Terribly good old chap. Pip pip cheerio.
Terribly good old chap. Pip pip cheerio.
I watched the movie for the first time, oddly enough, in confirmation classes at a Presbyterian Church in 6th Grade. I had no affinity for track at the time and some of the more nuanced concepts went over my head. I watched again as a college track athlete and appreciated much more. My age and general knowledge contributed much more than the fact I ran track.
-The cinematography is beautiful. Everyone immediately recognizes the opening scene on the beach at St. Andrews.
-The British national psyche was notably damaged after the war. The Empire peaked around 1890-1900 and the war was devastating. The country was nearly bankrupt and 25% of the young men were dead or gravely wounded. The timing of the movie and the freshmans dinner at Cambridge is a little off, but it is still a great speech. The fact that the world’s greatest empire was brought low in a short period of time, and that a few athletes could restore a modicum of national pride is moving.
-Abrahams is very much a Jew but his real faith is his accomplishments on the track. Liddell is very much a runner but is really fueled by his faith. The contrast and character study is great.
-The concept of noblesse oblige is addressed via the Cambridge crew.
We live in a world rife with false idols and long bereft of principles. Abrahams and Liddell were complicated characters but the purity of their motivations is something to aspire to even today.
It's a very boring movie, and it plays fast and loose with historical fact.
For me this is one of the greatest movies ever made. I briefly commented back when this thread was originally posted.
I guess if you think this is a movie about track and field only, you will find it slow, boring, and disappointing. If you think it is going to be a 100% accurate depiction of history you will likely be disappointed as well as it is not a documentary. The movie has been around so long that I am sure new viewers have per-conceived notions before seeing it.
For me the movie is about excellence and the striving to achieve it. From education, to the chorus, to religion, to theater, to athletics; every part of the movie is devoted to the pursuit of excellence. For me, I just can't see how that could ever be boring. With each scene I want more and more and the film delivers.
I should view this film more often. It has been a few months since I last watched it.
I am also a fan of the film, "The Paper Chase" and I think for similar reasons. It is a movie about the pursuit o f a lofty goal. It is about a different subject matter, set in a different time period, and the cinematography is nowhere near as interesting as "Chariots of Fire" but I think of the films as being similar. Well, they both do have college as a backdrop.
I was always partial to the scene where Abrahams defends the use of a professional coach to John Gielgud.
Once Again More wrote:
It's a very boring movie, and it plays fast and loose with historical fact.
Yes, it takes some liberties. I do not expect movies to be 100% factually accurate even when it covers real life events.
I like the movie for its themes. Liddell running for the glory of God. (Keep in mind I am not religious at all). Abrahams running for his own glory. The examination of the ideal of amateurism at the time.
Still shocked it won Best Picture. Vangelis theme is one of the greats in movie music...
I just looked up the other nominees for Best Picture
Reds (ugh, what a horrible movie)
On Golden Pond (I recall everyone thinking it was a lock. Have not seen it in decades and was probably too young to appreciate it when I saw it)
Atlantic City (Not sure I ever saw it)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (Wow, definitely a great movie in terms of fun and staying power. Certainly the most successful movie of the group. Great music too).
So it might have just been a pretty weak year with lots of vote splitting. I wonder if some voters thought the movie was about Romans or something...
boring, boring, boring, boring, boring...
I thought it was a real solid movie, but I've always enjoyed slow moving movies.
I also like to read. I would guess that people who enjoy the Classics probably like Chariots of Fire.
The pace, the cinematography, the sets, the sound track, the dialogue, the acting, the writing....what's not to like?
Gene Siskel's ghost wrote:
I have seen Chariots of Fire approximately 30 times. Each time, I find something new. It is a very deep movie.
I believe that some of the reason for people disliking it is as suggested on other posts -- a generational aspect of a slowly told story. However, I think another key reason that people -- specifically on this board -- may not like it is that Chariots of Fire is really NOT a movie about track & field. It is a movie about many other things.
Three of the most interesting and deep scenes in the movie took place outside of the track:
1 - When Abrahams is being rubbed out by Coach Mussabini between semis and finals of the 100m, he talks to Aubrey Montague in a long soliloquy. It is a deep look at how a man handles pressure, the drive to be the best at something, and how his religion (and others' perceptions of him as a Jew in 1920's Europe) affected everything in his life.
2 - After Abrahams wins, in the locker room Montague is excited and wants Abrahams to celebrate, but he quietly gets dressed and leaves. Lord Lindsey tells Montague that "someday you will win too, and it is a very hard pill to swallow." If you have ever achieved anything of greatness, you will understand this scene. If not, you will be lost.
