Director: Craig Gillespie
Starring: Jon Hamm, Suraj Sharma, Madhur Mittal, Pitobash
Million Dollar Arm makes for a most unsurprising viewing. It follows the typical tropes of every other sports film—the triumph of the underdog, rising above your limiting situation in life, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat etc etc—and injects little that is fresh and new. Based on the true story of baseball pitchers Rinku Singh and Dinesh Patel who were discovered by sports agent J.B. Bernstein after winning a reality show, it makes for a languid viewing. Neither does it fire you up with any enthusiasm nor makes you dislike it with any great furore.
Bernstein, a once successful sports agent, is losing his edge to the more aggressive competitors. The only way out for him is to do something out of the box. One day, while switching TV channels, he chances upon the game of cricket and decides to go to India to seek baseball pitchers in our cricket crazy nation. His idea is to hold a nationwide televised reality show, pick up two winners, bring them to the USA to get trained under a pitching coach and groom them into major league players. 3
It may be to do with the India setting, Indian characters, actors and A.R. Rahman’s music but Million Dollar Arm does feel a lot like Slumdog Millionaire Part 2. However, without even a quarter of its energy. To the Indian eye much that is portrayed feels a tad synthetic and forced. There is no effort to go beyond the clichés of crowds, chaos and poverty, lack of punctuality and efficiency and forever suppliant people. But it’s this intersection of the two opposing worlds and worldviews, the clash of cultures which also gives the film its other themes, again told in the most predictable, and often uncomfortably patronizing manner: about individualism and materialism of the West as against relationships and friendships, family and community that we in India appear to hold dear. Eventually what should have been a film about the two boys ends up being about the agent instead.
Jon Hamm, with the fandom of Mad Men behind him, straddles the screen with an easy presence but seems to have put in little effort into the character, not that it required any. Fresh from the success of Life of Pi, Suraj looks too hip and not quite rooted enough in the humble background he has been shown to come from. Pitobash and Madhur are earnest. Rahman’s music doesn’t make much of an impact on the first hear inside the theatre. But then he is one composer whose tunes grow on you than immediately grab your attention. We may just listen on. But the film itself is strictly a one-time view. A sports film with phony feel-goodness and one that is far from inspirational.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
It has generally been panned by U.S. critics too.
Not really. On the "Rotten Tomatoes" website, 60% of the professional critics gave it a good, or at least a favourable review. It's a Walt Disney, feel good, Saturday afternoon family fun type movie. Those who panned it probably had good reason, but a Walt Disney movie cannot be expected to be too deep,subtle or complex.
Here is a review, very favourable, from "Now" Magazine, Toronto, by Norman Wilner:
Million Dollar Arm is what happens when you put a Disney summer picture in the hands of genuinely talented craftspeople: it manages to tick every box in the sports-movie playbook while still feeling halfway intelligent and even surprising.
Jon Hamm is effortlessly winning as a sports agent who hits on a scheme to recruit baseball talent from India. Life Of Pi’s Suraj Sharma and Slumdog Millionaire’s Madhur Mittal are likeable and vulnerable as the young men he brings back to train as pitchers, and Lake Bell spikes her scenes as Hamm’s love interest with charm and unpredictable timing.
But the real talent is behind the camera: screenwriter Tom McCarthy (Win Win) and director Gillespie (Lars And The Real Girl) go above and beyond the requirements of their true-life fantasy to deliver a proper movie experience.
This is a collection of reviews by the general public, all of them, except one, praising the movie. Yes, it's predictable, but in this case, it doesn't make it less likeable.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT