My family sat and watched the film Field of Dreams last night. I haven't seen it in ages, and was quite surprised at how perfectly apt it is a summary of conservative ideology circa the late-1980's, and even contains elements of Gingrichian-style nuttiness that was even then (the film was made in 1988 and released in 1989) emerging on the national stage.
First, I should admit that I never really liked the movie. It is uneven, major characters and plot points don't enter the story smoothly or early, and as far as I'm concerned, brother-in-law or not, if Timothy Busfield had laid hands on or said things about my child the way he does in this film, I'd have laid him out.
Many of the themes that play out here are also at work in my least favorite film of the 1990's - Forrest Gump. The many references to the 1960's, to what "a crazy time" they were (Terrence Mann retired from the world because he was treated like a guru; Ray Consella moves to Iowa as an act of rebellion against his father). Yet, the setting, the symbolism of baseball - and not contemporary baseball, but old-time baseball - the "entrepreneurial spirit" Ray shows in pursuing his dream even as the bank is pursuing foreclosure, the redemptive power of surrender to a childlike faith in the past; these are all hallmarks of American conservatism. While there are certainly "liberal Hollywood" nods toward freedom of thought, the confrontation over the writings of Terrence Mann (he masturbates!) is really a clunky vehicle for introducing the character. The entirety of Mann's arc is overcoming his experience of the 1960's, in a Heideggerian sense. That is to say, jumping back behind it, and finding a far more primordial way of being (to get all fancy for a moment).
For the most part, this is a conservative film, made in a conservative era, promoting conservative ideas. Setting it in Iowa is almost pure genius. Using old-time baseball (untainted by drugs, hype, or race-mixing) is also pure genius. The dreams of long-dead white men are far more important in this film than the real struggles of people living today. Even Ray's desire to reconcile with his father - played out at the end - is part of this.
The only thing I am really happy about, at this point, is I am quite sure this film could not be made the way it was made, were it made today. For one things, no Kevin Costner (yea!). Mostly, though, the entire struggle between Ray Consella and the bank would run differently; Mann may be a disillusioned liberal, but his faith might just be renewed not in childhood fantasies that can never be realized, but in the set of beliefs that gave him strength in his prime (childhood isn't nearly as idyllic a time as we would wish it to be; the Chicago White Sox of 1919 may have loved baseball, but they were quite willing to throw a World Series for a pretty small amount of money). My guess is the entire film could be done today, but it would look very different.
Virtual Tin Cup
