Re: the humor.
I don’t think it was a laugh-out-loud humor. For me, there were a lot of little moments that evoked small chuckles or a grin. I didn’t expect the film to be even remotely funny, so maybe there was an element of surprise for me.
Re: themes.
For me, the central theme was about solving problems. Moneyball doesn’t deal enough with the specifics of sabremetrics to be actually about sabremetrics. Therefore, it’s really about the process of finding new ways to solve problems. Beane has a new, unorthodox way of winning. He’s testing his theories out in real time – no lab experiments – with his job on the line. The new statistics aside, this is a drama about being a pioneer in an insitution that has deeply set ways and codes.
I don’t think it was a laugh-out-loud humor. For me, there were a lot of little moments that evoked small chuckles or a grin. I didn’t expect the film to be even remotely funny, so maybe there was an element of surprise for me.
The first two sentences sound right, but I went in with the opposite expectation (especially after I learned Sorkin co-wrote the screenplay).
Re: Themes
You’re talking about innovation—out-of-the-box thinking to solve problems. Yeah, I agree that’s part of what the film is about (it’s a big part of what the book is about, too, imo—but the book does a better job of dealing with this.)
The ending of the film—and the amount of time the film spends on Beane (with his daughter, ex-wife, etc.)—which is a lot more than the book—seems to suggest it was about something else. Maybe these scenes, in totality, doesn’t support my interpretation—it’s about “seeing things clearly”—very well. I’d be interested in hearing other explanations for these scenes and how they support a larger theme or the film as a whole.
I interpreted the main themes to be…
Stop worrying about winning and enjoy the game.
Sometimes the biggest loser is actually the biggest winner.
As a lifelong Mets fan these two themes were very comforting. :)
I haven’t read the book, but I enjoyed the film quite a bit. I thought it was really well made and did a great job capturing both the glorious and corrupt sides of America’s pastime.
Re the end:
I think it’s really about Beane’s relationship to life and the game in a broader sense. One of the more interesting aspects of the film is that it suggests that part of what’s driving Beane is that the received wisdom of the status quo failed regarding Beane himself as a player when it identified him as a “can’t miss” prospect. So his attempt to renovate the way that the team approaches player evaluation is a kind of surrogate redemption of Beane himself as a player and (more tenuously) as a husband/parent. The offer from Boston is an opportunity to reintegrate himself (and “his” innovations) back into the existing power structure of the game. So, yes, I think the idea of “seeing things clearly” is part of it.
“the scouts are blinded and limited by convention”
That’s sort of how it’s presented in the film, I think, but to digress for a moment, in real life, the A’s scouting staff actually had done a very good job of identifying prospects in the draft—the had a great young rotation with Mulder, Hudson, and Zito, and good position players with Tejada and Chavez and Dye. What they were probably doing wrongly, was the way they were approaching replacing departing free agents (in the case of this particular season, Giambi and Damon).
Love the movie, very entertaining, spectacularly written.
As far as what it’s really “about,” I honestly don’t think you should read into it that much. Very basically it’s a simple story about a guy standing behind a big, new, unproven, potentially disastrous idea and not giving up on it until it’s seen all the way through, despite the misgivings of everyone else he works with. Then there’s the theme (although maybe not touched upon a lot) of mathematics/statistics vs. human intuition, and whether baseball – or any sport for that matter – is compromised by the introduction of numbers. Of course, as it is today, we have it both ways. Numbers are impossible to get rid of when it comes to the game, but it doesn’t mean we can’t also enjoy the more spontaneous moments on the field (hence the lyric, “just enjoy the show”).
But really, what it is is a very thorough, very in-depth look at the business that goes on behind the entertainment. So much of it is completely reliant on money and connections, and here is a story that proves those things can be surmounted with will, drive, and innovation. The mathematics may not always work, but the system nonetheless was proven extremely valuable to the sport. That was the “win,” even though the A’s didn’t.
