True Blue

The real problem with this is that the full story--or whatever the book of "True Blue" purports to be--is already mind-bendingly complicated. There's no way this story was ever going to make it to film without being seriously mangled, and sadly, that's what happened. The script is plain awful, and the editing doesn't help.

Based on the true story of an American at Oxford swearing to overcome defeat in the 1986 Boat Race (Oxford's first defeat to Cambridge in 11 years) by returning the following year with some international colleagues and the resultant "mutiny" when they refuse to follow the coach's training schedules.

The film is a fictionalised account and comes down firmly (as did the book on which it is based) on the side of chief coach Dan Topolski and OUBC President Donald MacDonald. It's not a half bad attempt at telling a story with a good bash at both trying to underline the importance in the old universities of the boat race and the physical demands the race makes.

The rowing is reasonably portrayed too, using real oarsmen as their opposition and with the actors having been taught to row by Topolski, but sometimes the continuity is lost and there are mistakes aplenty if you really try to go looking for them!

It's not a film that challenges, but it does entertain - although how much it entertains a dry-bob is the big question!

Taking it's lead from the true story of the 1986 Oxford-Cambridge boat race, 'True Blue' is an attempt to convert this seemingly inconsequential event into a meaningful experience. The film fails because the relevance is only apparent to those with an interest in the subject, or those directly involved. Sure, there's an all encompassing metaphor for our ability to overcome obstacles in our path, and fight against the odds, but for that you would be better off with 'Rocky', or 'Chariots Of Fire' (which this film shamelessly rips off on more than one occasion). I don't doubt that all those involved were deeply passionate about the real story here, the people who made the victory so convincingly their own, but the film flounders due to some erratic performances, and some banal dialogue - not to mention an incredible anti-American streak throughout. It's a peculiarly English film, like the boat race itself, that will appeal to those with a vested interest and no-one else.

"Aawks-furrd". According to the introductory voice-over, this is where True Blue is set. It seems this was a token attempt not to completely alienate an American audience. For this is a story where poor misguided Oxford rowers draft in wicked Americans to help beat the apparently unstoppable Force Of Nature that is Cambridge University, which has been so unsporting as to actually win the last Boat Race. We are thus drawn into a picturesque but insane world where the motto is "six months' torture for a lifetime's pride". Unfortunately, we have to take part in some of the torture as rowers and coaches bitch at each other about training too much.

If the film could impart some of the ambition and dedication of top athletes to an ideal of winning (as does the book True Blue), then it would be exciting and disturbing. Similarly, if it could give an impression of their personal sacrifices it would remind us of how remarkable the Boat Race actually is in the sport of rowing. Unfortunately, the film falls between the two stools. It fails to show the personal lives of the squad beyond caricatures where bitterness and childish pranks are the norm, and therefore fails to create any sympathy with the characters; yet it also fails to do justice to the sport, showing us actors desperately trying to row as they bat up and down the boat, failing to make any impression on the boat speed except throwing up a lot of water at the camera. Rowing should be a sport that is smooth and beautiful, not rushed and convulsive.

It is only when the film stops using actors and hires real rowers, drops the clunky script (who could forget such lines as "That's unconscionable!"?) and shows us an actual race that the director's skill can come through. He has been spending the rest of the film showing us beautiful but pointless shots of the sun rising over the dreaming spires of Oxford. In this way, the portrayal of the Boat Race itself almost makes up for the excruciating moroseness of the Blue Boat squad that has been flung at us for the last hour.

In the end, if you want to see some nice shots of Oxford, see some well-built rowers in Lycra and hear a pseudo-"Chariots of Fire" soundtrack, you could watch this film. Or you could do a ten-thousand metre work session on a rowing machine, which would be shorter and less painful.

Rowing is a lot harder and satisfactory than running, and not only because of the physics, but also because of the team building style that can pre-eminently make or break a winning team. 'True Blue' is not a 'Chariots of fire' with it's David Watkin (Catch-22) cinematography and Vangelis (Blade Runner) score, but as I like rowing a lot better than running, this was a good film for me, especially because I started rowing in 1996. The film is not only appealing for the English or Americans, but also for the Dutch. The reason for that might be the Dutch victory in the 1996 Olympic Boat Race (and remember: no points for second place). These 'Holland Acht' guys must have seen this film the day before.

Another good point of this movie is the absence of religious interference with the urge to perform, and the presence of struggle for influence between coaches and rowers. Apart from the infighting that's what is concerning rowers most. 'War is not about who's right, but about who's left (in the boat)'. 'True blue' is definitely more than a simple tv-movie for rowers. Credit to cinematographer Brian Tufano (Shallow Grave, Trainspotting, Quadrophenia, Lords of discipline).

Accordingly, I have to rate both movies 8/10