1989 baseball fantasyRating: 11/20
Plot: After a choppy backstory that explains a broken relationship with a father and how he married the most annoying woman in Iowa, Ray Kinsella settles into the present day where he struggles to stay afloat as a corn farmer. One afternoon, Ray is standing in his field (this is apparently something that farmers often do) and hears a voice telling him to build something so that somebody will come. He giggles. He later hallucinates and decides, because of his father's lack of spontaneity, to build a baseball field so that Shoeless Joe Jackson can boss him around on it. Shoeless Joe and his friends start playing on the field regularly, and Ray semi-retires so that he can sit on the bleachers and do absolutely nothing. But more voices lead him to Boston to find Darth Vader and then Minnesota to find J. J. Hunsecker.
Right away, we know why Cory loves this movie. For there, right on the Kinsella television screen, is Jimmy Stewart himself (in Harvey)in the first of two too-obvious references to mental illness. The other is that "I'm Crazy" song playing at a farm supply store.
I'd seen this movie once with my father about twenty years ago. Until I watched it again, I thought it was a pretty good movie that I actually liked. Turns out that it's a big sloppy mess of Hollywood treacle that I really kind of hated. It starts with the music. After some overly dramatic big Hollywood music accompanying pictures of young Ray, we get to the shots of Ray in his cornfield with the creepy ambient music that plays whenever he hears dead people. Here's what I want to know--does Ray also hear the creepy ambient music? After about fifteen minutes, I was already tired of the five-note piano theme that played every time something important happens. Later, I wanted to invent a drinking game or something like a drinking game where I shoved a pencil in my ear every time that music played.
I don't mind stretching my imagination, suspending my disbelief, or whatever. Field of Dreams forces me to stretch things a little too thin. Take for instance the hallucinations that lead him to his epiphany. He keeps asking if he's crazy because the script has him ask it about ten times. The answer has to be "Yes!" doesn't it? Nobody in his right mind is going to build a baseball field in that situation. Then, after he gets the "Ease his pain" message, he just happens to show up to a really awkward book-banning discussion where author Mann's name pops up, and he makes the connection? I loved that book discussion by the way. People randomly yelling out, "Pervert!" or "He's probably a communist!" And it climaxes with the most un-arousing catfight in the history of cinema. It's hard to swallow that a big coinkydink leads him to want to travel to Boston and Mann. But when his obnoxious wife starts in with the "I had a dream you were watching a game at Fenway with Mann" thing? I might have thrown up anyway, but that five-note piano motif came on and made it happen a little quicker.
The acting--I didn't like it, almost top to bottom. Burt Lancaster's the best of the bunch, but there are some moments when he's reading his lines like he's in a hurry, almost like he feels he has to finish them before he dies. Young "Moonlight" is maybe the worst, wide-eyed and talentless. He even overdoes winking. Amy Madigan is just too much, but maybe Ray's wife is supposed to be irritating. It's almost like Madigan read the script, thought it was a comedy, and played everything for laughs. James Earl Jones doesn't really fit inside his pants or his character, and Mann's behavior and dialogue is so inconsistent. There's an obnoxious child actor, Gaby Hoffmann; the only thing she accomplished was making me wish Ray and his wife were childless. At one point, Ray's brother-in-law (right before he shoves her off the top of the bleachers and nearly kills her) asks, "What the hell is she talking about?" and that was exactly what I was thinking. I wanted to give Timothy Busfield (Ed's brother on the TV show Ed) a high five. And there's Ray Liotta who seems bored with his role as Shoeless Joe. And good ol' Kevin Costner. His idea of "acting" is apparently looking into the distance and nodding or, sometimes, looking really confused. My favorite Costner moment is during a scene where he's driving his VW van and practising how to greet Mann. It's nearly a Nicholas Cage moment.
Some random questions I had:
--Ray is telling his daughter Shoeless Joe's story while building half of a baseball field--clearing it of the corn, smoothing out the dirt, planting the grass seed, putting up the lights, assembling the bleachers, etc. Is he a really really slow storyteller or a quick builder of bleachers?
--When Shoeless Joe arrives, there's all this baseball equipment just sitting there ready to be used. Where did that come from?
--Was Shoeless Joe supposed to be kind of a jerk? I thought he was kind of jerky.
--Why was Ray's wife wearing a beanie at one point?
