Ford v Ferrari (2019) - 10/10

 

I will start this review off with a quick self critique - so far my 10/10 films, or so called 'masterpieces', have been pretty safe. There is very little controversy in being the billionth person to call Back to the Future or Jurassic Park perfect films. And though The Matrix may not enjoy the universal love that the previous two movies do, even the detractors would find it difficult to argue with the insane legacy and cultural impact it has had. 

 

Point being, I was a bit hesitant to follow through with this 10/10 because Ford v Ferrari doesn't have, and likely wont grow to have, that same level of legacy. Nevertheless, I can't help but love every second of the film from start to finish and it reminds me of those special films that you can put on at any time and just enjoy. 

1. Acting 

 Ford v Ferrari has an excellent cast of big name stars and really great character actors. However, the bulk of the runtime is most certainly dedicated to its dual leads - Matt Damon as Carroll Shelby and Christian Bale as Ken Miles. For Damon, Shelby may not go down as his best performance ever, but it should be in contention. Damon approaches Carroll with a deep sense of assuredness - like he immediately understood who the character was. When acting is this effortless, it's hard to nail down exactly what quality is standing out. Damon just seems to understand and fill Shelby with all the bravado, swagger, passion and longing that every scene needs. In very similar ways, Bale seems to embody Ken perfectly. The stubbornness, the pigheadedness, the passion, the intelligence, and the cheekiness are all on display. The two leads also have great chemistry with each other. There is clearly a rich backstory between the two characters and the actors are able to capture that without it ever having to be explained or stated. It's really a treat watching these two bounce off each other, and even though Bale may squeeze just a bit more out of his performance, in the end the audience is the one that wins. 

As for the supporting cast, everyone is doing fantastic work to build out the world and the tension within the plot.  Ken's family is played by Caitriona Balfe and Noah Jupe. Despite his age, Jupe is able to hold his own with all of the great actors surrounding him. But, even more special, was Balfe as Ken's wife. She is able to really capture the loving and flirty side of Mollie, while still being able to tap into more serious moments of anger and frustration with her husband. Their relationship feels very authentic on screen and I thought the whole Miles family came together well. 

The other major group of characters that are featured is the Ford Motor team which includes Jon Bernthal, Josh Lucas and Tracy Letts. They often serve as the status/money greedy foils to the passionate racers (a not so subtle nod to the Hollywood experience by the way). Lucas probably has the most heavy lifting in this regard. His character, Leo Beebe, is exactly what the film needed him to be: smug, condescending, arrogant, and all of that mixed with just enough fear and incompetence that he can be used as a punching bag for the protagonists. Just behind him is Tracy Letts as Henry Ford II. Letts is able to tap into a strong sense of who Ford is as a character - a silver spoon executive out to prove himself. He uses his position to intimidate and threaten people, all while having few ideas of his own. Letts is also great at switching things up with Ford. Most of the time he plays things fairly straight, but you can tell that Ford likes or admires Shelby through the interactions he has with Damon. And then the scene where they test drive the race car is obviously both funny, but also a little sad; all thanks to Letts' performance. Finally, we have Jon Bernthal. Bernthal has become a beloved actor amongst fans, but he has also been heavily typecast because of his appearance and voice. I like that we get a slightly against type role for him here as Lee Iacocca. I just wish there was more for him to do as the plot progressed. 

2. Cinematography 

I don't think there was any one particular cinematic technique that stood out to me in a big way. Rather, Ford v Ferrari's strength is just having a high level of consistency in putting beautifully composed shots together. 

Perhaps the biggest challenge for the cinematography team was deciding how they wanted to bring the racing scenes to life. Ultimately, it seems instead of settling on a single mechanism, they rotate through a wide variety of shots like direct POV, close ups, transition shots of gear shifting, wide shots, and some tracking shots with presumably a follow car with a camera attached. The end result is eclectic mix that keeps things feeling visually fresh throughout.  

3. Production/Costume Design 

 Despite feeling very modern stylistically, the actual sets and attire are period appropriate for the 1960's. I easily buy everything that got put on screen, and the settings feel transportive and full. Then of course, the cars all look fantastic. Not only do they capture the nostalgia of this era of sport cars, the production teams really seemed to have paid a great deal of attention to the painstaking recreations of the GT40 and the 330 P3 Ferrari. 

