Predictably, another awards ceremony was dominated by The Artist on Sunday evening. Its success at the Oscars didn't quite match its achievements at the BAFTAs, but it still took home a good proportion of the most important awards. Best Director for Michael Hazanavicius. Best Actor for Jean Dujardin as George Valentin. And Best Picture. A final victory lap for a film that has earned outpourings of critical love and devotion from almost everyone who has encountered it. And yet I can't be the only one wondering if the tributes to this film - one that so unashamedly wallows in the past - have gotten out of hand.
Firstly, lets cast aside the underdog narrative that some are trying to attach to it. The Artist has been a clear Oscar favourite for months, it had the weight of Harvey Weinstein behind it, and it was perfectly pitched at Old Hollywood. Given that approximately 86% of the near 6,000 Academy voters are over the age of 50, they were always going to appreciate a film like The Artist; even if few were old enough to actually experience the silent era firsthand, it no doubt played a significant role in their cultural upbringing. Hazanvicius was preaching to the choir from the off.
So, taking the film on its critical merits, what are its themes? What are its ambitions? What does it set out to achieve? It spends so much of its time carefully homaging (and occasionally pastiching) silent films that it largely lacks a unique identity of its own, one separate from its inspirations. Its two main themes could be summed up as 'you can't stand in the way of progress' (which I suppose is a somewhat subversive point for a film largely dealing in reductive nostalgia to make, although both the ending and the entire premise of The Artist arguably contradict said theme anyway) and 'love conquers all' (although the love story is really more of a background element than a key driver of the plot, and plays out more as admiration than heartfelt passion). When you add in the fact that many of its biggest laughs come from either ridiculous slapstick or the Animal's Do The Funniest Things-level antics of Uggie the dog, it doesn't seem unfair to say that The Artist is a film of limited ambition, an interesting novelty that the average viewer will forget about almost as soon as it is over. Beyond a post-film discussion over a pint, I had no cause to dwell upon The Artist until it became omnipresent on the cultural landscape. I thought that it effectively and faithfully mimicked a bygone era, raised a few laughs, warmed the heart a little, and achieved nothing else besides.
(it also has at least a couple of major problems, the most pronounced of which is that the reason for Valentin's opposition to the introduction of sound only becomes clear at the end of the film, and as a result his motivations are only given meaning retroactively. This just about works, but it still leaves Valentin looking like a stubborn, foolish man for the best part of 100 minutes, and it requires a fair bit of suspension of disbelief to accept that no-one in the film would've called him on his attitude at any point. There is also one key scene toward the end of the film that felt like an artificial, overly melodramatic way of extending its running time.)
In terms of the acting, Dujardin and Berenice Bejo are winning, to be sure, but their performances aren't exceptional. The film's very premise hamstrings the pair, who resort to what could at times be described as overacting (or, less generously, mugging for camera) in order to convey emotion. The silent medium isn't made for great performances, and it was the rare talent who overcame the inherent limitations it imposed. For me, Dujardian and Bejo did enough to carry the film, but never quite approached greatness.
Even acknowledging that no-one particularly holds up the Oscars as a barometer of quality, The Artist can best be described as the beneficiary of a groundswell of short-term fascination and sentiment that will not translate into any kind of enduring appeal. History, I fear, will not be kind to it, and that is at least partly because so many have done so much to elevate it above its standing, from the interesting curiosity it is to the object of rapturous critical acclaim it has become.
Monday 27 February 2012
Wednesday 15 February 2012
Andres Villas-Boas: living on borrowed time
Roman Abramovich is developing a trigger-happy reputation on a par with some of his Spanish and Italian counterparts, having shown a willingness to dispose of a manager as soon as they don't quite meet his exacting standards. Just look at his form: Claudio Ranieri was the boss Abramovich inherited, and despite steering Chelsea to second place he was sacked as though he were an afterthought; like him or loathe him, Jose Mourinho is a great manager, and would have brought continued success to the club; Avram Grant had cause to feel hard done by after leading Chelsea to their only Champions League final to date (a match they would have won but for John Terry's slip); and Carlo Ancelotti won the club its first league title in four years. In relative terms, these men were successful in their roles. In Abramovich's mind, they weren't quite up to the job.
