CAUTION: SPOILERS
I kicked this thread off stating that I'd lost some contact with the sport at the time Senna moved to McLaren. That was actually a half truth worthy of clarification.
Despite the fact finer details may have slipped my grasp, my interest in the sport had far from waned. I was paying attention; the problem is that I began to despise Ayrton Senna during his days at McLaren.
For everything Senna had done on track to clearly demonstrate that he came to F1 to win, I was less than impressed by his off circuit posturing, even when his gripes held merit and were for the betterment of the sport as a whole.
When Senna later chose to address his complaints behind the wheel of a race car, I'd had enough.
Last year, "Top Gear" presented a tribute to Senna in conjunction with the film's initial release in Europe. Jeremy Clarkson . . . another walking contradiction . . . wrapped up the excellent segment on the "driver's driver" admitting that he was at the time never a Senna fan, but that he instead (to paraphrase) thought Villeneuve the greatest. Frightening as it maybe to admit any alliance with Mr. Clarkson, I shared his perspective.
I was also never a Prost fan. I found his "smooth is fast" precision boring. I much preferred the style of those such as Senna and Villeneuve who slid closer to the edge, even when their sensational efforts were counter productive.
However, as 1994 arrived and Senna moved past his war with a now retired Prost, I found myself greatly anticipating the year ahead.
I must have been sub-conciously aware that this great driver was back to business tackling the challenges which made him the center of the greatest sport on earth. The pure aspects of racing . . . the quest to win F1 Grands Prix . . . developing a car not quite ready for the front row . . . and driving beyond that car's limits in a fashion of which legends are born . . . that's what we paid to see and Ayrton Senna was back. Adding the rise of an amazing new talent in Michael Schumacher, it was going to be a fantastic year.
Therefore, when I sat down for my first screening I brought a set of expectations that were spot on consistent with my own cinematic inclinations. Director Asif Kapadia's claim "we don’t need anyone else to tell Senna’s story except Senna" was a modus operandi I adored with great anticipation. I was ready to have my socks knocked off by a director who in his own words claimed commitment to the visceral experience.
The letdown came in the form of a less than visceral narration, and whereas the film may not show talking heads we certainly hear them. Too often I found the narration skimming over and distracting those aspects of the story which inspired a deeper curiosity.
My point is to not beat up the principal narrator, John Bisignano. Dissecting troubling comments such as "one word to describe Senna and that word is fast" only confuse my point.
Kapadia could have and should have placed greater emphasis on telling the story through Senna's own voice. As a filmmaker, I feel that if I subscribe to "show me don't tell me" then I can't go back to relying on telling the viewer what is happening much less what to think. It's that simple.
I find it ironic that every other choice Kapadia made succeeded in creating an exceptionally visceral exposition of his subject, but the effort ultimately stumbles because the subject Ayrton Senna remains elusive . . .
Utilizing the former ESPN commentator may draw sentimental memories of an era, but Bisignano's first person insight almost prevents our forming our own unique impressions of Senna as if allowed to observe only from safe broadcast distance. Is it too cynical to suggest that I did not need a former (although passionate) commentator retelling a story he'd already told me over the air years ago?
My point is demonstrated in the manner Kapadia brilliantly recovers as the story draws to conclusion. In treating the events of Imola '94 with dignified "hands off" finesse and wrapping the film on Senna's own words, the director returns to his stated commitment, and poignantly closes on a central spirit . . . not only of the film but more importantly of the man himself.
I personally feel Senna's coming of age and subsequent war against the political forces within F1 can be seen as an example for many. Having faced and often failed at the challenge of tempering passion along my own professional journey, I have not lost sight of this film's value beyond a strict motor racing audience, even if I feel that audience may not get to know the sport nor the man as well as I'd imagined.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
"Senna" Discussion Pt 1
CAUTION SPOILERS!
"Senna" the movie, much like Senna's own journey cut way too short, is at once captivating, mesmerizing, yet an incomplete document of an individual who transformed the sport he loved.
The film introduces a complicated and complex provocateur to those who may have never followed F1, and does so in a fashion fitting of the man and those who competed against him.
Yet for everything the film does so well, it leaves more questions about the three time World Driving Champion than it answers, and fails, IMHO, to adequately define the significance of the proscenium in which he excelled.
I would find it impossible to fully distill Ayrton Senna within the scant confines of a two hour movie. Here we have all the ingredients for a story long overdue to the big screen, but movies rarely succeed following divergent story lines, characters which can not be simplified, and far less as audio/visual cliff notes. Ironically, it is in fact the filmmaker's requirement to identify and extrapolate a manageable narrative from Senna's broad impact on motor sport (albeit executed here with methodical technical precision) that left me somewhat unfulfilled.
