900 100 Years of Olympic Films
- flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
What funk said. I salute anyone with the patience to have watched them all by now.
- Chief Brody
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:17 pm
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
I can't cover every movie, but I've managed to gather a few thoughts after a long journey of 53 Olympic films.
The Early and Silent films:
Meticulously restored, for one. Fascinating to see the progression of style in the early days of cinema. We go from the camera as a "recorder of events" to the point where filmmakers are experimenting with this new art form; the use of slow motion, close-ups, and even POV (the camera is placed on a bobsleigh and we are taken on a run) become stylistic devices. And I believe in St. Moritz 1928, we are starting to see more than just "camera as recorder". Shots are chosen for poetic, impressionistic effect. The art of film is evolving.
And purely from an art direction point of view, I just enjoy seeing the hair, wardrobe, the locations from back then. What I love about film is the time capsule aspect. Play Stockholm 1912 back to back with London 2012 and you'll really blow your mind.
Olympia:
What more can be said about Leni Riefenstahl's document of the 1936 Berlin games? The stylistic flourishes and advancement of the form are revolutionary, without question. But the historical context, of course, gives the film an extra level of fascination and revulsion.
Early Colour films:
I have a thing for 1940s and 50s colour films, especially something from Powell and Pressburger. And London 1948, Cortina D'Ampezzo 1956 and Melbourne/Stockholm 1956 hit me right in the sweet spot. Lovingly restored, the colours are rich and deep. I couldn't get enough.
Melbourne I always find fascinating because of that odd quarantine law, and the equestrian events had to be done on another continent. Stockholm's very own mini-Olympics!
Narration is pretty standard in these films.
Tokyo 1964 (Kon Ichikawa version):
The gold standard. Gorgeous to look it. Very little narration. An impressionistic masterpiece.
Starting with Rome 1960 (a beautiful looking film in its own right), the Olympic film is starting to get epic. Maybe capitalizing on the "scope" quality of film of that age (VistaVision etc) Like the Olympics, perhaps Olympic films were trying out the "faster, higher, stronger" model.
I know digital is where we're at now, but, god, film looks good. When properly shown, restored etc.
The 70s films:
Sapporo. A visual stunner. Visions of Eight. Experiment in form, Eight shorts stories. Loved. White Rock. Weird. The Olympics as hosted by James Coburn. What a trip, man. And Montreal. Not a great film, but the first Olympics I saw as a kid. The feelings, the locations, and the colours still remain with me to this day.
The Bud Greenspan era:
To be honest, I was getting a bit tired of this style of documentary after number 6 or 7 (and the voice of Will Lyman was haunting my dreams). The 90s video look is not the most pleasing. But there's no question these films set the bar for the "sports journalism" style of documentary. And there's no better example than Los Angeles 1984. I could watch that movie anytime and not get sick of it.
Marathon and First:
Loved the Carlos Saura 1992 Barcelona film for its personal, auteurist-ish, style.
The London 2012 is essentially an updated Bud Greenspan style doc, but it captures really well the modern style of sports documentary (something you'd see on 30 for 30, for example). Lots of cuts, lots of angles, playing with film speed, and music underneath.
To sum up, I was exhausted after binging these 53 movies in the span of a month and a half. I felt like just ran a...marathon. (haha). But again, a fascinating journey through history and the history of film. And truly a learning experience in terms of film form. The Olympics has the same story....the flame...winners and losers...the flame goes out. So a bit of a post-modernist frame here - it's not just what the story is about, but how the story is told. At least for these Olympic films.
If anyone has any specific questions about certain movies, don't hesitate to ask.
Now, onto watching the real Olympics!
The Early and Silent films:
Meticulously restored, for one. Fascinating to see the progression of style in the early days of cinema. We go from the camera as a "recorder of events" to the point where filmmakers are experimenting with this new art form; the use of slow motion, close-ups, and even POV (the camera is placed on a bobsleigh and we are taken on a run) become stylistic devices. And I believe in St. Moritz 1928, we are starting to see more than just "camera as recorder". Shots are chosen for poetic, impressionistic effect. The art of film is evolving.
And purely from an art direction point of view, I just enjoy seeing the hair, wardrobe, the locations from back then. What I love about film is the time capsule aspect. Play Stockholm 1912 back to back with London 2012 and you'll really blow your mind.
Olympia:
What more can be said about Leni Riefenstahl's document of the 1936 Berlin games? The stylistic flourishes and advancement of the form are revolutionary, without question. But the historical context, of course, gives the film an extra level of fascination and revulsion.
Early Colour films:
I have a thing for 1940s and 50s colour films, especially something from Powell and Pressburger. And London 1948, Cortina D'Ampezzo 1956 and Melbourne/Stockholm 1956 hit me right in the sweet spot. Lovingly restored, the colours are rich and deep. I couldn't get enough.
Melbourne I always find fascinating because of that odd quarantine law, and the equestrian events had to be done on another continent. Stockholm's very own mini-Olympics!
Narration is pretty standard in these films.
Tokyo 1964 (Kon Ichikawa version):
The gold standard. Gorgeous to look it. Very little narration. An impressionistic masterpiece.
Starting with Rome 1960 (a beautiful looking film in its own right), the Olympic film is starting to get epic. Maybe capitalizing on the "scope" quality of film of that age (VistaVision etc) Like the Olympics, perhaps Olympic films were trying out the "faster, higher, stronger" model.
I know digital is where we're at now, but, god, film looks good. When properly shown, restored etc.
The 70s films:
Sapporo. A visual stunner. Visions of Eight. Experiment in form, Eight shorts stories. Loved. White Rock. Weird. The Olympics as hosted by James Coburn. What a trip, man. And Montreal. Not a great film, but the first Olympics I saw as a kid. The feelings, the locations, and the colours still remain with me to this day.
The Bud Greenspan era:
To be honest, I was getting a bit tired of this style of documentary after number 6 or 7 (and the voice of Will Lyman was haunting my dreams). The 90s video look is not the most pleasing. But there's no question these films set the bar for the "sports journalism" style of documentary. And there's no better example than Los Angeles 1984. I could watch that movie anytime and not get sick of it.
Marathon and First:
Loved the Carlos Saura 1992 Barcelona film for its personal, auteurist-ish, style.
The London 2012 is essentially an updated Bud Greenspan style doc, but it captures really well the modern style of sports documentary (something you'd see on 30 for 30, for example). Lots of cuts, lots of angles, playing with film speed, and music underneath.
To sum up, I was exhausted after binging these 53 movies in the span of a month and a half. I felt like just ran a...marathon. (haha). But again, a fascinating journey through history and the history of film. And truly a learning experience in terms of film form. The Olympics has the same story....the flame...winners and losers...the flame goes out. So a bit of a post-modernist frame here - it's not just what the story is about, but how the story is told. At least for these Olympic films.
If anyone has any specific questions about certain movies, don't hesitate to ask.
Now, onto watching the real Olympics!
- Timec
- Spencer Tracy had it coming
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Elsewhere
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
I just finished up the silent films in the set and mostly found them a bit of a slog. All but one of the features felt artlessly cobbled together, with little sense of cohesion or momentum.
Of course, the first one—from the 1912 games, but assembled last year—is literally just three hours of contemporary newsreel footage stitched together, so that kind of makes sense. The later films from the era benefit from more mobile cameras, slow motion, and lengthier footage of some of the events (particularly soccer and rugby games, water polo matches, and some of the equestrian events)—but they still essentially feel like extended newsreels.
From what I remember of watching Olympia years ago, I can now appreciate what a leap forward it was for sports cinematography. I can’t wait to re-watch it as I keep working chronologically through the set.