“Then there’s the theme (although maybe not touched upon a lot) of mathematics/statistics vs. human intuition, and whether baseball – or any sport for that matter – is compromised by the introduction of numbers. "
Yeah . . . although, really, statistics have been a really important part of baseball for a very long time (since Chadwick in the 19th century), so there’s long been a tension between numbers and “the eye test” among “baseball people.”
What the hell was up with Spike Jonze randomly appearing in a scene?
“I’m beginning to wonder if the films just weren’t funny, or I’m losing my sense of humor.”
I thought it was very funny, but only insomuch that a Sorkin screenplay can make me laugh out loud (“Anne, punch me in the face” – Larry Summers from The Social Network).
“Therefore, it’s really about the process of finding new ways to solve problems”
I pretty much agree with Nathan that the film is about looking at new ways to solve a problem; or more directly, looking at new ways to be successful. The film seems to hammer home that Beane revolutionized baseball and that he is indirectly responsible for the Red Sox breaking the curse of the Bambino and winning in 2004. I think this is a bit of a stretch and I wished that they had handled Beane’s “success” and “the transformation of baseball” a little more ambiguously. But I understand this is a big studio film and certain demographics need to be satisfied.
I also think that regarding the themes, all the stuff with the wife and daughter was just standard Hollywood conventions in adding a personal side to our protagonist and attempting to add greater depth to the character. Unfortunately, for me it seemed to obvious and cliche (lazy writing would be the technical term) and didn’t really fit naturally into the story. But yeah, this is a film about overcoming adversity and beating the system, yada yada yada. I mean, it makes it more interesting that they don’t go on to win the World Series and it’s cool that they didn’t make a big deal about this.
“One of the more interesting aspects of the film is that it suggests that part of what’s driving Beane is that the received wisdom of the status quo failed regarding Beane himself as a player when it identified him as a “can’t miss” prospect.”
I was never really convinced of this, although the film tried desperately to connect the two and draw some explanation or motivation for why Beane did what he did. But I never really bought it and I’m also suspicious when films try to draw such broad explanations for things. Life isn’t usually so simple.
“As far as what it’s really “about,” I honestly don’t think you should read into it that much”
Yep. It’s a pretty surface film. Not a lot to read into, but that’s ok with me.
I thought the humorous interchanges were the high points of the film.
It’s hard to say what the core of the film was, if it had one. Beane’s character and the saber metrics went hand in hand. It seemed like they started out writing a film about saber metrics, then made Beane into more of a ‘character’ in order to broaden the film’s appeal.
Beane started out with a simple logical imperative: We are building a team like the Yankees, but they have four times the funding we do, so the best we can hope for with this method is not to be terrible. If we want to win a championship, we need a different approach. Then at the meeting with the Indians he noted Peter Brand had ideas the others didn’t, and felt any different approach was better than the same approach. (I tend to think the meeting between Brand and Beane was very, very oversimplified and came off as way too easy.)
There were a few distinct points the film wanted to hammer home. First it had him sitting in a room with guys in their 60s talking about how a guy lacks confidence because he has an ugly girlfriend. Then we have a younger, very shy person saying “People are dismissing talented people for stupid, superficial reasons!”
But, the biggest point the film seemed to be making about baseball was a reassessment of value. Sure, Giambi is a better player than Haddeberg. But, Haddeberg costs millions of dollars less for the same on base percentage, which means they’ll have those millions of dollars extra to buy other talent. It’s about the ability to say, it’s better to get a good player for cheap than a great player for more than you can afford.
I don’t think the film was saying “Step back and enjoy the game” so much as “Don’t forget the things that are important to you to chase a victory.” At least, that seemed to be the point of the tacked on daughter theme.
“What the hell was up with Spike Jonze randomly appearing in a scene?”
Hahaha – that was awesome!
“I don’t think the film was saying “Step back and enjoy the game” so much as “Don’t forget the things that are important to you to chase a victory.” At least, that seemed to be the point of the tacked on daughter theme.”
