The Melissa Leo Mini-Movie Marathon: Flight and Olympus Has Fallen

         Last weekend, Casey and I watched two movies that had very little in common, Olympus Has Fallen and Flight. One is a by-the-numbers action movie and the other highlights the struggles of an alcoholic pilot and his bumpy road to redemption. They share one thing, however, Melissa Leo playing supporting parts. Leo, the consummate “that woman in that thing” actress, has appeared on television in Homicide: Life on the Street and Treme. She also recently had parts in The Fighter, Oblivion, and Prisoners. Leo’s characters in each film effectively mirror the films themselves. In Flight, she portrays an NTSB investigator with the professionalism and command necessary to bring Denzel Washington’s Whip Whitaker to redemption. In Olympus Has Fallen, Leo plays a caricature of a female Secretary of Defense. In her most memorable (and unintentionally funny) scene, Leo defiantly recites out the Pledge of Allegiance as North Korean terrorists drag her beaten body from a White House bunker. One film professionally and somewhat successfully charts the struggles of addiction and denial, while the other fails to rise above the caricature of an action movie.

Flight

            In the opening scenes of Flight, Denzel Washington portrays Whip Whitaker, a lonely, drunken, and horny pilot, with a brash and easy confidence. He wakes up in bed with a flight attendant, answers a call from his ex-wife, takes a swig of beer, and does some coke, all before his 9:00 AM flight. These early scenes make it clear that Whitaker has a bad relationship with his ex-wife and son and a functional one with alcohol. As his life begins to unravel following his miraculous actions during a plane crash, Whitaker violently cycles between clinging to the bottle and forsaking it. Meanwhile Whitaker’s friends struggle to save his career and deflect any potential liability for operating a plane while drunk and high. Throughout the film, Washington ably fuses Whitaker’s superb flying skills, alcoholism, and his desperate attempt to stave off responsibility for his actions into a damaged but redeemable character. His confrontation will ex-wife and son represent Washington at his best. It is the part for a movie star and Washington plays it well.

            Director Robert Zemeckis surrounds Washington with a host of professional actors who ably support Washington’s performance. John Goodman embodies Whitaker’s stoner neighbor who shows up with booze and drugs at two opportune moments in the film. Don Cheadle plays Washington’s amoral criminal attorney who with the help of Bruce Greenwood’s pilots’ union rep enables and protects Whitaker from any consequences of his drinking and drug use. Leo offers a competent professionalism as her NTSB investigator draws the redemptive moment out of Whitaker.

            The film, however, overplays its themes of redemption. Zemeckis and screenwriter John Garnis don’t effectively demonstrate why the audience should root for Whitaker’s salvation. When Whitaker asks a flight attendant not to mention his drunken behavior, it is unclear why she would protect him. Loyalty, his miraculous piloting, a desire to protect the airline and shift the blame to the manufacturer are all offered as possible reasons, but the film doesn’t offer guidance or clarity. The audience is left wondering whether Whitaker was always just a manipulative alcoholic and drug addict. Whitaker’s confession and reconciliation with his son feel forced, like the plot and comforting the audience necessitated the addict confess his sins. The film’s music choices bludgeon the viewer—when Goodman arrives at the hospital, The Rolling Stones’ Sympathy for the Devil plays. Washington carries the film with a movie star performance, but the rest of the film doesn’t quite match up.

            Olympus Has Fallen

            This year featured a string of films depicting the wholesale destruction of major cities or large swaths of Earth. Man of Steel, White House Down, World War Z, all typify the recent film obsession with biblical levels of destruction. Olympus Has Fallen falls right into this pattern. Its comically predictable plotting, low-rent special effects, and dreadful characterization mark it as somewhere far south of entertaining summer blockbuster and just north of downright atrocity.

            Gerald Butler’s Secret Service agent, Mike Banning, drives the banal plot. All the cheap CGI merely undergirds Banning’s attempts to win back his best friend.  His girlfriend or wife or whoever complains that he’s too distracted and doesn’t pay enough attention to her. He’s distracted because he’s been kicked off the President’s protection detail. Banning, in the midst of car accident solely created to drive plot, manages to save President Aaron Eckhart, but not Mrs. President Ashley Judd. Too traumatized by the loss of his wife, Eckhart banishes Banning, despite their close relationship as boxing buddies and Banning’s friendship with Eckhart’s son. When North Korean terrorists boldly seize control of the White House in a series of unrealistic and absurd plot contrivances befitting Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly’s deepest fantasies, Banning has his chance to get his best friend back. The film constantly reminds us that Banning is a Secret Service agent with Special Forces training. Indeed he seems to be the only Secret Service agent throughout the entire assault on the White House capable of pointing and shooting a gun at an enemy advancing slowly across a wide open lawn. When the film ends with Banning carrying the wounded president out of the burning hulk of the White House, the reconciliation between them is complete. The scene offers a homoerotic subtext, but such an interpretation would require the screenwriters and director to have crafted any sort of text at all.