With all that said: The highlight of the silent films is The White Stadium. Perhaps it’s simply because I prefer the “aesthetics” of the winter games—or maybe it’s just the benefit of having an auteur like Arnold Fanck at the helm—but this was the first film in the set I’d actually consider “good” on an artistic level. The filmmaking felt more dynamic and the editing more artful, and there was more visual beauty, even in simple shots of snow falling from trees. It also has more personality—I quite enjoyed the early scenes of the townspeople preparing for the games, with everything from a snowball fight to an unexplained scene of a topless woman and man skiing down a mountain in their underwear.
On a side note: To reiterate Chief Brody’s comment about the “time capsule” aspect—as lackluster as I found all but one of these films, there’s still some thrill in just seeing the people of +/- 100 years ago living their lives. I sometimes found myself focusing more on the crowds of spectators—their faces, their clothes, their mannerisms—than on the athletic events.
Of course, the first one—from the 1912 games, but assembled last year—is literally just three hours of contemporary newsreel footage stitched together, so that kind of makes sense. The later films from the era benefit from more mobile cameras, slow motion, and lengthier footage of some of the events (particularly soccer and rugby games, water polo matches, and some of the equestrian events)—but they still essentially feel like extended newsreels.
From what I remember of watching Olympia years ago, I can now appreciate what a leap forward it was for sports cinematography. I can’t wait to re-watch it as I keep working chronologically through the set.
With all that said: The highlight of the silent films is The White Stadium. Perhaps it’s simply because I prefer the “aesthetics” of the winter games—or maybe it’s just the benefit of having an auteur like Arnold Fanck at the helm—but this was the first film in the set I’d actually consider “good” on an artistic level. The filmmaking felt more dynamic and the editing more artful, and there was more visual beauty, even in simple shots of snow falling from trees. It also has more personality—I quite enjoyed the early scenes of the townspeople preparing for the games, with everything from a snowball fight to an unexplained scene of a topless woman and man skiing down a mountain in their underwear.
On a side note: To reiterate Chief Brody’s comment about the “time capsule” aspect—as lackluster as I found all but one of these films, there’s still some thrill in just seeing the people of +/- 100 years ago living their lives. I sometimes found myself focusing more on the crowds of spectators—their faces, their clothes, their mannerisms—than on the athletic events.
- flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
I just finished 16 Days of Glory. As good a capsule of the 80's as anything, it's also easy to see how it defined the sports doc genre ever since.
- stevewhamola
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:20 pm
- Location: NWT, Canada
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
Heads up to Canadians: the BD set is currently $233 on Amazon.ca ($200 less than the DVD version!). Cheaper than getting it from a US site during a 50% off sale, factoring in exchange and shipping.
- Ribs
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
It's mentioned in the Podcasts thread, but Peter Becker spends a good ten minutes or so talking about the background of this release at the end of the The Treatment podcast this week. Of note: Criterion's been planning this release for about ten years, and were very, very involved in the process, it wasn't just dumped onto Criterion's plate as a prestige project. And also that he imagines Tokyo Olympiad will eventually be broken out of the set into its own release.
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
It would seem a pretty certain bet that if it is going to happen Tokyo Olympiad would most likely get a separate release to coincide with the latest Tokyo Games in 2020.
- Drucker
- Your Future our Drucker
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
They also broke out some of those Demy releases of course, so I hope this happens with Tokyo Olympiad as well as Olympia.
-
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:19 pm
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
Having a hard time getting through the 1928 Summer Olympics Italian disc. I've realized that the problem is the music. This is perhaps the worst silent film music used so far in the series. There is no correlation between the piano and action on screen, the pianist seems half asleep at the wheel. Did anyone else find this to be a problem? I'm hoping the second disc of 1928 Olympics has more appropriate and interesting music.
- RPG
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 6:05 pm
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
This film could have the most amazing score in history and it would still be borderline unwatchable. The director, whoever it was, must have really loved equestrian because he spent something like a half hour or more on horse walking (oops, I mean dressage) and horse jumping while barely glancing over diving and boxing and completely excluding wrestling and soccer. Even the marathon merely received a brief digest mention and little more.tanders1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:34 pmHaving a hard time getting through the 1928 Summer Olympics Italian disc. I've realized that the problem is the music. This is perhaps the worst silent film music used so far in the series. There is no correlation between the piano and action on screen, the pianist seems half asleep at the wheel. Did anyone else find this to be a problem? I'm hoping the second disc of 1928 Olympics has more appropriate and interesting music.
