Directors: Ryan Fleck & Anna Boden (Half Nelson)
Writers: Ryan Fleck & Anna Boden
Producers: Paul S. Mezey, Jamie Patricof, Jeremy Kipp Walker
Starring: Algenis Perez Soto, Rayniel Rufino, Andre Holland, Ellary Porterfield, Jaime Tirelli
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 120 min
It’s probably my own fault. I’ve recently discovered that avoiding too much marketing of a film is usually a good thing. Understanding the general premise and knowing some of the cast and crew involved is usually all the incentive I need to know on whether a trip to the theater is warranted or not. Going into a movie with as clean of a slate as possible generally makes for much more of an enjoyable, exciting and unexpected experience. So with baseball season just starting to get into full swing, off I went to see an indie, “farm league” version if you will, of a sports movie with the talented directing duo of Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden; the writing/directing team of 2006′s perfect Half Nelson.
So the score I give this movie, a 2 1/2 out of 5 is partially due to my ignorant personal expectations of what I thought I was going to see. I love baseball movies. In fact, I can’t really think of a baseball themed movie I have seen and not enjoyed – particularly personal, “overcoming the odds” pictures. Sure they’re cliché, but with me they tug at my emotions and work like gang-busters to inspire and instill a sense of pride at being a fan of America’s pastime. Whether it’s Robert Redford in The Natural or Dennis Quaid in The Rookie, I l-o-v-e it. Sugar, unfortunately (or fortunately as your point of view might dictate) is NOT a baseball picture. It’s an immigration story that doesn’t know which aspect of immigration it wants to tackle and so just becomes a sort of wandering bit of… (I hesitate to use the word) soullessness.
Miguel “Sugar” Santos is, like many youth in the Dominican Republic, a slumdog; aspiring to be a professional baseball player. Sugar has a gift that others don’t have though: a cannon for an arm that can make a ball dance in midair. When he’s finally scouted and invited by the Kansas City team to join their spring training, his family and small village is obviously excited and friends and relatives he never knew he had come out of the woodwork. But transitioning to life in the United States proves more difficult than he thought. In the big leagues, everybody is a good player. Slip up and someone is always there to take your place. Besides the many pressures baseball dishes out, life in the States is arguably an even tougher proposition. The language barrier is just one obvious obstacle to overcome. There’s also bigotry, expectations, drugs, alienation, finances, loneliness, girls, etc. For the film to try and tackle all of this along with the baseball thing is ambitious too be sure, but unfortunately too much to tackle in 120 minutes.
From this problem of being too ambitious stem other problems with the film. Some plot developments are never untangled or explored. The issue of steroid use is brought up and it looks like we might head down a darker road of drug abuse, but it’s completely forgotten about after a few minutes. There’s a weird romance/relationship that begins to blossom that is intertwined within a religious youth group Sugar becomes involved with and that just seems to go nowhere (admittedly, I’m glad about that) as well. But the biggest problem is there are no side characters that we grow attached to. Just as we’re interested in Sugar’s home life and his friends and family, we’re off to spring training with a whole new cast of characters; including his elderly host family, who are about as boring and uninteresting as you can get. Friends within the organization come and go throughout the movie before Sugar is moved up the evolutionary ladder to a new team with new players, coaches and friends. Later in the film, Sugar moves on once more and we lose contact yet again with any stable relationships to engage with and start new ones with only 20 minutes left in the film. Arguably maybe this is the point. Maybe in this way we’re forced to empathize with Sugar as closely as possible. Forgive me for not wanting to empathize with a struggling character.
Alright, so the film makers finally establish and convince me that this will not be your typical sports movie; and I’m actually fine with that, but then give me something interesting to latch on to or think about. This journey of a South American immigrant struggling in the harsh climate of The United States really isn’t anything new. There’s not even an attempt at anything edgy or provocative. The film turns into a wanderer’s sob story for whom it’s really hard to feel much for considering his decisions.
