Transitions

So it’s that time of year. The festive season! The time of year where everybody starts to wind down, make plans with family and friends and perhaps the most fun part of the season, Christmas parties. These are the time to catch up with friends and family that you might not have seen in a while and eat good food, and drink good wine/beer/egg nog, whatever your preference. As much as I love my family and friends, I think it’s the work Christmas party that I look forward to most. It is definitely the most interesting. You know the scenario. There’s the “organiser”, the one who for better or for worse, is determined to get everybody in the spirit. She/he is the one who decorates the office, organises the office secret Santa and spends the days leading up to the party, sending out reminder emails and geeing everybody up for the event of the year. There’s the “conscientious objectors”, the ones who despite the best attempts by the organiser, refuse to attend the party on the grounds of some reason that is fundamentally important to them. There’s the “wall flowers”, the ones who sit on the side because they are either new to the office or afraid that once that crack the bubbles, their drunken “alter-ego” will attend in their place, dancing the night away and telling everybody how much they love them. Then there’s the “instigators”, the ones who magically appear with “just one more” round of shots or a bottle of wine. They are the first to buy alcohol, the ones who as soon as the food is consumed suggest that everybody do a tequila slammer, and after observing the mess they have made, are the first to go home. Then lastly and perhaps most importantly to the party’s survival, the “party animals”. The ones who consume 50 per cent of the bar tab alone. The one’s who dance the funky chicken or decide to krump on the dinner table (depending on the age of the party animal). The one’s who insist that the party needs to move onto the night club precinct because of both a desire to party on, but also because they have been asked by the function manager to leave the venue due to intoxication and need a new location. The interesting thing is attendees not only transition from their professional self, to their party self, no matter which archetype they fit into, but can also transition from one archetype to another throughout the duration of the party. For example, the organiser may transition to party animal, either because they decide to get loose after a stressful period of organising, or in an attempt to liven up the party after the crickets start croaking. The instigator can also become the party animal. In their efforts to influence everybody else to get drunk, they may participate in one too many tequila slammers, and they themselves become the victim of their own instigating. The party animal can also become the wall flower, although that’s normally at work the next week, after they experience flash backs from the night of stripping down to their undies and throwing up on the dance floor.  

So what was the relevance of the analysis of the work Christmas party? Well (a) because I had mine on Friday night, but more so (b) because it is a fun example of transitions and this was the dominant theme coming out of this week’s films.

MOVIE OF THE WEEK

Gandhi

Director: Sir Richard Attenborough

Starring: Ben Kingsley, Candice Bergen, Sir John Gielgud, Martin Sheen, Edward Fox and Ian Charleson

This week of movie watching was the best yet. I had an autobiographical film and a child hood favourite. I have to be honest here, I am slightly intimidated to review this film, as it was so fantastic, I don’t know if I will be able to do it justice. But I’ll give it go.

Gandhi is about the life of Mohandas K Gandhi (he later became known as Mahatma meaning “Great Soul”), a man who not only bought about the separation and independence of India from the British Empire, but who was also responsible for legislative changes in South Africa. In studying history, we so often see injustices bought to an end by a violent revolt or revolution of some kind, but what made Gandhi so special, was his commitment to non-violent resistance. He taught his admirers (and it was not just a few, in fact it was almost all of India who followed his teachings), to bring attention to injustice by non-cooperation. He was fundamentally against complying with laws that were in any way unjust or inequitable, however he was absolutely committed to non-violent means of defying these laws, even if this meant being beaten, incarcerated or worse being killed. And the movie depicts this so well.   

The film starts in 1893 with Mohandas travelling through South Africa on the train to take up his new posting as a solicitor. He is well dressed and is travelling in a first class carriage. He is approached by two of the train’s staff and despite having a valid first ticket, is thrown off the train. The movie depicts this as the moment where Gandhi first becomes aware of social injustice and commits himself to fighting this peacefully at every turn. These are the years of apartheid in South Africa, and not only did this apply to its indigenous inhabitants, but anybody “of colour”. During this period, both South Africa and India were part of the British Empire, so there was a large Indian community in South Africa. Like many colonial nations of the time, laws were blatantly racist and functioned to perpetuate the power of the white man over the man of colour. In the film, Mohandas draws attention to this, by burning his pass, which by law was supposed to be carried by all Indians at all times, simply because they were Indian. The pass was a physical representation of registration, which again was required of all Indians living in South Africa. There is a scene which sees Mohandas severely beaten and arrested for burning his pass and that of other Indians who had presented to protest registration. Through non-violent protest, Mohandas drew international attention to the social injustice in South Africa for its Indian citizens, and the South African General was forced to come to a comprise with Gandhi on registration. The film does not go into detail about the terms of this agreement.

The next part of the film depicts Gandhi’s political efforts in India. Between 1915 and 1945, Gandhi commits himself to liberating India from the British Empire, seeing British rule as another form of social injustice. Due to his efforts in South Africa, Gandhi is already well known when he returns to India and immediately joins forces with the Indian Congress. He organises wide spread civil disobedience, in the form of strikes, public protest and defiance of any law, which sees an Indian being treated differently to an Anglo citizen. One protest sees the British Army massacre over one thousand unarmed Indian protestors. This leads to violent protest all over India. In an effort to stop the violence, Gandhi fasts almost to the point of death. During his time in India, seeing poverty as another form of social injustice, Gandhi and his wife, established an “ashram” (a form of religious hermitage) and live like those who were in poverty. This is the point in the film where Gandhi stops wearing suits as a solicitor would, but rather traditional Indian attire. Not only does he wear it, but he makes all his own clothes, as any impoverished Indian of that time would. He claims that in order to understand poverty, you have to experience it.

Eventually, after many years of civil disobedience and non-violent protest, plus many failed negotiations, due to Gandhi’s absolute commitment to Indian independence, the British withdraw from India. The sad thing is that there is then a religious war between the Hindu Indians and the Muslim Indians over power. The solution: create a new country for Muslim Indians, Pakistan. This leads to more violent anarchy and Gandhi, now being in his early 70s begins to fast again, declaring he would not eat until the violence stopped. Despite pleading from his supporters and friends (his wife had passed away by this point) he refuses to eat until the violence stops. Again, he was knocking on death’s door, but due to his national status and the love he had from all of India, the violence does stop and he is saved. In an attempt to bring about peace and ease the country’s unrest, against the advice of his closest confidantes, Gandhi travels to Pakistan. Sadly, he is shot by an extremist and the nation goes into mourning.

From the little study I have done about Gandhi, I thought the film captured his life and achievements really well. As I stated earlier, the movie depicts a major transition. Gandhi goes from a modest Indian solicitor, to an ideological leader. Ben Kingsley was absolutely fantastic in the role. He embodied Gandhi’s gentle nature, but equally his determination and resolve. He even looked like him. A very believable performance! The sets were amazing. As I was watching it, I actually felt almost as if I was watching a documentary. It looked what I imagine early 20^th century India would have looked like. And I was absolutely emotionally invested in the film, which to me as I always say, is a sign of a great film. It was three hours long and split over two parts, but it didn’t feel that long. In fact, it left me wanting more. I was actually sad when it finished.

All in all a fantastic movie and well deserving of the Best Film award!

9/10

Tootsie

Director: Sydney Pollack

Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Jessica Lange, Teri Garr, Bill Murray and Sydney Pollack

So, this was the first film that I have watched as part of this challenge, which I have already seen. Not only once, but many many times. It was a childhood favourite in fact. Also a really great film!