Honestly, silent film and sporting events just don't mesh well together. Arnold Fanck did a commendable job making the The White Stadium mildly interesting, but even so, a lot of the most enjoyable parts of that film were when the events themselves were not being recorded. The opening segment of the town preparing for the Games is pretty great and the little demonstration by Sonja Henie is mesmerizing. (She exudes natural charisma--no wonder she was later asked to star in films.)
I was pretty excited to see Jim Thorpe in action in 1912, but it looks like they had no footage of him, unfortunately. Just video of him receiving his medals. Shock cameo appearance by George S. Patton, though.
For entertainment value these silent docs are severely lacking, but they are interesting time capsules. It's pretty crazy to see how far some of these sports have come since the early days. I don't even know what's going on in the gymnastics competitions back then. The bobsleds in 1924 are rickety-looking wooden contraptions as the athletes heave-ho in their seats to propel themselves forward, then in 1928 it suddenly becomes something like a 5-man padded skeleton sled with everyone facing head first. Diving in 1912 seemed to consist primarily of who could do a better looking swan dive or back flip. Etc etc.
- TraverseTown
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 4:38 am
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
Does anyone know how the films are spread out across the DVD version? I can only find the listings for each disc for the Blu-ray version. Trying to watch this set by taking select discs out from my library, but also watch whatever is available on YouTube & Filmstruck without getting those discs.
- jsteffe
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:00 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
As usual, librarians have come to the rescue! This record in WorldCat breaks down the contents of each disc in the DVD set. You can also find more detailed listings for the individual DVDs by searching by ISBN.TraverseTown wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:13 pmDoes anyone know how the films are spread out across the DVD version? I can only find the listings for each disc for the Blu-ray version. Trying to watch this set by taking select discs out from my library, but also watch whatever is available on YouTube & Filmstruck without getting those discs.
- cdnchris
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
- Location: Washington
- Contact:
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
Historian David Wallechinsky is writing up on each film in the set (as well as films not in the set), the first part of which can be found here, covering from the 1906 Athens games to the 1936 Berlin games (as a note, the box set starts with the 1912 Stockholm games).
- Minkin
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:13 pm
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
This was an excellent read and full of great insight into details that you might miss in some of these films. Although I'll deduct point for their screenshots being photographed off of their monitor!cdnchris wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:38 amHistorian David Wallechinsky is writing up on each film in the set (as well as films not in the set), the first part of which can be found here, covering from the 1906 Athens games to the 1936 Berlin games (as a note, the box set starts with the 1912 Stockholm games).
I found this great:
I assume that the films not included in the boxset (Los Angeles '32 / etc) are absent due to a lack/loss of an "official film" - as there appears to be some footage that does exist from these Olympics (mostly scattered newsreel pieces).There is a famous legend that when Gustaf presented the gold medals to Jim Thorpe (USA) for the pentathlon and decathlon, he told Thorpe that “You sir, are the greatest athlete in the world,” to which Thorpe allegedly replied, “Thanks, King.” This encounter was captured on film. Alas, because the footage is silent, we do not have evidence of their exchange. Thorpe does look awkward, particularly when the officials try to load him down with two trophies: an enormous Viking ship, lined with gold and embedded with jewels that was donated by Czar Nicholas II of Russia, and a bronze bust of—guess who—King Gustaf V.
I also wondered what happened at the "failed" 1900/1904 Olympics. Upon investigation: competitors had difficulty reaching St Louis in 1904 + it was treated as a sideshow to the World's Fair which was going on at the same time. So, the vast majority of athletes were American; as opposed to 1 French competitor.
