The Moviegoer: "Moneyball" and the Art of Reinvention

Last updated on: September 29, 2011 at 9:13 am by Nick Olson

The Moviegoer: "Moneyball" and the Art of Reinvention 2011-09-29T09:13:20-06:00 Nick Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Bennett Miller’s adaptation of Michael Lewis’ 2003 book, Moneyball, is the story of the 2002 Oakland Athletics and General Manager Billy Beane’s (Brad Pitt) reinventing the path to success in Major League Baseball. Because of the hordes of money that teams like the New York Yankees have at their disposal to attract quality players, small market teams like Beane’s A’s have seemingly no chance of making the playoffs—let alone winning the World Series. But with the help of Yale-educated, statistical analysis guru Peter Brand (played endearingly by Jonah Hill), Beane takes a new, cost-effective approach to scouting talent whereby players are viewed as statistical averages contributing to a mathematical formula that adds up to a winning team.

Based on a non-fiction book primarily concerned with statistical analysis, Moneyball was initially considered questionable as a big screen narrative. But the film’s story arc has unexpected layers which make it especially compelling. In attempting to reinvent the formula for a winning baseball team, Beane also hopes that he can reinvent himself as a successful General Manager after a disappointing career as a promising player. Pitt convincingly portrays both the underlying wounds of a former athlete well acquainted with failure, and the attendant superficial confidence displayed through a veneer of sarcastic wit and a laid-back demeanor often betrayed with angry eruptions.

The trouble for Beane is that even if he reinvents his approach to team managing, his fulfillment remains contingent upon a success that is defined by winning the last game. While he has reinvented the means by which he is attempting to win the Series, he has yet to reinvent himself in terms of a higher order of fulfillment by which he can justify his existence outside of baseball’s wins and losses. By making the playoffs, the A’s are a success to everyone but Beane. He can’t enjoy the good that came with their 2002 season, because his life’s worth is defined most essentially by a simple formula: finish ahead of everyone else.

Some critics have referred to Moneyball as the The Social Network of baseball movies. Of course, the dissimilarities between the films are obvious: The Social Network’s aims are grander, its drama darker, its ironies pointed; by comparison, Moneyball—like a day at the ballpark—is generally a light-hearted outing. But the assertion is also understandable because of two commonalities in particular: Aaron Sorkin’s sharp screenwriting, and the theme of Ivy Leaguers applying mathematical precision to traditional conceptions of sociality.

Yet, another similarity between the films comes to mind. In their unique ways, Mark Zuckerberg and Billy Beane both define a fulfilling life in terms of personal triumph—to the point that loved ones suffer the consequences of their singular pursuit. While Zuckerberg’s relational commitments remain questionable (poor Eduardo), Beane seems on the path to redemption when he reinvents himself as a person more concerned with his daughter, Casey, than with the pursuit of personal accomplishment.

While some critics are concerned about the dehumanizing act of reducing people to numbers, the film consistently undermines this potential danger while celebrating Beane’s game-changing season. Three particular instances come to mind: the trading of troublemaker Jeremy Giambi despite the statistical advantage he might offer the team; Brand’s humorous attempt at adjusting Beane’s perspective of what constitutes a successful season; and finally, Beane’s tearful realization that he is responsible for more than his own personal success or fulfillment. In these ways, Moneyball reminds us that reinventing one’s self is less a mathematical formula than an art form—more about creating a life constituted by beautiful purposes, and less about bottom-line winners and losers.

Previous Post

September 28, 2011

Music at Mars Hill: The Emotional Contradictions Behind Strange Mercy

Next Post

September 29, 2011 Mixed Signals: New from Ikea: A Nursery for Men

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Asides Elsewhere Featured Film Games General Culture Headline Literature Music Of the Moment Podcast Politics RetroPost Sports Technology Television Uncategorized Viral

Select a Month February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz