Heaven? No, probably not
Posted: May 22nd, 2010 | Filed under: Baseball, Pop Culture | 90 Comments »
The great and joyously cranky Charlie Pierce has written a short takedown of Field of Dreams that I would say makes a lot of sense. Charlie continues a theme that I and many others have written about the movie — having Joe Jackson hit right-handed and throw left-handed in the movie is just disturbingly poor baseball history. I actually talked about this once with the late Rod Dedeaux, who served as baseball advisor for the movie, and he explained that no matter how they tried, they simply could not make Ray Liotta look anything like believable hitting left-handed. So they came up with the idea of creating a mirror image of Jackson — with Liotta as Jackson throwing and hitting opposite from real life. A sort of afterlife mirror, if you will. I appreciate that he even tried to defend the travesty. It should be noted that Liotta didn’t look any good hitting right-handed either.
There are other smaller problems with the movie, including: The young Moonlight Graham (Frank Whaley) seems to be about a half foot shorter than the old Moonlight Graham (Burt Lancaster) and he also had different color eyes. … And why is Moonlight Graham using a Jack Clark bat in a game of ghosts? … Chick Gandil mispronounces the name of his teammate Eddie Cicotte … Joe Jackson in the afterlife goes from nearly illiterate Southern man to sounding like a Harvard professor born and raised in New Jersey; do they have continuing education classes in Iowa cornfields? … And so on.
There are also big problems with the movie such as this: The entire thing is based on the rather bizarre idea that a son told his father “this terrible thing” before his father died. This was his lifelong regret, the thing that brought whispers to his mind and ghosts to his farm. That terrible thing he said? He could “never respect a man whose hero was a criminal” — that hero being Shoeless Joe Jackson. I mean, I know people regret what they say to loved ones who die, we all do, but of all the things people say that statement doesn’t seem like the kind that would keep you up at night.
“I hate you” — yeah, I could get behind that.
“You are a terrible father” — all right, that would be tough to live with.
“You’re hero, Shoeless Joe Jackson, was a miscreant and your admiration of him cause my own respect for you to be lessened,” does not seem quite as dramatic.
Despite all these (and in a weird way BECAUSE of these), I have always liked Field of Dreams because I’m a sucker for father and son stuff no matter how shmaltzy. Because I never tire of watching Burt Lancaster overact (“Is there enough magic floating around in the night out there for you to make that wish come true?”). Because I keep waiting for Ray Liotta to pull a gun out of his pocket and beat the heck out of that guy from thirtysomething. Because I have a lot of love for Iowa (which might help explain why I like “The Music Man” so much too). Because it’s the kind of movie that makes no sense whatsoever but still holds together if you can watch it in the right spirit. Because even corny baseball movies are baseball movies.
Charlie has said one of his favorite sports movies is the utterly unwatchable “Knute Rockne All American” with this patently false and stomach-grinding line from Father Callahan: “Anyone who follows the truth in his heart never makes a mistake.” Yeah, sure Father. I don’t begrudge Charlie. We all like certain movies that, despite ourselves, make us feel good.
But Charlie brings up a good point — and one that I’ve always tried to sort of repress as I have watched the movie: Where are the black ballplayers? Where are the Latin ballplayers? How can you have a Field of Dreams with, well, this …
Charlie is baffled and perturbed that there are no players from the Negro Leagues, not even famous one like Satchel Paige and Cool Papa Bell and Josh Gibson. Sure, that’s a good point. But the truth is even more peculiar — there’s a direct mention in the movie that Gil Hodges is playing (I’m not entirely sure how Moonlight Graham would have been able to pick out Gil Hodges, but anyway). Obviously, Gil Hodges did not play all those years ago. He played in the 1950s and 1960s. He must have been a producer’s favorite player or something because he does not really fit in with the rest. Still, he’s there. Gil Hodges died in 1972. So it’s not like you have to go back and find Bullet Joe Rogan. What about Roberto Clemente, who died the same year as Hodges? What about Jackie Robinson who died that same year?*
*You know, 1972 was a tragic year for baseball — Hall of Famers Dave Bancroft, Clemente, Gabby Hartnett, Jackie Robinson, Pie Traynor and Zack Wheat all died that year along with Gil Hodges.
Not having a single African American or Latin American on the Field of Dreams — or at least not one you could see on film — does seem like more than an oversight, especially when you realize that the producers and director purposely changed a main character of the originating book from the real and reclusive J.D. Salinger (who, I seem to recall, was threatening to sue if his name was used in the movie) into the the fictional African American author Terrence Mann (played in full Darth Vader voice by James Earl Jones). The fact that a baseball heaven seems to be as segregated as real baseball once was does make Mann’s “This field reminds us what was once good … and can be again,” pretty cringe-worthy.
It is telling that Ty Cobb wanted to play on the Field of Dreams but they didn’t like him so they told him to “stick it.” That’s heaven for you. Apparently it’s all good for the guys who threw the 1919 World Series, but not so much for others who are less than perfect.
Then again: Maybe there’s another Field of Dreams — I would put it in Kansas City, near Arthur Bryant’s barbecue — where Ty Cobb tries to run over Josh Gibson, and a double play goes Martin Dihigo to Rogers Hornsby to Buck Leonard, and Cap Anson faces off against Satchel Paige. I don’t know. Field of Dreams still makes me smile. But I guess this field would seem more like heaven to me.
Loading ...
Well, you did it Joe. You ruined one of my favorite movies. I had never thought of any of this, except for Joe Jackson batting from the wrong side of the plate.
Now I’m going to be wondering why Moonlight Graham is so short, why he’s using a Jack Clark bat and why Roberto Clemente isn’t in right field.
So…thanks for that…I guess…
Same sentiment as Brian – I have watched that movie at least 30 times and never noticed any of that, but now I will. This is what happens when you pick apart 20+ year old movies. It’s still the only movie that puts a tear in my eye, every time Costner asks his dad to “have a catch.” I don’t care that it’s cheesy – it’s a great movie moment and it’s unfortunate that people feel the need to tear it apart.
This was never one of my favorite baseball movies mainly because of the ending. I just didn’t get it how only SOME people could see them playing while others couldn’t. And how the shit did Moonlight go from old and decrepit to a kid again?
Hello… movie? I’d like an explanation!!
Can’t say I’d ever noticed ANY of these things, and don’t really care.
But I’ve certainly seen enough movies where I DID care and nitpicked that kind of stuff, so I’m not going to be overly harsh on those who do. Just in this case, it doesn’t matter to me.
Ray Liotta’s swing was horrific. They should have had DB Sweeney from Eight Men Out reprise his role of Joe Jackson.
Even I caught the Gil Hodges reference as a youngster long ago. That was bad.
Excellent point with the lack of an integrated corn field. I guess I hadn’t considered it too much because I figured most of the guys who were playing were 1919 era players……maybe it wasn’t heaven at all….purgatory for crooked ball players seeking redemption?
Have to disagree with the attack on the overall premise of the movie……as a son, telling my father I didn’t have respect for him would be one of the worst things I could do.
An honest critique of the movie’s flaws don’t have to detract from the emotions evoked unless you let it.
Thanks for the piece.
I’ve long thought that the key to enjoying Field of Dreams is to understand that it’s not really a baseball movie. It’s a movie that uses baseball as a plot point, but it’s not really a baseball movie, not like Major League or Bull Durham and their ilk.
I think you hit exactly the right note on this movie. I watched it with my dad, and for the rest of my life, when I see it, I will cry. I’m glad that you overlooked the parts that are worth overlooking–Moonlight Graham is too short, etc.–but point out the one problem that we, as Americans, should never overlook. Someday I’ll watch this movie with my kids, and when I do, I’ll tell them that I love the movie and it means a lot to me … and that Jackie Robinson was probably Terrance Mann’s favorite Brooklyn Dodger.
For what it’s worth, FoD has been ruined for me since a Bill Simmons mailbag mentioned this in March 09.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090306
Joe, I really enjoy your writing and your take on Field of Dreams. One thing though, it’s not a baseball movie, it is a movie that use’s baseball as a vehicle. Bull Durham is a baseball movie, For Love of the Game is not really a baseball movie, just a clever ploy for men to introduce women to baseball who don’t know the game. A question about your first poll, how do define watchdog in relation to the media and a sports team. I would like to hear more about this if you can. And the most famous wizard is the Wizard of ID.
Colin/7 – Bull Durham is no more a baseball movie than Field of Dreams. Bull Durham is a chick flick that uses baseball to trick people like me into liking it even though it’s really about two guys who inexplicably want the hideous, disgusting, repulsive hosebeast called Susan Sarandon.