            The script moves from predictable plot point to predictable plot point. The North Korean villain issues demands, Banning messes them up, the film’s MacGuffin complicates things, only Banning recognizes that a SEAL attack won’t work, that the supposed death of the President is really a diversion etc. In the end, he must kill the North Korean villain, save the President, and disable the MacGuffin. Butler makes his best attempt at playing the action movie hero, but he lacks the charismatic ruthlessness of Liam Neeson in Taken or the weary charm of Bruce Willis in Die Hard. His banter with evil North Korean villain bores. Dylan McDermott appears as a traitorous Secret Service agent merely to offer a half-assed speech about the evils of political corruption. Melissa Leo wears a terrible wig and offers the aforementioned unintentionally hilarious recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance as the White House crumbles around her. Eckhart spends much of the film reacting to his staff being beaten and killed and giving evil North Korean terrorist everything he wants. The film seems woefully cheap as the film mostly occurs in the White House bunker, some hallways, and a Pentagon briefing room. The CGI seems conjured up by some lazy video game programmers on their off-day. This cheapness extends to the cast, as Secret Service agents seem to do everything including greet visiting dignitaries, get killed in huge numbers, and act as aides Acting President Morgan Freeman. All this cheapness adds up to one thing, one lousy movie. 

       

The Case for Stephen Drew

            This offseason the Boston Red Sox extended shortstop Stephen Drew a qualifying contract offer for next season worth $14.1 million dollars and ensured they would receive a compensatory pick in the 2014 amateur draft if Drew signs elsewhere. In early November, Drew declined the offer and entered the free agent market. At present, Drew remains unsigned. I will argue that the Red Sox should resign Drew to a short term contract (one or two years).

             I wrote this post in response to my brother’s fascination with Stephen Drew and the Red Sox “obsession” with him. I hope this post will lay out why I think Drew is a good choice for the Red Sox. My brother also justifiably complains against Stephen Drew wearing the # 7, worn by his brother J.D. during his less than stellar time with the Red Sox. This post, Rob, is for you. 

            Stephen Drew offers above average offensive production for a shortstop his age and experience. First, I offer some blind resumes, from this past season, of American League shortstops of similar age, salary, and major league experience. All of these players debuted between 2005 and 2007. All have played at least 800 games in their careers. Salaries from Cot’s Baseball Contracts, all stats courtesy of Fangraphs

	AVG/OBP/SLG	BB%	K%	wRc+	WAR	Salary (millions)	Dollars *(millions)
Player A	.271/.301/.382	3.9%	10.0%	90	1.6	8.75	8.0
Player B	.253/.333/.443	10.8%	24.8%	109	3.4	9.5	16.9
Player C	.263/.306/.433	5.9%	11.3%	99	3.4	7.416	16.8
Player D	.242/..299/.402	6.2%	20.3%	95	0.6	6.5	2.9

* a Fangraphs statistic that tracks the player’s production in terms of how much it would cost to replace that production on the open market

Player A is Angels shortstop Erick Aybar. Player B is Stephen Drew. Player C is Orioles shortstop J.J. Hardy. Finally Player D is Indians shortstop Asdrubal Cabrera. So here is the chart again with the names filled in.

	AVG/OBP/SLG	BB%	K%	wRc+	WAR	Salary (millions)	Dollars *(millions)
Aybar	.271/.301/.382	3.9%	10.0%	90	1.6	8.75	8.0
Drew	.253/.333/.443	10.8%	24.8%	109	3.4	9.5	16.9
Hardy	.263/.306/.433	5.9%	11.3%	99	3.4	7.416	16.8
Cabrera	.242/..299/.402	6.2%	20.3%	95	0.6	6.5	2.9

Drew proved the best hitter of the four this past season. He had the highest walk rate, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage. He was also the only shortstop to provide above average offensive production (according to wRc+).

Now let us place Drew in the larger context of starting shortstops across the major leagues. Only 24 shortstops in majors logged 400 plate appearances across the 2014 season. Drew finished with the 7^th highest WAR, behind Troy Tulowitzki, Ian Desmond, defensive wizard Andrelton Simmons, Yunel Escobar, Jhonny Peralta, and Jed Lowrie. His walk rate was second to Tulowitzki. His .190 ISO (isolated power) ranked second to Tulowitzki’s .229. His .333 OBP was good for sixth out of the twenty-four qualified shortstops. His 109 wRc+ was seventh. He was also only one seven shortstops to produce a wRc+ above 100—meaning he was only one of the seven to make a positive contribution at the plate. I could offer more stats, but I think the point is clear, Drew is an above average option at short. He is not a superstar hitter like Tulowitzki or an exceptional defender like Simmons or Jose Iglesias. Drew, however, is a good player at a time when those are remarkably difficult to find at shortstop.

            Drew also makes sense for the Red Sox on a one or two year deal to guard against Xander Bogaerts’ potential struggles to adjust to the majors and Will Middlebrooks’s struggles to become a consistent major league hitter. Bogaerts has made a remarkable climb to Boston, culminating in assuming the third base duties for the Red Sox in the playoffs. Bogaerts, only 21, will very likely encounter some struggles in his adjustment to starting in the majors next year. Middlebrooks’s inability to take a walk (5.0% career walk rate) and high strikeout rate (25.5%) prove deeply troubling. Between 2012 and 2013, Middlebrooks has 660 plate appearances, translating roughly to a full major league season, and he has produced an uninspiring .254/.294/.462 slash line. Middlebrooks, however, has hit 32 career home runs. His right-handed power will earn him another shot at the starting third base job next season. The Red Sox will have to hope that continue to tap into that power while reducing his strikeouts and improving his batting eye. Resigning Stephen Drew would mitigate against either Middlebrooks’s continuing hitting difficulties or Bogaerts’s adjustments to playing full time or both. It would allow the Red Sox to have an above average shortstop so they can feel comfortable riding out Bogaerts’s or Middlebrooks’s potential struggles.

