MoneyBall (2011)
Introduction
Moneyball is a surprisingly good film full of poignant insights about the world of sport and is one of the year’s best. The focus on baseball does not limit the film to any great extent because of the statements that can be applied to the world of sport in general. The film surprised me because I thought it was travelling along a predictable path however by the end, because the filmmakers made the right choices, the film has contributed to the existing sport filmography in its own small way. It is based on the true story about the General Manager (GM) of the Oakland Athletics baseball team, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), who resorts to unconventional methods to secure a team for the 2001-2002 season following the departure of key players in the previous season. He has to resort to these unconventional methods because he simply does not have the money to recruit the top players and it is this lack of money which would explain why certain teams remain at the bottom of the various sporting leagues around the world. The film highlights this from the start where OA (Oakland Athletics) are competing against the New York Yankees in an elimination game which they lose. The Yankees have a roster of players valued at 114 million when compared with the OA budget of 39 million. He then recruits an unknown apprentice at the Cleveland Indians, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), who has devised a system of computations to determine the appropriate position for players regardless of the fact that they might not be the first choice of the traditional scouting teams. This is unconventional because it goes against the established tradition where scouts would agonize about getting that intuitive feeling about a player which could positively influence the direction of the team to which they are attached. The scouts are not usually accurate for some players they choose were never meant to be in the major leagues regardless of the talent they demonstrate in their youth. The computations made by Peter Brand targets the undesirables who are rejected by the major clubs and even the clubs lower down in the scale simply because they cannot capture the eyes of the scouts who rely on the gut feeling. If they are nearing 40, had a severe injury which rendered them inactive for awhile or their all round abilities cannot make them distinguishable they are routinely ignored by the scouts. The method used by Peter Brand, which is borrowed from a fellow who believed in using statistics to assess the proper value of a player, would be able to fulfill the potential of a player regardless of how undesirable they are in the eyes of the scout; therefore if they can steal first base expertly despite being designated a hitter or can effect a strike out despite having a physical disability then the computers would have seen something that the scouts, with their gut feeling, would have missed. The team he assembles in this film based on these computations (although the film is not entirely clear whether or not all the players are recruited through this means and does not speak of players that would have carried over from the previous season) equals a baseball record of 20 wins in a row. The importance of the computations is determined primarily by their cost effective measure, as the Red Sox discover, which allows managers to save money on players by identifying undesirables. The film has clear weaknesses such as its emphasis on the managerial perspective as opposed to on the field play and so we are not entirely clear whether or not this method actually does work as they say it does. It is not also clear whether this technique does do away without the traditional scouting technique. It still adheres to most truthful premise about sporting ‘All glory is fleeting.’
The concept is based on the capitalist concept of division of labour which allows the owners of the means of production to cheapen the wages they pay to the individual worker.
What’s good about this film?
The best thing about this film was that it avoided the clichés of lesser sport films which believe that sport is defined by the final championship game where there can be only one on top of the world. Lesser films like Angels in the Outfield, which dealt with the same issue, actually emphasize that the turning point comes when angels intervene and give players, who are not traditionally doing well, the impetus they so badly needed to take on the big boys. Moneyball provides a more sombre outlook by emphasizing the material element which is money and statistics stored on a computer database. Billy Beane has good reason for thinking that traditional scouting methods of intuition do not work in this case because of his own history but it is not clear whether or not this method of computation can actually do away with this particular tradition. The filmmakers tried to clarify his use of the computation method by doing away with his scouting team and taking on Brand. At the beginning of the season his scouting team are seen as old fashioned as they scramble to try and find players to replace the top three in their squad who left at the end of the season. Beane is frustrated that their methods do not work although he is not entirely clear why especially after he fires his head scout and decides to work solely with Brand; he just knows that something is wrong and it has to do with the fact that he has no money. He disregards everyone in applying these new methods in building the team and eventually isolates all but a loyal few especially the coach (Philip Seymour Hoffman) whose character is sidelined here. In traditional sporting films it was always the coach that took on the primary role of motivating the players but in this film he too is at a loss with regards to the new method. It is up to the general manager in the form of Beane to play the coaching role. I was a bit confused as I tried to determine whether or not he was the coach or not at times. He does have some conflicts with the coach early on in the film but this is resolved as the coach seems resigned to his fate rather than be enthused about the entire project. Beane’s coaching staff, like the scouting staff, is also portrayed as old and incapable of embracing the new method and this seems to be the trend nowadays.