Here’s more. In “Wizard of Oz,” how is that everyone in Kansas happens to be standing around her bed at the exact moment Dorothy wakes up? Yeessch.
Everything Pierce does is a desperate plea for attention. What a poop.
Look for a Naturally real baseball movie
Loved Field of Dreams when I was a kid.
As an adult, the schmaltz became too much, given the nature of the film’s flaws and unfortunate implications. I guess I outgrew it.
I agree it seems weird at first blush that none of the Negro Leagues players came back to Iowa, but can you imagine how difficult it would have been for the movie to have tried to make that sort of historical point in addition to telling a simpler father/son story?
What were they supposed to do, add an entire subplot where Ray teaches his daughter about the horrors of racial prejudice and have a discussion about the evolution of social equality in this country? Given 5 minutes in the movie, it would have come across as a cheap nod to history that is too often given just a cheap nod. It would have been panned as just as racially insensitive as no mention of the Negro Leagues at all. Given 30 minutes, that subplot would have BECOME the movie.
Like it or not, the movie isn’t about race. It isn’t even about baseball history. It’s about one particular player and some of his buddies and the effect that they all had on Ray’s relationship with his father.
Why does every movie have to include a review of everything for it not to be considered racist or exclusionary?
Not too many of the brothers hang out in Iowa
It’s always been a dumb movie. But you watch it because Lancaster is awesome, Darth Mann is awesome, and the ending is legitimately heartwarming. The rest you just put up with as part of the ride.
wow, poz going plinkett on field of dreams
http://redlettermedia.com/
Recently, Hollywood remade the British movie “Death at a Funeral”, switching things up by using a mostly black cast.
Perhaps Hollywood should take a uh, swing at a remake of “Field of Dreams” using a black cast and Negro League ballplayers? I would love to see a movie starring Denzel Washington (in the Kevin Costner role) as he meets famous players like Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige, “Cool Papa” Bell, etc.
Sure, the story would have to change to fit the subject matter, but it couldn’t be any worse than the remake of “Clash of the Titans”.
If we’re going that way, where’s Eiji Sawamura?
JD – you may be right on Bull Durham. Perhaps it’s more like For Love of the Game – half a baseball movie and half a weak romance.
@19, nothing could be worse than the Clash of the Titans remake. Worst $15 I ever spent. I love F.O.D., best line “baseball, Ray” in Vader.
I loved “Field of Dreams” when I first saw it, but it has not held up well over time, in my opinion. Amy Madigan is downright horrible as Annie Kinsella. Burt Lancaster isn’t good, either. The movie still has moments that are fun, but overall it’s not a great piece of filmmaking. I think Joe’s point about the lack of minority players is spot-on. Kevin Costner should have stopped with “Bull Durham” … that’s still a great movie.
Seriously? Cap Anson, one of the greatest racists in baseball history (and an Iowan by the way) facing ol’ Satch. Yeah, almost no chance a Marshalltown redneck like Cap Anson charges the mound.
FoD is a fantasy, not a documentary. Once you accept the premise that dead ballplayers appear on an Iowa farm, getting riled up by SJJ’s handedness seems a bit silly. It’s like complaining that Star Wars ignores the laws of physics by having sound in airless space.
The political and racial critique seems more interesting. The movie is definitely a product of the Reagan 80s in its nostalgia for a simpler past that ignores the racism of the era. The way the movie imagines the 60s is also quite revealing. In other words, what is interesting about a fantasy is not the realistic details (wrong genre!) but what the film chooses to fantasize about.
You know what other movie sucks? Up.
I mean, how could a bunch of balloons lift a whole house? That could never happen!
All those people who cried during Up….what a bunch of dupes.
See how smart and cranky I am?
Field of Dreams is more of a fantasy than a baseball movie. However, it is best enjoyed by a baseball fan who misses his dad.
To me it is one those films which magically bring out emotions inside you-the first time you watch it. It does not (and perhaps was not meant to) hold up to multiple viewings.
“Because it’s the kind of movie that makes no sense whatsoever but still holds together if you can watch it in the right spirit.”
What spirit would that be? Jack Daniels? Southern Comfort? Budweiser certainly would not be strong enough.
Let’s face it, for all the reasons you mentioned, plus a few others (like the constantly annoying Amy Madigan) character), it’s basically a stupid movie. Even if the history were right, it’s a stupid movie. And, the beginning of the decline and fall of Kevin Costner, IMO.
