I watched it a few months ago. Smith, the athlete, only wants victory or achievement when it's for himself alone, not if it's to bring glory to someone else. He feels that his mentor, the reform school governor, is only promoting him and nurturing his talent to bring glory to himself, and that if he wins his victory will be tainted for that reason. He would rather be a nobody, and be his own man, than be in the service of authority, even if it allows him to achieve something. In another sense it's a film about class divisions, it's about how rejecting the chance to be the governor's prize athlete is the only way he, as a young working class man, can assert his independence and claw back some sense of self-worth . . . I suppose you could interpret it as being somewhat pessimistic in that like Saturday Night & Sunday Morning (by the same author as wrote the source novel for Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner) it seems to eschew any hope of making the world a better place through collective action. Or maybe that's not the message, it's just that collectivism isn't for everyone.
Hi there Rev. Thank you so much for showing up to help me figger out a massive puzzlement. He trained so hard and so intensely and had he won he could have brought great fame to himself from the publicity/notoriety. But he chose to lose and that seems unbelievable to me. But as you explain it I can see that he was geared to a higher purpose. He must have felt he DID WIN in his choice to lose. Most people would not voluntarily give up glory. It was a hard life and a grim life he led but it did have its moments. I liked him. Didn't quite understand him but I liked him. Thank you for responding to the question and helping me to understand the why. I appreciate it. I can't see myself ever purposely losing but I don't compete. I am not a fan of competition. Never have been. Maybe I'm afraid of losing and making a fool of myself. So I just avoid it altogether! Happy Wednesday! :)
Reverend Muhammadovsky 