MovieChat Forums > 42 (2013) Discussion > What events in the movie are not histori...

What events in the movie are not historically accurate?


Thoroughly LOVED this movie. But I don't know that much about the story. What liberties were taken in this movie?

Thanks for any info shared.

reply

The scene where Jackie is leaving on the train and throws the ball to the kid was made up. The kid is ID'd at the end as future big-leaguer Ed Charles.

Charles has talked about how seeing Robinon in spring training did inspire him, but he didn't get to meet him and Robinson never threw him a ball.

On the whole, from what Don Necombe and others from that era have said, the movie was pretty faithful to history.

reply

Thanks, Zevil.

reply

Good question. I was wondering if all the incidents of racism did actually occur as presnted in the movie. I am not from North America and I was stunned after watching this movie how much racism was directed at the African American community particularly Jackie. I wanted to know if all the incidents did happen as per the movie.

My 100 favorite movies http://www.imdb.com/list/Uvw_F2_GMx8/
What are your favorites?

reply

I wasn't there or alive at the time so I can't say for sure about what is shown in the movie, but if you do a google or wikipedia search on Civil Rights Movement you'll find plenty of information indicating that things were worse than shown in the film. In the South, African Americans were often terrorized and/or murdered. It's absolutely crazy to think that so much of this happened not even 70 years ago.

reply

I wasn't there or alive at the time so I can't say for sure about what is shown in the movie, but if you do a google or wikipedia search on Civil Rights Movement you'll find plenty of information indicating that things were worse than shown in the film. In the South, African Americans were often terrorized and/or murdered. It's absolutely crazy to think that so much of this happened not even 70 years ago.


I get what you're saying and I understand things kind of things - and much worse - happened.

But as a biopic, I am interested in which events may have been added for dramatic purposes versus what actually occurred in his life.

reply

I wasn't there or alive at the time so I can't say for sure about what is shown in the movie, but if you do a google or wikipedia search on Civil Rights Movement you'll find plenty of information indicating that things were worse than shown in the film. In the South, African Americans were often terrorized and/or murdered. It's absolutely crazy to think that so much of this happened not even 70 years ago.


There is a scene juxtaposing American indifference in regards to your inquiry.

When they hear about a racist southern mob coming for Jack, he is taken out of the house without explanation. In the next scene when it is revealed why he is being hurried away, he laughs in relief.
Almost being subjected to racial "justice"(torture) was more mundane for him than being cut from the team.

Quite telling, though very sugar coated.

reply

After the gains of the Reconstruction era, race relations in the U.S. regressed to a horrendous level, with many historians recognizing the Wilson admin era as a nadir. The picture I link below is a strong indicator. There are many others like it.

Think: After extrajudicially executing a man, the folks gathered together for a convivial group picture. People talk about a new legal accountability brought about by small digital cameras and smartphone camera tech. But this picture highlights a stronger point: If there's a palpable, official position that black people don't count as people, then--heck!--you'll ***pose*** for the picture, and the thought that such a thing could "incriminate" won't even cross your mind.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Red_Summer_1919_Omaha_Nebraska_lynching.jpg

reply

I'm a bit late getting back to you. Thank you for illuminating just how horrendous racism was in that era.

My 100 favorite movies http://www.imdb.com/list/Uvw_F2_GMx8/
What are your favorites?

reply

Racism was not, and is not, peculiar to North America, nor to the southeastern USA. It is an evil found wherever sinful man lives, no matter the continent or region.

And the point of the story is that it can be overcome.

reply

Oh shut up with your self-righteousness. Racism against all races exists all over the world, and a lot worse in other countries than in "North America." I'm sick of the pot shots taken at the U.S. We do better with integrating all racial groups and religions than any other country.

I'm not really hungry, but I would like to have reservations somewhere.

reply

We do better with integrating all racial groups and religions than any other country.


There's that American misplaced confidence we all know and love.

-------
Gone too soon:
Firefly|New Amsterdam|Journeyman|Life|terriers|SGU|Prime Suspect

reply

I watched this movie last night and was wondering how true the story was to real life.

- Some of the things listed in this thread I knew didn't happen, but a few were interesting to hear.
- I thought Jackie had a little more trouble with his teammates than the movie showed (mostly the petition which was ignore and a couple of individual guys?.
- So why did they call him Jackie, if his name was Jack?
- Also, there was quite a bit of cussing in this movie, I figured 65 years ago there wouldn't have been that much...

reply

Spoof,

Re: cussing

I always come over with a smile when folks suggest that there was less cussing in the "good ol' days".

In my opinion, the idea that folks cussed less comes pretty close to a suggestion that they must've lived in black-and-white, since that's what we see when we look at those old pictures.

People have *always* cussed. My expectation is that, since technologies we now take for granted--that better ensure a reasonably comfy life--hadn't been invented, there may well have been *more* cussing.

reply

[deleted]

Max,

Love yr comments. There's a lot of truth in what you say. In fact, the observation about modulating your language style for your interlocutor gave me a nostalgia rush. I was always a big "reader" as a kid. It took me altogether too long figure out why so many people gave me weird looks while I was talking with them: I talked "like a book". I'm more like you now.

