Film Review - Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait

[july 13 - I've updated the information on the game played in the film. Thanks "SM"!]

I don't normally do film reviews - so many other places provide this (for better or worse) - but I thought the following would be of interest...

When I heard that the documentary Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait was playing a one-night show at the Bloor Cinema, I couldn't resist getting tickets for myself, my wife, and my good friend - let's call him "SM".

My friend and I both work in film/TV and both are big soccer fans, so there was potentially a lot here for us to appreciate (or at least make fun of afterwards). I'd separately heard the Mogwai soundtrack beforehand and thought it was interesting - very meditative. A short synopsis on the film: it recounts French soccer star Zenedine Zidane's club game with Real Madrid, in a match with Spanish cup rival Villareal on April 23rd, 2005.

After the screening, we stood on the street, slowly coming to the conclusion that we all had problems with the film. Yet, rather than write it off as a "bad film" and drink with purposeful abandon, we found ourselves talking about it - trying to make sense of what it was that did or didn't work.

What follows are a set of emails I exchanged with "SM", which I feel demonstrates better than a formal film review our thoughts on the film. I am "MC" and my wife shall be known as "G".

----
From SM:

I now think that I really didn't like the film beyond a technical
appreciation, especially for the sound design. I have slept on it and feel
fairly strongly about this.

It could be that I brought too much baggage to the film, or perhaps as
"G" suggested, it didn't lend itself well to the theatre environment
(even if only on that day). But during the film I found myself missing the
wide screen coverage of the action at least for some sense of geography. Or perhaps more variance on the close up detail of ZZ - ie, exaggerated time stretching of actions to capture muscle tone/movement. Perhaps something to break the tedium. And that was perhaps the biggest frustration - the tedium. If the point was to study someone performing a Sisyphean task so closely that you really couldn't tell what the task was at any given time, then that mission was accomplished. But for me it didn't inform or entertain but left me detached, distracted and unmoved.

Also, it became a side issue to see what kind of possible image rights
issues they may have had to deal with. The animated sideboards were all in English - Kellogg's "Frosties", Gillette razors. In Madrid? Perhaps that is so. But it stuck in my mind. As did the peripheral existence of Michael Owen. I'm positive I saw him running on the fringes of the screen, but no image of him straight on lasted long enough for recognition, neither did his jersey name or number. But there was a lot of everyone else. And so I started to wonder, hmm, what if some players were not willing to lend their image to the film? But I don't think I should have been thinking that. In fact I was frustrated that I was doing that. But the film left me little else to think or feel.

----
From MC:

I do agree with your after-sleep assessment - in particular what you wrote about rights clearances. I must admit, the exact same thing was going through my head the entire time: did they need permission from Beckham? Did they need permission to show the Frosted Flakes ad? What about Zidane's clothing sponsorship (Adidas)? However, two questions arise from this:

1) If we're asking ourselves those questions in the first place, is that not indicative that the film has problems?

2) Again, to take the "naive media soul" approach, would the average person ask those questions? Are we being too savvy/media-aware? Mind you, considering our tastes and how potentially this film could have catered to them, if *we* were thinking about rights clearances what the hell was the Annex chick with the $200 haircut and the flip flops focusing on (that would be the "proverbial Annex chick..." not anyone in particular)?

I must say that I would like to see it again (not soon) on home video. I think that, aesthetically speaking, it would/could be a better experience seeing it in an intimate environment.

At least we're talking about it! Maybe the director just wanted to make something people could chat about?? Eh?

----
From SM:

Yeah, but the director of "The People Under The Stairs" had me talking after the film too. Just not anything I can repeat in mixed company.

