When I saw this film, I initially thought it was incredibly unrealistic. But it turns out, to my surprise, the historical aspects of this film are pretty close to reality. Apparently dance marathons in the 1920s and 30s, also known as "walkathons", did proceed something like the one depicted in the film. Many of the details of the competition — 10 minutes of sleep per hour, several meals a day eaten while standing, sponsors, contestant performances, the proposed "wedding", special endurance events — actually occurred in historical dance marathons. Even the ending is not too far from reality — in 1928 a Seattle woman attempted suicide after finishing in fifth in one such competition.
However, despite the apparent historical accuracy of this film, it remained unconvincing due to poor writing and characterization. The character played by Jane Fonda was supposed to seem desperate and bitter, I think, but just came off as cruel and dislikable. She wasn't just defensive, she seemed to go out of her way to hurt and antagonize those around her. What a b****, seriously. The male lead was also underdeveloped; his only character traits were a sort of perpetual bewilderment and a vague fondness for the ocean and/or the sun. The MC was probably supposed to seem like a long-time showman with occasional moments of sympathy for the contestants, but his alternations between kindness and callousness just seemed inconsistent. The other characters functioned as sort of bipedal set pieces and were given even less depth and development than the main characters. In fact, the only development that seemed to happen during the film was a long, slow slide into exhaustion, both for the characters and the audience.
This brings me to my second complaint — the pacing was rather poor. Due to the nature of the competition, there were long periods where nothing was happening. These could have been used to give us some more insight into the characters' thoughts, feelings, or motivations but instead the audience was treated to periods of boredom, sporadically broken up by miscellaneous events, few of which had any real significance to the story. The ending just came out of nowhere for me, although I figured out midway through what was going to happen due to the clumsily-administered flashbacks and film title. It was as if, after reaching a certain desired length for the film, they decided it had to end somehow and this was the quickest way. Since we never really got to see why the whole thing mattered so much to the female lead, there was no motivation for her sudden plunge into suicidal despair at the end. The intended metaphor is of a broken-legged horse, writhing in suffering on the ground. But all that I saw in front of me was a bitter woman who was apparently unable to cope with the tragedy of a ripped stocking, an unsuccessful acting career, and a rigged endurance competition. And the laconic male lead, while seeming to exude a sort of naive sympathy for everyone around him, didn't seem to have any good reason for assisting in the act. If he really cared about the Jane Fonda character, he would've taken the gun away from her and put her to bed.
There were a couple of other things that bothered me here and there. One thing was the pointless partner-swapping somewhere in the middle of the film. The Fonda character has known the Sarrazin character for a few weeks at most, most of which was spent shuffling around half-asleep. Why would she even care if he sleeps with some woman? The whole thing just seemed contrived and unnecessary. A second quibble was with one of the last scenes of the movie, where the male lead utters the movie's line that makes the movie's title. To all you would-be screenwriters out there: DON'T EXPLAIN THE F***ING SYMBOLISM! It's enough to show the woman falling down like the horse in the meadow. We don't need to have the guy specifically tell the audience what it meant.
If I had to say the one defining flaw of the movie, it was that it spent too much time showing us the particulars of the event and not enough letting us get to know the characters. Interestingly enough, by placing the focus on the event itself and not on its participants, the film effectively denies the characters their humanity, showing them instead as little more than livestock. As a result, the drama is reduced to spectacle and the viewer is placed in the same role as the people who attended these events back in the 20s and 30s. I don't think this was intentional, but it was still interesting. It kind of makes you wonder: why am I watching this?
However, despite the apparent historical accuracy of this film, it remained unconvincing due to poor writing and characterization. The character played by Jane Fonda was supposed to seem desperate and bitter, I think, but just came off as cruel and dislikable. She wasn't just defensive, she seemed to go out of her way to hurt and antagonize those around her. What a b****, seriously. The male lead was also underdeveloped; his only character traits were a sort of perpetual bewilderment and a vague fondness for the ocean and/or the sun. The MC was probably supposed to seem like a long-time showman with occasional moments of sympathy for the contestants, but his alternations between kindness and callousness just seemed inconsistent. The other characters functioned as sort of bipedal set pieces and were given even less depth and development than the main characters. In fact, the only development that seemed to happen during the film was a long, slow slide into exhaustion, both for the characters and the audience.
This brings me to my second complaint — the pacing was rather poor. Due to the nature of the competition, there were long periods where nothing was happening. These could have been used to give us some more insight into the characters' thoughts, feelings, or motivations but instead the audience was treated to periods of boredom, sporadically broken up by miscellaneous events, few of which had any real significance to the story. The ending just came out of nowhere for me, although I figured out midway through what was going to happen due to the clumsily-administered flashbacks and film title. It was as if, after reaching a certain desired length for the film, they decided it had to end somehow and this was the quickest way. Since we never really got to see why the whole thing mattered so much to the female lead, there was no motivation for her sudden plunge into suicidal despair at the end. The intended metaphor is of a broken-legged horse, writhing in suffering on the ground. But all that I saw in front of me was a bitter woman who was apparently unable to cope with the tragedy of a ripped stocking, an unsuccessful acting career, and a rigged endurance competition. And the laconic male lead, while seeming to exude a sort of naive sympathy for everyone around him, didn't seem to have any good reason for assisting in the act. If he really cared about the Jane Fonda character, he would've taken the gun away from her and put her to bed.
There were a couple of other things that bothered me here and there. One thing was the pointless partner-swapping somewhere in the middle of the film. The Fonda character has known the Sarrazin character for a few weeks at most, most of which was spent shuffling around half-asleep. Why would she even care if he sleeps with some woman? The whole thing just seemed contrived and unnecessary. A second quibble was with one of the last scenes of the movie, where the male lead utters the movie's line that makes the movie's title. To all you would-be screenwriters out there: DON'T EXPLAIN THE F***ING SYMBOLISM! It's enough to show the woman falling down like the horse in the meadow. We don't need to have the guy specifically tell the audience what it meant.
If I had to say the one defining flaw of the movie, it was that it spent too much time showing us the particulars of the event and not enough letting us get to know the characters. Interestingly enough, by placing the focus on the event itself and not on its participants, the film effectively denies the characters their humanity, showing them instead as little more than livestock. As a result, the drama is reduced to spectacle and the viewer is placed in the same role as the people who attended these events back in the 20s and 30s. I don't think this was intentional, but it was still interesting. It kind of makes you wonder: why am I watching this?