Skip to main content

Dollars aren’t black and white. They’re green. Every dollar’s green.

42
(2013)

It’s very easy to make an average biopic. You have a life story that’s interesting enough on paper and simply join-the-dots between significant events, or amalgamate a few less compelling ones. Apply a liberal dosing of old-age make-up for the final chapters and presto; a perfectly respectable and utterly undemanding true-life tale. 42 at least avoids the least creative impulse of such fare, that of compressing a life time into 2 hours come hell or high water. Instead it adopts the more manageable Lincoln tactic of focussing on several singular years in the life of its main player. 


This main player is not Douglas Adams, and his quest for the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Rather, it concerns baseball player Jackie Robinson who, as an African-American signed to the Brooklyn Dodgers in the mid-1940s, has the reputation for breaking the colour barrier in that sport. I’m not a fan of rounders, I mean baseball, but I do generally enjoy baseball-themed movies. The compelling nature of a sport, or otherwise, seems to have little relevance to the quality of movies based on that discipline. This is why there are no good football (or soccer) pictures. Baseball at the movies tends to embrace the aspirational and mythic, at times teetering towards the sentimentalisation of all things Americana, but Field of Dreams is guilty of the large-hearted sentimentalising that often comes attached and still manages to be a great movie (The Natural, less so). Aside from drama of the playing field, 42 knows full well it has one of the key ingredients of audience-friendly movie plotting on side; an against-the-odds fight against prejudice. It can’t really fail, but it’s also the case that the movie is unable to rise beyond the painfully self-conscious straightjacket of the importance of, and responsibility to, the events and messages it depicts. 42 is over-reverent and so, for all the quality of the performances, it remains beholden rather than taking on a life of its own.


There is also an inherent problem at the core of the picture. We are told from the outset that Robinson (Chadwick Boseman) will have to be a living embodiment of “turning the other cheek” if he is to really bust through the wall of prejudice and segregation; if he responds to taunts and abuse it will only be his reaction that is remembered and reported, not that of the abuser. But how do you depict someone who has to keep a lid on it at all times? We learn that Robinson was strong-willed, and not the sort to rein in his emotions, but other than repeated instances of him suffering both verbal and physical assault on the field, all essayed with furrowed accomplishment by Boseman (who has just added another biography to his collection, in Get On Up), what insight are we granted into the man? Off the field his domestic life with adoring wife Rachel (Nicole Beharie) is a complete snooze. Essentially, the man has no identity beyond the racism he must combat. This isn’t Boseman’s fault at all, it’s a consequence of the way writer-director Brian Helgeland positions the story.


While it isn’t unusual to have supporting characters steal a movie, it’s particularly stark when Jackie is the silent cypher under pressure. The movie essentially depicts him as he had to portray himself, and there is little insight beyond his conscious decision to do so. But even that is taken away from him since the main “hero” of the piece is turns out to be Harrison Ford’s eccentric and gruff money machine baseball lover Branch Rickey, Dodgers’ executive and president. Rickey portrays himself as motivated by greenbacks, but we eventually learn there is good old Christian idealism behind his actions. He is the great white mentor, guiding Jackie through his trials.


This is most laughably transparent in a highly convenient appearance following a particularly unbearable tirade of abuse from Philadelphia Phillies manager Ben Chapman (Alan Tudyk, decidedly not putting on his endearing face). Jackie returns to the dugout and smashes up his bat, silhouetted against the doorway as he does so. And then the angelic Rickey dodders in past the camera and offers sage advice, even with an added shoulder to cry on. It’s a hopelessly artificial moment, the stuff this sort of only-in-Hollywood aspirational fare just can’t resist. You’d hope for something a bit better from Helgeland.


This shorthand is problematic at other times; Ostermueller, the bowler who winged Jackie in an earlier game, is set up as arch-nemesis, yet they have shared just one scene together. Elsewhere, Rickey stands firm against pressures and threats, espousing good Methodist thinking and sound free market values. There’s much talk of God, as there often is in these nostalgia-hued period pieces (it’s a consistent feature of movies that present a past of prejudice and inequality that they also carry a wistful beauty courtesy of diligent costuming, art direction and cinematography); it’s the cake and eat it approach of there being better times in the past where the same core beliefs can be linked both to all that is right and all that is wrong with society (in other words, as long as you aren’t a racist Christian, you’ll probably be on board with the movie; it even gets the boot in at adulterers).


I wouldn’t go as far to say that a prosthetics-enhanced Ford is unrecognisable as Rickey, but he immerses himself in the part to an extent he has done with no role since the 1980s. He’s having immense fun and, if his standard constipated expression sometimes leaks through, it’s the most engaging, animated performance he’s delivered in a quarter of a century. It’s also a dream role; didactic and verbose yet with a heart of gold. Harrison must have wondered that no one deemed him fit for an Oscar nomination. It says something about the part and the unevenness of the screenplay that Rickey far eclipses the subject of the movie. Yes, this is all about a white world but that makes it all the more vital that the subjectivity doesn’t lie with the one espousing the values the white audience should hold. 


The director, who begins with a Rickey speech and effectively ends with him looking proudly over an empty stadium after Robinson has got the Dodgers through to the World Series, takes the easier, more attractive route; the grandstanding showman proves irresistible, and the result is that, while the drama of Jackie’s encounters on the pitch is strongly defined, much of the actual discussion and conversation is reduce to pat homilies and trite learning about equality and what it means to be subjected to intolerance (one of the few really striking scenes has a son in the crowd striking up an racist chant at Jackie, mimicking his father, only to take stock when his hero, Lucas Black’s Pee Wee Reese, puts his arm round Robinson in a gesture of solidarity).


Helegland the writer probably has a better rep than he currently deserves; much of that comes from his Oscar success with L.A. Confidential and the subsequent Point Blank remake messed with by meticulous Mel, Payback. He made a subsequent writer-director splash with medieval to rock music A Knights Tale, but he’s done little to convince since. As a director he doesn’t seem to be as natural as some of his writer peers (Davids Twohy and Koepp, Scott Frank, Christopher McQuarrie), and one can’t help thinking that some of the vitality that a contemporary soundtrack imbued on Knights Tale wouldn’t have gone amiss here. Such as the Jay-Z that accompanied 42’s trailer. The last thing you want for a movie, unless it is pure unadulterated Oscar bait, is for it to be talked about in respectful, hushed tones. It means no one really got excited about and this picture, from the syrupy John Williams score (courtesy of Mark Isham) down, lacks the spark to sound off passionately, to get angry and provoke. It’s comfortable with itself, a job well down in playing the middle ground. And so it joins the ranks of the majority of respectable, unremarkable biopics.


***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

Bring home the mother lode, Barry.

Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)

If Panos Cosmatos’ debut had continued with the slow-paced, tripped-out psychedelia of the first hour or so I would probably have been fully on board with it, but the decision to devolve into an ‘80s slasher flick in the final act lost me.

The director is the son of George Pan Cosmatos (he of The Cassandra Crossing and Cobra, and in name alone of Tombstone, apparently) and it appears that his inspiration was what happened to the baby boomers in the ‘80s, his parents’ generation. That element translates effectively, expressed through the extreme of having a science institute engaging in Crowley/Jack Parsons/Leary occult quests for enlightenment in the ‘60s and the survivors having become burnt out refugees or psychotics by the ‘80s. Depending upon your sensibilities, the torturously slow pace and the synth soundtrack are positives, while the cinematography managed to evoke both lurid early ‘80s cinema and ‘60s experimental fare. 

Ultimately the film takes a …

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…