Swing and a Miss

Rating: 5/10 (5 July 2004)

Given the $60 Million budget and the lofty game/life message, it is likely that Robert Redford was striving to achieve a 'cinema classic' with this film. Unfortunately, professionally crafted movies by well-meaning directors with very ambitious goals often fall short. "The Legend of Bagger Vance" is such a movie. You have to give Redford credit for trying for something extraordinary, but at the end your overriding reaction is that it just didn't work. The upside is that ambitious failures provide excellent opportunities to understand the pitfalls of film-making. While there is little to be learned from failures like Cabin Fever, where little is attempted and even less achieved, a careful analysis of Bagger Vance can be a valuable learning experience. And while analysis can explain why it didn't work, it will not explain why those making the film failed to recognize and correct the elements that ultimately relegate this film to nothing more than a visually interesting period piece.
It is well over two hours long (three on television), and while not much happens it isn't particularly dull. The sets are wonderful, the camera work is first rate, sound is fine, and editing/pacing is more than satisfactory. So why doesn't it work?
SCRIPT-Beware of adapting a storyline that combines the tenuous idea of golf as a metaphor for life with a nostalgic return to the essence of the sport, and then throws in the standard underdog rising to the challenge in the 'big game'. It simply cannot be done in a movie, these three basic elements get in each others' way. Redford failed for the same reason in "The Natural" and "Field of Dreams" was wise enough to stick to only the first two elements and not incorporate the underdog/big game idea. Another flaw (IMHO anyway) is utilizing historical figures in a serious fictional story. Since the events of the story never happened, why are historical characters like Bobby Jones and Walter Hagen dragged into the plot?
DIRECTING-Redford's weakness as an actor is also his weakness as a director. Just as he has never played a character that we could really believe in and care about (we wanted "The Sting" to work but we didn't care what happened to Redford), Redford as a director has never been able to populate his films with real humanity. His focus has always been inanimate detail and mystical reverence. Even Hardy Greaves, the local boy who narrates the story is two-dimensional; which is quite an achievement given the amount of screen time he has and the opportunity afforded by his voice-over narration.
CASTING-Will Smith and Matt Damon are way too young to be even remotely believable as a wise mystic and a burned-out veteran. I'm not sure that Will Smith could even be considered an actor so his age is only a secondary problem. While not physically credible, Damon's actual performance is fine-but many of this scenes are opposite Charlize Theron who (as usual) dominates the screen when paired with relative lightweights like Damon.
Except for the sets and style there is little to get excited about in this film. The only interesting character/performance is Bruce McGill's (remember D-Day in Animal House) portrayal of Walter Hagen (who would have been better of course as a fictional character). McGill puts actual life into this movie, even as it's moronic golf-as-religion theme bogs it down like a golfer who wades too far into a Georgia tide pool.