"Spirit of the Marathon" movie

I also was skeptical of how the guy could come back after Chicago '05, run a BQ, and run Boston in '06 (it was obvious it was '06, as you could tell it wasn't during the '07 Nor'easter). Like you, I checked the results and learned the disappointing truth. I'll bet he's embarrassed that he ran it without qualifying.

Didn't see any results for him in '07.

Saw it in Atlanta where most of the theaters were sold out. Thought they did a very good job, with what was logistically a difficult venture. Think about it - they had to pick out 6 people early on and hope everything worked out. I am sure they were nearly as nervous as Deena when she was injured - she easily could have bagged it at that point, then they would have lost 1/3 of thier runners. This crowd (Letsrun) is of course bias towards the elites (as was I) but I really enjoyed many of the pieces on the other runners. Conversely, some of the slower runners I talked to got a greater appreciation of the elites and the work that goes on to earn a living.

Finally, many of the perceived flaws in the film seemed to be driven by the fact it was made for a broad audience - hence equal time for all talents and many of the cliches. However, considering much of the other attention our sport gets from film, this was certainly on the better end of the scale.

This was a great MOVIE. Remember, this is a documentary that captures what occurs, for better or worse. In my mind any good feature film will do three things: Entertain, Inform, and Motivate. Spirit of the Marathon was entertaining to me. For two hours I wasn’t thinking about my work, family, chores, or other responsibilities. I was connected to some characters that were revealed through the story and was taken away from my world for just a little while. Like many in the theater I laughed and cheered in the end. That’s entertainment in my book. This film was informative. Sure, I’m like many of you who have followed this sport for many decades, and the highlight now were my experiences in the past. Remember, most of the audience may not be as well read, experienced, or even been born yet when landmark experiences, such as the first women’s Olympic marathon race 24 years ago, occured. I’m glad that many of the main marathon memories were recounted by those who were there during the making. The authenticity was high by having these “experts” recount their experience. Not only was the historical perspective represented, but they had to capture a single race day, and one that turned out fantastic from all accounts (story, weather, and variety of camera work just to name a few perspectives). Lastly, I believe that this movie can be motivating for most people in regards to their running. For those considering their first marathon maybe someone in the audience said to themselves “If they can do it, so can I.” For the past finisher perhaps it is to reach for a Boston qualifier, or maybe just to seek a personal best in a new age category. On all three accounts, Spirit of the Marathon met my needs as a movie.

Think back to the last time you saw a film in the theater that had running as a primary theme. Was it Chariots of Fire (1981) or maybe Prefontaine (1997) or Without Limits (1998)? It’s rare to get any film that features running into the theater (money is the bottom line here, folks). I’m thankful that this project had the backing and people involved that stood the course to bring it to the big screen. Hopefully other film makers will get the financial support needed to bring other projects to the screen if they see that there is a market for this type of entertainment. I for one am delighted that Spirit of the Marathon made it into hundreds of theaters around the country (even for a few nights, the next showing is February 21st). I for one say this is a great movie, folks. Go enjoy it as a film and hopefully there will be more entertainment to enjoy in the future.

endorphins wrote:

as a competitive marathoner, I would have liked to have seen one or two people documented who run under 3:10.

Huh, if you're a man and your PR is 3:10, you are NOT a competitive marathoner. Now if you are a woman, congrats.

if you ran sub 3:10 as a guy, you'd be 1463 overall at NY last year (1343 out of all men) so, 1463 out of all 38603, or 1343 out of 26072 men).So, better than the top 4% overall, and around the top 5% of all men. no, I haven't taken into account age, etc., in here.So, not "competitive" as in in the money or anything like that, but certainly doing a hell of a lot more than just smelling the roses along the way.

okay now wrote:

[quote]endorphins wrote:

Huh, if you're a man and your PR is 3:10, you are NOT a competitive marathoner. Now if you are a woman, congrats.

Young females taking a class to survive a marathon is definitely an interesting, often inspiring modern phenomenon and was rightly included. The older fellow was also entertaining and inspiring.

The training and lifestyle of the pros was great to watch and the race footage of those elites was eye popping.

The film captured well the energy of a mega-big city event.

Marathoning to change one's outlook on life, qualifying for the olympic trials or getting a big payday are all stories worth watching.

But what about marathoning as a sport, mixing and matching training programs, trying new shoes and recovering from the latest injury?

We all know that the marathon becomes really interesting after that first race when we want something better than just survival, whether that means breaking 4 hours or 2:18.

Isn't that how we would describe marathoning to the uninitiated, isn't that the spirit and the drive of the marathon as a sport, as an athletic event?

There was not one mention or a single shot of a non-pro pushing to stay on pace for a personal goal, risking the wall or unexpectedly breaking through. That's the central struggle for most runners in the marathon.

An entertaining movie, often inspiring and emotional but mis-named and focused on the extremes of the continuum and providing a distorted view of the sport.

The guy's wife's bib # was 19000 something. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in Boston that's a charity number.

This leads me to believe the husband/wife running couple either raised the $$$ to run or they got a bib number hookup through the movie documentary or some other connection.

As for the movie, I liked it a lot. I like how they showed that for those who are truly training for a marathon it's hard work and it takes a lot out of you; regardless of whether you run a 2:21 or a 6:18.

I am a woman, and 3:10 is not my marathon time (It's faster). But, because there aren't many people who run a sub 3:00, for the movie to still be interesting and relative to the crowds...I said 3:10.

okay now wrote:

endorphins wrote:

as a competitive marathoner, I would have liked to have seen one or two people documented who run under 3:10.

Huh, if you're a man and your PR is 3:10, you are NOT a competitive marathoner. Now if you are a woman, congrats.