Do have one counterpoint, tho: I think cussers come in different flavors, and one such flavor are people with linguistic breadth. In other words, their cussing may be "class based", but not in the sense of the degree to which they have a handle on the finer modalities of verbal articulation. Again, think of it as breadth: Their speech isn't *just* in the gutter or *just* academic; they span the spectrum, and sometimes use cussing as either a kind of spice, or (sometimes) a truly fine tool for cutting to the chase, e.g., nothing says "6u115h1t" quite like "6u115h1t".

Think of Seinfeld. He considers cussing in comedy to be a kind of shortcut. He also says that the comedians who cuss *know* they're taking these shortcuts. Yet he features some of the biggest stage cussers in his comedians/cars/coffee show (e.g., Patton, Burr). So even he certainly must understand this application of cussing.

Back to the thread: Maybe it'd be useful/interesting to rewatch and review the cussing in "42" with all this in mind.

--
And I'd like that. But that 5h1t ain't the truth. --Jules Winnfield

reply

[deleted]

The scene where he breaks down, shatters his bat and has to be talked into going back out onto the field by Branch Rickey never happened, according to Jackie's wife. They decided to leave the scene in since there may have been a time when he did have an emotional breakdown during his rookie season.

reply

I think the scene with Jackie breaking the bat made sense to show the emotional pain he was feeling over the racism he had to endure.

reply

It was believable that he could have had a meltdown out of site, but it was too convenient that Ricky was there to give him a pep talk.

I was born in the house my father built

reply

Jackie never in his first at bat walked then stole 2nd, 3rd and home. Fritz Ostermueller did not bean Jackie- he hit him in the arm and he didn't yell that he didn't belong on the field. The Dodgers DID NOT clinch the pennent in Pittsburgh on a game winning home run. AND JACKIE ROBINSON NEVER STOOD AT HOME PLATE WATCHING A BALL.

This is just the start... Go read Bob Ryan's article. Then watch the Jackie Robinson Story staring- Jackie Robinson.

Other than that- 42 is a good Hollywood story. Just not 100% accurate.

reply

MetsDvls, also, the film shows that game in Pittsburgh as a day game, but Baseball-Reference.com says it was a night game. And Jackie's home run was not on a 3-0 pitch, and the Red Barber character reacts to it as if it won the game. It made the score 1-0 in the 4th inning. I seriously doubt the folks in the neighborhood would have been out rejoicing as depicted when Rachel is out walking the baby, not until the game was actually won. Also, to clarify, while not erroneous in the film, just not explained, that win put Brooklyn up by 10 games, clinching first but with 8 to play, 6 of which they lost.

I have seen enough to know I have seen too much. -- ALOTO

reply

AND JACKIE ROBINSON NEVER STOOD AT HOME PLATE WATCHING A BALL.


Good use of caps for emphasis. Wasn't alive at the time, but based on what I've read and my understanding of the man ... the hustler, the scrapper, the team-player, the gamer ... that was totally out of character.

reply

You may be right about all that, but let me tell you what they did RIGHT. When the team played at home, the movie got Ebbets Field correctly. OK, it was a backdrop because it is there no longer. They also did the same when the team played the Giants in the Polo Grounds. I used to watch every home game of both teams. They had no way of broadcasting away games in those days. No satellites. I never was a fan of Robinson though. However, I cried when Roy Campanella was injured in a car crash. Besides the Duke, he was my favorite player. When Newcombe pitched, it was all Black down the middle. Campanella as catcher, Newcombe on the mound, and Robinson on Second. Back in those days, salaries were not like today and many of the players rented rooms from homeowners in Brooklyn.

reply

“Maybe tomorrow we’ll all wear Number 42, so they can’t tell us apart.”

While a statement such as that was true, it was not said by Pee Wee Reese. It was Dodgers outfielder Gene Hermanski who suggested it to confuse potential snipers, out to do away with Robinson.

reply

The pitcher Fritz Ostermueller for the Pirates is shown as a righthander he/s a lefty,

reply

[deleted]

I'm surprised that no one in the thread has mentioned that Durocher was NOT suspended for adultery and complaints by the CYO.

He was suspended, officially for running an illegal card game. However, it may really have been about a personal dispute with the Yankees.

I was born in the house my father built

reply

Let's just say that it's "based on a true story" as opposed to "a true story." That pretty much speaks volumes right there.

reply

At least a few movies have included "Based on a true story," but have been entirely fictional. And even the famous mini-series, "Band of Brothers," played a little loose with reality when "dramatic license" made a better film. Even Stephen Ambrose's verbal history of Easy Company, 501 PIR, 82nd Abn Div was inaccurate about some facts. So, I have learned to be flexible when judging a movie on its historical accuracy.

Movies or films are better about communicating the feel of an event or series of events. If you want to think, analyze, and understand events, including obtaining an accurate understanding of actual events, READ!

I am one hour into the movie on my first viewing. Like other posters I was born after the events portrayed (I was born in March, 1955). I do remember watching the Civil Rights movement happen during my childhood and I have read extensively on American History. I think the movie is great.

