Mallory McDuff at the Huffington Post draws an interesting parallel between Moneyball, the Wall Street protests and the Republicans protesting President’s Obama’s call to have the very rich pay their fair share of taxes:
The game of baseball, as depicted in “Moneyball” is about statistics; our current national pastime of political wrangling about taxation is about math, as Obama reminded us from the Rose Garden. But the movie — and our fate as a country — is also about openness to change, innovative problem-solving, and a moral ground that will benefit the team, rather than showcase individual players.
…
Many of the scenes in the movie hold truths for a country struggling to gain momentum with 9 percent unemployment and disillusionment with corporate and political leaders. As we head into this election season, we must remember that in the end, the “team” is our entire country, which risks a big-time loss if we cannot regain our vision and power as one nation under God.
“There are rich teams, and there are poor teams; then there is 50 feet of crap. And then there’s us,” says general manager Beane, describing the gap between winning major league teams and the Oakland A’s.
The cardboard signs of protesters occupying Wall Street reflect a similar gap between corporate profits and the household economics of the middle class: “We are not leaving — not while the richest 1 percent own 75 percent of the USA’s wealth,” and “Wall Street is our street.” Such disparity creates an image of the middle class, like the Oakland A’s in the film, as an “undervalued island of misfit toys.” But we must remember that social movements in this country have not relied on star political leaders, but rather on a common identity of those who aim for justice for all. Our history and abilities as organizers, even as underdogs, can mobilize our power to revision our country.
She closes her piece this way:
Baseball as a metaphor for life may seem as cliché as quoting Yogi Berra or “A Field of Dreams.” But it really isn’t over until it’s over. We must ask the hard questions that can lead to rebuilding a nation where we want to raise our children, where there is justice for all.
Theologian Richard Rohr notes that easy answers, instead of hard questions, allow us to want to change others, rather than allowing God to change us. “We do not think ourselves into new ways of living, we live ourselves into new ways of thinking,” he says. That liminal place between knowing and unknowing, that openness to change, can prepare us to reform the institutional systems that create these enormous gaps between wealthy and poor.
As Babe Ruth once said, “The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don’t play together, the club won’t be worth a dime.” With the bases loaded and the stakes high, it’s now our turn to play ball.
Meanwhile, last Wednesday one of the greatest baseball nights in history played out. Says the Washington Post’s David Sheinin:
But for as long as there is baseball played, Wednesday night will be remembered as the night that turned history upside-down, when the impossible was not only possible, but expected.
There are several forces that make Moneyball a movie for right now, none of them, as it turns out, have to do with how Billy Beane changed the way the game was played. This is the one thing it does have in common with The Social Network: people who thought it was about Facebook missed what it as entirely – yes, to a degree Zuckerberg changed the way we socialize with each other forever. Forever. But in another way, this was a film about who we were/who we are in 2010.
The spirit of the underdog is captured so beautifully in Moneyball, and that’s what we all saw when the impossible happened on the baseball field. That kind of unexpected miracle is bound to turn heads Moneyball’s way, if for no other reason than to celebrate the game in yet another of its onscreen incarnations. This holds true even if they don’t go on to win the big one. This is the theme of Moneyball – the final game, the big win, isn’t what counts, as we learned on Wednesday. There is no final game that can top it.
You really don’t have writers like Aaron Sorkin, Steve Zallian on a project and not have it have their work reflect greater relevance to the world at large. Sorkin, in particular, always has one finger pressed firmly against the politics of our culture, and the politics of our government. Whether Sorkin was trying to say something about “the new” in terms of politics is a mystery — but probably not. Does the zeitgeist care if the author intended it to be timely or not? It does not.
Baseball and America are threaded so tightly together that it’s hard to not extrapolate broader themes about our country from the film. The tradition of baseball has been threatened by the statistical approach put in motion by Beane, though not invented by him. Still, anyone who knows a lot about baseball complains about many aspects of it, like this piece where the author believes Moneyball is a cynical look at baseball:
“Moneyball” focuses far more on the business and financial aspect of baseball vs. the love of the game itself. Although having thoroughly enjoyed movies such as “For the Love of the Game” and “Field of Dreams,” and having watched “Sandlot” more than a hundred times, this movie was definitely not enjoyed as much. Maybe it is because when you have a genuine love for the game itself, the brutality of the financial and business aspect of the game destroys the beauty of the on-field action. This movie ruins the traditional view of baseball as portrayed in movies such as the three aforementioned films, tearing away from the ballgame itself and focusing on the fact that money drives the game.
Did we see the same film? Because the film I saw clearly illustrates how money was driving the game long before the moneyball model was adopted. Money has ruined a lot of games, in fact. As a fan of baseball briefly it was never fun to see a beloved member of a team traded or bought by another team that could pay more. I never wanted to watch the team who got my favorite player because I wanted to stay loyal to the team I loved. Loyalty has never factored in much, has it? It’s always been about the money. At least with Moneyball, it’s more about finding true strengths in forgotten places.
