Ruffian

Overall this is a good film about a great horse, Ruffian. It presented a time capsule of the racing world in 1974-75. One theme was that racing needed a great horse to draw crowds and the tracks (the New York tracks particularly) were empty due to lack of interest. This isn't entirely true. Secretariat raced in 1972-73 and he was in the first running of the Marlboro Cup which attracted champion horses. And the Marlboro Cup which was a pre Breeders Cup race attracted huge crowds. The film implies that Ruffian got more people to the empty track. Not entirely true--she most likely attracted new fans but the fans packed the stands for the Big races like the Belmont Stakes and Marlboro Cup. Also, Foolish Pleasure is raised to War Admiral like quality in the run through to the match race. However, Foolish Pleasure was not THE standout three year old colt of 1975--it was actually Wajima who became Champion three year old colt of that year. Foolish Pleasure was a nice racehorse but nowhere near this superhorse the movie implied he was.

Also, there was a painfully long sequence of the run on the backstretch where Ruffian broke down (run in slow motion showing the leg actually snapping in close up). I think perhaps just running the actual race would have been shown to better effect.

Sam Shepard did an excellent job as Ruffian's trainer Frank Whitely. The actors playing the owners were given rather unsympathetic parts particularly when they pushed for the match race. The film also had an interesting angle of the viewpoint of the Newsday reporter who followed the career of the great filly.

The sequences of the real Ruffian in the closing credits were refreshing to watch. More scenes of her races (not the simulated ones) would have been welcome.

Movies hardly ever get horse racing right. Seabiscuit was the closest approach I have seen, but even that movie had problems. Ruffian is loaded with problems.

WHY WHY WHY do movies with racing invariably confabulate odd little human subplots that anyone with any knowledge of the sport knows are pure hokum? I do KNOW the sport, having raised, handled, and raced my own horses, and having written about the sport professionally. The actual history of Ruffian was compelling enough without the make-believe elements of this movie.

The horses used to portray the title character were some of the coarsest, plainest beasts imaginable. Ruffian--the real one--was a tall, nearly 17 hand filly, quite leggy and graceful. With all the cast-off TBs available for purchase on a per-pound meat price basis, couldn't at least one been found for close shots that did not look like a chunky pony???

I am sure that many people in racing would have cheerfully advised the movie's makers on details, gratis, just to be sure things were not gotten laughably wrong. The notion that Claiborne Farm, in the 1970s, shipped horses in a rusty beige trailer with "CF" on the side is silly. Claiborne was and is one of the last remaining family, multi-generational outfits, and has been involved not just with foaling and raising good horses, but in shaping and influencing the breed globally. It is not a marginal operation without presence or reputation. Go to the farm, and note that the gates, the (very large) water tower, the trim on the main stallion barn--are all painted Cadmium Yellow, the farm colors. Rusty beige trailers? Pulled by aged pickup trucks? I think not.

This was a FICTIONAL movie appropriating the name of a real filly, and beyond that, not much more. It was never really explained why Ruffian was extraordinary--the movie makers seemed confused between stakes record time and track record time--or that she had an average winning margin of 7 lengths after 10 races, or that there has never been anything like her since, and in what seems a glaring omission, there was no hint of all the advances in caring for catastrophic breakdowns since 1975. Foolish Pleasure's reputation was inflated beyond what it was at the time--he was a good 3-y-o, but not a great one, and he finished his days in obscurity, pasture-breeding mares somewhere out west.

No wonder Frank Whiteley and Jacinto Vasquez sought to legally block the airing of this movie without adequate disclaimers.

I'm a full time trainer, horseman on the Mid-Atlantic circuit, in my off time I see five movies a week. Rarely am I treated to as an enthralling story about my first love as this.

From the timing, and character development there's an honesty about Ruffian, her handlers and their story. The horses used were beautiful, the racing scenes surprisingly realistic, and the camera shots were magnificent. This one ranks slightly below my all time favorite Caseys Shadow and above Seabiscuit, with solid high paced interest toward the eventual tears. Quite a feat for TV. The strength of the movie was the writing, the directing and cast all displaying superior theatrics. Given the budget restraints for a TV movie, I accepted the difference in the substitution of era vans for trailers, and other difficult to substitute prop switches. There were many more strengths in the production than weaknesses.

The ending is done well, with dignity, gently lifting the viewer into a better place,for all that had happened.I especially like the post log and what happened to the characters later in life. All in all, a wonderful two hours of entertainment.

More annoying to me than the horse racing inaccuracies were the portrayals of journalists who covered Ruffian. This was 1975 -- not 1935. Snap-brim hats with "Press" cards stuck in them were long gone by the 1970s. And the newsroom at Newsday, Nack's employer, was a joke. The place looks like it's a weekly, with perhaps five people working in it, rather than a major paper with a circulation of several hundred thousand and hundreds of reporters and editors. And there's always only one editor around. Moreover, Nack's desk, which for some crazy reason has an adding machine on it, is nearly empty and spotless -- which could never happen. And he has a 1950s vintage manual typewriter. Even in 1975, most big newspapers had electric typewriters.

Getting the little stuff right always helps to make the big picture better.

The 1970s were the height of the battle of the sexes. Men and women were in open combat, anywhere and everywhere: tennis (Riggs vs. King), the voting booth (ERA), and, on July 6, 1975, Belmont Park, when the undefeated Ruffian was sent off at 1-20 odds (you had to lay 20-1 odds on her) to defeat the Kentucky Derby winner, Foolish Pleasure, mediocre in comparison to Ruffian.

Period pieces are not easy to shoot, since they are done from memory and historical records. I was alive and following the New York tracks as a youth, and became aware of Ruffian in the spring of 1975, after she had blazed her way onto the front pages as a legitimate Kentucky Derby threat. Today, she would have run for the roses without a second thought, but her owners were old-school and gave it not a second thought.

This film captures the phenomenon that was Ruffian, from promising ace-in-the-barn that her trainer knew would win her debut at 4-1, but not by 15 lengths in 1:09. No matter how good they look in training, you never know what's going to happen when they actually run. Ruffian answered every question asked of her, even winning when slightly injured, finding the heart to put away her strong-but-weaker peers.

Ruffian was a freight train, and while the details of the film were glossed over, this was a TV film and that is often the case. Watch "Babe Ruth" from 1991 (TV) and "The Babe" from 1992 (Feature Film) for simimlar disparity. Indeed, you could also read the "Seabiscuit" book from 1997, and find it much richer than its paperback predecessor, "Come On, Seabiscuit!" from 1975.

This was the discount version of the Ruffian story. The big-budget treatment she may one day get awaits.

Ruffian was the first horse ever buried in the infield at Belmont Park. That is how special she was. She died of a broken leg because horses like her cannot live even long enough to recover on one, as they are simply born to run, her like no other.