- willoneill
- Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
- Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
I'm going through this set during my pandemic home office exile, and I'm at Carlos Saura's Marathon. This is one of the better films in the set, I must say. I have a question for the classical music experts here: there's a piece that's used multiple times during slow-motion running footage that seems familiar but I can't figure out what it is (and the Shazam app isn't giving me anything). Can anyone help?
- Rayon Vert
- Green is the Rayest Color
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
- DarkImbecile
- Ask me about my visible cat breasts
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
- CSM126
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:22 am
- Location: The Room
- Contact:
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
900 100 Years of Olympic Films
I just watched the last fucking film in this set. Do I get a medal?
I'm no sports fan and never watch the Olympics, so i've learnt a lot of useless trivia over this long dull journey. I can also offer a Haters Guide to Olympics Movies.
General Principles:
Winter Olympics > Summer Olympics: There's intrinsically more visual interest to them because you're not stuck in a stadium, you get some great landscapes, and snow provides its own production value and special effects.
Older Olympics > Newer Olympics: Because you've got the collateral unconscious documentary elements of period fashions and technology to entertain and inform you. However, a lot of the earliest films are formally the dullest, so this tends to even out.
These Are Industrial Films: They're commissioned and constrained by the IOC, so if anything genuinely interesting or controversial happened at the games, it's probably not going to be in the official Olympic film. Visions of Eight is the most glaring example of this, with the terrorist incident only represented in the final film because John Schlesinger threatened to withdraw his segment entirely unless he was allowed to allude to it. That film also excludes a completed segment by Ousmane Sembene for obscure reasons.
Most of the 90s and 00s Films Look Like Shit: They're generally sourced from SD video, so they look worse than the silent films.
Competitive Categories:
Olympics films generally resolve themselves into a few clear types.
The Glorified Newsreel: Basic reportage of the events and who won what. Bereft of drama, and the closest equivalent of modern day TV coverage. This is the understandable approach of most of the earliest films. There are two endless film records of the 1928 Amsterdam games, and they're both like this. Two of the most excruciatingly boring films I've ever seen. This approach goes by the wayside for the most part once actual TV coverage becomes a thing, but it occasionally rears its ugly head.
The Documentary About The Competition: A slightly more promising approach, that lightly shapes the footage to give some form beyond a chronological "this, then that." This kind of film gradually emerges as standard in the forties and fifties.
The Documentary About the Olympics: Not quite the same thing as the above, as it ventures further in looking at, say, the logistics of housing and feeding the athletes, or the tacked-on arts festival, or the history of the games, so it's consequently a little more varied and interesting. Example: Yuri Ozerov's O Sport! You Are Peace, which includes comic animated inserts about the ancient games.
The Documentary About Something Other Than the Olympics: Rare, but generally disastrous. Usually the "other subject" is something amorphous and uplifting, like "brotherhood". Im Kwon-Taek's Hand In Hand is the most blatant of these, and it's awful, but the other Seoul films all have elements of it as well, making transparent digs at their northern neighbour. Ozerov's film gets in a few good swipes at the US boycott of the Moscow Olympics, but he does it in a much less obvious fashion. The 1998 IMAX film is, like all IMAX films, more about IMAX than about its ostensible subject, so you've got that bizarre IMAX mise-en-scene, with most of the action occurring in the bottom half of the screen, and lots and lots of teeny-tiny inserts of the money shots, because they were only available on SD video, I presume.
The Film That Uses the Olympics as Raw Material for Experimental / Artful Purposes: This is the gold standard, and there are only a handful of films in this category. Reifenstahl's Olympia is the most celebrated example, but not the first. She's following in the footsteps of her mentor Arnold Fanck's The White Stadium (St. Moritz, 1928). It's not the best, either, which is clearly Ichikawa's Tokyo Olympiad, one of the greatest documentaries ever made. Shinoda's Sapporo Winter Olympics (1972) and some bits of Visions of Eight (particularly Arthur Penn's gorgeous abstract pole-vaulting film) also qualify. If you limit your viewing to these films, you won't have missed much.