But I think there’s also an implicit rejection of traditional big-market baseball values (here represented by the Yankees and Red Sox) with him declining the Red Sox offer, which the film links, psychologically, to the fact that the system didn’t work for Beane as a player.
(in terms of real-life, look at Paul DePodesta, who went on to try to reintegrate himself into the big-market paradigm as GM for the Dodgers and later VP of player development and scouting for the Mets, and hasn’t had much success in either role).
Didn’t the Dodgers fire DePodesta (the Jonah Hill character) because the team was so shitty?
And while Bill James was hired by the Red Sox and his methods used to win multiple world series, I think it’s important to note that it’s still the Red Sox, a team with the largest budget in baseball (after the Yankees of course) and that they won, with Johnny Damon, the same player the movie dismisses as being too expensive.
@Matt Parks
But don’t you think the movie heavily implied his reason for rejecting the Red Sox offer was to stay near his daughter?
“Didn’t the Dodgers fire DePodesta (the Jonah Hill character) because the team was so shitty?”
He was hired in 2004. The team made the playoffs that year, but then the 2005 team was snakebit because of injuries, and he was fired in the off-season. It’s pretty unreasonable to fire a GM based on just two seasons, but then again the Dodgers were pretty much a train wreck while McCourt owned the team, so . . .
“And while Bill James was hired by the Red Sox and his methods used to win multiple world series, I think it’s important to note that it’s still the Red Sox, a team with the largest budget in baseball (after the Yankees of course) and that they won, with Johnny Damon, the same player the movie dismisses as being too expensive.”
Right, I think it’s been pretty much conclusively proven that sabermetrics + money > just sabermetrics. Re: Damon, and here he is back in the postseason this year playing for another small payroll team, the Rays.
It does give me a slight bit of satisfaction that since the Dodgers were last in the World Series (in 1988), my Giants have been three times and won once. :)
Interesting. I would agree with many on the board that the film is indeed about the assessment of value. But my interpretation of the ending is totally different….
Beane was considered a “bust” as a player because his production was directly related to his cost (status as a draft pick and his salary). That’s value: Production – cost. And his production did not justify his cost . So, when he gets that’s whopping offer to be the GM of the Red Sox, he turns it down….for the same reason he’d turn down that MLB player contract as a kid if he could do it all over again. He’s afraid he’s being overvalued, and as a result, set up for failure.
I think that’s what the metaphor about the fat guy hitting the home run was about. When he rounds 1st, he is afraid of taking a risk and falling flat on his face. And he does. Bit is it a failure? No. Cause it was all for nothing; he knocked it out of the park. Same as Beane did as a GM. He knocked out of the park. And by staying with Oak, he is crawling down on the ground, reaching for that bag, when he should be rounding all the bases….just as Boston did in 04 and 07.
“But don’t you think the movie heavily implied his reason for rejecting the Red Sox offer was to stay near his daughter?”
That’s certainly part of it, yes. And it’s partly a “the devil you know” thing. But I think it also has it roots in Beane’s relationship to power, and more specifically, his relationship to money. It all goes back to his decision as a kid to sign with the Mets rather than going to Stanford on a baseball/football scholarship, the ramifications of which soured him on the idea of “doing it for the money.”
^
Except he was never doing it “for the money,” as if there was something impure about his relationship to baseball as a result – and that’s why he failed. This isn’t a movie about greed. It’s about value. He was overvalued. That why he failed as a player.
When the Red Sox make him a similar offer, he is too busy trying to crawl back to that bag to see that he has – unlike in his playing days – hit it out of the park.
I like Shocked assessment and the overvalue thing makes sense to me. I didn’t get being far from his daughter as being a reason for him turning down the Red Sox. The whole daughter storyline was weak to begin with and for that to be even a small reason for him turning down the money seems trite and not really having anything to do with what the movie is about..
“Except he was never doing it “for the money,” as if there was something impure about his relationship to baseball as a result”
In terms of his own thinking, signing the Mets contract was “doing for the money”, as taking the Red Sox would have been.
