does
Report this