Skip to main content

He’s a boob with a batting eye.

The Pride of the Yankees
(1942)

(SPOILERS) The sports biopic is obviously an evergreen, but you do rather need something more substantial than the noble intention of paying tribute to a successful athlete (or cashing in on his reputation, as the case may be). A story to tell, for starters. Baseball player Lou Gehrig dying from ALS isn’t really enough, although the makers appeared to believe it was. Damon Runyon’s seal of approval practically lays out The Pride of the Yankees' thinness at the outset: “This is a story of a hero of the peaceful paths of everyday life”. Which is code for: “You’re absolutely going to have to adore Lou Gehrig – or the Yankees – to get down with this one”.

I had it in my head that Seinfeld was the source of the joke about Gehrig (“You ever think what a coincidence it is that Lou Gehrig died of Lou Gehrig's disease?”), but it seems it might have been The Sopranos. Doubtless it had a good few decades of history prior to even that. Seinfeld did have Steinbrenner (voiced by Larry David) wearing Gehrig’s baseball pants – “Big Stein can’t be flopping and twitching” – in The Millennium. And in The Opposite, mimicking a mawkish scene here that precedes one The Pride of the Yankees’ few instances of urgency, Kramer asks Yankees’ Paul O’Neill to hit two home runs for a sick child in the hospital.

Baseball’s appeal is only about as foreign to me as that of any sport. As in, while I might not be American, I can enjoy a good baseball movie – Bull Durham, Field of Dreams, Major League, Eight Men Out, The Natural – as much as any native. Gehrig’s mythos simply isn’t enough, however. He succumbed to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in 1941, at 37, and it seems Sam Wood (A Night at the Opera; A Day at the Races) had to persuade Sam Goldwyn of the material’s merit; it seems the latter succumbed after welling up when viewing Gehrig’s “Luckiest man” speech, the big mush.

Wikipedia will tell you the exact cause of ALS is unknown, which is often a signal that something is known but doesn’t fit with mainstream opinion. Certainly, heavy metals have been linked to the condition, and we all know of a popular “preventative” procedure that contains heavy metals as part of its cocktail. More recently, servicemen claimed the Anthrax vaccine gave them Lou Gehrig’s Disease. For some reason, the idea that the State would not only knowingly, but further still intentionally, poison its citizens remains an absurdity to many.

Take Lou’s condition out of the equation, and the movie has nothing: nice guy, none-too-bright, overbearing mother (a supremely irritating Elsa Janssen), picture postcard marriage, sports star. Even without the essential lack of tension and the determinedly saccharine tone struck by Jo Swerling and Herman J Mankiewicz’s screenplay, The Pride of the Yankees would have been fatally flawed through its casting.

Gary Cooper was in his forties when he took the part, and he could easily have passed for a man a decade older; the sight of him posing as a Columbia undergraduate is patently ludicrous (similar considerations didn’t stop Robert Redford in The Natural, mind). Rather like watching Will Ferrell attempting to pass for an elf. Cooper’s performance is no less problematic. He simply cannot embody the essence of a man who isn’t the sharpest tool in the box, so resorts to lots of slow blinking and vague hesitancy. Since I’m on a Seinfeld track, I could easily imagine say Patrick Warburton in the role; Cooper makes the whole enterprise seem a bit silly.

You’ve also got Babe Ruth as Babe Ruth, and sad to say, he isn’t very good at playing himself. In contrast, Teresa Wright – who I’m only lately noticing was often the MVP of any movie she appeared in during the ’40s, until she and Goldwyn fell out – a mere seventeen years younger than Cooper, is very impressive as Eleanor Gehrig, both amusing and knowing (such that you wonder at her devotion to the big lug). Walter Brennan’s also notable as Sam Blake, the slightly unlikely reporter who seems to be there at every important moment – I use “important” with caveats – in Gehrig’s life.

There are occasional scenes that muster vague interest. Gehrig being shown how to win at a fairground high striker. Mom attempting to dictate terms to Eleanor regarding the newlyweds’ décor. The frankly bizarre practical joke where Sam is led to believe Lou is having an affair. The aforementioned promise to Billy (Gene Collins) that he will hit two home runs (a toe-curlingly sentimental prospect, but one that nevertheless ekes out suspense). Presumably it was sentiment and love of the game that led to The Pride of the Yankees becoming a big box-office hit, and also a critical one; it received eleven Oscar nominations, second only to Mrs. Miniver that year (it won one, Best Film Editing). If you aren’t a fan of either, The Pride of the Yankees will be a treacly, turgid bore.


Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi