REVIEW: Thoughts on '42,' the Jackie Robinson biopic

April 12, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

“42,” the new film biography of baseball great Jackie Robinson, starts out like a standard-issue good-for-you history lesson. The over-explanatory voiceover narrator comes off as condescending and unnecessary and the evocative, over-scrubbed imagery feels imitation Spielberg. The insistent “This Is Important!” musical score certainly doesn’t help.

But there’s more going on in “42” than just the glossing of a legend. There are wonderful sequences on the field that capture the joy of the game (and the pleasures of a successful, dirty slide). There’s a deeply uncomfortable scene that dares not to back away from the blatant racist taunts and threats that were a reality of Robinson’s entry into the game. There are also moments of honest humor that don’t compromise the story or the seriousness of the situations. And there’s a strong effort not to sweeten reality too much, leaving the core strength of Robinson’s character to shine clearly.

What I like most about the film is that, like baseball, it doesn’t confine Robinson’s influence to one big play. Changing attitudes toward race in this country wasn’t—and isn’t—a matter of a single redefining moment but, rather, a series of smaller victories and setbacks. The quest for equality is a game of inches. “42” gets that.

There’s no doubt that this is a Hollywood film. The version Spike Lee might have made when he optioned the story in the 1990s certainly would have had a different feel. And I’ll leave it to others to sort out where the film strays from the true story.

But I was happy to sit in the theater with my kid (as I suspect many parents will do) and, afterward, talk about fairness, struggle, race, self-respect, and the way the world has—and hasn’t—changed.

And then start looking for the next opportunity to catch a game at Victory Field.

Your thoughts?

P.S. For a VERY different look at race relations, watch for my review of the play Clybourne Park at the Phoenix Theatre.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • 42
    Knowing a lot about Branch Rickey I thought Harrison Ford did an amazing job in replicating the Mahatma. Also kudos are due Andre Holland for his role as journalist Wendell Smith whose understated support was so important to Jackie's ability to cope with the turmoil around him. The film itself takes few liberties with the true story giving us a painfully accurate account of a seminal moment in American civics. It is obvious that the actors, including John C. McGinley, who has Red Barber down cold,did their homework to faithfully re-create their characters.
  • Legend and Hero
    Ok, I am baseball fan. I am also African-American and I am also over 60. So I know the story and under appreciated signaficance of Mr. Robinson's contribution to civil rights. Having said all that, I saw the movie as a guest of IBJ on Wednesday. As a quick history lesson I think the movie did its job. Unfortunately, as I have so often said about these kinds of movies where supposedly the better side of humanity wins, the people that should see it don't. As a movie that entertained while also educating I think it failed on the entertaining side. There were no climatic moments. I really liked the actress that played Mrs. Robinson. I can tell she has better things to come and I will be watching to see what she does in the future. Harrison Ford also did a magnificent job (I don't know a lot about Branch Rickey personality so can't speak to how closely he captured the man). Also, I wonder if Mr. Rickey's motivation was as pure as he finally confessed to Mr. Robinson. As a baseball player and fan I was hoping for more baseball showcasing the amazing baseball player. On that I was disappointed. It might sound like I didn't enjoy the movie. That's not true I did. I just think it could have been better.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

  2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

  3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

  4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

  5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.

ADVERTISEMENT