--Time travel? Seriously?
--Where did the umpires come from?
--Is the line "Who is this? Elvis?" supposed to be as funny as I thought it was?
--How about the line "You guys are guests in my corn"?
--The six minutes after the little girl is shoved from the bleachers--does it turn into a comedy there?
--Wouldn't the "Hey, Dad? Want to have a catch?" line really confuse John?
This is the type of movie that stretches sentimentality so far that it snaps and hits you right in the brain. Or the groin. Hard. It's just too, too much. And most unfortunately, Ray and his wife are trying to figure out how the baseball field can be a financial enterprise at the end of the movie. That was a sickening thematic twist there, wasn't it?
I'll end with something positive because I don't want to be all negative with the first movie club selection. There's a scene where James Earl Jones walks into the cornfield. Before he enters, he stands there with a dumb grin on his face, sticks his hand in and out a few times, laughs really awkwardly, wobbles a bit. I had to rewind and watch that several times. Take it out of the context of Field of Dreams, and it's absolutely hilarious.
21 comments:
Thanks for elaborately shredding something I wouldn't have the patience to sit through, let alone elaborately shred. I've caught snippets of this movie and treacle should be in parenthesis after the title as a warning to diabetic movie watchers.
in those snippets ray liotta seemed like a jerk.
by the way Cory, I'm not on an anti-Cory campaign these days, I loved Little Children and glad you made it a pick.
Saw this numerous times, but not recently, so I'm relying on memory. Shane's comments helped.
I agree with Shane in that a great deal of the story is unrealistic. However, it is intended to be a fantasy. When you think about it, most movies other than documentaries have flaws. For those who where fans of '24', Jack would have been dead during the first season.
One line that I felt should have been re-done was Amy Madigan's comment about dreaming she saw her husband and Mann at a Red Sock's game. A minute before she was throwing a hissy-fit over her husband going to Boston.
The daughter, for those who remember, was also in 'Hook'. She sang in that movie, and also preformed the same song during that year's Academy Awards.
My favorite part of the movie was the Mann characters description of baseball. How things change but baseball goes on. I felt it was very accurate.
If my memory is correct, the book author's name is the same as the title character. But I may be wrong on this.
Just mentioning that Jack Bauer could die seems blasphemous to me...
But you're right--Mann's speech is the best part of the movie, and I forgot to mention it. Perfectly delivered lines, too.
From the imdb.com quote page:
"Ray, people will come Ray. They'll come to Iowa for reasons they can't even fathom. They'll turn up your driveway not knowing for sure why they're doing it. They'll arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past. Of course, we won't mind if you look around, you'll say. It's only $20 per person. They'll pass over the money without even thinking about it: for it is money they have and peace they lack. And they'll walk out to the bleachers; sit in shirtsleeves on a perfect afternoon. They'll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the baselines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes. And they'll watch the game and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come Ray. The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come."
I probably neglected to mention this because I was thinking about sports and money at this point, watching Kevin Costner's gears crankin' as he tries to figure out how to exploit his magical baseball field for his own financial gains. Take some of Mann's words out of context, and I can see sports team owners saying the same things but with darker undertones.
An NFL or MLB team owner's (or even the players) paraphrase: "We can do whatever the heck we want. They'll still pay to come see our product."
Maybe I'm just bitter about this whole Pujols thing.
I tried to get this in time but the library didnt come through. i havent seen this in almost 20 years when i had to watch it in humanities like it was a masterpiece everyone HAD to watch. i thought it was hollywoody filled with bad acting and was a little confused by the plot great review shane. now Marat de Sade??
I feel badly for Cory because he is going to go ballistic when he sees this review.
You are completely wrong, of course, but since movies are so subjective I will have to make it all good by pointing out some things you might have missed.
First of all its a fantasy, a fable. I got the feeling from your review that you expected a more realistic movie.
The thing is, what he was experiencing were not hallucinations. You refer to them several times as such in the review, but since other people also see what Costner sees, they are supernatural. Costner is not insane, simply chosen.
I agree the Madigan is a bad character, but she is only important for the one badly done scene involving the banning of books. Costner and James Earl Jones are very good together, and yes, there is time travel involved, but again its magic, not science. Everything fits into the world they are trying to create.
