Big Screen Peter: Moneyball

review by Peter Lewis

Moneyball the book was a bit of a sensation when it was released. In many ways, it was, or at least personified the changing shape of baseball. Put simply, Moneyball detailed the subjective, often backward way in which baseball teams analyzed players. The book details the undercurrent of people within (and outside of) the game trying to overturn this dated model with objective analysis that sought to capitalize on market inefficiencies.

Perfect fodder for a movie, no?

Well, numerous people in Hollywood saw things differently and thus we have “Moneyball” the movie.

It stars Brad Pitt as Billy Beane, the one-time can’t miss prospect that flamed out and worked his way toward the top spot in the Oakland Athletic’s front office. Opposite Pitt is Jonah Hill playing Peter Brand (a distorted representation of the real-life Paul Depodesta), the nerdy sabermetrician who helps bring Beane toward the light of objectiveness.

As should be quite obvious, the film is based on true stories. But like most films of that ilk, reality and truthfulness are stretched concepts. My take? Movies are made to be consumed and enjoyed, so my concerns as a critic are quite different than those of the avid baseball fan (a hat I also wear). The focus should be on whether the story is an effective rendering of the larger narrative it’s intended to portray: the changing landscape of baseball. In that light, the film works quite well.

Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director Bennet Miller do an admirable job packaging the tricky world of statistics as entertainment. It’s far from scintillating, but never fails to be interesting. If for nothing else, part of that interest can be attributed to the framing of the story. Moneyball never (truly) falls into the staid, against all odds trope of most sports movies.

Part of what helps Moneyball succeed is the loose nature of the movie. Even in serious turns, the action and the characters all seem to be a step away from a smart aleck remark or a sly quip. This dynamic was aided to no end by the decision to cast Pitt and Hill in the lead roles. Hill, playing the nerdy, uncertain stat geek was a nice foil to the breezy, self-assured Pitt.

While they generated chuckles themselves, the real laughs were reserved for the painted satire of the “old guard” scouts. The out of touch, bumbling gang were an easy and accommodating target for quick laughs.

For all its trappings as a team driven model, however, Moneyball is a much more personal narrative. In many ways, the role of Billy Beane seems tailor made for Pitt. His persona, cocksure and confidant, is a facade belying an emotionally restrained man seriously frustrated with his lot. With punctuated flashbacks we’re treated to scenes from the young Beane’s life that give a clue as to the origins of this worldly dismay.

This illusive dichotomy between what was promised and what was accomplished is the real driving force behind the film. It’s not the A’s, it’s Billy Beane’s own demons. It’s the life that never came to fruition. “Moneyball” is about market inefficiencies and being smarter. But it’s also about understanding what’s important, in life and at the ballpark.

• Moneyball is playing at the Carmike 14 and the Malco Cinema 16 in Fort Smith, and the Malco Van Buren Cinema. Link here for time and ticket info.

Feedback
Feel free to contact Peter Lewis at [email protected]

You can also track Peter at his website.