Review of "42"

I recently had the opportunity to watch "42", the new biopic centered around the opening moments of Jackie Robinson's Major League career. Despite the fact that it was a rather enjoyable and somewhat historically accurate, I found the movie to be somewhat underwhelming because it could have been so much better than it was.

Going into the movie, I was very well acquainted with the historical account and overall cultural significance of Jackie Robinson's ascent into the major leagues. This was because I had read a book entitled Jackie Robinson: Baseball's Great Experiement. The book, written by Jules Tygiel, basically recounts in painstaking detail the rather complex and detailed process that took jackie Robinson from barnstorming in the Negro Leagues to Major League baseball playing for the Brooklyn Dodgers. It is considered by many to be the most complete historical account of his transition.

I will first speak on what I did not like about the film.

Though the film did have strong performances (I will speak on that later), I found the movie to be underwhelming for a few reasons. Though it meant well, I found the film overreaching, overdramatized and sentimentally directed. I felt like so many moments in the film were specifically crafted to evoke some sort of sentimental compassion from the viewer. Almost every single scene in which Robinson participates is needlessly amplified and over-directed. His every action in this film is weighed down by this overbearing sense of historical gravitas. Very little in the movie feels completely organic and unforced.

I also didn't like the direction the film took in portraying Robinson. Brian Helgeland, the film's director, was so concerned in making a squeaky clean and inspirational movie that he decided to portray the man as some sort of mythological saint-like being, void of any flaws or shortcomings. I found that portrayal to be somewhat disingenuous and it did the film a disservice. I believe that in better hands the movie would have taken a more multi-layered in depth look at Robinson. Instead of making an honest and truly remarkable movie, Helgeland chose to make a simplistic, accessible and easy digestible one.

My last gripe about the film is its historical accuracy. Though the film did the majority of its facts straight, it omitted very large portions of Robinson's narrative and told a very watered down version of his story. The movie spent no time examining Robinson's back story or the social impact of his ascension. It's narrow focus strips Robinson's tale of some much needed perspective and made me leave the theater wanting much more.

The one thing I did enjoy about the movie were the performances of Chadwick Boseman and Harrsion Ford, who played Jackie robinson and Branch Rickey respectively. Boseman, who bears a striking resemblance to Robinson, was excellent in his portrayal of the man. He played the part well both on and off the field.  On the field he was extremely believable, and looked the part of a baseball player with great ease. As for Harrison Ford, his portrayal portrayal of Rickey seemed very awkward and stiff at first, but as the movie progressed I feel he settled into the role quite nicely. I would have liked to see them flesh out his character a little more than they did since he is indeed a fascinating character, but I was mostly pleased with Ford's portrayal of him.

Overall, "42" was a solid, although unremarkable film. Even though I think it's absolutely great to finally have a biopic of Robinson's life, his legacy could have been done better justice on film. Although it doesn't come across that way in my review, I did somewhat enjoy the film and I would probably recommend it to someone else. It's just that knowing what I knew about the man and his story, I came into the theater expecting more than what the film delivered.

A visit form Howard Bryant

In what was yet another highly intriguing encounter, Howard Bryant spoke to our class on April 4^th. 

He was born and raised in Boston, eventually graduating from Temple University. Interestingly enough, he started out his journalism career in at the Oakland Tribune, where he covered technology. During that time, he spoke about interviewing the likes of Bill Gates, even going as far to credit the experience for him not being starstruck when covering high-profile athletes.

After covering technology, he eventually moved over to sports, covering the Oakland Athletics during the “Moneyball” era. I found that pretty fascinating. Knowing how much movies can distort the truth, it was interesting to hear what he had to say on the matter since he witnessed it first hand. After stops at the Bergen Post, the Boston Herald and the Washington Post he eventually found himself at ESPN, where’s he’s been since 2007.

He spoke on many things, including how the landscape of journalism has radically evolved over the course of his career. He stated that when he was first starting out in the profession, journalists would be able to focus on one specific area of the craft and work from there. However, he admitted that in this day and age it is next to impossible to succeed in this business without being able to a variety of things. Today's journalist has to be so much more versatile than they would have been ten or fifteen years ago.

What impressed me the most was Bryant's candor. He pulled no punches, instead speaking his mind freely. I know that it's a journalist's job to be opinionated, but certain things he said caught me off guard such as his position on collegiate sports. I was intrigued by his position on the state of NCAA Division I basketball in regards to athletes being financially compensated for what they do and his criticism for the monopoly of power held by college coaches. He made a lot of very valid points that made me think.

The part of his message that really hit home to me was when he encouraged the class to “bet on yourself” at least once in your life. I found that to be particularly profound. He said this while explaining the career changing risk he took when he stepped outside of his usual comfort zone and decided to write a book about the history of African-American players within the Boston Red Sox organization. It said it was the biggest risk of his career but ultimately the most rewarding, since it helped get him to wear his today.

Overall, I found Bryant to be a highly intelligent and very well-spoken individual and I am very grateful that he took the time out of what is probably a busy schedule to speak to us. Besides that, this class has honestly been one of the most gratifying experiences I have ever had as a student. The opportunity to meet, interact with and ultimately learn from some of the greatest minds sports journalism has to offer, has been an extremely rewarding experience that I’ve truly appreciated and will never forget.

Race and the NCAA Tournament

As I have done semi-religiously over the past half-decade, I made my usually terrible NCAA Tournament bracket and attentively followed NCAA tournament. 

However, unlike the previous times I had watched the tournament, I was actually carefully listening the to the sports broadcasters to see if anything that could be deemed racially charged would have slipped form their mouths. 

Sadly, this wasn't case. 

I watched both Final Four games as well as the Championship game and came away with absolutely nothing. In the end, the main story of the Final Four was the gruesome injury suffered by Kevin Ware and the Cardinals' desire and commitment to winning a national title for their fallen teammate. The focus of the CBS broadcast was fixed on the emotional story Kevin Ware's injury and the basketball being played on the court. 

The only racially charged (if you can call it that) incident of the entire coverage of the tournament that I even remotely remember was Doug Gottlieb's very awkward "white man's perspective" joke that fell flat on its face on live on national television. Though it was cringeworthy and in obvious poor taste, I doubt too many people were surprised or even upset by it since Gottlieb's mouth has gotten him in trouble before. If you're at all curious, feel free to watch the video here. 

Aside from that I did not notice and racially charged language in any of the three games I watched and therefore, I sadly have nothing to report.