#38: Field of Dreams (1989) June 9, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Drama, Fantasy, Sport, adaptations, 4 stars, 1980s, 2008 , trackback1989 | Phil Alden Robinson | 103 mins | TV | PG / PG
I’ve never made much of an effort to see Field of Dreams, for a couple of reasons. Aside from its famous mantra/catchphrase (”if you build it he will come”), the only things I’d heard were it was mawkishly sentimental and was about Kevin Costner trying to build a baseball pitch for a ghost — which doesn’t sound particularly exciting and is about sport, something I’m not very fond of. Of course, as anyone who’s seen it will know, I was a tad mislead on that last point, as the glorified rounders pitch is built in the first 20 minutes. What follows certainly has its fair share of sentimentality, but I wouldn’t call it mawkish.
In fact, it’s almost unremittingly pleasant. The lack of anything hard-hitting is no doubt why some have such a dim view of the film, as “nice” has become synonymous with “not very good” in modern parlance (I blame Primary School teachers desperate to increase vocabulary). Field of Dreams won’t shock you, it likely won’t make you think very hard, and any moral message or meaning it has is positive and reassuring… but what’s so wrong with that? The plot keeps moving, refusing to be bogged down in navel-gazing or star-gazing. The story is also too unusual to be marred by any serious degree of predictability, though some events are of course easily guessed, but the mystery of how the various elements would come together kept my attention throughout. Crucially, it doesn’t labour its sentimentality or batter you round the head with morals or meanings. It’s hardly ambiguous, but nor is it over done.
Field of Dreams may not be astounding filmmaking — it’s not especially complex, radical, thrilling, thought-provoking, intense or revolutionary, nor terribly serious or terribly funny, nor indeed wholly original — but it is nice. And I mean that in a good way.
Comments»
” “nice” has become synonymous with “not very good” in modern parlance (I blame Primary School teachers desperate to increase vocabulary). ”
I don’t follow the logic here, can you please clarify?
I can indeed.
“Nice” should mean that something is good. However, it’s been prone to overuse by children — “I had a nice time”, “It was a nice day”, etc etc — and so primary teachers tend to ‘ban’ it or suggest heavily against it. Consequently (I think), if used in articles/reviews/etc it tends to be used to mean “bland” or otherwise mildly negative comments.
Also have a look at: http://www.word-detective.com/back-q.html#nice (Which doesn’t really support my point, but is still interesting.)
One of the problems with ‘nice’ is that, in a world of increasing hyperbole, it’s just, well, not big enough; I haven’t got a single problem with using it, and ‘Field of Dreams’ is nice. Very nice. Mr Costner probably defines nice.
BTW, I haven’t got a clue about Baseball, Lord knows I’ve tried to understand it (’bottom of the ninth, the bases are loaded, he’s going to bunt…’ is that a good thing!!?), but it makes as much sense to me as cricket does to the average American. And I love baseball films.
^The average American thinks cricket is a bug.
I do sometimes think sports represents possibly the largest cultural barrier between the two countries. I’ve never known how baseball films translate into countries where the sport isn’t particularly popular. I guess, like other movies, if they’re good, they work everywhere. I’d place Field of Dreams right up there because I do like it a lot. For a few years there, a strange phenomenon emerged where baseball movies were popping up like weeds.
Some are better than others, but it is a little odd that almost all the good baseball-centered films are from a ten or twenty year period. From ‘84 to ‘94 alone, there’s The Natural, Bull Durham, Eight Men Out, Field of Dreams, A League of Their Own, and Cobb. (Not to mention fan favorites Major League and The Sandlot)
Shockingly, you neglected to include Mr. Baseball in that list.
I’ll also chime in and say I haven’t got a clue about how baseball works (although I do understand American football and basketball, so I’m not totally sportingly obtuse). What I like best in baseball flicks is what Field of Dreams (and, my absolute fave, The Natural) obviously do: position it as a metaphor for nostalgic Americana (and the myth, or not, thereof). The Natural does this far better than Field of Dreams, in my humble opinion, because of its awareness of folk magic, as it were, and how sport is a part of that, light and dark and all.