Bobby Fischer Against the World (Liz Garbus, 2011)

[tarpilot]

X-|

[flyonthewall2983]

I applaud any film that uses Yes in a proper context.

[colinr0380]

It was OK, but seemingly much more fascinated with Fischer's self-destructive paranoia and the Cold War metaphor in the 'fights' against Boris Spassky than with the actual chess itself which, when the infamous matches arrive, get dealt with in a somewhat perfunctory and confusing manner for a casual observer such as myself to understand. I suppose it is understandable but I guess I'm in the tiny minority that would rather have had the emphasis placed on the chess instead! Or at least had the matches discussed in much more detail in the extra features if they could not have put that much detail into the film itself. Instead I was left with the impression that the filmmakers did not actually know that much about the game - or to put it another way I never felt as if I was being drawn into Fischer's world at all, more just getting a brief skim through of the more jucier headline details of his life from the outside.

And the chess=boxing parallels are underlined in the special features on the DVD which mostly focused on the apparently 'new and growing' sport of Chess Boxing!

[Cold Bishop]

I've seen chess boxing, and that is no chess boxing!.

[zedz]

I agree with Colin. I thought this was too by-the-numbers and it resolutely failed at the most challenging and essential part of conveying its subject, namely explaining what was so amazing and revolutionary about Fischer's approach to chess, or where the drama was in the games in which we were expected to be so invested. Lots of talking heads telling us how incredible everything and everybody was, but very little explaining why. And without that dimension it becomes the who-cares story of a difficult asshole getting his comeuppance.

[colinr0380]

It also seemed that this fell into the same traps as the John Nash biopic, A Beautiful Mind, did. They both show someone with a kind of Asperger's becoming a expert in a narrow field but in need of good guidance/management in the wider one who lose their grip of 'reality', with both that film and this documentary resolutely failing to tackle the extent to which those around him amped up the paranoia/aggression for their own ends and then dissolved into the ether when their subjects self destructed. And the Bobby Fischer documentary has no excuse for the lack of the difficult questions, since it is actually interviewing most of those involved!

[mfunk9786]

I felt as if the film started to flounder when it seemed that we weren't going to glean any more insight into Fischer's psychosis than was already out there - the last act felt very brief compared to the incredible length of time devoted to the Spassky matches (and Colin, you're right, those matches aren't discussed in technical enough terms when they are discussed - it all tended to be about the minutiae of Fischer's travel arrangements and the like).

[Drucker]

I agree with a lot of what was said here after watching the film last night. A lot of time spent on that single match, but just a cursory overview of his childhood (he started playing chess, then six years later nobody was better than him!). I understand that many of the people in the documentary were good friends who parted with the man when he started going off the deep end, but their lack of insight reflected the same sort of lack of answers there seems to be about this period of his life. Rather than uncovering something new about his lost years, they are just skipped over. Also, the film's close almost seems to paint the picture that Bobby Fischer made chess popular and brought it to a modern audience. I don't know if that's true (I sincerely doubt it, for the most part) but that's how it felt.
One thing that stuck out, however, was when ESPN reporter Jeremy Schapp was called out by Fischer and the guy really stood his ground. It felt like the only part of the film where someone condemned Fischer right to his face.
Would it be fair to say that maybe a lot of what isn't touched upon, can't be touched upon? A neurologist may be able to explain in scientific terms just what was going through his head to a degree, but can anyone really explain it? Like John Nash or even someone like Brian Wilson, it kind of seems that we just can't understand what's going on in their heads, and that may be what adds to their mystique and legacy. Just a thought...