4. Writing 

I often bemoan films that utilize lengthy or elaborate exposition dumps instead of baking it more authentically into the script or visuals. However, there is still a right way to do exposition dumps and it seems to be understood by both the writers and actors. I think the key, and why it works so well here, is blending your exposition in with you characters in compelling ways. 

For instance, the plot of the film revolves around Ford's bid to overtake Ferrari as the preeminent car manufacturer by defeating them in the world's most famous races. The way the writers stage this is by creating a pretense where Henry Ford II is searching for new ideas. Enter Lee Iacocca giving a presentation to the board that basically explains the whole gambit. By setting the pretense, baking the presentation into the plot organically, and letting Jon Bernthal flex his chops delivering it in a compelling way, the film is able deliver information while still entertaining. We also gain insights into the characters such as Iacocca is trying to make a name for himself, Beebe belittling others to secure his right hand man status with Ford, and Ford's feverish desire to stick it to Ferrari. This isn't just entertaining - it's efficient. 

Outside of the exposition, the story is just fun. Watching Ken and Carroll's tumultuous yet loving friendship is fun. Watching Ken be constantly discounted because of his temper and passion only to ultimately win is fun. Watching the team develop the GT40 and build it from nothing to the fastest car ever is fun. This story just keeps delivering entertaining moments over and over. This is also while not being afraid to hit pause and throw in some tender moments such as Mollie bringing Ken a picnic dinner at the workshop because she knew he was heartbroken at not getting to go to the first race. This is, simply put, high quality feel-good entertainment. 

I also liked that the filmmakers chose to focus on the characters more than the sport. The racing is made well and is kept exciting, but the entire race at Le Mans is much more interested in the interpersonal relationships surrounding the race, or with Ken's our internal narratives while he is in the car. This comes from an understanding that sports movies are not compelling when they are just play by play recreations of a championship game, but rather, when they dive into the individuals and team dynamics that brought the win (or loss) to fruition. I would argue it's also why this film is truly for anyone, not just racing enthusiasts.  

5. Sound Design

One of the most important parts of getting a racing moving right is certainly the sound. I couldn't tell you if any of the sound effects for this movie are particularly accurate, but they are comprehensible. And more importantly, the sound profiles for the film are highly visceral and every shot feels like getting put directly in the stands, the pit, or in the passenger seat right next to Ken. 

Also, going back to this film being high quality feel-good entertainment, the soundtrack helps out a ton. The upbeat tones and playful rhythm make things just feel joyful, especially when paired with the triumphant moments experienced by the Shelby American team. 

6. Editing 

The film has a pretty hefty 152 minute runtime. However, due to it compelling nature and tight edit, it never feels like it is overstaying its welcome. 

Additionally, editing a racing film must be a hard task - especially when the finale involves a race that literally lasts for 24 hours straight. I thought the selection of moments to sell Le Mans was smart, and using a wide variety of character POVs also breaks things up nicely. For instance, as Ken is making a push to make up two laps on the lead Ferrari, we get to see the moments leading up to his victory from Ken, his son and wife watching on a TV at home, the Ford executive team up in their suite, Carroll and the team from the Pit, and even from the rival Ferrari driver. Little tricks like these, even if not done with any particular flair, are compelling choices that build an easy to follow sequence that builds tensions and tells a self contained story. 

7. Visual Effects

You'd might assume that a good deal of the racing scenes are done with CGI, however a lot of what occurs on screen in captured in camera. A large chunk of the CGI is actually just filling out the stands with digital fans and adding in details to the racetrack. That's not to say there was no CGI utilized for the races. Some of the more dangerous stunts include a mix of practical and digital effects and some of the background cars are filled in using CGI. The production teams did however craft many of the cars for real - in fact about 30 cars in total were constructed. But the bulk of what you see is real. 

As far as quality of CGI, it sells quite well in most scenes. However, I think there are at least a few instances where you can spot the difference between practical and digital fairly easily. At the end of the day, it always sells what the story is trying to give the audience, but it could be distracting for some.  

