Chariots of Fire

The 1981 British historical sports film, Chariots of Fire, may have the look of a weighty, high-brow sports film that will pander to a crowd of critics and film aficionados, but will run the risk of coming out lifeless for a majority of casual viewers. Being a fictitious account of the 1924 Paris Olympics through the lens of two British runners who are competing for more than just the love of their country, this film houses the honour of being the big winner at the year’s Academy Awards (being nominated seven times and taking home four, which included Best Original Screenplay, Score, Costume Design and even Best Picture), and is still regarded as a staple Hollywood picture that invigorated the spirits of those who witnessed it. In spite of this, everything about this movie doesn’t feel captivating or stirring in the slightest. Set in 1919 England, the film follows the story of two men who despite coming from vastly different life experiences, both want to prove their worth to their country by competing in the upcoming Olympic Games as runners. Harold Abrahams (played by Ben Cross) is a Jewish man who has just entered the University of Cambridge, and in spite of veiled antisemitism by the staff, winds up qualifying for the games due to undergoing training from running coach, Sam Mussabini (played by Ian Holm). On the other side of things, Eric Liddell (played by Ian Charleson) is a Christian man raised in Scotland and born from Missionary parents in China, who in spite of his devotion to religion, strives to run at the Olympics in the name of God, which causes conflict with his extremely devout sister, Jennie (played by Cheryl Campbell). With these personal issues clouding their heads as they make their way to the starting points, neither is willing to back down from this competition, realizing that they are now running for a lot more than just their home country. Chariots of Fire is a dull, unemotional, sickeningly euphoric film that is so invested in being a dramatic, impactful picture that it fails to involve a single line of engaging dialogue, any scene with cinematic qualities, or a single character that feels relatable in the least.

When it comes to constructing a story that is simple on the outset but can house an incredibly engaging emotional core at the centre, sports films are usually some of the best at delivering them. While they can be formulaic, showcasing characters going through trials and tribulations in order to come out on top feels like such a primal yet uplifting storytelling device, and it has and still can produce solid results. By all accounts, this movie has a good set up, with two characters with similar yet diverging goals being positioned as rivals who want to win gold at the Olympics. It allows for both the simple relatable hook of a character’s personal desires and the historical weight and sappy dramatics of a Hollywood period piece that would get all kinds of critical praise. It has the right pieces to construct a crowd-pleasing picture that could also result in massive critical appeal, and there definitely was a lot of effort put into the research behind this picture, so it doesn’t feel like it wasn’t trying. The problem comes from how dry and unengaging it feels, which comes through the serious and unblemished manner in which the film is told. Since it is somewhat based on a real event, it would want to take itself seriously, but 90% of this movie feels like a documentation of events rather than a film that is meant to take you on a narrative journey and arc. This handling seems to come from the director of the film, Hugh Hudson, who was mostly known for working on tv commercials and documentaries prior to this movie (with this being his first feature-length film). With this in mind, it explains several components of this film, like the stoic nature of the acting, the naturalistic form of camera movement and shot composition, and even the barren nature of the dialogue. While the scripting by Colin Welland may do its duty in portraying the events in a believably monotonous and realistic manner, it doesn’t in any way feel appropriate for a film, as the screenplay lacks investment and conflict (and therefore gives the audience no incentive to feel for the characters), the dialogue is overly literate and feels condescendingly obscure for no reason, the characters feel like generic bystanders rather than characters you care about, and since the film is mostly fabricated with multiple changes to the real life event, the lack of polish and vibrancy in sequences that come across as very dull feels extra purposeful and lame.