The "naive media soul" might not drift to the kinds of thoughts we were (image rights) but perhaps instead might think "do I need to pick up some eggs?" or "hey I need to Lemon Pledge my tables this weekend" to help fill in the void left by watching this film

on imdb there's two polar opposite reviews (see below)

POINT

"This is the most affecting, profound piece of documentary film I have seen in years. That said, it is a challenging work that doesn't fully reveal it's power until well into the viewing. As much a meditation as a film, the net effect is similar to that of watching "Winged Migration". Watching the simple, relatively unaffected actions of Zidane over the course of a match begins to work on you. I pondered politics, commercialism, world conflict, fame, economics, the media and more over the course of my first viewing. There is no easy way to encapsulate the overall feeling, the ebbs and tides experienced while watching the film, but afterward you will view the world in as if with new eyes. It is also a masterpiece technically. I couldn't help but admire the precise and exquisite sound design and music, how they blended to the action and psychological state being portrayed to the moment. The cameras seamlessly take the viewer from sprawling, epic points of view to the most intimate. The use of subtitle without voice over narration used to portray Zidane's thoughts is nothing short of revolutionary. This film may disappoint a soccer fan simply seeking a piece of sports entertainment, but for a lover and student of film it is groundbreaking, important work that must be seen."

COUNTERPOINT
"The guys who made this movie got it so wrong. They actually show Zidane as a tired static player and not the football god he is. Zidane is my idol for many years and what makes him a great player is: 1. his absolute vision of whats going on on the football field 2. His abilities to make the players around him better. Yes, he's got amazing control of the ball and elegant movements that wont put to shame even a ballet dancer. But thats not it. For example, to show the amazing abilities of the conductor Zubin Mehta, you wont film him waving his hands for an hour of a silence movie. You must record his orchestra and show the connection between the conductor's brilliance and its outcome on his "TEAM" of musicians. The same goes to Zidan. It is pretty obvious that the film makers here, do not understand football and what really made Zidane the amazing player he is. They showcase a too long, too static performance, mostly in close ups. Most of the time you don't know where Zidane is located on the pitch, or how does he reacts to the opponents formation or plays. Sorry. Nice try but the results are poor and boring."

BACK TO ME

The frustrating thing is, I agree and disagree with both of them. The first guy is a bit lofty with his praise, but I agree with his assessment of it being a technical masterpiece (well maybe not that high up, but you know). I don't however think "it is groundbreaking, important work that must be seen." I miss not really being able to see the attributes that the second reviewer describes. But I think too that it would then verge on "highlight reel" stuff.

I wondered if it would have been more engaging if this had been a vocal midfield general like Roy Keane or someone who saw more of the ball (maybe a Beckham). I really would like to hear an honest opinion of a professional footballer to this film. Not that they're better players, but perhaps there'd be more range of emotion? And maybe that's what I was missing. By the time Zidane's emotions showed (smiling with Roberto Carlos, getting in the brawl), it was too late; I had stopped caring at half time.

----
From MC:

I fall between the two points also.

I do think there is a mantric quality to the film which, combined with the half-time segment and the sound design, provides a larger (albeit arguably more "wispy") palette for the viewer - it becomes less about soccer and more about...well, who the fuck knows. Spin the wheel. However, this last point starts getting more into the territory of Art and Art Appreciation - the lack of a fixed message isn't the point. However, not to let the director off the hook, I'm not entirely sure his intent was clear or if it was, whether it was achieved.

On the other hand, yes, anything else probably would've become a sports-porn highlight reel. I wondered if, instead of Zidane it would've been more effective to choose someone else - either a name or another position - but that too poses just as many problems. Zidane isn't a Chatty Cathy and his largely mute performance works because it's all about his focus or lack thereof. You could say the same about most goaltenders, but then again if you thought the focus on Zidane was static, imagine someone standing within two goalposts for 90m would be? Keane...that would be interesting. Certainly more dynamic, but would it have the same quiet grace and reflectiveness?

Yes - I would like to have a pro footballer's perspective on the film. I'm hoping the Guardian or someone else thinks of this. Better still would be a moderated discussion between the director, a professional footballer, and an interviewer. Unfortunately this would only ever be shown on television in France. Still...

