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…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

It seemed as if I had missed something.

Room 237 (2012)
Stanley Kubrick’s meticulous, obsessive approach towards filmmaking was renowned, so perhaps it should be no surprise to find comparable traits reflected in a section of his worshippers. Legends about the director have taken root (some of them with a factual basis, others bunkum), while the air of secrecy that enshrouded his life and work has duly fostered a range of conspiracy theories. A few of these are aired in Rodney Ascher’s documentary, which indulges five variably coherent advocates of five variably tenuous theories relating to just what The Shining is really all about. Beyond Jack Nicholson turning the crazy up to 11, that is. Ascher has hit on a fascinating subject, one that exposes our capacity to interpret any given information wildly differently according to our disposition. But his execution, which both underlines and undermines the theses of these devotees, leaves something to be desired.

Part of the problem is simply one of production values. The audio tra…