The plot: Cyclist Lance Armstrong (Ben Foster), after nearly succumbing to testicular cancer, is determined to make sure he doesn’t ever lose again. As a result, he seeks the aid of sporting physician Dr. Ferrari (Guillaume Canet) who puts him and the rest of his team on a performance enhancement regimen. As Lance’s winning streak in the Tour de France increases, and it looks like no-one can touch him for first place, journalist David Walsh (Chris O’Dowd) suspects that he may not be winning in the most strictly legal manner. He encounters a lot of red tape and intense scepticism from both his colleagues and his bosses, but he is determined to find out the truth.
Foster is outstanding as Armstrong, portraying his
determination, arrogance and repentance superbly, even if the transition
between those three isn’t the best handled. O’Dowd almost matches Foster in
terms of showing a drive to succeed, not to mention intense passion both in his
performance and his character’s ideals. Canet, considering he’s been given what
is essentially a mad scientist, plays it as such only without going too
overblown as to reduce credibility… that shouldn’t be possible. Jesse Plemons,
who is quickly becoming today’s cinematic Waldo in terms of how suddenly he
appears in films, gives another good performance here as Landis. Lee Pace, who
I’m definitely glad is getting more mainstream attention in films now, does
really well as the almost mob enforcer agent Stapleton.
Writer John Hodge, whose collaborations with Danny Boyle
such as Trainspotting need no introduction, has a real knack for never taking
sides when it comes to conflicting characters. Whether it’s misanthropic drug
users, misanthropic teens on vacation, or just misanthropes in general (yeah,
he has a thing for writing humans who hate all other humans), he never paints
anyone directly as the hero or the villain; he just presents sides and lets the
audience take the reins. He’s pretty much the Rorschach test of screenwriters
and, thankfully, this film isn’t an exception to that. He presents the
justification for why Armstrong went with the program to begin with as well as
why Walsh would want him brought down. Now, as is usually the case in terms of
biopics, it’s important to understand the biases that went into the final
product; namely, what primary source is being used. In this case, it’s Walsh’s
tell-all book about his journey to uncover the truth about Armstrong that gets
the big ‘Based On’ credit. However, this film doesn’t whole-heartedly take his
side and show him as the white knight trying to save cycling, nor does it show
Armstrong entirely as someone who is willing to do anything to win; they are
both and they are neither.
The big doping scandal is much like any other case involving
the darker side of a public figure: There are conflicting perspectives on the merits
of the people involved. This is why Hodge’s approach is so important, not just
for the people involved in the doping conspiracy but for the conspiracy itself
as well. It’s a pretty not-well-kept secret that performance enhancement exists
in many realms of professional sport and both its prevalence and the actions
made to carry it out end up creating some morally grey questions. Not that the
film ever tries to outright answer whether doping is right or wrong, instead
focusing on Armstrong’s image as the catalyst for why it got revealed at all.
Everyone is doing it but, because he was so high-profile and ended up crossing
so many people, it was him out of the entire circuit that got taken down.
This also leads to a question that, as always, I can only give my perspective on because it’s that ambiguous a point: Does the revelation that Armstrong was a cheat completely negate his image? The film itself raises this question as well, particularly when it comes to his cancer research foundation. Without a doubt, the strongest point of the entire film is when he’s in the hospital and meets a patient in his bed; barely any words are spoken, and yet it hits the hardest out of the entire film’s running time. Add to this the woman who spoke with him at the book signing and extolled how much of a personal inspiration he was, and that knee-jerk betrayal starts to get a little cloudy. Again, not saying outright that people don’t have a right to feel said betrayal; just that maybe one shouldn’t completely erase the other.
This also leads to a question that, as always, I can only give my perspective on because it’s that ambiguous a point: Does the revelation that Armstrong was a cheat completely negate his image? The film itself raises this question as well, particularly when it comes to his cancer research foundation. Without a doubt, the strongest point of the entire film is when he’s in the hospital and meets a patient in his bed; barely any words are spoken, and yet it hits the hardest out of the entire film’s running time. Add to this the woman who spoke with him at the book signing and extolled how much of a personal inspiration he was, and that knee-jerk betrayal starts to get a little cloudy. Again, not saying outright that people don’t have a right to feel said betrayal; just that maybe one shouldn’t completely erase the other.
All in all, this managed to meet my expectations in the best
way possible, taking a broader and far less biased look at the Armstrong case
than I feared. The acting is excellent, if not the best transitioned, the
direction is stellar, the soundtrack works really well where it’s used and the
writing presents both sides of the conflict as even-handedly as possible,
easily the best approach when dealing with a topic like this. Even if you only have a passing interest in Armstrong,
especially now after all that’s happened, this is most assuredly one to check
out.
No comments:
Post a Comment