My dictionary defines the zeitgeist this way: the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time.
When I think about a film that captures the zeitgeist, I think more about the mood of the country, and what really captures present day – not just here in America but globally. To define the Oscar race for the past six years, it has been clear to me that the bleakness of the wars in Iraq and in the post-9/11 era that films like The Departed, No Country for Old Men and The Hurt Locker did, in their own way, capture the zeitgeist, in that, they reflected the somber moods, the hopelessness and perhaps the simmering frustration.
Coincidentally, The Ides of March also finds itself in zeitgeist territory, not intentionally probably, but it comes at a time when we are all questioning our leadership, but particularly our blind faith in leaders who ultimately disappoint us. The Ides of March is brilliant in how it nails the hypocrisy of we the people as much as it nails the inevitable moral failings of our elected officials.
Beyond that, The Artist, The Help and Midnight in Paris are all films about nostalgia for a different time, like last year’s Best Picture winner. And our need to return things back to a way we understand them better is the stuff Oscars are made on.
Everyone loved The King’s Speech. But it said next to nothing about our modern world and it did not capture the zeitgeist the way the Social Network did.
Or did it? The notion of a man overcoming his disability to become a hopeful leader to fight Nazis did, in fact, capture our hopeFULLness. Perhaps what we’ll see in War Horse is an anti-war message, and what we’ll see in Loud and Close is a need to mourn 9/11 and move on from our anger. I suppose the zeitgeist can be defined in different ways, depending on whose defining it.
What a fun looking website. We shall have to check it out. And I *am* one of those who fits into that “I can only draw stick figures” category…though I have always wished I could paint beautiful landscapes.
What a fun looking website. We shall have to check it out. And I *am* one of those who fits into that “I can only draw stick figures” category…though I have always wished I could paint beautiful landscapes.
I’m gonna call it. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close will win Best Picture and Director.
I’m gonna call it. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close will win Best Picture and Director.
“timeliness” can be a killer when it comes to oscar: All the President’s Men, released 3 years after the event, went down to defeat because people were, frankly, sick of hearing about it, even though it was far superior to the winner. Ditto last year – and I don’t even have to go there.
Being timely will guarantee a nomination, but not a win. The Hurt Locker was an anomaly – and a welcome surprise. The Deer Hunter a cathartic necessity, as was The Best Years of our Lives, for its own time. I’m guessing this year, however, you can safely bet against anything referencing the headlines and go with escapism (intelligent, hopefully).
“timeliness” can be a killer when it comes to oscar: All the President’s Men, released 3 years after the event, went down to defeat because people were, frankly, sick of hearing about it, even though it was far superior to the winner. Ditto last year – and I don’t even have to go there.
Being timely will guarantee a nomination, but not a win. The Hurt Locker was an anomaly – and a welcome surprise. The Deer Hunter a cathartic necessity, as was The Best Years of our Lives, for its own time. I’m guessing this year, however, you can safely bet against anything referencing the headlines and go with escapism (intelligent, hopefully).
I’m with Benji. Mr. President and his supporters are engaging in Marxian class warfare (not surprising). Which tells me they are getting desperate. And no, it is not about the team (re: collective). Rugged individualism should be encouraged, but the Left is too intellectually lazy to accept this aspect of our founding.
I’m with Benji. Mr. President and his supporters are engaging in Marxian class warfare (not surprising). Which tells me they are getting desperate. And no, it is not about the team (re: collective). Rugged individualism should be encouraged, but the Left is too intellectually lazy to accept this aspect of our founding.
I see what this articles saying, even if Benji can’t.
Though Benji made a good pt about closing all those tax loop holes. but that still isn’t addressing the whole problem of the right mentality that destroyed/gutted the US
I see what this articles saying, even if Benji can’t.
Though Benji made a good pt about closing all those tax loop holes. but that still isn’t addressing the whole problem of the right mentality that destroyed/gutted the US
on a slightly related note, i work on wall street and went to the protests hoping the rumors that radiohead were playing at 4 were true. they were not. i was sad.
on a slightly related note, i work on wall street and went to the protests hoping the rumors that radiohead were playing at 4 were true. they were not. i was sad.
Bummer. I thought they were gonna play there. Maybe later on? If I lived in NYC I’d be down there protesting. I hope they start one up in LA.
on a slightly related note, i work on wall street and went to the protests hoping the rumors that radiohead were playing at 4 were true. they were not. i was sad.
on a slightly related note, i work on wall street and went to the protests hoping the rumors that radiohead were playing at 4 were true. they were not. i was sad.
Bummer. I thought they were gonna play there. Maybe later on? If I lived in NYC I’d be down there protesting. I hope they start one up in LA.
if we cannot regain our vision and power as one nation under God.