Tootsie is about an aspiring actor Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman), who takes on the persona of a woman he names Dorothy Michaels, in order to get an acting job to raise money for his friends play. He lands a supporting role on a popular day time soap, after many failed auditions, and after his agent, George (Sydney Pollack) fails to inform him that a part that he was supposed to be put forward for on Broadway has been taken by another actor. The catch is the part is a FEMALE hospital administrator.  Despite the fact that he is a very unattractive looking woman, he manages to fool those of his co-stars and the crew on set and the viewing audience (perhaps it’s because Dustin Hoffman has such a small frame and actually does make a dress look good). The irony is that the man, who is a self-confessed womaniser as a man, actually becomes a voice for female empowerment on the show as a woman. This mostly transpires because he is trying to avoid having to kiss his male co-star, and will do anything to avoid this ranging from adlibbing feminist inspired lines, to slapping him in the face. But no matter what the means or motivation for doing what he did on the show, he still speaks to many women as Dorothy Michaels. He in fact becomes so popular, that he is signed to the show for another year, playing the part of Emily Kimberley. The fact that he does not want to play the part of a woman for the rest of his career, coupled with his need to tell the woman has fallen for Julie (Jessica Lange) that he is both a man and in love with her, leads him to reveal himself on the live on the show. In the end, he is able to help his friend fund the play and he gets the girl.

I think what made Tootsie so good, was despite the content of the film (a man dressing as a woman), the movie actually invokes a lot of emotion. There are some funny moments on screen, particularly in the films climax when Michael’s girlfriend, Sandy (Teri Garr) finds love heart shaped chocolates in Michael’s house from a man, so she draws the conclusion that Michael is gay (the chocolates are for Dorothy, but she does not know Michael is Dorothy). Also, when Michael falls for Julie he tries to kiss her as Dorothy and she thinks he is a lesbian. By the way, excuse the interlude, but Teri Garr plays a fantastic role, as kooky, crazy and unstable Sandy. Loved her in this part. But you actually feel for Michael. It’s different to other films that involve gender transformation, where it’s all about the comedy of taking on the alternate gender (think Mrs Doubtfire when Robin Williams’ fake boobs set on fire over the stove top). It’s actually more about how Michael transforms as a man, once he has experienced what it is like to be a woman. After this he is able to commit to one woman and recognise the importance of being honest and faithful. He also becomes a lot more aware of how his actions impact on others. At the start of the film, he is frankly kind of a jerk, unwilling to take direction and unwilling to change his viewpoints, making him very difficult to work with and leading to perpetual unemployment. By the end of the film, he expresses a lot of remorse for fooling everybody and the hurt that he caused by lying about who he was.

A really good film and worth the watch even if you just want to see Dustin in a dress.

7/10

Until next week, “that’s it! This is the last pill, the good bye pill” (Elizabeth, Drop Dead Fred)

The first time

So this week was all about first times and new experiences. It started off last Wednesday, when I learnt how to play a few chords on my five year old guitar. So, my friend Jimmy has decided that he wants to learn guitar and he’s also decided that I’m coming along on the ride with him. The idea that this is a first time experience may sound bizarre given that I referred to my guitar as “the five year old guitar”, but it’s true, it’s a new experience. Five years ago I had a short lived dream that I was going to be the next Jewel (whatever happened to that broad?) I had one guitar lesson with a friend and that was it. My guitar was doomed to a life of dust collecting.

My next first time experience came on Sunday night, when I saw Muse live in concert. I thought the show they put on in terms of the special effects was quite amazing, but I don’t think they as a band transitioned well from studio to stage. Matthew Belamy was a bit “too cool for school”, not conversing with the audience at all. Plus, I think they rely on the sound engineering of the studio a lot to create their unique sound, so the songs did not sound anywhere near as good as they do on CD.

My next first time experience was not at all pleasant and occurred on Tuesday night. I stepped on a bee and got stung. The randomness of this I think will be hard to beat. I stepped on it, not in the park amongst the green grass, but in my bedroom. My bedroom is not located in the country, where the unfortunate create might have lost its way for a mere moment and flown through the window on its way to a sunflower, but rather is located on the outskirts of a busy city. How does that happen? But it did, and I have a swollen, itchy foot to prove it.

My last first time experience occurred last night, when I watched Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark. Yes, I have never seen an Indiana Jones movie before. What did I think, well read on!

But before that, I must review On Golden Pond!

MOVIE OF THE WEEK

On Golden Pond

Director: Mark Rydell

Starring: Henry Fonda, Katherine Hepburn and Jane Fonda

Before I talk about On Golden Pond, I have to briefly revert back to last week’s blog. I realised after posting that I didn’t rate a movie of the week. Now, it may have been obvious from the review, but I definitely rated Chariots over Reds. Both good films, but I just felt more after watching Chariots.

So, onto On Golden Pond. This movie reminded me quite a lot of Ordinary People. It was a family drama, only this time the dysfunctional relationship was between father and daughter (characters portrayed by the Fonda’s. I wonder if there is any truth to life imitating art in this case). Well can I just say that I now understand Jane’s fame. You see, I am a child born in the 80s, so by the time I was old enough to understand celebrity, Jane Fonda was the star of her own line of exercise videos. I missed the movie star period. I thought she was really great on screen and just absolutely stunning in terms of looks. It was before super skinny became the pinnacle of beauty and curves were a bit more celebrated. It was also great to see a Hollywood legend like Katherine Hepburn in action. Great casting really!

So what’s the movie about? Well it’s about a family, who are brought back together by a step son and a holiday cabin. The movie starts with retired married couple, Norman (Henry Fonda) and Ethel Fayer (Katherine Hepburn), arriving at their holiday cabin at Golden Pond. George is a retired professor, who is not only having extreme difficulty coming to terms with the fact that he is ageing, but also has a major chip on his shoulder, which has impacted on his relationship with his daughter, Chelsea (Jane Fonda). Norman has reached a point in his life, where he is pretty much just waiting to die. He has little hope for the future, has lost complete confidence in himself due to his memory loss and is totally disconnected from his one and only daughter due to an ongoing feud, stemming from her resentment on how he treated her as a child. Norman’s only reason for living is his wife, Ethel. They have a lasting and true love, the kind of love that could only develop through time and commitment. Whilst, Henry is quite bitter and resentful that he is getting older, Ethel is the complete opposite. She is cheerful and embracing of her age. She views it as an opportunity to spend more time doing what they have always wanted to do, like spending time at their holiday cabin, picking strawberries and cooking fish. Her catch phrase in the movie is “oh don’t be an old poop”. Whilst she is quite endearing and initially presents as the sweet old lady, the peacemaker in the family, she is quite feisty and has a bit of a wild side. She goes skinny dipping with Chelsea in the film and at its climax, she slaps Chelsea in the face when she speaks derogatorily about Norman, stating “he is also the man I love”.

Chelsea visits Norman and Ethel at Golden Pond, with her new boyfriend Bill Ray and his son, Billy Ray. From the start it is obvious that Chelsea and Norman have issues. Norman is quite cold, constantly making sarcastic comments under his breath and generally being unwelcoming towards her and her new family. Chelsea has been married before and it seems that there is a bit of a back story there, but no detail is given. Chelsea and Bill Ray leave Golden Pond after a few days to go on a trip to Europe and Chelsea asks her mother if they can leave Billy Ray there with her and Norman. In an effort to try and be the peacemaker (whilst she loves Norman, she does appreciate that he has treated Chelsea poorly) she agrees to this. Norman of course is less than enthused, as is Billy Ray.

To the surprise of everybody, especially Norman, he and Billy Ray actually form a really tight bond. They fish together every day and do the things that he should have done with Chelsea as a child. She of course finds this very difficult to accept and this is when she gets into a fight with her mother, resulting in the slapping incident. Of course because this is a movie, instead of hating both her parents, she has an epiphany. She discovers that she is being a victim (it’s true) and takes charge, by talking to her father and asking him to be open to changing their relationship. She seals the deal, by doing a back flip off the dock, something she could never do as a child because according to Norman she was “too fat”. The movie ends with a sense of hopefulness, with Norman and Ethel strong as ever, Chelsea and Norman committed to improving their relationship, Chelsea and Bill Ray becoming engaged (and I guess this time around her relationship might work because she is resolving her “daddy issues”) and Billy Ray having a more stable home life (no details are provided, but it is insinuated that his relationship with his mother has broken down and that is why he is living with Chelsea and his Dad).