            The Red Sox would be wise to bring back Stephen Drew on a short term deal and take advantage of his above average shortstop play. About that #7 though…  

MLB Replay and Atlanta's New Stadium

Today Major League Baseball joined the 21^st Century and approved an expanded replay system beginning next season. Out of all the professional sports, baseball has consistently resisted attempts to change anything about the game. The NFL, NHL, NBA, professional tennis, and even the Little League World Series all had replay systems in place before Major League Baseball. MLB commissioner Bud Selig has previously rejected any attempts to change the rules of baseball in order to speed up the length of games or make improvements to the quality of play and umpiring. He merely complains about it in the hopes that it will all go away. Instead Selig has focused on expanding the playoffs, insisting that the All-Star Game, an exhibition game designed to showcase the sport, should count for home-field advantage in the World Series, and quietly condoning and then condemning a PED epidemic that has sent many an aged sportswriter into a fainting spell. But now that baseball has made the great leap forward into the world of instant replay we should all rejoice, right?

Wrong. MLB’s plan for replay misses the entire point of using technology to aid in the umpiring of the game. Officiating in every sport should to try and get every call right, every time. Will it happen? No, it won’t. People and the rules they create are imperfect and always will be. But the efforts of umpires, managers, and league executives should all point in that direction. A quick examination of MLB’s replay plan reveals a fatal flaw. MLB’s plan places control of the challenges in the hands of managers by awarding them two challenges a game. A centralized replay system based in New York City will review all challenged calls. By placing the responsibility for instituting replay on managers, MLB has shifted the responsibility for getting the calls right off of umpires and onto managers. Managers, already wedded to antiquated in-game strategies (3 pitching changes an inning!), will have to deal with another strategic decision that should not be their responsibility. The officials in charge of enforcing the rules on the field should be in charge of reviewing plays. It is their responsibility to get these decisions right, not the managers. MLB would have been wise to look at the recent changes in the NFL challenge system that made the most important plays of the game, turnovers, touchdowns, and other crucial plays, automatically reviewable—shifting the review burden from coaches to officials. If MLB has any sense, which they don’t, they will fix this system before some key call in a game goes the wrong way because the manager ran out of challenges.

            This past week, the Atlanta Braves announced that they will leave Turner Field and move into a new stadium in nearby Cobb County beginning in 2017. The city of Atlanta will tear down Turner Field, built as part of the 1996 Olympics and afterwards refurbished for baseball, after only twenty years of use. Today, the Braves and Cobb County officials offered the first details of the financing for the new stadium. The Braves will pay for 55% of the construction costs with Cobb County picking up the remaining 45%. Cobb County will contribute three hundred million dollars to the stadium. The County will provide $14 million dollars up front for transportation upgrades and $10 million from the Cumberland Community Improvement District. The remaining 276 million dollars will come from thirty year revenue bonds issued by the county. This the breakdown per year according to Deadspin http://deadspin.com/heres-how-cobb-county-will-pay-for-the-braves-ballpar-1464404976

$400,000 a year from a new rental car tax

$940,000 a year from an existing hotel/motel tax

$2,740,000 a year from a new hotel/motel fee in that special business district

$5,150,000 a year from a property tax increase in the special business district

$8,670,000 a year from reallocating Cobb County property taxes

The deal will place a terrible burden on Cobb County taxpayers, in order to attract a sports team that will not funnel any profits back into the community. First, the deal diverts nearly eight and a half million dollars of property taxes away from underfunded schools, fire, police, and other county services in favor of a sports stadium (http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/22280252/cobb-county-school-board-approves-budget-cuts). The deal also does not make clear what will happen if the projected revenues from rental cars, hotels, and property tax increases fail to materialize. It is highly unlikely the Braves will cover any shortfalls from Cobb County, increasing the burden on Cobb County taxpayers. Finally, the taxpayers of Cobb County will not have a chance to vote on the stadium because the county will fund its share of the stadium without instituting new taxes apart from the special business district. The decision lies entirely with the Cobb County Commission.

            Neil deMause’s Field of Schemes has highlighted how publicly financed stadium deals rarely benefit taxpayers who foot the bill. Despite the claims of team owners and their political supporters, publicly financed stadiums do not improve the local economy through job creation or increased infrastructure. Sports stadiums create small numbers of seasonal, low-wage jobs—hardly the engines of economic growth. Hot dog and beer vendors do not grow the economy, investments in white collar industry do. The impact of sporting events on surrounding businesses is also overblown and negligible. Any surrounding businesses, restaurants, retail stores etc., would only benefit from increased customers in on a small number of game days—for a baseball stadium, 81 days a year, for the NBA, 41, for the NFL, 8—and within limited hours bracketing the event. Additionally any profits from the stadium go back to the team and not taxpayers. In the meantime, the taxpayers of Cobb County and elsewhere will continue to shill out millions of public dollars that place the profits right into the pockets of billionaire owners.  

Marvel's Phase One Movies: A Review

            Beginning with the release of Iron Man in 2008, Marvel Studios launched “Phase One” of its films based on Marvel comics. “Phase One” ended in 2012 with The Avengers. The six “Phase One” films made billions, setting the stage for a continuing string of Marvel movies. The chart below details the films, release dates, budgets, and grosses.  

Film	Year	Budget (imdb.com)	Gross (imdb.com)
Iron Man	2008	$140,000,000	$585,174,222
Incredible Hulk	2008	$150,000,000	$263,427,551
Iron Man 2	2010	$200,000,000	$623,933,331
Thor	2011	$150,000,000	$449,326,618
Captain America: The First Avenger	2011	$140,000,000	$368,608,363
Marvel’s The Avengers	2012	$220,000,000	$1,511,757,910

            Marvel’s “Phase 2” began earlier this year with the massively successful Iron Man 3. Thor: Dark World just opened to a $86.1 million dollar weekend. Marvel also has Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Marvel’s The Avengers: Age of Ultron, Guardians of the Galaxy in various stages of production with an Ant-Man movie also in the works. Marvel has also branched out into television production, with ABC’s Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and a recently announced deal with Netflix for four television series and a miniseries. The Marvel properties represent one of the most valuable assets in Hollywood. While “Phase One” was an undeniable commercial success, the films themselves were rather a mixed bag.

The Good

The Avengers

             The Avengers brought Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, and the Hulk together in an epic battle to protect Earth. Writer-director Joss Whedon successfully blends humor and action and clearly defines the different attributes of each character. Whedon’s writing provides depth to the non-Tony Stark Avengers. Captain America’s moral character resonates more than in his own movie. The Avengers is an entertaining and eminently re-watchable summer blockbuster.

 Iron Man

Iron Man helped restore Robert Downey Jr.’s fledgling career and Downey delights in this film as the brilliant and brash Tony Stark. The film also featured strong action sequences, a relatable and well-executed back-story that saw Stark brought low as the prisoner of a terrorist cabal before escaping. Like The Avengers, the film is an enjoyable summer action movie.

The Meh

Thor

            The chemistry of Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleson as brothers Thor and Loki carries the film. Unfortunately, clunky exposition and shameless product placements bog down the film once the action shifts to Earth. Natalie Portman, saddled with the worst parts of the film, plays an astro-physicist who falls in love with Thor. Armed with supermodel good looks, she delivers a lot of techno-babble dialogue about Norse mythology, electrical storms, and rainbow bridges to other planes of existence. Nothing about this movie makes me want to run out and see Thor: Dark World.

The Bad

Iron Man 2

            Iron Man 2 squanders the strengths of the first film, well-executed action and Robert Downey Jr., in favor of excessive and confused plotlines. The film features a rival industrialist creating his own Iron Man suits, Stark’s daddy issues, his slow poisoning, the creation of a new element, Stark’s relationship with his assistant, the attempts of a senator to take away his Iron Man suit, and the ostensible villain who wields a horrific Russian accent and an electric whip.

Captain America: The First Avenger

            Captain America starts off strong by highlighting Steve Rogers’s (Chris Evans) desire to protect the innocent and fight the Germans.  After being continually rejected for the Army, he volunteers for a secret medical experiment that gives him super-strength. Following the assassination of his mentor, Rogers demonstrates his fighting prowess by capturing the assassin.

The film then veers into inanity as a ridiculously ripped Captain America takes a job selling War Bonds. Eventually he leads an attack against a super-fortress designed by a Nazi villain named Red Skull, who, in a big reveal, has a red skull. Red Skull, however, is no ordinary Nazi—more of a super-Nazi. His seemingly endless supply of loyal soldiers extend both arms in a double Nazi salute—an absurdly stupid visual cue designed to show just how evil they are. Additionally Red Skull has an ancient source of energy that allows him to develop super-advanced energy weapons capable of vaporizing soldiers. Eventually he and Rogers fight on-board a plane, Red Skull dies, and Rogers must crash land the plane in the Arctic.

The Incredible Hulk

            Marvel loved this film so much that they didn’t even invite Edward Norton, who played Bruce Banner in this film, back for The Avengers. Fail.

            The final tally: two good, one mediocre, and three bad movies. Maybe the Phase 2 will be better...

12 Years a Slave

* Note, for anyone who is unaware (just in case), I am working on a PhD in American History with a focus on American Slavery. My doctoral dissertation investigates physical confrontations between slaves and whites in the Antebellum South. I am using Solomon Northup's autobiography, Twelve Years a Slave in my own research. So I have some familiarity with the subject matter in the film. 

            English director Steve McQueen’s adaptation of Solomon Northup’s autobiography, Twelve Years a Slave, represents the best portrayal of American slavery ever produced in popular media. The film brilliantly and vividly captures the brutality and horror of slavery in Antebellum America. McQueen stresses the violence, ordinary and extraordinary, that characterized and underlined the relationship between masters and slaves. The film eschews clichéd views of the institution of slavery and instead offers insight into less well-known features of slavery. It embraces a wide range of nuanced characters. Finally, by focusing on the African-American experience in slavery, 12 Years a Slave stands out as the best movie ever made about American slavery.

