MovieChat Forums > Field of Dreams (1989) Discussion > I don't get this film

I don't get this film

posted 10 years ago by cooler56
10 replies | jump to latest

Maybe you have to be a fan of baseball to appreciate it, but I am not sure why this snooze-fest is rated 7.6. It's a sunday-morning TV movie at best.

The whole premise is ludicrous. A guy builds a baseball field, not just a patch of grass, but effing yankee stadium in his backyard because voices were telling him to? Not a very strong start IMO since the first few minutes should pull you into the film.

And then we get these ghosts for no reason - again where did it all come from?
Then we meet one boring character after another that is a square peg trying to jammed over and over again into the square hole of a storyline. Honestly I could care less about Terence Mann or whatever, even though they emphasized over and over again how important they were to Ray and his wife- something I just could not believe in.

And then it turns out the main character built it all out of some inner desire to see his father again- okay great, but this movie FAILED at building that connection between him and his father and his love for baseball. The main character himself stated how uninterested he was in baseball- why is his father's unrequited parental love and remorse so tied to baseball? Because he wanted to be a baseball player at one point, and never got a chance to play catch with him? what a crock.

When the daughter fell off the bleachers I lost it. I could not take this film seriously any more from that point. All of these ghosts, disembodied voices, ignorant rural Midwestern folk, make for one very underwhelming film. Oooh, they are behind on their mortgage payments! The evil bank is going to get them unless the ghost baseball players are going play a game!

I guess the field is supposed to be some metaphor for the afterlife, but is there some "secret" here or some other symbolism that I don't get? Either way, this movie takes two boring things, baseball and farms, and unsurprisingly manages to create something even more boring.

This is supposedly a "fantasy" film but I have seen war documentaries that are more creative and inspiring.

[–] writinman2004 10 years ago

Cool story, troll.

[–] rmh_228 10 years ago

The OP certainly wasted a lot of time writing crap, didn't he?

[–] silvercometred1 9 years ago

"The OP certainly wasted a lot of time writing crap, didn't he?"

This is why I fear for America. The Op is a soulless technical drone that's all about machines, math, and computers and has lost the human ability to enjoy a good story.

[–] Ken1260 10 years ago

I guess the movie was too complicated for you to understand.

[–] truther 10 years ago

I caught this on TV last night and it was even better than I remembered. The movie has aged really well. It's a great film.

It's too bad that you don't get it. I personally know some people who have the same opinion as you so I'm not that surprised. It's a shame, though. I think you're really missing out on something special.

Field of Dreams isn't a baseball movie per se, any more than it's a movie about Iowa, though baseball features prominently. It's a movie about nostalgia and family relationships. Its central message is to love those close to you and to be the best person you can be.

That's why I profoundly disagree with you, for example, about the scene where the daughter falls from the bleachers. Moonlight Graham walks off the field, turns back into his elderly doctor self, and saves the girl at the cost of his own baseball player existence. He can never again play on this field with these heroes of his -- imagine how awful that would be. Yet he's completely at peace with it because being a doctor is more important than being a baseball player. His wife's love, his community's respect and this girl's health are all more important to him than some baseball game in a cornfield. He's a hero precisely because he (rightly) recognizes what's really important in life. That's a pretty powerful statement coming from a film supposedly about how wonderful baseball is.

For such an allegedly syrupy movie Field of Dreams also doesn't take itself too seriously. Scenes like Ray meeting Terrence Mann, or the misunderstandings about who's sending a message to whom, keep the whole thing surprisingly light-hearted. That's a masterful counterweight to the film's underlying message.

You're looking for "secrets" and hidden symbolism instead of just appreciating what's staring you right in the face.

[–] doug65oh 10 years ago

I didn’t “get it” myself, actually (or didn’t think I would) until one afternoon in the late 1980s. The book which served as the basis for Field of Dreams had been out for about three or so years, and I ended up covering a lecture given by its author, W. P. Kinsella for our college newspaper.

Mind you, going into the thing I had no clue of anything much, other than the fact that Mr. Kinsella was a writer of “baseball stories.” Oh, how wonderful I thought. I liked baseball and all that, was pretty well acquainted with the perils of Mr. E. L. Thayer’s “Mudville Nine” on a certain bleak afternoon. But baseball stories?!! At that particular moment the prospect of consuming 20 pounds of overcooked, unseasoned Brussels sprouts in one sitting seemed far more appealing.

The order in which things happened that afternoon is a bit fuzzy, but if memory serves, Mr. Kinsella began by explaining the seed of the tale which ultimately became a “baseball story” and then began to read: My father said he saw him years later, playing in a tenth-rate commercial league in a textile town in Carolina – wearing shoes and an assumed name. He’d put on 50 pounds and the spring was gone from his step, but oh, how that man could hit! No one had ever been able to hit like ‘Shoeless Joe’…

There was more to it, of course, just as there’s more to Field Of Dreamsthan just baseball, but I had to admit that even if it was billed as a “baseball story” he’d made a pretty good start.

There was, said Mr. Kinsella, a film in the works, “We wanted James Earl Jones and we’ve got James Earl Jones” and then went on to explain that J. D. Salinger had been a character in the original novel, but the character of Terrance Mann had to be specially written because nobody much liked the idea of being sued by J. D. Salinger!

Anyway, the central theme throughout seems to be “ease his pain,” and applies in one or another way to damn near everyone in the film. The unfulfilled dreams of long, bygone days magically played out on a baseball diamond cut into an Iowa cornfield.

All of us, no matter who we are have or have had dreams – dreams we’ve set aside for one or another reason. It doesn’t matter if we’re Ray Kinsella, Joe Jackson, Swede Risberg or Archie Graham. There’s something vaguely Frost in the whole business: “I kept the first for another day, yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted I should ever come back.”

Field of Dreams brings us "back" somehow, even if it is only a reminder of times we’ve had, things we have wished for, and things we cannot change. With luck there’s no pain in the reminder, only a moment of blessed understanding.

If you think about it, Field of Dreams is as much a baseball story as To Kill A Mockingbird is the story of a 12 year old boy who got his arm badly broken at the elbow.

[–] MovieKnut 10 years ago

okay great, but this movie FAILED at building that connection between him and his father and his love for baseball

I can appreciate that this will not appeal to everyone. However, I cannot help but question whether you have actually seen the movie. The link was established within the opening minutes, and reinforced throughout.

At one point Kinsella explains to Mann that playing catch with his dad became a chore, like taking out the garbage.

You can't palm off a second-rater on me. You gotta remember I was in the pink!

[–] mikekrit62 9 years ago

"The whole premise is ludicrous"

Pot, meet kettle...

[–] strntz 9 years ago

I guess the field is supposed to be some metaphor for the afterlife

And that kids is the problem with many trolls..

Metaphor? Trolls tend to overestimate themselves and think there must be a secondary meaning to everything. As Freud was often (mis)quoted: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

If you don't like the movie, you don't need to question those who do. Nothing you or anyone can say will change my enjoyment of anything, be it a book, movie, music, food, etc.

It is bad to drink Jobus rum. Very bad.

[–] eelb 9 years ago

Although not usually thought of as science fiction, Field of Dreams is essentially a science fiction movie. One has to have an open mind in regards to this element, if they are to appreciate the film.

The "ignorant rural midwest folk" comment is unnecessary. If I recall, Ray and his wife were college educated. None of the other characters are what I would call ignorant. Obviously you're a hipster in NYC, LA, or somewhere.