-Jerome K. Jerome
"The advantage of literature over life is that its characters are clearly defined, and act consistently."
-Jerome K. Jerome
Comments
Some people find Chariots Of Fire to be a slow film, and it certainly isn't a fast paced one, despite its topic. It's interest lies mainly in the characters, their motivations, and also the themes which are explored. In some ways, the final race is almost an afterthought. One of the thoughts which occurred to me while watching this film is the importance of maintaining balance in your life. Yes, there are times when you have to concentrate on one part of your life, giving it more time and importance than other things, but this should not be a long term or permanent change. In my review of Searching For Bobby Fischer, I discussed this in regard to the protagonist Josh Waitzkin, whose life begins to revolve more and more around chess, while everything else- his school, his friends, other interests- are being left behind. The film asks if this is healthy, or wise, and if the goal is worth the loss of so many other things. In Chariots, Harold Abrahams seems happiest- and less tense- when with Sybil or when performing Gilbert & Sullivan. Yet these are the very things which he divests himself of to devote himself to his running, which obviously brings him no joy. Is this necessary for him to win? Perhaps- but at what cost... the loss of someone he loves and who loves him? Or the loss of himself; when Harold loses a race to Eric he nearly has a breakdown because, if running is all he's got, what does he have left if he fails at it? Eric Liddell does cut back on his involvement in the mission work he's involved in, in order to free up time for training but he doesn't lose sight of what actually matters. His running is given priority, but only for a limited time; Eric has other, superseding long term goals. This is why, when contemplating withdrawing from his race, Liddell is disappointed but not devastated. His running has never been the focus of his life. While on the topic of Eric Liddell, let me say how refreshing it is to see a practicing Christian treated like a normal person in a mainstream movie. Generally, any "Christians" portrayed on film give every indication of being written - and portrayed- by people who have never met one in real life. They are almost invariably villains: either complete hypocrites or treating those who don't agree with them horribly. Or, if they're benign, it's because they've dropped the parts of their faith which make secular society uncomfortable and are all about "peace and love, man." Not that there's anything wrong with peace and love, but Christianity is also about personal commitment, requirements, and sacrifice. For once, in Eric Liddell, we get a character who is completely likable, yet completely immovable in his faith. This brings us to perhaps the most important theme presented in Chariots: individual religious liberty vs responsibility to your country. Usually when this topic comes up, it's in regard to conscientious objectors during a time of war. In this case, it's about an athlete refusing to represent his country at the Olympics if he will have to run on Sunday. This isn't, of course, anywhere near as important as war but the forces arrayed against him- including the Prince of Wales- couch it in those terms; Liddell owes it to King and country to run irrespective of his convictions. Well, it's not as if Eric doesn't want to run... he desperately wants to, but his determination to obey his religious convictions supersedes this desire. The Olympic committee doesn't understand or sympathize with this. Of course, the British Olympic committee can't force Eric to run, but they do everything they can short of that to try to make him agree. This includes trotting out his future monarch to try to intimidate him into doing what they want. This fails, of course; while Eric is a patriotic Briton, his first allegiance is to God. This is a foreign concept to the committee... as Lord Cadogan harrumphs, "In my day it was King first and God after." Eric responds, "God made countries, God makes kings, and the rules by which they govern, and those rules say the Sabbath is His. And I for one intend to keep it that way." Prince Edward then sticks his oar in to tell Liddell: "There are times when we are asked to make sacrifices in the name of that loyalty (to country). And without them our allegiance is worthless. As I see it, for you, this is such a time" Frankly, coming from Prince Edward, that's rich, and Eric tells him that, while he loves his country, he can't make that sacrifice. This scene demonstrates the great divide between those who believe the will of the state comes before the conscience of the individual, and those who believe the reverse. Basically, it boils down to this question: should the government have the power to coerce an individual to violate his conscience? My opinion is no, never, unless what that individual is doing actually hurts or infringes the rights of other individuals. And by this, of course, I mean literal injury and actual rights, not hurt feelings and faux entitlements. Otherwise, personal and religious liberty should be in no way infringed. Before Eric's race, one of the American trainers dismisses his chance of winning as negligible. However, Jackson Scholz warns his teammate that Liddell has something to prove and will be a formidable opponent. A review of Chariots which I read spoke rather patronizingly of the film's quaint assertion that one can accomplish something- in this case, win an Olympic medal- by simply wanting it badly enough. This is, I think, a slight misreading of what the movie is actually suggesting. If someone has no talent for running, or if they have not trained, of course they won't win a race at the Olympics or anywhere else for that matter. But I do think that a gifted, well-trained runner who's racing against other gifted and trained runners can have an edge on the competition if he has strong motivation. Just as I think a person defending their home or country will fight with stronger conviction than say, mercenaries hired to fight. Conviction won't overcome superior skill, but all other factors being close to equal, it can, I believe, provide a possibly winning advantage. In the film, the Duke of Sutherland suggests that the opposite is also true- Eric would lose if forced to act against his conscience: "The 'lad' as you call him, is a true man of principles and a true athlete. His speed is a mere extension of his life, its force. We sought to sever his running from himself." Eric runs with confidence and exultation, knowing that he has stayed true to his convictions and that, when he runs, he feels God's pleasure.
|
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |