Still more lazy thoughts from this one…

Field of Dreams Film Review

I have to admit, because of the ongoing AFI Top Ten arc that I began way back in January, I positioned and timed this review to coincide with this particular month. You see, it’d match up with the Sports post in that series. Plus, it would occur the same month as the annual All-Star game and be smack dab in the middle of baseball season (my review partner remains a staunch fan of the game). What can I say? I try to be felicitous when I can. So, you know what I’m going to write next, yes? The blogger otherwise known as the Scientist Gone Wordy and I, like an old double-play combo, will execute another of our reviews in parallel. For July, the wordy one will examine one more book… no, that doesn’t quite describe it. Shoeless Joe by W.P. Kinsella has been termed a novel of magical realism. It was published in 1982, and is probably the poster child for that very genre of fiction. I’ll look at its film adaptation, the re-titled Field of Dreams, which was released seven years later in April of ’89. Rachel’s book review can be found here:

Shoeless Joe by W.P. Kinsella

A brief synopsis of the film: an Iowa farmer, one Ray Kinsella, begins to hear a voice call to him. Mystifying, the voice in his corn field tells him, “If you build it, he will come.” Somehow, Ray interprets this message as an instruction to plow under a portion of his crop to build a baseball field on his farm. Even more fantastic for this son of a minor league player, the ghosts of Shoeless Joe Jackson and the other seven Chicago ‘Black Sox’ players banned from the game for throwing the 1919 World Series appear on it. If that wasn’t enough, even as the venture threatens his family’s financial livelihood and homestead, the voice and strange appeals continue. Ray will be compelled to seek out a reclusive author to help him understand the meaning of it all and the ultimate purpose for his field.

[spoiler warning: some key elements of the film could be revealed in this review]

For someone who has done only a few films, director/writer Phil Alden Robinson can still boast he managed to deliver a movie others, even among those with larger filmographies, rarely succeed in pulling off. That is, he put together a spellbinding and simply magical motion picture up on to the big screen. Field of Dreams easily resonated among a wide movie audience as the 80s were coming to a close. And it is still weaving its spell to this day, and continues to catch new viewers. Much like Kinsella’s novel, and the sport of baseball, it symbolized our passions and imperfections through extraordinary means.

“This is my most special place in all the world, Ray. Once a place touches you like this, the wind never blows so cold again. You feel for it, like it was your child.”

I think, because I finally read the W.P. Kinsella novel, I now more fully appreciate what the director/writer from Long Beach, N.Y. accomplished in bringing Shoeless Joe from that storied Iowa farm to motion pictures. Yes, both share fantastical circumstances entwined with real history. But, while the lyrical novel remains rich in the descriptions of its characters (both actual and mythical), it’s the author’s use of metaphor throughout the book (no wonder many lit courses throw this at unsuspecting high schoolers) that made adapting it to film an enormous challenge. It is one that Robinson certainly fulfilled.

How did he do it? I’m think that the director, since he had the benefit of also being the screenwriter, employed the time-honored tip all good writers use. They know only too well that to really get a story across to either the reader (in books) or the viewer (film) is, “Show, don’t tell.” The combination that spoke volumes for the film was its use of some of the notable dialogue from the novel and how it was juxtaposed against some absolutely splendid imagery, with credit going to DP John Lindley‘s capable lenses. It resulted in the something we as viewers want when we go to the movies, especially with our favorite books. An adaptation that successfully distilled the source material’s essence. Believe me when I say this. It would have been so damn easy to have screwed this one up, and the filmmakers (thank the gods of Baseball) didn’t.

As well, the film was served by jettisoning some aspects from the novel that would simply have been extraneous or head-scratching to movie audiences. Ray’s twin brother for one (don’t ask if you haven’t read this). Plus, the emphasis on the idealism and dreams of the 60s, especially when placed along side the world full of pragmatic realists from the late-80s, struck a chord with many who experienced both decades (and that in-between). Additionally, Robinson skillfully condensed the book’s storyline — at 107 minutes, it feels just right. However, I believe his most crucial screenwriting decision, an alteration made to the material, is what sets it apart. When Robinson reposition and emphasized a significant aspect from the novel as the key moment of the entire film, and held it till the finale (contrary to W.P. Kinsella’s original story), well, that made the movie the classic it’s become.

