Nathan Goldman Analysis of Moneyball Introduction When Moneyball became available in theaters fall of 2011, the general public encountered initial beginnings of a cultural transformation within Baseball culture. The films $110.2 million dollar box office profit (IMdbPro) is a testament to Hollywood's entertaining touch of hyper exaggeration. Groundbreaking Events from the 2002 Oakland Athletics season are based on a true story, however cinema culture intensifies the ideologically dominant resistance facing Oaklands management. Baseball culture has historically had a consistent presence of systematically traditionalist values and expectations. Players are unofficially required to consent their on field presentation according to the sports value of visualized athleticism. Looking like a ballplayer is just as important as on field success. This structural emphasis on visualized athleticism unfortunately hinders an organization's financial efficiency. Evaluating individuals based on physical appearance causes professional baseball teams to overpay for players. According to an article on Fanduel Sports: “when players do hit free agency, they are often signing long-term deals that stretch well into their less-productive 30s. When players inevitably age, they are vastly overpaid to what they are actually worth.” (Jung, 2020) Moneyball justifies statistical data’s increasingly effective solution to maximize financial capabilities. InsteadTraditionalist talent scouts rely on a heterodoxy set of standards in the form of visually appealing generalities. Size, speed, personality, and even moral views often determine an athletes chances of benefiting the organization. As a result of this described cultural misconception, this essay will primarily focus on investigating the hegemonic traditionalism resisting Oaklands management present in Moneyball’s script. Hegemony's dominance fundamentally provides an antagonistic force against team management throughout the majority of the big screen. The the theoretical term Hegemony can be defined as: “ process by which one ideology subverts other competing ideologies and gains cultural dominance through consent..” (Ott, Mack,p142) Baseball scouts, local sports journalists, and the general public of old school fans are all acting in unison to extinguish this new wave of statistically based ideology. When Oaklands general manager Billy Bean decides to rebel against a system of generational practices, his ideological presence becomes a threat towards the entire cultural identity of baseball. This ideological identity takes the form of a doxa in the eyes of traditionalists. Why would it make sense for Oakland to disrupt a process of evaluation with a generationally reliable method? In order to analytically dissect this initiation of hegemonic resistance a raw textual investigation is necessary. Four specifically selected scenes from the movie's script will be individually dissected and critiqued. Page numbers from the ScriptSluge.com database will be referenced. Each scene contains unique representations of hegemonic traditionalism, while simultaneously containing a similar thematic presence. Direct citations and situational descriptions will be established to support current scholarly discussions about baseball's historically oldschool culture. Before conducting the actual research, this essay will produce an initial hypothesis. Hegemonic player evaluation methods fail to account for the statistical benefits an individual can offer for the team winning percentage, because of an interpolated obsession with athleticism. Scene#1: “Its an unfair game” In the opening portion of Moneyball, Oakland suffers a devastating playoff loss against the mighty Newyork Yankees. When the final out is recorded General Manager Billy Beane aka Brad Pitt, knows his organization was about to lose their three best players to free agency. Severe budget constrictions make it impossible for the Athletics to even resign one member of the trio. After the Athletics Owner Stephen Schott (Tony Frye, Whitcleatbeat.com) fails to provide any increase on the available budget for next season, Billy’s frustration becomes apartment. His competitive will to win can only be satisfied with a championship banner.His preexisting animosity sets the stage for a pivotal point in the narrative, because it's the first time hegemonic traditionalism is addressed. Initial camera placement is fixated on a giant white board when the scene begins. The whiteboard is covered with a multitude of player name cards organized by their defensive positions.Muffled background conversations fill the silence as the camera zooms out. All of a sudan a voice from a new character calls attention to the audience. A double digit number of older men sitting at a table turn their heads to look at their speaker. Head scout Grady exclaims: “Alright, guys... we had a great year. We won 102 games and we only came a buck short in New York. Now the bad news... we’ve got three big holes to fill.” (Moneyball, P18) Clearly Grady acknowledges that the organization is facing an extremely difficult situation involving potential on field success. Regardless, it immediately becomes apparent he is going to revert back to his usually strategic reasoning to solve the problem. When he asks the other scouts in the room which players they like for potential replacement options, their answers seem to interest him. The scout known as Keough describes: “I like Geronimo. Guy’s an athlete. This guy is big, fast and talented.” (Moneyball, 18) Unmeasurable generalities are immediately present in Keough’s reasoning for this player analysis. In reality professional sports including baseball, contain a massive quantity of visually appealing athletes. Additionally, superior athleticism is not guaranteed to transfer into success on a baseball field. The sports skill based motions does not necessarily need strong muscles and quick feet to accomplish. A sports journalist named Conrad Guest, produced an article on Bleacher Report relatable to this claim. Guest explains:“I look at a team like the Yankees and I see more gifted athletes than I do ballplayers, and they haven’t won a championship since 2000.” (Guest, 2009) Despite this quote's age of over 10 years, its still relevant because the Yankees have only won one World Series Title in two decades. In relation to Moneyball, the New York Yankees are responsible for metaphorically enforcing Hegemonic traditionalism. The organization's infinite amount of wealth is a reason why Billy Bean decided to contest the universal method of assembling rosters. There is absolutely no chance for a team like Oakland to obtain enough flashy players to compete with NewYorks empire. Yankees management usually acquires the undoubtedly successful veterans for top dollar. This entitled mindset definitely causes the Yankees to overlook statistical data. The Yankees utilized there finances in 2002 to acquire Jason Giambi from Billy Bean’s ball club. A constant theme of Giambi’s ensuing departure heightens the urgency characterized in our initially analyzed scene. After Grady, and Keough exchange opinions about Geranimo’s potential, Billy Bean finally decides to make his agitation known.Particularly the claim of: “Good jaw. He's the real deal” (Moneyball, 18) is his last straw. From a viewer's perspective, its honestly astonishing to witness none of the scouts object to this pointless observation about a players jawline appearance. MIllions of dollars are on the line and this guy is worried about a players attractiveness. Traditionalist affiliation is the only explanation for such a nonchalant response. In other words, nobody questions the flawed take due to faith in the overall credibility of everyone in Oaklands scouting department. Similar perspectives on how to effectively evaluate ball players is assumed. In response to dominant traditionalist values affirming their ideological presence, Billy repeatedly asks:”can he hit?” (Moneyball, 18,19) This simple question furthers Billy's frustration when he receives another unmeasurable generality. According to Keough: “He's got a great swing…. Natural swing” (Moneyball, 19) Praising a natural swings visual attractiveness feels like a universal trait of a good hitter. But what constitutes a natural swing besides an obviously athletic movement? Fortunately Billy cuts right through the hollow claim:”So you're saying he can’t hit?” (Moneyball, 19) When posing this rhetorical question to his scouting department, a monumental step is taken to oppose a hegemonic process that supposedly benefits the organizations front office , and the player these scouts are complementing. However in reality, a generalized analysis like this could be setting a player up to fail. Billy captures this lack of logic by sarcastically claiming: “right….we put him up against big league competition and suddenly he’ll be able to hit.” As previously stated, this portion of the exchange is significant in the demonstration of systematically hegemonic flaws. The audience needs to understand why a historically significant ideological culture should be altered. Oakland’s loss in the opening scene of the movie is problematic, but its not justifiable to scrap an entire organizational mindset based on a single season's shortcomings. Hegemonic culture shifts take repeated agitational events to begin oppositional reasoning. Billy's sarcasm is only identified by the audience if they are able to interpolate the scouts' patternized failure. Interpellation can be defined as:”..an