How could you not be romantic about baseball? (...By not watching it, I suppose)

Rating: 7/10 (28 November 2011)

My only ever baseball experience was memorable for being unmemorable. I sat in what I was told was a 'bleacher' seat. In my native England, a bleacher seat would be a prime location from which to view a live game. But bleacher seats are so named because there is no roof covering them, allowing the sun to bleach the riff-raff who occupy them. I walked out before half-time (if indeed there was a halfway point).
Bennett Miller's 'Moneyball' has good and bad points, just like his 'Capote'. Sure, there are parts which engage, but there are also parts which repel.
Brad Pitt plays Billy Beane, general manager of the real life baseball team the Oakland Athletics, or Oakland A's. They're a middle-of-the-road sort of a team, destined for nothing except mediocrity. After losing their big chance of winning a championship title, Beane has to sell some of his key players to keep the club financially stable. Only, if he does that he can kiss goodbye to any chance of winning anything again.
The intriguing thing about 'Moneyball' is that it takes us from the pitch, through the locker rooms and further until we get to the back office where the real game is played – a game of backhanders and backstabbing. 'Moneyball', I think, introduces to the screen the quirky concept of sport management via a computer.
The biggest reason why I can't recommend this film over other ones currently on release is Brad Pitt. When it comes to Beautiful Brad, I'm in a minority. I don't think he's a great actor. He's more a personality, as De Niro would say. If you look at his filmography, I bet you couldn't name a film where if he wasn't in it it would be a poorer picture for it. 'Fight Club' is as good as he'll ever be. And I bet my journalistic career that he will never win a competitive Oscar.
Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian's script is weak by their standards. There are lines of dialogue which stand out, but you can always spot good lines in an ordinary script. Zaillian is used to adapting his screenplays from books, whereas Sorkin has the skill to write one from scratch. The script isn't poor, you understand; it just isn't worthy of either man.
Beane's shrewdest managerial decision is to poach Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a player analyst from a rival team. He's a softly spoken, obsequious young man, who's a bit of a dark horse. He has an economics degree from Yale and understands baseball better than anyone else Beane has ever known.
Brand explains to Beane that throughout history baseball managers have been wrong. They are blinded by celebrity to the extent that they dismiss most players because of their age, appearance or personality. Brand persuades Beane that, if they view players as statistics rather than as celebs, they can assemble a championship-quality team. You could say that Brand is the brains behind the A's' recovery while Beane is the face. Naturally.
Sorkin or Zaillian (who knows which?) does manage to slip some nice dark humour into characters' lines. This along with Jonah Hill's performance would be a reason to watch the film. In real life he's an extrovert, so it must have been hell to speak only when spoken to. In one scene, Beane points to him all cool and managerial-like, tacitly wanting to him to confirm something he's said in a meeting. Brand points to himself and says 'Do you want me to speak?'. The whole audience loved this kind of gag.
A quick-fire negotiation scene featuring Beane and Brand is impressive. Or do they speak so quickly that the scene only seems impressive? Either way I won't be watching it a second time to find out.
The film focuses on too many different characters. It gets lost in its own details. Toning down the success the A's' go on to achieve would have made sense (20 consecutive wins, although true to life, is too schmaltzy to be taken seriously in a film). It's a sporting cliché otherwise.
The ending was a sell-out. I gather Beane wanted desperately to win with the A's. As a player he was as star manqué, so winning a championship with them as GM would be his salvation. The offer made to him by the Boston Red Sox was so similar. They, too, were a losing side who needed Beane to take them to a championship. He could have easily gone back to the A's; it's not like they would have turned him down. (The Red Sox used his (Brand's) model anyway and won the title without him.)
I don't want to sound like I hate Brad Pitt (I don't think anybody does), but I have to be honest. Speaking honestly, then, how long does the camera have to be held on Pitt's eyes before he sheds a tear? His way of conveying the regret his character has is to exercise more than any of the players and break a lot of things. Also, can anybody tell me why Pitt eats in virtually every scene of every film he's starring in lately? What kind of trademark is that? This is a man who topped a great actors poll above Brando a few years back. And people wonder why I'm so cynical about the state of cinema.
www.moseleyb13.com