Cripes. That’s our problem right there. That and President Obama’s a secret Republican. I’ve been saying that since he was running.
Anywho, I don’t think Moneyball has anything to do with the people on Wall Street. If it were, people wouldn’t watch. I thought Warrior would resonate with people because one brother is a war veteran, the other is upside own on his mortgage. That seemed like it was a very timely American story but Americans didn’t go see it. Maybe Ides of March will be the timely story.
War Horse is anti-war? That’s interesting. Especially since Saving Private Ryan probably got loads of people to join up. I thought it came out being very much in favor of being a war hero, which I’m sure wasn’t the intention.
if we cannot regain our vision and power as one nation under God.
Cripes. That’s our problem right there. That and President Obama’s a secret Republican. I’ve been saying that since he was running.
Anywho, I don’t think Moneyball has anything to do with the people on Wall Street. If it were, people wouldn’t watch. I thought Warrior would resonate with people because one brother is a war veteran, the other is upside own on his mortgage. That seemed like it was a very timely American story but Americans didn’t go see it. Maybe Ides of March will be the timely story.
War Horse is anti-war? That’s interesting. Especially since Saving Private Ryan probably got loads of people to join up. I thought it came out being very much in favor of being a war hero, which I’m sure wasn’t the intention.
Everyone loved The King’s Speech. But it said next to nothing about our modern world and it did not capture the zeitgeist the way the Social Network did.
I completely disagree. The parallels between Britain’s position in the world at the time of the film, and the USA’s position today, are patently obvious to any observer with the slightest instinct for inquiry.
Mallory McDuff at the Huffington Post draws an interesting parallel between Moneyball, the Wall Street protests and the Republicans protesting President’s Obama’s call to have the very rich pay their fair share of taxes:
Erm, maybe McDuff brings up the eeevil Republicans in her piece somewhere; all I know is it’s not in the bits you’ve selected, and is never mentioned again in your piece. But that’s beside the point. The point is, are we, as thinking people, really expected to swallow this throwaway regurgitation of the White House’s campaign line?
Let’s talk reality:
1. Tax rates increase with income and wealth.
2. When rich people pay fewer taxes, it is not because of the rates, it’s because of exploitable exemptions.
3. Therefore, if we want to get more money out of the rich, we need to eliminate those exemptions, not raise the rates.
4. The Obama administration has been all about exemptions. Did you see the number of “green” exemptions on the tax forms this year? Do you really think that anyone benefits from those more than companies like GE and their executives? I certainly couldn’t, because I can’t afford a bloody Nissan Leaf, tax break or no.
Basically what I’m saying is, don’t blow smoke up my ass and tell me it’s the “zeitgeist.”
Basically what I’m saying is, don’t blow smoke up my ass and tell me it’s the “zeitgeist.”
I don’t know what YOU’RE saying. You’re arguing, I think, with the Huffington Post writer. Where movies are concerned there are a lot of other factors that make them topical and relevant. That writer was not even saying it was a zeitgeisty movie – she was just saying that the same philosophy could apply to government.
Everyone loved The King’s Speech. But it said next to nothing about our modern world and it did not capture the zeitgeist the way the Social Network did.
I completely disagree. The parallels between Britain’s position in the world at the time of the film, and the USA’s position today, are patently obvious to any observer with the slightest instinct for inquiry.
Mallory McDuff at the Huffington Post draws an interesting parallel between Moneyball, the Wall Street protests and the Republicans protesting President’s Obama’s call to have the very rich pay their fair share of taxes:
Erm, maybe McDuff brings up the eeevil Republicans in her piece somewhere; all I know is it’s not in the bits you’ve selected, and is never mentioned again in your piece. But that’s beside the point. The point is, are we, as thinking people, really expected to swallow this throwaway regurgitation of the White House’s campaign line?
Let’s talk reality:
1. Tax rates increase with income and wealth.
2. When rich people pay fewer taxes, it is not because of the rates, it’s because of exploitable exemptions.
3. Therefore, if we want to get more money out of the rich, we need to eliminate those exemptions, not raise the rates.
4. The Obama administration has been all about exemptions. Did you see the number of “green” exemptions on the tax forms this year? Do you really think that anyone benefits from those more than companies like GE and their executives? I certainly couldn’t, because I can’t afford a bloody Nissan Leaf, tax break or no.
Basically what I’m saying is, don’t blow smoke up my ass and tell me it’s the “zeitgeist.”
Basically what I’m saying is, don’t blow smoke up my ass and tell me it’s the “zeitgeist.”
I don’t know what YOU’RE saying. You’re arguing, I think, with the Huffington Post writer. Where movies are concerned there are a lot of other factors that make them topical and relevant. That writer was not even saying it was a zeitgeisty movie – she was just saying that the same philosophy could apply to government.