MovieChat Forums > Senna (2011) Discussion > Balanced documentary?

Balanced documentary?


I started watching this knowing very little about Ayrton Senna or Formula 1. I enjoyed watching Senna but I am always curious to know how much of a documentary is true?

After introducing Prost as a man who does what is necessary to win, once he crosses Senna it doesn't really have a nice word to say about him. The Frenchman in charge of the FIA comes across as a right villain (reminded me of Sepp Blatter). Senna passes Prost off as a man who is always blaming someone else for his defeats yet Senna always seems to have an excuse up his sleeve when a championship has not gone his way. I felt that the documentary makes it seem that Prost is a bad loser and Senna's excuses are very reasonable. All of which may well be true but I would have my suspicions that it is as black and white as that.

My experience of documentaries is that they are rarely balanced and have a clear point to make, so for those who know about formula 1 from around this time, does this documentary bend the truth a little from what you remember?

Also, in general, does it matter to you if a documentary is balanced or not?

reply

There is almost nothing new in this documentary. A very politically balanced flick. It tries to wash off the blood from the hands of Williams, FIA and Prost. In fact there is almost more Prost in it than Senna.
The only thing good about it is the editing. A good editing of the tv and home video footage does not make it a good documentary.
I should have guessed it when i saw the "FIA approved" text on the Blu-ray box. This is another dirty political pr material FIA has produced.
Senna deserves a much better documentary, not about his rivals and enemies but about himself and his ideals.

reply

It tries to wash off the blood from the hands of Williams, FIA and Prost.


How is there blood on Prost's hands? Did he somehow manipulate Senna's crash from the safety of the commentary box?

And how can you say that it tries to wash blood from Williams hands when the only quote in relation to the fatal crash is the casual accusation about the steering column breaking. Something which has never been conclusively identified as the cause of the crash.


@Twitzkrieg - Glasgow's FOREMOST authority

reply

I'm honestly not sure about the balance, but watching the film was an eye-opener for me - from the late 80's up until Senna's death I was a massive F1 fan, but evidently a completely naive early teen who missed a lot of the political undercurrents going on. For example, as a previous poster from the UK has mentioned, the perception of Senna over here was of a fast, aggressive, exciting risk taker, but also someone who drove dangerously and was somewhat arrogant. Prost, on the other hand, was well groomed, well spoken, was always seen in the public eye to be more of a gentleman, he carried himself well on talkshows, and was generally thought of as a technical racer - someone who relied of consistantly driving well rather than seat of the pants racing like Senna.

I was completely ignorant of the fact that Formula 1 at the time was very much a French run commodity, not that I have anything against the French, but the main man of F1 was Frenchman (described previously here as a villain, and certainly portrayed as one in the film - and lets face it, the guy knew he was being filmed in those press conferences, maybe he was a truly nice guy off camera but he sure comes across as a bit of an *beep* in the film!) and of course Prost was no doubt the poster boy. And there is no doubt, Senna was an outspoken maverick, and while the likes of Mansell and Piquet have made comments about it afterwards, Senna spoke his mind at the time, and he rocked the boat.

However, when you talk about balance, the documentary showed Senna in a completely new light for me in terms of his humanism - and the case I have made in other posts on this film, you need only watch his reaction to the fatal crash of Roland Ratzenberger - those candid, revealing bits of footage take the edge off the arrogant persona. No doubt I sure every driver who was watching that on the screens might have had a similar reaction, but we the viewers don't normally see that.

And, returning to the rivalry, to be fair to Prost, he does get quite a bit of time to explain his side of things in the film - and I think he also makes a few fair points. He gives a decent explanation about how on that one occasion he refused to yield the gap to Senna, and they collided. Lets face it, Senna did that kind of thing all the time, we can't prove it, but its quite likely thats exactly how it went down. And Prost criticized Senna for claiming he felt like he was almost in direct communication with God when winning races, explaining his own faith but understanding his physical limits. He still comes across as a bit of a villain in the film, but I think he manages to rebuff most of the flak that comes his way.

Ultimately, there will be no perfect balance, a documentary on Prost would probably reveal a whole load of previously unknown dirt of Senna, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

As long as you read between the lines, and honestly, listen to what everyone has to say, yes there is a pro Senna bias, but its still remarkable film.

Crash and Burn - Filmmaking Blog and Home of my Movie Podcast www.mysticjim.blogspot.com

reply

Completely biased towards Senna.

Put it this way, if he was driving today he'd never get any points because of penalties. Very dirty driver. This was completely glossed over or explained away in the doc. He was an immense driver but, like Schumacher, couldn't play by the same rules as everyone else so their brilliance will always be tainted.

reply

Senna's brilliance will never be tainted as far as I'm concerned. Maybe to you and to other Senna haters out there but certainly not to me.

reply

Yes apparently death on track means you die as a racing saint. Senna wasn't that. As a racer he was the extreme version of Michael Schumachers dirty side. Anyway, this was entertaining enough to watch but as a documentary it fails miserably as it forces specifically one sided, titled opinions to the viewer, many times actively other times passively, but it never fails to deliver just that. Make no mistake, Senna would have been remembered differently for his career had he not died on the track. His god didnt make him invulnerable after all now did he. Senna is lucky Gilles didn't live longer. You'd be watching his documentary now instead of this.

reply

It's not about hating senna, its about hating those people (you) who cannot for the love of God, see that senna wasn't a saint!

reply

Right...so dirty and such disregard for the rules "everyone else" had to follow, that when asked, 217 former F1 drivers (many of whom raced against him) only voted him the greatest F1 driver of all time. But hey, what would they know?

http://f1greatestdrivers.autosport.com/?driver=1

You also seem to be missing a key point from the documentary. That while capable of immense compassion and holding strong beliefs in right vs wrong, he was also willing to do whatever it took to set things right in his mind (i.e, Suzuka 1990). A very complicated man to say the least. The opposite side of the same coin with Alain Prost. Prost was more political and polished and knew how to play "the game" but was also willing to do whatever it took to win (i.e., Suzuka 1989).

reply

I'll start by stating I am an enormous fan of Senna. Was the documentary balanced? No. I don't believe it was balanced. Senna was a man who had flaws just like all of us. He was an enormously passionate driver. He was mind blowingly fast. He had moments of incredible humility. But he also had moments of severe ruthlessness. He could be quite petulant too. He objected to fast team mates just as Prost did. But I believe he was one of the greatest the sport has ever seen. I will also state that I think Prost is one of the greatest the sport has seen too.

I think the film turns Prost into a scapegoat villain. He played politics with as much of a passion as Senna did towards driving. They were very different pilots.

At the end of the day it is like any sport. Some love the Yankees while others love the Dodgers. I loved Senna.

Was he a saint. No. He wasn't.

Was he an amazing driver who on so many occasions transcended physics in an F1 car? Yes.

reply

I think its a fantastic film to watch but it's certainly not a balanced documentary at all.

Senna was a sensational driver and from all accounts a lovely human being, but on the track, he certainly was no saint. He had his fair share of controversial moments and many times, was seen to be too aggressive in his overtaking manouvres. What bothered me about the film was that it seemed to paint Senna as a saint and while it did touch briefly on his misdemeanours, it also brushed them off quickly showing that Senna was remorseful, and never shows Prost's side at all. It portrays Prost as a manipulator, rarely, if ever showing his positive qualities, of which he had plenty.

But the thing that bothered me the most was undoubtedly the fact that Prost-Senna's friendship after Prost's retirement, which was very genuine in real life, was hardly shown at all, apart from a couple of throwaway lines. I felt that if they had shown how their mutual respect had grown after his retirement, not only would it have felt more balanced, it would have been even more powerful as a story. It would have added a great deal of poignancy to the story

reply