Of course there are plenty of good things going for the film. For one, the seemingly realistic look at the behind the scenes of minor league baseball is fantastic. It’s obvious Fleck and Boden did their homework here. From stadiums to farm patches and even the lingo and behavior from coaches, players and scouts seem genuine and authentic as hell.
Also, despite the fairly benign subject matter, the photography here is expertly crafted. Without a lot of baseball action and much more focused on personal interaction and self examination, the directors can take their time with lighting, camera angles and a hand held style that isn’t obtrusive, but much more intimate. The interesting use of elements from a baseball stadium works terrifically and one can tell that this directing duo knows what they’re doing skillfully and artfully.
What Half Nelson did for the drug movie and “teacher/student” sub-genre of films, Sugar does not do for the baseball or immigrant film. There’s some heart here, but it feels like it wasn’t directed accurately at the target. In fact, I’m not entirely sure what the target is. This disappointment (and that’s what this was – a personal disappointment – not a complete failure) won’t deter me from anticipating more from Fleck and Boden in the future. What Half Nelson was waaay too much of a success to warrant a skepticism from one errant foul ball.
100% agree with you Andrew, and I am on the Fleck and Boden bandwagon for at least a couple more films, even though Sugar didn’t set me aflame the way Half-Nelson did. Its hard to criticize this film because it does what it wants to do very well, its just what it wants to do is not that involving, at least for me.
Right exactly. I felt like I should like the movie, I just wasn’t “into it.”
And I suppose I should’ve mentioned the lead of the film in the review. He’s quite good.
And I agree with Mike’s comment. I did enjoy the film a great deal – much more than you did Andrew – but it didn’t “set me aflame” either. I’d still recommend it though I doubt I’ll see it again.
He is really good and during the Q&A we found out that he didn’t speak any English when they started shooting. He learned as his character did!
WHAT?! Andrew! I’m shocked! This movie was simply *fabulous* at every turn! How could you not like it? Do you have a heart of stone? Sugar was a completely appealing, enchanting character. He’s a sweet, innocent kid who’s been thrown into this intense, competitive world, and he doesn’t know if he has the goods to make it there, or even if he wants to.
****SPOILER ALERT****SPOILER ALERT****SPOILER ALERT****
The drugs he took were not meant to be steroids, they were some form of Benzedrine (bennies), a stimulant to really get him going at game time. He took too much and had a negative reaction. No wonder he didn’t take it again.
And what? His host family is boring? I thought they were adorable! And really funny.
The film brilliantly avoids all the cliches of other sports and immigration movies, that’s why it’s so good. Do we really need another movie where the hero wins the big game at the end? Come on.
Andrew, Mike & Marina are out of step about SUGAR with, I’d say conservatively, 97% of the critics I’ve read through google alerts on Ryan Fleck (huge fan since I saw “Struggle” at the Black International Film Festival in Oakland) and sold out audiences at Sundance, the San Francisco opening/Q&A, two New York opening/Q&As (from reports by my brother & friend), and full house screenings in Toronto.
I respect their opinions. I’d feel disappointed too if I wanted all my baseball stories to follow the same trajectory Andrew laid out. Sometimes that familiar Hollywood formula is just what I want and need in a sports movie, rom-com, inspirational teacher, western, whatever genre – it it’s well done. But more often than not, I don’t want that comfort zone.
I think Andrew went in with preconceptions – not sure that’s a good idea for any reviewer – and his disappointment so colored/clouded his judgment that he lost his way. How else could his perception be so at odds, 180 degrees, from the overwhelming majority of viewers and critics (96% top critics @ Rotten Tomatoes)?
As for being a soulless immigrant tale, explain this: At the party after the San Francisco screening, a 20 year old Chinese immigrant woman student and a 35 year old immigrant woman restaurant worker, almost crying, said the exact same thing – “This is *my* life!” Think about it, pretty extraordinary statement, don’t you think?
I admit 100% that my preconceptions affected my judgement on this film. Something I thought I laid out pretty well in my opening paragraph.
@”…Chinese immigrant woman student and a 35 year old immigrant woman restaurant worker, almost crying, said the exact same thing – “This is *my* life!” Think about it, pretty extraordinary statement, don’t you think?”
