Driving into New York on a crisp fall morning, expecting nothing more than a pleasant day of walking and sightseeing in the city, I was suddenly astonished by the sight of an overpass packed with runners, shoulder-to-shoulder as far as the eye could see. Not because I didn’t instantly recognize that what was happening; as a non-runner at that time, I’d had no idea I was coming to the city on the day of the marathon, but the realization was instantaneous. There few people who would have needed more than a millisecond to recognize this event: The New York City Marathon has become an icon of both the city and of running.
But the New York City Marathon is also an icon of something else, something that transcends both the city and the sport of running. Perhaps because New York seems such an unlikely place for a marathon — the heterogeneity of culture, race and class in the neighborhoods through which the race passes; the bridges and roads of a automobile-dominated metropolis being turned over to 30,000 fit pedestrians for most of a day; the audacity of even trying to stage an event this large and complex in a city, a place that seems barely able to contain the near-frenzy that constitutes its routine, day-to-day activity. An intersection of the astonishing feat of a human running 26.2 miles with the incredible notion of sending 30,000 people through the five boroughs of the quintessential modern city, with all the positive and negative implications thereof. The sheer improbability of something like the marathon happening in New York City is what gives the event its such fascination to people, runners and non-runners, all over the world.
Run for Your Life is the story of the New York City Marathon and the eccentric Romanian immigrant who founded it, Fred Lebow. Director Judd Ehrlich starts from before the first New York City Marathon, held entirely in Central Park in 1970 (with runners dodging bicycles and baby carriages all the way) and takes us through the ups and downs and enormous expansion of the event up to the present day. Even if you think you know the story you’ll find plenty of new material here. If you don’t know any of the story you’re in for a real treat. It’s astonishing to see how small this race was in its early years, even the first “five boroughs” marathon.
As its subtitle indicates, the film revolves around Fred Lebow, the race director who was a sort of cross between the pied piper and a smooth-talking salesman. Some measure of his idiosyncratic nature is evidenced by the fact that no one seems to know how to pronounce his name. Is it “LEE-bo” or “luh-BO”? Even amongst those who knew him there doesn’t seem to be agreement (it was originally “Lebowitz” before he changed it upon emigrating to the United States). Ehrlich’s treatment strikes the balance that seems to elude so many documentary makers, light-hearted yet thorough, neither trivializing of his subject’s accomplishments nor trying to gloss over his less attractive personal failings (directors of Steve Prefontaine movies please take note). Lebow’s sometimes dubious promotions, shady characters he dealt with and his occasional “not quite above board” dealings with runners and the city are all given time, but what stands out above all, even when no one’s talking directly about it, is the affection he inspired in virtually everyone who knew him.
Nit-pickers will spot a couple of jarring mid-interview edits but overall the technical quality is excellent and the 1970’s footage is as delightfully eccentric as you’d expect of the decade. We’re fortunate that the marathon’s formative years were during this time because it allows the producers to use lots of wonderfully groovy 70’s music as background (none of it from major hit songs, which spared the producers expensive licensing fees and probably improved the quality of the music).
All the major stars who ran, and were made famous by the marathon, or made the marathon famous, are represented: The decision of Bill Rodgers and Frank Shorter to run the first “five boroughs” marathon in 1976 supercharged the event and turned it from an intended one-off (everyone expected the race to return to Central Park the following year) into an international phenomenon. Grete Waitz was originally turned away because she applied too late; it was only when Lebow accidentally noticed a note with her name on it and realized who she was that her entry — and eventual fame — was assured.
The relationship between Lebow and Waitz is the cornerstone of the movie’s most moving segment, when they ran the marathon together while Lebow was in the midst of treatment for cancer. Coming less than a year before he died, it was the only time he ever got to run his own race and if the sight of Fred and Grete crossing the finish line together doesn’t bring a tear to your eye then you have no soul. It’s especially moving if you’re a runner because you’ll recognize the look on Fred’s face. It’s not one of a person nobly “battling cancer” or any of that clichéd rubbish, it’s the look we’ve all seen (or had ourselves): That of someone who’s just conquered 26.2 miles.
My only issue with the film is in regard to the somewhat confusing handling of the Rosie Ruiz segment. It wasn’t until my second viewing that I realized that much of the news footage of Rosie attempting to defend herself was about the following year’s Boston marathon. (Her cheating at New York — which is how she qualified for Boston in the first place — wasn’t discovered until people started investigating her Boston “win”).
But this is not only a minor complaint, it’s one that revealed one of the real strengths of Run for Your Life, because I found the second viewing as enjoyable as the first. Be warned: I though I had given up running marathons, but this movie has started me thinking about maybe “just one more”. After all, I’ve never run New York. Not yet, anyway…
Run for Your Life will be showing in New York City from October 28 through November 4th but is unlikely to appear in many theaters elsewhere, so unless you’re going to be in NY at that time (to run the marathon, for example), your only way of seeing it will be to buy the DVD (availability on October 28). You’ll want to watch it more than once, too.
Hello There –
Firstly, I want to thank you for your kind review of our film, Run for Your Life. I am the film’s editor, Alison Shurman.
I also wanted to clarify your issues with the film, especially those revolving around the Rosie Ruiz scandal. While you are correct that Rosie did cheat in the Boston Marathon after she cheated in New York, and that was how she was ultimately caught, the footage from the press conference used in the film is not from Boston. Rosie continued to defend her story for both races well after she was formally accused of cheating. Fred was at the forefront of such accusations, and after Boston, went back and checked the finish-line tapes from New York. He then lashed out at her in the media, and even challenged Rosie to run in another race in Central Park to prove she was a runner. The press conference we use in the film, is of Rosie defending herself against Fred’s allegations -that she took the subway in the New York race ect.
Also, your comment that there are some “jarring mid-interview edits,” as worded, sounds like the edits themselves were mistakes. I think what you are referring to are the “jump cuts,” which is a specific style of editing often used in talking head documentaries, in which you decide not to cover every single edit with broll and such (which can often feel forced and too contrived if done excessively). Jump cuts can also lend themselves to the story, in that if a certain character has a tendency to ramble lets say, the use of a jump cut reveals that trait to the audience. While you may not particularly like the style, I think it is important to note that the edits were made intentionally, and that they are not something to “nit-pick,” necessarily, but certainly comment on if you didn’t see the relevance of them.
I wouldn’t want people to become confused in either of these instances is all, and, while I don’t usually feel the need to defend my work, I want to make sure the audience trusts the integrity of the film. Again, I very much appreciate your review of the film as a whole. Thanks – Alison
Thanks for commenting!
One of the edits I was referring to is Vince Chiapetta at 7:05, in between the words, “You have more fun with us, you know” and, “There was still this sense, I have to have a purpose in life”. Another was Norb Sander at 27:44, in between the words “People thought this was madness” and “Go through all five boroughs and across the Verrazano Narrows Bridge”. In both cases there is indeed a jump cut; a video edit in which either the subject or the camera position has changed too little to serve as an obvious transition yet too much to be unnoticeable. Whether or not such an effect is desirable is a matter of opinion, but I believe it is most effective when used to serve a deliberate purpose – to express an underlying about the person or the situation that isn’t depicted directly. I find jump cuts to be effective when it’s onvious that they are being done purposely and I just didn’t get that sense from the examples I cited. No big deal. Your mileage may vary.
The other issue is more clear cut: Rosie’s “official time” at the New York City Marathon in 1979 was 2:56:29. Her “official time” at Boston the following April was 2:31:56. In the video clip in question Rosie says, “The fact that I ran a course of 26 miles, to myself, coming across the finish line with a time of two hours and thirty-one minutes, I think is remarkable for me”. She is indisputably referring to Boston.