I am going to assume you didnt play baseball as a kid, since a large part of this movies appeal is to men who identify with that part of their lives, often to the point of it being the major component of the relationship between a father and son. If you are missing that whole sports bonding thing from your past, it makes it tougher to connect with the film.
I can see how some might look at this movie with a cynical eye, but its always rung true with me. Much more so than most Hollywood films that try to convey big emotional connections. I give it a 19, and it only avoids a 20 because of the Madigan scenes.
Oh and I would heartily recommend that you never see the movie Joe Versus the Volcano. If you thought Field of Dreams was a bit over the top, that one would about kill you.
Whats next? We have another film by the end of the month?
Nah, Cory will be fine...
I understand that it's fantasy. A modern-day fantasy/fable isn't going to work, however, without some sort of fantasy logic. And the way Costner undercovers the mysteries of those creepy whispered clues just isn't logical. He's yelling at the voice ("Build what!? Who will come?!") but then a vision of the baseball field and a grinning Shoeless Joe pop up. To me, that's just lazy storytelling. And it doesn't seem like anybody cares for the book-burning scene and the coincidences and subsequent wife dreaming that leads him to his second epiphany.
The time travel thing bugged me, too. You've accepted the fantasy--dead, ageless baseball players are walking out of his cornfield and playing catch with him. He's hearing the voices. But then all of a sudden he's traveling back in time? And then the rookie is traveling forward in time? That part of the fantasy just didn't mesh with the other part of the fantasy.
I did play baseball as a kid. In fact, I like to tell people that I started and played 7 different positions as a freshman in college. It was a college of 500 people though. Baseball's been as big a part of my life as anything. Maybe my problems connecting with the movie have to do with me being terrible at it?
More baseball, by the way, might have helped this. One of my favorite scenes is where the Black Sox are practising and joking around with each other. I know the story can't just get stuck with dead baseball players chattin' it up, but I thought there should have been more of that. For a baseball movie, there sure was a lack of baseball.
I could be on my way to a 'Joe v. the Volcano' trifecta. My wife was talking about wanting to see that a few hours ago.
How this works--I've chosen the pickers randomly. Anonymous picked 'Marat/Sade'...I don't know how much time we should have between Movie Club selections. Is a month too long?
I would like to verify that Shane was an excellent baseball player (although he couldn't pitch). He was not as good as his Dad, though, who could pitch.
His dad's a lefty, so pitching comparisons aren't even fair.
My favorite baseball memory: During a very long spring training trip in Florida, all of our pitchers were tired. The coach decided that I'd get the start, and it was a neat experience because the game was on the field where the Detroit Tigers played their spring training games.
My line: 1/3 IP, 6 Runs, ?? Hits, 1 BB, 1 HBP, 1 Error (pick-off throw), 2 Wild Pitches, and the longest freakin' home run I've ever seen a human being hit.
I'm sure the guy I got out was benched for the rest of the season.
I always wanted to be Doc Gooden, by the way. His wind-up was cool. He's the reason I even tried cocaine!
His dad's a lefty, so pitching comparisons aren't even fair.
My favorite baseball memory: During a very long spring training trip in Florida, all of our pitchers were tired. The coach decided that I'd get the start, and it was a neat experience because the game was on the field where the Detroit Tigers played their spring training games.
My line: 1/3 IP, 6 Runs, ?? Hits, 1 BB, 1 HBP, 1 Error (pick-off throw), 2 Wild Pitches, and the longest freakin' home run I've ever seen a human being hit.
I'm sure the guy I got out was benched for the rest of the season.
I always wanted to be Doc Gooden, by the way. His wind-up was cool. He's the reason I even tried cocaine!
I love "Field of Dreams". I have seen it at least 20-30 times and it never fails to touch me to the point of tears in my eyes. There are a lot of reasons it has an emotional impact on me...
It is beautifully shot. The cinematography, especially in the magic hour scenes after he has built the field, and then the scenes with his dad, are as pretty as any I have seen.
James Horner's score is perfect (it was nominated for an original score Oscar, by the way). It is gentle, evocative, and and lovely. It ranges from simple to more orchestral, and it's sweetness compliments the meaning of the film.
"Field of Dreams" is unique. No other movie uses fantasy, spirituality, sport, and family relationships to try to create something so uplifting and emotionally resonant. W.P. Kinsella's book brought to concept, but it does not come close to the warmth, humor, and magic of the film.