            12 Years a Slave embraces the ordinary and extraordinary violence inherent in slavery. McQueen and cinematographer Sean Bobbitt keep the camera fixed on a series of violent acts. They confront and challenge the audience to acknowledge the horror of slavery. They do not spare the audience these unpleasant bits of history; they shine a badly needed light upon them. Northup’s (Chiwetel Ejiofor) beating upon his arrival in James Burch’s Washington D.C. slave pen clearly reveals this desire. Burch’s assistant batters Northup with a paddle and as Northup’s pain increases so does the audience’s discomfort. After Northup’s near hanging by John Tibeats (Paul Dano), he remains hanging by the neck, his toes tapping on the muddy ground just barely preventing him from choking.  The longer the scene drags on, the greater the possibility that Northup will lose his tenuous balance and die. Edwin Epps’s (Michael Fassbender) whipping of Patsey (Lupita Nyong'o) towards the end of the film brings this extraordinary violence full circle. Epps whips her on suspicion of sleeping with another white man. The scene grows especially disturbing as Epps orders Northup, at gunpoint, to whip Patsey as well. Mrs. Epps (Sarah Paulson) watches the spectacle in satisfied approval, as Patsey, the object of Edwin Epps’s sexual desire, suffers horribly. These moments of extraordinary violence remind the audience that violence stood at the core of American slavery.

            The film also reminds its audience of the casual and systematic violence that pervaded throughout the Slave South. The scene in Theophilus Freeman’s (Paul Giamatti) New Orleans slave pen highlights this quite well. Freeman demonstrates the physical attributes of a young male slave in one moment. In the next, he beats Eliza (Adepero Oduye), a female slave, for crying at the potential separation of her family. Freeman, then, calmly immediately returns to his business. His ordinary business transaction becomes Eliza’s worst nightmare. In the middle of a midnight dance, Mrs. Epps throws a whiskey decanter at Patsey’s face, badly hurting her. Mrs. Epps, then, orders the dancing to continue as if nothing had happened. In another scene on Epps’s plantation, slaves endure whippings for failing to meet their work quotas as children frolic in a field and slaves go about their daily work. As Northup’s life rests on the pattering of his toes, the other slaves go about their lives, ignoring the nearly dead man only a few feet away. Only a brave female slave shows compassion and brings him a drink of water before fleeing in terror at the arrival of Northup’s owner, William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch). In these scenes, violence proves devastatingly banal.

            12 Years a Slave offers a wide range of complex characters, white and black. The slave characters embody different parts of the slave experience. Eliza fathered children by her master and received special favor from him. She had slaves to serve her until her master’s family orchestrated the sale of her and her children south. Clem, a slave in Burch’s slave pen, swears that his master will redeem him. Clem rejoices and embraces his master when he appears to reclaim him. Patsey, Epps’s best cotton picker and the object of his lust, demonstrates the vulnerability of slave women to sexual exploitation by their masters and hatred from their mistresses. Mrs. Shaw (Alfre Woodard), the black mistress of a white man, prides herself on being served by slaves and not having worked on the fields. Her horrifying pragmatism and scorn for her fellow slaves highlights how some slaves carved out comfortable niches for themselves.  William Ford is a kind master, but only as kind as a system that brutalizes an entire race of people allows. He protects Northup from murder, but chides him for his character and behavior. Tibeats, the dimwitted degenerate, tries to demonstrate his mastery over Northup and winds up on the wrong end of a vicious beating. Chapin, Ford’s overseer, saves Northup’s life, but only because Ford would lose money if Northup died. Freeman traffics in human flesh as easily as if he were selling produce. Mrs. Epps, the coldly unsympathetic plantation mistress, lashes out at her husband and Patsey alike. These characters present a nuanced and complex view of slavery.

            Fassbender and Ejiofor warrant special attention for their acting. Fassbender plays Epps as the expression of Southern ideas of slave mastery taken to their most brutal and extreme. He terrifies his slaves by bursting into their cabins and demanding they dance for his amusement. He surprises Northup with a barely contained menace that never goes above a whisper when discovers that Northup tried to mail a letter north. In instructing his slaves, he casually rests his arm on the head of one of young male slaves. He lusts after Patsey with unrestrained abandon, raping her for his own gratification and entering into a crazed passion at the suspicion of her sleeping with another white man. Fassbender’s performance embraces the unchecked power of mastery. Ejiofor ably captures Northup’s descent into the horrors of slavery. At the beginning of the film, his voice is cheerful and buoyant. By the time he reunites with his family, his voice, worn down by year of enslavement, cracks and stammers. The voice of Solomon Northup remains, but proves irrevocably broken. Ejiofor conveys the strain of Northup’s enslavement just underneath the surface, knowing never to express too much anger at his situation. He chides Eliza about crying over the loss of her children. Ejiofor sympathizes with her plight, but demands that she, like him, vow to survive rather than submit to grief.

            The film also portrays important and less well-known aspects of slave life in the Antebellum South. It juxtaposes white and slave religion. Both Ford and Epps read the Bible to their slaves, dictating it to them and stressing a precise message. The slaves sit or stand silently as their master imparts his lesson. When the slaves on Epps’ plantation bury a dead slave, they gather around the grave and begin singing “Roll, Jordan, Roll” a spiritual. The singing emphasizes the participatory nature of African-American Christianity. Slaves engaged in collective religious services as a way of binding together and seeking strength to survive the tortures of enslavement. In showing Northup’s sale from Washington D.C. to New Orleans, the film highlights the importance of the domestic slave trade. Public understandings of slavery in America have stressed the importance of the Atlantic Slave Trade and the horrors of the Middle Passage. Yet the United States ended its participation in the Atlantic Slave Trade in 1808 and the American slave population had long since begun growing through natural reproduction. A large domestic slave trade emerged to facilitate the movement of slaves from the Mid-Atlantic to the expanding slave South.

