MovieChat Forums > Eddie the Eagle (2016) Discussion > What would you have done?

What would you have done?

posted 9 years ago by mmitsop
3 replies | jump to latest

I think one of the most interesting scenes in the movie is when Eddie gets qualified for the Olympics, but his coach practically begs him not to go and wait for the next games - he's been jumping for just 1 year or less, and he's already made good progress. Hugh Jackman's character actually believes that, with 4 more years of traning, he can actually participate as a *contender*. Obviously I don't think he was expecting to win any medals, but landing a respectable performance would be an amazing achievement.

Obviously this is more about the movie and not the actual facts, since Jackman's character is fiction, however I can't but help wonder what I would have done in Eddie's shoes. There's the *certainty* of participating in the Olympics, but coming last by a wide margin, and the *possibility* of making an actually decent performance in the next Olympics. I think Eddie consider the fact that the officials were working against him, making it increasingly hard to qualify, and since his childhood dream was just to *be* in the Olympics, his choice was easy to predict. However, I think in his shoes I would have listen to Jackman's advice and skip the 88 Olympics and train for 92 ones. I supported Eddie throuout the movie, but if there's something that bugs me with this whole story, it's about a kind of "obsession" in merely *participating* in the most glamorous sport event with little to no care of whether you're actually going to, as Jackman put it, "sell yourself short".

What do you think? In Eddie's shoes, and again considering we're talking about the movie and not the real-life events, would you have listen to Jackman, or did what Eddie did in the end?

On a side(but slightly related) note, I never quite got what was the story with Eddie's disqualification from the ski running team. He seemed to be a good enough downhill skiier(Wikipedia states: "A good downhill skier, he narrowly missed the Great Britain team for that event for the 1984 Games."), but the official told him "it's not all about speed", to which Eddie replied "I didn't go to the right school?". When the official told him he's not "Olympic Material", did he mean his general behaviour, looks and social status, or was he really below the rest of the team in terms of pure performance? I was never clear on why the dropped him. If he narrowly missed the 84 games, I gotta say it's a bit strange he didn't stick to his sport and work to make it next time, instead opting for a "scheme" that took advantage of outdated rules in order to just be present in the Olympics(again something that looks like an obsession, to be in the Olympics for the sake of it, even if you "cheat" the system and use a sport you were previously not interested in at all).

The movie seems like the officials were practically against him, but I think that's just movie searching of a "villain" in the form of typical English snub; but I doubt they had anything personal against him because he came from a working class background - or is there any "tradition" that skiiers must come from Ivy League schools or something?

[–] Spielburger 9 years ago

Firstly, I'm not an expert and I haven't read Edwards' autobiography, so the following is based on what I remember from the time and what I've read online.

That said, I'll address your questions in reverse order, for reasons that will hopefully become apparent as I progress:

The movie seems like the officials were practically against him, but I think that's just movie searching of a "villain" in the form of typical English snub; but I doubt they had anything personal against him because he came from a working class background - or is there any "tradition" that skiiers must come from Ivy League schools or something

I think you're right in that this was just the film setting up the officials as the "villains" of the piece (who then go through an arc and finish supporting Edwards at the end).
Historically, of course, there's a strong "Oxbridge"/Public School influence on Britsh sport (think Chariots of Fire), and many Winter sports - as is the case throughout all sport - owe their codifying and development to grown-up English public schoolboys (e.g. the Cresta Run). However I don't think this was particularly the case by the mid-80s. The most significant British Winter Olympians in those days (by a long, long way) were the Ice Dancers Torvill and Dean. Jane Torvill was an insurance clerk, while Christopher Dean was a policeman; it's true that Torvill went to a Grammar school, but we're hardly talking "posh" here.

Having said that: competing at the top level in any sport is expensive, and competing in winter sports for British competitors who don't have the conditions at home even more so. This was in the days before National Lottery funding, so if you weren't a medal prospect (and none of the British skiers were - Martin Bell made British skiing history at Calgary by finishing 8th), you'd have to find most of the money yourself. It's therefore possible that competing would be easier for those from wealthier backgrounds with good connections. From what I remember, several of Britain's winter sports competitors around that time - particularly the bobsleigh teams - came from the army, because they were able to provide the training and funding.
The issue of funding leads us to...

I never quite got what was the story with Eddie's disqualification from the ski running team.

This is one of many areas where the film plays rather fast-and-loose with the facts. Edwards wasn't dropped or "disqualified" from the 1988 skiing squad - he just withdrew. He went to Lake Placid to train for the Calgary Olympics, but quickly ran out of money: he took up ski jumping simply because (a) qualifying would be easier, and (b) it was considerably cheaper.
He started skiing when he was 13 years old and almost made the British downhill team for the 1984 Winter Olympics in Sarajevo.
When he didn't make the cut, he moved to Lake Placid, N.Y., planning to try his hand at North American competitions, but it didn't take long before he ran out of money.
"So I looked for something cheaper to do, and I saw the ski jumps and I thought, 'Well, Britain has lots of alpine skiers, cross-country skiers, biathlon skiers, but we'd never had a jumper.' And I thought, 'I'll give it a go"' he says.
"The guys at the office in Lake Placid told me to just go down, there's a shed at the bottom with some skis and boots and helmet, and to help myself."
https://web.archive.org/web/20091103194116/http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=capress-oly_2010_eagle-301120120&prov=capress&type=lgns

What do you think? In Eddie's shoes, and again considering we're talking about the movie and not the real-life events, would you have listen to Jackman, or did what Eddie did in the end?

I would have gone with Eddie. Edwards' suggestion in the film that Peary is being cowardly for wanting to delay competition come across as a bit weak, but at the heart of it is Napoleon's line "When you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna." Edwards wanted to take part in the Olympics - that's it: if he didn't go to Calgary, he'd be faced with 4 years of stress and the risk of not making the 1992 Games. He'd also have to find another 4 years of funding.
Another factor that isn't mentioned in the film is Edwards' age: by the time the 1992 Games came around, he would be in his late 20's. Matti Nykänen is roughly the same age as Edwards, and his career effectively ended in 1989.

--
"So I've got bullets, but no gun. That's quite Zen."

[–] luke_sparke 9 years ago

Yes

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

waiting would have been risky, he wasn't very young by that time, for a skier, and there was no guarantee that he would be able to qualify for the 1992 olympics. I think it was now or never. and there wasn't any cheating, he jumped well enough to qualify. having seen those jumps in the film, think anyone who can do them at all must be pretty good, even if they do finish last.

There's no particular tradition of skiiers coming from posh backgrounds, but skiing does cost money, epecially in a country like Britain where there is very little natural skiing terrain, or snow. here skiiing is assoiciated with going abroad, staying in hotels etc. It is probably different if you live in Norway or Switzerland or somewhere like that, where everyone probably skiis as a matter of course.