Rowing Through (1996) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy) and Tuna

Scoop's notes in white:

I don't agree at all with the one star awarded this film by the Toronto Star, but I thought they had one funny line in the review:

"In managing to be both simultaneously meek and inscrutable, Rowing Through is at least representative in its role as the first official Japanese-Canadian production ever" 

I don't know. It seems to me that Japanese-Canadian projects should concentrate on cartoons with giant-eyed kids playing hockey and holding pelts. Plenty of pelts.

NUDITY REPORT

Helen Shaver showed her breasts in an after-sex scene, and earlier in a brief flash while rolling over in bed. There is also a peek at half of her pubic area in the apres-sex scene.

Leslie Hope showed all of the goods during and after a sex scene.

Colin Ferguson showed his buns on several occasions

Kidding aside, I didn't think the movie was meek at all. It features some athletes who rebel childishly and realistically against authority, a 24 year old Olympic hopeful with a 45 year old Russian girlfriend, a crazy energetic sex scene which ends when the woman says "slow down, it's not a race", and a bunch of athletes behaving the way athletes really behave - talking dirty, playing jokes on each other, jealous of each other. It has a topless 45 year old woman and full-frontal nudity from an attractive woman in her 20s. It features the star of the film holding a press conference so he can call President Jimmy Carter something like a "little peanut farming cocksucker" for canceling America's participation in the 1980 Olympics.

Meek? No. The least meek thing about it was that it let us into the thoughts of the athletes during times of stress, and they thought some pretty nasty things about their opponents, not to mention their places of origin.

Inscrutable? Well, maybe. 

The screenplay is based on a David Halberstam book called The Amateurs, which posited that the rowers of the 70s were the last truly pure amateur athletes, because nobody really gave a crap about rowing. During the Olympics, these guys were always far from the main venues, they had no sponsors, and they got listed as an afterthought in the newspapers. Furthermore, their secondary status at the Olympics was the summit of their fame! The Olympics were their only moment in the sun, or at least somewhere near the sun, because their other competitions didn't make the papers at all. These athletes attracted no cheerleaders, no fans, no groupies, no sponsors, and no press. The oarsmen were Halberstam's metaphor for true athletic purity. Whatever they did in rowing, they did for their own satisfaction.

OK, the script gets a bit boring, repetitious, excessively technical, sometimes sentimental, sometimes unfocused. It does have flaws, but it also has a gritty, real feel to it that is missing from most sports movies. There's no winning one for the Gipper, no unrealistic results, no poetic speeches. One of the reasons that it seems real is that it is real. It's based on the story of three actual athletes and their mutual coach, and those four men (Tiff Wood, John Bigelow, Joe Bouscaren, Harry Parker) actually worked day-to-day on the project, and even made cameos in the movie. What really made it difficult for the main character in this drama is that he trained to represent the USA in the 1980 Olympics, but the USA decided not to go. He therefore had to postpone his dream for four years, and to keep trying well past the age when it was practical.

It's the Jack Webb version of a sports movie - "just the facts, ma'am", and the true story of these rowers does make a good metaphor for the purity of athletic competition. Of course, it could all be fictional and you'd never know it because, after all, nobody ever heard of these guys. 

That's pretty much the point. 


By the way, do you remember why President Carter pulled our athletes out of the Moscow Olympics? 

Because Russia invaded Afghanistan!

At the time, Carter's action merely seemed like a pointless, grandstanding gesture which had the side-effect of ruining the lives of a lot of people who trained all their lives for the Olympics, many of whom would never get another chance, because an athlete's window of opportunity is very short in some sports. From our current perspective, Carter's gesture seems more than merely futile, because the United States proved that it is not really all that opposed to invading Afghanistan!

Unfortunately, that generation of athletes can't get their lives back. 

Tuna's comments in yellow

The crime in this film was that the DVD transfer wasn't better, as it was beautifully photographed. 

Most genres have formulas, for instance, we have 

  • the boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy finds girl Hollywood love formula

  • the boy meets girl, boy loses girl, such is life French love story

  • the athlete shows promise, athlete suffers possibly career ending injury, athlete becomes superstar formula

  • the athlete becomes successful, athlete turns into an asshole, athlete becomes a human being again formula.

DVD info from Amazon.

  • no widescreen 

  • no features

  • no better than VHS quality

The strength of Rowing Through, to me, was that it did not follow the formulae. Rather, it was a true story about real athletes, the amazing amount of dedication they have, and more agony of defeat than thrill of victory. Formula pictures exist because the general public understands them, and doesn't get lost. When you step outside the formula, you are running a box-office risk. I admire the filmmakers for taking a story about athletes in a minor sport, and presenting their lives in a very realistic manner. The only question remaining is whether or not the characters are interesting enough to be entertaining, and for me, they were.

The film will not appeal to action-oriented viewers, and is properly rated a C, but I will personally order a remastered DVD if it is ever produced.

The Critics Vote

  • Toronto Sun 1/5

The People Vote ...

IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a C (both reviewers). OK sports movie, possibly would rate even higher with a good DVD transfer. We both rather liked the movie.

Return to the Movie House home page