----
From SM:

Yes yes and yes.

The intention was unclear.

The quiet grace and reflectiveness works for a moment for me. But it became ironically grating over time. A shorter film would probably achieve more.
Or more accurately, if this approach were applied to a smaller scene in a film where the protagonist is followed like this in a climactic match or just an fairly important match this would be quite effective as a montage.

Reminds me, if memory serves correct, of the Raging Bull fight where LaMotta finally wins the title - the camera stays mostly on him/his face throughout the fight. But with Raging Bull, there had been a connection to the subject previous to this - mostly thanks to it being a narrative form and that the subject was an expressive actor - as well as throughout.

With the Zidane film one's only connection was any expectations you brought to the film based on your knowledge of the subject from your reality (World Cups 98 thru 2006 etc etc). And the silent disconnect experienced here can only lead to a let down from that expectation.

Here's the stick, you want one last go?

---

I decided not - I think we both had our turns at it. Yet, irregardless of whether Zidane was a success or failure, any film which can elicit these sorts of thoughts is worth a mention.

Photo: Niagara & Adelaide

The Vocabulary of Conflict: Afghanistan and Iraq

If there are two things I've avoided mentioning since the inception of this blog, it is Iraq and Afghanistan. For anyone who has casually surfed a blind selection of blogs in their spare time, I think you can understand why I've chosen not to get involved in the often mephitic atmosphere of this debate. It's chaotic and reflects the lack of clarity in the wars themselves.

Six Canadian soldiers were killed yesterday by a roadside bomb. The media refers to these bombs as IED's (improvised explosive devices), following the vocabulary of military spokespersons. In response to these latest deaths, here is an excerpt to more effectively demonstrate this vocabulary, from the Globe and Mail:

The Taliban's increasing use of roadside bombs has also taken a toll on civilians, Brig.-Gen. Grant said. "They have managed to kill six great young Canadians today, which is an absolute tragedy," he said. "The other part of this is that they're killing lots of Afghans. They're attacking the weak, they're killing women, they're killing children, they're killing policemen. These are not the tactics of anything other than terrorists."

[...]

Asked whether this represents an "Iraqization" of the conflict, Lieutenant-Colonel Jean Trudel, who serves as chief of staff for the Canadian headquarters in Kandahar, shook his head.

"Not particularly," he said. "It indicates a loss of control by the insurgents."

Canadian troops faced insurgents in the farmland southwest of Kandahar city last year in the largest battles Afghanistan has witnessed since the collapse of the Taliban regime. Those fights have taught the Taliban that it's fruitless to openly confront the Canadians, Lt.-Col. Trudel said.

"The fact that we've lost a lot of soldiers from IED attacks indicates a success, in the sense that our conventional operations have succeeded against the Taliban," the chief of staff said.

Where to start...

1) These roadside bombs - sorry, IED's - are not, historically speaking, the "tactics of terrorists". They are the tactics of guerrillas. Crashing planes into buildings and floating boats laden with explosives into aircraft carriers are tactics of terrorists. There is more than a semantic difference between the two classifications; when you paint civilian-based militias as terrorism you are admitting a loss of control and belying a critical problem with the military operation at-hand. See: Corsica.

2) If by "Iraqization", the journalists mean "people who were under a tyrant who barely kept a fractious mix of misplaced ethnicities (largely due to Western colonial folly) under control and who now are now occupied by Western forces (yet again) whose motives increasingly speak more about global economics than humanitarianism" then there are some similarities. However, the way in which the term is implied in the article suggests that the "tactics of terrorism" are being imported from Iraq, which itself is an interesting bit of circular logic given that Afghanistan is the only one of the two countries that had anything to do with the destruction of the World Trade towers.

