Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

'Baseball and American Culture': Opening Day at MoMA


The good news about being stuck in California this week is that I will be able to watch my beloved San Francisco Giants live on TV as they flail into their 2006 campaign. The bad news is that I am going to miss out on at least a third of MoMA’s Baseball and American Culture film series, which starts today and runs through April 30.
The program includes a dozen selections dating back to 1920, from a restored print of the Babe Ruth myth-umentary Headin’ Home to Dan Klores’s 2005 Latino player chronicle Viva Baseball. You can probably conjure most of the remaining titles without too much strain, The Jackie Robinson Story, Bang the Drum Slowly, The Natural and Field of Dreams probably being chief among them. And while clumsy entries such as A League of Their Own and Cobb apparently outclass notable omissions like The Pride of the Yankees and The Bad News Bears (and even Major League, which I know will never have an audience at any museum ever but deserves a second look anyway, if only for Dennis Haysbert’s classic turn as voodoo-obsessed slugger Pedro Cerrano: “Jesus, I like him very much, but he no help with curveball”), it is nice to see the museum dust off the Ray Milland gem It Happens Every Spring, and Aviva Kempner’s documentary The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg never really gets old.
Not coincidentally, Terrence Rafferty has a lovely little essay about baseball and the movies over at The Times, featuring a particularly astute assessment of why Ron Shelton’s Bull Durham endures as the genre’s finest film:

This movie is about success in failure, surviving your dreams rather than about fulfilling them, which gives it an appealing, and kind of sneaky, modesty: it’s all bunts and hard slides and singles slapped through holes in the infield, and it winds up beating the swing-for-the-fences baseball epics of its era by a country mile.

The series starts tonight, featuring a Babe Ruth/Jackie Robinson-biopic double feature, to be introduced by Brooklyn Dodgers expert Carl Prince. Consider checking it out, assuming baseball’s actual opening day does not take the precedence it probably should.

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “'Baseball and American Culture': Opening Day at MoMA”

  1. don says:

    You forgot THE SANDLOT…one of the best baseball movies around. And…
    The Giants aren’t “flailing” into anything, pal. This is our year!
    p..s I have 2 tix for Friday night at face value…Braves/Gents…

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon