Thursday, June 30, 2011
Stimulating cinema: The best soccer movie of all time
Director: Jafar Panahi
Year: 2006
I've got an Orchestra Baobab CD in my collection -- I believe it's "Specialist in All Styles" but don't quote me -- where I absolutely love the first song so much that I have never made it past that one to hear the others on the disc. This is literally true. Every time I put it on that first track ("Buul Ma Miin" for those that are curious) blows me away to the point where I will just listen to it over and over again for a few times. I always feel better afterwards and then move on to something else.
That's kind of how I feel about this movie--although with a 90 minute running time and a vast cinematic universe still out there waiting for me to discover--I won't be quite so obsessive. But I liked this movie so much that it truly wouldn't be hard at all. I saw it the first time a couple of weeks ago and couldn't wait to see it again. And I saw it again last night and I still can't wait to see it again.
The true star of the movie is the beautiful game--soccer. I'm a big, big fan. Having spent the last 15 years working in a sports-based profession, whatever passion I once had (and I did have a lot at one time) for other sports has pretty much been sucked out of me. But soccer never ceases to amaze, interest and educate. What I know about geo-politics, I learned from soccer. Languages, culture, same thing. And I guess the fact that this is a soccer-based movie would likely scare away many potential viewers. But it would be impossible to make this movie about any other sport. No other sport, globally, stirs up the passion that soccer does. College football fans in the South would likely argue, and I would be glad to take them on. Wars have never been fought over an Auburn-Alabama game, you know. But wars have been fought over soccer matches.
The action takes place during a World Cup qualifying match at the 100,000 seat Azadi Stadium in Tehran between the hosts and Bahrain. The winner will qualify for the 2006 World Cup in Germany and nationalist fervor is running really high. The country's religious leaders have banned women from attending sporting events (lest the be exposed to strange men or--God forbid--cursing!). But several are determined to get in anyway, disguising themselves as men with varying degrees of success. The guards manage to snag a few, and keep them in a holding area in the concourse while the game takes place. Gradually the guards (who are conflicted between the fear of what will happen if they don't follow orders and the inanity of the ban) and the girls start to communicate with one another and the tension begins to dissolve. There are several funny moments and plenty of memorable characters (like the beleaguered guard from the country who just wants to get home to his cattle, the tough-talking cigarette smoking girl and the girl who wins disguises herself as a soldier in order to get in). The dialogues is snappy, fresh and real. This is just a guess (not being a Farsi speaker) but there appears to be a lot of slang thrown in, a lot of informality. And I love the way they bicker back and forth about the merits of their favorite players. It all boils down to real people on opposite sides of the fence trying to deal with a Kafka-esque situation as best as they can.
The most touching scene comes when Iran scores a goal. The guards go wild and so do the imprisoned girls. They sing and chant about the mightiness of Iran--the same Iran that is condoning a situation that is keeping them from seeing the game in the first place.
There is so much for me to love here--the spontaneity, the joy, the passion, the soccer. It's really an amazing piece of work. And in the end, I think the most intense emotion I had was envy. I'm envious of these Iranians (or Austrians, or New Zealanders or whomever) who know what it's like to be 100 percent in support of something as a nation. In the U.S., we're just too big and too splintered to ever come together on something like a big sporting event. I wonder, though, what it would be like to celebrate in Miami with the same passion as in Boston over the outcome of the game. It must feel really good to all be together, at least for a little bit.
Stimulating cinema: The second best soccer movie of all time
Director: Tom Hooper
Year released: 2009
This is one of the best sports movies I've ever seen. It so happens that the beautiful game is my one true sports passion, so naturally I would be predisposed to liking this one. But I'm confident that both of these films would appeal to non-soccer--or maybe even non-sports--fans. Character development is the reason why--in "Offside," the characters elicit sympathy and empathy. In "United," the characters may not all be terribly likable or admirable but they are undeniably fascinating. And the soccer technicalities--things like moving up and down a division for example--are illustrated and explained in such a way that a non-fan is able to understand and focus on the characters, their motivations and their actions. "United" is an endlessly fascinating film with a slew of excellent performances and a compelling story.
At the movie's center is manager Brian Clough (rhymes with "enough," I was never quite sure how to pronounce this until watching the movie). Played with near-perfection by Michael Sheen, Clough is a cocky bantam rooster of a man. A success as a player (he's quick to point out to his charges that he scored 251 goals in 274 matches during his career), Clough has become equally successful as a manager. The movie begins in 1974 following England's failure to qualify for that year's World Cup. Legendary manager Alf Ramsey steps aside paving the way for Don Revie to assume the hot seat. Revie (Colm Meaney, in another tremendous performance) has had a hugely successful career at Leeds United, building the team into a "di-nasty" and generating unstinting loyalty from his players. He is absolutely revered at Leeds and anyone following in his footsteps would be up against it. Of course, that man is the headstrong, arrogant, flamboyant Clough.
Clough wastes little time is blowing up everything Revie has created at Leeds. He gives a controversial interview on local Yorkshire television, claiming Leeds' glories have been tainted because Revie instructed his team to play dirty (the old school Revie might have argued tough but fair).
Clough tells them they can throw away all their medals and trophies because they haven't won them fairly. Clough tells his resentful players that they will now learn to play attractive, free-flowing football and leave the rough stuff behind. They are also forbidden to even mention Revie's name, which of course doesn't go over well. It's easy to see that it's personal for Clough when it comes to Revie and we flashback to the roots of the problem.
January 27, 1968. Clough and his loyal assistant Peter Taylor (Timothy Spall, another home-run performance) are in charge of struggling Derby County, a second-division team struggling near last place. They are drawn against Leeds in an FA Cup match. Clough is overjoyed; Leeds are leading the first division at the time and even though beating the visiting giants will take some doing, it will be a prestigious game (and a profitable one) for his unfashionable little club. Clough rolls out the red carpet for the visitors, making sure the field is as good as it can be and even breaking out a bottle of fine wine for after the match. Clough assumes that Revie and he are similar blokes; they both grew up in the same region and both played for the same team. But when Leeds arrives for the match, Revie ignores Clough (it's not clear whether he ignored him or simply didn't see him in the crowd). And after the match--a hard-fought affair Derby loses 2-0--Revie shakes hands with Taylor and the team's trainer but not with Clough (again, it's not clear if this was an intentional snub or just an oversight). Nevertheless, the roots are planted and Clough becomes obsessed with beating Leeds and one-upping Revie.
The infusion of new talent--thanks to Taylor's keen eye for spotting good players--helps lowly Derby win the second division title and gain promotion to the top flight. Now they will be on the same level as Leeds. Clough and Taylor are overjoyed; everything they have worked together to achieve is coming true. But despite their success, the Derby chairman Sam Longson is miffed. Played with almost Dickensian spirit by Jim Broadbent, Longson is angry that Clough has spent money on the players and perhaps even more miffed because he wasn't consulted about the new signings before him. Clough, arrogant as ever, basically tells the chairman to lump it and he and Taylor set about building Derby into a champion. Improbably, Derby wins the top division title in 1972 making Clough and Taylor the toast of the football world. That victory also gives them entry into next season's European Cup, a prestigious competition featuring the top teams from throughout the continent.
Clough continues to spar with Longson over finances and their rows become increasingly hostile. It all comes to head as Derby prepares to take on Italian team Juventus in the European Cup semifinals. Simply making it that far as a fantastic achievement for a small team like Derby but as luck would have it they have to face Leeds in a league match a couple of days before. Longson strongly urges Clough that maybe he should rest a few of the regulars and save them for the potentially more lucrative European match. Bollocks to that, says Clough, who is still burning to beat Revie at every turn. A heated argument ensues between the two, with Taylor looking on in horror. Win or lose, you get the sense that Clough's fate was sealed right then and Taylor knows it--he tells his friend that he shouldn't have talked to the chairman that way and that he doesn't want to lose his job at Derby. Clough thinks they are untouchable because of the way they've transformed the team into the winners and claims the fans would revolt if anything happened to them. Of course, Derby loses to Leeds and several key players get banged up in the process (Clough was right by the way, Leeds was a dirty team although whether they were dirtier than others at the time is debatable.) Derby then loses to Juventus too, ending the European dream and turning off the money taps.
Defiant as ever, Clough blasts Longson in the press after that game; telling the media that the chairman is more interested in renovating the directors' box than spending money on players. Taylor suffers a heart attack and his health problems only strengthen his wish that Clough would just turn it down a notch so that they can keep things status quo. Clough has other ideas though and writes a letter to the board offering up his and Taylor's resignation in a half-baked plan to force the chairman's hand. The board calls his bluff though, and despite their massive success, Clough and Taylor are out. Naturally, the fans are furious--there are petitions and protests--and Clough is confident he and Taylor will get their jobs back. But when Derby names former player Dave Mackay as manager (a player Clough brought to Derby years earlier when Mackay was virtually at the end of his playing days) the battle is over.
Reeling and in need of a job, the pair get a call from Brighton and Hove Albion, a nondescript third-division team. The Albion chairman has big dreams and deep pockets--he wants Brighton in the top flight and is willing to pay Clough and Taylor first-division wages if they'll work their magic once again. Taylor is keen to join but not Clough; Brighton is a southern town and he's from the North. He can't relate to the sleepy ways of the seasiders. Eventually though he accepts the offer but says he, Taylor and their families need a holiday in Mallorca first. There, Clough is approached by someone from Leeds who wants to gauge his interest in the job. Clough and Taylor get into a furious argument--Taylor thinks its wrong to break their word while Clough arguing that it's merely a better job and anyone would do the same thing if offered. Words escalate, and soon Clough is insulting his friend, insinuating that he brought nothing to their success and that he, Clough, did everything on his own. Taylor is deeply wounded--he was the brains behind the operation, always loyal and faithful and didn't deserve Clough's scorn. It is a strong, strong scene and the two end up going their separate ways.
And now we're back at the start. Without Taylor's steadying influence and the cooperation of his players, Clough's reign at Leeds lasted only 44 days as the team made its worst-ever start to a season. Later, he appears on a talk show, thinking he'll speak about his time at Leeds and what went wrong. Instead he's blindsided; his nemesis Revie will be on the show too and the two spar back and forth in what would have made for fascinating live viewing.
Clough accuses Revie of being cold-hearted and dishonest and brings up the handshake snub of six years earlier. Revie claims not to have known who the young manager was, a dubious statement considering that Revie was well-known for meticulously researching each and every opponent (he supplied his Leeds players with detailed dossiers on their opposition before every match). The interview ends with Clough saying "we'll see where we are in one years' time, in five years time." There is the small matter left of healing the rift between him an Taylor and as the film ends, Clough is driving down to Brighton with the hopes of patching things up. A postscript to the movie tells what became of the principals and--depending on who you believe in the Clough-Revie dispute--you can say it's a happy ending.
At center stage is the relationship between Clough and Taylor. I've seen frequent articles that compared them to a married couple and that's an entirely appropriate analogy. They bring out the best in each other and when times are good, they are splendid. But they also bring out the worst in one another at times (their climactic blowup on the beach in Mallorca) and the relationship is not always the healthiest. Ultimately though, it worked grandly because it was based on respect, trust and love, foundations for any good relationship. Clough and Taylor had spouses and families of their own but they were inextricably tied to one another, heart and soul.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Interviews with Tomas LeMarquis and Dagur Kuri
It's not often one hears about Icelandic films, but for the past year one has been appearing in festivals all over the world, collecting prizes and leaving critical raves in its wake. That film is Noi the Albino, or Nói albinói in its original language.
Noi the Albino is a tale of teenage angst and ennui, but not like any teen pic you've seen before. In cinema verité style, the film focuses on seventeen-year-old Noi, a young man who looks as different as he feels. Noi dreams of escaping his home, a tiny town lost in the fjords of western Iceland, but the harder he tries to leave, the smaller his world becomes. As you'd expect from a film with strong Danish influences, Noi the Albino is not narratively driven, but a film of wry, black humor and small moments.
Tómas Lemarquis has an unpleasant job in a graveyard in Noi the Albino. |
As Noi, Tómas Lemarquis appears in every scene, yet despite the burden he bears, he never appears to be straining as an actor. Born to an Icelandic mother and a French father (who appears as the French teacher in the film), Lemarquis grew up in Iceland, earned a degree in dramatic arts from the Cours Florent in Paris, but returned home disillusioned with the theater to study at the Reykjavik School of Fine Arts in Iceland. He returned to acting, however, when his old classmate Dagur Kári decided Lemarquis was the only possible choice to play Noi. Having earned a Best Actor nomination for Noi the Albino at the European Film Awards last year, Lemarquis has recently returned to Paris to cultivate his acting career.
Director Dagur Kári graduated from the National Film School of Denmark, where he met Noi cinematographer Rasmus Videbæk and editor Daniel Dencik. Kári's graduation film Lost Weekend won eleven international prizes. Noi the Albino is Kári's first feature film. In addition to writing and directing, Kári also composed the music as part of the band “slowblow.” He is currently working on his next feature in Denmark.
During the AFI Film Festival in Los Angeles last fall, AboutFilm.com had the opportunity to interview star Tómas Lemarquis one on one, and to put a handful of questions to Dagur Kári as well.
Note: The interviews contain remarks about the ending of the film.AboutFilm: I'd like to begin broadly, and ask you about where you are from. You are half French, is that right? But you grew up in Iceland.
Lemarquis: Yes. Born and I've lived all my life in Iceland. Then I went to Paris and studied in acting school [at the Cours Florent]. Then I went back to Iceland and I studied visual arts [at the Reykjavik School of Fine Arts], and I just graduated this year from that school. Me and Elín [Hansdóttir], who is playing Iris in the movie, we were in the same class in this school of visual arts.
AboutFilm: What visual arts are you involved in?
Lemarquis: I do a lot of things. Drawings, some videos, animation, collage, different things.
AboutFilm: Have you had any exhibitions?
Lemarquis: Yeah, I was just now in the final exhibition at my school, because I just graduated this year, and I had one exhibition after that.
AboutFilm: Let's talk just a bit about Iceland. What would you tell somebody who doesn't know very much about Iceland? How would you describe it to somebody, other than it's cold?
Lemarquis: It's not so cold, actually, because we have the Gulf Stream. Like you see in the film, it's cold there in the north. But in Reykjavik, it's around zero during the wintertime, and it's pretty dry. It should be much colder, compared to the latitude. But, I don't know what to say about Iceland in one sentence.
AboutFilm: I guess it's hard to describe superficially something you know so intimately. Is it difficult to be involved in the arts in a small, remote country? Is there a large arts community in Iceland?
Lemarquis: Large? Certainly not. There are only 300,000 people in Iceland. There are maybe five films each year, which is quite a lot.
AboutFilm: Proportionally, that seems like quite a few.
Lemarquis: Yeah. And also a lot of artists and music coming out. I'm lucky to come from Iceland today, because I think we—also Scandinavia—we have a kind of fashion. There has been some focus on Iceland now, in Europe at least. People are interested in Iceland, and going there, and listening to music from Iceland. It helps us, I think.
AboutFilm: How did you become involved in films?
Lemarquis: Actually, there are a few connections, how we met, me and Dagur [Kári]. We were together in the same college, and my father—who was the French teacher in the film—he taught French to Dagur in the same college. He liked him a lot as a teacher. He actually taught him to make some mayonnaise [like in the film]. And [then] I was acting in another film [Villiljos]—there were five directors and Dagur Kari was one of them. He was not directing the part I was in, but that's where he saw me and asked me to come and act in his film. He didn't do any casting.
AboutFilm: Did he show you a script? What was it about the script specifically that spoke to you?
Lemarquis: I really liked it, the script. I just had a lot of sympathy for Noi. He's so misunderstood. [laughs]
AboutFilm: How did you get the budget together to finance this? Was it difficult to get the production together?
Lemarquis: Yeah. If you want to do a film in Iceland, you always have to go through the Iceland Film Fund. And, after you have the money from there, you can go and look for money elsewhere. This was a big co-production film with Germany and Denmark and the UK. The co-production office is situated in Paris. [Producer] Philippe Bober contacted us after he saw Dagur Kári's graduate film, Lost Weekend, the film he did in Danish Film School. He got a lot of prizes also for directing, which was quite nice for him. And Philippe Bober saw his film and wanted to work with Dagur, and I think he's the one who had the contacts.
AboutFilm: How long was the shoot?
Lemarquis: All in all it was about six weeks.
AboutFilm: I understand that you were very dependent on snow, and that you weren't getting the snow. Did that make things frustrating?
Lemarquis: No, but we were really, really lucky. Dagur has the right stars. There was no snow two days before we went north shooting, but we just had to go, and then [suddenly] we [got] all the snow to go with the outdoor scenes. Then all the snow went away, and we could just finish the indoor scenes. We had to hide that there was no snow outside. There is one scene actually in the film that you see there is no snow, the scene with the rainbow.
AboutFilm: Yes, that looked a little different.
Lemarquis: Dagur wanted to use it. He likes to work a lot like this. He was always changing things, and seeing some things, and deciding to shoot there. It was just improvised. He saw this rainbow; he stopped the car and shot that scene. The same for the scene with the fly. I was just playing with the fly, and he said, “Why don't we shoot this?”
AboutFilm: Yeah, that seemed very spontaneous. So, what do you think the film is saying, if anything? Do you think it has a message?
Lemarquis: Yeah, I think there's a lot of things in this film. Maybe a message, but there's no one message. That's really how Dagur thinks. He's not trying to have a message which is clear to the spectator. It's up to everyone to decide what he sees. But, yeah, there is a message. There are also some signs you can see, and some quotations. It's pretty subtle, and not too big, I think.
AboutFilm: What does the ending mean to you, personally?
Lemarquis: For me—even if it's really tragic and terrible—he loses all his friends, but I look at it really in a positive way. I think it's his only hope. It's a new beginning for Nói. It's his only way out.
AboutFilm: Out of tragedy, something new can begin.
Lemarquis: Yes. It's the only way to continue. He can't live there. I don't mean it's a good thing that he loses everything.
AboutFilm: Every single person in his life is killed. Do you think that he is in any way responsible? There is a scene early in the film where he's actually shooting those large ice formations with a shotgun. Is there an implication that he might in some way be responsible for the avalanche?
Lemarquis: Yeah, some people see that. I personally don't look at it in this way, but yeah, at one time in the script, that was a possibility. That was the case. But I don't think he is responsible, no.
AboutFilm: What should Noi have done if there hadn't been a cataclysm to free him?
Lemarquis: This is difficult. There is no one advice for that situation. But, I think it's—I respect this character. I really think he follows his heart. What he thinks is the right thing, even if sometimes it's a little bit stupid, at least he really follows his heart.
AboutFilm: What about you? Does the success of this film open new horizons to you?
Lemarquis: Yeah, I certainly hope so. I wouldn't say yes, because I'm just beginning now to have a sense of having something else. A few days ago I just got this nomination for the European Film Awards.
AboutFilm: Do you think you might work with Dagur Kári again?
Lemarquis: Yeah, I hope so. We haven't discussed that yet.
AboutFilm: I understand he's working in Denmark. Do you speak other languages, other than Icelandic and English and French?
Lemarquis: Yeah, I speak Danish, too. We learn Danish in school, but I speak it with an accent. I think he is shooting this film in Denmark with Danish actors.
AboutFilm: Would you like to work in American films?
Lemarquis: I would like to work in any country in an interesting project. The country is not so important.
AboutFilm: Do you live in Iceland or in Paris now?
Lemarquis: I just recently moved to Paris. I found an agent there, and I'm going to try making a career there, in film, and I also work as an artist besides. And I'm also looking for an agent in London now.
AboutFilm: What can you tell me about Dagur's approach as a director? You mentioned that he wanted to keep things very realistic, and that he would improvise using what was available on location. Is there anything else that is particular or idiosyncratic to his approach?
Lemarquis: Yeah. Like the choice of actors, for example—a lot of non-professional actors in this film. Both him and me, we don't like too much “actors” with a big A, you know. Like, “Here I come!” style. For example, I went to theater school in France, and when I finished I thought I would never go back to acting again. I don't want to be acting in theater, at least now. It's not for me. I'm sick of all this theater world, all these actors, and all that.
AboutFilm: Is that acting with a capital A, to you? Theatrical acting?
