Ford vs Ferrari

The place for speaking your mind on current goings-on in F1
Post Reply
User avatar
Henrique
Posts: 669
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 03:48
Location: Portugal

Ford vs Ferrari

Post by Henrique »

Another racing movie. Here's the new trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3h9Z89U9ZA

What do you think?
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8091
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: Ford vs Ferrari

Post by mario »

Henrique wrote:Another racing movie. Here's the new trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3h9Z89U9ZA

What do you think?

To be honest, my hopes aren't that high after watching that trailer - it felt over-exaggerated to the point of being cartoonish.

It is also interesting that, after all these years, the attitude in the English speaking world is still to portray Ford as being the scrappy underdogs in the contest and Ferrari being an all-powerful organisation.

By contrast, the perspective from the Italian side is rather different, with Ford being the powerful giant - there was a comic by Marino that portrayed Ford as Goliath (with the shield shaped like the bonnet of the GT40), with Enzo as David. In some ways, that does feel a bit like a more appropriate comparison when you look at the two sides in detail - people tend to look at that era now in terms of what Ferrari is today, not as the company was back then.

Forgheri points out in his memoirs that Ford was rumoured at the time to be spending $10 million on the GT40 project, or over six billion lire - although we now know the true figure was probably closer to at least $15 million or nine billion lire, equivalent to about $120 million today. By comparison, Ferrari's entire motorsport department - i.e. Formula 1 and sportscar racing put together - had a budget of about 600 million lire, or about $1 million, to work with.

Equally, in terms of the number of personnel thrown at the problem, the difference is rather marked. When Ford turned up to the 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans, the scale of their effort was vast compared to everybody else - around 100 personnel, nine cars (plus another as a spare) and 21 tonnes of spare parts, including seven spare engines, is on a completely different scale to any other team (in fact, I think it's on an even bigger scale than their modern GT racing team ran on).

By comparison, the entire workforce in Ferrari's motorsport division at the time was 158 people (including the drivers) - Ford's pit crew alone was equal to nearly two thirds of Ferrari's entire workforce.

When it comes down to it, Ford could afford to throw hundreds more people at building the GT40 than Ferrari could, as well as outspending Ferrari by a ratio of more than 15 to 1 - why are they thought of as the underdogs in this tale?
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
User avatar
Wallio
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2626
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 22:54
Location: The Wyoming Valley, PA

Re: Ford vs Ferrari

Post by Wallio »

I have to say, the first trailer released in the spring made the movie look MUCH better. That second trailer actually is kind of shite.

Trailer #1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyYgDtY2AMY&t=11s


The movie to me has two real issues:

1.) Matt Damon attempting to portray Shelby is laughable.
2.) The film seems to want to make it seem that the GT40 wins right out of the box, which of course didn't happen. However, Ken Miles is FINALLY getting his due for the project, and he has been overlooked for too long.


As to the "Ford is the underdog" narrative. That is a more recent phenomenon brought about IMO by Ferraris recent success over the last 20-25 years. They are such a juggernaut now, it seems almost impossible to believe they weren't always this way. It also doesn't help matters that the GT40 is still held up by many as the greatest American car ever built (despite it being English) so of course it will be the hero in the story.
Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Whiskey Enthusiast

"He makes the move on the outside, and knowing George as we do, he's probably on the radio right now telling the team how great he is." - James Hinchcliffe on George Russell
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8091
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: Ford vs Ferrari

Post by mario »

Wallio wrote:I have to say, the first trailer released in the spring made the movie look MUCH better. That second trailer actually is kind of shite.

Trailer #1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyYgDtY2AMY&t=11s


The movie to me has two real issues:

1.) Matt Damon attempting to portray Shelby is laughable.
2.) The film seems to want to make it seem that the GT40 wins right out of the box, which of course didn't happen. However, Ken Miles is FINALLY getting his due for the project, and he has been overlooked for too long.


As to the "Ford is the underdog" narrative. That is a more recent phenomenon brought about IMO by Ferraris recent success over the last 20-25 years. They are such a juggernaut now, it seems almost impossible to believe they weren't always this way. It also doesn't help matters that the GT40 is still held up by many as the greatest American car ever built (despite it being English) so of course it will be the hero in the story.

Some critics have indeed noted the story tending to overplay the "American hero" angle and making it look as if it the case that the car was a heroic success from the start - with few perhaps realising it meant skipping over the original English roots of the car or the development that came before.

Indeed, several noted that the tone of the film was geared towards and seemed to be playing on several of those tropes that are common to US culture - the "maverick genius" stock characters in Shelby and Miles who are sticking it to overbearing corporate culture at Ford, whilst Ferrari seem to be reduced to a bunch of snobbish foreign dilettantes that seem to exist simply to get beaten. There certainly seems to be a major case of people looking back at that era now and projecting the modern image of Ferrari onto the team as it was then, and it seems to be colouring quite a lot about the film.

As an aside, not only is Matt Damon's portrayal of Shelby somewhat incongruous, Bales's accent for Miles does sound more than a little off - I noted some reviewers seemed to think that Miles was a Cockney when the real Ken Miles was a Brummie and, if I'm honest, I can kind of see why some thought that was the case.
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
Post Reply