@Shocked
He was overvalued. That why he failed as a player.
How does being overvalued lead to failure, though? A player can be extremely productive and overvalued.
Beane’s decision to turn pro involved choosing money over education, at leas that’s my reading (and I think my knowledge from the book contributes to this). And he let chose money, which he felt was the wrong decision.
When the Red Sox make him a similar offer, he is too busy trying to crawl back to that bag to see that he has – unlike in his playing days – hit it out of the park.
That would certainly make for a darker ending. With this interpretation his daughter’s singing—especially the words, “You’re so lame, Dad,” takes a cruel, taunt—as in, “You should have took the job, Dad. You should have took the job.” But I don’t think that’s the meaning of the song or the homerun video. Remember the context of him watching the video. He’s depressed they’re knocked out of the playoffs. And this is when Peter decides to show him the video. The player falling down and crawling back to first sort of throws the viewer (and Beane) off—because at first it seems like a cruel joke on the player. But the laughter stems from the fact that he failed to see he hit a home run—not that he fell and crawled to first. Peter’s intended message—and I believe it’s the film’s message—is that he’s failing to appreciate a major accomplishment—that they proved their “revolutionary” method worked (at least from Brand’s perspective).
@Matt
One of the more interesting aspects of the film is that it suggests that part of what’s driving Beane is that the received wisdom of the status quo failed regarding Beane himself as a player when it identified him as a “can’t miss” prospect. So his attempt to renovate the way that the team approaches player evaluation is a kind of surrogate redemption of Beane himself as a player and (more tenuously) as a husband/parent.
I think this was an interesting concept, but I don’t know if the film really succeeded it making this work.
The offer from Boston is an opportunity to reintegrate himself (and “his” innovations) back into the existing power structure of the game. So, yes, I think the idea of “seeing things clearly” is part of it.
So are you suggesting that Beane failed to see this opportunity?
That’s sort of how it’s presented in the film, I think, but to digress for a moment, in real life, the A’s scouting staff actually had done a very good job of identifying prospects in the draft—the had a great young rotation with Mulder, Hudson, and Zito, and good position players with Tejada and Chavez and Dye
I’m not sure about the details behind getting Zito, Hudson, Mulder, Chavez and Dye, but the book covers the approach that Beane had with drafting players—specifically that he didn’t like going for high school prospects, but preferred players who produced in college. The book suggests that Beane and his scouts disagreed about this, along with other principles (some mentioned in the film).
I suspect the book does undervalue the knowledge and skill of the scouts and manager—giving the impression that decisions were made almost entirely by statistics (which, I’m pretty sure, wasn’t the case).
@Jirin
But don’t you think the movie heavily implied his reason for rejecting the Red Sox offer was to stay near his daughter?
I agree with Santino’s reading on this. The reason makes sense, but the film doesn’t really establish this reason very well, imo. I’m unclear as to why he stays in Oakland, unless he fails to see the opportunity, as Matt might have been suggesting.
“How does being overvalued lead to failure, though?”
See Barry Zito as a Giant.
“I suspect the book does undervalue the knowledge and skill of the scouts and manager—giving the impression that decisions were made almost entirely by statistics (which, I’m pretty sure, wasn’t the case).”
Right, Lewis was writing from an angle he was interested in, so the story you get even in the book is not the whole picture—both Beane and DePodesta started out in scouting, for example. The film also omits the fact that the team had started moving towards applying sabermetrics to player evaluation while Beane was still the Asst. GM to Sandy Alderson.
" I’m unclear as to why he stays in Oakland, unless he fails to see the opportunity, as Matt might have been suggesting."
Oh, I think he sees the opportunity—as I was trying to say above, I think it was partly that Beane always regretted signing with the Mets right out of high school (this is dramatized more than discussed in the film, but in the book he actually told Lewis that signing with the Mets was " “only decision he would ever make in his life about money”). I believe, though, that he did also say something publicly (not sure if it was in the book or somewhere else) about wanting to stay near his daughter at that time, which supports Jirin’s reading as well.