None of these things would matter though without people to care about and a story well told. With the glaring exception of Madigan (more on her later), I love the acting, and the characters created. There are many little moments and bits of humor that make them people I care about. We know exactly what is in the heart of Ray, Shoeless Joe, Terenece Mann, and Doc Graham. The movie is brilliant in letting the audience know what their deepest hurt, need, or wish is, except for Ray. His is revealed piece by piece through the journey. We know their mistakes, their pain, their regret over the road not taken, and the movie dares to use ghosts, heaven, faith and baseball to help heal them. This tale of redemption dares to be purely positive and uplifting, and it has more to do with love and friendship than any other I know. It is also about nostalgia for the innocence, joy, and fellowship represented by a game.
"Field of Dreams" is not flawless. Madigan and the PTA scene are not worthy of the rest of the film. The line "he masturbates" makes me cringe, and most of the scene and the following hallway scene ring false. For the rest of the film though, Madigan plays well the sypmathetic wife who supports her husband in what he desperately needs to do. Shoeless Joe Jackson batted left and threw right (there is even a line about Babe Ruth copying his swing). The fact director Robinson didn't care makes me want to go after him with a baseball bat. Also, how could Annie doubt the Mann connection after Ray points out Mann wrote a story about a character named John Kinsella?
Ultimately, the viewer either accepts the premise, or doesn't. For me, it is the scene where Doc steps across the field's edge and through time, and is content because his dream has been fulfilled. It is the scene where Ray says softly "It was you", and 200 feet away Joe replies softly "No Ray, it was you", and you realize that it was Ray's hurt soul that set everything in motion. It is Ray meeting his father, the grandfather meeting his grandchild, and the redemtion therein that is the soul of the film. The magic that surrounds the idea and execution of "Field of Dreams" makes me forgive all flaws because it touches me more than any other movie. It is my third favorite. I only wish it didn't have a few distracting flaws that keep it from being number one. I guess not all drams can come true. A 20.
note: This was disappointing, for me. I thought the movie of the month meant a deeper and more serious look at these movies. It seems to be more about participation. Barry managed to be very diplomatic about the review, but I found it kind of intentionally brutal.
I know you love the movie, Cory. And trust me, I wasn't being intentionally brutal. I'm not even sure I was brutal.
Big Hollywood sentimentality is a pet peeve. Does it work at times? Absolutely. But I need some performers with the acting chops to make me sympathetic for the characters. Kevin Costner and Madigan's performances distracted me. Just not enough of this movie clicked with me because it's so far removed from reality. And yes, I realize we're dealing with a sort of grown man fantasy (not the dirty kind) and that reality can't be getting in the way, but with something like 'Field of Dreams,' where I'm asked to appreciate the motivations, experiences, and feelings of a flesh 'n' blood guy, the storytellers' logic has to...well, be logical. I thought the big movie moments and each gut-blow of a coincidence added up to a not-too-logical fairy tale. It just made everything very, very artificial for this viewer.
And honestly, it was disappointing for me. I was excited to revisit this movie I hadn't seen in a very long time, a movie that I thought I liked and figured I would like even more as an adult-sized person. Sports movies, more than maybe any other movies except for cartoons, are the ones that make me cry. I think the potential for something magical was here; I just don't think the people involved with this (and yes, that includes James Horner) got it done.
You articulated your love of this film extremely well, by the way, and I really enjoyed reading your feelings about the movie. In a way, this was a perfect Movie Club suggestion because it shows the way movies work (or don't work) for different people. 'Field of Dreams' pushes a lot of my wrong buttons, but I can understand why a lot of people can excuse its many shortcomings and make a powerful connection.
I've not seen 'Marat/Sade' and I'm not entirely sure why my brother's picked it. Looks like it has the potential to be even more devisive.
Kairow? Rubber Duck? Where you at? Jen, I'm sad to say, could not stay awake long enough to finish this month's selection. And Dylan wouldn't watch it with me because he's a bad son.
I liked what you said just now much more than your original review. I have NO issue with someone not liking this movie. Critics as a whole were divided (though amazingly it was the very rare fantasy film that was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar). It asks for the viewer to swallow a great deal and promises the deepest of payoffs. I don't think of it in my normal logical way because the entire concept is illogical. The events are miracles and I just go with them. Again, I can understand anyone who doesn't buy it.