            12 Years a Slave represents the best film about American slavery by placing the African American experience at the heart of the movie. Lincoln dealt with the end of slavery from the legislative perspective. Debates between white men on the morality and evils of slavery stood proved more important than any depiction of the institution or its victims. The film featured only two African-Americans of any note, Lincoln’s butler and Elizabeth Keckley, an ex-slave and Mrs. Lincoln’s dressmaker. The only other appearance of African-Americans came when the 13^th Amendment passed the House of Representatives and a group of African-Americans cheered in the clichéd “free at last!” manner—as if African Americans had nothing to do with their own liberation. Quentin Tarrantino’s Django Unchained, a western/slavery revenge fantasy, bogs down in the middle as Christoph Walz’s German bounty hunter struggles with slavery, leaving Django and the revenge aspect of the film to drag on interminably. Even films that deal with the African-American experience in the 20^th century place African-Americans on the periphery of action. The Help featured African American characters in the burgeoning Civil Rights Movement, but rights and political consciousness came through the help of a nice white lady. The Blind Side suffered from a similar problem of having African-American uplift mediated through the help of a nice white lady. 12 Years a Slave stands apart by focusing on African Americans and the variety of their experiences in slavery. 

            Historians of slavery have long lamented the lack of a good movie about the African-American experience in slavery. Thanks to 12 Years a Slave the wait is over. 

Some World Series Thoughts After Game 5

As a team this season, the Cardinals hit .238/.301/.371 (AVG/OBP/SLG) against left-handed pitchers, while hitting .280/.343./412 against right-handers. While they have beaten Craig Breslow like a ragdoll, the Cardinals have failed to hit against Red Sox left-handers Jon Lester and Felix Doubront. Lester and Doubront have combined to throw 20 innings (out of 44.2 thrown by Sox pitching in the series) and only allowed 11 hits, 2 walks, and 2 runs. They have struck out 18 of 71 batters for strikeout rate just north of 25%. In 15.1 innings, Lester has walked 1 batter and struck out 15. The Red Sox left-handers dominance over the Cardinal lineup helps explain why the Sox hold a 3-2 series lead heading back to Boston.

While Fox announcers Joe Buck and Tim McCarver have repeatedly mentioned that Red Sox manager John Farrell has left shortstop Stephen Drew, currently mired in a deep slump, in the lineup for his defense, they have failed to mention Drew’s proficiency against right-handed pitching over the course of the season. Drew batted .284/.377/.498 against right-handers with 9 HR, 21 2B, and 7 3B. He averaged 4.1 pitches per plate appearance (P/PA) in the regular season, which if he had enough at-bats to qualify for the batting title, would place him 14^th in the majors. Despite his struggles, Drew has continued to work deep into counts and, crucially in the 7^th inning of Game 5, he worked a walk against Adam Wainwright that preceded David Ross’s go-ahead double. Drew is simply a good hitter going through a slump and John Farrell should (and will) continue to stick with him. 

In Games 3-5, Farrell finally returned to his senses and put Daniel Nava in the starting lineup ahead of Jonny Gomes. Nava has been the superior hitter throughout the entire season. Compare their numbers against right-handed pitchers this season.

	AVG	OBP	SLG	P/PA	wRC+
Nava	.322	.411	.484	4.11	146
Gomes	.258	.341	.404	3.87	103

wRC+ is a statistic designed to measure the number of runs a player generates relative to a league average figure of 100 (for a more detailed explanation see http://www.fangraphs.com/library/offense/wrc/). Every percentage point over 100 represents 1% over league average run production. So against right-handers this year, Nava created 46% more runs above the league average and Gomes created just 3%. Farrell’s explanation that he likes the “feel” of the lineup and until Game 2 the Sox were undefeated when Gomes started in the playoffs fails to pass any sort of common sense. Until that point the Red Sox were also undefeated in games that didn’t feature bear attacks, lightning strikes, or unicorn sightings. Nava is the better player and should play ahead of Gomes.

            Some thoughts on the Game 3 obstruction call. Having read up on the rule, I believe Jim Joyce, the third base umpire, made the correct call. I have some questions about the rule itself, especially since once the ball went past Will Middlebrooks there was no way for him to not obstruct the runner. The Red Sox did not lose the game because of that call. There were a host of other bad decisions that led to the Sox loss. Saltalamacchia should have just held the ball and then Uehara could have faced the next batter with two outs and a tie game. Farrell should have brought Uehara into the game much earlier. I would argue that he should have put him into the game in the 7^th inning when Breslow allowed two men to reach base. Or he should have begun the 9^th inning, when Farrell allowed Brandon Workman to bat rather than use Mike Napoli as a pinch hitter and execute a double switch. The obstruction call was a bad outcome generated by a bad series of decisions.

            In Game 5 Mike Matheny damaged his team’s chances of winning the game by batting Shane Robinson second and moving Carlos Beltran to the cleanup spot. As a backup player this season, Robinson hit .250/.345/.319 with a wRC+ of 93 (meaning he was 7% below league average in producing runs), Beltran hit .296/.339/.491 with a wRC+ of 132 (32% above league average). Managers should want their best hitters hitting more often than their worse ones. From Games 1-4, Matheny had done hit Beltran, arguably his best hitter, second in the lineup between Matt Carpenter and Matt Holliday. In Game 5, Matheny ignored Robinson’s poor play and focused on getting a speedy runner with the hope of getting him on base in front of Matt Holliday, Beltran, and Yadier Molina. The problem with this swap became most apparent in the 9^th inning when Matheny had to pinch hit for Robinson with the equally weak hitting Jon Jay. Beltran, meanwhile, waited in the on-deck circle as Holliday flied out to right to end the game.

