Skip to main content

My arrogance, sir, extends just as far as my conscience demands.


Chariots of Fire
(1981)

The problem with Chariot of Fire, a slight but likeable tale of overcoming hurdles (ahem) in order to bask in glory (your classic sports movie, basically), is not the film itself but its success. Garlanded with Oscars and hexed by the pronouncement “The British are coming!” (surely one of the most ill-advised acceptance speeches ever, perhaps topped by “I’m king of the world!”), Chariots became forever entwined with the Conservative nostalgia of Thatcher’s Britain. The juxtaposition of Vangelis’ sublime electronica with post-WWI period trappings was undeniably effective and evocative, but it lent itself all-too easily to artificially bolstered national pride and “British is best” sentiments. Indeed, while the film makes some counterarguments against the arrogance of public school Englishness and unfiltered patriotism, ultimately these defer to rose-tinted imagery of a triumphant island nation.


Colin Welland appropriated his title (originally the entirely banal Running) from William Blake’s Jerusalem, which is sung at the film’s 1978 bookend. I don’t think there was any irony in his choice, since he was reportedly inspired to use it after seeing it sung on Songs of PraiseJerusalem (the hymn) has become a virtual national anthem, but Blake’s verses are most certainly not a paean to Britain; rather, he recognises its dire state and that a monumental effort is necessary to right the land. So, not through a spot of jolly running then.


Welland’s script ensures that the principles, Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross) and Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson) must face trials and tribulations. Abrahams, a Jew at Cambridge who encounters both thinly veiled and undisguised anti-Semitism wherever he goes, could be argued to represent proto-Thatcherite values. He is focused only on success and willing to trample over others to achieve it. He loves his country, but personal ambition comes first. There is some attempt to temper this, to furnish Abrahams with a learning curve through his relationship with soprano Sybil (a pre-Borg queen Alice Krige) and his straight-talking trainer Sam Mussabini (a typically virtuoso Ian Holm), and his silent departure from the changing rooms after taking the Gold is surely intended to reflect inner contemplation (or is it just being overwhelmed?)


But even Abrahams’ clash with his Cambridge masters (John Gielgud and Lindsay Anderson) forwards a capitalist/Tory ethic; traditional values (the prep school pride in the achievement of the amateur at loggerheads with Abrahams taking on a trainer) are only to be upheld as long as they are no impediment to making money (or winning races). Abrahams is too self-involved to be truly sympathetic, but this scene does much to redress the balance; his correction of the suggestion that Sam is Italian with “He’s half Arab” is one of the few moments of humour this character is allowed. Gielgud’s character resorts to blatant anti-Semitism once Abrahams is out of the room, but has an “I always knew he’d do it” response when he wins the race. The college is quite happy to reap the acclaim that comes with a Cambridge man (even a Jewish, plebian Cambridge man) taking the medal. But isn’t dragging yourself up by your bootstraps what Thatcher was all about; regardless of your background, the greenbacks are what count (that it was Abrahams’ father who had made all the money is beside the point)?


Chariots is that rare film; it throws a sop to those with faith, particularly those of the Christian persuasion. Eric Liddell is nothing short of the hero who risks public disapprobation when he puts God before country (standing up to the monarchy) and refuses to run on Sunday. That he comes out on top makes him an ideal poster boy for the church (the film is slightly coy about this aspect, no doubt astutely reckoning that your audience will be wider if you hedge your bets).


But Liddell is so self-effacing, so guileless (in a fine performance from Charleson, who died very young at the age of 40) that you can’t help but be on his side. There is no air of “holier than thou” to him. He’s a man who is utterly sincere when he shakes the hand of each competitor and wishes him best of luck. Even his brand of Christianity is announced as the “Kingdom of Heaven is within” variety (suggesting personal discovery of God rather than the trappings and regalia of the organised church). So his bristling defence against the contempt-filled Lord Cadogan (Patrick Magee) is naturally the high watermark of the film, more so than his victory in the race itself.


Eric’s sister Jennie (Cheryl Campbell) provides a contrast to his positive piety, doing all she can to guilt trip him over his running (which she sees as supplanting his call to the church); apparently, this tension was created by Welland, as the real Jennie was fully behind Eric. It’s an understandable decision (as are many of the creative licences), as the film’s version of struggle is a very genteel one, and needs cajoling to exert any kind of grip. At the climax, though, Eric is nevertheless there with the other winners (Abrahams aside), waving the flag. It’s a neat visual trick, that God is allied with state in this moment.


But this is the “cake and eat it” approach that Welland and director Hugh Hudson take throughout. The Daily Telegraph put it at Number One in a list of top Conservative films, and it’s easy to see why. The most likeable character is the cobbled-together louche Lord Nigel Havers (based loosely on Lord David Burghley), a thoroughly spiffy sort who’s having a smoke just before high-tailing it round the Trinity Great Court Run and is later seen practicing for his event with glasses of champagne placed atop each hurdle. He’s so dashed decent he gives up a race (he’s got his medal, the good egg) so Liddell can take part in the Olympics (complete invention, of course). So really, this is the true spirit of England the film is promoting; the fairy tale toff, racing just to take part and for the lark (rather than for personal glory) and blessed with good manners and generosity of spirit such that he’ll give anyone a leg up. It’s a gift of a part, and Havers has rarely been so good since; he quickly descended into a holding pattern of annoyingly posh, but here he is witty and vibrant (he does seem strangely content with being splattered with mud during the slow motion introduction, however).


The rest of the cast is filled out memorably. Holm wasn’t the most prolific of film actors at the time, but nearly every (supporting) role showed his sure touch (Alien, Time Bandits, Brazil, Dreamchild). Gielgud brings an imperious disdain to his ivory tower superiority that speaks volumes in just a couple of well-place scenes. Dennis Christopher (recently given a role of some profile in Tarantino’s Django Unchained) and Brad Davis (like Charleson, he died of AIDS at a young age) both make an impression in very brief appearances as American athletes. But the reliable Peter Egan comes slightly unstuck when asked to deliver the most indigestible of dialogue, stating overtly the thematic underpinning of Liddell’s beliefs.


There can be little doubt that Chariots wouldn’t have attained the success it did without Vangelis’s score. It is the film, preceding it and informing its triumphalism. Even more so than Rocky’s (also a Best Picture Oscar winner), the theme inflates and emotionally propels the proceedings. I have to admit that I’d forgotten that it isn’t used for the main races (more discordant and uncertain, but no less charged, themes are used for Abrahams and Liddell). To the ears of those newly discovering Chariots, the electronica may seem out of place and jarring (although the nostalgia for such sounds should not be underestimated). The actual images of the runners on the beach, even given the slow motion, are only made epic by the theme. They linger in the mind with more resonance than the rather mundane manner in which Hudson has shot them. It’s this alchemical combination of sound and image that got Academy members ticking the box for the film; it evokes a memory of a more expansive, substantial piece than the one experienced. It prods the emotions, and one can’t help but respond approvingly.


I emphasise Vangelis, because Hudson’s contributions, although vital in several key areas, are generally not nearly so extraordinary as his composer’s (of course, he must be credited for bringing Vangelis on board in the first place). After all, we are used to seeing slow motion replays of sports events, it’s not as if he came up with something startling. Aside from the training and events, Hudson’s set-ups and shooting style are simple and straightforward. He doesn’t draw attention to the camera or technique; he saves the “rush” for the competition. David Watkin’s cinematography is similarly unobtrusive (he worked on a number of films I have revisited recently, including Gibson’s Hamlet and Robin and Marian).


Did Hudson just get lucky with Chariots, given his later failures? He tells the story with confidence, and the occasional touch of inspiration (Abrahams’ Gold-winning race is played in real time, before being repeated in slow motion) but his light seems to have risen and dimmed with that of Goldcrest (the fledgling studio that seemed on the cusp of greatness with Chariots; the film was co-financed by 20th Century Fox). Greystoke, his follow-up, succeeded in spite of being a botch from the casting down to the execution. Then came Revolution, which spelled the beginning of the end for the studio and saw Hudson vanish into semi-obscurity. Hudson had experienced considerable success as a director of documentaries and adverts before Chariots came along. As with other directors who rose during the ‘80s (such as Ridley Scott), he was approaching or into his 40s when fame happened. Perhaps the problem was suddenly being offered the world on a plate. He hasn’t come near to the quality of Chariots subsequently.


The film garnered four wins (Picture, Original Screenplay, Costume Design and, obviously, Score) out of seven nominations (in contrast, it only took home three BAFTAs). Producer David Puttnam, much given to pronouncements concerning (lack of) quality in cinema, went on to fall flat on his arse when he became chairman of Columbia Pictures. Like many an Oscar winner, it isn’t held in quite the esteem it was at the time (although many are seen as unjustly rewarded immediately). Welland’s speech has done much to tarnish it, but it lives on through its score (which still gets used as a quick reference point; evidence of how The Grinch was running on empty).


