HomeFilmFeature/ Review  }

Bullshitty

2 JUL 2008  •  by G.D. Gearino

Read more of our Bull Durham 20th anniversary package:
IntroductionThe bad boys of summerDeleted scenes and extrasMy life as a Bull



Susan Sarandon, as team groupie Annie Savoy, walks home down a Durham street.
Photo courtesy of MGM Home Entertainment
To watch the movie Bull Durham today is to realize that never has so much municipal mythology been built upon so flimsy a foundation.

The city of Durham is, for all purposes, absent from the movie—except in name. There is no there there (as Gertrude Stein said about her childhood home of Oakland, Calif.). How can a city that is mentioned frequently in the dialogue, and whose streets form the backdrop for the action, seem to be so conspicuously missing from the film?

Then again, maybe that's not such a bad thing. After a fresh look at Bull Durham, you might have the same reaction to it as I did after watching it a couple of weeks ago for the first time since its premiere in 1988: Why was everyone so enchanted with a film so awkwardly cast and pretentiously told?

Yes, I know. Bull Durham is, according to some polls and lists, the best movie about baseball ever made. That only means (1) it ain't a very fast track, and (2) the other horses are lame.

Let's start with Tim Robbins, who is laughably unconvincing as a minor-league phenom headed for pitching glory in "The Show." His windup for the very first pitch of the movie (not to mention every one that follows) has all the grace of a lead-footed white guy trying to break it down in a disco. Furthermore, the pitch itself has less velocity than you'd see at a middle school girls' softball game. But in the very next frame, a comely young baseball groupie holding a radar gun behind home plate to measure his pitching speed announces, "Ninety-five miles per hour."

It is a measure of the movie's chronic implausibility that the idea of a baseball groupie having her own radar gun is less absurd than the sight of Tim Robbins pretending to be an athlete.

Then there's the Susan Sarandon character, whose very name—Annie Savoy—itself is a leering joke in a film overpopulated with stupid names. (Nuke? Crash? Oh, c'mon.) As former major league pitcher Jim Bouton revealed in his 1970 book Ball Four, women with appetites for sex with ballplayers have long been known as "Baseball Annies"—but there's little suggestion that any of them have ever come in a package quite like Annie Savoy's. She drives a vintage Volvo, lives in a grand Victorian home, listens to Édith Piaf and dresses to the nines for ball games (all of that somehow paid for by her part-time, junior college teaching gig). If that doesn't push the envelope of believability far enough, when she selects a team member (snicker) with whom to frolic for the season, boinking isn't always on the agenda: In one of the first encounters between Annie and Tim Robbins' Nuke LaLoosh, she ties him up in her bed—he's ready for some kink—but instead spends the evening reading out loud from Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass.

Uh-huh. And this is the movie hailed as the most realistic depiction of life in the minor leagues.



Tim Robbins (left), playing pitcher Nuke LaLoosh, and Kevin Costner, playing veteran catcher Crash Davis, face off on the mound.
Photo courtesy of MGM Home Entertainment
I won't even dwell on Kevin Costner's wooden acting, or the fact that the script calls for both Sarandon and Costner to deliver tedious, talky ruminations on what they believe in. (He believes in high fiber, good scotch and soft-core porn, among others; she favors "the church of baseball" and the therapeutic value of guilt-free fornication. Apparently, that's the stuff that'll get you nominated for a screenwriting Oscar—as Bull Durham was.)

None of this would matter, though, if the film had succeeded in portraying Durham in all its interesting, flawed, diverse, chaotic glory. The fact that a movie this bad is hailed as great is only one stumper to be pondered here. The other is why so much civic pride has been piled on a film that shortchanges the real place it sought to portray.

Aside from the scenes at the old Durham Athletic Park and a few shots of the downtown skyline, nothing in the movie gives you any sense of Durham as a specific, unique place. For all that it imparts about that history-rich city, it might as well have been filmed on a studio backlot. Many other movies are notable for the way they gave you a sense of place. L.A. Story, for instance, reveled in the weirdness and self-absorption of Los Angeles and its residents. Woody Allen had a gift for making Manhattan a character in, as much as a setting for, his films. But the Durham in Bull Durham is a blandly generic city with nothing to distinguish it from any other mid-sized municipality in the South.

Let me cite just one way Bull Durham could have introduced the viewer to the place: At the time the film was made, cigarettes were still being manufactured in Durham, and the pungent smell often wafted through downtown. It would have been easy to establish Durham as a city unto itself through a single line of dialogue from Costner's character as he arrives fresh in town: "What's that smell?" But the movie doesn't even give Durham that small shred of individuality.

This is why I've been puzzled for two decades by Durham's embrace of a movie that treats it as just another Nowheresville. The city portrayed in Bull Durham is just as colorless and uninteresting as Durham residents frequently declare Raleigh to be. Yet they adored the film when it came out, and 20 years later have launched themselves into a new round of celebration.

Welcome to the white-bread world, y'all. It's amusing to see you embrace your inner blandness.

