Moneyball is a movie in search of an identity. Is it something of a biopic of the general manager of the Oakland A's, Billy Beane? Is it an examination of what goes into the "moneyball" style of managing a baseball team? Is it simply a baseball movie? The answer is a little of all three, but not enough of any.
If the film aims to be a biopic, it fails because Beane isn't fleshed out enough; he's merely a man who fails, tries something new, and doesn't quite succeed with that. The film goes to great lengths to show that Beane was a failed baseball player... but for what purpose? To show he's a different type of general manager? That much is made very clear by him trying the whole "moneyball" concept. To be fair, the film also paints a picture of a divorced father who loves his daughter, but very little comes of that, as well (although, I suppose it becomes the reasoning for the decision he has to make at the end of the film).
The film is clearly does not aim to be a documentary of sorts, explaining the concept of advanced statistics and all that good stuff, the essense of "moneyball" baseball. While that would be interesting to some (me included), a good 90% of the movie-going audience would be lost. So instead, all of it is glossed over, with the audience told that getting on base wins ballgames, accept it and move on. I'm torn whether or not this is a good thing or not, but since I'm a baseball stats geek, I'm too biased to form a proper judgement.
Finally, if the movie aims to be a baseball movie, it fails completely. The only actual baseball action shown was to further the plot of the movie, to show Beane's wishes being ignored, to show the only player featured in depth finally succeeding. Again, this is where my bias comes in - I knew the 2002 Oakland Athletics. I recall the team's later summer run quite fondly, how it happened. The team won 20 games in a row on the strength of quite possibly the greatest home-grown starting rotation ever assembled (led by Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder and Barry Zito), and on the back of eventual American League MVP Miguel Tejada. Sure, Scott Hatteberg contributed, but that team did what it did because of Hudson, Mulder, Zito and Tejada... none of whom were featured in the movie. Hell, Tejada was mentioned in passing once, the back of Mulder's jersey was flashed periodically, and Hudson was seen getting shelled in the 20th game of the streak. That's all. Those four players didn't fit into the "moneyball" concept as presented in the movie... so they were ignored in the film? And here I thought only politicians twisted the facts to fit their own means...
/rant.
The leading performances in this film are extremely strong. I whole heartedly enjoy when I can lose track of the actor in a role, and think of them in terms of the character only, and Moneyball featured two such performances, Brad Pitt and (shockingly!) Jonah Hill. I'm not so sure either are Oscar-worthy, but time will tell.
Overall, I can't say I loved this movie. Maybe it's the baseball fan in me talking, but I'd personally put this in the "summer popcorn flick" category before the "best picture contender" category; enjoyable, but hardly the right caliber of film. The fact that it's nominated over something like 50/50 is a sheer testament to the powers behind the film (Pitt, Sorkin) in contrast to some of the other snubbed films.... but that's a topic for my wrap-up blog post.