The Bud Greenspan Flick: Greenspan hit upon the idea of focussing on the stories of individuals rather than events (actually, he nicked it from Schlesinger’s segment of Visions of Eight). It's a great idea that could have relieved the tedium if only Greenspan weren't such a talentless filmmaker. The stories he selects are slanted towards the US, and are artificially pumped up with cheesy drama and hyperbole. Athlete X isn't just competing for a medal, she's competing for her father, who died only six weeks / six months / six years earlier. Athlete Y isn't just battling their opponents, they're battling terminal cancer / a twisted ankle / dyslexia. Every identical event is an epic confrontation that none of us will ever forget, even if our minds were erased with Mind Rubbers. Hand in hand with this is some of the most pretentious narration I've ever heard, larded with ludicrous superlatives. One favourite was a reference to ice as "the most treacherous of all the Alpine elements!" Two different sports are referred to as "the most dangerous of all the Winter Olympic sports!" in different Greenspan films (downhill racing and luge, if I recall correctly). Greenspan's musical choices are relentlessly crappy as well. They really are a case of "seen one, seen 'em all." The two best Greenspan-style films have no Greenspan involvement. They use the same template, but they're put together by actually competent directors. Gu Jun's The Everlasting Flame (Beijing, 2008) simply introduces us to various athletes and gives some insight into their personalities rather than contriving cheap drama with them, and Caroline Rowland's First (London, 2012) has the fresh idea of focussing on her fair share of losers, bringing in the medal winners towards the end. Neither film is great: Gu Jun's runs out of steam as it goes, and Rowland's is over-stylised in the rote manner of its time (all ultra-slow-mo and ultra-shallow focus), but they're streets ahead of anything Greenspan ever managed.
Oddballs: There are only a couple of films the manage to escape one off the above boxes. There's a 1950s Winter Olympics film (can't recall which one) that just seems to be there to record whatever's most interesting, rather than what's most Important, so we get lots of shots of spectacular falls and pile-ups. Then there's the bizarre White Rock (Innsbruck, 1976), which is the only Olympic film to start with a movie-star close-up. It's James Coburn, who's going to school us on the ins and outs of the various obscure winter sports, illustrated with Winter Olympics footage. It's probably the most informative of all the Olympics films and it's more watchable than 80% of the 'proper' ones.
I'm no sports fan and never watch the Olympics, so i've learnt a lot of useless trivia over this long dull journey. I can also offer a Haters Guide to Olympics Movies.
General Principles:
Winter Olympics > Summer Olympics: There's intrinsically more visual interest to them because you're not stuck in a stadium, you get some great landscapes, and snow provides its own production value and special effects.
Older Olympics > Newer Olympics: Because you've got the collateral unconscious documentary elements of period fashions and technology to entertain and inform you. However, a lot of the earliest films are formally the dullest, so this tends to even out.
These Are Industrial Films: They're commissioned and constrained by the IOC, so if anything genuinely interesting or controversial happened at the games, it's probably not going to be in the official Olympic film. Visions of Eight is the most glaring example of this, with the terrorist incident only represented in the final film because John Schlesinger threatened to withdraw his segment entirely unless he was allowed to allude to it. That film also excludes a completed segment by Ousmane Sembene for obscure reasons.
Most of the 90s and 00s Films Look Like Shit: They're generally sourced from SD video, so they look worse than the silent films.
Competitive Categories:
Olympics films generally resolve themselves into a few clear types.
The Glorified Newsreel: Basic reportage of the events and who won what. Bereft of drama, and the closest equivalent of modern day TV coverage. This is the understandable approach of most of the earliest films. There are two endless film records of the 1928 Amsterdam games, and they're both like this. Two of the most excruciatingly boring films I've ever seen. This approach goes by the wayside for the most part once actual TV coverage becomes a thing, but it occasionally rears its ugly head.
The Documentary About The Competition: A slightly more promising approach, that lightly shapes the footage to give some form beyond a chronological "this, then that." This kind of film gradually emerges as standard in the forties and fifties.