9 COMMENTS

WOW! This article is brilliant! I didn't think the Indy had it in them, but this is a tour de force of dry comedy! I can't get over the subtle intricacies of this... You take a writer who never played baseball, and he complains about the poor portrayal of the game. (A recent set of SI interviews with players avowed the opposite.) The writer has also never lived in Durham, and complains that the portrayal isn't accurate. But best of all, you take the columnist with the most wooden prose in local journalism, and he complains about wooden acting. Opus magnum!
by MichaelB Durham 3 Jul 2008, 12:16pm Report this comment
As a baseball fan, a movie fanatic, and as a girl who lived in her share of southern mill towns during the eighties, I have to take to task Mr. Gearino's idea that the game of baseball and the city of Durham was given the short shrift by the makers of Bull Durham. First, and foremost, Mr. Gearino seems to have misplaced his sense of humor, which is something you have to possess if you are going to sit down and even attempt to watch Bull Durham. Yeah, Costner, we all know he's not Marlon Brando - but he's damn cute and he showed up for this particular film on time and in pretty good form. Tim Costner was supposed to be an oaf! That was the whole point! And don't even mess with Susan Sarandon - the woman is a goddess and Annie Savoy was, well, how do I put this, well she was a perfect combination of a lot of the cool southern girls I knew way back when. It was the eighties and sex was different back then. And finally, "what's that smell?" ? Oh pleeeeez, Mr. Gearino! Durham, back then was not cool, it may be cool now, but back in the eighties it looked (and smelled) like many other southern mill towns, like Winston-Salem, Richmond, and Greensboro. When I watch Bull Durham, I remember what living in those places felt like - a little bleak, a little desperate. This movie was not meant to be some serious portrait of southern living and the art of baseball. Bull Durham was a funny fairy tale about baseball in a southern town, that's all.
by wolfy Hillsborough 3 Jul 2008, 2:33pm Report this comment
Joe Morgan seems to think the film captured minor league baseball and Durham (from Grayson Currin's piece in this issue of the Indy) rather well: "I thought it was a great movie because it depicts life in the minor leagues ... The minor leagues as depicted in Bull Durham is the way that I remember it." http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A260509 Also, I think with writer/director Ron Shelton's time as a minor league player himself, he's probably as good an authority on what it was like to play the minor leagues. As for stupid nicknames, "Crash" Davis, as most any Bulls fan knows, was a real person. Can't blame that on Shelton.
by jeffhoo1 (jeffhoo1@gmail.com) Durham 3 Jul 2008, 3:55pm Report this comment
oops - i correct myself above - Tim Robbins, not Tim Costner! was supposed to be an oaf!
by wolfy Hillsborough 3 Jul 2008, 4:04pm Report this comment
Man this just comes across as sour grapes. Indy, why did you print it?
by nicomachus Durham 3 Jul 2008, 11:09pm Report this comment
David, who IS this that you've invited to critique the film? This isn't even a valid critique of the film, just a snotty opinion piece, and undeserving of Indy ink. Everyone (well, almost everyone) knows that this film is a work of f-i-c-t-i-o-n, and as such is entitled to a little device called "literary license." I don't recall anything in the story claiming it to be documentary material or "realistic." Authentic, maybe, but this was not a travelogue. The film is a comedy. The film is a romance. The film is an original work by a talented filmmaker who gave us something with a bit more panache and thoughtfulness than a lot of studio offerings in 1988 (remember RED HEAT? COCKTAIL? JOHNNY BE GOOD? CASUAL SEX? RAMBO III? MY STEPMOTHER IS AN ALIEN?). I recall being bored in Elizabeth City and tossing a coin to attend a second viewing of BEETLEJUICE or BULL DURHAM. Tim Burton's film won the coin toss, but years later I can still respect Ron Shelton's sensitivity in portraying older characters coming to terms with dissatisfaction with their lives and themselves. That he didn't showcase more of Durham (or wedge some tobacco reference into a film about baseball and romance) shouldn't disappoint an appreciative viewer. The film was funny, had an appealing cast, some sexy hijinks, and a happy ending. That it was filmed on location here is probably the source of local affection for the film, period. No one needs a film school degree to solve that mystery. Sourpusses who've only seen the film twice are welcome to exit the theater quietly via a side door.
by David Spalding Durham 4 Jul 2008, 6:01pm Report this comment
Wow, a review of the film Bull Durham. How very cutting edge.

I look forward to your upcoming reviews of Top Gun, Ghostbusters, and Lethal Weapon.

by JohnD Raleigh 9 Jul 2008, 8:46pm Report this comment
Looking forward to your comments on today's issues on July 16, John.
by grayson currin, indy music editor (gcurrin@indyweek.com) Raleigh 9 Jul 2008, 9:29pm Report this comment
JohnD, you make a good point: it's not obvious this piece was part of last week's cover package about the 20th anniversary of bull durham. i'm going to try to fix that right now. thanks!
by Denise, Indy Editorial Web Director (dprickett@indyweek.com) Durham 9 Jul 2008, 10:11pm Report this comment
Add to the discussion
Post your comment
Add to the discussion
Post your comment
 
return to top