Professional Sports in American History - Movie Review Example

As a result, neither the book nor the movie contain what is traditionally considered to be a protagonist, the type of character that someone gets emotionally involved with and roots for. In part, this is due to complexity of the characters who are not presented in simple black and white terms as stock heroes or villains. Because an author just by virtue of his medium has more time to evoke resonance and nuance than a fillmaker, Eliott Asinof succeeds in portraying the scandal with more complexity than John Sayles can in his film.

The true story behind what really happened in any actual event is always dependent upon a variety of elements. Since no one involved at any level in this drama can possibly come out looking anything better than unscrupulous or gullible, it should not be at all surprising that any of them might have been unwilling to be completely honest. The statements given by the players to the Grand Jury raised more than questions than answers, and the true story of the gamblers who set the whole thing in motion will forever remain steeped in the mysterious code of omerta that makes most underworld dealings an account of rumors at best.

That atmosphere of ambiguity and uncertainty is felt throughout the book and, indeed, lends it a sense of greatness. The reader can never be completely certain just how deeply involved in the scandal were such players Buck Weaver and Shoeless Joe Jackson. Since movies are made for the satisfaction of a mass audience that has less patience with unanswered questions, John Sayles was forced to be less indefinite. The film provides a starker contrast between those players who are committed to the act of athletic sabotage and those who are assumed to be mere pawns in a much more dangerous game.

The difference is not necessarily artistic, but economic. The wider the intentended audience for a work art, the less likely one is to see nuance and subtlety. As an example, compare an independent film about a low-budget independent film about a parent/child relationship with any top rated sitcom. One central similarity between the book and the movie is the decision to make pitcher Eddie Cicotte the emotional center. Cicotte, despite being one of those players for which there is little doubt he was a willful participant, nevertheless seems to have the best reason of all to do what he did.

The book and movie both present Cicotte as the primary recipient of White Sox owner Charlie Comiskey's sensational greed, but while also falling short of turning him into a hero; he was a great pitcher who was denied a bonus for winning thirty games in a season only because he, allegedly, Comiskey ordered him to be benched so he wouldn't have the chance. While both book and movie strive to make Eddie Cicotte at least sympathetic if not actualy laudable, he is used to different ideological aims in the two media.

For Asinoff, Cicotte's position is exploited primarily as a figure who is opposition to Charlie Comiskey. In the book, Eddie Cicotte comes across as older and a bit more fragile, an aging pitcher whose arm was the feeling the effects of the thousands of balls he'd pitched over the year. Despite the fact that his contributions and loyalty were expressed in a 29-7 record, however, his bank account did not reflect his part in providing owner Comiskey with a team