Which is why Andres Villas-Boas's position looks dangerous. Mourinho, Grant, and Ancelotti were fired for flaws and failings much lesser than those that have afflicted Villas-Boas's first year in charge. The club currently reside in fifth, behind Arsenal on goal difference; given Tottenham's 10 point advantage in third, it looks likely that Chelsea will record their lowest ever finish under Abramovich. However, that only tells part of the story.
To trot out the old cliché about Villas-Boas having lost the dressing room would be a tad hyperbolic, but his man management skills have rightly been called into question on a number of occasions, with this week's report of a training ground row between him and his playing staff just the latest in a string of incidents that have marred his tenure. Although he has shown absolute loyalty to John Terry following Anton Ferdinand’s accusation, he has managed to upset a number of senior players whose importance to the club’s success and history far exceed his own. His attempts to phase out some of the older hands have at times been exceptionally clumsy, and his handling of the transfer requests handed in by Alex and Nicolas Anelka was the most damning of his failures, highlighting a vindictiveness and petulance that won him few admirers both within and outside of the club.
What’s worse is that these issues appear to have been reflected on the pitch, with Chelsea turning in a number of abject performances, the spineless defeat at the hands of Everton just the latest. A return of four wins in the last 10 league games suggests that the manager is struggling to impose his ideology. Teams no longer show quite the same fear when faced with Chelsea mainstays such as Frank Lampard and Didier Drogba, and one wonders if Villas-Boas's attempts to downplay their importance has handed a psychological advantage to opponents. Meanwhile, David Luiz and Fernando Torres have continued to struggle, and Gary Cahill has made a grand total of one appearance since joining in the middle of January. There haven't been too many positives to take from the current campaign.
No-one would reasonably suggest that Villas-Boas deserves to lose his job. However, past form suggests that Abramovich is not always a reasonable man when it comes to such matters, and it seems unlikely that he'll keep the faith if his manager fails to deliver Champions League football for 2012-13.
Which is why Andres Villas-Boas's position looks dangerous. Mourinho, Grant, and Ancelotti were fired for flaws and failings much lesser than those that have afflicted Villas-Boas's first year in charge. The club currently reside in fifth, behind Arsenal on goal difference; given Tottenham's 10 point advantage in third, it looks likely that Chelsea will record their lowest ever finish under Abramovich. However, that only tells part of the story.
To trot out the old cliché about Villas-Boas having lost the dressing room would be a tad hyperbolic, but his man management skills have rightly been called into question on a number of occasions, with this week's report of a training ground row between him and his playing staff just the latest in a string of incidents that have marred his tenure. Although he has shown absolute loyalty to John Terry following Anton Ferdinand’s accusation, he has managed to upset a number of senior players whose importance to the club’s success and history far exceed his own. His attempts to phase out some of the older hands have at times been exceptionally clumsy, and his handling of the transfer requests handed in by Alex and Nicolas Anelka was the most damning of his failures, highlighting a vindictiveness and petulance that won him few admirers both within and outside of the club.
What’s worse is that these issues appear to have been reflected on the pitch, with Chelsea turning in a number of abject performances, the spineless defeat at the hands of Everton just the latest. A return of four wins in the last 10 league games suggests that the manager is struggling to impose his ideology. Teams no longer show quite the same fear when faced with Chelsea mainstays such as Frank Lampard and Didier Drogba, and one wonders if Villas-Boas's attempts to downplay their importance has handed a psychological advantage to opponents. Meanwhile, David Luiz and Fernando Torres have continued to struggle, and Gary Cahill has made a grand total of one appearance since joining in the middle of January. There haven't been too many positives to take from the current campaign.
