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

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.