I really enjoyed the movie actually. I thought Ethel was a fantastic character. Kind and gentle, motherly, but also feisty, kinky and funny. I felt for both Norman and Chelsea, which as I always say, if a movie can make you feel something then in my opinion it’s a good movie. I understand why Chelsea is so resentful and angry with her father. He treated her poorly and continued to do so. But I also felt for Norman, because for whatever reason he could not express his love for his daughter. Unlike in Ordinary People where it is obvious the mother just doesn’t love her son, this movie is different. Norman does love Chelsea. This is evidenced when he and Billy Ray are out fishing and he keeps accidentally calling him Chelsea, like the experience of being out there reminds him of when she was a child. For whatever reason he is stunted and unable to tell her. Sad sad sad. But all ends well, which is nice.

Overall I give it at 6.5/10!!

Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Ark

Director: Stephen Spielberg

Starring: Harrison Ford, Karen Allen and Paul Freeman

So, it may sound crazy, but yes, I have never seen Indiana Jones before. I was expecting your sort of typical run of the mill, die hard style, action movie. But as my friend Chris said, it was “fun”. I don’t know about anybody else, but when I was a little girl, my Dad used to refer to the evil characters in the movie as the “badies” and the protagonist or hero if you will and his side kicks as the “goodies”. This movie is definitely your goodie vs badie variety movie. Basically it is about this kick arse archaeologist, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) who is hired by the U.S. government to obtain the missing ark, which holds the broken pieces of the tablet that Moses carried down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments on it. Indy is trying to get to this before the Nazis. This movie is definitely action, but almost silly. There is no real gore, but rather slap stick sort of violence. You know where it looks completely fake, but it’s almost supposed to. Like the director is just having a crazy fun time with the audience.

As a whole, I thought the story was quite weak. Just a typical adventure movie. I’m not really getting why it was nominated for an Academy Award. Maybe it was the first of its kind. The stunts were pretty amazing. But I thought the most puzzling part was the end. It went all supernatural, which was weird because it really had no other supernatural elements. The German’s steal the ark from Indy and they take it to a secret island (they steal it from him on the sea, whilst he is taking the ark back to America). They open that ark and I guess the power trapped in it comes out and kills them all (like it literally melts their faces off). Indy and Marion (Karen Allen), the leading lady and Indy’s love interest, survive because they don’t look directly at the light coming out of the ark. Random random! In the end Indy takes it back to America and the secret service take it off him. The last scene is this ware house man, transporting the ark in a wooden crate, into a secret warehouse, where there are literally hundreds of other crates with “top secret” written on it. I guess this supposed to be a reference to how much the American government keeps secret from the population.

Again, at the risk of being unpopular, I didn’t like it. I found it boring and had to keep asking Tim to tell me what was happening because I kept tuning out.

3/10

Until next week, “good bye little one” (Willow Ufgood, Willow)

Bleh

Bleh is the word of the day. Bleh mentally and bleh physically. As I sit here staring at the remains of a KFC Combo that I shouldn't have eaten (but it was delicious) and ask myself the question "why are you engaging in food therapy, it never works?" (but for those five glorious minutes of eating that deep fried goodness, I did feel almost euphoric), I just can't help but feel sorry for myself. Why the woeful attitude? Well it’s been a difficult week at work, perhaps the most difficult since I started in my new position.  Assertiveness! Just a word for many, but for me well..... it’s my Mt Everest. The question that continues to perplex me, how does one be assertive, without allowing the crippling fear of “pissing somebody off” override the need to be assertive. This week there have been a few situations which have called for assertiveness and that fear has taken over me. Perhaps this is very fitting though, as the two movies I watched last week, Reds and Chariots of Fire, both had leading protagonists, who were strong in their resolves and absolutely unshakeable in their beliefs and values, despite many critics. Something to be aspired to I think.

