Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SkiFreak

Chariots of Fire

Recommended Posts

Just a heads-up for Canadian members...

ChariotsofFire.jpg

I just picked up Chariots of Fire, the 2-disc DVD set at The Real Canadian Superstore for $5. Good deal considering it was regularly priced at $17.99 or 2/$30 :D . I've heard Vangelis' soundtrack countless of times, but never seen the movie yet, so I'm looking forward to finally watching it.

There's a whole bunch of other movies at Superstore that are marked down to $5 so it's a great time to do some Christmas shopping. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an OK movie but factually incorrect. The Rev. Liddell character (played by Ian Charleson) KNEW months in advance that the pivotal race he wanted to run was going to be on a Sunday because the schedule was published MONTHS ahead. So the whole premise about this being such a big conflict for him is FALSE and disingenuous.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an OK movie but factually incorrect. The Rev. Liddell character (played by Ian Charleson) KNEW months in advance that the pivotal race he wanted to run was going to be on a Sunday because the schedule was published MONTHS ahead. So the whole premise about this being such a big conflict for him is FALSE and disingenuous.

Baron, CoF has more holes in it historically than a presentation on corporate ethics from Septic Blather, but it would have to be the greatest Olympic-related film of all time (well it's between CoF and 'The 500 Pound Jerk' :D ). I know there would be lots of people who'd argue in favour Riefenstahl's 'Olympia' but to be honest hardly anyone has sat through the entire two part monolithic production from Leni. On the other hand 'Chariots of Fire' was spectacularly successful in terms of popular acclaim and didn't disgrace itself financially. Plus when push comes to shove it's a rattling good yarn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baron, CoF has more holes in it historically than a presentation on corporate ethics from Septic Blather, but it would have to be the greatest Olympic-related film of all time (well it's between CoF and 'The 500 Pound Jerk' :D ). I know there would be lots of people who'd argue in favour Riefenstahl's 'Olympia' but to be honest hardly anyone has sat through the entire two part monolithic production from Leni. On the other hand 'Chariots of Fire' was spectacularly successful in terms of popular acclaim and didn't disgrace itself financially. Plus when push comes to shove it's a rattling good yarn.

Oh, plus the fact that the late Dodie Fayed (Di's last fling) was Exec Producer of CoF.

Actually, one good Olympic film but I think no print survives is "It Happened in Athens." A fictional yarn about Spiridon Louis winning the marathon and the hand of Greece's most glamourous actress. Here's how IMDB describes the plot of that one:

"In 1896 it is announced that the Olympic Games will be revived in Athens. A young shepherd, Spiridon Loues, decides to enter the 26-mile marathon. Once in Athens, he meets Christina Gratsos, a young woman from his hometown who is now the personal maid of Eleni Costa, Greece's most glamorous actress. Though he has arrived after the qualification date, Spiridon's athletic prowess so impresses Coach Graham of the American team that he is permitted to enter the contest. Eleni informs the press that she will marry the victor, confident it will be her lover, Lieutenant Vinardos."

It was also Bob Mathias' first film, playing the American coach. I saw it as a youngster and only remember that it was in B&W and that the Cinemsacope screen wasn't even big enough for zaftig Jayne Mansfield (Mariska Hargitay's mother).

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always wanted an African version of the Chariots of Fire....Chariots of Fire meets Ladysmith Black Mambazo and the Soweto Gospel Choir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roll over Riefenstahl and CoF,I'll bet no-one knows about this charming little film I saw many years ago.It's about Wee Geordie McTaggart (played by the late Bill Travers,star of Born Free) a young Scottish lad who dreams of representing Britain at the Olympics and trains and trains until he becomes a champion hammer-thrower.He eventually realises his dream and gets selected for the British Olympic team at the 1956 Melbourne Olympics where he insists on wearing his kilt! ;)

The film includes some footage of the Melbourne Olympics although its release date is given as 1955.

(Unfortunately,the YouTube clip was withdrawn for copyright reasons.)