8. Originality or Strength of Adaptation 

The film isn't a direct adaptation of any particular source, but likely draws from a variety of books published about the 1966 Le Mans story. As a fair amount of enthusiasts will also point out, the film leaves a good deal of details out, interprets history in it's own way, or takes liberties with certain aspects of the racing or character's lives. All of this is to say, this film is more a fictionalized story based on real events, instead of a true-to-life retelling.  It also has a healthy dash of American Exceptionalism that I imagine wouldn't necessarily translate for international audiences. 

9. Stunt Coordination 

Stunt Coordinating for a racing movie comes with a fair share of unique problems. One such problem, that stunt coordinator Robert Nagle ultimately found to be a good thing, was that the cars created for the film were extremely stripped down. In other words, the cars were not full of electronic safety mechanisms or other bits of intrusive technology - they were 'pure cars'. That can simplify things a bit, but also required the hiring of very good drivers who could make the cars do exactly what they needed them to do. Also, because you're dealing with high speeds, close proximity, and multi-ton vehicles, you need to execute with an extreme level of precision. Nagle also wanted his team to have actual racing experience, not just stunt driving. That extra level of knowledge and familiarity helped translate into the authenticity of the driving scenes. 

That experience and authenticity becomes clear in scenes like the one that involves a Ferrari car wrecking during the Le Mans race. While many might assume such a risky shot would be done with CGI, the filmmakers elected to do it practically (with CGI later enhancing or cleaning up some parts of it). When reflecting on that particular day, one of the stunt drivers (former professional racing driver Derek Hill) recalls:

From take to take, no one could predict what the car might do in the air or when it hit the ground. "What do you want me to do?" Hill asked the directors. Their reply: "Do what you would do in a race—that's why you're here." For Hill, it became a matter of avoiding wrecked car parts, camera gear, and other stunt drivers. "I ended up having to throw the car off the track and pull it out of a ditch before I hit a tire wall," he said. "But I like that stuff. It creates authentic, unexpected action, which is what directors and viewers like." 

And there are a ton of even smaller moments that most casual viewers won't recognize as needing high levels of experience and planning. The stunt team really did some phenomenal work in making this film come to life.  

 

10. Direction 

I've mentioned before that I am a big James Mangold fan. He may not be a director many people recognize by name alone, but he has crafted a consistent and solid filmography that crosses multiple genres from superhero flicks, to musicals, to biographies and even romantic comedies. He most recently was finally nominated for his first directing Oscar for the Bob Dylan biopic A Complete Unknown. 

As for Ford v Ferrari, Mangold clearly has a solid eye for action and sports drama, but more importantly has a deeper understanding that the heart of a movie has to emanate from its characters - a feat FvF clearly encapsulates.  

Legacy/Final Thoughts

At the beginning of this, I mentioned that I have played the 10/10 films fairly safely. Part of the reason for this, is because I want that 'masterpiece stamp' to mean something. I want it to be reserved for extraordinary films that help shape other films. This is where I think this selection is a bit controversial - because I am not sure if Ford v Ferrari actually lives up to that bar. Yet, even though I am conflicted, there is little more than I can ask for from this film. The performances are great, the editing tight, the stunts are excellent, and the writing (even if not historically accurate) captures a feel-good sensibility that makes this film highly re-watchable. 

When researching this movie, I came across an article from The Ringer that describes this film as 'Dad Cinema'. At first, I was a bit offended by being so accurately pigeonholed. As the author puts it "Basically, if a film is Dad Cinema, there is a 100 percent chance it regularly airs on TNT." (It's meant as a compliment by the way). But the more I thought about it, so called Dad Cinema really just represents a certain type of film that is able to capture a feeling of pure entertainment and joy. According to the author, these are timeless crowd-pleasers that includes the likes of "Indiana Jones; The Godfather; Rocky; Die Hard; Goodfellas; The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly; Saving Private Ryan; Unforgiven; The Martian; Predator; Air Force One; The Fugitive; High Noon; Apollo 13; Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World; Space Cowboys; and Heat." In the end, I agree with the author because this film just has a breezy, affable and easy to love nature to it and, like other TNT worthy greats, it is easy to find yourself channel surfing, flipping to this film, and losing the next two hours of your life.