Not really. That’s exactly the problem I feel. Why would I want to see something I’ve seen a hundred times over? You know how many movie deal with illegal immigration? A shitload. So because it mirrors someone else’s life that makes it more engrossing drama? If anything, it makes it more dull. That is why Half Nelson was so amazing. It took the boring old student/teacher film and gave it an interesting twist. The baseball thing here wasn’t an interesting enough of a twist to make this movie worth 2 hours.
Sorry, but this argument holds no water. 97% of critics on a Google search? Weak argument.
No, you’re missing the point. And you may never see it because, like fundamentalists, you are absolutely sure you’ve seen everything and know everything about immigration movies and immigation. *You* think you understand – no, you *know* you’re right. The women were saying they had never seen their stories on the screen before and their stories took the form of a 19 year old black Latino Spanish speaking athlete.
Never mind that at the Dominican International Film Festival the Dominican athletes from the big guns Sammy Sosa, Pedro Martinez, David Big Papi Ortiz, to the minor leaguers said that was the way they came up and the movie spoke true. Never mind that Boden/Fleck started their script with interviews with the real players (seen at the end sequence) at Roberto Clemente Park and at the D.R.
I suggest your readers read Melissa Segura’s Sports Illustrated piece about how singular SUGAR is in portraying the story of Latin American ballplayers and the whole immigrant angle as well as
Well, I’m not sure if you read my review. It’s pretty clear (or maybe not?) that I do praise the film for seeming to be quite realistic in its portrayal of minor league baseball – particularly for players from South America. “Fleck and Boden have obviously done their homework” I think were my exact words.
And now I’m a fundamentalist because the story didn’t interest me or because I don’t follow a bunch of corporate writing sheep at Rotten Tomatoes? If you visit this site regularly you know that we tend to gravitate much more towards films that are closer to the 50% or 60% range on Rotten Tomatoes. Right or wrong those are the types of films that are really “going for it.” Trying something new and really tackling interesting ideas that not everyone is ready to embrace.
And again, I don’t think the merit of a film is necessarily how closely it relates to the real world. In some cases yes; but more often than not I go to the cinema to be entertained – but to be entertained in an intellectually stimulating way.
I never claimed to “know everything” or that “I’m right” about immigration. That is so beside the point here. It doesn’t matter what I know or don’t know or how I feel or how you think I feel about immigration. What does matter is whether the story is cohesive and gets me interested and want to know more. Do I care about Sugar and his feelings and what he is going through? The answer is not really. Do I care about the nanny in “Babel” who is deported? Hell yes. The interactions Sugar has with some of the side characters all eventually become inconsequential to the story because we forget about them after a few minutes and most of it just adds up to not quite a hill of beans. Sugar is lonely and misses his family. OK, I get it. Now what? Now let’s send him to NYC to find another father figure and another friend to hang with. It just isn’t compelling. Sure it’s maybe realistic, but realistic does not always = compelling cinema. If it does for you, that’s fantastic. It just didn’t work for me.
And believe me, I really really wanted to like this movie.
In regards to the Rot Tom statement. I guess I should clarify that in general I probably do like the higher rated movies as well. But shit, some of my favorite movies last year were “struggling” at the RT site: Doomsday, Elegy, Blueberry Nights, Blindness, Rachel Getting Married, etc.
@Ligaya
I also don’t like Citizen Kane even though the cinematic community insists it is the greatest film ever made. The problem with your approach Ligaya, is to assume that value can be proven through testimonials, it can’t. You can make a case about how authentic the film via these testimonials perhaps, but authenticity is a different thing from emotional effect… I refuse to believe that something need only be authentic to work dramatically, it has to work as a story as well. I don’t doubt the authenticity of Sugar, but it never amounted to much for me, never good or bad, just as a fairly well done film with no lasting impact.