Wee Geordie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roll over Riefenstahl and CoF,I'll bet no-one knows about this charming little film I saw many years ago.It's about Wee Geordie McTaggart (played by the late Bill Travers,star of Born Free) a young Scottish lad who dreams of representing Britain at the Olympics and trains and trains until he becomes a champion hammer-thrower.He eventually realises his dream and gets selected for the British Olympic team at the 1956 Melbourne Olympics where he insists on wearing his kilt! ;)

The film includes some footage of the Melbourne Olympics although its release date is given as 1955.

(Unfortunately,the YouTube clip was withdrawn for copyright reasons.)

Wee Geordie

Love the film Geordie (Bill Kerr, Alistair Sims) and have it on DVD...as fictional Olympic movies a real delight. However the purported footage from the 56 Games is in fact from the 1948 London Games, which is fair enough as it was actually released before Melbourne held their SOGs.

And it was my clip of the opening credits and a bit about Geordie wanting to wear his kilt (and giving the sassanachs a right serve) that was removed from YouTube...the mongrels killed my account Sunday (thanks in part to the IOC...double mongrels). Maybe I might restore my vids later but right now I'm thinking YouTube can get stuffed :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the film Geordie (Bill Kerr, Alistair Sims) and have it on DVD...as fictional Olympic movies a real delight. However the purported footage from the 56 Games is in fact from the 1948 London Games, which is fair enough as it was actually released before Melbourne held their SOGs.

Amazing and here's me thinking that no-one else on here (especially the youngies) would ever have come across it.It's always a smaller world than we think...lol.And thanks for clarifying where the Olympic scenes came from.Makes more sense,given the film's release date. :)

And it was my clip of the opening credits and a bit about Geordie wanting to wear his kilt (and giving the sassanachs a right serve) that was removed from YouTube...the mongrels killed my account Sunday (thanks in part to the IOC...double mongrels). Maybe I might restore my vids later but right now I'm thinking YouTube can get stuffed :angry:

Wow..had no idea that someone from Gamesbids had posted the YouTube clip.Why on earth did they take it off and what the heck could have been the IOC's objection?? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an OK movie but factually incorrect. The Rev. Liddell character (played by Ian Charleson) KNEW months in advance that the pivotal race he wanted to run was going to be on a Sunday because the schedule was published MONTHS ahead. So the whole premise about this being such a big conflict for him is FALSE and disingenuous.

That may be so, but we're not talking about a documentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has a dubious honor among Oscarologists as being one of the least deserving Best Picture winners of all-time.

I haven't seen it myself, but I'll try and check it out some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be so, but we're not talking about a documentary.

No; they were telling a historic event of known recorded times and distances. If you are going to twist the whole premise of the story around it to suit your dramatic needs, then it is a FALSE, DISHONEST & DISINGENUOUS piece of work. It would be like oh, makin a JFK lived through the Dallas Plaza shooting...--NOT UNLESS you couch it as a 'what if?' premise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing and here's me thinking that no-one else on here (especially the youngies) would ever have come across it.It's always a smaller world than we think...lol.And thanks for clarifying where the Olympic scenes came from.Makes more sense,given the film's release date. :)

Wow..had no idea that someone from Gamesbids had posted the YouTube clip.Why on earth did they take it off and what the heck could have been the IOC's objection?? :blink:

Actually it wasn't the Geordie clip that helped to trigger the closure of my account but one of my OC vids (which I used as a pretext to remove all of my OC videos). The fascist bullyboy Google-owned YouTube minions obviously like being lick spittles to the IOC.

baron-pierreIV Icon

Posted Today, 07:01 AM

View Postarwebb, on 10 November 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

That may be so, but we're not talking about a documentary.

No; they were telling a historic event of known recorded times and distances. If you are going to twist the whole premise of the story around it to suit your dramatic needs, then it is a FALSE, DISHONEST & DISINGENUOUS piece of work. It would be like oh, makin a JFK lived through the Dallas Plaza shooting...--NOT UNLESS you couch it as a 'what if?' premise.

