ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD
A film review by John Walker
Copyright 1994 John Walker
My form of "rating": I started boring people with my comments/praise
as soon as I could; I think I bored practically everybody at
work. Also, the main theme stuck with me for a couple of hours
after I left the show. I probably have to get the soundtrack.
In Brief: As ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD itself says: you've got to
*believe*:
You've got to have faith. You've got to believe. You've
got to look inside yourselves.
If you don't believe, nothing's going to happen. If you do, one
miracle comin' up. You're about to get a dose of sentiment the
like of which the '50s could only try to imitate, and the like of
which succeeding decades have seldom even *tried* to imitate.
Forget sophisticated cynicism. Forget most of this century. If
you're willing to get into it, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD will let
you go back to a time that believed in itself and in us. If all
hope is a lie, maybe it's good to go back to a time that hadn't
been clued in yet. Or if it knew, didn't care, and was willing
to tell "reality" to stuff it.
<>
ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD is a remake of the 1951 flick of the same
name. (I don't run numbers, but I'll note that Leonard Maltin gives
the original three stars; Steven Scheuer gives it three and a half.)
Roger Bowman (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), ten years old or so, is in a
temporary foster-care situation in the home of Maggie Nelson (Brenda
Fricker). Roger is a fan of the rock-bottom total-losers last-place
Los Angeles Angels; his mother's dead; his apparently 20-something
father just isn't up to handling a kid. After a rare meeting with his
father, in which he's been told that he's being handed over to the
courts, Roger asks his father:
"Dad, when are we gonna be a family again?"
"From where I'm sittin'--I'd say when the Angels win the
pennant."
For his father, it's offbeat way to say never. But Roger takes it
more literally. That's what he prays for that night--not even sure
whether there's a God, he or she, much less whether there are angels.
Of course, angels show up the next day, led by Al (Christopher
Lloyd). Of course, only Roger can see them. Of course, the angels
make the Angels win the game.
The ill-tempered manager of the Angels, George Knox (Danny Glover)
can see that *something* odd has happened, and he finds out that Roger
can "see angels". Roger and his younger cohort at Maggie's, J.P.
(Milton Davis, Jr), become sort of mascots--with Knox basically
following Roger's signals.
The angels have their work cut out for them with a team of flakes
and goof balls--and a formerly great pitcher, Mel Clark (Tony Danza),
who only wants a chance to get back on the mound. As the team turns
around with angelic boosting, the nearest this film has to a villain is
Ranch Wilder (Jay O. Sanders)--the Angels' announcer ("The *Voice* of
the Angels"), who tries to put down Knox and the team at every
opportunity.
<>
It's on the tube, but I don't think I've ever seen the original
version of ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD. (Although maybe I have--because
one line hit me with deja vu all over again. [And that, I think, will
be my *only* "baseball metaphor" in this review.]) Turner
Entertainment owns it now, and apparently it's *not* on video. I hope
they bring it out.
This 1994 ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD doesn't feel like a "remake" so
much as a "re-creation". Yes, it's set in the '90s. Yes, it's updated
a bit. But its values, its outlook, its sentiments, and everything
about it are really from a time when Hollywood more or less actually
believed in the values and outlook of ordinary nobodies. Even when
Hollywood didn't really believe, it exulted in expressing those views
-- doing so as a sort of noblesse oblige.
This was, this *is*, a 1940s film. (Ignore the technicality of
the 1951 date: The '50s didn't begin until noon, January 20, 1953.)
Almost needless to say, this '94 version came from Walt Disney
Pictures.
<>
There are some nice touches in the updating, by the way. One
updating will probably go unnoticed, and even reinforces the
hopefulness-quotient. Jackie Robinson had only just broken the color
bar--in what? '48? '49? But now the *manager* is black (as is
Roger's sidekick, J.P.). An utterly trivial point, some might say, but
nice.
So also, the presence of a team called the Angels provided a nice
opportunity. (Dare I say a godsend?) In 1951, the team was the
Pittsburgh Pirates--perhaps chosen because it was the most
*anti*-angelic name available at the time!
In other respects, there's a slight amount more of contemporary
realism. In descriptions of the 1951 film, Roger is an orphan. Now,
there's an absent father who can't cope.
Someone who knows the '51 version would have to comment on any
other changes. The important thing is that the *values* seem to have
stayed the same.
<>
Well, do you *like* those values? Are they *yours*?
When you see MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET, do you see it as only a sort
of traditional Christmas thing? Or do you really *like* it? Do you
figure it says something, however sappy, that needs to be said? Do you
want *more*? Do you want it *now*?
If you *do*, I think ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD will be a
no-compromises triumph for you. (Have your parents [or grandparents]
grumbled that "they don't make 'em like they used to"? If they don't
try to see this on the big screen, you're gonna be able to hold it over
their heads forever. They weren't willing to put their money where
their mouth was.)
If you're undecided, well, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD will be a test
case. Terms like "shameless manipulation" may come to mind. To which
I which only respond, well, *yes*! But shameless manipulation that's
*honest* shameless manipulation! Shameless manipulation that's
*integral* to the whole film! Shameless manipulation where it would
*betray* the whole spirit and soul of the film if it *weren't* there!
Ah, but what if you don't really like those values?
If so, you're gonna have *major* problems with ANGELS IN THE
OUTFIELD.
Let's face it, lots of people approve of the values of the '30s
and '40s so long as those values are safely restricted to the '30s and
'40s. If those values show up in a '90s film, then that film is felt
to be a *lie*. Supposedly, *no one* can believe those things any more
-- they *must* be lying! Even a remake has to be "intellectually"
updated, according to this view.