Let’s set aside why I think the book-to-film adaptation works. The other distinct facet that made Field of Dreams as good as it was is its remarkable cast. Big stars, familiar character actors, and everyone else gave some outstanding performances. Kevin Costner has caught a tremendous amount of flak from some in the last decade. But no one, I mean, absolutely no one, was more popular in film during the stretch surrounding this film’s release. Right from Bull Durham and into this production only cemented his stature of the time, and The Untouchables was but two years old at this point. He may not be the best actor around, but Costner made the most of it as Ray Kinsella. Moreover, I’ll admit here Amy Madigan never garnered a second look from me in film till she made the book’s Annie (Ray’s stellar wife) literally leap from of the page and into this movie. As in the novel, her character grounded and galvanized her husband. Yet, I think it’s the rest of the supporting cast that is the other secret in the film’s triumph.

I mean, sticking the larger-than-life and formidable actor (I mean really, who the hell else could voice Darth Vader?) James Earl Jones as the reclusive, J.D. Salinger-like, writer Terrence Mann was inspired. It’s hard to imagine anyone else pulling that side character off today (or uttering the film’s most accomplished monologue (see below), the film’s expressed analogy that is baseball in American life. So, too, was the clever use of Ray Liotta as Shoeless Joe Jackson. Even back then, still early in his career, Liotta could be an intense presence (recall his startling début in Something Wild a few years before). So, this went against type and still worked. With all of that, and having the least screen time, I daresay the legendary actor Burt Lancaster may have left the largest impression in a film filled with them. His casting as the grand old man that was Doc “Moonlight” Graham fit like no other. Retaining the same grace of an old athlete near his end, Lancaster would have one of his last and truly memorable roles in this film. His ghostly walk into the corn field could well have topped off what was a more than worthy career.

As I mentioned in mid-July, if the late Nora Ephron’s treatise from Sleepless in Seattle, that An Affair to Remember is a film “men don’t get“, then it’s up to Phil Alden Robinson’s film adaptation of the Shoeless Joe novel, easily his best work, which is the other side of that coin. At least, for those of us with XY chromosomes, that is. Similarly, it is a work that pivots off of loss, this one through the medium of sport, and grabs hold of us like few movies before or since. Perhaps, it is easier for later generations to express themselves emotionally today than that of my, and certainly of those in my father’s, age group. Yes, Field of Dreams manifested itself on-screen as a ‘feel good’ movie of its time. Yet, it captured for many of the men in the audience watching (then and now) a certain lightning-in-a-bottle quality. Too often, fathers and sons lose each other for a number of reasons or circumstances, as they grow older. For many, we don’t get to reclaim the love, and the prospect to reconnect, till the other is lost from them — seemingly, forever. Those of us who meet that criteria, through this film, got to experience (fleetingly perhaps) the opportunity we’d all gladly hand a little of our money over for. The chance to once again toss the baseball with the man who first put it in our hands.

“Ray, people will come Ray. They’ll come to Iowa for reasons they can’t even fathom. They’ll turn up your driveway not knowing for sure why they’re doing it. They’ll arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past.”

Parallel Post Series

18 Responses to “Field of Dreams Film Review”

  1. Naomi Johnson

    Your excellent review reminds me that it’s been far too long since I’ve watched this film. Costner became a polarizing figure for some, but for me, his name alone will still get me to the box office.

    • le0pard13

      Costner has had a number of wonderful performances in his career, this being one of them. Did you see him in ‘Hatfields & McCoys’? He was awfully good in that miniseries. Thanks, Naomi.

  2. ruth

    I saw this ages ago but I remember enjoying it even though I had no clue about baseball (still don’t). Every time I’m near a corn field, I always recall that “If you build it, he will come.” quote, ahah. I think this is one of the best Kevin Costner’s performance, and look at how cute he is in that photo :)

  3. Rachel

    Hey Michael! Another great review and such a great idea to throw a baseball title into this month. As you probably saw from my review I didn’t like the book but that doesn’t mean I didn’t like getting a chance to try out another baseball title. And the movie I have always liked. I don’t connect with it like many do (we’ve talked before about my – how does your SO describe it? – lack of the nostalgia gene:) but I love the baseball and I love the theme of second chances and dreaming big. You don’t need the nostalgia gene to appreciate those.