It’s unfortunate that the success of Chariots of Fire will forever inform its retrospective appreciation. On its own terms, it’s a solid, enjoyable little pocket of British nostalgia. Puttnam’s conception concerned a man who follows his conscience, and that remains intact, but along the way it has become an emblem for all that is British – a status that at times borders on the jingoistic. I don’t think the film itself has a particularly staunch position. Rather, it is happy to play the field, inviting felicitations from those of any predilection. The point at which it becomes cynical is difficult to discern, however; one gets the feeling it took form in post-production, when its overtures to the “Great” Britain that was past (perhaps not quite the unmentioned Empire, but not far off) solidified.


Chariots of Fire is, essentially, an enjoyable film in spite of such trappings. It succeeds on the basis of  an irresistible premise, one that sports-themed movies really have to struggle to make a hash of; the journey of the underdog, his triumph over adversity. One can at least console oneself that the conflated hubris of the pronouncement of the great British coming was but a pipedream, and reality soon dawned.

Comments

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Really. I guess as a "Yank" I just did not see all of what you saw in the movie. I saw the story of two heroic men, one who became the elder statesman of British athletics (Harold Abramson), and the other (Eric Liddell) who became a missionary to China, and was martyred overseas. I didn't perceive it as being cynical. I simply enjoyed it as a reasonably accurate period piece, not unlike Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" (although "Chariots of Fire" was based on historical characters, and certainly was less bloody...at least, no one died until the end of the movie, and even then, it was not portrayed onscreen; if it had been produced more recently, the times might have demanded the full, gory representation of Eric Liddell's martyrdom in order to compete with the other gore-fests being produced. Thank heavens we were spared that eventuality.) Sorry it took me three times to catch all the typos. My proofreading is not as accurate as it used to be, alas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think your assessment is fair; as I suggest in the piece, the cynical aspect is probably more related to the packaging of the picture and the hype that surrounded its awards success than its actual intent. So too, the reading of Thatcherite themes in to it is just that; a reading. As it is, it's a modest and likeable film, but one whose reputation has become entwined with a nostalgia for a certain rose-tinted image of Britain.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

The guy practically lives in a Clue board.

Knives Out (2019)
(SPOILERS) “If Agatha Christie were writing today, she’d have a character who’s an Internet troll.” There’s a slew of ifs and buts in that assertion, but it tells you a lot about where Rian Johnson is coming from with Knives Out. As in, Christie might – I mean, who can really say? – but it’s fair to suggest she wouldn’t be angling her material the way Johnson does, who for all his pronouncement that “This isn’t a message movie” is very clearly making one. He probably warrants a hesitant pass on that statement, though, to the extent that Knives Out’s commentary doesn’t ultimately overpower the whodunnit side of the plot. On the other hand, when Daniel Craig’s eccentrically accented sleuth Benoit Blanc is asked “You’re not much of a detective, are you?” the only fair response is vigorous agreement.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

Do forgive me for butting in, but I have a bet with my daughter that you are Hercules Porridge, the famous French sleuth.

Death on the Nile (1978)
(SPOILERS) Peak movie Poirot, as the peerless Peter Ustinov takes over duties from Albert Finney, who variously was unavailable for Death on the Nile, didn’t want to repeat himself or didn’t fancy suffering through all that make up in the desert heat. Ustinov, like Rutherford, is never the professional Christie fan’s favourite incarnation, but he’s surely the most approachable and engaging. Because, well, he’s Peter Ustinov. And if some of his later appearances were of the budget-conscious, TV movie variety (or of the Michael Winner variety), here we get to luxuriate in a sumptuously cast, glossy extravaganza.

I am constantly surprised that women’s hats do not provoke more murders.

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
(SPOILERS) Was Joe Eszterhas a big fan of Witness for the Prosecution? He was surely a big fan of any courtroom drama turning on a “Did the accused actually do it?” only for it to turn out they did, since he repeatedly used it as a template. Interviewed about his Agatha Christie adaptation (of the 1925 play), writer-director Billy Wilder said of the author that “She constructs like an angel, but her language is flat; no dialogue, no people”. It’s not an uncommon charge, one her devotees may take issue with, that her characters are mere pieces to be moved around a chess board, rather than offering any emotional or empathetic interest to the viewer. It’s curious then that, while Wilder is able to remedy the people and dialogue, doing so rather draws attention to a plot that, on this occasion, turns on a rather too daft ruse.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993)
(SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Of course, one m…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…