I would just like to point out that this was my biggest challenge as of two hours ago. You know what it is now? Writing this post without screaming! Why you ask? Well I just spent two hours writing this and then lost it, so actually this is a re-post of my original post. Fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, on-would we go!

Reds

Director: Warren Beatty

Starring: Warren Beatty, Diane Keaton

Before I talk about Reds, I feel the need to provide some pre-context. Before undertaking this challenge, I made a promise to myself that I would not read any material about the films before watching them. I did this because I wanted to be an empty palate, uninfluenced and completely open, when watching the films, without any predisposing ideas that might impact on the experience of watching them and my own personal views about them. However, this week I feel that the two movies I watched may have been the exception to this rule.  This is mostly because they are historical biographies and unfortunately I did not know anything about the lives of those depicted in the film. During my post viewing reading, I learned a lot more about the characters and felt more of an impact emotionally, once I knew more about them. Nevertheless, being a big fan of historical biographical films, it was a good week for meJ

Reds, depicts the political career of American Communist John Reed (Warren Beatty) and his romantic relationship with feminist Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton). John Reed was a leader in the Communist movement in America, a writer (he wrote a famous text, Ten Days That Shook The World) and journalist, who was present in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. As with any Hollywood epic, the film has romance, and the primary plot is about the relationship between John and Louise, with his political career being the subplot to the movie. According to my post-viewing reading, the romantic relationship between John and Louise is historically accurate, however I am unsure whether the events surrounding their relationship and the nature of that relationship as conveyed on screen are correct. Anyway, true or not, their relationship is presented as being quite tumultuous with various break-ups and arguments occurring throughout the film. Their problems stem mostly from John’s attitude of “free love” and Louise’s inability to commit to this philosophy. She does try this, even having a brief relationship with playwright Eugene O’Neill (Jack Nicholson), which apparently is also historically accurate, but in the end, really only wants John. She breaks off her relationship with Eugene, after John returns from a long period of travel and proposes to her.

Their relationship is also challenged by John’s constant travelling, due to his involvement in the Communist Movement.  After the proposal, they soon break up again, after Louise is unable to accept the affairs that John has been having. They reunite again, when John asks her to go to Russia with him to cover the Russian Revolution. She only agrees to go on the proviso that there is no “funny business”, but of course funny business occurs and they are reunited. I guess it takes a revolution to fix some people’s relationships. Following many months in Russia, they return to the United States, committed to each other and to the idea of settling down together. Unfortunately for Louise, John’s passion and drive for the political movement that was occurring in America at the time and his desire to be a part of that, see’s him return to Russia without her. Whilst she is furious about it, she agrees to remain true to him, on the condition that he return by July the following year. He agrees to this and remains true to his promise, but unfortunately is prevented from leaving by Russian bureaucrats, who refuse to grant him a train pass to travel through Eastern Europe (the only way to travel safely during post-Revolutionary times) as they see him as being too important to the cause. His dedication to Louise, leads him to try and leave Russia without the pass and he is arrested, but eventually released back to Russian authorities. Louise suspects that something suss is going on and despite many objections from Eugene, goes to Russia to find John. After many months, various treks through snow and a train explosion, which John was travelling on at the time, John and Louise are reunited. Happy ending you think? No! Soon after John develops a terminal illness and dies in Russia.

