You told me once, “A man has to know where he’s goin’!” Where are you goin’, Monty?
——-
——-
I finally liked a baseball movie from the 40s or 50s!
In The Stratton Story, Jimmy Stewart plays real life pitcher Monty Stratton, whose burgeoning career was cut short when he lost his right leg in a hunting accident in 1938. At 26 years old, his career as a superstar was over. But Stratton trained himself to pitch on his prosthetic, and eventually played in the minors from 1946 to 1953. If there was ever a story deserving a film adaptation, this is that fucking story!
An athlete’s skill is often exaggerated on the way to a big screen adaption. Elite talent plays better in a story like this, so Hollywood has been known to fudge the numbers a bit. In this case, no exaggeration was necessary. Stratton was the real deal. As a 25-year-old, he won 15 of his 21 starts, pitching to a 2.40 ERA and an MLB leading WHIP of 1.087. He was 25!!
It’s heartbreaking to think of a kid with that much promise cut down by a freak accident. But what might have ended as a tragedy became a story about the triumph of the human spirit overcome seemingly insurmountable odds. I know that’s a cliche, but it’s true. The guy lost his leg, and eight full years later he returned to pitch at the professional level. Even with all their appendages, it’s an unlikely story for a player to leave the game and return to professional play eight years later. I wouldn’t believe Stratton’s story in a purely fictional film, but he actually did it! He never achieved sustained success at any level after his return, but getting paid to pitch for seven more years under those circumstances is remarkable
I didn’t expect much going into this one, but it was far superior to more celebrated baseball films of the era. It transcended those films because the emotional cues were richer and more authentic. I cared about these characters.
The core of the film is Stratton’s relationship with his wife, Ethel. If that hadn’t worked, nothing could have saved the film, but it really, really worked. In far too many films, the character of Ethel would have been a two-dimensional foil for Stewart to play off of as he fights his way back from the edge of despair. In The Stratton Story, Monty becomes more of a side character through the end of the second act, as we follow the emotional toll on Ethel as she tries to keep things together and help her husband remember who he is. Her character is still primarily played in terms of her husband’s story, but she’s a three-dimensional character whose worth doesn’t derive from him. She loves him, and fights against the hopelessness shadowing her family after the accident. June Allyson crushes it in the role, and I don’t think the film would have worked without her.
Unfortunately, they didn’t stick the landing. Stratton’s return to baseball is illustrated through his first game back on the mound. The game is overly contrived, doesn’t make any sense, and undermines the power of what Monty Stratton actually accomplished. The film depicts superhuman success, where Stratton is able to overcome one obstacle after another as he pitches, fields bunts, and knocks in game winning RBI. What he did was already amazing. There was no need to fabricate this sort of performance.
This crime of a finale reaches its denouement with the film’s final line (which is delivered by a disembodied narrator that I guess is meant to be a sportscaster). I don’t even remember the actual wordage, but it’s painfully overwritten nonsense hammering home the fact that Monty Stratton was courageous and inspiring. We just watched an entire film showing us that. Then, as if we haven’t gotten the point, they fabricate an impossibly successful return to the mound in a game full of scenarios that make absolutely no sense on a baseball field. Then, in case we still haven’t gotten it yet, they basically just tell us, word for word, what the takeaway about ole’ Monty Stratton was meant to be.
I have no idea what the real story is, but it felt like someone wrote a great movie, and then the studio was like, “Yeah, but do you think the audience will understand what you’re trying to say? Let’s really nail it home! I want to make sure everyone leaves knowing they are supposed to be impressed by Monty Stratton. You’ve gotta lay it on thicker!”
That was a long complaint, but even so, I enjoyed the rest of the film enough that I’m really glad I added it to the list.
Also, I couldn’t write this whole post without pointing out that Jimmy Stewart joins Cooper and Redford in the ridiculous club of old men playing baseball prospects. A 41-year-old Stewart played a man who was only 26 when he lost his leg. Stratton was only 42 years old when he retired the second time. And yet, we have Stewart playing a 21-year-old early in the film, and he was older than Stratton was at any point in the story. What is the deal with this phenomenon in baseball movies?!
On the other hand, with the notable exception of the final game (ugh), the movie was better at depicting baseball than others of the time. Baseball movies from the 40s and 50s — at least the ones I’ve seen — play really fast and loose with the details of the game itself. That being the case, I was shocked and impressed that in scenes with Stratton on the mound, Stewart pitched from the stretch with runners on base! It’s a detail that would be expected these days, in the age of hyper-criticism. But in 1949, it speaks to an admirable commitment to respect the player and the game. Perhaps I’m the only person alive who cares about this detail, but I audibly reacted the first time it happened, and I was watching the film alone.
Up Next: The 80s baseball classic, Major League.