The "brutal" thing came from the following:
1. "choppy backstory"- I don't know what this means or why you said it. The narration was fluid, concise and did a great job of starting the story. It seemed snarky.
2. baseball equipment- he saw Joe in uniform in his vision...it makes sense equipment would there
3. beanie- I know it was meant to be funny, but it felt like taunting the guy you're beating up (maybe while Larry cheers you on).
4. "Time travel? Seriously?"- the most bothersome. Not only do you like a lot of surreal movies that often have very tenuous logic, but you also like time travel films. "Back to the Future"? "Time After Time"? I'm assuming you like "Time Bandits". It seemed like a very random (or hypocritical) attack on a film that, by it's nature, creates a world where miracles happen. Resolving pain and need so deep that supernatural forces took a hand in their resolution is part of what makes "Field of Dreams" unique and special to me. To quote a famous man..."there are no rules" to this kind of film.
5. They don't push the girl off the bleachers. She falls off while they struggle over her. Asking if it becomes a comedy wasn't right.
6. Attacking Ray's motives either says you checked out of the movie, or the review. Nothing in his character was greedy or malicious. He is clearly having a final test of faith. He looks to Joe and has faith that Providence wants him to do this and won't allow him to lose everything.
You often see things in films that I don't, and that makes me really respect you and your blog. I know there are no rules, but a couple of rules I go by are to treat recommendations with the respect they deserve, and if I haven't seen a film, to just be quiet. I think these are fair.
Starting off the movie club with accusations of brutality! Couldn't ask for more.
I think your "rules" are fair enough. You know me (and my writing) well enough (I hope!) to know that I'm not really all that malicious. I poke fun and maybe don't take as much seriously as I should.
Now let me defend my brutality:
1) The "choppy backstory" thing... No, I don't want to movie to be longer, but I didn't like the montage w/ narration that got the viewer caught up with where he was in his life.
2) I won't argue that he wouldn't have the baseball stuff handy, but a lot of time would have passed with no Shoeless Joe arrivals. Seasons had changed. Wouldn't he have had that stuff in some kind of shed?
3) Yeah, the beanie comment was just me being funny. Jen was still awake at that point and asked about it. It was an odd fashion choice.
4) I do like time travel in movies, and not just when Crispin Glover is involved. I just thought that things were stretched a little too thin at this point. There's a lot of fantastical, heck maybe even surreal, stuff going on. When time travel was introduced, I just thought, "What? This too?" I don't think I had problems with any of the individual "miracles" in the story. Thrown all together though? I thought the time travel seemed random.
5) Ok, the "pushing" thing seems, in retrospect, a bit harsh. That was moments before one of the moments in the movie that was most special to you.
6) I don't think I'm questioning Ray's motives, at least not his original ones. But the brother-in-law is all about money the entire movie. The wife is worried about money. Ray's following his heart despite the financial struggles. And at the end, the brother-in-law has come to their side, and he even sees the baseball players for the first time. But when he says, "You've got to keep this field," and walks into the house, there's a large chunk of him that is still thinking about the all-mighty dollar. Part of the reason the movie's got a happy ending is because they're going to charge people to see the baseball field and get out of debt. Cars are lined up to see the thing. I don't know if that's a huge issue really (after all, his original intentions had nothing to do with money and what he gained from the experiences is more important to him than any money they might bring it) but it was a bit icky to me. The closing shot is of that line of cars, and it almost forces one to focus on how they're going to exploit (negative connotation there...maybe just profit) the miracle. Makes it all seem less pure to me...
Always enjoy your recommendations (even if I don't like the films) and discussions...I definitely didn't go into the watching of 'Field of Dreams' or the writing with the intention of beating you up. I apologize if it seemed that way.
Yeah, I like 'Time Bandits'...time travel AND little people! That's on the blog somewhere.
Fair enough...on to "Marat/Sade plus 80 unecessary characters".
buy xanax how to pass a drug test in 24 hours + xanax - how to order xanax online no prescription
buy ativan ativan high mg - ativan withdrawal in neonates
buy xanax online dosage of generic xanax - best site buy xanax
buy zolpidem buy ambien online no prescription - what is zolpidem sl
Post a Comment