Fever Pitch, etc.

Last updated on: April 4, 2005 at 2:02 pm by Peter T. Chattaway

Fever Pitch, etc. 2005-04-04T14:02:00-07:00 Peter T. Chattaway

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.

Caught a press screening of the Farrelly brothers’ remake of Fever Pitch this morning.

In a nutshell, the film reminded me of how Jimmy Fallon started out on Saturday Night Live as something of an Adam Sandler wanna-be; and how a couple of Sandler’s best movies are the ones in which he has co-starred with Drew Barrymore, namely The Wedding Singer and 50 First Dates (my first impressions); and how one of Sandler’s more recent disappointments (namely Anger Management, which did at least have one of the funniest teasers ever) climaxed at a baseball game. But Jimmy Fallon ain’t no Adam Sandler; love him or hate him, Sandler has a certain presence onscreen that Fallon, so far, does not have.

Still, unlike some romantic comedies, which start strong and then lose all their spirit as they grind through the final-reel contrivances of separation and reconciliation etc., Fever Pitch actually seems to get better, if anything, in its final moments; at any rate, I thought Fallon’s performance became more emotionally convincing as he had to deal with his various heartbreaks, and I found that I actually wanted these characters to get back together, whereas the couples in a number of other films of this sort have left me cold by that point.

And this just may be the most un-Farrelly-like of the Farrelly brothers’ movies to date. (Just for the record, I am a huge fan of Osmosis Jones — it made my top ten — and I admired Stuck on You, but I don’t care much for the other films of theirs that I have seen.) There is no real gross-out humour in this film (except for a scene involving vomit that takes place entirely offscreen, and even the sound effects are kept relatively subtle!), and no obvious physical deformities on either man or beast, either — though there is just a wee, wee bit of humour in which someone gets up close and personal with an animal (when Fallon brushes a dog’s teeth), and even that is so mild you could easily forget it.

This film, incidentally, is based on a novel by Nick Hornby — High Fidelity, About a Boy (my review) — that was previously filmed in 1997 with Colin Firth as a soccer, not baseball, fanatic. I have not taken in either of this film’s predecessors, so I cannot say how it compares. But I wonder if the Hornby influence is partly what kept the Farrellys’ baser instincts reigned in this time.

On a thematic level, BTW, it was interesting to hear the subject of “control” come up on a couple of key occasions — the idea being that one of the things that draws Fallon’s character to baseball is the way it gives him an opportunity to surrender to something and to be part of something that is completely outside his control. I believe he even says it is “good for the soul” to be involved in something like this. And part of what both he and the Barrymore character have to learn is how to relinquish a degree of that control within their own relationship — meaning, in Fallon’s case, that he must relinquish control of his adherence to something that supposedly represents a lack of control to him.

Let’s put it this way. Fallon cannot control the game, obviously. But he can, and does, exercise control over the access that certain other individuals have to that game (in one scene, he makes his friends compete for tickets by dancing in front of him and each other); this is a form of control that he may need to relinquish. And paradoxically, he seemingly cannot control his own obsession with the game; and so, this is a form of control, i.e. self-control, that he actually needs to develop.

Ai-yi-yi, that’s more than I had intended to write on this film already. Turning to other matters, on the ride home from the film, I was reading George Jonas’s column on the Pope in today’s National Post, and came across this paragraph:

While John Paul II preferred engagement to confrontation, he never confused engagement with appeasement. Reconciliation in his vocabulary didn’t translate into attempting to reconcile good with evil. He forgave sinners, not sin.

Engagement, not confrontation or appeasement. I and many of the other Christian film critics and film buffs that I know often talk about “engaging” the culture, instead of merely “confronting” it a la the so-called “culture wars”. But we do sometimes run the risk of letting the pendulum swing too far the other way. “Engaging” the culture does not necessarily mean “appeasing” it or, to use a word that is probably used more frequently in these discussions, “accommodating” it or giving in to it. It is not enough to simply baptize, as it were, films here or there. We need to “engage” with films and exercise a form of discernment and try to sort out that which is worthy of praise from that which is not.

I may just be preaching to the choir, there, but that one sentence in Jonas’s article helped to keep this issue alive, for me, and it helped me to see this issue from just a slightly different angle.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

April 3, 2005

Playtime on the big screen!

Next Post

April 4, 2005 Steyn on royalty and celebrity

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Planet Articles BC Christian News BC Report Bible Movies Bible Review Blog Books & Culture Campus Times CBC Radio Christianity Today ChristianWeek Essays Faith Today Festival Cinemas Guide Film Journals Georgia Straight Interviews MB Herald National Catholic Register Salvationist Today's Christian Two Chairs Ubyssey Uncategorized Vancouver Courier Vancouver Sun

Select a Month August 2025 April 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 May 2024 February 2024 December 2023 May 2023 March 2023 November 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 July 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 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 April 2012 January 2012 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 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 November 2003 October 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 March 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 January 2000 October 1999 August 1999 May 1999 April 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 April 1998 March 1998 January 1998 November 1997 September 1997 July 1997 June 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 October 1996 September 1996 June 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 April 1995 November 1994 September 1994 September 1991

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What fruit did Adam and Eve eat in the Garden of Eden?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Grape Lemon Forbidden fruit Banana