Skip to main content

When primal forces of nature tell you to do something, the prudent thing is not to quibble over details.

Field of Dreams
(1989)

(SPOILERS) There’s a near-Frank Darabont quality to Phil Alden Robinson producing such a beloved feature and then subsequently offering not all that much of note. But Darabont, at least, was in the same ballpark as The Shawshank Redemption with The Green MileSneakers is good fun, The Sum of All Our Fears was a decent-sized success, but nothing since has come close to his sophomore directorial effort in terms of quality. You might put that down to the source material, WP Kinsella’s 1982 novel Shoeless Joe, but the captivating magical-realist balance hit by Field of Dreams is a deceptively difficult one to strike, and the biggest compliment you can play Robinson is that he makes it look easy.

Indeed, I can only point to a couple of bum notes here, not really even that in the final analysis. The subplot involving Annie Kinsella (Amy Madigan) protesting a desire to ban library books feels what it is, a sop to provide an underdeveloped character with a demonstrable beat. When I say that Annie is underdeveloped, I mean that she’s there as an adjunct to main character Ray (Kevin Costner), rather than having agency in her own right; that’s usually a criticism, but there’s something delightful about the manner in which Annie is right there with her husband’s bat-shit crazy decisions (from "If you build it, he will come" onwards). Even when she thinks he has gone too far, she ends up supporting him (they have the same dream). It needs to be emphasised too that Madigan is absolutely wonderful in the role.

Now, I know the whole book banning subplot is in aid of finding and easing the pain of Terence Mann (James Earl Jones), and that the nature of this kind of movie is making apparently unmotivated magical connections between people and events, but the bridge between the famous radical author and baseball didn’t entirely land for me, and might have benefited from further finessing. Once it’s set up, I have no issues – Jones’ performance is absolutely one of the movie’s highlights, and Mann’s trajectory from curmudgeon to apostle is utterly winning – but the groundwork is a bit sketchy. It might be because the shorthand that everyone loves baseball – not Jones in real life, however – isn’t quite enough for me.

The other very vague beef I have is merely a comparative one. I do find the final scene between Costner and his dad on the baseball field affecting, but I’m more moved by the marvellous performances and character arcs of Jones/Mann and Burt Lancaster as Moonlight Graham. There’s such a warmth, acceptance and assured genuineness from Lancaster in his final role, of a man who has no regrets about his path in life even as he’d like to know how he’d have fared if it had taken a different course, and bringing that home so neatly in the cycle of choice that has his younger self (Frank Whaley) come to the aid of Ray’s daughter Karin (Gaby Hoffman). It’s perfectly elegiac and poignant.

Costner is absolutely in his element here too. He was at his best as an icon of yesteryear, upholding a value system indebted to nostalgia and a time and place that never was, or an earnest wistfulness for what might have been (Dances with Wolves, The Untouchables, JFK). It’s easy to mock his choices as his star power grew (and consequently quickly dissipated) but there were a few years where he was pitch perfect in roles that could have been tailor-made for him. He can be sincere, quiet, self-effacing and here is all those things, while showing an easy chemistry with every one of his co-stars (notably, Hoffman, in an amusingly precocious 1992 interview, attested amongst other things to her disdain for John Hughes, Macauley Culkin and Robinson – he “didn’t know anything about children” and “was awful to me” – said how “nice and supportive” Costner was, so he did have his fans). His delivery of “Trust me Karin, it’s not funny. The man is sick. Very sick” in response to his daughter enjoying Harvey is perfection.

Revisiting Field of Dreams, on the one hand, it’s exhibiting the aspirational nostalgia that would later be a key to the enduring love for The Shawshank Redemption, but it’s also very much pledged to its stake in 1960s idealism. I suspect that hadn’t seemed as significant previously because the prior period was foregrounded, the one focussing on the players involved in the Black Sox Scandal (particularly with Sayles’ Eight Men Out having been released not long prior). But Field of Dreams could almost be a heightened companion piece to The Big Chill in some respects, right down to giving its ghost from that film (Costner was the corpse) a flesh-and-blood role here; Mann’s time of prominence was the '60s, the travelogue section of the movie is awash with songs from the period, and Annie is given to profess “Just like the '60s again” on battling book-banning, small-minded bigots.

I can’t emphasise enough how Field of Dreams shouldn’t work. It ought to be unacceptably mawkish, heavy-handed and treacly, and completely run aground with its adherence to baseball as a symbol for all that is great about America – someone even says as much at one point. But it isn’t, and the key to that is keeping it low-key. Even Costner playing ball with dad at the end didn’t originally have him saying “dad”, which speaks volumes. There’s a stillness and ambience here that creeps up on you the way (most likely) Ed Harris whispering to Costner in the field does. John Lindley’s magic hour photography underlines that simmering peacefulness, as does James Horner’s score, which knows when to leave silence for effect. Even the hissable types (Timothy Busfield as Annie’s brother) and the threat to the farm don’t tip over into full-blown melodrama, because Robinson keeps sight on the underlying purity of a routinely mockable idea – belief, or faith, in ideas beyond the merely tangible. It’s this element, as much as the father-son bonding and the chance to correct things that couldn’t be corrected (a very straightforward and unnuanced idea in essence, but the construction yields the satisfaction), that sustains the picture.

And yes, Field of Dreams is thoroughly life-affirming and shamelessly upbeat in its vision of an ultimately benign universe (although, when you break it down, dad asking son if Iowa was heaven and then telling Ray heaven exists suggests he isn’t sure on the one hand and on the other that he has direct experience of it). But why not? Most pictures that try to play that hand end up coming across as hopelessly trite.

Field of Dreams was nominated for Best Picture, but received only two other nods (Adapted Screenplay and Score), all three well-deserved. Although, Jones and Lancaster ought to have been recognised in the Supporting Actor category (certainly over Brando), and the cinematography is more memorable than several finalists. Nevertheless, of that year’s Best Picture nominees, Field of Dreams is for me the most satisfyingly wrought tale, managing to walk a difficult tightrope of sincerity without plunging into syrupy tweeness. It goes the distance.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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.

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.

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.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

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.

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.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.