MovieChat Forums > 61* (2001) Discussion > There's one in every batch

There's one in every batch

posted 20 years ago by schappe1
10 replies | jump to latest

If you are pre-disposed to dislike an historical film, one of the things you can do, as "Idavis 2" did in his review, is to focus on minutia and use it to claim that the film itself is "false":

- In fact, Jerry Lucas was named Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of the year for 1961, not Roger Maris. (Nor was Roger named SOY in any other year). Even if Roger had won the award, what does that have to do with his relationship with the New York Press, which is what, (this theme in), the movie is really about?

- The statement that the media "slammed" the commissioner for the 154 game ruling is unsupported. The book "61*" has an excerpt from a Sporting News editorial from July 28th of that year suggesting that all records from an expanded season should be questioned as to their "bona fides". There are also quotes from a number of baseball people on the subject, many of whom suggest that the record needed to be set in a 154 game season to count. It was obvious the focus was on Maris and Mantle- no other record was threatened that season.

- It doesn't matter who presented Maris with his 1960 MVP plaque. It's a perfectly acceptable use of dramatic license to use this scene to introduce Frick as a character.

- The fact that the "x" autograph incident occurred in 1962 rather than 1961 is irrelevant. It’s part of the story of the relationship between Maris, the fans and the press. Again, a perfectly acceptable use of dramatic license.

- I'm sure Pressman made more than one report on the Yankees in 1961. He might have made one about "Maris blowing off fans" and another about his teammates rooting for Mickey. It served to bring up a legitimate dramatic point.

- Mantle and Maris were on the cover of Life, not SI. Who cares?

- All the stuff about which pitcher the guys hit which # home run off of and how many they and Ruth had at particular points of the season defines minutia. This does nothing to subvert the drama and human truth of the story. It doesn’t make it a "lie".

- This guy knows when President Kennedy held news conferences?

- One relevant comment is about the friendship between Mantle and Maris. Which is more significant in judging this, an article written in SI in 1961 or all the things said and written by the members of the team, including Mantle, since then? And, if they weren't friends, why did they move in together?

- The movies shows the fans cheering Maris when he hit his 61st home run. The absence of a fan shaking his hands when he crossed home plate is not significant: the scene clearly shows the fans were on his side in that moment.

- So Mrs. Maris was not presented with the bat when she was hospitalized. How does this guy know this? And so what? It makes a good scene. It’s a M-O-V-I-E. The key question is: is it emotionally honest?

- It has always been represented that Maris' record has an asterisk next to it, even though the record book actually just listed two separate records. Billy Crystal didn't make that up. It's hardly a "lie" since the effect is the same.

61* is hardly moot and meaningless. It's the best movie about baseball ever made!

[–] cstangl-1 20 years ago

I agree with the gist of your commentary, but to be pedantic, it is minutiae, not minutia (which is the actual Latin singular term). The only areas where he has traction is the aspect of Mantle's relationship with Maris and the asterisk issue. They weren't sworn enemies, but they weren't as chummy as Crystal presents them either. Further I have no idea why Crystal put an asterisk in the title. That IS historically inaccurate and it's not just license. Crystal's extensive baseball knowledge indicts him here, because he really should have known better. There was no asterisk in the record book and putting one in the title - while certainly meant to, in a sympathetic way, recall the controversy - may legitimately be seen as an unintentional (no doubt) disservice to Maris' memory.

More importantly, my other quibble is in calling this the best movie about baseball ever. I simply cannot agree. Besides the usual list of Bull Durham, Eight Men Out, and Field of Dreams, I would also argue that Bang the Drum Slowly is superior. I don't know why it's so often overlooked, perhaps because it was too similar and proximate to Brian's Song. In any event, De Niro and Moriarity are both splendid and the movie has even more nuance and better characterizations than 61. Nothing against this movie, I just don't think it's the best.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] clok52 19 years ago

IMHO, Crystal using the asterisk in the title is his ironic method of commentary. The record is the record, 154 or 162 games not withstanding.
Maris himself made a good point that Ruth didn't have to play night games and he didn't have to travel to the west coast. Ruth supporters make a good case that Maris didn't have to ride trains and he faced watered-down, expansion team pitching. If memory serves me correctly, there were no ground-rule doubles in Ruth's time, and there are no records as to how many of Ruth's homers would have been doubles in Maris' day. In short, there is no real way to compare their records except to compare Ruth's 60 to Maris' 61. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

No, you can't touch me!

[–] DJMan-51 19 years ago

Check VEECK -- AS IN WRECK, the autobiography of baseball owner/iconoclast/Hall-of-Famer Bill Veeck. Just a few years past 1961, he gives a nice summary of what a dummy or manipulator Comissioner Frick was in ruining what should have been baseball's greatest moment.

To be fair, Frick might have really thought that the 162-game season was a temporary aberration. In fact, it's lasted over 40 years. But given desegregation, night lights, expansion, what have you, eight extra games are trivial. One can state a hundred arguments for or against Maris' record.

The film succeeds in communicating that Maris gave it his best, and that he got dumped on, ruined in fact, because he wasn't Mickey Mantle, wasn't Babe Ruth. That's a tough standard.

The Hall of Fame Veterans' Committe will be voting in March. Maybe Gil Hodges, maybe Ron Santo, but not Maris, I'm pretty sure. His best chance was just after McGwire's '98 dragged him back into the spotlight, but for some reason, he was briefly ineligible.

[–] Darguz 20 years ago

- The absence of a fan shaking his hands when he crossed home plate

Actually, this event is depicted quite clearly in the film. The person playing the fan is Andy Strassberg, a life-long Roger Maris fan who was present at the original game when he was 13 years old. Andy also served as a consultant for the film.

As to the accuracy of the portrayal of M&M's relationship, Billy met Mickey on the Dinah Shore show in 1977, and the two of them became close friends and remained so for almost 20 years until Mantle's death. I would imagine that the subject of Roger Maris came up, oh, once or twice in that time.

Both the Mantle and Maris families were very pleased with this film. I doubt there is any person more qualified to tell the story than Billy Crystal.

[–] bozz282 19 years ago

I don't doubt for onr minute that Mantle's relationship with say, Whitey Ford was comparable to Roger Maris. In everything I have read, Roger & Mickey were friends (didnt say best friends). Afterall, why would two guys that 'just got along' go into business together ? Sure, Mickey had some great friends on the team, Whitey Ford among the best of them. Maris & Mantle were two very different guys.

The fans were clearly very receptive to Maris on the day he hit 61. There is archive film showing the Yankee's pushing Maris out of the dug out to salute the fans cheers.

Many have & will complain about the lack of actual events or the timing of them shown in the film. There are I am sure lots of events that were not shown in the film. One example is that when Maris failed to show for reporter Milt Kahn towards the end of the film, Roger had actually gone to see a sick kid in the hospital. It was felt by Crystal that this was too cliched & left that fact out.

[–] FRANKDRAFTING 18 years ago

Am I the only guy in the world that found Frick's number of games argument to be nuts? If he really wanted to be fair, wouldn't number of at-bats be the way to go? I mean who cares? The record is for one season. That, should be that.
As far as best sports movie is concerned this has to be one of them, but then, I'm a Yankee fan and a Maris and Mantle nut, so I am extremely biased!

[–] DJMan-51 18 years ago

There were 140-game seasons early in the 20th century, but those records aren't distinguished from 154-game records.

Maris didn't hit a homer in the first ten games of 1961. So, Roger hit his 61 over the *last* 152 games. But Frick only wants to count the first 154. It was a pretty sloppy way of protecting Ruth's record.

[–] steveironcity 18 years ago

Frick was a very close friend of Ruths, he even was Babes "ghostwriter" on some of Ruths books (Frick was a sportswriter before becoming the commisioner.)

[–] murfdog19 18 years ago

I think the asterisk is in the title because of the two seperate home run records. It was used to symbolize that a seperate record was recorded for the 162 game season. Also if you remember Frick and the press discussing the record, someone suggests "there should be an asterisk".

Not me, I don't care what happens!