Chariots of Fire

'tis been said that this movie is loved or hated, no middle ground.

I believe I know why.

It touches the most fundamental instincts and feelings in all of us.

The question it compels us to ask is, "Do I have a piece of greatness to offer to the world"?

Those of us who would answer yes, whether we believe is achievable or not, would love this movie, because it epitomizes the potential of our dreams, not just in running, but in any walk of life.

Those of us who would answer no, would hate this movie, because it highlights our acceptance of mediocrity, and of surrendered dreams.

Also, this movie touches those who have succeeded also.

It shows that there are two ways to succeed, the one not shown in the movie, and the one shown.

The one not shown is the one that motivates most truly successful people today. win at any cost, in sports, business, etc. and the consequences be damned.

The way to succeed shown in Chariots of Fire is probably naive by today's standards, but nonetheless noble and uplifting.

It tells us that success achieved through dedication, commitment, honesty and sacrifice is the noblest achievement a person can attain, and provides examples for others to emulate.

Liddell and Abrahams are not examples for runners, they are examples for people, true heroes of the spirit, not sport.

An unforgettable phrase, a torch to some and a knife to others,

" So where does the power to succeed come from?... It comes from within"

Those of us who have it, love it, those of us who do not have it, hate it.

If I live to be 100, I will still have my dreams stirred back to life by the message in this film

Perhaps the most moving of all movies that I have ever seen, Chariots of Fire is purely amazing. I must admit that when I first saw it back in '97, I was bored silly by it, but then again, all the movies that I was watching then were your typical fare for a young teen--Adam Sandler comedies (how asinine they are now). Now, I have a great respect for CoF, since I discovered the joy of running and the feel of the race. Before every cross country and track season, I force my teammates to sit down and watch this to help learn what teamwork means and the glory of striving your hardest. Oh and that soundtrack is also pretty good.

On a basic level it is the ultimate British Oscar-winning period piece and influential, uplifting feel-good film. Its two chief qualities are its subsequently strong realism and the resonant Vangelis soundtrack that, as with 'Blade Runner', increases the strength and significance of scenes through sound. Although it has a specific setting or historical background, the music adds an appropriate timelessness to the powerfully relevant human themes. These include winning and losing, of having what it takes to run the race, and of the old gentlemanly values of religion, decency and personal honour. It is the determining of the self, the inner strength, by understanding and will. The real-life characters and events are brought to life with the engaging realization that a climax will arrive at the end. At its core is a rivalry, less of a personal one and more the dilemma of two men wanting to win the same race. However, the climax is not predictable for such a straight-forward competition cannot occur. That is to say, they are both dedicated and honest men, with completely different religions, and it is this combination of resolution and talent which enables them both to win their own race. Around this central thread of training and determination, the film-makers have recreated the world surrounding these university characters in the 1920s. Scenes are filled with the casual, graceful attitudes that are a very British ideal; sophisticated prowess, decency, honesty, religion and intellect, values which seem to be less respected in this modern time. It portrays a credible idealism.

One of the first scenes of the film shows the running students. It celebrates this stage in life of onsetting maturity, comraderie and destiny through this bygone group of individual characters, united by the shared realization of their strengths. Throughout there is also the vague impression of higher powers at work, not so much the embedded attitudes of the old generation, but the position of man's humility in experiencing the challenge of life's great race created for them, and not only feeling the love that can be found, but rising to shine in one's own glory, enabled because of the higher glory. Not many viewers, especially today, accept such adherence and orthodoxy to Christianity, that can be seen as the motivation for the character Liddell. This film reminds us of the prominence and influence it had over so many aspects of society and the beneficial, empowering effects it could give to individuals. Alternatively the character Abrahams is a jew, and relies more on the attributes of his character which include a desperate determinism that reaps a reward of its own, takes him to his limits - although of greater significance is the love of a woman which detracts from perhaps a too heightened focus on himself. Through him we must also realise that there will always be those greater than ourselves, the very fact of our losing, and ultimately swallow pride and feel awe and goodness for the victory of our rivals and our friends. At the end of the film, the race has been run; they have gloriously discovered and revelled in their talents, their time, the fruits of aspiring to something greater than themselves. 'For it says in the good book, he that honours me, I will honour'.

