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?
I'm a fairly recent follower of F1. My first race was at Imola in 2004 -- where there was a tribute to Senna on the 10th anniversary of his death. I had heard of him, of course, but did not know much about him or his career, so I was looking forward to seeing this film the moment I heard about it.
ReplyDeleteI found the documentary fascinating, particularly some of moments that were captured in the meetings with the drivers. I understand (for all of the reasons pointed out in this review) why the director chose to focus on the rivalry between Prost and Senna, but found myself wishing there had been more about the other drivers who were competing with them.
I also would have liked it better if more circuits and races had been highlighted. While I realize that key story moments took place at the Japan track, it started to feel like Japan was the only circuit on the schedule.
As the runtime is only 106 minutes (which moves quickly and is never boring), and I'm certain that there was much more footage than what was shown in the film, I wish the filmmakers had made the film a bit longer and included more of this fascinating story.
As an F1 fan, I especially appreciated the insight into the political shenanigans surrounding the Balestre-Prost Darkside Alliance. It brought home like no news reports I recall reading at the time what a total screw job on Senna-Dennis those dickheads pulled off.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the filmmakers' effort, I thought it was outstanding. They managed to tell a very complex story and illuminate an extraordinary racer's life with a minimum of blathering pompousness, esoteric idol worship and standard issue cliches.
At least one person who was with our party, a woman who doesn't know racing from rug weaving, was maximally zoned, compelled to uttering as we exited the theater, "That's it. He's my new hero."
Could it have been longer and more focused on the art and science of motorsport, more thrilling and frenzied with an eye on the sheer exotic excess, danger and spectacle of the F1 Circus?
Yep, but so what? These are quibbles and personal predilections on parade.
There hasn't been a film about racing since LeMans that has the kind of stuff that will grab and entertain an audience beyond the aficionados AND satisfy the latter,
I'll definitely be going back for seconds.
As far as Senna's motives are concerned, he wanted to win and he was prepared to go to great lengths to fulfill his ambition. Occasionally, his ambition led to behavior that, in ordinary circumstances, could be classified as ruthless or unfair.
ReplyDeleteWhatever...
As Michael Delaney (Steve McQueen) so eloquently stated in LeMans: "This isn't just a thousand-to-one shot. This is a professional bloodsport."
Nice guys finish last.
I've been back for seconds and I'm sure I'll be headed for thirds and fourths as well.
ReplyDeleteAs I stated, this film was long overdue. I agree that it is hands down the best film on the topic since Le Mans. However I stand by my assertion that the film does not completely satisfy . . . and my upcoming Pt. Deux will offer more to chew on in that regard.
Beyond the film to Senna's motivations . . . I'd no problem at all with his off track political shenanigans had he not spent so much time pointing his finger. No doubt Senna had every right to be livid over Balestre's BS in Japan . . . moving the Suzuka pole to the dirty side of the track.
However Prost was spot on when we stated that Senna had a problem believing that he could not kill himself, and I will never accept Senna's actions at Suzuka as "ok."
Nice guys may finish last, but overt self-righteousness can end civilizations
"he" stated . . .
ReplyDeleteYou must have seen a different film than I did.
ReplyDeleteYour perspective on Senna's "shenanigans" is effectively rebuked by the behind-the-scenes sequences that illuminate the relevant maneuverings back in the day. You even admit as much, but then contradict yourself with what I can only describe as tortured logic. To wit:
"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."
Uh, no. He realized superior firepower was the only way he was going to defeat his enemies. It's a "blood sport," remember?
Senna had every reason to point his fingers -- and if you didn't think that was the case back then, for whatever reason, you should have comprehended those reasons after watching the film.
Instead, it seems clear you carried your biases into the film and the film mostly reinforced those biases.
Prost was a conceited, pompous dick who manipulated the outcome of events with the aid of his corrupt countryman who was running the sport like his personal fiefdom. They both deserved to have their asses kicked.
Senna was the only one with the balls to stand up to this unholy alliance, You may never approve of Senna's method for handling the injustices meted out upon him, but when he ran Prost off the track in Japan in a spot and manner that minimized the potential for serious consequences, there were few in the paddock -- drivers, owners, mechanics, journalists -- who shed a tear for the Ferrari driver.
As for "Nice guys may finish last, but overt self-righteousness can end civilizations," jeez, dude, that's just a wee bit histrionic, don'tcha think?
I'll deal with Pt. 2 later.
I can assure you that my stance is not pro-Prost, but as many geniuses do . . . Senna demonstrated the capacity to create his own reality.
ReplyDeleteHe knew how to turn on the woeful charm and paint himself the victim with the best of them, even if he was actually correct and justified in the end. My opinion is that he actually got it right most of the time.
That does not erase, however, the fact that he was a quick read on how the game was played.
I can understand that he may have believed that his actions at Suzuka would be inconsequential, but given the fact that he should have walked away from the accident that took his life, its fair to ask at what point are we all capable of losing perspective on our sense of immortality?
Anyway, such traits normally problematic only when manifested in bad people. Fortunately Senna was a good guy and I don't believe, despite his ambition and success, that he lost touch with who he was or where he came from.
He was passionate and took license with risk in a fashion others may not have been so forgiven.
Good points, which go quite a ways beyond what I had interpreted based on your original comments.
ReplyDeleteI got the fact that you were not giving Prost a "bye run," but I still think you and he have made too much out of Senna's reflective spirituality and the notion that an excessive sense of "immortality" played any part in his tactical approach to racing.