The Documentary About the Olympics: Not quite the same thing as the above, as it ventures further in looking at, say, the logistics of housing and feeding the athletes, or the tacked-on arts festival, or the history of the games, so it's consequently a little more varied and interesting. Example: Yuri Ozerov's O Sport! You Are Peace, which includes comic animated inserts about the ancient games.
The Documentary About Something Other Than the Olympics: Rare, but generally disastrous. Usually the "other subject" is something amorphous and uplifting, like "brotherhood". Im Kwon-Taek's Hand In Hand is the most blatant of these, and it's awful, but the other Seoul films all have elements of it as well, making transparent digs at their northern neighbour. Ozerov's film gets in a few good swipes at the US boycott of the Moscow Olympics, but he does it in a much less obvious fashion. The 1998 IMAX film is, like all IMAX films, more about IMAX than about its ostensible subject, so you've got that bizarre IMAX mise-en-scene, with most of the action occurring in the bottom half of the screen, and lots and lots of teeny-tiny inserts of the money shots, because they were only available on SD video, I presume.
The Film That Uses the Olympics as Raw Material for Experimental / Artful Purposes: This is the gold standard, and there are only a handful of films in this category. Reifenstahl's Olympia is the most celebrated example, but not the first. She's following in the footsteps of her mentor Arnold Fanck's The White Stadium (St. Moritz, 1928). It's not the best, either, which is clearly Ichikawa's Tokyo Olympiad, one of the greatest documentaries ever made. Shinoda's Sapporo Winter Olympics (1972) and some bits of Visions of Eight (particularly Arthur Penn's gorgeous abstract pole-vaulting film) also qualify. If you limit your viewing to these films, you won't have missed much.
The Bud Greenspan Flick: Greenspan hit upon the idea of focussing on the stories of individuals rather than events (actually, he nicked it from Schlesinger’s segment of Visions of Eight). It's a great idea that could have relieved the tedium if only Greenspan weren't such a talentless filmmaker. The stories he selects are slanted towards the US, and are artificially pumped up with cheesy drama and hyperbole. Athlete X isn't just competing for a medal, she's competing for her father, who died only six weeks / six months / six years earlier. Athlete Y isn't just battling their opponents, they're battling terminal cancer / a twisted ankle / dyslexia. Every identical event is an epic confrontation that none of us will ever forget, even if our minds were erased with Mind Rubbers. Hand in hand with this is some of the most pretentious narration I've ever heard, larded with ludicrous superlatives. One favourite was a reference to ice as "the most treacherous of all the Alpine elements!" Two different sports are referred to as "the most dangerous of all the Winter Olympic sports!" in different Greenspan films (downhill racing and luge, if I recall correctly). Greenspan's musical choices are relentlessly crappy as well. They really are a case of "seen one, seen 'em all." The two best Greenspan-style films have no Greenspan involvement. They use the same template, but they're put together by actually competent directors. Gu Jun's The Everlasting Flame (Beijing, 2008) simply introduces us to various athletes and gives some insight into their personalities rather than contriving cheap drama with them, and Caroline Rowland's First (London, 2012) has the fresh idea of focussing on her fair share of losers, bringing in the medal winners towards the end. Neither film is great: Gu Jun's runs out of steam as it goes, and Rowland's is over-stylised in the rote manner of its time (all ultra-slow-mo and ultra-shallow focus), but they're streets ahead of anything Greenspan ever managed.
Oddballs: There are only a couple of films the manage to escape one off the above boxes. There's a 1950s Winter Olympics film (can't recall which one) that just seems to be there to record whatever's most interesting, rather than what's most Important, so we get lots of shots of spectacular falls and pile-ups. Then there's the bizarre White Rock (Innsbruck, 1976), which is the only Olympic film to start with a movie-star close-up. It's James Coburn, who's going to school us on the ins and outs of the various obscure winter sports, illustrated with Winter Olympics footage. It's probably the most informative of all the Olympics films and it's more watchable than 80% of the 'proper' ones.