Just watched Silverado the other night. I’m not crazy about that bag of cliches either, but Costner was fun to watch in that one.
Hey Mikey! Get a life! We like it!
Up is a cartoon, for crissakes. It isn’t based in reality. Kind of like most other movies. But it’s a damn sweet story and I don’t mind saying I’m one of those dupes, as you call them. Better than being a cynical dope.
Scotty needs his sarcasm detector checked, I think.
Uh, Scotty? Make sure your sarcasm meter is on, you must’ve turned it off before you went to bed.
Disclaimer: This is a different Mike(thus the “in Hawaii” part–being 30ish and Caucasian, we’re all Mikes or have a brother named Mike).
Er, great call Derek. I thought the same thing but had to submit it 3 times.
Joe needs to fix his submission button(no sarcasm there).
Joe, the Field of Dreams is for sale, so you’ve got one last chance to make it real:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1989783_1989779_1989785,00.html
Anyone remember the everyman movie “reviews” on the old Late Night with David Letterman show?
The ones I recall were the ironworker explaining how 98-pound Jennifer Beales wouldn’t have the strength to handle her work tools in Flashdance, and the mortician explaining what a drowned man coming out of the sea would look like in The Twilight Zone.
That was some good schtick.
If the movie elicited emotions from you when you watched it then it worked.
Pointing out its flaws 21 years later seems beside the point to me.
I thought the whole point of the movie was Amy Madigan’s speech in the high school auditorium. Call me wrong if you want to.
I’ve always been iffy on FOD.
They need to make a flick out the far superior WP Kinsella book, “The Iowa Baseball Confederacy.”
I think it might be hard to find a good albino to cast in the lead, though.
I thought it was just a bad movie when it came out and it never elicited the emotions in me that it was designed to do. I love my dad and I miss him now that he’s gone, but FoD never made me wistful for a missing relationship with him.
BTW, I love “fantasy” movies such as The Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park, and The Natural.
Got a kick over watching the Siskel and Ebert review. Ebert liked it, Siskel didn’t. Sounds about right – I always liked Ebert better.
Fast forward to the 3:35 mark to hear Ebert plug Joe’s book almost 20 years before it came out. Kind of. Well, it wasn’t a plug, but just go to the 3:35 mark and let it play…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1gLX2t5GEc
9: David A. said
For what it’s worth, FoD has been ruined for me since a Bill Simmons mailbag mentioned this in March 09.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090306
Oh. My. God. Where to begin?
1) Terrence Mann IS NOT A REAL PERSON. He would never have “flipped out” over FoD since he’s not a person. He would not be fighting for equality in a movie or anywhere else because he never existed.
He was a fictional character created to replace the hermit J.D. Salinger in the original.
2) Field of Dreams is a screen adaptation of a novel called “Shoeless Joe” by WP Kinsella.
3) The players appearing in the movie are the players appearing in the book.
4) The players are the heroes of Kinsella’s dad…sorry to say this, but his heroes weren’t Negro League players. They were MLB players, same as my dad’s. My dad’s favorite player was Stan Musial. If I ever meet him in a field in Iowa should I call him a racist because it’s not Satchel Paige? He also liked Lou Brock and Bob Gibson, but until 1947 if you were a fan of MLB you were a fan of white players.
5) Bill Simmons is an idiot.
There is something between fathers and sons and the nature of respect.
If my son told me that he didn’t respect me, I would be absolutely crushed.
I would feel it to my bones.
I think it’s a great movie, but then again I have only watched it one other time since it’s debut in 1989 (?). I think I was about 15 at the time the movie came out, baseball was my favorite sport, and I still had dreams of playing ball beyond high school. Baseball was so much bigger and magical to me then which made sense considering the theme of the movie. Unfortunately opinions/feelings can change overtime, but when I first saw Field of Dreams I was moved to tears. I am having a hard time thinking of another movie that did that to me (Finding Neverland is another) and that says something to me (even if it has flaws).
Daniel @15 – I suppose it’s somehow appropriate that a movie that runs on nostalgia and a lionization of olden times that were simpler and better would eliminate people of color, not out of overt racism, but because including them just makes things so damn complicated.
Director Phil Robinson acknowledged the lack of black ballplayers in the laserdisc/DVD commentary: it’s the first thing he would change with the movie if given the chance.