It was good that the film realized that you cannot do away with the traditional baseball methods as simply as you think for motivation of the players is essential. The graduate from Yale with a degree in economics cannot seem to see that because you crunch some numbers together and assemble a team does not mean that team chemistry will suddenly evolve. It takes Beane awhile to realize this (maybe because he is not a coach) and is forced to confront the issue when the team was losing 11 in a row and the method was obviously not working. He does this in a scene where he goes down to the locker and throws a couple stuff around to emphasize that when you lose there is no time to party. You have to focus and set your foot on that worn path of success. This is why he should not have alienated the coach in his decision making but the youth from Yale acts a bit too smug at times for my liking. He seems to be one of those scientists in their labs that have been isolated from humanity, whom he has little or no feelings toward. It is good that the film emphasized this point and this is why Beane has to make him aware of the realities of professional baseball. Players have to be traded regardless of emotional attachment for it has to be done to improve the team in some respects. Beane contradicts himself saying that Billy must not be emotional and listen to reason yet he does not have the guts to fire a player and does not realize that he is asking Billy to take a leap of faith with his method. The film stresses all these points effectively and there are scenes where Billy and Peter must let the players know what they expect of them and so motivate them to do better. It is here that Beane seems to take on the coaching role. They normally speak of the manager who is incapable of interacting with the players, for that is supposed to be the job of the coach; however Billy seems to earn respect by emphasizing that he too was a player.
The film also accurately stated that sport is always about the last game regardless of winning streaks etc for all glory is fleeting. There is a sobering element in this film that invites you to acknowledge that sport is not always so rosy. This element surprised me for I thought film was prepared to take the optimistic route of most films which offer a fairly narrow minded point of view. Most optimism is narrow minded for optimism is normally followed by a crash of some sort that was not readily visible since people are flying high with no regards to the crumbling edifice (check my review of Some Like it Hot (1959)). The film makes it clear towards the end that regardless of the record equaling winning streak which is what the fans want to see, the fact that the team is eliminated in the play off round means that they have to start all over again. The winning streak therefore meant nothing. When the team is eliminated the critics who were once in the sidelines tracking the success of Billy’s team resurface by saying ‘It was a good run but the team lacked the basic foundational principles to ensure continued success. You don’t punch numbers and hope to be a success.’ (not exact quote) The critic seems to have missed the boat for it is a new principle that will not disregard completely established tradition but will make one step further as the Boston Red Sox proved when they won the World Series 2 years later in 2004 using the same method. When Billy is offered a lucrative contract by the Red Sox he breaks the cycle by not making a decision based on money and the concluding statements of the film make clear that his team has still not progressed beyond the elimination round despite his unique method. The Boston red sox that used his method still have more money regardless and the cycle continues in this regard but it does not excuse the fact that once you are on top and your sole motivation becomes consumption as opposed to innovation you will be outpaced by those coming from down low with a new method of success. Billy has a crucial if only rudimentary relationship with his daughter who tells him to look on the bright side of life. Baseball might be a business but there is fun to be had.
The pacing of the film and the direction of all the elements by Bennett Miller (Capote (2005)) is solid.
What is bad about this film?
