Salute

[Beate]

The 60 second's interview in today's METRO on page 20 is with Tommie Smith. Incidentally, he says that he still isn't a member of the US Olympics Hall of Fame.

http://www.metro.co.uk/olympics/904758- ... wer-salute

[mupton]

The 60 second's interview in today's METRO on page 20 is with Tommie Smith. Incidentally, he says that he still isn't a member of the US Olympics Hall of Fame.

http://www.metro.co.uk/olympics/904758- ... wer-salute

I was referring to the US Track & Field Hall of Fame who are National Governing Body for the sport (see: http://www.usatf.org/HallOfFame/TF/show ... HOFIDs=157). I suspect the 'US Olympics Hall of Fame' is something different.

[mupton]

Yesterday I went to the (London) screening with Q + A with Dr Tommie Smith - couldn't spot any familiar faces but was anyone else there? I did find that the Q + A made it more worthwhile; I think had I seen the film as a standalone event I'd have gained less from the experience. That said I agree with most of the criticism here: the film could have been so much better in so many ways and yes, though Marley and Senna were about single subjects rather than several people and an event, those landmark documentaries have set the bar high.

In true free film fashion the preview started very late (a good 30 mins), and that was after speeches from various people, and having also seen the length advertised as 2 hours on IMDB, I was relieved to hear that it would be more like 90 minutes! Despite the late start there was still time for about 45 minutes of Q + A afterwards and Dr Tommie Smith is an entertaining speaker and was warmly received. However, the film left me with so many questions unanswered, not least - ungenerous as it may seem to say this - what exactly it was that Peter Norman was supposed to have done that was so groundbreaking and noteworthy? Yes, I know he was there on the winners' podium and that he wore the human rights sticker/badge, but was that it? And if so, did that really mean so much at the time? If so I felt the film failed to make this clear, as with other aspects which were hinted at, implied, or mentioned in passing only. All in all a missed opportunity, but maybe now someone else will make a superior version. Still, it certainly showed the Olympics in a different light, especially when you remember that Mexico was followed by Munich.

I agree with you about the film; but not Norman. Taking your own argument, what did Carlos and Smith do? They just wore a glove. Of course its significance went well beyond that. So with Norman. He played his part. Yes it was not as significant as the other two. But it was not his statement to make. He simply supported it.

First by not blowing the whistle - that white american athlete who was interviewed throughout the film would have. Second, by wearing an The Olympic Project for Human Rights badge (which the IOC had sought to ban) in public view. The aim of the OPHR was to protest racial segregation in the United States and elsewhere and racism in sports in general; but it was also calling for the removal of Avery Brundage, the IOC President. "While he didn't raise a fist, he did lend a hand," was how Smith explained it.

The film didn't claim anything for Norman. Did you notice when he spoke of it, he talked exclusively about Smith and Carlos. The film was simply a memorial and tribute to Norman. A man who did a simple thing, but ended up having the sport he loved and his country turn their backs to him. Carlos and Smith did get recognition years later from their country and their sport, and in film and books. Not Norman. That's why his nephew made the film. Yes, it could have been better made. It missed a lot of significant things even in Norman's life. But it seems no one else wanted to tell the story.

By the way, he also took part in one of the greatest 200m races of all time.

[soonforgotten]

Here's my review. Not an impressive film in any regard, sadly.

http://londonfilmfanatiq.com/2012/07/13/salute/

[raj101]

was a weak flm, an a fascnang sbjec.

eserves beer.

edit - sorry. the topic much deserves a better movie.

[Beate]

Reserves beer? Deserves better? The mind boggles.

[opas]

This got a small round of applause at the end at Westfield Stratford Vue. While I can't really disagree with the criticisms of the film making style (it did feel a little shoddy and drawn out in places) I think I was happy to overlook it for what was a very interesting topic.

It would have been nice if it could have taken a look at Smith and Carlos in more detail as well as maybe go into their lives after the event (they could of cut some of the repetitive talking heads bits) but I understand that this was made by Norman's relative so I respect the perspective. I just thought it was a good attempt to get the topic back in the public's imagination again and that can't be a bad thing. It may even mean someone may be able to pick it up as a new project and give it a more polished finish.

I'm going to give it 8/10 as I was taken by the content even if the style was lacking in places.

[JMP]

You can now view Dr Tommie Smith's iinterview with Podium by visiting http://www.podium.ac.uk/news/view/894/m ... d-students