Virages

I first saw "Winning" in 1969 and was utterly unimpressed with it. When TCM recently showed it, I decided to watch it again to see if my opinion of it had changed after 36 years. Nope. Underwritten, episodic plot line, dull characters , documentary-style, almost indifferent racing footage and, worst, the usual restrained, passionless chemistry between Newman and Woodward. Whatever has kept these two together for almost 50 years remains a mystery. Both Woodward and Newman have shown a playful sexiness with other screen partners (most notably, Woodward in "3 Faces of Eve"). However, I wish they'd given Newman another love interest. About the only high point of "Winning" is Richard Thomas as Woodward's son. Thomas works very well with Newman. Maybe they should have made HIM Newman's love interest. Oh well. I give "Winning" a "5".

This movie does not age well. Though Paul Newman's acting is very good, the same cannot be said of some supporting actors. Richard Thomas is unbearably bad as a kid who wants to emulate his dad—at one point he gets in the cockpit and just looks, well, retarded. Clu Gulager is a bad imitation of Smokey Yunick. The writers and director seem to have a vague idea what racing is about, but mostly they get it all wrong. This movie was made after John Frankenheimer's 1966 brilliant film Grand Prix. It utilizes many of the same camera and editing techniques and even the music is at times reminiscent of Maurice Jarre's utilizing a soft guitar for romantic moments, coupled with empty track shots, etc. etc. Winning saving grace is it's period racing shots and we can get a glimpse of how it was like at Indy in 1968. But the editing is really poor, some action shots are sped up (which just kills any serious car movie). In the sixties it was cool for a leading man to do a racing movie, then get into the real thing after the shooting wrapped. McQueen did it, James Gardner did it and Paul Newman did best by actually becoming a racing man's racer. All in all it's a pale imitation of Frankenheimer's Grand Prix, and I can't help thinking how the latter film might have been even better with Paul Newman starring.

This is an odd duck of a film. It has that sixties-film desire to heap oh-so-serious, stagy, acting scenes onto a film ostensibly about racing, action, and excitement. So, for buffs of sixties car racing, there's plenty of stuff to see (and even wax nostalgic about), yet to get to it you have to plow through several draggy domestic drama scenes all about "revealing character" and "emotional symbolism" and all that other creative writing 101 blather that is really meant for an entirely different audience. Would you like to have a 'Jurassic Park' with Dr. Grant and Ellie spending half the film discussing child-care issues and emotional abandonment? You're there for the dinosaur story. And you're watching 'Winning' for the racing material. Granted that there is nothing wrong with presenting the "lonely life on the road" of a car racer, but we understand the issues of Newman and Woodward (and Thomas AND Wagner) very quickly, therefore the almost ceaseless hammering-on about it all becomes depressing. Too bad, because this had the makings of the best film on the subject. There are not exactly a lot of race car films to begin with, outside of a few from the thirties, then later 'The Racers' with Kirk Douglas; 'The Big Wheel' with Mickey Rooney; 'Grand Prix'; and after 'Winning', McQueen's 'Le Mans' in 1971. And of course, 'Days of Thunder' (blah).

Interesting that Newman likes spoken interaction between actors in his films, as in "Harper" where he plays a private eye, whereas McQueen as a cop says little throughout 'Bullitt'; and while 'Winning' is an actor's gabfest, McQueen and his cast are virtual blanks in 'Le Mans.' If you could cinematically combine footage from 'Winning' and 'Le Mans' (maybe even with 'Grand Prix') you could have the best racing film ever. Meanwhile, 'Winning' is debatably the best at this point. And you can't knock the fact that Newman in real life has done plenty of racing and IS married to Woodward. Certainly that adds to the realism. Incidentally, the title credits read: "Introducing Richard Thomas." This was ol' John-Boy's first film role. He's good, too. Oh, and quite the reverse, the music by Dave Grusin is deplorable: it's like some canned soundtrack from a TV action show. Thankfully there's no embarrassing title tune warbled by B.J. Thomas or some other late-sixties cliché singer or rock group.

The feeling I had during the movie is: this could have been better if it was totally different: More relations between characters and less cars. And even when there is a race, we get weird 60's shots of people not even watching the race. How about more about the rivalry between Newman and Wagner. What does Joanne do- is she a housewife, raising by herself a child since he was three? Richard Thomas (Charlie) and Newman should have had more scenes before Charlie is sad of the breakup; I would have been sad losing a father like Newman, but we should see why Charlie is sad. Newman puts as much character to Frank as the script allows. Too long, not too predictable (not that there are any big surprises, other than the credits coming a bit early in the last scene). Paul and Joanne are great together, see Mr. and Mrs. Bridge (1990).

I am a big fan of Paul Newman but this must be one of his lowest films, even though he is OK at it. I think this movie deserves 5.5 stars.

One of the biggest problems is that it last 120 minutes, it should have lasted 20 minutes less. I think the plot was good but not the way it was developed.

What I liked the most was the final scene between Paul and Joanne, this scene deserved to be in a much better movie. The race scenes are good.

Frank Capua is a car racer who gets married with Elora who has a 16 years old son who gets along with him, but there will be serious problems in the couple when he puts his career before her...........

I recommend watching it if it's on TV and you like old race cars movies or if you are a Paul Newman's die hard fan