Moneyball Reflection

What was your favorite part of Moneyball? Why?

My favorite part of the film Moneyball is the Oakland Athletics’ 20th game after their 19-game winning streak, and they are off to a great start beating the Kansas City Royals 11 runs to none. Billy Beane, Oakland’s manager, who never watches their games as he is scared to jinx them, comes back to watch the Athletics play for the first time. When the Royals come up to bat, the Athletics’ confidence and cooperation starts wavering and slowly Kansas City started slowly catching up to Oakland. The second the score is tied 11 to 11, it is Oakland’s turn to bat and Art Howe, the head coach of the Athletics, makes a big decision. He motions for Scott Hatteberg, a defensive player to grab a bat and get on the field, and with a confused face he does as he is told. Hatteberg gets ready to bat and the stadium goes silent; the fans nervous and fellow players hesitant. As the Royals pitch the ball in slow motion Hatteberg hits the ball and it soars high into the air, landing in the crowd and earning the Athletics’ a home run and they win, a surprisingly high score of 12 to 11. This was my favorite part of the film because it seemed like Billy Beane really had jinxed the team, the music was sad and everything looked terrible for the Oakland As. But when Howe makes the decision to let Scott Hatteberg bat and he wins the game for the team, it shows how amazing this team is and how deserving they are of a now 20 game winning streak.

To what extent would you say that Beane was a courageous leader? What are some examples and how much did courage culminate in better results?

Billy Beane was definitely a courageous leader, to what extent is up for debate. The one thing that sets him apart from anyone else who was a part of the Oakland Athletics and their success is how he truly believed in his ideas and philosophies, and even when no one supported him he didn’t lose confidence in himself. It’s a good thing his confidence didn’t waver because his ideas were the reason why the Oakland Athletics had a huge comeback. His courage to let go of his best players such as Carlos Pena and other main players on the Athletics, although it looked like he had given up on the team, it really allowed for them to thrive. People criticized his decisions to change the team’s roster, but later complimented his courage. Billy Beane’s decisions changed the face of baseball forever, but if he had listened to the mean comments people constantly threw at him, nothing would ever have changed.

There are a number of times when the team’s manager, Art Howe, defies Billy’s requests for line-up changes. Each is trying to put the best possible team on the field, but they are using two different paradigms for making those decisions. How does Billy handle Art’s defiance and, given that Billy is Art’s boss, what do you think of Billy’s approach?

The two had completely different philosophies on what would make the Oakland Athletics successful in the Major League Baseball Association. Art Howe, the main coach of the Athletics, coached with a very traditional approach, playing the players with the most experience, while Billy Beane the team’s general manager was focused on a very new approach, not yet used in the sport of baseball. Billy used a philosophy from a book he read called Moneyball, and used statistics and math done by his assistant Peter Brand to pick players and help his team perform the best possible. Howe’s line-ups were as they always were, the all-star players who didn’t seem to care as much anymore. Billy used his statistics and did have a higher position but I felt Howe and Beane should have worked together rather than dispute the line ups, but personally I feel it is ultimately the head coach's job to pick and choose the lineups.

Satire vs Parody

The two films to be compared and contrasted here are the Princess Bride and Robin Hood: Men In Tights, both set in a Renaissance era, but each with their own style of plot and storyline.

The first film to be analyzed will be the Princess Bride, directed by Rob Reiner, but original novel written by William Goldman. I believe this film was the satire of the two films, because as stated in its very definition, it definitely attempted to “bring about societal change by making a serious point through humor and irony.” There are many possible morals to the story of the Princess Bride, but this is the one that resonates with me personally the most. The theme that to me is the most applicable to the movie, is the idea of the impossible. Constantly, Vizzini doubts the man in black’s strength but is completely in awe when he (inconceivably) manages to beat Inigo in a swordfight and Fezzik the giant in a weaponless wrestle, and even eventually beating him in a battle of wits. Later, Buttercup realizes the man in black who has ‘kidnapped’ her is actually her true love Westley, which is very much impossible as she received word not long ago that he was killed by the Dread Pirate Roberts. Westley and Buttercup survive a journey through the fire swamp, something considered impossible as no one else had lived to tell about it. Westley goes through intense torture ordered by Prince Humperdinck and dies but miraculously comes back to life. Nothing is impossible in the Princess Bride, and I believe this is the point that the writer was trying to make in order to make societal change.

The novel written by William Goldman was immediately classified as a satire when it was published, and the film was made similarly to how the book was written, with the author (the grandpa and his grandson) narrating the story and sometimes interrupting to comment their views on a scene. This is the first element of satire in this film as it is shown right from the start, adding a different aspect to the film. In addition to the added comments from the narrator, the grandfather while reading to his sick grandson purposefully skips the more mushy or boring parts for the sake of the boy’s attention to the story. For example in the final scene of the film Westley and Buttercup ride off into the sunset and look at each other and suddenly the screen cuts to the grandfather who stops reading and closes the book, because the boy before did not want to hear the ‘kissy’ parts of the story. Now, with a change of perspective the boy insists on hearing the rest of the book and the grandpa continues describing the kiss between the two lovers and reads the last words of the book with a smile. Another key factor of a satire is the use of humor, irony and exaggeration to prove a point; one of my favorite quotes from the movie is when Miracle Max is trying to revive the “mostly dead” Westley. Max tries to avoid the fact that Westley mutters “true love” under his breath and changes the subject to how good MLTs are (mutton, lettuce, tomato sandwich). The second he hears that if revived, Westley would humiliate his arch enemy, Prince Humperdinck, Max agrees to help. Once Inigo and Fezzik are given the miracle pill and run off, Max and his wife laugh about how their plan to stop Humperdinck’s wedding would take a “miracle.” Little comments like these make up the film’s satire genre.

The second film to be looked at is the film Robin Hood: Men in Tights, an obvious parody to Howard Pyle’s novel, Robin Hood. This film is most definitely the parody of the two as the film had little to no plot or moral to the story, and was not aiming to make any sort of societal change. The one thing that was mocked consistently throughout the film was religion. At this period in time Christianity ruled and other religions were seen as heresy, but the film does not stay true to this fact as the Jewish rabbi appears many times throughout the movie. The rabbi passes by the Merry Men in Tights while delivering sacred wine, and insists they can’t drink it as it is used for blessings. He realizes there are many things to be blessed in the forest: trees, rocks, grass, using this logic he allows the men to drink the wine he is delivering. Another object of mockery pertaining to religion was Maid Marian’s chastity belt and virginity. She even says at one point something along the lines of “I will not give myself away unless I am married, or the man confesses his endless love for me, or if he’s really cute.” Her “chastity belt” is an Everlast, with a lock on it. At the end of the movie Robin realizes the gift his late father left him contains the key to this belt, meaning the two were destined to be together from the start. In the end, Robin Hood and Maid Marian get married to support the tradition of marriage before sex, but by a Jewish rabbi, as a final act of making fun of the religious traditions of the Renaissance.

These two films although set in similar time periods had completely different objectives, as the Princess Bride aimed to make a serious point and Robin Hood Men in Tights aimed to entertain.