Maybe it was my expectations—created by overwhelmingly positive word of mouth and my enjoyment of other Costner performances—that led me to believe that “Field of Dreams” would be pure enjoyment for me. It wasn’t. I thought it was kind of dumb.
It’s actually a hard film to summarize with brevity, but I’ll try. Novice corn farmer Ray Kinsella hears a voice encouraging him to build a baseball diamond in his field. Despite the financial risk, he builds the diamond and discovers that the ghost/spirit/image of deceased player Shoeless Joe Jackson has come to play on the field with his fellow dead teammates. Following more voices, Ray embarks on a road trip with author Terence Mann as they piece together shared clues, convictions, and unexplainable connections. Back at the baseball diamond, Mann is enthralled with the ghostly game and Ray learns that all of his work wasn’t for Joe Jackson but for his estranged, dead father. The film ends with Ray playing catch with his dad’s ghost while people flock to the field to watch the ghost game (solving the financial problem).
I KNOW I didn’t sell that, but I was unconvinced by this film. I can happily accept a ghost/spirit/faith/magic movie as much as the next person, if the story is told well but I maintain that this story was not. I don’t think the filmmaking sold me on the silly choices everyone was making, from Ray risking his family’s wellbeing to build the diamond, to his skeptical wife accepting the choice after a short conversation, to author Terence Mann accepting his friendly kidnapping. I get it, the point is that each of these characters experienced and acted upon some unexplainable conviction—a leap of faith—but I don’t accept that this was portrayed well.
Then throw in the film’s lack of conflict. There are zero consequences to all of this crazy. Sure, people think Ray is weird and wrongheaded. And sure, he almost loses the farm (though he doesn’t seem too choked up about it)—but all of these problems just disappear when the film’s magic extends to the nonbelievers (like grumpy brother-in-law Mark) or (in one of the worst deus ex machina moments I’ve seen) when hundreds of people flock to the field on the same hunch that Ray had. I understand, the “conflict” was Ray’s internal strife of losing his father without making amends. But other than the opening narration, the film never plays with this and resolution of “playing catch with dad’s ghost” felt pretty cheap.
I know this film means a lot to a lot of people. I also know it’s a modern-day fairy tale and not meant to be overanalyzed. But if I ever have a hankering for a nostalgia-laced baseball movie (which I never do), I’m reaching for the clearly superior film: “The Sandlot.”