'Ford v Ferrari' is mostly engaging...mostly
Vrooming into the Oscar season as the complete antithesis to "Little Woman," James Mangold's "Ford v Ferrari" is quintessentially a red-blooded guy's film. Mangold packages everything from wrench throwing, to reckless driving, to fighting, to beer drinking on the front porch and men touting to other men about who's car is faster because it all boils down to their genital size underneath their entire argument. Usually, I wouldn't even glance at a film of this nature because of its blatantly chauvinistic attitude that all but dominated cinema in the eighties. Not that I'm complaining, there's nothing I loved more than a Stallone or Schwarzenegger picture. We moved beyond boring macho films like that, though. Despite my reservations I had walking into this film that I watched out of Academy Award obligation, I left the theatre feeling thoroughly entertained despite the movie's grueling two and a half hour running time.
I don't care about cars. I never was a gear head. While many of my classmates stuck their noses underneath the greasy underbelly of their four-wheeled beasts, I occupied myself with classic cinema and video games. Not much has changed. What kindled my interest much to my surprise is how Mangold was able to make me interested in cars. By "interested" I don't mean I immediately googled how a vehicle is made (although I should try so then I can tell when a mechanic is ripping me off) I was turned on by the artistry, the sexiness of an automobile. It's much like the way one admires the evolution of telephones or nostalgic for the classic design of television or, in my case, a game console. I can go on for hours regarding the craftsmanship of the PlayStation 1. The picture isn't indulgent on the design of the vehicle but more on the feeling of it. This mostly is in contribution towards the sound design and usage of editing that, unlike most biopics involving racing, doesn't rely on cliched slow-motion finish line sequences where the audio is pulled down to emphasize the final push in a lap.
The most disturbingly satisfying piece of "Ford v Ferrari" is how capitalistic its ideology is. Ford was and still is a multimillion-dollar company that can buy their way into anything they want. Ferrari is a smaller Italian manufacturer that produced the fastest most expensive cars in the world. Its CEO, Enzo Ferrari, was a man who worked his way up in the world. Henry Ford II was a man living under his father's legacy with a sliver spoon placed in his mouth. One would think any logical film would root for the underdog. In the case of "Ford v Ferrari," we root for the millionaire. The film certainly doesn't make Henry Ford II look like a decent man. He's a vindictive self-absorbed egotistical brat who gets off on belittling other people. All he wants is to crush his competition to forward his insecure psyche. Tracy Letts does a beautiful job playing the boss. He did it in "Little Woman" now he's doing it here. It's his niche to play the man that rejects others. There's a gratifying scene in the film where Matt Damon's Carroll Shelby drives Letts around in Ford's fastest car ever built. At the end of the ride, Letts cries like a little girl exposing how weak Mr. Ford's son indeed was. There's more to his emotional breakdown than that, but I wouldn't want to spoil the scene for you.
Why does Mangold choose to root for Ford instead of Ferrari? "Because it's an American film" would be the simple answer. Perhaps the more complicated one was the filmmaker's interest in telling a story that is intentionally leaning towards the American viewpoint more so than the international one since this is a tale about bridging the difference between social gaps. Christian Bale, who plays Ken Miles, is the only racer who can drive and build Ford's fastest car on the planet. Miles is the furthest thing from the all American poster boy image that Ford wants to place on their logo. Yet unlike Italy's Ferrari, there's a lack of diversity when it comes to their vision. We feel a connection between Miles's being defeated because of his explosive attitude that we hope to see him persevere beyond. Essentially Miles is the heart of the story. Matt Damon's character is an all but forgettable salesman working amongst his colleagues. Without Bale approximately playing the perception the public has of him, we would not get an engaging film. This is a picture that roots for the immigrant. The man from outside this country, who does whatever he can to help it.
None of this is to say I have glowing praise for "Ford v Ferrari." It's a film I saw once and enjoyed, yet that's about it. The more I think about it, the more flawed it seems to be. What makes this story so important other than its pop culture relevance among racing fans? Why was it necessary to tell? What is the audience meant to get out of the picture other than a recreation of a well-known rivalry? As a movie standing on its own merits, it's a competent yet overly familiar story that has been told to death — still, though, it was entertaining enough to keep my attention. As an Oscar nominee for best picture, why? The clout of the Oscars hinders my enjoyment of what is otherwise dumb Hollywood fun. "Ford v Ferrari" is a classic male base level film with me as the target audience, or I should say I used to be. If it weren't for the picture's slick editing, I'd probably fall asleep within its exhausting third race. Really? Three big races in one film? If Mangold could have focussed more on a pivotal event that happens at the very end of the picture instead of the inexplicable amount of climactic races in the film, we could have been given a far more nuanced story. Instead, the audience is provided with an averagely enjoyable movie. It was the testosterone porn I was expecting but gave me an insight into automobiles and made me root for the bad guy for which I was happily not anticipating.
*** out of ****
