The Program (II) (2015)
7/10
A look behind the glamour of the Tour de France – and it ain't pretty
29 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Documentary type films about recent events have the challenge of showing something more than just detail that confirms or denies long held suspicions. This film about Lance Armstrong's winning the Tour de France for a record seven times, and all the assistance from sports medicine he and his US Postal Service team mates sought and mostly willingly received, easily meets that challenge, from two dimensions. First, it provides a clear and candid view into the team buses, sports medicine clinics and sports anti-doping agencies that are the prime locations for what went on, and most likely still does in many parts of professional sport.

But real strength comes is in the new insights from the story of David Walsh, the Irish journalist who doggedly follows the story for the best part of a decade, and the media interests who back him despite the lack of evidence of substance.

I found the cycling scenes convincing, as a recreational and occasional commuter cyclist, and TV viewer of the Tour de France. Ben Foster looks remarkably like Armstrong and inhabits both the physical cycling but even more so the dramatic and narrative parts of the show. It captures Armstrong's presence when selling his message from his cancer experiences, when promoting the Lance Armstrong Foundation for Cancer (LiveStrong) and his unshakable demonstration of his own self belief.

The important members of the supporting cast were strong, including Chris O'Dowd as journalist David Walsh who first suspects all is not as it appears, and Jesse Plemons as Floyd Landis, cycling team mate who finally decided to tell all to authorities when Armstrong failed to provide support in return for all Landis did for Armstrong on and off their bikes. But to me the standout was Guillaume Canet as Dr Michele Ferrari, the medical intellect behind 'The Program'.

The film isn't comfortable viewing – I found it quite disturbing for all the hard-nosed opportunism and lack of regard for reasonable fair play. This sense is probably underscored by the largely one sided story telling that telegraphs where it is seeking to go from the start. There is no attempt to present other perspectives, explanations or try to unravel the moral complexities. But the film at 1 hr 43 min is a comfortably taut length for the ground it covers, and adding more dimensions could have upset that balance.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed