Introduction
The classic film Field of Dreams is renowned for its deeply emotional and spiritual storyline. Central to the narrative is the field of dreams itself, a baseball field that Ray Kinsella constructs on his land. However, many viewers are left with a puzzling detail: why would an entire baseball field's worth of land bankrupt Ray, when realistically that much land would not result in such significant financial strain?
Why It Matters
When you watch a movie, you often suspend your suspension of disbelief. You accept the fantastical elements for the immersive experience they provide. However, in the case of Field of Dreams, the movie's financial implications for Ray are not entirely intuitive. If you can believe that spirits of deceased baseball players raise and play a game in Iowa, you can certainly believe in Ray's financial struggles. But let's explore why the land and baseball field cost Ray so much more than it would seem.
Land and the Economics of Agriculture
Land Acquisition and Cost
Ray Kinsella, the protagonist in Field of Dreams, inherited a large farm in Iowa. The open dialogue around Ray's financial predicament suggests that he owns at least a hundred acres of land. This amount is significant and likely to be valued at a substantial sum, especially given that it's centrally located and subject to various uses, including residential, industrial, or agricultural purposes.
Cost of the Baseball Field
A typical baseball field, excluding the infield and outfield, can take up anywhere from 75 to 150 acres, depending on the size and shape of the field and its surrounding space. Even with an average size, constructing a baseball field would require clearing land and preparing it, which is an expensive process. Fencing, drainage systems, and turf installation all contribute to the cost. While corn would indeed be cheaper to plant, it still requires significant capital for land preparation.
Why Corn Isn't Justified
Rationale Behind the Choice of Corn
One might argue that Ray chose to plant corn because it is a lower-yield crop, thus less costly to manage compared to crops that require higher inputs and expertise, such as soybeans or corn hybrids. However, if Ray's land is truly costing him thousands of dollars, it is more likely to be due to its agricultural and land value rather than the cost of planting corn.
Dramatic Effect vs. Realistic Costing
It's worth noting that the choice to plant corn might have been a dramatic device rather than a realistic calculation. Accurate representation of agricultural costs would likely not make the film as impactful or as exploratory of the themes of legacy and redemption. The filmmakers probably wanted to emphasize Ray's financial troubles over a more mundane explanation, making the cost of land and construction of the baseball field a symbolic rather than practical burden.
Conclusion
The financial riddle in Field of Dreams is not just about the economic analysis of land use but also about portraying the deeply emotional and spiritual journey of its protagonist. It challenges viewers to accept the fantastical elements on their journey while questioning the practical implications of the narrative choices made by the filmmakers. Despite the irrationality in the land cost, it serves to enhance the movie's emotional and thematic depth.