No-one would reasonably suggest that Villas-Boas deserves to lose his job. However, past form suggests that Abramovich is not always a reasonable man when it comes to such matters, and it seems unlikely that he'll keep the faith if his manager fails to deliver Champions League football for 2012-13.
Tuesday 14 February 2012
For those of you who may be wondering what, football posts aside, I've been working on in recent weeks:
- My first unsigned bands piece was in the December/January edition of Manchester Chimp magazine. You might still be able to find copies in the shops; if not, it's available online from their website. The next issue is due out soon, with the featured bands including biederbeck, The Gentrymen, and G R E A T W A V E S.
- The first post charting my year in reading is up over at Onward, Manchester, featuring Moneyball by Michael Lewis, Misery by Stephen King, and Everything's Fine by Socrates Adams.
- On the same blog, my coverage of X-Men Regenesis is in progress (part 1) (part 2). It's moving at something of a glacial pace, but that's okay; whilst I'm happy to recommend comicbooks to people, I couldn't in good faith recommend that they buy single issues. Hell, the only reason I don't wait for the trades is that I'm a holdover from before the collected edition took hold, programmed to turn up at a shop each Thursday and peruse what's on offer.
- I'm preparing something that could loosely be described as "proper journalism" about Manchester's Metrolink service and its place in the city, primarily as a reaction to MP Graham Stringer's assertion that the network is "damaging the city's reputation and economy."
- I also started work on a novel in January, with the vague aim of getting much of it written within the year. A resolution of sorts, if you will, or at least an attempt to spur myself to write more fiction, which so far has proven somewhat successful.
- My first unsigned bands piece was in the December/January edition of Manchester Chimp magazine. You might still be able to find copies in the shops; if not, it's available online from their website. The next issue is due out soon, with the featured bands including biederbeck, The Gentrymen, and G R E A T W A V E S.
- The first post charting my year in reading is up over at Onward, Manchester, featuring Moneyball by Michael Lewis, Misery by Stephen King, and Everything's Fine by Socrates Adams.
- On the same blog, my coverage of X-Men Regenesis is in progress (part 1) (part 2). It's moving at something of a glacial pace, but that's okay; whilst I'm happy to recommend comicbooks to people, I couldn't in good faith recommend that they buy single issues. Hell, the only reason I don't wait for the trades is that I'm a holdover from before the collected edition took hold, programmed to turn up at a shop each Thursday and peruse what's on offer.
- I'm preparing something that could loosely be described as "proper journalism" about Manchester's Metrolink service and its place in the city, primarily as a reaction to MP Graham Stringer's assertion that the network is "damaging the city's reputation and economy."
- I also started work on a novel in January, with the vague aim of getting much of it written within the year. A resolution of sorts, if you will, or at least an attempt to spur myself to write more fiction, which so far has proven somewhat successful.
Thursday 9 February 2012
An Ignominious End for Fabio Capello?
When I previously wrote about the John Terry situation, I suggested that the FA had four options:
1) Terry is stripped of the captaincy but allowed to play for England.
2) Terry is stripped of the captaincy and banned from selection until the conclusion of the trial.
3) Terry is allowed to play, given that he is innocent until proven guilty.
4) Terry is dropped altogether for "footballing reasons."
Whilst realistically 4) is a bit of a stretch, I'm sure we can all agree that 1) is the least sensible option on the above list, and unsurprisingly that's exactly what the FA opted for. Or so we thought until Wednesday, when it became apparent that the FA had instead selected 5): Terry is stripped of the captaincy against England manager Fabio Capello's wishes but remains available for selection, and "oh, look, we don't have a manager anymore. How about that?"
Having mooted (but not, admittedly, wholeheartedly embraced) the idea that keeping Terry as captain was the right thing to do (in that removing him implies that he has done something wrong, when nothing of the sort has yet been established), I'm going to follow another unpopular path and suggest that the way the affair was handled (and mishandled) left Capello with no choice but to quit. He was clearly right to claim, in the aftermath of his resignation, that the FA damaged his authority, and that taking the Terry decision out of his hands (or not properly discussing the issue with him, at the very least) critically undermined his leadership, which in turn made his position untenable.
