THE GAMES
UK, 1969, 94 minutes, Colour.
Michael Crawford, Ryan O'' Neal, Charles Aznavour, Jeremy Kemp, Stanley Baker, Elaine Taylor. Athol Compton, Kent Smith, Mona Washbourne, June Jago.
Directed by Michael Winner.
The Games is filled with a number of cinema cliches, but nonetheless keeps one's interest and entertains in a fairly undemanding kind of way. Of course, it could have been a much better film, but it settles for the common denominators of entertainment. The film concentrates on four eventual contestants for the Olympic marathon at the Rome games. The American segment is the weakest with Ryan O'Neal as a glamour-boy who is not really very interesting until we discover he has a bad heart condition; the Australian section is a caricature -although the details may seem absurd, the attitudes might not be so far from the truth (but the photography is pleasing); the Czech section is sentimental and plays on the cliche of the individual at the service of the Party. Charles Aznavour is completely sympathetic here and audiences would be on his side. The British section is given the most thorough treatment and is the best as well as the grimmest. Stanley Baker and Michael Crawford do very well as ambitious coach and milkman-champion. Screenplay is by Erich (Love Story) Segal; music is by Francis (Love Story) Lai - and Ryan O' Neal is there (although it all happened before Love Story). Director Michael Winner is only adequate here. He has done much better with The Jokers and I'll Never Forget What's 'is Name.
1. Was this film on the side of the Games or not?
2. Did it show an adequate picture of the people who are involved in the games, their attitudes, training, feelings? Or was this all exaggerated for the sake of a story?
3. The English sequence - how did the film build up a convincing picture of Harry Hayes as games' material? What kind of man was Bill Oliver? what power did he have over Harry? Had he the right to have so much power? Was he unreasonable, cruel, driven to too much ambition to see his dreams fulfilled in Harry? Why did he look so sad and pathetic at the end? What was the message intended?
4. The Czech sequence - why was Pavel asked to run again? Did you find this credible? What kind of a man was he - with his family, his training, his past achievement as 'Iron Man'? Was he humble? Why was he so popular with the crowds? What had he achieved by the end of the film?
5. The American sequence - was this just a ballyhoo picture of Americans or was it realistic enough? What kind of person was Scott? Did he have any personality or depth? Why was he pushed so much by his photographing friend? Was he realistic about his heart condition - or did you find the whole part of the plot contrived? what had he achieved at the end of the race? What did the film show about the use of pep pills (and Pavel persuading him to throw a pill away during the race)?
6. The Australian sequence - was this too exaggerated? Was Sonny a sympathetic character? His promoters? What motivated them? Did they have any human feelings? Was Sonny too subservient to them - 'yes, boss' etc., and coming wherever his promoters wanted him to come in a race? What did you think of the apartheid implications? (Is Australia really as racist as this?). Were you glad when Sonny won? Why did the film have him win the race?
7. What was the film's comment on the Games organisation (financial backing, T.V. coverage) and the running of the race in such heat?
8. Is the marathon too inhuman a race?