Overall, this series has featured some incredible and memorable games and moments from the obstruction call to Uehara picking off Kolten Wong, from Jonny Gomes's home run to David Ross's double, from John Lackey's relief appearance to Michael Wacha (Wacha) pitching a gem. Game 6 is tomorrow night at Fenway and I can't wait. 

World Series Preview: St. Louis Cardinals vs. Boston Red Sox

STARTERS (All stats from http://www.fangraphs.com/)

Cardinals

Adam Wainwright — 241.2 IP, 8.16 K/9, 2.55 FIP

Michael Wacha — 64.2 IP, 9.05 K/9, 3.51 FIP

Joe Kelly — 124 IP, 5.73 K/9, 4.01 FIP

Lance Lynn — 201.2 IP, 8.84 K/9, 3.28 FIP

Red Sox

Jon Lester — 213.1 IP, 7.47 K/9, 3.59 FIP

John Lackey — 189.1 IP, 7.65 K/9, 3.86 FIP

Clay Buchholz — 108.1 IP, 7.98 K/9, 2.78 FIP

Jake Peavy — 144.2 IP, 7.53 K/9, 3.14 FIP

The starting rotations provide the starkest contrast of all the categories under analysis. The Cardinals rotation features the best starter in the series, a dominant rookie starter, and two question marks. This season Adam Wainwright produced 6.4 WAR and a 2.55 FIP, good for fourth in the majors. Michael Wacha has pitched brilliantly in the playoffs, with 22 strikeouts in 21 innings. He has only allowed one run and walked just four batters. Joe Kelly and Lance Lynn each have high walk rates and do not match up well against the patient Red Sox lineup. Kelly averaged 3.19 BB/9 and Lynn 3.35 BB/9 and the patient Red Sox hitters should be able to drive up their pitch counts and capitalize on their mistakes.

The Red Sox meanwhile have a stable of consistent starters who pitch deep into games. Since 2008, Jon Lester has averaged 4.6 WAR per season and never pitched fewer than 193.2 innings. John Lackey has driven his walk rate down to 1.9 BB/9 and induced groundballs from 46.8% of opposing hitters. Lackey has kept runners off the basepaths and the ball in the park. Buchholz has struggled to pitch past the 5^th inning since his return from injury. He will start Game 3 in St. Louis and Sox manager John Farrell will lift him for a pinch hitter by the 6^th inning, mitigating his stamina issues. Since coming over from the White Sox, Peavy has been a stable presence at the back of the rotation. He pitched well against Tampa Bay and poorly against Detroit.

Slight Advantage: Cardinals

BULLPENS (All stats from http://www.fangraphs.com/)

Cardinals

Closer: RHP Trevor Rosenthal — 12.9 K/9, 1.91 FIP

RHP Carlos Martinez — 7.62 K/9, 3.08 FIP

RHP Seth Maness — 5.08 K/9, 3.43 FIP

LHP Kevin Siegrist — 11.34 K/9, 2.29 FIP

LHP Randy Choate  — 7.13 K/9, 2.57 FIP

RHP Shelby Miller — 8.78 K/9, 3.67 FIP

RHP John Axford — 9 K/9, 4.34 FIP

RHP Edward Mujica — 6.4 K/9, 3.71 FIP

Red Sox

Closer: RHP Koji Uehara — 12.23 K/9, 1.61 FIP

RHP Junichi Tazawa — 9.48 K/9, 3.22 FIP

LHP Craig Breslow — 4.98 K/9, 3.60 FIP

RHP Brandon Workman — 10.15 K/9, 3.43 FIP

LHP Franklin Morales — 7.46 K/9, 4.55 FIP

RHP Ryan Dempster — 8.25 K/9, 4.68 FIP

LHP Felix Doubront — 7.71 K/9, 3.78 FIP

Uehara efficiently mowed down Detroit’s lineup in the ALCS. He pitched in multiple innings and consistently throws strikes. He is the best reliever in the series and look for Farrell to aggressively deploy him in the 8^th inning if necessary. Unfortunately for the Red Sox, the Cardinals trio of Rosenthal, Martinez, and Siegrist represent the next three best relievers. Cardinals manager Mike Matheny has employed these three to shut down the Pirates and Dodgers lineups. The strength of the Cardinals starting pitching so far has reduced Matheny’s need to go deep into his pen. Rookie starter Shelby Miller could be called upon if the Red Sox knock out one of the starters early. Get ready for a lot of Randy Choate vs. David Ortiz matchups in the late innings. Red Sox manager John Farrell has largely relied on Uehara, Tazawa, and Breslow in high leverage situations. Brandon Workman (with significant help from the belly flopping Prince Fielder) cleaned up the ineffective Franklin Morales’s mess in Game 6.