3 - Eric Liddell addresses the crowd after a meet in Scotland. His homily talks about how his faith guides him as a man and an athlete. I think people today may struggle, because we rarely have men who are as principled as Liddell was portrayed in the movie. It is not just about not running on Sunday. It is about how a man decided he was going to live his life.
The movie is not about track. It is about many things -- faith, Christianity vs Judaism, the things that drive a man to greatness, the overwhelming sense of loss that happens once you achieve your lifetime goal, falling in love, standing for principles....and yes, track as it existed in the 1920s.
Nice.
mincing gait wrote:
The problem with the movie is that it generates homophobia now.
Everyone thought Ian Charelson ran like a complete fairy when the movie came out but thought he was just acting.
Now they know and that's the end of it.
If you are talking about the running scenes where Charleson flails his arms as he approaches the finish line, well that's the way Eric Liddell actually ran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdrtp5YAxUA great movie full of great lines:
"I believe God made me for a purpose but he also made me fast, and when I run I feel His pleasure."
"You came to see a race today. To see someone win. It happened to be me. But I want you to do more than just watch a race. I want you to take part in it. I want to compare faith to running in a race. It's hard. It requires concentration of will, energy of soul. You experience elation when the winner breaks the tape - especially if you've got a bet on it. But how long does that last? You go home. Maybe your dinner's burnt. Maybe you haven't got a job. So who am I to say, "Believe, have faith," in the face of life's realities? I would like to give you something more permanent, but I can only point the way. I have no formula for winning the race. Everyone runs in her own way, or his own way. And where does the power come from, to see the race to its end? From within. Jesus said, "Behold, the Kingdom of God is within you. If with all your hearts, you truly seek me, you shall ever surely find me." If you commit yourself to the love of Christ, then that is how you run a straight race. "
"You can praise God by peeling a spud if you peel it to perfection. Don't compromise. Compromise is a language of the devil. Run in God's name and let the world stand back and in wonder."
Duke of Sutherland: A sticky moment, George.
Lord Birkenhead: Thank God for Lindsay. I thought the lad had us beaten.
Duke of Sutherland: He did have us beaten, and thank God he did.
Lord Birkenhead: I don't quite follow you.
Duke of Sutherland: The "lad", as you call him, is a true man of principles and a true athlete. His speed is a mere extension of his life, its force. We sought to sever his running from himself.
Lord Birkenhead: For his country's sake, yes.
Lord Birkenhead: No sake is worth that, least of all a guilty national pride.
"God made countries, God makes kings, and the rules by which they govern. And those rules say that the Sabbath is His. And I for one intend to keep it that way."
When it came to putting his religious faith and principles ahead of everything else, Liddell reminds me of Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax.
John Marchevski wrote:
"Name me a better film ..."
Lovelock!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEO8oqX0e5I
Wow!
Thank you!
Never saw that Lovelock film before. Interesting.
Anyone seen that new Jesse Owens movie yet?
I feel 110% guilty for saying this. It's not that I disliked the movie, I just found it boring and fell asleep the first time I ever watched it. So it didn't pass the test.
Good school yard scenes though.
Read the book, "For The Glory" by Duncan Hamilton (2016). Exhaustively researched re Eric Liddell's life during and after his running career. Like most movies, Fire, takes a lot of license.
Easily the best film on running as it actually goes into the motivation behind each of the athletes to run.
It won an Oscar for best picture and is one of the few that is a proper film rather than just being for fans.
It's a film not a documentary for those criticising it's historical accuracy.
Once Again More wrote:
It's a very boring movie, and it plays fast and loose with historical fact.
Best stick to action dumb action films with fake CGI to suit your intellect.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Easily the best film on running as it actually goes into the motivation behind each of the athletes to run.
It won an Oscar for best picture and is one of the few that is a proper film rather than just being for fans.
It's a film not a documentary for those criticising it's historical accuracy.
It's not a film anymore (if it ever was). Everything's digital now days.
The Archers wrote:
Nobody has patience for slowly paced movies anymore. Not a great tragedy or anything, but it does mean certain types of stories can't really be successfully made into movies. Lots of really good movies of that era would not be possible now. Even movies with lots of violence/action like The Deer Hunter, Apocolypse Now, The Godfather have lots of really long, slow-moving scenes that wouldn't make it into final cuts now.
There are still a lot of films which take the time to tell a proper story. Take Blade Runner 2049. I wouldn't say it's a great film but still made with a big budget.
The masses have nearly always gone for dumb fast action films or trite rom coms.