The Program (15)
three stars
Dir: Stephen Frears
With: Ben Foster, Chris O’Dowd, Dustin Hoffman
Runtime: 103 minutes
FROM the spelling in the title one might suspect Stephen Frears’s sporting biopic was a thoroughly American affair. True, it is the story of an all-American hero, Lance Armstrong, who falls spectacularly from grace, but it is set against the backdrop of that most European of sporting contests, the Tour de France.
But then the entire picture is about clashes, cultural, personality, sporting, moral, and otherwise. It takes an extraordinary actor to stand at the eye of such a dramatic storm and keep his cool, and Frears has found his man in Ben Foster, who plays the seven times Tour winner with blistering conviction. While those in search of the meat and drink of the story would do better to seek out The Armstrong Lie, Alex Gibney’s 2013 documentary, admirers of the character actor’s art will find more than enough sustenance in Foster’s outstanding, award-worthy performance.
The picture opens as one of the clashes at the centre of the picture is in bud. The Sunday Times journalist David Walsh (played by Walsh’s fellow Irishman Chris O’Dowd) is interviewing an up and coming rider by the name of Lance Armstrong over a game of table football. It is a silly game (the football, not the interview) but the ferociously competitive Armstrong is playing as if his life depended on winning. He regards Walsh as just another little person standing in his way of yet another victory. Big mistake. It was Walsh who spotted the American’s potential, and it was Walsh who could see that all was not as it seemed when the victories started to arrive thick and fast.
The screenplay here is by Glasgow’s John Hodge (Trainspotting), adapting Walsh’s book. Another writer, say Peter Morgan of Frost/Nixon and The Queen, might have been tempted to do it as a strict two header, the journo versus the athlete. While Hodge incorporates elements of this tussle, there is not enough of it. Instead of two characters going mano e mano, we have detail layered upon detail, plus supplementary characters and sub plots aplenty. This ensures that the picture spins along efficiently enough, but it also drains the piece of tension. Just as one becomes engrossed in one aspect of the story, on we whizz to the next as if in some time trial. Over time, the script almost seems to forget about Walsh. This is pity, not just because Walsh is an interesting character in his own right - the terrier like journo, determined to get his story - but because it keeps the talented O’Dowd off the screen for too long. Having shown his comedy chops in Bridesmaids, it is clear O’Dowd has plenty to offer drama besides.
With the drama stopping and starting, it is largely down to Foster to power the picture along through sheer force of personality. Beside the physical transformation he undergoes after being told by the doctor in charge of the doping programme that he is carrying too much fat, Foster morphs into the intense, driven, Armstrong by the minute. He has the arrogance of a champ, but we also see a softer side to him as he recovers from cancer and sets about repaying the debt to fate by raising millions for other sufferers. Armstrong is a complex character who resists a purely black and white treatment, and Foster ensures he receives it.
Frears, like Hodges, takes a fairly workmanlike approach to the tale, believing it better to stick to the facts as known when dealing with a story with more twists and turns than a ride through the mountains. Speaking of which, the marriage between footage fact and fiction is seamless, leading to some truly thrilling scenes as the races hot up.
There is a problem with all this attention to the facts, though. Given that many viewers are likely to know how the story turned out, the film needed something more to be remarkable. More Walsh, for a start. As it is, Armstrong reigns supreme. For all that the picture lays bare the former champion’s rise and plummet once more, one has a sneaking suspicion he would approve.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here