MY baseball quirk about FoD is something NOBODY ever talks about, even in mainstream baseball circles. You notice that Liotta/Shoeless Joe has his right index finger sticking out of his glove? This was something you saw players doing in the sixties and became pretty much mainstream by the Seventies. (It became a habit of mine to spot out players who kept ALL their fingers tucked inside their glove, like Tom Seaver and Don Sutton.)
But I’m pretty sure you NEVER saw this in the deadball era. Liotta’s small fielding glove looks 1919 issue but having the index finger out seems to me an eyesore (particularly when Shoeless Joe POINTS out Catcher Kinsella to Ray at the end). Yes, this can be filed alongside Shoeless Joe’s newfound eloquency and distain for Ty Cobb (weren’t the two of them friends, Southern comrades?). But it’s the one thing I would have fixed to make things “look right.”
And while I have your attention have you noticed that NO baseball historical tome mentions this — not even The Historical Baseball Abstract: who was the first player to play the field with the index finger sticking out? I think Yogi Berra did; I recall seeing old photos from the 1950s. It became the norm, I believe, when I (we?) was a kid in the 1970s. Now the players use gloves that INCLUDE a slot for the index finger but hides it from view. I kinda miss the “old” look.
jcalton: As noted earlier, the value of the fiction is lessened by the dishonest treatment of the history. No one’s saying “it’s not realistic, therefore it sucks”. I’m saying that, as someone who likes to think he’s conscious of social inequity, that’s a pretty major question that’s glossed over, and once I was made aware of that, I started questioning the movie’s full message.
That’s silly. Ty Cobb was left out because he’s a racist.
That said, I hope Frequency is on your list of favorite movies.
Joe, you missed a chance to use one of my favorite phrases – “chewing the scenery” – when discussing Burt Lancaster’s performance!
I liked the movie just fine, but I liked the book even more because it mentions several landmarks in and around Iowa City, where I went to college.
And yeah, it’s a movie (and book) about a son’s relationship with his father, using baseball as the vehicle.
If I had a boatload of cash I’d buy 6 or so acres right by the spot you’re describing near Arthur Bryants and build a spectacular baseball field.
It would seat 1,500-2000 and would be maintained like a cathedral.
I would host fundraisers, youth tournaments, and the RBI program there. After a while I imagine, I think it could even break even, being so close to the NLBM, rest of the Jazz District and downtown KCMO.
My question is: How old is Ray? I mean, he’s got a little girl, and in real life, I think Kevin Costner was around 35 when it came out; How old was that dude’s dad to have had Shoeless Joe as a hero – assuming his dad was born in 1910, so he was 9 and impressionable by the time the Black Sox scandal happened, that’d make him, I don’t know, 45 when Ray was born? That’s always bothered me.
IMDB: “The director has said that his greatest regret about this film is that he never used any African-American baseball players. The use of African-American players might have compromised the historical accuracy of the film since no African-American players were known to have played Major League baseball until 1947 – the year Jackie Robinson broke in with the Brooklyn Dodgers.”
I want you to be in on the re-made version. The things you mention never bothered me before, but now I want them fixed and improved.
Always liked the movie for what it was…just a whimsical sports flick that brought out emotional ties for fathers and sons. HOWEVER, I have always been bothered by the line….”have a catch.” I have never heard that phrase before or since in regards to tossing a ball around. “Play catch” sure. “Have a catch???” nah. That line has always bothered me.
@53:
I think “have a catch” vs. “play catch” may be a regional difference. Where I grew up in Ohio it was “play catch” but I’ve heard people say “have a catch” other than in the movie. Can’t recall who though, or where they were from. Might be equivalent to a soda vs. pop thing.
I have a soft spot for the movie, no matter the problems within it.
Amy Madigan….who casted her? Terrible.
Detest “have a catch”. Please use “Let’s play catch.”
Joe, didn’t Ray Kinsella supply the equipment? Wouldn’t that be why a Jack Clark Bat was in use? I dunno….
No matter…..I still watch a few minutes whenever I see it. Probably always will…
Joe,
Sadly, I don’t have the time to go back and look this up, but… I seem to remember reading somewhere that ALL of the players in the movie — Shoeless Joe, Moonlight Graham, etc. — are mirror images of the way they actually hit and threw. That they came back to the Field of Dreams as a photo negative of themselves. I also seem to remember that it was purely accidental on the part of casting, so it’s not as cool as if they had done it on purpose…
Here’s an interesting tidbit…
Archibald “Moonlight” Graham is burried in the city in which I live (Rochester, MN). His grave is very easy to find and one morning I decided to do so (solely because of Field of Dreams). Apparently I wasn’t the only curious visitor as there were several baseballs resting near his headstone. I’d only wished I’d brought a ball to leave as well.
This movie never made much sense for me – I mean get past the fantasy that if I build it I get to see my father again and there was really nothing good about it IMO.
Never understood how anyone can like this or The Natural over Bull Durham, which is just on another plane all together.
I thought the whole thing was a waste of perfectly good arable land.
Forget the historical imperfections. The essence of the movie is make sure things are right between you and the people who matter in your life. You never know when you will not see someone again. Sadly, I know that from experience. I was visiting home from the Navy and we were talking and playing cards in the kitchen. In responding to a question about how long I was staying in the service I said something like “I’m getting out at 20 because I want to be around to play catch with my kids.” My dad said “I played catch with you boys.” Without thinking about how it would go over, I said something like maybe with the older boys, but I don’t remember it. As soon as I said it I felt like an ass. This man worked 12 hour days 6 days a week (sometimes half days on Sunday) to feed nine kids and instead of thanks I stupidly made him feel unappreciated. About three weeks later I got a call on the ship telling me he had passed in his sleep. Driving back to Cleveland all I could think about was that small comment form last time we talked.
Right handed/left handed – who cares.
Joe,
Thanks for spurring me to get this out. It’s close to 20 years since Dad died and I never shared this before. Might be cathartic.
Joe, Field of Dreams? Really? I think you are nit-picking over those tiny things and missing the larger picture, because the whole film stunk. Stunk on ice! Ray Liotta batting righty is what gets to you? Really?How about the dialouge, plot and acting? That’s what got to me! Because all of that stunk! It was a vomitous film. Pediatricians in certain hositals still use that film to induce vomiting in small children who have ingested noxious substances.
Can anybody BLAME J.D. Salinger for threatening to sue???
I don’t say this because I hate the movie- truth is, I LOVED it, despite all its flaws. I say this because poor J.D. Salinger had to move to the middle of the woods in Vermont because so many of his fans are psychopaths! Think about it- every homicidal maniac from John Hinckley to Mark David Chapman has treated “Catcher in the Rye” as his Bible. Every juvenile delinquent, every freak, every weirdo in the US has read “Catcher” a hundred times and think “Salinger is the ONLY person i nthe world who understands me.”
Look, I’m sure EVERY writer from Stephen King to Joe Posnanski gets some strange, scary fan mail from time to time, but can you IMAGINE the kind of fan mail Salinger must have gotten???
So, imagine what Salinger thought when he heard that W,P. Kinsella wrote a book about a guy who kidnapped Salinger because he heard “voices” telling him to!
Salinger probably wanted to tell Kinsella, “Thanks a lot, moron! That’s all I need- fruitcakes trying to kidnap me because mysterious voices have commanded them to. Are you out of your #^@*!+ mind????”
Nitpicking at details in what is basically an impressionistic work of art always reminds me of Sideways, when Jack’s Armenian father-in-law to-be ponders on fiction writing:
“Good… I like non-fiction. There is so much to know about this world. I think you read something somebody just invented, waste of time!”
Miles cocks his head and looks confused. “That’s an interesting perspective.”
I totally think it’s everybody’s right to pan the film. But to pan it because of inaccuracies completely misses the mark. It’s like listening your grandmother complain about the tone of Bob Dylan’s voice, as if that’s the most important part of the piece of art.
@Daniel – No, what you do is put in baseball greats, black or white, and if your kid asks,”What’s a black guy doing there?” U look in the mirror and ask yourself a couple of questions.
Too tough?
we could have Buck O’Neil manage one of the teams, too.
Sadly, I guess you could add Jose Lima to the roster now, too. He’d be the only guy coming out of the cornfield dancing to salsa music.
These criticisms of the movie always make me roll my eyes. People are perfectly willing to accept time-travel, but their minds stop working when Joe Jackson bats right-handed. However interesting Charlie Pierce’s revisionist critiques might ostensibly seem — and I’ll never read them because Pierce has some sort of Bill Simmons fetish and Simmons’ mailbag was the major progenitor of the current Field of Dreams backlash — they will never overcome this central absurdity.
