[Really_Gonna_Rock_]

Anyone here seen the Senna movie? I have it on DVD. I am a big Senna fan, and whilst I thought the movie was well made, I found it rather incomplete when I came to telling the story of Senna's life. In my honest opinion, the Senna movie leaves out far too many parts of his life....it isn't really the full story of his life at all, but rather a select few bits of his F1 career.

It doesn't tell his story from growing up and how he got into motorsport, how he made it into F1, etc. Even his F1 career is glossed over in the movie, only showing a couple of his races, but not the full picture.

If you want a better overview of Senna's life story, look up the documentaries 'Racing is in my blood' or 'A star named Senna'. They are on Youtube, and they give a much more detailed look at his life overall than the movie did.

The thing about the movie is that it was supposed to appeal to non-F1 fans as well as F1 fans.....that being the case, I was surprised so much of his life story was left out. A non-F1 fan watching the movie would not get a very good look at Senna's life, and would be left without knowing the full story.

I don't want to sound all negative, though. As I said, the movie was very well made, and the parts of his life/career that were shown were done very well. It was a shame they left out so much of his life, though.

Also, in the Imola 1994 crash scene, the way the sound was dubbed on his car gave the impression that Senna didn't brake before he hit the wall, but in reality he was on the brakes before he crashed.

What did you make of the movie? What were your positive and negative thoughts about it?

[goape]

Well it can't really be a complete account of his life without becoming a really long movie, though I agree some parts of it felt 'rushed'.

[Arekkusu]

The film had one express constraint: it would be wall-to-wall archive footage, no cuts to talking heads or any of the usual supporting structural features of documentaries. I wouldn't have thought anyone would have film of a young Senna. (They had obviously tried to show what they could, his holiday sequence, for example.)

The way they managed to make it seem coherent (even exciting) from this limited source material was a hugely impressive feat, so it's not fair to nitpick. I felt that the film was catering for F1 fans who might not have been familiar with Senna, while providing nostalgia for those who know the story and have watched all the detailed documentaries already. And therefore I feel that things like "did he brake or not" are irrelevant, the documentary was not meant to be "factual" as such but more artistic and exciting.

[mikeyd85]

I thoroughly enjoyed the film tbh.

[Marc Fiorano]

I thought it was quite appalling to be honest. I enjoyed watching it because anything F1 = enjoyment but the way the story was depicted was awful.

It would've got positive reviews no matter what because of the Senna sycophants but it was basically all about making Prost look evil.

Also it didn't show Mansell in that film. After all why would they show Mansell doing an epic overtake on Senna in Jerez? Or Mansell hounding Senna in all the numerous races. Obviously we wouldn't want any new viewers to see that, just make them think he was invincible and seconds faster than anybody else.

In terms of portraying the truth it was pretty poor and that's why it wasn't nominated for an Oscar, and rightly so.

[constantmeowage]

I really didn't get the hype for it. Really one sided, nothing particular fresh about it... would have preferred watching an actual documentary about him instead of just mushing together bits of existing footage already made...


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Chillaxer]

They wanted to make it cinematic, no taling heads etc, and did a good job of editing vast amounts, yes they missed tons out, but they didn't want a youtube/docu feel, so I think you have to empathise with how hard their job was. It serves as a great introduction to a complex and charismatic man, to people uninterested or previousl;y uninterested in the sport, and leaves much to question, but then so did the man himself. People can find out more any time they want with the web, but for a cinematic piece, it had to have structure and acts to convey the story in as compact from as possible. They achieved this pretty well, because otherwise it would have been a faliling project with no goals, because of the endless footage and opinions, interviews etc.

As a final comment, I would however, like to know what people would have liked included.

Personally, I would have loved to have seen--
Erik Comas being saved by Senna, after his conversation with Sid Watkins.
Senna holding off Mansell in spectacular fashion when Mansell, in a way faster Williams,
got a puncture and had to pursue him for the last section of the race.
More of Senna, happy, at his beach home, the man away from the motorsport season needed a tiny bit more examination.

[Chillaxer]

(Original post by Marc Fiorano)
I thought it was quite appalling to be honest. I enjoyed watching it because anything F1 = enjoyment but the way the story was depicted was awful.

It would've got positive reviews no matter what because of the Senna sycophants but it was basically all about making Prost look evil.

Also it didn't show Mansell in that film. After all why would they show Mansell doing an epic overtake on Senna in Jerez? Or Mansell hounding Senna in all the numerous races. Obviously we wouldn't want any new viewers to see that, just make them think he was invincible and seconds faster than anybody else.

In terms of portraying the truth it was pretty poor and that's why it wasn't nominated for an Oscar, and rightly so.

They did show that Mansell bit in the credits, and in the trailer, over Senna's quote about 'pure racing' ,as did they show Senna attedning to Erik Coma, a bigger omission by far. Why didn't they? Becasue it's a film about Senna not Mansell, compiling his key moments from tons and tons.
If you're a Mansell fan, I don't imagine you'd want your documentary to be full of moments, that aren't his key ones but part of another drivers best moments, but mostly it was just because there was so much choice, and they did show plenty of Senna **** ups, like Monaco 89. It wasn't about making Prost look evil, anymore than he was a politician. Yes I may be a Senna fan, and so were the makers, but not toally biased, and anyway, who's want a Mansell or Prost devotee making the movie?
Prost, and Ballestre, as I recall at the time, did screw Senna, Prost was clearly pally with him and attempting to be political, hence the business with Senna twice having his pole at Suzuka moved to the dirty side of the track. And when people say Senna drove into a disappearing gap at suzuka 90, Prost took what was blatantly not a racing line to bump Senna at the chicane and end it because he could win there, and was scared of the head to head, when Senna restarted and gave Prost what he should deserve, he got stripped of the race.
Actually, if you watch the commentary on the film , Ballestre was virtually grasping for reasons to screw Senna, when Senna lobbied for more money to go to an injured (paralysed) driver, and said that fines of drivers should go to him, Ballestre said it wasn;t his money. Then he fined Senna a huge amount at a later stage and said he had created a fund to help the driver, and gave all Sennas mney but no-one elses. We can see the way he organises the poles, is freidnly with Prost, and treats most drivers like crap. That isn't a made up thing.