3) To suggest that the killing of six of our soldiers (along with civilians and police) represents a "loss of control" by the insurgents is perhaps one of the more grotesque distortions of military logic I've read (recently). Sounds to me as if the insurgents are in control if by their actions they are disrupting the lives of its citizenry and the work of the soldiers who have been put there to resurrect what is becoming the Romantic dream of a post-Taliban Afghanistan.

All things considered, no matter how passionate or well-reasoned your opinion, it simply isn't enough to oppose either of these wars, at least not anymore. Three or four years ago, perhaps. However, there is a marked difference between the two conflicts. With Afghanistan there was, at the very least, a reason for NATO troops to get involved; it was, after all, the training ground for Al-Qaeda and, considering the devastation of 9/11/01, arguing for a military response was not an irrational (ie. purely emotional) action. Iraq, however, was and is a debacle of historic proportions. It would depress me to recount just how ill-conceived (and corrupted) the decision to invade Iraq was. There are many other sites out there which can do a better job of summing up the horrible negligence of the latter invasion.

One thing I will mention, and I do so on behalf of my countrymen who are stationed in Afghanistan, is that, failing "success" - itself a contentious ideal in any war - the blame for the lack thereof can be directly attributed to two factors:

1) Iraq. If the United States and Britain had not diverted (and thus fragmented) their troops so that they were intervening [or invading, whichever way you wish to see it - I'll leave the Semantics of Conflict essay for another day] in not only one but two countries, NATO would've had the maximum available response in order to accomplish whatever goals there were in the Afghanistan mission. Instead, by pulling troops out of the latter and into the former, they hobbled the efforts of the only justifiable military action of the two and endangered both.

2) Although there are 37 countries involved in the NATO/ISAF deployment in Afghanistan, there is a disproportionate amount of Canadian troops on the frontline in the most tumultuous areas (read: Kandahar), despite repeated calls for other participating countries to commit troops for support. Say what you will about the Afghanistan mission (and again, a lot of contentious arguments are to be had), it angers me to see such reluctance on behalf of other participating countries: either you're there and fight or you should rightfully leave. You simply can't have it both ways on the battlefield.

Canada has a tragic history of its soldiers being used as gun-fodder in armed struggle, most notably in the trenches of WWI. This perhaps explains why we did not involve ourselves in Vietnam or Iraq; though we have our share of military controversies to deal with (much of it due to financial stagnation and federal meddling), we have generally learnt not to follow into armed conflict when the goals of the coordinating military power (usually the US and/or England) are suspicious. The difference this time is that our public is looking very critically at the war in Afghanistan, asking the right questions, and putting pressure on our politicians to ensure that this latest involvement does not devolve into the sort of pandemonium currently underway in Iraq.

I would be lying if I thought the current plan in Afghanistan was particularly clear or that our politicians (and some of the bureaucratic upper ranks of our Armed Forces) had the best interests of our soldiers, Afghanis, or the reputation of Canada in mind. The former Soviet Union went bankrupt as a result of their involvement in the 80's, with the U.S. funding, arming, and training the civilian insurgency. The shoe is on the other foot, with Russia and China supplying the insurgency via Iran. Whether we call them terrorists or not, vocabulary alone is not enough to soften the blow of rising casualties in a conflict sorely in need of clarity.

Happy Canada Day!

Book Review: Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsy

Rodion Raskolnikov, an impoverished ex-student living in St. Petersburg, methodically sets out to kill a money-lender. As if that isn't bad enough, the cold-blooded murder goes terribly wrong, and - being a man of principle - he endures a multitude of agonies associated with his crime. Erstwhile, his mother and sister are moving to the city in preparation for his sister's just-announced engagement to an ambitious cad.

All in all, it's not a good time to be Rodya Raskolnikov, or for that matter, to live in St. Petersburg during the late 1800's.

