That Championship Season

...and not so great for film audiences... in my opinion. Here's why...

It's not that difficult to make a good film with the source material being a good play. The problem is that the filmmakers hesitate to stray too far from the original story.

A play is written with oftentimes very obvious "on the nose dialog," with lots of repetition. Live theater audiences rarely are close enough to see the actors clearly, and so they don't have the benefit of reading facial expressions or even, as odd as it sounds, seeing the actors' lips reciting the dialog. So theatrical dialog is obvious, repetitive and oratorical.

However, that's not an issue with film. As film audiences, we're usually right in the middle of things when dialog is being spoken. Movie watchers don't need overt and repetitive dialog. There can be a lot of nuance.

So the failure with most adaptations is that the filmmakers don't make the needed adjustments, and that's where this version (I haven't seen the other) of That Championship Season fails. We're watching a movie with dialog pulled from live theater.

I do have a quarrel with the original play. Without going into details - no spoilers here - I really have to wonder why none of the four guys left the coach's house as they fought amongst themselves. I certainly wouldn't have stuck around if things got as heated as they did in this story. Maybe I'm just not willing to put up with accusations, insults and worse.

Two last things about the movie, minor things only a film geek like me would have noticed.

First, in a few low-angle shots we could see glare from a few of the movie lights placed up above the camera's field of view. The overall color of "practical" (intended to be in the shot) light was the golden color of tungsten bulbs, but the glare was very white and came not from anyplace a practical ceiling lamp would have been placed.

The second thing was the wardrobe choice for the guy who'd set his life aside for others because he wouldn't stand up for himself. He had 1950s-style glasses, a short sleeved shirt with his suit, and white socks. That was a silly, lazy way to make him look like a second class citizen.

Just saw this today. I thought it was great. Wasn't too exciting, and slow at times, but I thought the story was rather good. It kept me interested and the actors acted it well. I've seen the stars of this film do better, no doubt, but they are still good here. What can you expect for a TV movie after all? I would definitely check it out, if you are interested in basketball, or perhaps high school sports. Haven't seen another quite like it, with a similar story I mean. Sorvino, I had only seen once before, in GoodFellas. I loved that movie as did most people it seems, and I'm sure he was paid far more. The rest of the cast I recognized only from later work. I caught this on Encore and thought I'd give it a chance, I don't know why. Nothing better on I suppose. Well directed, indeed.

To someone who was born and/or spent any time in Scranton, Pa., "That Championship Season" is sort of what "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" is to someone from Savannah, Ga. -- even though it isn't literally based on fact, as the latter is, it is sort of the "hometown" play, in that we all know characters like those in Jason Miller's play. I don't live in Scranton anymore, but I was there when the 1982 movie was made, and there was an incredible amount of hoopla surrounding it. Again, everybody either was at one of the film sites, or was actually in the film, or knows somebody in it. Some of my relatives actually befriended one of the cast members to the extent that they still keep in touch. The 1982 film's first half-hour or so are eerie to me in that they amazingly captured the look and feel of Scranton at that time, which were depressing, to say the least. A lot has changed -- for the better; it couldn't have gotten much worse -- since that movie was filmed, so they did capture a slice of history. All things considered, though, I give a slight nod to the newer, TV version. Sorvino -- a link to the original Broadway production -- is a little bit below Mitchum as the coach. But the 4 members of the TV cast have it over the 4 in the film. In fact, I thought Sorvino was the only one in the film to nail his part. In the TV version, Gary Sinese blows away Martin Sheen in the part of the drunk, Tom Daley. By the end of the film, Sheen was so obviously acting it was pathetic ... Sinese, who never gives a bad performance, clicked with the role much better and longer, I thought. The rest of the TV cast did a little bit better as an ensemble and with theatrical material than did Dern, Keach, etc. Dern's performance deteriorated as the film went on, too. Shahoub held it together better.

This movie is based on a play, and is the second adaptation of this work. Paul Sorvino plays the basketball coach of a team of players that against all odds took home the championship 20 years ago. They have all met for a reunion. Terry Kinney plays James, a Junior High principal, and will quickly get on your nerves with all his whining and feel sorry for me role. Vincent D'Onofrio, as Phil, plays an obnoxious businessman with just the right amount of "money" cockiness. Tony Shalhoub is George, the current Mayor of the town, and appears to be on the verge of some sort of breakdown. Gary Sinise plays Tom, a writer, turned alcoholic, and in my opinion, is excellent in the role. While they are all suppose to be celebrating their championship, conflicts, jealousy, and fighting abound. As the men come to terms with what was, and is now, they are forced to look at their lives in a non-pleasant way. It's unusual to have a group of men talking and crying about what could have been, and I found it interesting watching them relate to each other. It's not the best movie I've seen, but it's certainly good enough for a viewing.

Being the second attempt to put on film an outstanding Broadway play, you would think that the producer/director would set aside egos long enough to learn something. The movie is a tedious affair with none-believable character portrayals (even for Gary Sinise, while being the best, is directed to get too drunk too soon).

Perhaps a warning flag could have been posted when Sorvino took on the roles of producer, director, actor, theme song composer, violin concerto composer and with all the out-of-work actors available, agent who hires his own relatives for bit parts (even though Ron Howard and John Travolta do this regularly, they at least produce good movies).

As an actor Sorvino is great...when being directed by others. His performance is stiff, scripted, and evokes no emotion of sympathy for the by-gone glories. By the end, the audience has no attachment or like of the characters (racist, anti-Semitic, selfish) and could care less that they have all resolved their differences and end up posing for a "happy" picture for the scrap book. Paul, go back to acting.