So what did I think of Reds?  Well, Warren Beatty was the first man in the film industry to get simultaneous nominations for Best Director, Producer, Co-Writer and Starring Actor, since Orson Welles and Citizen Kane. Pretty impressive! And the most interesting part of the film, were the interludes, where witnesses from the time period depicted in the film, provided interviews on their personal recollections of John and Louise and that time in American history. Something I have never seen done in any film. But all in all, it fell short for me. Again, as I have said about so many of the other films, I thought the characters were unlikeable. John was quite unemotional at least in his relationship with Louise and a bit of a player, Louise was erratic, uninhibited and at times unsympathetic because of these personality traits and Eugene was quite cruel, narcissistic and an alcoholic it seems. I just felt quite removed from the characters. Even the end where John dies, it did not invoke much of an emotional response from me. Mostly, I think it happened all too quickly (although nothing else in the film did believe me, it went for three hours). One minute I was watching this big emotional scene, where after many months of being apart and not knowing whether each other was even alive, Louise and John were reunited, to the next minute where John is on his death bed. Then literally five minutes later he dies and then the closing credits roll up on screen. It felt a bit like all this build up and... deadsies!

All in all I give it a 6/10 (really a five, but given it was nominated for twelve Oscars, it probably deserves more than half on the rating scale).

Chariots of Fire

Director: Hugh Hudson

Starring: Nicholas Farrell, Nigel Havers, Ian Charleson, Ben Cross

“DA DA DA DA DA DAAAAAA” “DA DA DA DA DA” “DA DA DA DA DA DAAAAA” “DA DADA DA DAAAAAA” If you’ve got a look of “what the hell” on your face then you obviously haven’t seen Chariots. If you’ve got a cheesy smile across your face (think slow mo shots of people running across the beach if you haven’t seen it) then we’re on the same pageJ

Chariots of Fire was the winner for Best Film for 1981. A major upset according to my post-viewing reading, with Reds being the favourite. The film depicts the sporting career of four athletes on the British track and field team, leading up to the Paris Olympics of 1924. The film has romantic themes, people overcoming adversity, ethic s and a grand and recognisable score, all components of a great film. The film’s main characters are Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross), a Jewish Brit, who was the fastest 100m runner of his time to come out of Cambridge University (he may still hold this record) and Eric Liddell, a Scotsman with devout Christian values.

Harold Abrahams, was among the fastest athletes of his time, but the film also depicts his personal struggle with the anti-semantic attitudes that were prevalent at the time and could have easily threatened his career. Rather, than allowing this to get the better of him, he actually uses it as a motivator. His desire to show his aggressors that he was a winner pushed him to train harder and to keep going. It also unfortunately caused him to have quite a major chip on his shoulder and made him almost obsessive compulsive about winning. This obsession with winning almost cost him his relationship, but luckily for him, she was very understanding and agreed to wait for him until he made his dream of winning gold come true, which of course he did at the 1924 Olympic Games.

Eric Liddell, experienced a different struggle, that of faith versus desire. Eric, as well as an elite runner, was also a Christian Missionary and had spent much time in China doing missionary work before joining the Olympic team.  Throughout the film, he constantly had to manage the demands of his responsibilities as a Christian and that of being an Olympic athlete. For much of the film, he tries to marry the two by using his celebrity status as a platform for sharing his Christianity. He is eventually faced with a choice between the two, and makes a decision that almost ends his Olympic career. In the film, he finds out on the boat to Paris, that the heat for the 100m sprint is on a Sunday, and being a devout Christian, he did not play sports on a Sunday (Sabbath). Despite, begging, pleading and even threats from British officials, including the Prince of Wales himself, Eric remains strong in his resolve and refuses to compete in the event. Andrew Lindsay (Nigel Havers), a fellow student at Cambridge with Abrahams and competitor on the British Olympic team, offers his spot in the 400m event to Liddell (Lindsay had already won Silver in the hurdles and was happy with this).  Liddell accepts and amazingly goes on to win, despite the fact that he had been training for the 100m and 200m events. I found Liddell to be so inspiring. Even with the Prince of Wales himself, imploring him to compete, he refused to compromise his values. Now that’s assertiveness!

My thoughts on Chariots. I really liked it and thought it was deserving of the Academy Award (although I haven’t watched the other two nominie’s for 1981 yet). The content was interesting, it was presented well and that opening score... well cheesy heavenJ

7/10

Well that’s it loyal readers. Fours hours later and I’m done.

Until next time

“See ya sucker” (Janice Ian, Mean Girls)