bookgazing (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bookgazing) wrote2012-11-29 04:43 pm
bookgazing) wrote2012-11-29 04:43 pm
Film Thoughts: 'Moneyball'
I asked people to leave me questions about some of the films I’ve seen recently and today I start posting answers (although you can still leave me questions about any of the films on the list that I haven’t already talked about). First up, I answer questions from My Friend Amy about ‘Moneyball’:
Amy: Moneyball--what say you?
Jodie: Amy, I loved it! When it started being all formulas and maths I thought I was going to have so much trouble, but much like in ‘The Social Network’ it doesn’t matter if you don’t get the advanced theory because the film makes the subject so accessible. And its subject matter contained so many of my interests - baseball, male relationships, team dynamics, and struggles against authority. Loved. It.
The ending did me in though. It was such a brutal statement about the way in which money rules the world and the importance of resisting that ethos even if it means you can never win. I know some people might find that a bit too much ‘lone maverick of authenticity stands against the world’ theoretical grand standing, but I thought it was powerful. It is easy to get co-opted into the system and convince yourself you’ll change things from the inside. Let me be blunt - I don’t think that ever works out the way people plan. Not that you can’t do any good by taking the offer from the big companies and using the money, tools and influence they give you to make changes to things, but I don’t think you’re ever going to make a systematic change (like the one ‘Moneyball’ shows was necessary in baseball) by using those tools, while you’re still working for the people with all the money.
And his daughter’s voice was just right at end, even though I don’t like that song at all. It’s robust and quite cheery, carefully picking out that song about feeling lost but trying to be overwhelmed. I was just like ‘Please be good to each other forever!’
Amy: Should Sorkin stick to film?
Jodie: Tough! I’ve only seen three of Sorkin's films: ‘A Few Good Men’ (which I should probably see again), ‘The Social Network’ (which as we’ve established, I’ve probably seen a few too many times - have you seen this btw?) and ‘Moneyball’. I was an inter-mitten fan of ‘The West Wing’ (I was probably really in it from the start of the second Bartlett campaign) and a devote of late night ‘Sports Night’ repeats. I refuse to watch ‘The News Room’, because it sounds gross and full of unjustified political nostalgic.
Despite all the bad I’ve been hearing about ‘News Room’, I feel like creating ‘The West Wing’ and the darling that is ‘Sports Night’ is more than enough to suggest that Sorkin is good at TV as well as film. What I like about those two series is how they contained long running stories that built, but every episode wasn’t a soapy ‘dun, dun, dun’ drama-fest designed to remind the viewers about the long running plot element and ratchet up unnecessary tension. I like TV that treats me as if I can remember a plot line that takes place over the course of a few weeks and I get so bored of shows that substitute constant handwringing for genuine tension. Not everyone can get the balance of the long running plot right. So, I would like to see what else he can do in TV after ‘The News Room’.
The one thing I’d say about Sorkin and film is that he seems to be terrible at fitting developed female characters into his films and it bums me out. I don’t really know what that’s about, because both ‘The West Wing’ and ‘Sports Night’ have some great female characters. Is the culture and interests of Hollywood changing his work? Is it just that the particular real life stories he picks don’t have any women in them? Is it that it’s always been the team behind Sorkin keeping his programs full of female characters, not him? I mean I love stories about men exploring their nature, but ‘Moneyball’ has a cameo from an ex-wife character and his daughter is in it a few times…. I’d suggest that women don’t have to be quite so absent from male stories, even when they’re about men playing baseball.
Also I remember that when ‘The Social Network’ came out there were a lot of articles about the large amount of inaccuracies in that film. It’s a compelling, sexy story, but eh, maybe a bit more reality wouldn’t have gone amiss. And that makes me wonder what Sorkin did with the facts of ‘Moneyball’. So maybe he is best suited to creating fictional stories, even if they are still influenced by real events.
Amy: What do you think about the way it changed baseball?
Jodie: I live in a country without baseball, so I don’t know a lot about the sport. I’ve seen a few games and a lot of films. So, I’m probably not the best person to ask, maybe you should tell me how you think it’s changed the game :D
I did find this really interesting article about the influence of the book and the game after ‘Moneyball’.
A couple of things I found interesting in that article:
Amy: Was Brad Pitt perfect in that role or what?
Jodie: He’s just right. Worn down, cynical, but desperate for change because he can’t stand doing the same thing over and over just to keep losing. Losing is not what he’s there for, but he’s also not one of those people who stink of the desperate need to win, just because he was never a great baseball player. At least I didn’t think his desire to win came from any inadequacies I his past. The flash backs just seemed informational to me, but maybe they were meant to indicate where his real drive came from?
And I thought the film got him playing the powerful draw of superstition just right. The scene in the gym where he works out over and over until the game is done was brilliant. He’s almost sick with superstition and it’s a real wrench for him to drive back to the game he goes to. You can see how much it hurts when his team begins to do badly after he arrives. No one wants to be the jinx for something they care so much about.
Amy: Overhyped or the best baseball movie of recent times?
Jodie: Nothing will ever replace ‘A League of Their Own’ in my heart, but this film was great. It was slick, absorbing and made entertainment out of statistics. I would watch it again right now if I had it.
Amy: Moneyball--what say you?
Jodie: Amy, I loved it! When it started being all formulas and maths I thought I was going to have so much trouble, but much like in ‘The Social Network’ it doesn’t matter if you don’t get the advanced theory because the film makes the subject so accessible. And its subject matter contained so many of my interests - baseball, male relationships, team dynamics, and struggles against authority. Loved. It.
