Just in time for Opening Day, The Guardian published a piece from me on the past, present, and future of the baseball movie. Look, it’s what this newsletter is all about, so this is the piece I was born to write. If you haven’t read it yet, I’d be delighted if you’d take a gander.
If you didn’t know, I’m also writing a book on baseball cinema. Tentatively titled Baseball: The Movie, it will be published by Triumph Books in the spring of 2024. I’ll be submitting it to my editor in a couple of months, and boy, it’s been a wild ride. I’ve watched more baseball films than I knew existed, and I still have a bunch to go. Seriously, every time I log onto Prime Video, I find new ones. For many fans, the genre begins in 1984 with The Natural (or maybe in 1976 with The Bad News Bears) and ended somewhere around Moneyball. My book starts several decades before that and extends a few years beyond. One of my goals for this project is to shine a light on some baseball films that don’t get enough love these days.
In the coming months, I’ll share some info to get you excited about the book. I don’t know what my publisher will allow, but we’ll figure it out. Maybe an excerpt. Or the cover artwork. Or just some stuff that is just interesting but didn’t make it into the book. So stay tuned for that.
In the meantime, I appear to be developing a bit of a reputation as the Baseball Movie Guy. I’ll be appearing on CBC’s new pop culture show Commotion on Tuesday at 10 am EST to discuss my Guardian article. I was recently invited to intro A League of Their Own at New York’s excellent Metrograph theater on April 16. And sometime around then I’ll be on SABRCast with Rob Neyer, chatting with Rob and some other guests about what we love (and hate) about baseball cinema.
* * *
I pledged not to make this Substack a repository for links to my work, mostly because I share everything I write on Twitter and Facebook. It occurs to me, though, that you might not follow me on social media, and that I’m supposedly losing my blue check mark today (although I still think this all might be an April Fool’s Joke by Musk), so this might actually be the most efficient way to get my work out there.
My freelancing film criticism has slowed down a little bit as I go into crunch time on the book, but I’ve still been able to get a few things done. Here they are:
I’ve been reviewing new releases at Washington City Paper for 10 years now, but lately I’ve shifted more towards repertory screenings. I’ve always enjoyed writing about older movies more, anyway. I did a fun piece on The Big Lebowski and its quotability a few weeks ago, and last week I watched Walking Tall for the first time and offered my thoughts. It’s a wild movie based on the true story of a former wrestler who took on the Dixie Mob in Tennessee.
I also reviewed the Hulu film Boston Strangler, about the serial killer who terrorized the women of Boston in 1962 and the journalists (played winningly by Keira Knightley and Carrie Coons) who ended up doing more to catch him than the cops did. It’s not Zodiac, the film it clearly emulates, but it’s good enough.
* * *
Some of you have asked, now that baseball’s regular season has begun, how I’m feeling about the pitch clock. Well, I’m still withholding judgment until they work out the kinks….but so far, I hate literally everything about it. Then again, I’m bad with change. I know this about myself. I need some time to work out my own kinks, too.
* * *
A reminder that you can become a paid subscriber of Good Eye for as little as $5 a month, which will get you access to two exclusive essays every month this year on the films of 1998. Subscribe now, and you can read essays I’ve already written on The Big Lebowski, Dark City, The Wedding Singer, and others. Also on the docket this year is The Truman Show, Armageddon, He Got Game, Out of Sight, Rounders, and Rushmore, among others. Next week? The Spanish Prisoner!
If you want to subscribe, just click on this link for my Big Lebowski essay (or the button below), and you’ll be prompted. The Dude abides!
Not sure there is wide agreement that slower-longer is preferable for all ticket buyers at the stadium. Yes for the true fans, but not for those who brought six year olds, or those who have to fly to Akron early the next morning. Let's face it, you are a baseball romantic.
I've been surprised by the widely positive response to the pitch clock. Is the community of old-school, change-averse traditionalists that small, or have they just caved?