We do not owe it to society to love certain films because of their messages, a film should always be more than a message, as an art form it needs to implant the meaning without being didactic, it needs to live inside you. Sugar, even if its story is worthwhile, did not live inside me, and that I believe is a defect of the storytelling from my perspective. I saw this at the film festival, I clearly wanted to love it… but it didn’t happen.
I had a huge debate with someone over Half-Nelson when it came out, she thought it was liberal guilt tosh and I defended it. And she assumed a privileged perspective because she was a minority, so her opinion held more weight than mine. But I kept going back to the film, to show how at almost every turn the film deviates from the kind of liberal guilt agenda film the genre normally turns out to be. I think Sugar is also exempt of the liberal guilt agenda, but it didn’t go anywhere new, it hits the notes I would expect the story to go, and there was not enough lived-in moments to make that kind of meandering worthwhile.
Okay wait a second. I just read your review again, and you said you were disappointed that the movie didn’t follow the normal cliched storyline of most sports movies, but it didn’t go anywhere new? You can’t have it both ways!
And I think it DID go to many new places. Every time I thought something was going to happen, like the scene in the nightclub or the relationship with the daughter, it totally didn’t go where I thought it would. That was fantastic, I love it when movies veer off the beaten path and surprise me. If what I thought was going to happen actually had, then it would have been a typical Hollywood movie. *Yawn*
@ “And I think it DID go to many new places. Every time I thought something was going to happen, like the scene in the nightclub or the relationship with the daughter, it totally didn’t go where I thought it would.”
That’s right exactly. It didn’t go where I thought it would either. You know why? Because it didn’t go anywhere! What relationship with the daughter? It looked there was going to be one, then one day she shows up and he says goodbye and she leaves. We never explore that avenue ever again. Why not? That could’ve been interesting. The nightclub scene was two minutes long. He almost gets in a fight and then they leave. That’s it.
@“you said you were disappointed that the movie didn’t follow the normal cliched storyline of most sports movies, but it didn’t go anywhere new? You can’t have it both ways!”
Ok. Fair point. But here’s my explanation (which I thought I mentioned in the review but maybe didn’t make clear): I was disappointed that this wasn’t another inspirational baseball movie. But once I accepted that, I was ready for something new and interesting to take shape. But for me, nothing ever did. To me it is a meandering/wandering story. That’s the best way I can explain it. There was nothing of interest and nothing emotional. Nothing to grab me and say, “wow. look at this!”. It just isn’t there.
“nothing of interest and nothing emotional”
WHAT?!?!
Okay, I could argue this forever, I’m never going to win. Clearly if you liked Babel and you didn’t like this, we’re affected by completely different types and levels of emotion. Babel for me was complete garbage, almost as bad as Crash.
*MAY BE SPOILERS BELOW, BEWARE*
The “meandering/wandering” aspect of the film was what I liked about it so much. Sugar’s actual life was wandering, he didn’t get a chance to settle down and form relationships. He was too busy working, trying to be the best, under tons of pressure. He was a smart kid, he knew that if he got into a relationship with the daughter, or if he started a fight in the club, it would affect his game in one way or another. And he realized that even if he did want that realationship more than the baseball, it was still going to be extremely difficult if not impossible with the language barrier, not to mention the cultural differences, bigotry, etc.
At the same time, he’s realizing how much he loves carpentry. He fixes the drawer in his host family’s kitchen, and that had some kind of soothing affect on him. Probably much the same way some of us turn to movies after a long day at work.
The filmmakers caught this “wandering” so beautifully, I was able to connect with it, even though I’ve never been in any kind of situation like Sugar’s. But his performance was absolutely heartbreaking, and I loved where he ended up, he found a community that he fit into and seemed happy for the first time.
Clearly a case of to each his own. Emotion can’t be forced on a person. It either works or it doesn’t. For Rot and I it didn’t and for you it did. That’s awesome. Again, I really wish I did like this movie. And yeah, I like both Crash and Babel.
Yes, I agree in this example its a weak argument as well. Or are you being sarcastic and think that pointing out its RT score is a good argument?
I will say though, pointing out an RT score is a good argument to give something a chance or go see it.