Pawn Sacrifice (2014) Review

Lucas Versantvoort / 3 Dec 2015

First Bridge of Spies, now Pawn Sacrifice? Apparently, the East vs West theme is back in full force again. Pawn Sacrifice details the rise and fall of Bobby Fischer, chess player extraordinaire. 

The film chronicles Fischer's childhood all the way to his tragic end, though his later years (aka his life after winning the World Championships in '72) are thankfully left as a credits message. The focus lies on his match(es) with Russian master chess player Boris Spassky. After some early childhood scenes, we see Fischer participating in a tournament in which he ends up quitting, claiming the Russians were cheating so he'd lose on points. Not only does he quit the tournament, he quits chess altogether. Sometime later, he meets a lawyer, Paul Marshall, who considers himself a patriot. Being a patriot, he would very much like to see Fischer pick up chess once again and beat the Russians. Fischer also encounters a priest who once beat Spassky when they were young. Together they start the long climb to that fateful showdown with Spassky which would take place in Iceland. And along the way, Fischer would sink further and further into neurotic and paranoid delusions, from anti-Semitic remarks to believing the Russians might transmit rays to his brain through his dental fillings.

If anything, I thought the casting of Tobey Maguire was pretty inspired. Although I'm still on the fence in terms of his acting chops, he does come across as a bit of an outsider, the odd one out, which befits the film's portrayal of the paranoid, neurotic Fischer. I also can't fail to mention Liev Schreiber who portrays Spassky. Although the film's focus lies primarily with Fischer, Schreiber does manage to inject a subtle gravitas into the character. Bonus points for the fact he had to learn Russian for the part.

Director Zwick also manages to inject a film where people are pretty much standing in rooms talking with excitement and tension. In fact, the film gets better as it goes on. The chess matches in particular need a smart director who's able to turn two guys sitting at a table into a monumental battle of wills. You really get a sense of how high the stakes are, what losing (and winning) would mean for these two. 

The film's not without its flaws however. It falls headfirst into the trap of feeling the need to show Fischer's childhood, since this is, you know, a biopic. While attempting to seek the source of Fischer's anti-Semitism and anti-communism in his childhood is understandable, these scenes feel rushed': let's quickly establish the political proclivities of his mother, his talent for chess, his need for peace and quiet, then quickly show a fight between him and his mom to show how they drifted apart, etc. All this information could've been inserted into the present fairly easily. What's worse, it doesn't have the emotional impact it should. The acting of teenage Fischer doesn't help either...

There's also the matter of the implication of the title. The film makes the case that Fischer's mental problems were ignored so that he could represent America in its 'fight' against the Russians. While the film's convincing insofar as it concerns lawyer Paul Marshall's role in Fischer's life, the film's not as successful in implicating others. With Marshall it makes sense, because he had intimate knowledge of Fischer's mental health, but other people, up to the President? To suggest they all willfully sacrificed this pawn seems a bit of stretch. The metaphor works in a general sense, however, that Fischer was in the wrong place (America) at the wrong time (the Cold War), a time when wars were fought in unconventional locations, like chess boards. In this sense, his participation has a tragic inevitability to it.

I guess that's the tragedy of the film. Despite all the factual correctness, it still has to suggest so much. All these unanswered questions. I guess I can't really blame the filmmakers for not providing some clear answers regarding Fischer when psychologists are still debating these issues. The film's directed and acted well enough though to warrant your interest.