Come on Baron, that's ridiculous hyperbole. 'Chariots of Fire' did manipulate the historical events to make the movie work dramatically as cinematic semi-fiction, but to call it false, dishonest & disingenuous is BS! That claim could be made against every film ever made by any country's cinema when it comes to adapting history for film. Absolute historical verisimilitude would make almost every movie unworkable in terms of production values, dramatic content and honesty, and 'Chariots of Fire' is far less guilty of egregious unhistorical truth than (for example) 'Amadeus'. Plus one of the best aspects of an enjoyable and critically acclaimed film such as 'Chariots of Fire' is that for those who do want to dig deeper and get to the more accurate rendition of the history behind the film it gives you a starting framework and a reason to do so. That is how cinema and it's depiction of history or biography usually works; either you accept it as entertainment and move on or you use it as a catalyst to investigate further.

nykfan845 Icon

Posted Today, 05:20 AM

This has a dubious honor among Oscarologists as being one of the least deserving Best Picture winners of all-time.

I haven't seen it myself, but I'll try and check it out some.

Oscarologists? There are people out there who actually have some kind of belief in an organisation that makes the giving out of awards look even more corrupt than FIFA or the IOC under the wily old falangist?! :lol:

Seriously though 'Chariots of Fire' was eminently worth the award (for example it got very positive reviews from Vincent Canby and Roger Ebert as seen on Rotten Tomatos). Warren Beatty's "Reds" was a 3 hour 15 minute ponderous paean to an obscure American communist, which was critically acclaimed however it barely made budget on domestic box office (unlike 'CoF' which made $58 million in the US alone). 'On Golden Pond' would have been an Academy members wet dream with its cast however it was also set up to be way too obvious as an Oscar nominee. 'Ragtime' also was a great film with a legend of American cinema as part of the cast (James Cagney), whilst 'Atlantic City' was a Louis Malle film that gave Burt Lancaster a great send off. Frankly 'CoF' has suffered in its reputation as a Best Picture Oscar winner for 1981 because (1) it wasn't an American story and (2) it didn't have big stars of American cinema and (3) 1981 was simply a superlative year for cinema. And as the likes of Bruce Beresford and those actresses who lost out to Marisa Tomei for her Best Supporting Actor Oscar know the Oscars have been traditionally about awarding American film makers with American stories and American actors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on Baron, that's ridiculous hyperbole. 'Chariots of Fire' did manipulate the historical events to make the movie work dramatically as cinematic semi-fiction, but to call it false, dishonest & disingenuous is BS! That claim could be made against every film ever made by any country's cinema when it comes to adapting history for film. Absolute historical verisimilitude would make almost every movie unworkable in terms of production values, dramatic content and honesty, and 'Chariots of Fire' is far less guilty of egregious unhistorical truth than (for example) 'Amadeus'. Plus one of the best aspects of an enjoyable and critically acclaimed film such as 'Chariots of Fire' is that for those who do want to dig deeper and get to the more accurate rendition of the history behind the film it gives you a starting framework and a reason to do so. That is how cinema and it's depiction of history or biography usually works; either you accept it as entertainment and move on or you use it as a catalyst to investigate further.

Of course not. I sort of whipped myself into liking CoF until I realized what a bunch o'crock the central premise was and I placed it on my PHONY-BALONEY list...and I immediately felt better. To thine own self, be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not. I sort of whipped myself into liking CoF until I realized what a bunch o'crock the central premise was and I placed it on my PHONY-BALONEY list...and I immediately felt better. To thine own self, be true.

So what then constitutes the central premise of the film for you is it's historicity? For me I(and for a lot of other people) CoF is more about issues relating to British class structures, the relationship between amateurism and professionalism, religion and the individual and then the Olympic history (mutated though it is). Just because a story isn't necessarily true doesn't mean it is 'phony baloney'. Plus I wonder how many people had their attitudes regarding Olympism and what should be seen as the more ideal or perhaps even perfect construct behind the Olympic Games shaped by this film? It may be a sweetly seductive misreperesentation but the sequence with the British athletes on the beach running to Vangelis evokes a far more 'Olympic' feel for many altruists than the more real but also far more compromised reality of say a Marion Jones or a Ben Johnson doco.

