(Another personal addition. You’ll read why.)
Cult films are a funny thing: you next know what’s going to
click. Take The Sandlot, for example.
I saw it when it came out in the late spring of ’93, and had a pretty ho-hum
reaction to it – watered-down Stand By
Me, with baseball at its core, and, despite a few charming moments, nothing
terribly outstanding.
But within the past decade or so I’ve heard people quoting
it and talking about it – it enjoys frequent play at my kids’ child-care service
at the gym – and now it seems to have emerged as a modern-day classic. After
seeing it again for this blog, my opinion hasn’t changed much, but now I sort
of see why such a steadily growing fanbase. It features that “one summer” where
a young boy truly lives for the first time (which we’ve seen before), it shows
us how that boy, underappreciated by his parents, must turn to his friends for
self-actualization (which we’ve seen before), and it remembers a bygone era as
the last true moment of innocence, both for its youthful characters and for the
country they’ve grown up in (which we’ve seen before).
But there’s a subgenre within the cult film category, and it
might help explain The Sandlot’s
popularity: cult films that became popular because their audiences were young
when they first saw them. Everyone I’ve talked to who’ve sung the film’s
praises had one thing in common – they first saw it when they were kids. And
then it sort of makes sense – in ’93, nearly in the middle of the cynical,
hipper-than-thou Tarantino decade, The
Sandlot stood out as an example of sanguine innocence, a retrospective look
back at a time when life was simpler, as represented by the purity of baseball.
They don’t care that “we’ve seen it before” because they didn’t see it before – its stock characters (the nerd, the
gross-out, the jock, the sensitive one) weren’t clichés at all; they were the
friends and teammates they went to school with and played ball with.
Now there is a story here, albeit a thin one: an insecure
boy and his mom and stepdad move to a middle-American town (oh, I don’t know –
Ohio, right?), and the boy needs to get shown the ropes by a more athletic yet
understanding boy from the neighborhood. The two soon form a baseball team, and
find an abandoned sandlot on which to play. Only one problem – the adjacent lot
houses a ratty old junkyard, protected by the mother of all mean ‘ol dogs – an
infernal “beast” who, according to legend, eats baseballs, as well as their
attendant players, in their entirety. As we move from character-developing
vignette to vignette, we get to the “plot” about halfway through: after losing
their only ball when it goes over the fence to beast territory, the boy goes
back and foolishly uses his stepdad’s Babe Ruth-autographed number. Of course,
it goes over the fence too, ad the boys devise a way to get it back. I won’t
spoil the ending, but it does involve an appearance by the junkyard owner,
played by James Earl Jones (basically reprising his role from Field of Dreams), who all-too-conveniently,
happens to be something of a baseball legend himself.
And yes, the boy’s estranged relationship with his stepdad
is patched up nicely, as are all the other loose threads. But truth be told,
there aren’t many of them. The Sandlot is
mostly a patchwork of self-resolving scenes, almost anthology-like, and they’re
mostly borrowed from other sources. In addition to the aforementioned Field of Dreams and Stand By Me, the film unabashedly lifts from The Natural, The Wonder Years and just about any exercise in
early-60s nostalgia. But unabashedly is the key word – The Sandlot commits its larceny with blithe apathy. It knows what
it’s doing, but it just wants to stroll down memory lane. It’s a Normal
Rockwell painting of a trousered boy with his bad and glove, heading home after
a game. You can almost hear the crickets chirping.
And in the end, that’s what carries the film. How can you
rebuke a film whose tone is so lovingly reminiscent? Well, you can try, but
it’s sort of like kicking a puppy. And The
Sandlot is also smart to not be too polished – it’s got a slightly
unrefined look about it that makes it immune to naysayers who complain that
it’s a studio product. It’s not, right down to its decision not to hire any
child stars for the leads.
So if you’re kid, and you love baseball, this will probably
be unchartered waters for you, and you’ll probably love it. The rest, tread
with caution. It’s a pleasant film (save for an ill-advised scene of vomiting
on a rollercoaster; it didn’t work in Stand
By Me either), but not exactly guffaw-inducing.
Oh, wait -
there is one exception, having to do with a boy who fakes drowning so he can be
“resuscitated” by the hot bombshell lifeguard. (He can only take so much oiling
and rubbing and rubbing and oiling…) That scene is a classic.
The rest gets…
Rating: **1/2
No comments:
Post a Comment