Whether 3:10 is competitive depends on the marathon and your age group. It would not be unusual for that time to finish in the top ten of many age groups at small and medium size marathons. Being in the running for age group awards is competitive.

My fastest marathon (first one ever, little training) is 3:13:xx, and I do not consider that to be competitive. Sub 3:00...? We're getting somewhere. 2:40-2:50? I'd consider that to be a competitive time among the 40 hours of work a week work crowd who manages to find time twice a day to train (my situation).3:10 JUST gets you into Boston, and won't get you into London. We're talking minimum times just to line up here. In my book that's not competitive.

perspective wrote:

if you ran sub 3:10 as a guy, you'd be 1463 overall at NY last year (1343 out of all men) so, 1463 out of all 38603, or 1343 out of 26072 men).

So, better than the top 4% overall, and around the top 5% of all men. no, I haven't taken into account age, etc., in here.

So, not "competitive" as in in the money or anything like that, but certainly doing a hell of a lot more than just smelling the roses along the way.

okay now wrote:

[quote]endorphins wrote:

Huh, if you're a man and your PR is 3:10, you are NOT a competitive marathoner. Now if you are a woman, congrats.

It's all relative. Minimum (maximum?) time to line up at men's olympic trials is 2:22 (I know it may be different now, but I haven't followed the change). Most of the people in that race have no hope of a spot. One could argue they're not competitive either, from the pov of that race.

[quote]the reality wrote:

3:10 JUST gets you into Boston, and won't get you into London. We're talking minimum times just to line up here. In my book that's not competitive.

Here is a link to a review of "Spirit of the Marathon" that was published in the Los Angeles Times on 1-24-08.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/reviews/movies/la-et

-marathon24jan24,1,7397811.story?coll=la-entnews-movies

Tom

perspective wrote:

It's all relative. Minimum (maximum?) time to line up at men's olympic trials is 2:22 (I know it may be different now, but I haven't followed the change). Most of the people in that race have no hope of a spot. One could argue they're not competitive either, from the pov of that race.

[quote]the reality wrote:

3:10 JUST gets you into Boston, and won't get you into London. We're talking minimum times just to line up here. In my book that's not competitive.

But that is like saying a 2 handicap just gets you in to the local US open qualifier. A golfer who can score scratch at the local public course would be called a good/competitive golfer even though that 72 would become a 120 if he were to play against a pro on a PGA course

Despite not being the Tiger he is one of the better golfers in his small town or city as is a 3:10 marathoner in all marathons other than the mega-events.

Only in running do adults measure their performances against teenagers and college kids who have the luxury and good fortune to do nothing but play sports and drink.

The high school/college element of running is dwarfed by the private, adult hordes just as the high school/college golfers are dwarfed by the wider golf world.

Someone working a job, raising a family and having an adult male body(not 135 lbs. with the musculature and frame of a chicken) who can run 3:10 is a good marathoner, better than 95% of those who toe the line.

You current 'chicken bodies' will soon find that out.

Lubbock, Texas sold out the day before the showing. I had expected perhaps 30-50 viewers. I arrived about 30 minutes before the scheduled showing, after driving 30 miles, and was unable to get in.

It is not returning in February. The nearest screening will be in the Dallas and Austin areas, 400 miles from me.

A "DNSee" for me.

The movie might help bring attention to the sport's elites IF reviewers, such as the one at the LA Times, could spell Deena Kastor. She lives and trains in California, for crying out loud. She may even be in the phone book if a copy editor had bothered to look.

Were the showings well attended tonight? I sure hope they were to encourage others to take on these types of projects.

i saw it tonight in nyc. it was sold out. i thought it was ok but was a little disappointed after all the hype because i just didn't find most of the people all that interesting. you had 2 super elites (deena and the kenyan guy), the funny slow old guy and then 3 fat slow chicks and 1 slow guy. what was the point of having the lori girl and then former slob with a kid? they were the exact same profile -- a couch potato looking to do a marathon as a life-fulfilling event. 1 of them and/or the couple should have been replaced with someone who actually was looking to race chicago but who isn't world class (say a 2:40 guy). seeing the sacrifices that person makes -- many of whom are running over 100 miles a week -- as a hobby for no money would have made the movie much more interesting.

i agree that it was very weak that the fat guy ran boston without qualifying after he wouldn't shut up about trying to qualify.

some of the clips of deena hammering in the mountains were pretty cool. who were her training bitches? they must be pretty good to be keeping up with her.

the "raising money" thing is so tired. i'm sick of people asking me for money because they are going to walk/jog a marathon. just ask me for a donation because a futile effort at a marathon has nothing to do with charity. it was comical that the lori check raised a grand total of $1000.

[quote]beaker wrote:

i saw it tonight in nyc. it was sold out. i thought it was ok but was a little disappointed after all the hype because i just didn't find most of the people all that interesting. you had 2 super elites (deena and the kenyan guy), the funny slow old guy and then 3 fat slow chicks and 1 slow guy. what was the point of having the lori girl and then former slob with a kid? they were the exact same profile -- a couch potato looking to do a marathon as a life-fulfilling event. 1 of them and/or the couple should have been replaced with someone who actually was looking to race chicago but who isn't world class (say a 2:40 guy). seeing the sacrifices that person makes -- many of whom are running over 100 miles a week -- as a hobby for no money would have made the movie much more interesting.

^^^

I completely agree with that. Otherwise, it was a great movie and worth seeing. I bought tickets for three of my friends and they liked it as well. I'd buy it if it came out on DVD. Mainly for the parts on Deena and to laugh at/with the old guy.

Saw it tonight in Cincinnati. Thought it was very well done. I really enjoyed it. I hope people stuck around after some of the credits. It showed some bonus features.

I agree, wish they would of profiled a 2:35-2:40 type Runner.