Sensational endeavors unfortunately provide more easily condensed narratives. Thus it is no surprise that the narrative here centers on Senna's openly public feud with Alain Prost. Those of us who have followed F1 know this story well and understand why it would serve as the eye in this storm of documentary.
On the surface it provides the most obvious path toward condensing Senna to the screen. The stage was simple. Alain Prost was the man to beat. Senna placed Prost on the highest pedestal above all others. Even as he entered the 1988 season as Prost's teammate at McLaren, Senna could not hide his desire to defeat this man. He lived and breathed that quest as if it was the only manner in which he could find his place in the world, perhaps even peace within his soul.
There we have it. A protagonist, an antagonist, and a catalyst: Jean Marie Balestre!
Given the miles of material under which director Asif Kapadia must have almost drowned (that would be some problem to have, huh?), he manages to champion and include amazing glimpses behind the curtain that are shocking, funny, human. The movie treats us to absolutely stunning behind the scenes footage of driver meetings, pre-race briefings.
Kapadia and his editor put us in the room in a manner I'm dead certain that even the most ardent F1 fan has never seen. We see Senna navigating his way with trepidation into the political side of a sport where his adversaries were serious, both competitively and politically. No doubt, this is what many of us came to see, and on that count the film does not disappoint.
In these moments, I saw these F1 "gods" as not quite gods at all . . . but instead pawns who also live and die by the political sword . . . yet the irony is through fully exploiting the objectivity of time, the film at once shatters and rebirths the epic myth through this incredible footage.
The film also takes advantage of the conflict between Senna's passion for the purity of racing against the politic of human endeavor . . . but too conveniently sidesteps the fact that those same politics afforded him the opportunity to earn millions of dollars in the process.
Herein lies the dilemma. As F1 fans, we know it. We know it because this story is repeated every single season. It may take different forms, but it is always there. Senna was not the first to meet it head on, however he might have been the quickest to adopt its practice to his own advantage.
I contend it is fair to say that Senna was not stupid. Once he snapped from naivete to realize he could summit on talent alone, he utilized every opportunity to point woeful scrutiny and political tides against his adversary.
I believe Senna so despised the political realities of the sport that he was probably unaware that he'd subscribed to their practice. Perhaps unwittingly, he was fighting fire with fire.
Unfortunately the film does not question Senna's motivations in a completely objective fashion. I also wonder if those outside and now being introduced for the first time to Ayrton Senna, F1, and his impact on the sport any real depth on the matter?
"Senna" the movie, much like Senna's own journey cut way too short, is at once captivating, mesmerizing, yet an incomplete document of an individual who transformed the sport he loved.
The film introduces a complicated and complex provocateur to those who may have never followed F1, and does so in a fashion fitting of the man and those who competed against him.
Yet for everything the film does so well, it leaves more questions about the three time World Driving Champion than it answers, and fails, IMHO, to adequately define the significance of the proscenium in which he excelled.
I would find it impossible to fully distill Ayrton Senna within the scant confines of a two hour movie. Here we have all the ingredients for a story long overdue to the big screen, but movies rarely succeed following divergent story lines, characters which can not be simplified, and far less as audio/visual cliff notes. Ironically, it is in fact the filmmaker's requirement to identify and extrapolate a manageable narrative from Senna's broad impact on motor sport (albeit executed here with methodical technical precision) that left me somewhat unfulfilled.
Sensational endeavors unfortunately provide more easily condensed narratives. Thus it is no surprise that the narrative here centers on Senna's openly public feud with Alain Prost. Those of us who have followed F1 know this story well and understand why it would serve as the eye in this storm of documentary.
On the surface it provides the most obvious path toward condensing Senna to the screen. The stage was simple. Alain Prost was the man to beat. Senna placed Prost on the highest pedestal above all others. Even as he entered the 1988 season as Prost's teammate at McLaren, Senna could not hide his desire to defeat this man. He lived and breathed that quest as if it was the only manner in which he could find his place in the world, perhaps even peace within his soul.
There we have it. A protagonist, an antagonist, and a catalyst: Jean Marie Balestre!
Given the miles of material under which director Asif Kapadia must have almost drowned (that would be some problem to have, huh?), he manages to champion and include amazing glimpses behind the curtain that are shocking, funny, human. The movie treats us to absolutely stunning behind the scenes footage of driver meetings, pre-race briefings.