“Beane’s decision to turn pro involved choosing money over education, at leas that’s my reading”
Right, and remember that ultimately he ended up, as I think you said somewhere, preferring players who had played college ball to kids that get drafted out of high school . . . so if you look at it broadly, you can see a sort of general philosophy of players and of the game that’s actually tied pretty closely to Beane’s own experiences as a player.
@ Matt Parks
“In terms of his own thinking, signing the Mets contract was “doing for the money”, as taking the Red Sox would have been.”
Based on what?
I’m sorry, but you are grafting generalized cliches onto this movie. That “greed” conflict doesn’t exist within the story at all. Where in the film was there a conflict over greed? Where does Beane or anyone else have to come to terms with their own greed? Did the film ever point to anyone failing because they were too greedy? Or not “pure” or well intentioned enough? Does Beane need to lean how to GM with more purity and less greed? No. That was never a conflict. Anywhere.
Angry rant….
Getting off topic for a sec. I don’t want to single you out. But people so frequently complain about Hollywood not coming up with original stories and being too lazy and dull. It always makes me cringe because audiences are just as unoriginal and lazy when it comes to interpreting them. It’s a case of simply trying to recognize one or two minor details within the basic narrative (money!) – and as a result, lumping it in with all other films that have that same point — even when it doesn’t fit. In this case, it’s greed. It must be a movie about Greed. Why? Cause all those other Hollywood films were about greed, when a character was presented with a large offer. Does it make sense within the context of the story? No. But we’ll just go ahead and blame Hollywood for that…
/angry rant
@Jazz -
“Peter’s intended message—and I believe it’s the film’s message—is that he’s failing to appreciate a major accomplishment—that they proved their “revolutionary” method worked (at least from Brand’s perspective).”
I agree with that this is Peter’s intended message but I’m not sure Beane fully embraces his accomplishment (or maybe he does, I don’t know).
“I’m unclear as to why he stays in Oakland,”
I think staying in Oakland was the more difficult decision and he didn’t want to take the easy way out. As a player, he did do this – he chose the money and got drafted instead of going to Stanford. Now faced with a similar choice, he opted to go to Stanford – that is, stay in Oakland – because the lesson he learned here is that taking the easy road doesn’t always lead to the greatest success. Who’s to say that had he gotten to the Red Sox his fate would’ve turned out similar to his fate as a player? I think what he learned, and why he stayed in Oakland, is that he succeeded only when he took the harder road. He went against conventional wisdom when he started using sabermetrics and that’s when he succeeded. Staying with Oakland is just an extension of this consistency.
@Santino
I don’t know specifics about Zito (if he was already on a downward trajectory or not), but there’s a difference between being overvalued and over-hyped. I guess if by “overvalued” we mean the pressure from expectations and hype can hurt performance; or the contract can lead to complacency, I would agree. But the film didn’t really show that Beane was concerned about these things. (I can’t remember the specifics of the book, but in the film, he says he was never a baseball player. In the book, he talks about having the wrong temperament—how he would get so frustrated at failed at bats. But had he gone the college route and/or had people help him manage the pressure, who knows, maybe he would have been a great player. So maybe the pressure and expectations did ruin his career. This is all speculative, though.)
@Matt
Oh, I think he sees the opportunity—as I was trying to say above, I think it was partly that Beane always regretted signing with the Mets right out of high school (this is dramatized more than discussed in the film, but in the book he actually told Lewis that signing with the Mets was " “only decision he would ever make in his life about money”).
Beane says this in the film, too—and the book covers this. I remember that Beane really wavered about the decision and that his father said that Beane had to make the decision for himself, but whatever decision he made, he would have to stick to it. (I recall that he wanted to change his mind, but he had already committed, and his father made him stick to his decision. I could be wrong about that.)
