The reviews are in for 42

All right, let’s get this out of the way.

I haven’t seen the movie yet, and will be writing my own review, but I think I’ve heard enough and read enough to spout off.

Since this is a biopic “based on a true story,” I had no qualms about listening to Slate’s Spoiler Special for 42. After all, it’s not like the Jackie Robinson story is a secret and listening to such a podcast will give away the ending.

Film Review: ‘42’

When I heard Dana Stevens chatting with guest Tanner Colby I assumed they were black, judging by their comments about how white directors can’t/shouldn’t make a movie like this and questioning Brian Helgeland — whose previous credits include such puff as A Knight’s Tale (there were also complaints about the use of “modern” music in that one) and The Order (although his writing credits include L.A. Confidential and Mystic River (although they also include The Postman and Robin Hood)) — as to what gives him the “right” to tell this story? I subsequently learned that both Stevens and Colby are white which leads to a generalization that they are of a leftist/liberal bent and overcompensating. (You can read Stevens’ review here.)

There are always going to be divides on a movie like this, which should have been nothing more or less than tribute to a courageous man and a lesson for young people that things were a lot worse for minorities just a few generations ago. And while I will most likely agree that 42 is not a good film — wooden, preachy dialogue; foreshadowing music meant to dictate emotion; cartoon characters; etc. — it’s the way some critics will tiptoe around those facts and go out of their way to say something nice about a project that may not deserve your empathy just because of the subject matter, lest they come across as politically incorrect or insensitive. Can you have it both ways? Can a good and important topic outweigh poor production values?

The divide I have a bigger problem with is letting people who have absolutely no knowledge of sports render opinions about the sports aspects. Both Stevens and Tanner admit they’re not big sports fans but that’s no excuse for Stevens pronouncing it “Duro-shay” — as if it this was France (although, admittedly, the name is of French derivation) — rather than the correct “Duro-sure.” Sorry, that’s just lazy.

As 42 is “based” on a true story, I have no complaints about the historical accuracy of who said what, or if an event isn’t chronologically correct; the essence of the story is the important thing. I’ve read a number of complaints that there’s not enough back story into some of the characters, that they’re just put out there. I was under the impression that 1947, the year Robinson broke the color line, was the focal point. Not his days as a star collegiate athlete, not his days in retirement, not his family, not the racist knuckleheads.

Can you tell I’m conflicted? On the one hand, I would probably agree with those critics who knock the performances, the CGI sets, the music. On the other hand, it’s how they say it that would put me off.

I’m pretty surprised 42 is doing so well according to Rotten Tomatoes. Seems a lot of reviewers believe the message outweighs the shortcomings.

A sampling. I am not revealing the usual “upshots” because I don’t want to influence:

Another thing to point out: writers frequently do not create the headlines for their stories. In some cases, I have found them a bit misleading, not accurately representing what’s in the column. Some readers won’t go beyond the headlines, so it’s important to project the true meaning of what the writer is trying to say.