I watched this again last night. I had forgotten just how beautifully done it was - both a character study of two very different men and a gripping plot of their attempts to succeed - partly through athletics. the writer and director so well convey both Cambridge and the Edinburgh Presbyterian missionary disciples, in the early 1920s so very well.

The acting is superb - I had never seen a character presented like Eric Liddell in movies - how fine Ian Charleson was in this role, the softness of his voice, his ease and joy in running competitively (especially in contrast with the tense tortured Harold Abrahams). I also loved the more supporting roles - I've read a biography of F.E. Smith and Nigel Davenport is exactly how I would imagine him. The actor who played the Prince of Wales also seemed exactly right with his effortless charm, looks, and lack of imagination. Ian Holm, John Gielgud, Lindsay Anderson - all wonderful.

The actors weren't chosen for glamour either - Liddell and Abrahams are not Leni Riefenstahl images of athletic ideals, Liddell's sister is no beauty - and Abrahams' girlfriend is pretty but not stunning. It made them seem more real. (In nice contrast were the near-pretty boy looks of Nigel Havers as Lord Lindsay - it so suited his character).

The races are riveting - partly due to the music and sound effects.

So many small things are done so well - e.g., when Lord Lindsay has the confidence of his class to barge into a room containing the Prince of Wales, and three other lords (including Birkenhead and the head of the British Olympic Committee) and greets them by name - no need for introduction there (as there was for Liddell). It's small but seems quite real.

As an American, it was interesting and funny to see our Olympic team shown as the numerous, ominous, invulnerable "other"! (something like watching a Rocky movie with Rocky as the product of a Russian or East German success machine!). In fact, the one scene that seemed a bit off was the scene of the American track athletes warming up for the Games - all heavy music, machine like athletes, ferocious coach yelling with a megaphone into people's ears. It pounded too hard on the "these are the scary almighty inhuman opponents" theme in contrast to the cheerful British boys running along the beach.

Something I had forgotten about the movie was how stubborn BOTH protagonists are - Liddell fully as much as Abrahams. Liddell is not overly deferential or bashful when dealing with the Prince of Wales - but instead straightforward and very firm.

I truly can't understand anyone not liking this movie - it is very exciting even on the basic level of "will they win?" and so much more. (For example, Ian Holm's character's reaction to success after 30 years is very moving). Those who write to say that "Reds" deserved the Oscar more - are simply wrong. (Reds was so simplistic that it felt like watching the movie "The Hardy Boys Go to the Russian Revolution"). Those who say they cannot differentiate among the boys or between the Scottish and English accents - well, it sounds like some political statement to me.

Do watch it - it's very fine, very moving, very exciting.

"Chariots of Fire" is a fine motion picture that won the Best Picture Oscar in 1981, even though it was the longest of long-shots. The film deals with two young Englishmen (Ben Cross and Ian Charleson) who have hopes of glory at the 1924 Olympics. We see that their struggles almost cost them the opportunity to achieve the greatness that they both desire. When they are both ultimately successful, Charleson feels that his win is due to God's glory and accepts the medal with the greatest of pride and admiration. However, after Cross wins the gold he feels somewhat disappointed and realizes that what he thought he wanted was not what he really wanted at all. The insight into this motion picture is amazing. Both athletes convey very common feelings that most people experience if they are serious enough in what they are doing, whether it be sports or something else. The main focus of "Chariots of Fire" is that the journey to get to the destination is more important and uplifting than the destination itself. Many question the fact that this film won the Best Picture Oscar over "Reds" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark". However, this is one time I cannot say anything negative about the Academy's decision. The fact that this film won in 1981 is testimony to the fact that the Academy is one of the greatest organizations in the world. Kudos to all involved here. 5 stars out of 5.