The ending did me in though. It was such a brutal statement about the way in which money rules the world and the importance of resisting that ethos even if it means you can never win. I know some people might find that a bit too much ‘lone maverick of authenticity stands against the world’ theoretical grand standing, but I thought it was powerful. It is easy to get co-opted into the system and convince yourself you’ll change things from the inside. Let me be blunt - I don’t think that ever works out the way people plan. Not that you can’t do any good by taking the offer from the big companies and using the money, tools and influence they give you to make changes to things, but I don’t think you’re ever going to make a systematic change (like the one ‘Moneyball’ shows was necessary in baseball) by using those tools, while you’re still working for the people with all the money.
And his daughter’s voice was just right at end, even though I don’t like that song at all. It’s robust and quite cheery, carefully picking out that song about feeling lost but trying to be overwhelmed. I was just like ‘Please be good to each other forever!’
Amy: Should Sorkin stick to film?
Jodie: Tough! I’ve only seen three of Sorkin's films: ‘A Few Good Men’ (which I should probably see again), ‘The Social Network’ (which as we’ve established, I’ve probably seen a few too many times - have you seen this btw?) and ‘Moneyball’. I was an inter-mitten fan of ‘The West Wing’ (I was probably really in it from the start of the second Bartlett campaign) and a devote of late night ‘Sports Night’ repeats. I refuse to watch ‘The News Room’, because it sounds gross and full of unjustified political nostalgic.
Despite all the bad I’ve been hearing about ‘News Room’, I feel like creating ‘The West Wing’ and the darling that is ‘Sports Night’ is more than enough to suggest that Sorkin is good at TV as well as film. What I like about those two series is how they contained long running stories that built, but every episode wasn’t a soapy ‘dun, dun, dun’ drama-fest designed to remind the viewers about the long running plot element and ratchet up unnecessary tension. I like TV that treats me as if I can remember a plot line that takes place over the course of a few weeks and I get so bored of shows that substitute constant handwringing for genuine tension. Not everyone can get the balance of the long running plot right. So, I would like to see what else he can do in TV after ‘The News Room’.
The one thing I’d say about Sorkin and film is that he seems to be terrible at fitting developed female characters into his films and it bums me out. I don’t really know what that’s about, because both ‘The West Wing’ and ‘Sports Night’ have some great female characters. Is the culture and interests of Hollywood changing his work? Is it just that the particular real life stories he picks don’t have any women in them? Is it that it’s always been the team behind Sorkin keeping his programs full of female characters, not him? I mean I love stories about men exploring their nature, but ‘Moneyball’ has a cameo from an ex-wife character and his daughter is in it a few times…. I’d suggest that women don’t have to be quite so absent from male stories, even when they’re about men playing baseball.
Also I remember that when ‘The Social Network’ came out there were a lot of articles about the large amount of inaccuracies in that film. It’s a compelling, sexy story, but eh, maybe a bit more reality wouldn’t have gone amiss. And that makes me wonder what Sorkin did with the facts of ‘Moneyball’. So maybe he is best suited to creating fictional stories, even if they are still influenced by real events.
Amy: What do you think about the way it changed baseball?
Jodie: I live in a country without baseball, so I don’t know a lot about the sport. I’ve seen a few games and a lot of films. So, I’m probably not the best person to ask, maybe you should tell me how you think it’s changed the game :D
I did find this really interesting article about the influence of the book and the game after ‘Moneyball’.
A couple of things I found interesting in that article:
‘Unlike in the early 2000s, when the book was written, virtually every team uses advanced statistical analysis to evaluate players. The question for teams now is how best to apply the principles of Moneyball, which to this day are misunderstood.
The book was not about how the A’s, a team at the bottom of baseball’s economic food chain, relied on less traditional statistics such as on-base percentage (OBP) to compete with wealthier clubs.
No, it was about how the A’s tried to find players with undervalued skills so they could acquire those players cheaply, exploiting inefficiencies in the market’
‘If anything, though, the Athletics face even more disadvantages today than they did at the time the book was written.
Free agents shun their ballpark. The team’s future in Oakland is dicey. The gap in payrolls between the A’s and big-money teams like the Yankees only has widened.’
Amy: Was Brad Pitt perfect in that role or what?
Jodie: He’s just right. Worn down, cynical, but desperate for change because he can’t stand doing the same thing over and over just to keep losing. Losing is not what he’s there for, but he’s also not one of those people who stink of the desperate need to win, just because he was never a great baseball player. At least I didn’t think his desire to win came from any inadequacies I his past. The flash backs just seemed informational to me, but maybe they were meant to indicate where his real drive came from?
And I thought the film got him playing the powerful draw of superstition just right. The scene in the gym where he works out over and over until the game is done was brilliant. He’s almost sick with superstition and it’s a real wrench for him to drive back to the game he goes to. You can see how much it hurts when his team begins to do badly after he arrives. No one wants to be the jinx for something they care so much about.
Amy: Overhyped or the best baseball movie of recent times?
Jodie: Nothing will ever replace ‘A League of Their Own’ in my heart, but this film was great. It was slick, absorbing and made entertainment out of statistics. I would watch it again right now if I had it.
no subject
I’d suggest that women don’t have to be quite so absent from male stories, even when they’re about men playing baseball.
IA, IA! I know a lot of people liked the father/daughter relationship in this one, tho.
You've written some beautiful thoughts! I'm just watching Sports Night for the first time actually, here and there, (it's the kind of show easy to fit in around other things) I think it's enjoyable but I couldn't quite get into the West Wing.