I don’t think Sarrazin’s character, Robert, was to have too much personality. Remember, Robert was kind of roped into this thing, and as such, should have gone through the movie story in a kind of a daze–a “what have I got myself into?” sort of thing. If he had not, the climactic scene would not have made any sense.
Sarrazin had personality in other movies–see, for example, The Gumball Rally, which pretty much revolves around him as a conservative businessman who, once a year, throws conservatism to the winds, and participates in a cross-country road race without any rules. His personality carried that film.
Jane Fonda was snappy, but that’s what her character called for. She wants that prize money now, and makes that clear, and the only thing between her and it is the contest. Until she learns the terms and conditions of the contest; at which point she becomes the horse with the broken leg.
I’m unsure about the rest of your comments, because I don’t understand them in the context of the film. Perhaps you could clarify?
Checking Michael Sarrazin’s work, the main other film I remember him from was The Flim Flam Man. Compared to George C. Scott’s acting it was like watching a little leaguer pitch to an MLB batting champ.
The guy always left me “meh” at best.
(I don’t even recall him in The Seduction. And if you can’t outshine Morgan Fairchild and Andrew Stevens, you’ve got a problem.)
That would excuse him for the beginning of the movie, but even when things get chaotic; the scene with him and Gig Young, “We’re tired, no sleep, no food” - he doesn’t convince me from an acting point of view. I guess we can always intellectualize anything, and say Jane Fonda was that way because she had been dehumanized, etc… I was responding to a comment made about the acting, but of course I’ve never thought someone else would play it better.
To question your last paragraph, can you tell me exactly which comment - I’d be happy to elaborate.
I can agree with exploitation, but your subsequent allegations confuse me. I saw nobody pulling strings–though events were conceived to make things more dramatic for the audience, nobody forced the contestants to participate outside the rules of the marathon (with the possible exception of Alice and her dress). Sailor’s death looked to be an accident; I saw nothing to indicate that it was planned by the promoters. I don’t know how the “system” is an illusion. I don’t know who was corrupt–Rocky was running an honest game. Maybe he should have told everybody about expenses being deducted from the prize money up front, but perhaps he was hoping that revenues would exceed expenses. Maybe you could clarify here?
Those are the Derbies, designed to eliminate couples quickly. Every couple is a winner, except for the last three couples, who are eliminated. Floor judges are tracking how many laps each couple makes.
But we never find out who wins overall.
The Hunger Games would encourage sponsors for contestants in later years. Nothing wrong with that–just as Katniss Everdeen received things from sponsors, so too did Robert and Gloria receive sweaters from Jonathon’s Iron Tonic. Robert and Gloria did not have to get married; it was an idea by Rocky to sell audience tickets, and Gloria shot that idea down. And the floor judge was looking out for Robert’s best interests–after being on his feet for a few hours, the judge felt Robert might like to give his feet a rest, rather than using them to stand to watch the dawn.
I’ve gone on a little longer than I epected to, but I hope that you can see how your comments puzzled me.
Gloria and Robert were going to win, but then he tells them they owed HIM money? Tells them to get married, you’ll get a blender. Not to getting a handjob to help Gloria out. Have you seen this recently?