42 - Or 4 + 2 is Zero

[Agrajag]

I just saw this film tonight and was so absolutely disgusted by it that I had to head home at 1am and write the entire review for the website before I went to bed. That experience was so blood-boiling that I'm now too charged up to sleep.

Here's a film that's getting a 73 on Rotten Tomatoes and yet I can't find a single redeeming thing to recommend about it other than it doesn't go on forever. It's frustrating on so many levels. If I'm a descendant of his I'd consider legal action.

How such an incredible, complex story could be so castrated and sucked dry of any sense of reality is just a mystery and a shame.

What really shocks me is this comes from Brian Helgeland who wrote the script for one of my favorite documentaries of recent years--Man On Wire.

I'm left to question the core values of anyone that sees this train wreck and finds it perfectly acceptable or even remotely realistic. Wow....

[mark f]

I haven't seen it and you haven't explained any specific problems, but Brian Helgeland wrote Man on Fire, not Wire.

[jiraffejustin]

I'd definitely like to hear your elaboration on this one. I haven't seen it, and I probably won't as I tend to avoid sports biopics like the plague. I am a big sports fan, I do loathe baseball though, but Hollywood always tries to go the overly sentimental route with sports flicks. The faux inspiration they try to bring to the screen is very frustrating. With that said, I obviously don't know anything about the movie, but I certainly like to hear your opinion elaborated further. It sounds this movie is to you what The Blind Side was to me.

[Agrajag]

Guys, trust me, this one uses every possible angle to give us a vanilla version of everything. Having seen The Blind Side, I can tell you that this isn't (forgive the pun) in the same league as that. Blind Side has some actual moments. Don't misunderstand that. The review is about 700 words long so I'm not rewriting that all here. Suffice to say that I sat there dumbfounded that anyone would green light this.

Also, thanks for the clarification on Man on Fire. Thank God this wasn't the same writer.

So many issues here.... The casting is a disaster. The characters in paintings exhibit more life. Worst of all, I found the entire thing to have a bigoted cloud over t.

[Daniel M]

Two critics I look out for have both give it positive ratings. Richard Roeper awards it 3 out of 4 stars - http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/42-2013 and Cole Smithey (like him or hate him) gives it a B+/4 out of 5 here - http://www.colesmithey.com/reviews/2013/04/42.html

On metacritic it averages 63, which is decent, and has no negative reviews.

I haven't seen it and I am not particularly interested in American sports, although I will try and see it eventually if I can. I like films that offer something to different types of viewers rather than just specific ones like sports fans.

And why don't you copy and paste over your review on here? Unless you want it to remain exclusive to your site of course, which I could understand although recommend against, chances are it'll great more discussion, get your writing more noticed etc. It's up to you.

[mark f]

The Jackie Robinson Story is far more than about sports.

[Agrajag]

Here's what I had to say about this "film":

Jackie Robinson‘s journey from the busses of Negro league baseball to becoming the first black player to play in the all-white Major Leagues is a story on much the same level as that of Neil Armstrong‘s one giant leap for mankind 22 years later. His is a story filled to the brim with challenges, intrigue, drama, thrills and — ironically — many shades of gray. It’s a story that deserves an honest, in-depth analysis and celebration. 42 is not that story.

This is a film I was — quite frankly — insulted and disgusted to have experienced. It represents the absolute worst of what Hollywood is capable of producing. Writer/Director Brian Helgeland owes everyone who sees this a heartfelt apology while the studios that supported it owe everyone a refund.

I would not have been at all surprised to learn that this disgrace found its way out of a time capsule from the early 1970′s. It brings back all the bad elements of what a Disney film of that era tried to pass off as entertainment. This is neither the 1970′s nor a Disney film. Every character’s reduced to fundamental caricature magnifying stereotype upon stereotype. Everyone’s cast in a grayless world of only whites and blacks — and I’m not referring to race in any way. History rides in the back of the bus here. The flowery musical Oklahoma was a hardened documentary by comparison. Take, for example, Dodgers famed manager Leo Durocher. Helgaland can’t wait to give us a scene where the oft-quotable skipper states emphatically, “Nice guys finish last.” The only problem is, Durocher never said it and, what he did say happened with entirely different people in entirely different circumstances. This type of re-imagining runs roughshod through every caramel-coated page of dialogue.

The characters, as presented, are paper-thin. You know every line before it’s spoken. At a key game one sunny afternoon Robinson’s radiant wife suddenly turns and announces that she’s oddly nauseous. I have little doubt the patrons in the next theater knew she was pregnant before she did. Few who fall under Helgeland’s camera are spared this treatment. Most ridiculous is virtually any scene with a child in it.