I always love any article that references Zack Wheat. He must least remembered, great baseball player ever.
Hey, @60, just want to say thanks for posting your story. Gave me chills. I think I’ll call my parents tonight. Hope that you have let yourself off the hook since then.
To follow up on Jerome’s point @ 67, in a world in which time travel exists, who’s to say that Joe Jackson didn’t go back in time and learned how to bat right-handed?
@60 & @69 Thanks to both of you. 60, you hit the nail right on the head. “Ease his pain.” “Go the distance.” These are very deep relational concepts and I don’t think that they should get lost in typical critics stuff. I have watched the movie since it came out. My dad was alive when it was made and he’s gone now. I don’t think it is so much about missing your dad (or father-figure) as it is about appreciating him and the fact that a simple game of catch is one of the most loving things that a father can share with his son (and occasionally daughter.) Some people are able to see the “spiritual” aspect of life and others aren’t and there are degrees of clarity in-between. It never struck me as strange at all that some people could and couldn’t see the players. The racial aspect is another story, perhaps one not yet written. This was not trying to compare heaven to a corn field with dead ballplayers in it. It was about reconciliation, atonement and forgiveness, all necessities of any plausible “heaven.” The one thing I have never picked up on is the Cobb comment, and that does bother me. Now I’ll have to watch the movie again to try to understand it. Thanks all!
Spud @66,
Too soon! But +1.
I had read “Shoeless Joe” before I had ever seen the movie so I was always bothered by the changes from the book. The Amy Madigan character was terrible, but she was nothing like that in the book. The lack of commentary about race didn’t even occur to me because it wasn’t in the book and didn’t fit the story. I always assumed they cast James Earl Jones because he could give a great speech and worked backward from there with his character without thinking about how strange it was.
@66: To put things in perspective, that tragic year for baseball 1972, when Clemente, Robinson, Hodges, Bancroft, Hartnett, Traynor and Wheat died, was the year Jose Lima was born. Also the year I was born. Life is short, play hard.
Joe, big fan but uh…I think you’re kind of overthinking/sperging out too hard on this one.
That or you somehow didn’t get the movie.
[...] You may have heard that the Field of Dreams field is for sale. That has renewed interest in the movie that ranked fourth in NPI’s list of baseball movies we’d want to actually happen. Charles Pierce shares John S’ distaste for the film, while Joe Posnanski is a defender, though willing to admit some obvious flaws to its conception of heaven. [...]
Some of these are valid points, others not. Like others have said, baseball is a subplot in this. Ray supplied the bats and balls, that is why he was using a Jack Clark bat. In 1919 the thought of playing with blacks was appalling to most ballplayers, so there is no reason they would have invited any Negro Leagues players. Ty Cobb was not well liked in the game, so that didn’t bother me. It wasn’t a moral judgement, they just didn’t like him.
I can’t wait until they remake it in 70 years or so with McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, and the rest of the PED crowd getting their redemption.
There might be a simplier explanation for the Gil Hodges reference. Ray seeks out Terance Mann because of an article Mann wrote about his childhood dream of playing at Ebbits Field.
In one of the final scenes of the movie, Joe Jackson asks Mann to join the players in the cornfield. Remember, Ray takes it as a personal affront that he built the field but isn’t asked to join along?
The Hodges line could be interpreted with Mann’s background in mind.
Of course, Charlie Pierce might say that Hodges wasn’t there, that the whole thing was a subterfuge to get a black man into the field to serve as shoe shine/butler. You know, the whole “40 acres and a mule” thing.
PS — what is a “Jack Clark bat”? Never heard that phrase before.
Regarding the awful thing Ray said to his father, the content of what he said is immaterial. What’s important is that he insulted his father, left home, and never went back. The last thing he said to his father was an insult, that’s where the “pain” comes from.
It just so happens that he insulted his father based on his obsession with baseball and Joe Jackson. That’s why Joe Jackson appears out of the cornfield.
The reason the Black Sox end up being a symbol of a better time has only to do with what Ray perceives as a better time, which is a time when Ray could go back and not be an immature jackass to his father.
For me, the true test of a great movie is not whether it is polictically correct or historicly correct or whether it defies the laws of physics or shows someone battting from the wrong side of the plate. For me, any movie that I can enjoy watching multiple times is a great movie.
