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

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

To defeat the darkness out there, you must defeat the darkness inside yourself.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
Easily the best of the Narnia films, which is maybe damning it with faint praise. 

Michael Apted does a competent job directing (certainly compared to his Bond film - maybe he talked to his second unit this time), Dante Spinotti's cinematography is stunning and the CGI mostly well-integrated with the action. 

Performance-wise, Will Poulter is a stand-out as a tremendously obnoxious little toff, so charismatic you're almost rooting for him. Simon Pegg replaces Eddie Izzard as the voice of Reepicheep and delivers a touching performance.
***

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…

That Freud stuff’s a bunch of hooey.

Spellbound (1945)
Spellbound is something of a stumbling follow-up to Rebecca, producer David O Selznick’s previous collaboration with Hitchcock. Selznick was a devotee of psychoanalysis, and the idea of basing a film on the subject was already in the mind of the director. To that end, the producer’s own therapist, May Romm, was brought in as a technical advisor (resulting in Hitchcock’s famous response when she pointed out an inaccuracy, “My dear, it’s only a movie”).

This is it. This is the moment of my death.

Fearless (1993)
Hollywood tends to make a hash of any exploration of existential or spiritual themes. The urge towards the simplistic, the treacly or the mawkishly uplifting, without appropriate filtering or insight, usually overpowers even the best intentions. Rarely, a movie comes along that makes good on its potential and then, more than likely, it gets completely ignored. Such a fate befell Fearless, Peter Weir’s plane crash survivor-angst film, despite roundly positive critical notices. For some reason audiences were willing to see a rubgy team turn cannibal in Alive, but this was a turn-off? Yet invariably anyone who has seen Fearless speaks of it in glowing terms, and rightly so.

Weir’s pictures are often thematically rich, more anchored by narrative than those of, say, Terrence Malick but similarly preoccupied with big ideas and their expression. He has a rare grasp of poetry, symbolism and the mythic. Weir also displays an acute grasp of the subjective mind-set, and possesses …