Question for you without notice; where do you stand on 'Miracle'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what then constitutes the central premise of the film for you is it's historicity? For me I(and for a lot of other people) CoF is more about issues relating to British class structures, the relationship between amateurism and professionalism, religion and the individual and then the Olympic history (mutated though it is). Just because a story isn't necessarily true doesn't mean it is 'phony baloney'. Plus I wonder how many people had their attitudes regarding Olympism and what should be seen as the more ideal or perhaps even perfect construct behind the Olympic Games shaped by this film? It may be a sweetly seductive misreperesentation but the sequence with the British athletes on the beach running to Vangelis evokes a far more 'Olympic' feel for many altruists than the more real but also far more compromised reality of say a Marion Jones or a Ben Johnson doco.

Question for you without notice; where do you stand on 'Miracle'?

What "Miracle'? The Roger Moore one or "On Ice," I imagine? The one with Kurt whatis-name as Herb Brooks? OK; been there, done that. But since one knows the outcome, anticlimactic. But at least they didn't twist basic facts.

Back to CoF -- which I think I've only seen partially once on TV ever since it came out in theatres in 1981, the central premise for me is Liddell's struggle with his faith or his desire to seek earthly glory by running (or was it to honor the Lord by running on a Sunday)... C, u got me all twisted now!!

Yeah, the opening running on the beach thing was 'filmic,' but I think more so had there been a Jennifer Hudson or a Mo'nique or Queen Latifah running along all those pale white boys!!

Now if we're talking exceptional Olympic films (a thread Rols has opened up many a time), ICE CASTLES and BLADES OF GLORY are mondo supremo!! Great grandpappy and uncle Avery would've approved!! :lol:

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, one "Olympics" movie I'd love to see again (maybe someone here might have a copy) is a 1970 one called "The Games", which followed four fictional athletes in the lead up to Rome 1960. It had Charles Aznavour as a Czech runner, Ryan O'Neil and Michael Crawford as US and English runners, and an aboriginal actor sorta being an Aussie version of Abebe Bikile. It's probably dated to all hell now, probably not even much good to begin with, but I do have fond memories of atchin it when I was a mere young 'un.

MV5BMTg5NjQyMzYzMF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMTQ4NTg5._V1._SX214_CR0,0,214,314_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oscarologists? There are people out there who actually have some kind of belief in an organisation that makes the giving out of awards look even more corrupt than FIFA or the IOC under the wily old falangist?! :lol:

Seriously though 'Chariots of Fire' was eminently worth the award (for example it got very positive reviews from Vincent Canby and Roger Ebert as seen on Rotten Tomatos). Warren Beatty's "Reds" was a 3 hour 15 minute ponderous paean to an obscure American communist, which was critically acclaimed however it barely made budget on domestic box office (unlike 'CoF' which made $58 million in the US alone). 'On Golden Pond' would have been an Academy members wet dream with its cast however it was also set up to be way too obvious as an Oscar nominee. 'Ragtime' also was a great film with a legend of American cinema as part of the cast (James Cagney), whilst 'Atlantic City' was a Louis Malle film that gave Burt Lancaster a great send off. Frankly 'CoF' has suffered in its reputation as a Best Picture Oscar winner for 1981 because (1) it wasn't an American story and (2) it didn't have big stars of American cinema and (3) 1981 was simply a superlative year for cinema. And as the likes of Bruce Beresford and those actresses who lost out to Marisa Tomei for her Best Supporting Actor Oscar know the Oscars have been traditionally about awarding American film makers with American stories and American actors.

1) While AMPAS has its issues, it gets it right most of the time. It's certainly not more corrupt than FIFA or the IOC. I mean, really eusebius.

2) Anyone who has made a decent effort to follow the Oscars would know how silly those last three points are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not so sure that Chariots of Fire is the least deserving of its Best Picture. In its year it should have not won, but the same can be said for 1990 when Dances with Wolves won, Shakespeare in Love in 1998 (one of the most recent years I have seen all 5 films and I would have put Shakespeare in Love 5th) and Crash in 2005. Even 2001 and 2002 could be argued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not so sure that Chariots of Fire is the least deserving of its Best Picture. In its year it should have not won, but the same can be said for 1990 when Dances with Wolves won, Shakespeare in Love in 1998 (one of the most recent years I have seen all 5 films and I would have put Shakespeare in Love 5th) and Crash in 2005. Even 2001 and 2002 could be argued.

That's just the general consensus, I'm afraid.

And remember, I said "among" the least-deserving winners.

Edited by nykfan845

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...