THE DEADLIEST SEASON
US, 1977, 100 minutes, Colour.
Michael Moriarty, Kevin Conway, Paul D’ Amato, Meryl Streep.
Directed by Robert Markowitz.
The Deadliest Season is a telemovie which looks like a spin off from the 1976 ice hockey film, Slapshot, with Paul Newman. However the film can be seen more as an anti-Slapshot film. It takes the same theme of ice hockey with its competitiveness. Its violence with the encouragement of the coach and the crowds, and the playing to the gallery even in terms of violence.
However the film takes a serious tone in showing a hero player, affected by the crowd, charged with manslaughter and his consequent trial. The film makes its points fairly a strongly, especially as adapted for home viewing on television. Michael Moriarty gives an effective performance as the cloddish hero. Kevin Conway is quite effective also as his crippled lawyer. Paul D’ Amato, who appeared in Slapshot, is the victim. Though not raising great interest at the time, the film also starts Meryl Streep. 1977 was the year she appeared in Julia. Interesting themes, dramatically presented, which are of relevance for all violent sports and spectator reactions.
1. The quality of this telefilm? Style, technique, interest, themes, serious message?
2. The tone of the title, audience expectations - of a sports film? The reaction to the film Slapshot?
3. The presentation of ice hockey? The sport in itself, the skill, the way that it is played? The visual presentation of thing pace, crowds? The entertainment aspects, danger and risks?
4. Ice hockey presented as a symbol of all violent sports?
5. The ethos of the sport, the coach and his attitudes, the drive to win, the violence and inherent brutality, the response of the crowds with their calls for killing? The effect on the sport itself, on public opinion, on the players and their behaviour?
6. The focus on Miller and his skill? His initial weaknesses and being dropped? His personality, ordinary kind of person, somewhat cloddish? Relationship with his wife, friendship with Dave and listening to Dave’s advice? his feelings of humiliation and their repercussion, the clash with the coach, being sent to a minor team to play?
7. His change of style, his roughing things up, the crowd’s response to violence? his wife's commenting on this - and her liking him playing sport, but her being repelled by his brutality? The basis for his return, his success, his nickname, the penalty killer? His award with the ball and chain? How was this legitimate within the context of the game?
8. The character of his wife and her response to Miller? Dave’s wife? The character of Dave, of the coach? How important was this sketching in of character because of subsequent events?
9. The clash between Dave and Miller during the game? As part of the game - irrespective of their friendship? The mutual provocation? Who was to blame? Dave attacking Miller, Miller's response and the violence? The filming of this and the videotape replay throughout the rest of the film? Where was the responsibility?
10. The change of pace in the film with the charges against Miller? The official reaction of the hockey boards. the teams and their lawyers? The personalities of the coaches, businessmen and lawyers and their reaction? Their wanting to organise things and get Miller off ? and then their being prepared to drop Miller?
11. The significance of the discussion between Miller and his father? His visiting Dave in the hospital and then Dave's death?
12. The presentation of the lawyers, their discussion and the arrangement of pleas? Miller's decision about this? The District Attorney and his attitude towards the case?
13. The intervention of Graff? His skill as a lawyer, his future depending on the case? How significant was it that he was a cripple? His relationship with Miller and his earnestness about the trial?
14. How interesting was the presentation of the trial itself? The cross-examination of the owner of the team, the promoters, reporters? The varying attitudes towards sport, violence, the law that emerged from these cross-examinations? The skill of Graff, of the D.A.? The objections and the Judge's treatment of the witnesses? How interesting was the discussion in the court context about the law and violence and sport?
15. Miller and his behaviour during the trial, his acceptance of popular talk about the case and violence? When did it dawn on him that he was a man capable of such violence? His talk with his wife before the verdict came out and his admission of the truth?
16. The justice of the verdict in terms of law, responsibility, morals? Miller's future in hockey, his being dropped, his ageing? The visit of Graff to the stadium and the final freeze of Miller and his game?
17. The effectiveness of the message of the film and the validity of its points of view on law, violence and sport?