The acting is fine but the casting is a mess. Harrison Ford embodies famed Dodgers owner Branch Rickey. He does a commendable job and it’s almost hard to believe it’s him but it’s so unlike anything he’s done before that you can’t stop thinking, “Wow, that’s really Harrison Ford in there.” It’s a distraction. The Jackie Robinson we experience is played admirably by TV vet Chadwick Boseman. Unfortunately his body type is entirely wrong and diminutive by comparison to the real man. Was that an oversight or just an over slight? Relative newcomer Nicole Beharie fares best of all as Jackie’s wife Rachel but has to deal with the shackles of being asked to play a mannequin. Her real life counterpart was a wonderfully normal, down-to-earth woman with real relationship challenges. Here she’s just the perfect angelic wife content to live forever without any needs of her own.

Consider the HBO film 61*. This is the story of Roger Maris‘ and Mickey Mantle‘s 1961 chase of the single season homerun record held by beloved icon Babe Ruth. That effort pulled no punches and told the story straight. Robinson’s real life story deserves nothing less. I knew this film was doomed the moment I read the early subtitle, “Based on a true story”. Robinson’s story requires no softening or dramatic plot embellishments and yet this script does so with a reckless abandon that’s simply unfathomable. It is, dare I say, a complete whitewashing that comes off like a reinvention of events as told by a partially repentant bigot. I don’t believe that was Helgeland’s intention or perspective but I can’t ignore the feelings.

[Daniel M]

The Jackie Robinson Story is far more than about sports.

Not sure if that's for me but:

I haven't seen it and I am not particularly interested in American sports, although I will try and see it eventually if I can. I like films that offer something to different types of viewers rather than just specific ones like sports fans.By that I mean, the reason I would try and see this film is because it seems like it deals with much more than sports, and that I don't have to be a baseball fan to watch/understand what it has to say :) I wasn't actually aware that there was already a Jackie Robinson film.

Anyway I didn't like The Blind Side too much anyway, quite surprising that it got a Best Picture nomination, although I recall my mum loved it which is pretty unsurprising :p

Edit: Read your review, it seems very well written although I can't comment on the actual content of it.

[Agrajag]

Now, I ask when you see this film, to honestly tell me that ANY scene with a child speaking in it feels AT ALL genuine to you. My jaw dropped at the ludicrous lines they had kids saying here and the way they had them acting. We all know black children in the Bronx in the 1940's were all flawlessly dressed with perfect social graces. No child is that way and certainly not most of the black youth that rightly looked to Robinson as a hero. The depictions of racism are prevalent but they're cruel genericized versions of racism as if told by a racist. Again, the direction only goes 180 degrees left or 180 degrees right for everything.

I've written about 30 reviews so far for 2013 films and I haven't felt compelled to comment on any of them here yet until this. I'm reading Rotten Tomatoes snippets and they're making me even more concerned for this man's legacy. People are taking this as a solid representation of reality. The cold hard truth is that what's done here requires zero knowledge of Jackie Robinson to see how distorted and insulting it is and that's what bothers me most.

[mark f]

Yeah, Jackie Robinson played himself in the low-budget The Jackie Robinson Story (1950). In 61* Maris and Mantle chased Babe Ruth's record of 60 home runs.

[Agrajag]

Oops. That's what I get for rushing the review out. hehe. Corrected (regarding 61*).

[seanc]

I did not have the same response to 42 as you did but it is hard for me to disagree with your assessment because what you hated about the film are all the problems I had with it as well. The scenes with the boy who goes to watch him play for Montreal then sees him in the train station are atrocious. The white child who sees him play in Cincinnati with his father is equally as bad. The scene where we find out his wife is pregnant is probably the worst scene in the film.

However I felt the film picked up steam in the second half and had some genuine emotional moments. While they didn't have time to develop the arcs perfectly, the way his teammates one by one began to connect with Robinson felt genuine. His relationship with Rickey felt genuine as well, and I felt that Ford did an above average job in this role. I also responded to his interaction with the Phillies manager. In fact up to that point I would agree that the racism he was enduring felt flat, this felt more like what he probably experienced regularly.

I do feel 42 was a bit too black and white, again not racially speaking. However it treated Robinson like an infallible icon, and if you watch baseball at all you know that is exactly how he is treated in sports circles. You compared it unfavorably to 61* and I would say that is the movie it reminds me of the most. Some good points, many flaws, probably a 2.5 in my opinion, but I like to dwell on movies for a day or two before making my final judgement.

[Agrajag]

I've re-edited the review to clarify a few points and clean up some others.

I also think the message it sends is horrific especially if you're black. Think about how Jackie Robinson would react to see that, of all the things he actually faced, that this film shows him breaking down and losing it only once and that's when he's being essentially called names. Not when things got physical. Not when things were real threats but only when a bigot calls him names? Again, insulting, demeaning and (for me) a total disconnect from understanding and conveying the true nature of the story.

The more I think about this film the worse it gets. A wife who endured hell and made her needs clear is reduced to a joke of a person.

Rickey is also too prominent for a movie called 42. I firmly believe that's due to Ford signing on and the director feeling like he had to use him as often as possible.

Again, as a white person I feel this absolutely comes off as a white guy's version of this story with unintended blinders towards the real grit of the ordeal.

The kids are a joke so much so that the reason they'd even NEED a hero is lost here. They're presented as idyllic. If anything the only hero they'd need is the shallow type you get with today's athletes. More worshiping the rock star status and not the most important points.

And, again, the racism is so poorly presented. Read his book. He endured hell. The bus scene is terrible. It's then supported by the airport scene where the impression is given that racism was merely an annoyance. The insidious nature of it is entirely missing. Here's a typical example. Ben Chapman (the Phillies manager) specifically instructed all his pitchers to hit Robinson if they got into a position of a 3-0 count instead of just potentially walking him. This has teeth and conveys the insidious element far better than what's shown and it would have been easy to present.

We end up with a Disney-esque version of the real man with lots of Rah-rah moments that don't feel very genuine. Even the jerks are made into comedic fodder with the final scene. It's also suggested that Chapman was let go and never returned to baseball as a result of this. Wrong. He was fired only when the team collapsed at the end of the season and he coached with the Reds a few years later. The wording they use in the film is very careful--something like, "and he never managed another game again." Misleading at the least.

Finally, I still stand on my point that Robinson deserves a more realistic, darker telling of his story. I firmly believe it would resonate far more deeply. This film will be forgotten in short order. If it is remembered it'll be remembered later as a very flawed, tone-deaf attempt.

[Agrajag]

I've re-edited the review to clarify a few points and clean up some others.

I also think the message it sends is horrific especially if you're black. Think about how Jackie Robinson would react to see that, of all the things he actually faced, that this film shows him breaking down and losing it only once and that's when he's being essentially called names. Not when things got physical. Not when things were real threats but only when a bigot calls him names? Again, insulting, demeaning and (for me) a total disconnect from understanding and conveying the true nature of the story.

The more I think about this film the worse it gets. A wife who endured hell and made her needs clear is reduced to a joke of a person.

Rickey is also too prominent for a movie called 42. I firmly believe that's due to Ford signing on and the director feeling like he had to use him as often as possible.

Again, as a white person I feel this absolutely comes off as a white guy's version of this story with unintended blinders towards the real grit of the ordeal.

The kids are a joke so much so that the reason they'd even NEED a hero is lost here. They're presented as idyllic. If anything the only hero they'd need is the shallow type you get with today's athletes. More worshiping the rock star status and not the most important points.

And, again, the racism is so poorly presented. Read his book. He endured hell. The bus scene is terrible. It's then supported by the airport scene where the impression is given that racism was merely an annoyance. The insidious nature of it is entirely missing. Here's a typical example. Ben Chapman (the Phillies manager) specifically instructed all his pitchers to hit Robinson if they got into a position of a 3-0 count instead of just potentially walking him. This has teeth and conveys the insidious element far better than what's shown and it would have been easy to present.

We end up with a Disney-esque version of the real man with lots of Rah-rah moments that don't feel very genuine. Even the jerks are made into comedic fodder with the final scene. It's also suggested that Chapman was let go and never returned to baseball as a result of this. Wrong. He was fired only when the team collapsed at the end of the season and he coached with the Reds a few years later. The wording they use in the film is very careful--something like, "and he never managed another game again." Misleading at the least.

Finally, I still stand on my point that Robinson deserves a more realistic, darker telling of his story. I firmly believe it would resonate far more deeply. This film will be forgotten in short order. If it is remembered it'll be remembered later as a very flawed, tone-deaf attempt.

[seanc]

It is interesting to note that I read the Robinson family rejected a scriot by Spike Lee that would have starred Washington years ago. They signed off on this one, my thought is maybe they wanted Jackie portrayed as superhuman. I dont know interesting discussion. I think you have many very valid points it just didnt ruin it for me completely. I still think it is a below average film though.

[Agrajag]

I'm with you. I think they wanted the story without the warts. Tell a superhero story for the masses and leave it at that.

I also was offended at the way this was marketed. The previews use a rap soundtrack. I wonder who that's aimed at? And yet, there's no such related connection in the movie itself. If there's anything insidious it's that type of approach. Draw in black youth and then hit them with a biased, fake story and tell them it represents what it was really like back then. Nice.....