Last edited by zedz on Sat Sep 18, 2021 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
I’ve managed to see about half of them so far and agree, though would like to add that I have been amused time to time when the films seem to serve settling international grudges with the most hilarious one being a Finnish(?) film where the narrator just doesn’t want to be there anymore and simply quits when asked to cover women led sports (the horror).
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
Hey, your write-up was entertaining, so at least that came out of it. Also, you refer twice to Frankenheimer above, but I assume you mean Schlesinger?
- Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
Marvelous! You really should get a replica medal for watching all of these. I actually enjoy the Olympics, but have grown to hate the “triumph over adversity” narratives that permeate NBC’s coverage (and which probably stem from Greenspan’s influence). The recent Summer Games in Tokyo was actually a pleasure to watch since COVID severely restricted their ability to shoot these mini-profiles of athletes and one could simply enjoy athleticism and excellence on their own merits.
Penn’s segment from Visions of Eight, which I happened to catch on TCM purely by accident, is indeed breathtaking. I long to watch televised sporting events with no commentary, no boosted crowd noise, maybe just parabolic directional microphones aimed at the athletes only. The constant nattering over tennis is particularly excruciating.
But I did enjoy 16 Days of Glory (Los Angeles 1984) if only for confirming that the event was just as much a fascist spectacle as I had remembered. The giant headless nude statues outside the stadium (by Robert Graham a.k.a. Mr. Angelica Huston) were very Albert Speer, and that insane color and design scheme which suddenly looks very contemporary again.
Penn’s segment from Visions of Eight, which I happened to catch on TCM purely by accident, is indeed breathtaking. I long to watch televised sporting events with no commentary, no boosted crowd noise, maybe just parabolic directional microphones aimed at the athletes only. The constant nattering over tennis is particularly excruciating.
But I did enjoy 16 Days of Glory (Los Angeles 1984) if only for confirming that the event was just as much a fascist spectacle as I had remembered. The giant headless nude statues outside the stadium (by Robert Graham a.k.a. Mr. Angelica Huston) were very Albert Speer, and that insane color and design scheme which suddenly looks very contemporary again.
- FrauBlucher
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
- Location: Greenwich Village
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
Matt, on a side note, back in 1980 NBC tried an announcerless NFL game between the Jets and Dolphins. They boosted the field mics and the stadium announcers mic. But that was it. It was a one and done experiment. I remember it being lackluster
- Lemmy Caution
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
- Location: East of Shanghai
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
I tend to watch NBA games with the sound off and music on. The only thing bad is there has been a lot of player movement and an influx of cheap young players, so announcers are helpful to know who is on the court or making a play. Though, unlike soccer, TV announcers do a poor job of tracking who exits and enters. Which I'm interested in to think in terms of matchups, downsizing, etc. Also, mostly I'm now watching on my not so big computer monitor rather than a large screen TV, so it's harder to identify players.
I would like to be able to hear crowd and court noise sans announcers. Wish that was a sound option. I can listen to a good informative announcer such as Mike Breen. But Hubie Brown and Doris Burke who emphatically ramble on and make the same point two or three times in succession really grate on me. Marv Albert used to be the gold standard. Along with Breen and Clyde Frazier, the announcing crew has been the best thing about the Knix this century.
I would like to be able to hear crowd and court noise sans announcers. Wish that was a sound option. I can listen to a good informative announcer such as Mike Breen. But Hubie Brown and Doris Burke who emphatically ramble on and make the same point two or three times in succession really grate on me. Marv Albert used to be the gold standard. Along with Breen and Clyde Frazier, the announcing crew has been the best thing about the Knix this century.
Last edited by Lemmy Caution on Sun Sep 19, 2021 7:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: 900 100 Years of Olympic Films
What are some other great films about the art of sports? The first things coming to mind are Bogdan Dziworski and The Great Ecstasy of Woodcarver Steiner