2003 documentaryRating: 15/20
Plot: Garry Kasparov, possibly the greatest chess player ever to play the game, returns to the scene of what he believes is a crime, discussing the details of his 1997 match with IBM's Deep Blue which he lost 3 1/2 - 2 1/2. It's basically an hour and a half of Kasparov yelling, "Shenanigans!" while Deep Blue retorts, "Blurp blurp. I am a robot. Blurp. Blurp. Blurp!"
First, let me cover what I didn't like about this documentary, quibbles that nearly forced me to drop this a few more points. There's an annoying amount of stylistic touches with this documentary--whispered narration, some troublesome music, a few pretentious semi-reconstructed shots, and a few too many shots of the chess-playing automaton called The Turk. No, let me take that last one back. The Turk is cool. Overall, I would have liked more documentary and less dressing for that documentary. The good stuff in this far outweighs the stuff that annoyed me, however. Chief among those good things is Garry Kasparov's charisma. His recollections are fascinating, and I loved watching him ponder moves, squirm agonizingly, and gesticulate while facing his opponents. He's a guy who wears his emotions on his sleeve. And it's possible that he might as well have a post-it note that says "I'm paranoid!" slapped on his forehead. Still, he's so likable, and you want to believe him when he talks about how the IBM people cheated in the match. The documentary is objective although the multitudinous shots of The Turk almost hint that the filmmakers support a conspiracy theory of some kind. There was likely more in this one for me, a fan and terrible player of the game, than for people who don't play. I really liked the insight on the psychology of the game, probably the main difference between a human chess player and a machine like Deep Blue. As a chess player, I would have liked a little more detail on the games themselves, especially a clearer description of the controversial move in game two, but I think the games (with analysis) are included as a special feature on the dvd.
The Turk:
I had no idea that this movie existed, and your review made me interested in getting it. So I did. The things that bothered you really bothered me and kind of pissed me off. I hated the score. I really hated the often redundant stylistic touches (including unneccesary camera angles), and I too wish there was more chess.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I was fascinated by Kasparov and what happened. It really does seem like something may have been up (I especially find the fact that IBM barely won, yet ran away from a rematch or even improving the computer very damning). I just don't like that the movie hit it's points over and over again with a sledgehammer. A real documentary could have been much more convincing in this argument and definitely would have been much more informative about the chess. A 17 for the subject and a 9 for the quality of the presentation.
I am glad I saw it since it is probably the only thing out there. Are there any great films about chess itself and it's history?
IBM got what it wanted and left the party.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I don't know of any good chess documentaries. I thought a few years ago that somebody was putting something together about Fischer and Spassky match, but I haven't heard of anything like that existing. I did read a fascinating book on that match, but I don't remember what it's called. That would be an interesting documentary subject though.