@Shocked
I don’t know if “greed” was a major issue so much placing money over education. Choosing a big contract over education doesn’t necessarily make a person greedy, but it suggests the individual values money more than education (at least with that one decision). When Beane says he never wants to make a decision based on money, I interpreted that to mean that he never wanted money to be the top reason he made a decision.
For what it’s worth, from someone who hasn’t seen the movie, the revolution in baseball thinking that sabermetrics and the Moneyball story represent didn’t intend to deny the role of scouts and the managers, but to suggest that much of what they had been doing or their ways of thinking were simply inadequate or wrong. The conflict was as much about players perceived as having “tools”, like Beane himself, being more valuable than players who lacked these “tools” but produced. High school players were over-valued in the market because of this and college players undervalued even though the statistical record showed that many college players were safer bets to draft than the high school players who more often failed to live up to the hype, like Beane. In a way, Beane is the anti-Joe Morgan in that he recognized in his failings a larger truth and applied it to some success whereas Morgan does something of the opposite in failing to recognize what made him a great player in standing up for a lot of stupid “common sense” ideas that have been proven to not make much sense. I can’t speak to the film, but I would suggest that is part of Beane’s story that fits in with the ideas being discussed more than money.
@Jazzaloha
“How does being overvalued lead to failure, though? A player can be extremely productive and overvalued.”
1) You are kind of arguing against the core concept of money ball if you think overvalued production is still production. Of course, you cannot separate cost from production according to this film. That’s why Damon and Giambi — at that price — were no different than Hatteburg or Justice.
2) Ryan Leaf wouldn’t be a colossal failure if he were a 7th rd pick in the NFL. We would never know his name. Cause his play would have been on par with expectations. In the world of player prospects: expectations = cost. The film explicitly states that Beane was really only worth about a 9th rounder. If they got Beane’s value — for just a 9th — then the guy would not have had to live with the stigma of being a failure. He would have been doing as expected. It’s the added cost that made him a failure.
3) This idea is played out at the end when Boston offers him that whopping contract. Is he really worth it?
@Matt -
“I believe, though, that he did also say something publicly (not sure if it was in the book or somewhere else) about wanting to stay near his daughter at that time, which supports Jirin’s reading as well.”
The real life Beane might’ve said this but it doesn’t come across in the film in my opinion so separating real life from the film (which I think you have to do with a film like this), this information becomes irrelevant.
Jazzaloha
I’m planning to start two threads about this film—one in this forum, which will deal primarily with the film and film-related matter, and the other in the off-topic section, which will deal with sports issues. On to the film. I must say that I had a very lukewarm reaction to the film, but after some time away from the film, I suspect that my knowledge of the book and the expectations from it interfered with my understanding and appreciation of the film. My sense is that the book and the film are about different things, or at least not about the same thing, exactly. (Do people who have read the book and seen the film agree?) What I liked about the book—the specific details about how Beane’s approach was so innovative—was really not in the film (and I don’t fault the film for this, as that would’ve been difficult to achieve—especially in a feature film). The film also seemed to be more about Beane—and maybe certain themes unrelated to the innovations of the A’s—at least more than the book.
As of this writing I’m not clear what the film is really about, what is at the heart of the film. Here are some vague ramblings:
>The ending makes me feel like the film might be about seeing things clearly. For example, the scouts are blinded and limited by convention; Beane himself is blinded by his goal to win the world series. The scouts can’t see real value, and Beane can’t see the significance of his accomplishment. (I’m not sure if the entire film supports this reading.)
>I’m not suggesting is not also about the way Beane’s new approach helped keep the A’s winning and possibly the way it changed baseball, but I feel like this might not be the heart of the story.
I’d be interested in hearing from others about what they thought was at the heart of the film.
Other comments:
>For some reason the humor just didn’t get to me. (This is the second film others seemed to find really funny, but I didn’t. I’m beginning to wonder if the films just weren’t funny, or I’m losing my sense of humor.)
>Didn’t think much of Brad Pitt—although, again, my expectations might have been getting in the way.
OK, time to turn this loose.