"Anybody who uses computers doesn't know a damn thing about this game"
Introduction
In the on-going guessing-game of the Academy Awards, it can
often be entertaining to look at the trajectory of actors who clearly aim to
achieve a statuette. The Trouble with
the Curve clearly gained its finance on the basis that it would become an
Oscar-nominee. Oscar-favourite Clint Eastwood leading the film supported by
Oscar-nominee’s Amy Adams (who has a huge shot of winning one after her role in
The Master); supporting-actors from The Artist, The Descendants and The Social Network in John Goodman, Matthew Lillard and Justin Timberlake
respectively. Trouble with the Curve should
be (and will be) sold as a heart-warming, sport-centric story in the vein of Moneyball and The Blindside (Just compare posters). This should be the film that sits awkwardly amongst the ten Best
Picture nominees. It would never win, of course, but enough people will watch
it on the basis of the nomination alone to justify the cost. It would then
become the core-film in a book titled “D.I.Y Oscar Contender”…
The Story Is...
Unfortunately, Trouble
with the Curve will not even get a look-in at the Academy Awards. This is a
confused-film that doesn’t seem to truly grasp what is central to the story. It
jumps between attempting to prioritise Eastwood’s aging baseball scout as the
central narrative, before moving towards Amy Adam’s ‘Mickey’ and her romance
with Justin Timberlake. Amongst the character-stories, we are also teased a
story regarding an arrogant, sexist teenager shortly before he joins the
big-leagues whilst Eastwood’s boss is conflicted about an 80-year-old scout
choosing the most important player of the season; especially when computer
programs can use statistics to generate details that invalidate the purpose of
scouting completely.
Pacing and Tension
Trouble with the
Curve seems to be under the impression that you have never seen a film
before – and basic knowledge of pacing and set-ups ruin any tension the film
attempts to create. Amy Adams and Clint Eastwood arrive at a motel and,
fleetingly, two young boys run past to play baseball – only to be told by their
Mother, the motel-owner that they need to complete some chores before they can
play. It is clear that this is vital to the story and, despite the boys not
appearing in the film during the following hour, you know they will return. And
they do. And they save the day.
The same frustration sinks in as the film draws to a close
and Amy Adams, a lawyer who throughout the film is attached to her mobile
phone, stands by a large bin when leaving a baseball stadium. Eastwood
re-informs her (as he has throughout the film) about her constant use of a
mobile phone… and guess what happens…
The script jarringly attempts to make profound statements
about the importance of wisdom and age – as Eastwood can pick-up certain ‘skills’
of players simply by the sound of the baseball hitting the bat. But this is in
contrast to his age becoming a serious cause for concern. Eastwood is losing
his sight and we see awkward moments as he trips over tables, chairs and steps.
I can imagine a group of teenagers will simply see this old-man, stumbling
around on screen, as laughable – and as comedic as Clint Eastwood stumbling on
stage, in ‘support’ of Mitt Romney at the Republican convention.
Throw into the mix cliché scenes of a rousing “you’re
fired!” moment at the end of the film and a romance whereby Justin Timberlake,
despite his obvious, immature flirtations still manages to control the dominant
Amy Adams and you have a film that doesn’t challenge, inform or engage you.
There is a clear right-wing agenda whereby old-age and wisdom is valued higher
than innovation and technological-prowess. Amy Adams, an independent-woman who
carved out an incredibly successful career at a lawyers firm is “better off”
working in baseball, subservient to the “real men” who own the team – and,
obviously, she needs sporty-snake Justin Timberlake to come home to.
Starring Clint Eastwood...
And Eastwood? Despite his stuffy attitude to being
comfortable (“Being comfortable is overrated!”) he manages, for no clear reason
to accept his fate and take a back-seat as his daughter begins to work in the
same profession as he did. A hint of nepotism ensures that Eastwood can rest in
peace and, inexplicably, we assume this resolves his story (I’d be very
interested to see how he actually adapts to this…). Interestingly, this is the
directorial-debut of Robert Lorenz – a producer and second-unit director for
many Clint Eastwood films. In the same way Amy Adams managed to swoop into the
baseball-scouting profession with ease through her Fathers links, I have a
feeling Lorenz would’ve had a hard-time finding the support without his own
Eastwood connections. Because, like hitting a home-run, this film will
disappear into the distance - and it will rest amongst the forgettable made-for-TV
and ‘true-story’ films that litter the path of an actor’s career.