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.