The Film Eight Men Out - Movie Review Example

Eight Men Out Eight Men Out is a film based on the true story of a team of baseball players in the World Series that took place in 1919 (Laidman). Prior to the film, a writer by the name Eliot Asinof published his works on the event in 1963 (Susman). The film presents several similarities as well as differences in relation to the real-life story. The film is about real baseball players and bases on an actual event that took place. The film uses the real names of the baseball players for its characters, bringing out the event clearly and in a lively manner (Susman). The movie uses an outdated Hollywood approach of narrating the event by introduction of characters using their names and offering them a brief description as the film begins (Ebert)The casting of the film was great, although some of the characters had little similarities in terms of appearance when compared to the original baseball players. For example, Carlie Sheen bore little resemblance to Happy Felsch, and John Cusack had a significantly different look from that of Buck Weaver. The characters had some similarities among themselves and so it was difficult to distinguish them (Ebert). The timing of the film is perfect. The events in the movie take place in the timeline of the real occurrences (Susman). The film well captures the dates and uses lighting effects to enable the viewer to identify the scenes of the film in a historical perspective. The chronology of events averagely depicts the nature of the real events (Ebert). However, the focus of the film on the story raises doubt, because the film director seems to be “so close to the material” (Ebert). The movie begins with numerous vignettes and brief stories about the characters, which do not provide a clear establishment of the characters (Ebert). The film fails to provide a detailed account of some events, for instance, the plans and manipulations of the gamblers do not come out in a detailed manner (Ebert). The film takes a reductionist approach in presenting conclusions based on a summary of evidence (Laidman). However, in the real event Weaver was among the front liners in making the fix, and even saw Gandil arranging cash for their pay. The event was dramatic when Comiskey released a press statement dismissing allegations of a fix, offering $20000 to any person having evidence, and excluding Weaver from an investigation on the he commissions he gets on all players (Linder). The stage-managing of scenes at the ballpark was excellent and provided the reality of the events that took place in the scene (Susman). For instance, the film presents suspicion about the game when a sportswriter, Fullerton, dramatically expresses his concern on the possibility that the game was unfair in some way. Fullerton’s concerns and shock on the way the game is progressing provides a more vivid outlook of the real event and he dominates most part of the film (Ebert). However, Lardener, who hangs out with Fullerton in most scenes, is not easily identifiable (Ebert). In the real event, Fullerton, together with Mathewson, identified areas of possible inconsistencies in the game. Fullerton went ahead to publish an article on the influence of gamblers on the outcome of baseball games. His focus was on the World Series event, upon which he suggested the appointment of Kenesaw to investigate the possible interference of the game. The film presents discrepancies in some of its scenes. A conspicuous form of inconsistency in the film is a scene where Sweeney bats using his right and throws with his left arm, while Jackson bats from the left but throws using his right arm (Laidman). These discrepancies show errors in shooting the film, or inadequate understanding of the baseball game. The inconsistencies present an account that is different from reality. The professional baseball players would not make such obvious mistakes. Another difference from the real story emerges when a fan requests Jackson to sign his autograph at the courthouse (Laidman). The reality is that many people knew that Jackson could not write and so this event was definitely out of context and divergent from the actual events. The film drew its storyline of the account of events from Asinof’s book. The book of Asinof and the subsequent filming of the story do not accurately portray the real account of events (Ebert). He compiled his book from the Grand Jury proceeding articles, which allowed few people to attend (Laidman). The persons who were present in the proceedings wrote the account in their perspective and this could have a negative implication on the quality of the work. The film may seem even further from reality based on the journalism of that time whose main feature was exaggeration and use of hyperbole. Asinof and the film producers did not manage to speak to any surviving members of the baseball team in order to get the account of the events firsthand (Susman). Jackson participates in deals with the Sox according to the film. In reality, Williams denies this and asserts that Jackson never took part in deals, but his celebrity name was a tool of bargain for extra cash (Linder). The reality was that Jackson was in the fix without his knowledge and due to the guilt and fear that came with the action of conspiring, he decided to take the money. Jackson was not bright and could not participate in gambling tricks that require wisdom and wits (Linder). Jackson received cash as the series went on according to the film. However, the truth is that Jackson only received his earnings after the game (Linder). In the real event, Williams and Jackson received $5000 each as their payment after the games that the Reds won. According to a confession by William in the year 1920, he went to see Gandil at the completion of Game 4. Gandil showed him two envelopes containing his money and that of Jackson (Linder). The other notable contrast from the reality of events is when a boy in the film begs Jackson outside the court to deny the charges and claims against him. Jackson denied the occurrence of such an incidence in an interview conducted in 1948 (Linder). The film should have put into consideration such conversations and confessions by the real players. The integration of the ideas and account of events from the real players would help in making the film a more real narration of actual the story. The film’s interpretation of reality distorts the conveyance of the story of the historical event. The film’s perspective of reality manifests itself in the additional scenes and characters, which presents a different view of the historical event (Laidman). An example of the film’s interpretation of reality that does not work well occurs at the scenes where the players make deliberate instead of subtle errors in order to lose (Ebert). The baseball players in that scandal did errors, but these errors were so smart that it took the assessment of Fullerton and former baseball star Mathewson to mark the spots they considered suspicious (Linder). However, the movie’s interpretation of reality also gives insights into the truth of the story. The film suggests that if Comiskey, the owner of the baseball team, would have treated his players well, the “Black Sox scandal” would not exist (Ebert). In reality, Comiskey exploited the players by offering them low pay and this unfair treatment made the players to develop the urge “to sell their baseball souls” to get extra cash (Linder). In conclusion, the movie generally presented the historical event at a more than average level of accuracy, though the story is not easily understandable for a person who has never heard of the scandal (Ebert). Since the scandal took place long time ago, the movie would have been better if it offered an understanding of the story before focusing on elements of art and drama (Ebert). Although there were acts of omission and addition, the film captures the major events of the 1919 scandal. The film’s use of fiction in some scenes added humor to the storyline. For example, it emerges that the amount of time it takes a person to complete four beers, is the same time it takes for Jackson struggle signing an autograph for a fan. However, the real historical event would be more intriguing due to the level of detail the event presents. The various secretive deals and the people involved makes the real story more detailed and fascinating as compared to the summed up evidence in the film. The movie version is insightful and acts as a revelation of the real events that took place. References Ebert, Roger. Eight Men Out Movie Review & Film Summary (1988) | Roger Ebert.Rogerebert.com. N.p., 1988. Web. 21 Oct. 2014. Laidman, Brad. Film Threat - Eight Men Out. Filmthreat.com. N.p., 2014. Web. 16 Oct. 2014. Linder, Douglas. An Account Of The 1919 Chicago Black Sox Scandal And 1921 Trial.Law2.umkc.edu. N.p., 2010. Web. 16 Oct. 2014. Susman, Gary. Eight Men Out: 25 Things You Didnt Know About The Classic Baseball Drama.The Moviefone Blog. N.p., 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2014. Read More