"CHARIOTS" SHOULD HAVE BEEN LESS BORING

"Chariots of Fire" (1981) -- 5/10

By Martin Zabell
(Wrote Jan. 2, 2008)

The debate about "Chariots of Fire" has always been whether it is boring. As a young man, I thought it was very boring. As a middle-aged man, I found it far less boring this week.

Let me suggest, though, that the debate should be far more substantive – whether the writers did a good job of portraying the two main characters and the rivalry between them. If the answer was yes, "Chariots" would have been much less boring.

The movie has three problems:

1. ERIC LIDDELL'S PORTRAYAL: This man was fascinating. He sacrificed his life while in his 40s because he was a Christian missionary in China. Yet, he is NOT portrayed as fascinating.

We're told he wants to be a missionary, but we should have been SHOWN this. This could have been done via flashbacks to his childhood when his parents were missionaries or via his missionary work if there was any. Speeches to Scottish lads just don't convey his zeal. Instead, we see a relatively cardboard-cutout portrayal of a very religious person.

2. HAROLD ABRAHAMS' PORTRAYAL: I'm Jewish. There has been virtually no discrimination against me, but my father and others of his generation have told me stories that were far more interesting than anything Abrahams went through in this movie.

The stories I've heard were about discrimination in 1950s New York City. It is not credible that Abrahams didn't suffer far more bias in 1920s England. Snide remarks by snotty old men and Abrahams' plaintive wail that was mocked by his girlfriend just aren't interesting. The writers should have found out about the anti-Semitic incidents that undoubtedly occurred.

3. THE LIDDELL ABRAHAMS RIVALRY: Liddell won one race and Abrahams was upset about it. They barely talked to each other!! It's hard to believe their rivalry couldn't have been more vividly portrayed. Did they like each other? What did they say to each other and about each other? There was relatively little tension between them.

Confrontations make plots less boring. Two of the best scenes in "Chariots" are Abrahams telling officials that he won't fire his coach and Liddell telling them he will not run on the Sabbath. The movie would have been much better if Abrahams and Liddell had confrontations regarding their religion with others and personal tiffs with each other.

I had one other problem with "Chariots." After watching it, I researched whether Abrahams and Liddell won medals in races not portrayed on screen. They did. In the course of this research, I noticed that NO hurdler named Andrew Lindsay medaled in the 1924 Olympics. Upon further research, I learned Lindsay does NOT exist.

I understand that writers often take creative license with the truth. I read "Schindler's List." In the movie, there were at least a few incidents where the Itzhak Stern character did things that in real life were actually done by others. This was understandable because too many characters can confuse viewers and introducing them can waste lots of time.

However, Stern was real, he was portrayed accurately, and the incidents involving him were close to accurate. Other incidents like Schindler rescuing an employee from a train heading toward a concentration camp did occur although it was not Stern who was rescued.

What the writers of "Chariots" did in fabricating a person when they had several British runners, some of them medalists, to base a composite character around was UNFORGIVABLE.

After watching "Chariots of Fire," I gave it a 6. But, I penalized it one point afterward for making up Lindsay. My rating is 5.