I am astonished that this movie was made in 1950. I had no idea a biography of Jackie Robinson playing himself existed -- and made while he was still playing.
I watched Brian Helgeland's "42" after this. Chadwick Boseman's version of Robinson is a 21st century faux Robinson and could not be more different than the one presented here by Robinson, himself. I feel The Jackie Robinson Story comes much closer to depicting the true Robinson, and the black experience in the early and mid-20th century.
Helgeland makes it seem like Robinson is encountering racism for the first time when he enters major league baseball, and he has to exercise enormous restraint. But what we see here is a broader presentation of his life, and the racism blacks experienced from youth, leading to a certain resignation and practice in coping with it. On the other hand, Robinson growing up in California did not see the worst, and actually was treated decently at UCLA, etc., so he wasn't as defeatist.
It should be noted that the earlier integration of college sports laid the groundwork for Branch Rickey's hiring of Robinson to integrate baseball. Among the pioneers was Paul Robeson, in 1915 becoming the first black to play on the Rutgers football team, probably enduring even more racism to earn the spot, and doing it alone.
I didn't expect much of this movie given the tepid reviews, but was pleasantly surprised. The movie held my interest and although I already knew the basic story on Robinson's life, seeing it dramatized added insight, especially seeing Robinson, himself, act out the experience. It really made me think about what he was going through.
Sure, some of the acting was a bit rough and there was some corn typical of baseball movies of the time. The performances by Louise Beavers and Ruby Dee were excellent. Minor Watson delivers the emotional kick in the pants, where appropriate. The re-enactment of the plays by Robinson were, of course, first rate, and worth the price of admission.
But several things make this movie important: the subject matter - a great, inspirational story in itself; the role Robinson played not just in sports, but in setting a model for peaceful civil rights protests to come; a record of a not so proud time in our history we need to remember; and the actions of many people like Branch Rickey who courageously did what was right, without flinching - a lesson for ours and future generations.
It's interesting that Robinson was agonized about signing on with the Dodgers, and first talked to his mother and a preacher. Was this true, or just a device to explore the issue, I wonder? Either way, it worked better than the snap decision in "42," which was devoid of dramatic tension.
Some have called Robinson's acting wooden. What I see is a person of great humility, without guile or pretense or self-importance. He also seems vulnerable and open, without a wall of defense; it is perhaps this that helped win over his enemies.
The Robinson we see here is much closer to the version I had heard described over the years than the Helgeland "based on a true story" version. Some of the events in "42" are clearly not accurate. But how accurate is this contemporary version? Is the account of his thinking the job offer from the Dodgers to be be a joke true? The oddest fiction is changing the Kansas City Monarchs team to the Black Panthers! The Black Panthers was later used as the name of a 1960s black radical organization.
It's interesting this film was made just three years after he joined the Dodgers. It suggests the transition to integrated baseball, while certainly difficult, went more smoothly than suggested in "42." By 1950 there were many black players in the majors.
What won over his enemies and the sports world was Robinson's innate dignity, his good sportsmanship and his great playing. Perhaps it's the statistical foundation of baseball that made it the right sport to first integrate. You can't argue with a box score.
This is a truly inspirational, interesting and entertaining film. I highly recommend it.
~~~
FWIW: I tried reviewing "42" here, but it was blocked. I naively tried quoting Wikipedia on what Chapman said to Robinson. I corrected it, and even completely rewrote it, but the computer seems to have permanently blocked me. I don't think there are any humans reviewing these reviews, just a computer looking for banned words, while we humans do all the work for free, and others collect the profits. If IMDb doesn't approve my review of 42, I am pulling all my other reviews.
I was disappointed in 42 because of the weak script and inaccuracies, particularly regarding Fritz Ostermueller. But the Chapman affair is accurate. This provides a broader portrait of Robinson, but 42 adds to the picture. I have done a lot of reading, and found that both versions seem to have some fictional elements.
Oddly, it is hard to say which presents the truer character of Robinson, given that Robinson is playing himself here. According to Mickey Mantle (not the most authoritative source), Robinson could be abrasive, as in 42. But 42's exaggerations undermine its credibility, even when it is accurate, as in the Chapman scene. And it doesn't seem as authentic in portraying the 1940s as does this version.
That this movie was made suggests that attitudes changed quickly. After the war, America was ready for change and Rickey knew it. The majority of Americans recognized racism was wrong. But it took one man to stand up and be first. America loves the lone individual who stands up courageously for what is right. The Robinson story is like a Western, like "High Noon," except on a ball field.
I watched Brian Helgeland's "42" after this. Chadwick Boseman's version of Robinson is a 21st century faux Robinson and could not be more different than the one presented here by Robinson, himself. I feel The Jackie Robinson Story comes much closer to depicting the true Robinson, and the black experience in the early and mid-20th century.
Helgeland makes it seem like Robinson is encountering racism for the first time when he enters major league baseball, and he has to exercise enormous restraint. But what we see here is a broader presentation of his life, and the racism blacks experienced from youth, leading to a certain resignation and practice in coping with it. On the other hand, Robinson growing up in California did not see the worst, and actually was treated decently at UCLA, etc., so he wasn't as defeatist.
It should be noted that the earlier integration of college sports laid the groundwork for Branch Rickey's hiring of Robinson to integrate baseball. Among the pioneers was Paul Robeson, in 1915 becoming the first black to play on the Rutgers football team, probably enduring even more racism to earn the spot, and doing it alone.
I didn't expect much of this movie given the tepid reviews, but was pleasantly surprised. The movie held my interest and although I already knew the basic story on Robinson's life, seeing it dramatized added insight, especially seeing Robinson, himself, act out the experience. It really made me think about what he was going through.
Sure, some of the acting was a bit rough and there was some corn typical of baseball movies of the time. The performances by Louise Beavers and Ruby Dee were excellent. Minor Watson delivers the emotional kick in the pants, where appropriate. The re-enactment of the plays by Robinson were, of course, first rate, and worth the price of admission.
But several things make this movie important: the subject matter - a great, inspirational story in itself; the role Robinson played not just in sports, but in setting a model for peaceful civil rights protests to come; a record of a not so proud time in our history we need to remember; and the actions of many people like Branch Rickey who courageously did what was right, without flinching - a lesson for ours and future generations.
It's interesting that Robinson was agonized about signing on with the Dodgers, and first talked to his mother and a preacher. Was this true, or just a device to explore the issue, I wonder? Either way, it worked better than the snap decision in "42," which was devoid of dramatic tension.
Some have called Robinson's acting wooden. What I see is a person of great humility, without guile or pretense or self-importance. He also seems vulnerable and open, without a wall of defense; it is perhaps this that helped win over his enemies.
The Robinson we see here is much closer to the version I had heard described over the years than the Helgeland "based on a true story" version. Some of the events in "42" are clearly not accurate. But how accurate is this contemporary version? Is the account of his thinking the job offer from the Dodgers to be be a joke true? The oddest fiction is changing the Kansas City Monarchs team to the Black Panthers! The Black Panthers was later used as the name of a 1960s black radical organization.
It's interesting this film was made just three years after he joined the Dodgers. It suggests the transition to integrated baseball, while certainly difficult, went more smoothly than suggested in "42." By 1950 there were many black players in the majors.
What won over his enemies and the sports world was Robinson's innate dignity, his good sportsmanship and his great playing. Perhaps it's the statistical foundation of baseball that made it the right sport to first integrate. You can't argue with a box score.
This is a truly inspirational, interesting and entertaining film. I highly recommend it.
~~~
FWIW: I tried reviewing "42" here, but it was blocked. I naively tried quoting Wikipedia on what Chapman said to Robinson. I corrected it, and even completely rewrote it, but the computer seems to have permanently blocked me. I don't think there are any humans reviewing these reviews, just a computer looking for banned words, while we humans do all the work for free, and others collect the profits. If IMDb doesn't approve my review of 42, I am pulling all my other reviews.
I was disappointed in 42 because of the weak script and inaccuracies, particularly regarding Fritz Ostermueller. But the Chapman affair is accurate. This provides a broader portrait of Robinson, but 42 adds to the picture. I have done a lot of reading, and found that both versions seem to have some fictional elements.
Oddly, it is hard to say which presents the truer character of Robinson, given that Robinson is playing himself here. According to Mickey Mantle (not the most authoritative source), Robinson could be abrasive, as in 42. But 42's exaggerations undermine its credibility, even when it is accurate, as in the Chapman scene. And it doesn't seem as authentic in portraying the 1940s as does this version.
That this movie was made suggests that attitudes changed quickly. After the war, America was ready for change and Rickey knew it. The majority of Americans recognized racism was wrong. But it took one man to stand up and be first. America loves the lone individual who stands up courageously for what is right. The Robinson story is like a Western, like "High Noon," except on a ball field.