TAKE TWO: Moneyball

Welcome to the first of what will certainly be a regular column on this blog. It's called Take Two, and it's my chance to express some thoughts on a film after a second look. In many cases (like today), I'll be eating some crow and explaining how or why I think I got a film wrong the first time. Other times, my original opinions will simply be reiterated. Either way, I think the true measure of a great film (at least for me) is how well it holds up, and that's the point of this column. With that in mind, you should be aware that Post Mortems will be relatively informal, and all will include spoilers.

For the inaugural edition, I'll be looking back at Bennett Miller's Moneyball—a film I liked quite a bit when I saw it back in September. Has my opinion changed? Hell yeah. I'll get into the many reasons in a bit, but to start, I'll just say that my Best of 2011 list has seen its first major shakeup. This film is a near-masterpiece.

The first thing that jumped out at me watching the film a second time is how good the crafts are. The film editing and cinematography are among the best of the year, and I think it's because the film is more traditional and low-key than, say, The Tree of Life or Hugo that the love isn't totally there. I'm glad the film is earning notices from the various guilds, but I know a lot of you would probably agree that Moneyball isn't the the first title you'd think of if prompted to name the best cinematography of last year. All I'm saying is that it should be in the discussion.

But why? I mean Emmanuel Lubezki's work in Terrence Malick's film is all-time great stuff, and that's saying nothing of the work in films like Melancholia, Drive, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, etc. I guess the general theme of this entire post would answer that question. I think Wally Pfister's lens does such a fantastic job in shaping our view of this world. Everything from the general palette of cool blues and greens to the big empty shots of Billy Beane in the Oakland A's stadium helps us understand the world of baseball as a cold, unforgiving place. As Beane says late in the film, unless you win the last game of the Series, no one remembers you. And I think the way Pfister captures Beane as a lonely cog in this great big machine helps the viewer connect with him more and see the film as more than just a baseball movie.

Then there's the editing. I guess I forgot how often the film incorporates actual baseball footage, but it's done expertly. Couple that with the way Beane's past fits into the story and his relationship with the daughter, and you've got a much more complex timeline than one might expect. Christopher Tellefsen—along with the sound team which do a great job mixing Mychael Danna's understated score with play-by-play, crowd noise, and actual dialogue—deserves the recognition of the Academy for a job very well done.

I knew on first viewing that Moneyball was a well-written film, and Pitt's terrific lead performance wasn't a big secret either, but another revelatory aspect of the film upon second watch was Jonah Hill. On Friday, I published my Oscar wish list—with the "unsung" performances, writers, etc. that I wish were nominated over specific frontrunners. My original Best Supporting Actor wish was that Viggo Mortensen (A Dangerous Method) was nominated over Hill. Man, did I screw that one up. Not only do I think Hill is deserving of his inevitable nod on Tuesday morning, he might even be my choice to win. And it's not even that he acts his heart out. Quite the opposite, in fact. He never loses his cool, nor does he lean on his comedic chops. But his mere presence in the film is an invaluable resource. Because he is so funny, you almost expect him to turn into Seth from Superbad at some point. That expectation, despite never once coming into fruition, helps keep Moneyball's tone relatively light. It's definitely subtle work, but with Pitt sometimes becoming larger-than-life (not in a bad way), I found it comforting to have a character like Peter Brand present.

Moneyball seems poised for big things come the Oscar nominations (I'm expecting Picture, Actor, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, and Film Editing nods at least). I wish Bennett Miller's name was getting talked about for Best Director because the way he brings everything together is masterful. But whatever the case, I suspect this film will be one that film fans remember fondly for years to come. It's just so damn good. I do with Phillip Seymour Hoffman's character was a little more developed, and the anachronistic song is slightly bothersome, but really, all that's small potatoes when a film is otherwise firing on all cylinders.

FIRST TAKE: A solid 3.5 stars
NEW TAKE: 4 stars, with ease