Kapadia and his editor put us in the room in a manner I'm dead certain that even the most ardent F1 fan has never seen. We see Senna navigating his way with trepidation into the political side of a sport where his adversaries were serious, both competitively and politically. No doubt, this is what many of us came to see, and on that count the film does not disappoint.
In these moments, I saw these F1 "gods" as not quite gods at all . . . but instead pawns who also live and die by the political sword . . . yet the irony is through fully exploiting the objectivity of time, the film at once shatters and rebirths the epic myth through this incredible footage.
The film also takes advantage of the conflict between Senna's passion for the purity of racing against the politic of human endeavor . . . but too conveniently sidesteps the fact that those same politics afforded him the opportunity to earn millions of dollars in the process.
Herein lies the dilemma. As F1 fans, we know it. We know it because this story is repeated every single season. It may take different forms, but it is always there. Senna was not the first to meet it head on, however he might have been the quickest to adopt its practice to his own advantage.
I contend it is fair to say that Senna was not stupid. Once he snapped from naivete to realize he could summit on talent alone, he utilized every opportunity to point woeful scrutiny and political tides against his adversary.
I believe Senna so despised the political realities of the sport that he was probably unaware that he'd subscribed to their practice. Perhaps unwittingly, he was fighting fire with fire.
Unfortunately the film does not question Senna's motivations in a completely objective fashion. I also wonder if those outside and now being introduced for the first time to Ayrton Senna, F1, and his impact on the sport any real depth on the matter?
Monday, August 22, 2011
A little movie called "Senna"
CAUTION: SPOILERS AHEAD
As James Hunt so aptly stated, I will never forget the "arrival" of Ayrton Senna.
I had been incredibly fortunate to discover "Grand Prix International" (what probably remains to this day the greatest F1 magazine ever published) on the shelves of Atlanta's Oxford Books in 1984. It just so happened that over the following two years I monthly carried home carefully selected pristine copy after pristine copy of this sacred publication . . . at a time which charted Senna's meteoric rise and his 1985 season at Lotus.
Among numerous demonstrations of sheer jaw dropping skill, Senna's dominant first victory in the rain at Portugal, his immediate attack out of Tamburello into Tosa at Imola, and his literal "drive the wheels off," bonsai performance in the season ending Australian GP at Adelaide stand out in my memory.
Senna grabbed my attention, for certain. By the time 1985 past, he'd already blipped my "all time greats" radar. Senna, however, was still learning. By the time his third and final season with Lotus in 1987 arrived, it was clear success at the pinnacle of motorsport came not on sheer skill alone.
Things grow a bit foggier for me from that point forward. Senna arrived at McLaren . . . and fortunately for me this is where "Senna" the movie picks up. No doubt I was still following F1 with the same zeal I have now, but for some reason . . . perhaps life . . . I could not devote as much energy to the pursuit and therefore lost some of the fascination with Senna the driver that I'd started out with.
How odd; I was practically asleep during one of F1's most memorable eras and thanks to "Senna," I've a worthy retelling of those lost memories! This brings up an important point about the movie, one of which I will elaborate on shortly . . .
. . . in the meantime, I wanted to use the film's recent wider release to stimulate some discussion on the film and the driver. To get the ball rolling, I am soliciting your thoughts on the film. Make no mistake, I've got plenty . . .
As James Hunt so aptly stated, I will never forget the "arrival" of Ayrton Senna.
I had been incredibly fortunate to discover "Grand Prix International" (what probably remains to this day the greatest F1 magazine ever published) on the shelves of Atlanta's Oxford Books in 1984. It just so happened that over the following two years I monthly carried home carefully selected pristine copy after pristine copy of this sacred publication . . . at a time which charted Senna's meteoric rise and his 1985 season at Lotus.
Among numerous demonstrations of sheer jaw dropping skill, Senna's dominant first victory in the rain at Portugal, his immediate attack out of Tamburello into Tosa at Imola, and his literal "drive the wheels off," bonsai performance in the season ending Australian GP at Adelaide stand out in my memory.
Senna grabbed my attention, for certain. By the time 1985 past, he'd already blipped my "all time greats" radar. Senna, however, was still learning. By the time his third and final season with Lotus in 1987 arrived, it was clear success at the pinnacle of motorsport came not on sheer skill alone.
Things grow a bit foggier for me from that point forward. Senna arrived at McLaren . . . and fortunately for me this is where "Senna" the movie picks up. No doubt I was still following F1 with the same zeal I have now, but for some reason . . . perhaps life . . . I could not devote as much energy to the pursuit and therefore lost some of the fascination with Senna the driver that I'd started out with.