And even many folks who are not so puritanically modernistic still
cannot quite bring themselves to go along. Yes, they feel, it might
even be *better* if we could believe that stuff again--but, sigh,
well, who can? We can suspend disbelief in events, even angels; but we
can't suspend disbelief in values, attitudes, and outlooks--even for
a remake.
<>
I'm trying to find something wrong with ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD.
Well, it ain't in the acting, anyway.
Gordon-Levitt carries a large chunk of the film. He plays Roger
as all eagerness and hope at some times, and dealing with a basically
painful, lousy situation at others. Given the role, he doesn't have to
deliver a gigantic range, but he projects Roger's emotions effectively
throughout. He gives us a kid who may not understand what's going on,
but he wants it to work. (He seems familiar. I can't place where. I
have to assume it's from some minor role or from one of my occasional
glimpses at the tube. But it's sort of fun to imagine he might
resemble a kid in some 50- or 60-year-old flick!)
Glover handles the manager's role easily. He's able to be the
hard charger who checked his heart at the door, and then learn to ease
up--if only, at first, not to offend the angels! Fricker just
radiates basic common sense and decency. Lloyd is suitably wacky as
Al. Danza is convincing in a dramatic role as the pitcher hanging on
tenacity and willpower, even while his arm is finding the job harder
and harder to do. Sanders is particularly neat as the creep we're
hoping to see fall on his face. His performance gave me one of the few
times when I could understand the idea of "the guy you love to hate".
Davis makes his sweet little J.P. basically believable as well as
likable. I think some may find the sweet a bit strong, but this is a
'40s remake. (Let's face it, this film would be great for a suitable
'40s "New Yorker" cartoon--with director William Dear prompting Davis
or Gordon-Levitt: "In *this* take, I want you to *pluck* their
heartstrings rather than *tug* them!")
Some of the team may be a little hard to take--they're divided
between modern and ethnic baseball-player types and types straight out
of 45-years-ago comedies. (The types have never really left comedy,
but again I'd like to see the original to see how much is *directly*
from the past.)
I suppose for at least some of us who *like* the '30s-'40s
sweetness and light, the too-obvious comic figures might be the first
candidate for expendability. But the original is from the era of the
Bowery Boys and other staples who make its stereotypes look modest by
comparison. If I have to put up with a few details that I think went
too far, that's a small price to pay for the rest of the film.
The screenplay is by Dorothy Kingsley, George Wells, and Holly
Goldberg. I've got to see the original if only to see what they
changed. The music, by the way, is by Randy Edelman. It moves nicely
between upbeat "contemporary" for some of the game scenes, and a full
cinematic treatment for maximum effect.
<>
So, where does that leave us? Is the '94 version of ANGELS IN
THE OUTFIELD an anachronism? *Of course!* Is it wallowing in
sentiment? *Undoubtedly!* Is it "unrealistic"? *Certainly!*
But let it never be forgotten that those are *not* criticisms.
For some of us, they're not even mere descriptions. They're virtues.
With a film like this, I like it not in spite of the fact that it is
"false", but *because* of it. I can admire both CAMILLE CLAUDEL and
ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD: one for telling a painful truth, the other for
defying the same sort of truth.
I don't expect angels to swoop down and get my work done for me.
God doesn't do dishes or fix flats. But some mornings, just getting up
can be said to be a miracle, and plausible evidence of divine
intervention.
It is precisely because ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD is impossible that
it is hopeful; it is because it is false, that it is true.
End of basic review. Comments requiring spoilers follow.
Spoilers follow.
<>
One has to be careful of a religious issue like spoilers, so I
decided not to mention that if you saw the trailers, you got a synopsis
up through the climax. At least when I saw it, I *knew* what was going
to happen. (Although maybe that was subliminal memory from a forgotten
viewing)
What's the specific spoiler in the trailer?
Well, I'm not going to give *everything* away!
A more interesting spoiler concerns the ending itself. Yes, I
*wanted* Roger's father to come back with a miracle. But this is a
very fine ending--and perhaps better from the '40s-sentiment point of
view. My tribute to the film (almost a "rating") is that I didn't
think of either the problem or its resolution until *after* I was out
of the theater.
The funny thing was, that after I left the ending left me all
upbeat and whatnot, I suddenly turned somber.
Knox is black, Roger is white. Aren't most jurisdictions cool on
interracial adoption? The neat thing, of course, is that J.P.'s being
black finesses at least part of the problem. Moreover, it's a black
adult adopting a white kid. It's not the problem of a minority kid's
sense of identity being swamped in a majority family in a majority
culture. It's the minority guy who's the rescuer, even as the adult
was rescued, in spirit, by the kid. Two very nice reversals, I think.
Intriguingly, this is something a popular '40s flick could never
address. The facts just weren't there. The worlds were too separate.
Again, Jackie Robinson had only just started playing in the majors.
Again, I don't think anyone necessarily *thought* about any of
this. They might even have decided, "Hey, let's have a black manager,"
as an obvious way to update the film. The bottom line, though, is that
it had to be someone like Glover--who was a good choice for the
role. Perhaps someone decided to make J.P. black in response, but I
suspect it was all no big deal.
In any event, it provides a very nice echo of the '40s.
The '40s were not unaware of the difficult balance between groups
keeping their own identity, and yet working together and recognizing
one another's worth. This was the heyday of ethnic politics. And then
and since then, we've always had to deal with the tendencies to
obliterate the differences in forced conformity, or to rule some groups
out of the community, or to split up into warring camps. Presumably,
there has to be a better way.
ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD just ignores the problem and focuses on the
simply human. That resolution *fits*. It's the sort of thing that
fits in with the whole spirit of the film. Unnoticed, perhaps even
unconsciously, the people who put together the remake added something
that could only be added nearly 45 years after the original.
If it's impossible, that's what makes it hopeful. If it's false,
that's what makes it true.
John Walker
walkerj@access.digex.net
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews