Heavy on statistics and severely lacking a human interest storyline, ‘Moneyball’ didn’t seem worth Columbia Pictures’ $50 million investment.

Published in 2003 to rave reviews, Michael Lewis’s novel ‘Moneyball’ upended centuries-old notions of player evaluation, favoring more obscure statistics over traditional scouting. Especially focused on player performance, on-base percentage and the economics of Major League Baseball, the book didn’t seem like movie material.

 

Despite the book’s sparse storyline, ‘Moneyball’ attracted more talent than any film released so far in 2011: co-writers Aaron Sorkin (‘The Social Network’) and Steven Zaillian (‘Schindler’s List’), cinematographer Wally Pfister (‘Inception’) and director Bennett Miller, whose only feature film, ‘Capote’ (2005), earned him an Oscar nomination.

 

The producers got Brad Pitt to play Billy Beane, but without sufficient dramatic material, ‘Moneyball’ relies heavily on the talent, nearly striking out.

 

Finally fed up with playing in the shadow of big-time powerhouses in New York and Boston with their $125 million payrolls, Beane realizes that if his $41 million Athletics are to continue to contend, he will have to assemble the team in an entirely new way. Coming off a successful 2001 season with the second-most wins in the American League, the Athletics realize they can’t afford to keep the free agents that led them to 102 wins.

 

Inspired by the young baseball-savvy scout Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), Beane sets out to revamp the Athletics. Instead of seeking flashy home run hitters, he targets guys who can simply get on the base, and who come at a much lower price. The Athletics open the 2002 campaign poorly, leading many, including manager Art Howe (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), to openly criticize Beane and his new tactic. When the odd assortment of new pieces begins to jell, the Athletics’ success suggests that Beane might have truly changed the game. However, until he wins a World Series he will remain unsatisfied.

 

While the conflict is not always engrossing, dramas as entertaining as ‘Moneyball’ are rare. Sorkin and Zaillian’s script is expectedly strong, peppered with the type of quotable dialogue that only Sorkin can write. Pfister’s cinematography is exquisite, providing the most beautifully shot baseball scenes of all time.

The problem of adapting a story with hardly any relatable drama persists throughout the film — a flaw that causes a ripple effect through the story and characterization.

 

Beane is positioned as the only character in the story that the audience is meant to latch onto, yet he’s not remotely dynamic enough to lead a 133-minute drama. His fear of failure lasts only for the first quarter of the Athletics’ 2002 season before they quickly turn it around. Save for woefully underused first baseman Scott Hatteberg (Chris Pratt), the Athletics players are all so dull and robotic that their presence can become annoying.

 

The producers were surely tempted by the challenges of designing a grand Hollywood drama based on a book that wasn’t meant for the screen.  But with ‘Moneyball,’ the big wigs were in just a bit over their heads. It is one thing to earnestly adapt the book for the screen, and it is another thing altogether to make it into a 133-minute epic. Lewis’ book might generously contain 75 minutes of adaptable material, qualifying Miller’s film as an obnoxiously drawn-out drama.

 

The way Billy Beane changed baseball analysis is fascinating, though it works far better on the page than in moving pictures. The audience wants to love Beane, but when you compare his money-driven character to Sylvester Stallone in ‘Rocky’ or Denzel Washington in ‘He Got Game,’ the film’s dramatic scope comes into focus. This is a sports movie about sports and not people.

 

slittma@syr.edu

Published on September 26, 2011 at 12:00 pm