Crime and Punishment, completed in 1866, is a brooder of a book. It looks unsparingly at the lives of the desperate and destitute - comprising most its central characters - and sends them in circles around a very lonely and philosophically distraught young man who makes a terrible decision: murder. It isn't made in haste, but meticulously planned and carried out until the act itself is within his grasp, at which point it explodes in his face. Rather than empowerment, to be "a man and not a louse" in Raskolnikov's words, he comes face to face with reality: his less-empowered and certainly more human inadequacies.

The problem, however, is that the police aren't after him...or are they? He tries several times early in the novel to expose his crime, but barely arouses suspicion - if anything, people around him grow more and more concerned for his health. The irony is that it's after Raskolnikov's crime when everyone around him starts paying him visits and taking care of him - even though half the time he's flirting with madness and fever. It is during this purgatorial reprieve from justice - with the police as close as his friends - that he is drawn into the lives of those around him and takes pains to emancipate the weak from their burdens.

Characters sad and corrupt walk into his life, often literally, and draw him into their own. Vacillating between pity, outrage, and spiritual agony, Raskolnikov takes great pains to make amends with those around him, sensing that the payment for his earlier crime is hanging inevitably in front of him, whatever turn he takes. After all, if the noose is in the mind, there are no lands you can escape to.

Crime and Punishment has many strengths, chief among them some of the best dialogue in literature. Surprisingly, there are great swaths of humour too, most notably Raskolnikov's friend, Razumikhin - who becomes smitten with Rodya's sister, the ravishing Avdotya. Dostoevsky, who spent four years as a political prisoner prior to writing C&P, writes honestly about the souls of those who are defeated by the circumstances of life. The city to which the book is seemingly dedicated - albeit in a poison pen fashion - St. Petersburg, comes across as a Gothic cesspool of poverty and corruption.

If there are drawbacks to Crime and Punishment it is the bleak hues in which the story is rendered. Although it is ultimately a book about the greatest aspect of humanity - fiery perseverance - there a number of parts that move at a snail's pace. In particular, I found the fourth chapter (of six) to be burdensome. I say this in case anyone would take me for a masochist.

Still, I recommend Crime and Punishment to those wanting to pick-up the classics, particularly those from Eastern Europe. In Rodion Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky has created a template of the tortured idealist that stands as tall now as it did in 1866.

Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky (ISBN: 019 281549 0) is available at a friendly independent bookstore near you. Or online at any number of vendors

Bandcroft Rides Again!

Our improv/jam band is back - this Tuesday @ The Cloak & Dagger.

A Vote For Uncertainty

ag·nos·ti·cism [ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm] –noun

1. An intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.
   
2. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
3. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
   

[Origin: 1870–75; agnostic + -ism]

I don't want to wade into the current (or latest, if you look at this historically) spat between atheists and theists, but I find it tragic that - and I don't know why I'm surprised - there is no middle ground of perspective in the discussion. It's not much of a "discussion" to begin with, is it?

I don't particularly care about Richard Dawkins, his followers/imitators, fundamentalist zealotry of any sort, and atheism in general. I think atheism, while legitimate, is about as interesting and constructive as a "zero" on a chalkboard. Of theoretical curiosity, but not much else. Yet lately there have been many books published - the latest of note being Christopher Hitchens' - throwing down the atheist gauntlet against organized religion.

I have a healthy wariness toward organized religion and I understand, in light of the recent alignments in many parts of the world between fundamentalists and political/military activity, why the gauntlets are hitting the ground on either side of the theist atheist debate.

Or at least I think I understand - I'm just a layman.

Yet agnosticism is never mentioned. Atheists joke that agnostics are just vacillating fools and leave it at that. The problem is this: history proves that certainty has a best-before date. Anyone remember the Age of Reason, when classical physics had reached such austere heights that it became referred to as the Age of Certainty? And then those crazy guys, like Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein, had to go and blow the head off of it - essentially showing that presumptions about time and space (as well as lot of other things) were not as they had been presumed to be. And yet, perplexedly, many pro-atheism websites contain quotes from Einstein proudly questioning the limits of God.