Advantage: Cardinals

STARTING LINEUPS (All stats from http://www.fangraphs.com/)

Cardinals

1. 2B Matt Carpenter (L) — .318/.392/.481

2. RF Carlos Beltran (S) — .296/.339/.491

3. LF Matt Holliday (R) — .300/.389/.490

4. 1B Matt Adams (L) — .284/.335/.503

5. DH Allen Craig (R) — .315/.373/.457

6. C Yadier Molina (R) — .319/.359/.477

7. 3B David Freese (R) — .262/.340/.381

8. CF Jon Jay (L) — .276/.351/.370

9. SS Pete Kozma (R) — .217/.275/.273

Red Sox

1. CF Jacoby Ellsbury (L) — .298/.355/.426

2. RF Shane Victorino (R) — .294/.351/.451

3. 2B Dustin Pedroia (R) — .301/.372/.415 

4. DH David Ortiz (L) — .309/.395/.564 

5. 1B Mike Napoli (R) — .259/.360/.482 

6. LF Jonny Gomes (R) — .247/.344/.426  

7. C Jarrod Saltalamacchia (S) — .273/.338/.466

8. SS Stephen Drew (L) — .253/.333/.443, 109

9. 3B Xander Bogaerts (R) — .250/.320/.364

The Red Sox produced a league leading 853 runs and fashioned a .277/.349/.446 batting line as a team. The Cardinals ranked third in the league with 783 runs and a team batting line of .269/.332/.401. The Red Sox feature a deeper lineup with more power. The Red Sox outhomered the Cardinals 178 to 125. The Red Sox led the league in doubles with 363 and the Cardinals ranked second with 325. The Red Sox lack the Pete Kozma/Daniel Descalso-sized hole at the bottom of their lineup. The return of Allen Craig will be important for the Cardinals. While Craig may be limited to DH and pinch hitting duties in series, if he can hit like he has throughout the regular season, the gap between the lineups will shrink a bit. If Craig is ineffective and the Cardinals have two holes (and three for Games 3-5) in their lineup, then the Red Sox will maintain the clear advantage.

Advantage: Red Sox

BENCHES (All stats from http://www.fangraphs.com/)

Cardinals

C Tony Cruz (R)— .203/.240/.293

IF Kolten Wong (L)— .153/.194/.169

IF Daniel Descalso (L)— .238/.290/.366

OF Shane Robinson (R)— .250/.345/.319

Red Sox

C David Ross(R) — .216/.298/.382

1B/OF Mike Carp (L)— .296/.362/.523

3B Will Middlebrooks (R) — .227/.271/.425

OF Daniel Nava (S) — .303/.385/.445

OF Quintin Berry (L) — .625/.667/1.000

            The Red Sox have a significant advantage on the bench. Carp and Nava (assuming Farrell sticks with Gomes as his starter) provide positional flexibility and power off the bench. Farrell can be aggressive with his pinch hitting and pitching changes when the series shifts to St. Louis. The Red Sox also are only carrying 11 pitchers in the shortened series, giving them another bench spot for a specialist like Berry. The Cardinals bench features a group of slap hitting, no walk hitters who don’t offer Mike Matheny any significant pinch hitting options.

Advantage: Red Sox

DEFENSE (Defensive efficiency from http://www.baseball-reference.com/ other stats from http://www.fangraphs.com/)

Cardinals

Defensive Efficiency: .691 (NL League Average .694)

Defensive Runs Saved: -39

Ultimate Zone Rating: -49.4

Red Sox

Defensive Efficiency: .694 (AL League Average .690)

Defensive Runs Saved: 9

Ultimate Zone Rating: 21.6

            While defensive metrics vary wildly from year to year and from stat to stat, the trend that emerges here is clear. The Red Sox carry a slightly above average defense, while the Cardinals have a well-below average difference. Considering the amount of pressure the Red Sox put on opposing teams with their aggressive base running defense could play an important, if unheralded, role in this series.

Advantage: Red Sox

MANAGERS

Mike Matheny, in his second year, has made improvements to his managing. The Cardinals high scoring offense tempered Matheny’s fascination with the sacrifice bunting with his position players (33 last year to 17). This post season the Cardinals starters have gone deep into most games, giving Matheny the opportunity to rely on his top relievers and minimizing the risk of coughing up the lead. It will be interesting to see how Matheny reacts if one of his starters struggles early and he has to rely on the back end of the bullpen.

John Farrell has pressured opposing teams with smart base running, exploiting platoon advantages, and aggressive defensive positioning. The Red Sox stole 123 bases in 142 opportunities, posting a 86.6% success rate. He platooned Daniel Nava and Jonny Gomes in left field until this series. He pinch hits with Mike Carp and Gomes in order to gain the platoon edge. He employs a variety of defensive shifts against pull hitters with marked tendencies. Farrell’s performance in Game 6 was a mixed bag, but ultimately the Red Sox pulled out the win. He played Xander Bogaerts over Will Middlebrooks to the team’s benefit.  Starting Gomes over Nava (the better player) throughout the series finally paid off. Shane Victorino’s grand slam in the bottom of the 7^th mitigated the disaster of his bunt in the bottom of the 3rd. A simple glance at a run expectancy chart should be enough to demonstrate the stupidity of a bunt that early in the game. His insistence on using Franklin Morales in Game 6 represented a terrible tactical decision. Morales demonstrated his persistent control issues by walking Prince Fielder and allowing a go ahead single to Victor Martinez. Craig Breslow, who has been effective, would have been a better choice there.

Advantage: Red Sox

Prediction

            The Red Sox and Cardinals split the first two in Boston. After the series shifts to St. Louis, the Red Sox lineup and bench advantages assert themselves and the Red Sox win two of three. They return home to Boston and clinch the series with John Lackey (afterwards basking in all the beer and fried chicken in Boston) on the mound in Game Six.

Red Sox in 6.