    I think this is a wonderful adaptation. I suppose that is obvious since I thought the book was crap and the movie is good but beyond my personal taste it really is a great adaptation. As I was reading I kept getting distracted by my thoughts on the choices made for the adaptation and how good they were.

    I completely agree about how pretty the movie is. The colors are so rich and that strong imagery underscores the dreamlike qualities.

    I thought the movie Annie was way better than the book Annie. I appreciated that change most of all.

    Shall I throw out one of my cantankerous type statements with my singular lack of interest in Mann’s final monologue? Woops, looks like I did. I am such a stinker! :-)

    Thanks again for suggesting this one! I wonder if we can find enough baseball titles to make it an annual affair? (great double play link, btw!)

    • le0pard13

      Yes, it is a wonderful adaptation from novel to screen. Good point about the thoughts that crept in while reading the book. I experienced them, as well. While I valued the language the author put down on the page, it’s what the filmmakers did with the story I appreciated more. And wasn’t the film’s Annie’s more vibrant?

      And no, you don’t have to have interest in Mann’s monologue, but liked its thought on this especially:

      “America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time.”

      Hmm… we should look for what titles/films with baseball are available for next July. It’s always fun to do these, Rachel. Thanks for the comment.

      p.s., I thought you’d like that double-play link ;-).

  4. Maya M.

    Hee! I thought that scene from ‘Sleepless in Seattle’ was hilarious, so maybe I owe it to the sisterhood to watch this for the sake of greater harmony in the gender wars. I actually like Kevin Costner (ever since loving the first of his films I saw, ‘No Way Out’) and Ray Liotta, so it shouldn’t be a great hardship apart from not getting the first thing about baseball

    • le0pard13

      Great to have you stop by, Maya. Yes, I think you may enjoy this film (not the least being Costner at the apex of his youth and career). I don’t think a lack of baseball will cause a problem. Thanks, M.

  5. Radiator Heaven

    “I think, because I finally read the W.P. Kinsella novel, I now more fully appreciate what the director/writer from Long Beach, N.Y. accomplished in bringing Shoeless Joe from that storied Iowa farm to motion pictures.”

    This is so well said, my friend and right on the money! I caught up with the book after I saw the film and it only made me appreciate it that much more. They really captured the spirit of the book and used the best bits.

    I also love the atmosphere of this film, like the late night scene on the farm where you can see all the stars and hear everything. Amazing stuff.

    Yeah, Costner’s an easy target but the man has been in some pretty amazing films what with this, JFK, THE UNTOUCHABLES and BULL DURHAM (also love him in FANDANGO). This is a really special film and really does explore that unspoken bond between fathers and sons. I mean, c’mon, you have to have a heart of stone not to get a lump in yer throat at the end of the film.

    Excuse me, I think I have something in my eye. Uh, yeah, that’s it.

    • le0pard13

      Very kind of you to say, J.D. Yes, the atmosphere, and especially the scene you describe, really was amazing stuff. There are some who love the novel more the film, but I (and Rachel) hold the movie adaptation in higher regard.

      I agree, too, that Costner gets shortchanged too often. All of the films you mention work because of his contribution. Good call on ‘Fandango’ — I have a real fondness for another forgotten film of his: 1985’s ‘American Flyers’.

      ‘Field of Dreams’ remains a very special film, alright. Many thanks, J.D.

  6. Mark Walker

    Great review Michael. This and Bull Durham were two great sports flicks in quick succession from Costner. Where did that Man’s magic go?

    • le0pard13

      Oh, yes. Shelton’s Bull Durham is an absolutely great sports film (it’s why I included it in my Versus AFI Top Ten Sports post). Good question about Costner. Did you see him in the recently released ‘Hatfields & McCoys’? He was great in that. Many thanks, Mark.

      • Mark Walker

        I wasn’t aware of the Hatfields and the McCoys but I’ll keep my eyes peeled. I just checked it on IMDb and it sounds great. I’m also quite fond of Bill Paxton so it’s now on my ‘to see list’. Thanks for the recommendation.


Are you talkin’ to me?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Basic HTML is allowed. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,735 other followers

%d bloggers like this: