MovieChat Forums > Pawn Sacrifice (2015) Discussion > An abomination on every level

An abomination on every level

posted 9 years ago by metropolis-78671
16 replies | jump to latest

When I first heard about this movie being made, I - as a chessplayer - was excited. The story of Fischer - warts and all - was worth telling. I mean, the true, accurate story was fascinating and would have garnered interest from those with even a cursory knowledge of chess, history, and Fischer.

When I saw the trailer, I lost all interest. It was clear from the snippets that this was going to be a completely fictitious representation of history, on par with the movie JFK. As it turns out, my expectations were generous. This is an abomination of everything upon which the movie touches.

I saw the movie was free on my Prime membership and so I figured the only loss I would take would be that of time spent. Even that was too costly.

My complaints (and I know they are tedious to those who do not know this part of chess history) -

Fischer was an imposing physical presence at 6'2" and with the frame of a model. This film projects him like some squirt upstart.

Fischer was demanding and manipulative but he was not a lunatic until much, much later in life. During his rise in chess, he was articulate, well dressed, and knew the rules of civility. It was behind the scenes where he acted like the spoiled brat he truly was.

His accusation of collusion among the Soviets (an accusation later proved true)was made in the form of an article he wrote in Sports Illustrated and was cogent enough to cause FIDE (the governing chess authority) to change the match system that chose the world championship contender. It was not in the form of a raging diatribe before the media.

Spassky was not the World Champion at the time of the 2nd Piatigorsky tournament which took place in 1966. He had just lost his challenge to Tigran Petrosian, though he would win this, the 2nd Piatigorsky Cup.

Spassky was not Fischer's true nemesis until after the 2nd Piatigorsky Cup - not before. They had only played 1 game before this tournament.

There was no Ivanovich at the 2nd Piatigorsky Cup tournament. The first player Fischer played was Spassky and Fischer lost. In fact, at the halfway point of the tournament, Fischer was second from last.

Fischer did partake in the closing ceremonies at the 2nd Piatagorsky Cup and the picture I have shows him smiling.

In the movie, Lombardy talks about 1800s chess genius Paul Morphy committing suicide. Morphy died of heat stroke.

The California beach scene where Fischer is yelling at Spassky never happened. If it did, there's never been any mention of it by Fischer's friends or enemies.

Lombardy - who looked nothing like Sarsgaard - had known Fischer since the mid 50s. They were contemporaries, if not friends. They didn't just meet in 1966. Also, Lombardy usually wore a suit and tie, not the Catholic garb of a priest.

Spassky was the consummate gentleman and a humble man who could have justifiably walked away from 1972 with a victory but chose to play on, despite Fischer's constant complaining.

The abject paranoia with which Fischer is painted in this movie didn't occur until much later in life. Yes, Fischer certainly was paranoid, manipulative, and demanding but not to the extent of immobilizing him until after the 1972 match.

Regarding the first game of the 1972 match, Fischer's 'blunder' on move 29 was not the losing move of the game and he did not resign at that point (nor did Spassky make any comment, as that would have been impolite). Fischer could have salvaged a draw several moves later according to the best analysts.

I was a teen during the 1972 match and watched everything I could that was presented on the news. Though Fischer later complained about the cameras and noise, he didn't do so during game 1 as portrayed. Again, it makes him look like his mental issues were out of control and that was not the case. The implication is that the noise in the theater caused Fischer's blunder in game 1. That is laughable. Fischer had been dealing with such noise his entire professional career, as has every chess player. Additionally, Spassky was at the table when Fischer blundered.

The chess games of this match were not televised in the United States.

Spassky never turned his chair over and examined it at any time during the match. In fact, it was Fischer who demanded that his chair be x-rayed and the 2 dead flies were found in it.

While it is true that Spassky applauded Fischer after game 6, he did so after he tipped his king (the way an opponent signals defeat), after he shook Fischer's hand, and after the audience began clapping. And he stood off to the side when he did it.

The producers of this film make a note near the end that game 6 is still considered the greatest game ever played. That, too, is laughable. Game 6 was a brilliant game but it is one of a large number of games that could be considered the best ever played.

The movie gives no mention to Fischer's victory over Taimanov (6-0), over Larsen (6-0), and over Petrosian (6 1/2- 2 1/2) (which could be considered the greatest feat in chess history) in the candidate matches leading up to Spassky.

The list goes on but I suspect my detractions have become tiresome. Sorry.

But for me, this is a movie that could have been something and ended up being a round zero. The real story is much more interesting.

[–] HenryCW 9 years ago

I agree with most of what you pointed out, though a few scenes - like Fischer yelling at Spassky on the beach, or the one with Ivanovich (the only fictional player in the film) were supposed to be dramatizations.

It was the Soviets who wanted the whole playing arena examined for possible interference by electronic devices when Spassky appeared to be playing unusually badly. The "dead flies" incident was used by the Western (especially American) press as demonstration of Soviet paranoia.

Fischer did protest about noise and demand for removal of television crews after the first game, and the refusal of the organizers to comply was what caused his forfeiting the second game.

[–] brokedickdog7 9 years ago

The real story is much more interesting.

I agree.

This was not a documentary so I am willing to let some dramatic liberties taken to make a good film. It was filmed in a documentary style. A depiction of a true event.

A good analysis metropolis-78671. I played chess in my youth and have read extensively about the 1972 match.

One thing the film did manage to capture was the phenomenon of how huge a global event the 1972 World Championship match became.

But the numerous flaws you point out cannot be overlooked.

[–] cristscu 9 years ago

I just regret we cannot give stars on forum messages, yours would have 5 out of 5.