Racial relations have improved enormously in my lifetime. Race relation have improved more than many critics argue, and not as much as many apologists claim. Nevertheless, race relations have improved. Only two generations removed from "Bull" Connor, young people today would be shocked at seeing "strange fruit" hanging from southern trees. In 1989 I walked out of a Lens Crafter store in Montgomery, Alabama wondering what struck me as strange about my purchasing experience. I was almost back to the "Q" (student officer's quarters) when I realized that the store manager was Black and his two employees were white women. Right there in Montgomery, AL, home to "Bull" Connor himself.

I think we were ashamed during WW II, not by the NAZI's treatment of Jews and other "mud races," but by the realization that we thought enough like them that we could see the similarities. We realized that it was far past time to change. Yet, it still took another generation, more than twenty years, to get the change moving.

I don't know when white people and black people will look at each other and see just another person. I do know that within the scientific community, among anthropologists there is no such thing as "race." It is now a political term. But, I am convinced that the differences me President Obama and me are about our political parties and our perceptions of economic ralitity, not about the color of a person's skin.

reply

Extremely well said, dannieboy20906.
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.

reply

[deleted]

Let me try to explain this to you as succinctly as possible. I don't know your educational background, but if you fail to recognize the impact that society and culture have on an individual's choices, you may not be deeply educated in science.

When I was a youth (high school) the argument between physical and cultural anthropologist over which field was more relevant was going hot and heavy. I leaned strongly towards the physical anthropologists because they compared measurable traits. The shapes of faces, length of bone, muscle mass, etc. can all be measured with uncertainties included. Culture is soft and squishy. Measurement is difficult, at best, and one is often forced to rely on qualitative descriptions rather than measurements.

Forty years have gone by. I never got deeply interested in anthropology, my interest lay in physics. However, I have been deeply involved in measurement and uncertainty. In those forty years we measured a lot about people. We have even mapped the human genome. What we found out with all those measurements has convinced the vast majority of physical anthropologists to reject the notion that "race" exists. Here's why...

Am important part of any measurement is the estimate of error. Every measurement of a physical attribute follows what is known as a normal curve. This is also called a Gaussian or "Bell" curve, Gaussian being the name of a mathematician and bell describing the shape of the curve. The anthropologists noticed a striking feature of all of the data. Every physical attribute used to classify people as belonging to one race or another showed greater variation within each racial group than the variation between any two racial groups. In other words, height, weight, skin color, width of cheeks, height of nose, and on and on, the difference between the bottom and top, or left and right, of any group is always greater than the difference between the averages of any group. Now, that description is a vastly simplified, but without attaching reams of statistics it is as well as I can do. It means that in statistical terms there is no real difference between the so called races. Since there is no difference, then race does not exist.

The argument has not ended, but the voices now are strongly on the side of cultural anthropology. It may be that the fastest Black runners can beat the fastest runners from other "races," but the average Black runner is roughly as fast as the average - fill in the blank - runner. When you seen a professional or world class group of competitors you're seeing a select "best of the best" of the group, not a representative sample.

For another example, look at the history of boxing. It's distorted by racism (we don't have a better term for ethnic bigotry, yet), but you can still trace a march through economically deprived groups. Irish, Italians, Hispanics, and Blacks.

It's about time that we come to realize that people are people. The skills and talents of each person must be judged individually, not by the group we think they belong to. After all, do you know what group the physical anthropologists use to classify people from India? They aren't "African - American," "Black," or even "Asian." They are actually Caucasian.

reply

[deleted]

I shared my accrued knowledge without compensation and without approbation. I don't think of that as condescending. If someone perceives me to be condescending because I assume most to be less deeply and broadly educated than I am, then I will need to accept it.

reply

Condescension? How about brilliance? I found his explanation easily understood and quite on point.

reply

Late in the movie, in a September game, Red Barber is reciting Jackie's stats. He says that Robinson had zero caught stealing. This is an error, brought on by the fact that the NL didn't count caught stealing in its official stats, so Robinson is listed as zero caught stealing in many sources (should be blank). According to retrosheet, he was caught stealing in a game in early May. I suspect he was caught after that, so while I don't know the actual number, it is not zero.

reply

I actually didn't like the movie very much for various reasons. To answer your question on what was definitely off...

1. Tossing the ball to the kid. Ed Charles never caught a baseball from Jackie.

2. Fritz Ostermueller never hit him in the head with a baseball. He did bean him, but it hit his arm. It wasn't personal either, the Pirates' manager told him to do it.

3. The bat smashing scene after Ben Chapman (Phillies manager) went off on him didn't happen. However, that's a royalty I'm glad they took. I'm not sure anyone would believe he didn't do something.

4. Montreal/Brooklyn steal/balk home didn't happen.

5. Branch Rickey was not the only person who pulled hard for Jackie to be brought to the Dodgers and I think they could have done a much better job with that.

Frankly, 1-4 don't really matter at all. This movie didn't take many liberties.

reply

Jackie didn't pop up in front of the plate against Philly in his 2nd at bat. He flew out to left field as he did in his first at bat.

reply