MovieChat Forums > United (2011) Discussion > Edwards should have been the focus

Edwards should have been the focus


I enjoyed this film a great deal and found it very moving but I didn't think it was a good choice to make Bobby Charlton the focus and to show the team's development from his point of view. I can see why - he is after all, the iconic Man Utd footballer of the era, but I would have preferred the approach to have been based more on Duncan Edwards, showing his arrival at the club, development through the juniors to the first team and the England team and how his influence as a player became so important to the legend of the Busby Babes. If anything, I feel this approach would have heightened the emotional impact of his death and could have been a fitting tribute to one of the greatest players who ever lived.

reply

I agree, to an extent.

I would have said a film in which the two main characters are Chartlon and Edwards would have been the right way. It ends with the crash, so that Duncan is featured throughout, and they are the two central characters together. I know that Duncan Edwards, over time, has become sort of a very prolific person, or something to that effect. My dad talks about him a fair bit (born in '48 - was 9 at the time of the accident), says he would have been one of the best footballers ever and probably would have won the world cup with England in '66. I do find it very sad when I think about that Duncan Edwards was probably one of those few footballers who would live in infamy, would be considered one of the greatest players of all time - akin to Pele, Bobby Charlton himself, and... say George Best. Diego Maradona. The ones that are known worldwide, even by people who weren't born when they played (applies to me for all but the latter). So yeah it saddens me when I think about that he probably would have been one of those, but then he died at 21.

But really, just because one guy is a fantastic football player it doesn't mean his death is more of a loss. The tragic loss of all those lives were equal. Just so sad in general.

But yeah a film centred much more around Duncan (as well as still being very reasonably centred on Bobby) would have been a better way to go about it. I think it's a shame that guys such as Tommy Taylor and Roger Byrne weren't even featured too. I think it was a very good film, but sort of a missed opportunity, or wasted opportunity, in some respects. I would have said it would have been important to at least feature all the players that died. I also found it very odd that Bobby's brother Jack wasn't even mentioned in the whole film, it was as if he didn't exist. Like the film was set in a universe in which Bobby was an only child. That bugged me.

Something that I found interesting was how Bobby was about to join those lads at the back of the plane when the air hostess stopped him and told him to sit back down, thus saving his life. I thought to myself about how it was like some higher power was protecting him, because he still had things to do in his life, in particular win the world cup in '66. Like... Divine intervention! Like Samuel L. Jackson says in Pulp Fiction. Divine intervention is what I'm talkin' about. ...yeah that air hostess was divine all right, as they always are lol.

It's really sad how the guys that were frightened decided to sit at the back because they thought they'd be safer there, and pretty much all of them died as a result. I knew about that all ready before watching the film, and it's entered my head quite often, for various reasons, how some of the Busby Babes sat at the back of the plane because they thought it would be safer, and as a result of that they died.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... the celtic soul brothers and the strong devoted!"

reply

I'm not sure it would have worked technically so well because the film was as much about the effect and aftermath of Munich as anything. Focussing on Charlton and Murphy gave us characters through whose eyes we could take in the trauma of the event.

As for a lack of detail (missing out significant characters), I guess that is a necessary casualty of squeezing it into just 90 minutes. There wasn't enough space to develop several characters properly so it was necessary for dramatic purposes to pick out just a few.

I thought it did its job very well. A very moving film and good depiction of the age. But I do understand why people close to the real events would feel as though it hadn't done justice to the reality.

reply