I'm still in the middle of the movie, but it bothers me how much an American movie is focusing on his paranoid suspicion on being spied by the Russians. It's like they riddicule their own star. When Russians come with a team known for staying at expensive hotels, with big money and focused on perception, they riddicule this little guy for being suspicious they may have been spying on him.

He might have been paranoid, but the Americans appears stupid as well.

[–] scarede2 9 years ago

I am a chess player myself and it seems you are emotionally upset because of an inaccurate and unpleasant representation of Bobby Fischer. It's just a movie but yeah, Fischer is underrated as a human being, he turned mad later in his life because he let his different political views grew bigger and bigger and he was upset to the point of becoming sick against the society, it's his choice and we can only wish he did find some peace in his late life. But yeah, look at Kasparov, he is actively involve in politic and it doesn't seem to work well for him either. Politics doesn't mix well with brains, IQ, intelligence, or anything that require to think farther than your nose.

[–] HenryCW 8 years ago

I think the OP focused a lot on the inaccuracies of the film on Fischer's character and the Title Match, but I am far more disturbed by the filmmakers' complete lack of knowledge of chess itself and how it is played in a serious match or tournament. Seriously, do they even know how to set up the board correctly? Analyzing an opening like 1. h4 h5 with self-inflicted perforations on your own kingside? Commenting on your opponent's moves during a Title Match game?! (You would be thrown out even in a school or club competition!). See the "goofs" and "trivia" sections for this film, and the following thread:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596345/board/nest/256534982

But since you are a chess player, I'm sure you would have noticed much more other nonsense in the film. Having a film about a chess champion made by people who know nothing about the game does not lend much confidence on their having any real insight into the character.

[–] idoubt_zr4_ithink 8 years ago

Well, only career politicians make politics "work well" for themselves. Kasparov is an activist against Putin's dictatorship. He wants a bit more than making things work for himself. He wants democracy in Russia (which has yet to happen).

But I digress. Look, the movie managed to create suspense out of stares, close-ups, dysfunctional chairs, and chess boards. No car chase. No explosion. For that alone, I liked it. The movie was also successful in recreating the global paranoia and Soviet's manipulative presence during the Cold War, and perhaps Fischer's paranoia symptoms (fake as they might have been at the time) were used as a tool to achieve that.

Also, Tobey Maguire did a pretty good job (height aside, which is not something he could possibly change, and also not essential). A movie is built on multifaceted conflicts. It's hard to get that from chess facts alone, as accurate as they may be, unless you're a chess fan (which I happen to be). But that would probably be a small audience.

The only objection I have is that Spassky's character presence on screen was not that strong, although Liev Shreiber did well with what he had (not much, which maybe it's why they "took" the chair scene from Fischer and "gave" it to Spassky). Perhaps if they showed Fisher vs Tal games...that could've been a more interesting story, as Tal was an equally fascinating character (plus they could've shown Fischer visiting Tal in the hospital, etc.). But hey, to that one could say "go make your own movie, dude..."

[–] TxMike 8 years ago

Just your choice of the title of your remarks, " An abomination on every level ", shows that you come more from a point of anger than of analysis. These days none of us should expect a movie like this to be primarily documentary, we should expect a little or a lot of invented dramatization. I play chess but I am not a "chess player", I was in my mid-20s in 1972 and remember well the excitement the Spassky-Fischer match generated.

This movie is NOT an abomination, it is a very well made movie and captures the core of what was going on in this match, and the demons that Fischer had to deal with.

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes not.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shieldfire 8 years ago

In the movie, it says "based on true events" at the start. In my experience, when it says "based on" you know they will add a few real facts (hopefully many) and then spin a tale around it. As chess players we know many things are incorrect like Spasskij wasn't champion at the beginning (it was Petrosian, iirc). It's called "poetic liberty" which doesn't make it an abonimation.
The Spasskij hysteriscs with the Soviet regime might not be taken out of the blue, as he later resettled in France (Paris) until he grew pretty old and sickly.
Well whatever, the one thing I can agree with is is that it's strange they didn't do anything with the Taimanov-Larsen-Petrosian rout. IMHO that would have built the story tremendously when starkly juxta-posed with the 0-2 start against Spasskij.

[–] vortexrider 8 years ago

I have just watched this film and I have to second everything that's said. I am just shocked how bad the film is. I guess someone who has zero knowledge about Fischer, accurate chess history, or chess itself might think the movie is cool. But for me it's just shocking to see the crude errors and false facts in the film. Atrocious.

Only thing I did like a lot is excellent portrayal of Spassky by Liev Shriber, even if they made him appear as some kind of competitive Ivan Drago from Rocky. He was not very emotional or angry at all. I've read a book by Genna Sosonko, who, like Spassky, became a dissident from USSR. He describes Spassky as one of the nicest people you could meet who didn't hold nice feelings for USSR even. I am surprised the film didn't show that two or three years after the loss of the championship he left USSR for France because they marginalized him and destroyed any future in chess if he stayed in Soviet Union.

[–] HenryCW 8 years ago

Spassky was not a "dissident". Viktor Korchnoi, who lost the Candidates Final to Karpov and thus the right to challenge Fischer in 1975, defected soon afterwards. He challenged Karpov in two championship matches, in 1978 (after defeating Spassky in the Candidates Final) and in 1981, but lost both times. In 1975, Spassky, who was previously divorced, announced that he was going to marry a French woman who had served as a diplomat in Moscow, and that put him under immediate suspicion. He was eventually granted an exit visa (periodically renewed) that allowed him to live in France at that time - the Soviet authorities probably thinking that he might defect too if that was not granted. I heard he recently had returned to live in Russia.