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

If you never do anything, you never become anyone.

An Education (2009)
Carey Mulligan deserves all the attention she received for her central performance, and the depiction of the ‘60s is commendably subdued. I worried there was going to be a full-blown music montage sequence at the climax that undid all the good work, but thankfully it was fairly low key. 

Alfred Molina and Olivia Williams are especially strong in the supporting roles, and it's fortunate for credibility’s sake that that Orlando Bloom had to drop out and Dominic Cooper replaced him.
***1/2

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

Can you close off your feelings so you don’t get crippled by the moral ambiguity of your violent actions?

Spider-Man Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

What, you're going to walk in there like it's the commie Disneyland or something?

Stranger Things 3 (2019)
(SPOILERS) It’s very clear by this point that Stranger Things isn’t going to serve up any surprises. It’s operating according to a strict formula, one requiring the opening of the portal to the Upside Down every season and an attendant demagorgon derivative threat to leak through, only to be stymied at the last moment by our valorous team. It’s an ‘80s sequel cycle through and through, and if you’re happy with it functioning exclusively on that level, complete with a sometimes overpowering (over)dose of nostalgia references, this latest season will likely strike you as just the ticket.

I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
When your hero(es) ride off into the sunset at the end of a film, it’s usually a pretty clear indication that a line is being drawn under their adventures. Sure, rumours surfaced during the ‘90s of various prospective screenplays for a fourth outing for the whip-cracking archeologist. But I’m dubious anyone really expected it to happen. There seemed to be a natural finality to Last Crusade that made the announcement of his 2007 return nostalgically welcome but otherwise unwarranted. That it turned out so tepid merely seemed like confirmation of what we already knew; Indy’s time was past.

How can you have time when it clearly has you?

Dark  Season 2
(SPOILERS) I’m not intending to dig into Dark zealously, as its plotting is so labyrinthine, it would take forever and a day, and I’d just end up babbling incoherently (so what’s new). But it’s worth commenting on, as it’s one of the few Netflix shows I’ve seen that feels entirely rigorous and disciplined – avoiding the flab and looseness that too often seems part and parcel of a service expressly avoiding traditional ratings models – as it delivers its self-appointed weighty themes and big ideas. And Dark’s weighty themes and big ideas really are weighty and big, albeit simultaneously often really frustrating. It came as no surprise to learn of the showrunners’ overriding fixation on determinism at work in the multi-generational, multiple time period-spanning events within the German town of Winden, but I was intrigued regarding their structural approach, based on clearly knowing the end game of their characters, rather than needing to reference (as they put it) Post-It…

Doesn't work out, I'll send her home in body bag.

Anna (2019)
(SPOILERS) I’m sure one could construe pertinent parallels between the various allegations and predilections that have surfaced at various points relating to Luc Besson, both over the years and very recently, and the subject matter of his movies, be it by way of a layered confessional or artistic “atonement” in the form of (often ingenue) women rising up against their abusers/employers. In the case of Anna, however, I just think he saw Atomic Blonde and got jealous. I’ll have me some of that, though Luc. Only, while he brought more than sufficient action to the table, he omitted two vital ingredients: strong lead casting and a kick-ass soundtrack.

Spider-Man with his hand in the cookie jar! Whoever brings me that photo gets a job.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)
(SPOILERS) Spider-Man 3 is a mess. That much most can agree on that much. And I think few – Jonathan Ross being one of them – would claim it’s the best of the Raimi trilogy. But it’s also a movie that has taken an overly harsh beating. In some cases, this a consequence of negative reaction to its most inspired elements – it would be a similar story with Iron Man Three a few years later – and in others, it’s a reflection of an overstuffed narrative pudding – so much so that screenwriter Alvin Sargent considered splitting the movie into two. In respect of the latter, elements were forced on director Sam Raimi, and these cumulative disagreements would eventually lead him to exit the series (it would take another three years before his involvement in Spider-Man 4 officially ended). There’s a lot of chaff in the movie, but there’s also a lot of goodness here, always providing you aren’t gluten intolerant.