Harold Abrahams and Eric Lindell seemed like interesting people, and a story showcasing their contributions to the world of sporting could’ve been interesting, but this film doesn’t really do a good job presenting them. The film does highlight the key defining aspects of these two characters (Harold’s Jewish heritage and Eric’s Christianity), which provides the closest thing the movie has going for it in terms of motivation in order to separate them from the rest of the bland ravel, but it’s also the only thing that is learned about these two throughout the entire film. They don’t feel like real people with fleshed out lives, but rather plastic dolls for the movie to position against each other in order to create some orchestrated feeling of competition. You don’t really find out much about them outside of their love for running, their home lives are written as very bland and basic (with people like Cheryl Campbell and Alice Krige being given the bare minimum to work with), and since the writing and most of their scenes consist of soulless dialogue that is meant to sound well-versed and ‘’important’’, it sucks out any down-to-earth relatability which could come from these two individuals. Both Ben Cross and Ian Charleson feel like charismatic guys who are trying to bring life and passion to these roles, yet they feel suffocated by the scenes they are in and the direction and scripting they are given, it’s a little unfortunate. The rest of the actors are so stale and lifeless that they don’t even feel like characters. No role has any definable traits, most of the actors look interchangeable so it can be hard to tell who is supposed to be who sometimes, and because the film doesn’t operate like a traditional movie where the supporting roles add a sense of life and texture to the world, they just feel like added clutter so the film doesn’t feel barren. The only actor that is allowed to feel a little sparky in a sea of dreariness is Ian Holm as the character of Sam Mussabini. While he doesn’t look or feel the least bit like someone who is of Italian and Arabic heritage, his acting is strong enough to make this generic ‘’trainer/mentor’’ archetype work okay (enough so that it got him an Oscar nomination).

This movie is one of the most British things in existence, and that isn’t really a good thing. While England has several merits to highlight ,and past and future showcases in media have demonstrated said qualities like their etiquette and manner, their unique sense of humor and wit, and even their elaborate history (both the good and the bad), but this movie present the country in the most stereotypical, blandest and uninteresting manner possible. It can feel a little frustrating to listen to at times, with a dialect and manner of speaking that feels pompous and needlessly long-winded, making already unlikeable characters feel even less relatable. While this quality does dissipate whenever the leads take focus (they are fairly generic, but they at least feel like normal people 80% of the time), it can’t totally erase it because even the look of the film screams this element. While it does look like England and authentic to the time period with how they look and dress, it isn’t very visually pleasing or even that cinematic on any level. Sometimes the rougher style of filmmaking is okay and Hudson’s experience in documentary filmmaking can benefit the film, like with certain tracking shots that offer a first-person view in a crowd of people which really makes you feel like you’re in the scuffle, but otherwise this movie is very misty, wet and dull looking, to the point of being unpleasant. The way the film is shot by David Watkin on occasion has some decent framing and lighting but can feel a little misplaced and not always positioned in the best way, particularly whenever the characters are running. While the far off shots do a good job showing the athletes, and the slow-motion close-ups can result in a few funny reactions (Eric Liddell may have been a great runner in real life, but this movie makes him wildly flail like Kermit the Frog), it feels like these moments would’ve benefited from shots that were closer to the actors, to really get a sense of their determination behind every huffed breath and jolted movements, whereas the distance just makes it feel like recorded footage of random athletes rather than a character you’ve been following in a movie (which sounds like a perfect analogy for the film). The score for this film is pretty legendary and is still referenced to this day, with the composition by Vangelis Papathanassiou taking a more contemporary approach to its sound and deciding to go for something more synth-heavy and 80s-centric rather than something more cinematically swooping and orchestral in a sense that would be fitting for something from the 20s. While it can feel a little silly by today’s standards, it does capture that stirring and symphonic quality that works in these spirited sporting moments and is one of the few parts of the film that feels passionate, so it deserves some points for that alone.

Chariots of Fire doesn’t provide the same kind of euphoric joy that other sports films have managed in the past, deciding to throw away this simplistic, jovial quality for something more dramatic and sullener, which in turn makes it hard to care about anything that’s being displayed. Considering how it fared pretty strongly at the Oscars and how most people view it with this sense of pedigree, yet it rarely gets acknowledged in common discussions, it feels like a movie that has withstood the test of time for how it has been viewed rather than for its actual quality. It is a certainly a watchable film, as on the outset, it doesn’t really do anything noticeably wrong, but with boring characters, a suppressive atmosphere, uninteresting visuals, and a presentation that feels purposefully un-cinematic, it would probably be best to stick with other sports movies that will make you cheer for the right reasons.