How odd; I was practically asleep during one of F1's most memorable eras and thanks to "Senna," I've a worthy retelling of those lost memories! This brings up an important point about the movie, one of which I will elaborate on shortly . . .
. . . in the meantime, I wanted to use the film's recent wider release to stimulate some discussion on the film and the driver. To get the ball rolling, I am soliciting your thoughts on the film. Make no mistake, I've got plenty . . .
Monday, August 1, 2011
Fantastic Budapest
It would be hard to imagine any F1 fan not being captivated with envy witnessing Lewis Hamilton's attack on Sebastian Vettel in the opening stages of the Hungarian Grand Prix. Sliding all over the slick, greasy asphalt, Hamilton provided a display of wheel to wheel combat as it has always been idealized in F1.
Unfortunately for Lewis, his efforts were ultimately derailed by a combination of poor tire strategy and impatience. The Hungaroring is an exceptionally tight circuit. With the race in his pocket, Hamilton spun the car around. The time and place of his mistake and "uh oh" recovery maneuver brought another dance with the FIA stewards and thus a costly drive through.
The truth is that the drive through did not cost him the race, the tire strategy did. However, the aggressive manner in which Hamilton dumped the clutch to spin his McLaren around 180 degrees did not aid that cause nearly as much as one deep breath might have allowing oncoming traffic to pass.
Once again, we've another contrasting example of Hamilton's skill and bravado losing out to patience, maturity, and race craft.
Given the manner in which Lewis opened the proceedings, it is easy to understand why so many F1 fans love him. To his credit, he handled this disappointing result with a braver face than we've seen lately. Hopefully this is a sign that he is in fact growing.
Speaking of race craft, Jenson Button, as he has done so often of late, bided his time. He chose his tires carefully, and then took care of them to maximize the investment. I believe there is an expression that suggests when one is truly good at something, they refine it down to nothing. Is it unfair to suggest that Jenson has done just that? Maybe.
Button did in fact have a couple of spirited dices with his teammate. It would be inaccurate to simplify his tactics as passively waiting for the folly of those ahead. Jenson may not provide the same show as Hamilton, but there is no debating his results. I don't know that he's the most underrated driver on the grid, but he is surely the most underrated world champion in recent memory.
On the other hand, Fernando Alonso wound up with a very important podium finish because of his tenacity. Perhaps Ferrari will one day build a single seater that does not drive like it is on ice, but Alonso continues to overcome a twitchy, errant race car with old fashioned work ethic.
Although the F150th Italia did eventually manage to get away from him, he had set a quick enough pace to cushion the fall and rejoin the race in calm, controlled fashion.
Another great race . . .
Unfortunately for Lewis, his efforts were ultimately derailed by a combination of poor tire strategy and impatience. The Hungaroring is an exceptionally tight circuit. With the race in his pocket, Hamilton spun the car around. The time and place of his mistake and "uh oh" recovery maneuver brought another dance with the FIA stewards and thus a costly drive through.
The truth is that the drive through did not cost him the race, the tire strategy did. However, the aggressive manner in which Hamilton dumped the clutch to spin his McLaren around 180 degrees did not aid that cause nearly as much as one deep breath might have allowing oncoming traffic to pass.
Once again, we've another contrasting example of Hamilton's skill and bravado losing out to patience, maturity, and race craft.
Given the manner in which Lewis opened the proceedings, it is easy to understand why so many F1 fans love him. To his credit, he handled this disappointing result with a braver face than we've seen lately. Hopefully this is a sign that he is in fact growing.
Speaking of race craft, Jenson Button, as he has done so often of late, bided his time. He chose his tires carefully, and then took care of them to maximize the investment. I believe there is an expression that suggests when one is truly good at something, they refine it down to nothing. Is it unfair to suggest that Jenson has done just that? Maybe.
Button did in fact have a couple of spirited dices with his teammate. It would be inaccurate to simplify his tactics as passively waiting for the folly of those ahead. Jenson may not provide the same show as Hamilton, but there is no debating his results. I don't know that he's the most underrated driver on the grid, but he is surely the most underrated world champion in recent memory.
On the other hand, Fernando Alonso wound up with a very important podium finish because of his tenacity. Perhaps Ferrari will one day build a single seater that does not drive like it is on ice, but Alonso continues to overcome a twitchy, errant race car with old fashioned work ethic.
Although the F150th Italia did eventually manage to get away from him, he had set a quick enough pace to cushion the fall and rejoin the race in calm, controlled fashion.
Another great race . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)