The screenplay might be smart but it is not perfect. Firstly, it does not mention the roles of the undesired, cheap players themselves and how they feel about their selection by Billy (the goat) and Peter (the great). The players are selected but initially we do not get a sense of who they are and their views on the game of baseball. Most of the action takes place at the top and so the players become commodities. Even when Billy and Peter start informing the players of what they really expect of them there are still no references to the views of the players regarding this new system since they are the ones that will put it into practice. The only time we see the players on screen is through the expressions associated with loss or victory on the pitch. If I consider myself a hitter and am told to simply try and walk (4 no balls) how will I then see myself? This is not how I conceived or envisioned myself as a baseball player so that means I too must undergo a transition. The presentation in the film is too glib for Billy tells a player something and then he does it like a slave. The film might have tried to be sympathetic towards Billy’s plight as a player but it really is not about him it is about those players on the pitch in the here and now. We therefore do not get a sense of their skills and how they act on the pitch in the heat of battle. Peter does have recordings but that is mostly for prospective players or the ones with potential. It seems more like fun at times and not as serious as one would expect. The comedic elements in this film are related more to the entertainment value at the cinema since it will be viewed by a motley audience with differing expectations. This crucial perspective of the players therefore does not alter the viewpoints considerably for it is not only the fans that share in the joys and the sorrows but the players who have decided to make this sport a living. The players are the ones that will have to embrace the new philosophy not the manager and his advisor from Yale. Unless you can reach the ground level with your philosophy it is almost meaningless for the tides at the bottom only change when the winds do; if a player is interviewed for instance and is asked what position do you think you’re about to play in this new Billy outfit? ‘I don’t know I think of myself as a hitter but they might think I’m better at something else.’ It is true that they help a pitcher fulfill his potential despite his disability but we rarely see him in action. It seems that the screenwriters focused more on the concept to ignore the complications on the ground level that would make it a truly great film. This would mean at least an extra half hour etc but how good would it be to have a sports epic about baseball in its totality. The screenplay therefore sacrifices its own potential by glossing over the main issues. When the OA are on their winning streak they try and include, alongside, some historical footage of the New York Yankees with Babe Ruth who set the previous record. This is good but this is not the issue. It is about the players.
The coach, Art Howe, is also largely ignored and does not seem to have embraced the philosophy of the concept completely. He is portrayed as traditional and is not given enough screen time apart from when he hangs his head low. When the teams goes on its winning streak it is surprising that the coach does not get in on the action by trying to motivate the players or try to come more to terms with the concept. His most significant moment comes when he takes a leap of faith with a player. His role is completely sidelined by the screenwriters. The scouting staff is likewise dismissed outright and do not seem to know what they are doing. This is erroneous for if they were so bad how was it that they were able to discover the players that left at the beginning of the season. They were still able to find the players to take them to the same spot where the unique method took Billy. Billy and his team might have got a winning streak going but it did not alter the team’s fortune in any other way. Scouting cannot be all that bad then and the unique method does not seem to be any better. It is true though that the unique method is important for assembling a cheap team but you still need a game changer in your squad and that is where individual talent comes in. The unique method seems to derive from the economic concept developed under capitalism called division of labour. Therefore one person steals a base. One person learns to walk; one person hits the ball in the centre between fielders so that those on the bases can run etc. This would keep the scoreboard ticking in this case. It cheapens the value of a player as a result and makes more money for the club. The concept therefore is not new it is based on the capitalist doctrine. The critics have conveniently missed this point. The concept reaches a stumbling block when the scores are level and you need a individual like a Babe Ruth/Barry Bonds to hit that winning home run. There is a scene where an individual makes a difference but this is based on a leap of faith itself and not necessarily on computations. Maybe this is the struggle at the heart of the film. It is not that single winning home run that will make you a star however but the fact that you can now be turned to when the scores are level to make that difference. In this film it is a one off occurrence. The individual can make a difference in the squad although it is a team sport. Star players know how to seize opportunities that will immortalize them as their method becomes the norm.
The concept makes baseball seem pretty simple and it would be good to see it applied to other sports. Coaches have been making these computations for awhile now in cricket for example. You know that this player is a good fielder although he is an average batsman and bowler; you put him at backward point and whenever a batsman cuts it is a surety that he will catch it. So are these computations necessary or is it that a good coach after working with a player will be able to make a decision and determine where best to put you. That is not made clear for the coach is dismissed in this film. His intuition pays off and not that of the manager; Billy chose the person who hit the winning home run to simply steal first base. Billy’s life as a player collapsed because no one seemed to be able to pinpoint a specific role he could be an expert at for he was an all rounder. Barry Bonds for instance is good at hitting home runs (steroids and all) that is all. Could this concept be applied to other team sports? Can you really disregard traditional scouting since most teams use it successfully? Scouts do get it wrong sometimes and so does the computations. The Red Sox, who won the first world series for the first time since 1918, utilized the method because they were not attracting star players like the OA and were able to use this concept of the division of labour effectively because they had more money. It is actually not clear if the Red Sox is a wealthy club. After they won the World Series they probably attracted the star players so would you still use the method of computation once the star players start coming. If the concept worked does it mean what is called a star player might no longer remain. This was worth exploring or it was not developed significantly.
All in all it is a good film but there were issues that were not clearly resolved for the sake of general entertainment.
No comments:
Post a Comment