Showing posts with label David Neidorf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Neidorf. Show all posts

April 5, 2021

Bull Durham.

Review #1663: Bull Durham.

Cast:
Kevin Costner (Lawrence "Crash" Davis), Susan Sarandon (Annie Savoy), Tim Robbins (Ebby Calvin "Nuke" Laloosh), Trey Wilson (Joe "Skip" Riggins), Robert Wuhl (Larry Hockett), William O'Leary (Jimmy), David Neidorf (Bobby), Jenny Robertson (Millie), Danny Gans (Deke), and Max Patkin (Himself) Written and Directed by Ron Shelton (#381 - Cobb and #1075 - Hollywood Homicide)

Review:
“I thought if I was gonna have a shot as a director, I’m gonna have to write something that everybody else can say, ‘Well, whatever we think of Shelton, certainly nobody in the world knows more about the subject.”

This was the debut film directed by Ron Shelton, who has directed nine feature films in a career of over three decades - five of these films revolve around sports in some way (all except Cobb have comedy in some way, for example). But it is this film that is most personal for Shelton, who had graduated from Westmont College in California (studying English Literature for his major while being a star in basketball in baseball) and immediately went to play minor league baseball. For five years, he would play in various leagues and even reach Triple-A (the highest level in the minors) with Rochester before he decided to quit at the age of 25 in 1971, shaped by a strike in Major League Baseball. The curiosity for filmmaking came in part because he would go to see movies while on the road, with one particular film that inspired him being The Wild Bunch. Afterwards, he would do study within graduate school, graduating from the University of Arizona with a fine arts degree before moving on to do work with painting and carpentry with time spent writing screenplays. In 1981, Shelton received his first film credit when he worked on The Pursuit of D.B. Cooper, a troubled film that had three directors while Shelton worked as an associate producer and creative consultant. Two years later, he wrote his first screenplay, doing so in collaboration with Clayton Frohman on Under Fire (1983).

The idea for the film was quoted by him as “Lysistrata in the minor leagues", which if you may not be aware reflects a play about a woman who wants to end a way by having the women withhold romancing their husbands and lovers in order to garner peace (several writers and filmmakers have made their own works based on being inspired by the play) - Shelton wrote the film in one draft, with the filmed version having few changes (interestingly, one person that Shelton did have help from with the script was Kurt Russell, a former minor leaguer himself). Shelton drew upon his experiences in the minors for the script, ranging from moments such as an intentionally flooded field or a manager throwing bats at his team after a loss. He wanted to make a film with character development that did not necessarily go the way a number of sports films usually go, since what we are seeing is a movie about folks in transition, complete with a lead in Costner that might as well be drawn out from a Western (as per Shelton's liking for that kind of genre) for folks that will prevail in whoever happens to have less self-awareness. It's a study on human behavior that works fine for what is needed, which means a pretty good experience. Respectfully though, if I am asked about its place as a great sports film, there is one easy statement: the best baseball movie ever made in that decade came the following year with either Costner as the star (you know the one), or it came with the big ending at the end (Major League)...it might have been a mistake to watch the latter again before I saw this feature (look at it this way, maybe it inspired all those other baseball movies to come in its wake). But hey, if you want your romance comedy to mix with the usual sports movie, go right ahead. Writing about movies is a perspective different from person to person, and I found it to be good - and that's a fine place to be for a movie with a director that wanted to make it with his own perspective without fancy mythologizing (if one has to be pedantic, however, the minor league record for home runs was certainly not 246 - Buzz Arlett had 432; of course, if one really wants to drag it out word by word, I could also take umbrage with anyone who dislikes the designated hitter rule). Baseball is a business that has adults and kids playing a game, after all, and Shelton wanted a movie from an athlete's perspective, complete with filming in Durham on cold nights in winter (if one is curious about the name, as I was, it actually refers to a tobacco company of the same name, for which the city became famous for).

Oh, but enough about all of that, how's the cast? They do pretty well for themselves, with a core trio that is hard to resist in seeing on and off the park. Costner does well here, in part because he excels where others would probably grimace with a role that grits and grins in a way that might as well sound like Shelton talking about himself, one where each loves the game more than it loves him in a gunslinger-type of way (Costner's character was modelled after William Holden's performance in...you guessed it, The Wild Bunch). You can see the passion in his eyes any time he is on the field, one with honesty and charm that never wavers whether paired with Robbins or Sarandon. There are quite a few highlights one can note with him around, but I think the last scene spent with Robbins is a charmer, one where he imparts a key lesson about fear and arrogance for the majors while getting a shiner in the eye and asking which hand it came from. Sarandon gives her heart and charm with the depth one should expect from a veteran presence like her (she had been an actress for nearly 20 years before this film). She breathes baseball and care into a role that could have been bungled into casual fluff with a lesser actress; here we have a crisp performance that makes those intimate moments spent with either Costner or Robbins come out clear in balance in connections. The interesting thing to note is that the studio did not want Robbins for the role, since they really desired Anthony Michael Hall (Hall was ten years younger than Robbins...who was only three years younger than Costner), and it took Shelton threatening to quit for Robbins to stick around. He proves quite genuine here, brimming in confidence that makes for a quality one-two punch for what is needed in a coming-of-age (for baseball) tale that keeps everyone fresh without being sold out for a cheap joke. Let's put it this way: being on the mound in a garter belt makes for quite a fascinating little scene. Wilson (who died the following year at 40) contributes as well in character presence expected for a manager with good timing; the same can be said of Wuhl and his shepherding presence. If you need an easy confirmation that we have a movie that breathes baseball, one could just watch the parts with Max Patkin performing before the game. Patkin was the famous "Clown Prince of Baseball", and he would perform to any size of crowd for over a half-century. As a whole, what matters most for 108 minutes is in how much one connects with the story told here through the lens of sports with people at the crossroads of life, whether that means someone who only just taken their first few steps in a career or for people nearing the end of one path, or for those somewhere in between. In that sense, it makes for a fairly engaging movie, never tiring itself out at any road it wants to take that never compromises its vision for anything, and in the end that means a worthwhile time for all who find themselves involved with it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Editor's Note: Obviously this review was meant to be published at a different time...four days late, as it turns out, since writing this took a bit longer than expected. At any rate, I wanted it to accompany the start of the season in Major League Baseball, back in its regular format of playing in the spring - as always, I hope for a great season, but I also hope that you enjoyed this review as well.

Personally, there is one more thing: Go Astros!

July 21, 2020

Hoosiers.

Review #1481: Hoosiers.

Cast: 
Gene Hackman (Norman Dale), Barbara Hershey (Myra Fleener), Dennis Hopper (Shooter Flatch), Sheb Wooley (Cletus Summers), Maris Valainis (Jimmy Chitwood), David Neidorf (Everett Flatch), Brad Long (Buddy Walker), Steve Hollar (Rade Butcher), Brad Boyle (Whit Butcher), Wade Schenck (Ollie McLellan), Kent Poole (Merle Webb), Scott Summers (Strap Purl), Fern Persons (Opal Fleener), and Chelcie Ross (George Walker) Directed by David Anspaugh.

Review: 
"I took the film at a time that I was desperate for money. I took it for all the wrong reasons, and it turned out to be one of those films that stick around. I was from that area of the country and knew of that event, strangely enough. We filmed fifty miles from where I was brought up. So it was a bizarre feeling. I never expected the film to have the kind of legs it's had."

"For so long studios were afraid of making sports movies because they thought they would only appeal to men. But Hoosiers isn't about basketball...They're about bigger things--family, community, and second chances."

To put it mildly, Indiana loves basketball. If one looks hard enough, you can find plenty of interesting things about Hoosier hysteria for the game, which extends to a film often thought of as one of the best sports movies ever. Writer-producer Angelo Pizzo and director David Anspaugh had first met when attending Indiana University, and each eventually found their way into doing what they liked: to be involved in films, and this was the feature debut for both of them. I think you know the story of Hoosiers, even if you haven't actually seen it. How many of us have grown up in a small town that focused their attention all on one certain part of the high school sports team? I myself can say I've been to countless basketball and football games, and you can certainly see plenty of faces old and new cheering on with pride. Granted, the game and season will end in the same manner, but it is the journey that counts most, right? The film may be very predictable for some, but who can resist a film where the little guy has a shot of winning? There is precedent for this within Indiana sports, with one small inspiration for this film being the 1954 Milan High School Indians, who with an enrollment of 161 students managed to go all the way in the state tournament (which had over 700 schools competing in one tournament), winning it all in the same place that would be used for this film's final: Hinkle Fieldhouse.

One thing that can't be lost in all of this is Gene Hackman. Whether in a supporting role or as star, he certainly knew how to bring a vital energy to the roles he played on screen, which could prove pretty versatile and fairly effective in the right hands. He was cast in this film because of scheduling problems with Jack Nicholson, one of two castings by chance that are interesting to note (the other being Dennis Hopper being cast when Harry Dean Stanton declined).  Although it might seem obvious to note the film's success, Hackman really did believe it wasn't going to be a hit on release, and Anspaugh had some tough times on filming with Hackman. One wouldn't really see any problems here, since Hackman is tremendous here, a show of professionalism and intuition that plays really well to a film that invites one in to no-nonsense warmth. Hershey follows along for the ride with fairness that matches up with Hackman without too many bumps, although the romance between the two seems a bit dubious - an alternative version of the film (which apparently ran at 168 minutes) had more scenes with the two together, although I can't imagine a longer version doing better than the 115 minute version we have here. Hopper, in the midst of a career resurgence with this and Blue Velvet (1986), nearly steals the show. A former addict playing an alcoholic, he proves adept at giving this role the gravitas and care it needs to come alive with warmth that permeates interest whenever on screen. The others prove just fine in giving the small-town spirit the film requires, following along certain traits you could see in your town or in other sports films, whether involving the small athletic wonder, the devout athlete, or the opinionated townsfolk (headed by a distinct Ross). The basketball sequences prove fine in emulating classic 1950s basketball in the midst of fairly effective small town sequences destined to warm the heart of those living in the heartland desiring exactly this kind of film. It overcomes any lingering sense of hokey hooey with enough authenticity to make an interesting piece in the sports film library with a presentable charm and a well-rounded core to go with it all.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.