You can be certain that the sun will rise every morning (even if obscured by clouds), yet, technically speaking it's in the process of burning out (when it reaches thermal equilibrium with that cold "space" stuff). So, not even that is certain.

I argue that our need for certainty is an ancient one, and whether it be expressed in theistic or nihilistic terms, it is always coupled by Thoth's ape: the spectre of an annoying footnote which clearly states "You know this could all change at any minute.".

What's wrong with embracing uncertainty - does it not open more doors, feed more thoughts, raise more questions? Is it not more analogous to the inherently uncertain and complex world around us? Allowing for uncertainty is being honest with the way life works; it is neither cynical nor pessimistic. In fact, I consider it more spiritually genuine (although agnosticsm itself does not need to be used only in those terms) than holding a fixed idea of what "lies beyond", whether it be God or maggots.

I just wanted to put this out there, as I'm tired of only hearing two sides to an argument which cannot be limited to such a static form.

My NHL
Does Not Include
Bettman

Changes (part two)

I went to a naturopath because I've had a nasty ongoing bout of eczema. I was tired with visits to my GP that always ended up with me getting medication that neither necessarily works well nor is without long-term side effects (like, say, cancer). Say what you will about Canadian health care - and the fact that we *have* health care is something to say - I just don't see how a GP can give anyone any sort of personalized care when they "see" you for all of 10 minutes, sometimes with as many as 30 other patients booked after you. So, with the retirement of my long-term doctor and her replacement with a replicant from Blade Runner, I took the opportunity to check out just what exactly naturopathy could do.

There were two sessions: the first, a consultation, with the second being a post-diagnostic set of recommendations. It went very well, going over my medical history etc., and resulted in her suggesting I start with a detox/reduction diet under the suspicion that my eczema was part of an allergic reaction.

So, a few weeks ago I cut out caffeine, sugar, alcohol, gluten (bread, white rice, etc.), milk, eggs, red meat...and anything else on the list she provided. Most vegans don't even have a diet this strict. I was to do it for a week (at least) and then slowly add things back to see if my skin flared up.

The process was pretty incredible - in the sense that you don't realise how many of these things are part and parcel of our everyday (and sometimes every meal) diet. Try going into a restaurant - try a vegetarian restaurant even - and count how many dishes don't have gluten. You cannot believe how frustrating it is to go out on a lunch break only to find that there's nothing out there outside of a salad that isn't going to have bread attached.

The first couple of days were tough, but surprisingly I didn't miss coffee that much. It was days three and four. No energy, no concentration. I could only focus on a couple of tasks at any given time without being totally useless.

Things are better now. As it turns out, gluten seems to be the bad guy, however I have yet to find out if beer can be ruled out (I pray), since it has yeast. But the process itself was the valuable thing - you pay attention to your body when you detox. You pay attention to what goes in your body and the pace of your metabolism. Particularly when you rule out gluten, you realise how much of a filler it truly is. You value fruits and vegetables, and my water consumption has certainly skyrocketed.

I think a detox/reduction diet is something everyone should try, if just once. However, I do also strongly believe that it should be partially supervised by a health professional.

[if you're on Facebook, you can check out my Detox Diaries - at least the first five days]

[UPDATE]: I found the solution (for me, at least). It was cutting out (or at least down) processed sugars. I drink a fair amount of coffee and since I always have a teaspoon of sugar, I found this to be the main culprit. After searching long and hard (stevia, maple syrup, etc.) I found agave nectar - yes, the very same plant that produces tequila also produces a sugar-like nectar. In short, not only does it taste like sugar, but it has eliminated my need for sugar or other substitutes. For your reference here is one brand, and another. I recommend either.

I'm extremely pleased to have found a way to combat eczema that doesn't involve medication, tinctures, or cremes. It may not work for some (or many), but the ideal way to solve the issue to deal with it through your diet, and not through a supplemental ointment.

Photo: Dundas & Palmerston #1