He did what any good manager did and fought for his player, defending Terry against those who seem intent to cast him as a guilty party before a verdict has been rendered. In a sense, his loyalty was admirable, and it would be harsh to condemn him for it, as some seem ready to. Would it have been so hard for the FA to stage a proper meeting to discuss the issue, listening fully to Capello's arguments as to why Terry should remain as captain before amicably overruling him and asking him to support the decision? Perhaps such an approach would have prevented his departure.
It's also worth remembering that Capello's win percentage as England manager is better than any of his predecessors. Better than Ramsey, Greenwood, Robson, Venables, and Eriksson, yet in terms of available talent I'd argue that he's had less to work with than most of the managers before him, and that he inherited England's recognised world class players (Ferdinand, Terry, Ashley Cole, Lampard, Gerrard, Beckham) at a point when most of them were in the midst of their inevitable decline.
At the same time, however, it goes without saying that Capello was his own worst enemy, and that choosing to express his displeasure to the media once the decision had been made was arrogant (and unnecessary) folly. The disastrous 2010 World Cup campaign rests largely on his shoulders, and since taking over he's struggled to win over the press and the public. If his principles can be admired, his decision-making skills when under pressure have been exposed as questionable at best; if we applaud his loyalty, we must also ask how much of his stance was born out of stubbornness; and if we acknowledge that progress has been made since the South Africa debacle, we must also admit that none of it has occurred on a stage that truly matters. At this point, a parting of the ways was probably the best for both parties.
1) Terry is stripped of the captaincy but allowed to play for England.
2) Terry is stripped of the captaincy and banned from selection until the conclusion of the trial.
3) Terry is allowed to play, given that he is innocent until proven guilty.
4) Terry is dropped altogether for "footballing reasons."
Whilst realistically 4) is a bit of a stretch, I'm sure we can all agree that 1) is the least sensible option on the above list, and unsurprisingly that's exactly what the FA opted for. Or so we thought until Wednesday, when it became apparent that the FA had instead selected 5): Terry is stripped of the captaincy against England manager Fabio Capello's wishes but remains available for selection, and "oh, look, we don't have a manager anymore. How about that?"
Having mooted (but not, admittedly, wholeheartedly embraced) the idea that keeping Terry as captain was the right thing to do (in that removing him implies that he has done something wrong, when nothing of the sort has yet been established), I'm going to follow another unpopular path and suggest that the way the affair was handled (and mishandled) left Capello with no choice but to quit. He was clearly right to claim, in the aftermath of his resignation, that the FA damaged his authority, and that taking the Terry decision out of his hands (or not properly discussing the issue with him, at the very least) critically undermined his leadership, which in turn made his position untenable.
He did what any good manager did and fought for his player, defending Terry against those who seem intent to cast him as a guilty party before a verdict has been rendered. In a sense, his loyalty was admirable, and it would be harsh to condemn him for it, as some seem ready to. Would it have been so hard for the FA to stage a proper meeting to discuss the issue, listening fully to Capello's arguments as to why Terry should remain as captain before amicably overruling him and asking him to support the decision? Perhaps such an approach would have prevented his departure.
It's also worth remembering that Capello's win percentage as England manager is better than any of his predecessors. Better than Ramsey, Greenwood, Robson, Venables, and Eriksson, yet in terms of available talent I'd argue that he's had less to work with than most of the managers before him, and that he inherited England's recognised world class players (Ferdinand, Terry, Ashley Cole, Lampard, Gerrard, Beckham) at a point when most of them were in the midst of their inevitable decline.
At the same time, however, it goes without saying that Capello was his own worst enemy, and that choosing to express his displeasure to the media once the decision had been made was arrogant (and unnecessary) folly. The disastrous 2010 World Cup campaign rests largely on his shoulders, and since taking over he's struggled to win over the press and the public. If his principles can be admired, his decision-making skills when under pressure have been exposed as questionable at best; if we applaud his loyalty, we must also ask how much of his stance was born out of stubbornness; and if we acknowledge that progress has been made since the South Africa debacle, we must also admit that none of it has occurred on a stage that truly matters. At this point, a parting of the ways was probably the best for both parties.
Friday 3 February 2012
The Plight of John Terry
Being a figure of hate is nothing new for John Terry. The entire nation seemingly ground to a halt following the January 2010 revelations concerning his supposed affair with the ex-girlfriend of ex-teammate Wayne Bridge. The newspapers and the public in general were obsessed with the story, calling for his resignation as England captain and all but calling for his head, all while greedily devouring every bit of information or mis-information that was printed about him for months on end. Few people were interested when later that same year both the Mail on Sunday and the News of the World offered apologies to Vanessa Peroncell, for breaching her privacy and for printing a story that was untrue.
That furore temporarily cost him the England captaincy, but Rio Ferdinand's injury problems and general decline meant that within little over 12 months Terry was reinstated. The clash with Anton Ferdinand followed a few months later, however, and with it a whole new controversy.
Unlike his previous form the current situation is no minor frivolity. The accusation is serious; serious enough that the Crown Prosecution Service saw fit to charge him with using racist language. The Suarez incident was contained within the confines of football; Terry will be dealt with by the courts.
Wednesday's decision to delay the trial until July 9 was a curious one, seemingly made so as not to disrupt Chelsea's season, and indeed England's European Championship campaign. Not that the affair hasn't already caused ample disruption. Terry has been on the receiving end of plenty of unpleasant chanting, and here we are in February and the debate about his suitability to represent his country is already raging, with the tabloid newspapers once again leading a crusade. To delay the trial seems at best incredibly shortsighted, at worst a deplorable concession to the demands of a game that is apparently more important than justice being delivered in a timely fashion.
Mentioned in passing in a previous paragraph, the shadow of Rio Ferdinand looms large over the whole affair, and not just because he and Anton are brothers. Jason Roberts and many others have cited the 2003 incident that saw Rio left out of an England squad pending the investigation into his failure to attend a drug test, claiming that it should be held up as some kind of precedent. How exactly the two cases are related remains a mystery, given that said investigation was to determine whether or not his reason for missing the test (which was, quite simply, that he forgot about it) was an acceptable justification; in other words, Rio was guilty of the offense he was accused of, and the only question that remained was whether his explanation mitigated his guilt (the answer, unsurprisingly, was a resounding "no").
Roberts also mentions the situation involving Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer, both of whom the FA banned from international selection until the court case relating to the pair's alleged assault of an Asian student was concluded. As far as precedents go, that would appear to be a rather important one, although one suspects that if the FA were going to impose a similar restriction this time around, it would have done so already.
In the meantime, where does that leave the humble football fan, the men and women who just want to cheer on England in the European Championships? No-one is going to feel comfortable cheering on a team captained by a man who may or may not have used racist language in a hurtful manner; then again, is anyone going to feel better about cheering on a team only starring said man, rather than led by him? To wit: if Terry can't captain England, surely he can't play for England in any capacity? To strip him of the captaincy and still name him in the squad would be a frankly ludicrous decision, a declaration that we're against the sort of behaviour John Terry is accused of, but only up to a point.
Another question worth considering is to what extent should Fabio Capello and the FA be expected to pander to public sentiment? In this country, our entire justice system is predicated upon the fact that an individual is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Any sanction against Terry would be a punishment, and to punish a man who has not yet been found guilty of anything would be an injustice, a bizarre acceptance of "there's no smoke without fire" as a binding legal argument. In many respects, keeping him as captain is the right decision, even though it certainly wouldn't be a popular one
Finally, we must ask whether or not Terry's recent form has been so great, so magnificent, so reminiscent of past glories that simply leaving him out of the squad is a possibility not worth considering. Great player though he remains, he's clearly lost a step or two in recent years; Fabio Capello could choose to be bold, selecting four younger defenders (Cahill, Richards, Jones, and Smalling, for example) and passing it off as an attempt to give valuable tournament experience to players who may prove to be the future of the national team. Such a line would fool no-one, of course, but it would put a contentious issue to bed swiftly and effectively. Whatever happens, any solution to the current situation will more than likely carry an air of uncomfortable compromise about it.
That furore temporarily cost him the England captaincy, but Rio Ferdinand's injury problems and general decline meant that within little over 12 months Terry was reinstated. The clash with Anton Ferdinand followed a few months later, however, and with it a whole new controversy.
Unlike his previous form the current situation is no minor frivolity. The accusation is serious; serious enough that the Crown Prosecution Service saw fit to charge him with using racist language. The Suarez incident was contained within the confines of football; Terry will be dealt with by the courts.
Wednesday's decision to delay the trial until July 9 was a curious one, seemingly made so as not to disrupt Chelsea's season, and indeed England's European Championship campaign. Not that the affair hasn't already caused ample disruption. Terry has been on the receiving end of plenty of unpleasant chanting, and here we are in February and the debate about his suitability to represent his country is already raging, with the tabloid newspapers once again leading a crusade. To delay the trial seems at best incredibly shortsighted, at worst a deplorable concession to the demands of a game that is apparently more important than justice being delivered in a timely fashion.
Mentioned in passing in a previous paragraph, the shadow of Rio Ferdinand looms large over the whole affair, and not just because he and Anton are brothers. Jason Roberts and many others have cited the 2003 incident that saw Rio left out of an England squad pending the investigation into his failure to attend a drug test, claiming that it should be held up as some kind of precedent. How exactly the two cases are related remains a mystery, given that said investigation was to determine whether or not his reason for missing the test (which was, quite simply, that he forgot about it) was an acceptable justification; in other words, Rio was guilty of the offense he was accused of, and the only question that remained was whether his explanation mitigated his guilt (the answer, unsurprisingly, was a resounding "no").
Roberts also mentions the situation involving Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer, both of whom the FA banned from international selection until the court case relating to the pair's alleged assault of an Asian student was concluded. As far as precedents go, that would appear to be a rather important one, although one suspects that if the FA were going to impose a similar restriction this time around, it would have done so already.
In the meantime, where does that leave the humble football fan, the men and women who just want to cheer on England in the European Championships? No-one is going to feel comfortable cheering on a team captained by a man who may or may not have used racist language in a hurtful manner; then again, is anyone going to feel better about cheering on a team only starring said man, rather than led by him? To wit: if Terry can't captain England, surely he can't play for England in any capacity? To strip him of the captaincy and still name him in the squad would be a frankly ludicrous decision, a declaration that we're against the sort of behaviour John Terry is accused of, but only up to a point.
Another question worth considering is to what extent should Fabio Capello and the FA be expected to pander to public sentiment? In this country, our entire justice system is predicated upon the fact that an individual is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Any sanction against Terry would be a punishment, and to punish a man who has not yet been found guilty of anything would be an injustice, a bizarre acceptance of "there's no smoke without fire" as a binding legal argument. In many respects, keeping him as captain is the right decision, even though it certainly wouldn't be a popular one
Finally, we must ask whether or not Terry's recent form has been so great, so magnificent, so reminiscent of past glories that simply leaving him out of the squad is a possibility not worth considering. Great player though he remains, he's clearly lost a step or two in recent years; Fabio Capello could choose to be bold, selecting four younger defenders (Cahill, Richards, Jones, and Smalling, for example) and passing it off as an attempt to give valuable tournament experience to players who may prove to be the future of the national team. Such a line would fool no-one, of course, but it would put a contentious issue to bed swiftly and effectively. Whatever happens, any solution to the current situation will more than likely carry an air of uncomfortable compromise about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)