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)