Field of Dreams is such a movie. It’s funny, it’s clever, it has a great bit with Burt Lancaster, it’s about baseball, and it’s about fathers and sons. What more could you ask for?
@#60 Largebill: Please accept my condolences over the loss of your father. Twenty years is a long time to carry such a burden. I hope you’re able to find a semblance of peace now that you’ve shared. Thank you.
*
Re: “have a catch” vs “play catch” I’ve always said (and heard) “have a catch” here in the Philly area. And it applies to tossing a football around just as much as a baseball.
*
As for the movie itself… I absolutely love this movie. I don’t particularly care about Joe Jackson batting from the wrong side, Moonlight Graham growing/shrinking, or any of it. It doesn’t detract from the story for me one bit. My kids are 8 and 9; the 9-year-old (my daughter) is a sports fan, though my son isn’t. I’m biding my time to introduce them to this movie. I hope they ask to have a catch after they see it.
I recently read an article (by Will Leitch in Sporting News I think) that basically said that, since he follows baseball and baseball stats so much – when he watches a game he finds himself analyzing instead of enjoying. Meanwhile his Dad, without the stat knowledge, is simply enjoying the game. I thought it made a lot of sense and can easily be applied to movies.
When you know too much about something – any inaccuracies or imperfections can easily ruin it for you – especially if the inaccuracies are due to laziness or deliberately ignoring what is known to be correct.
I find this especially true of sports movies and war movies – where historical accuracy is easily verifiable. For example I find Peral Harbor totally unwatchable due to its complete ignorance of and revision of
historical facts.
The larger and more serious the errors (and the context in which I think the errors were made), the more I find the movie to be unwatchable.
I find the errors in FOD small enough to keep it an enjoyable movie for the story it is telling.
Did Marton Dihigo start that double play from right field, or was he pitching?
[...] a recent post to his blog, Poznanski wrote about some of the inaccuracies in the film Field of Dreams. I’ll deal with Poznanski’s opinion of the film in a second, but the conversation got [...]
“Have a catch” must be a NY/NJ/PA phrase. I’ve never heard anyone from anywhere else use it. It sounded horrible when they said it in the movie.
There was more corn in the dialogue and storyline of that movie than there was in that big field behind the ballpark.
There are entire web sites devoted to finding mistakes in movies, so apparently there is a significant number of people who enjoy reading about other people’s mistakes.
FoD is not “about” baseball any more than “It’s a Wonderful Life” is about banking or “The Godfather” is about the olive oil business. It’s about reconnecting with your father, especially poignant if you’re a son. (And before anyone gets all bent out of shape because that statement makes me a sexist pig — get over yourself. If you don’t understand that fathers have different relationships with their sons than with their daughters, then you don’t know much about families.)
“Have a catch” is the ONLY way I ever heard it said. In fact, this post is the first time I ever heard “Play catch”, so that version sounds really stupid to me. I mean, “catch” isn’t a game, so how can you play it?
And FoD is the only movie I have ever been to where, after it was over, the guys all had to go to the men’s room to “fix” their faces, while the women milled about in the lobby wondering what was wrong with their men. Quite an interesting role reversal; I enjoyed it enormously. After I got out of the men’s room, of course.
Ray says that his dad was almost 60 when he was born.
Never in my life have I heard the phrase “play catch” until today. Bucholz Surfer might be right – I grew up in New York, and it was always “have a catch.” Of course, baseball was invented in NY/NJ, so we must be right and the rest of you must be wrong
Didn’t much like Field of Dreams when I saw it in theaters. I’m a big Shoeless Joe fan, and once they had him batting wrong I spent the rest of the movie wondering what other details they were getting wrong. I’m a big Dodgers fan and I wondered why Hodges instead of Robinson. I’ve never seen it again except for snippets while channel surfing.
“The Music Man”, on the other hand, is the greatest work by one of America’s greatest composers, only Meredith Willson will never get judged well by history because so much of what he did was for live radio and has been lost. The Music Man is probably my second choice all time favorite movie musical so I am not anti-Iowa. Just glanced at his bio on Wikipedia (while writing this post) and if you’re doing Kevin Bacon, Willson connects John Phillip Sousa, Charlie Chaplin, Jack Benny, Ron Howard, and Paul McCartney, who bought Willson’s music catalog. Quite a pedigree, that.