Lemarquis: It can be. Yeah, it can be. I was in a very big school; it was a factory. It was not very human, and I was looking for something more human in the acting of relationship between people. I thought it was not very interesting when I went back to the school of visual arts, then I went back to acting. The point is that—we talked a lot about it before shooting—the direction Dagur wanted to go was pretty much non-acting, but more of listening and reacting, in a really realistic way. Just to be. The film also is not really going anywhere. It's not a linear story. It's more small acts put together. We're not trying to have a big dramatic landscape. There are some dramatic events, but often nothing special is happening. Just be. That was something we wanted to do.
AboutFilm: I understand that the film Dagur is doing in Denmark is a Dogme film. Would you say that Nói albinói is similar to that?
Lemarquis: Actually he was supposed to do a Dogme, but it came out that it's not going to be a Dogme film. Dogme is not his style.
AboutFilm: How does he differ, then? You've spoken about naturalism, about using what's available—how does Dagur differ from Dogme?
Lemarquis: I think he likes to have some things. Like, it's Super 16 millimeter. He likes to have a stable camera. It's not hand-held. There are some things he likes to prepare.
AboutFilm: Do you think that the Icelandic film industry, sort of in the same way as the music community, will come to greater international notice as a result of this movie?
Lemarquis: Yeah, I think it all helps. And also, it's really stimulating because it's really small in Reykjavik, and we all know each other. The artists, they are my friends. It's always good to see that someone can go out of Iceland and do some things. The doors are just opening now, and it's stimulating to see.
AboutFilm: What do you hope for this film in the United States? There is a certain resistance to foreign cinema in the United States sometimes, and yet this film touches on some very universal and resonant themes. What do you expect?
Lemarquis: I think it's very dangerous to expect some things, ever. The only thing I can do is hope it will be well received. We will just see.
Question: Where did the character Noi come from?Kári: It was an unusually long process, which is usually the case with a first feature film. You've had your whole life to prepare for it, and in my case I invented this character when I was seventeen or eighteen. At that time I hadn't even made the decision to become a filmmaker. I just had an image of this strange teenager who was different from everybody else. I collected ideas and situations around this character. Then I went to film school, and when I finished film school I had loads of material for this character, and I decided to make it my first feature film.
Question: What did you see in Tómas Lemarquis that moved you cast him in the lead role, and what are your impressions of him as an actor?
Kári: The character sprang out of the title Nói Albinoi , which means Noi The Albino. For awhile I saw him as a cartoon character, so right from the start he had a very graphic feel in my mind. When I sat down to write the script I was concerned that I would not be able to find a young, talented actor who had a striking appearance. But I'd actually known Tómas for years, and at the time I was piecing the script together he was taking his first steps as an actor. It was immediately clear to me that he was the only guy in Iceland who could do this part. Nói really has to stand out in a crowd and be totally different from everybody else. He represented all of these qualities.
Working with him was very enjoyable. He was really concentrated about it, and always ready. He's an unusual actor to work with. He's an extremely physical person, so he can't be still. When he was not in front of the camera, he immediately went to help the gaffers or the art department or whatever department could use him. This kind of worried me because I was afraid his concentration would be too spread out, but then he explained to me that this was his way of keeping his concentration. If he just sat down in a chair, he would be gone. That was quite funny to see.
Question: There are many spontaneous moments that you captured in the film, like the scene with the fly and the scene with the rainbow. Are there any others?
Kári: That was maybe the most important lesson to me when making this film—the power of the unexpected, and how important it is to be open to the unexpected gifts that can come into a film and make it richer. It's a really difficult task because you are on a very tight schedule, and you have to try to maintain your vision. One of the most important things is to combine that with an openness so that you don't have tunnel vision on the script. You're trying to make it more alive and rich than what you wrote on paper. In our case, unfortunately, we only had one day where just me, the DP and Tómas were playing around with no crew. That day we shot both the scene with the fly and the rainbow, and a couple of other things that are some of my favorite moments in the film.
Question: A natural disaster occurs at the end of the film. Earlier in the movie, we see Nói shooting at these huge ice formations on the side of a mountain with a shotgun. Is this act responsible for what happens in the end?
Kári: I really wanted the film to be open, and what I find interesting is to leave a lot of clues that the audience can piece together according to their own liking or personality. What you're mentioning is not clear in the film, but it's a possibility. You can sort of take it or leave it.
Question: I have heard that your next film is going to be a Dogme movie. What are your impressions of Dogme filmmaking?
Kári: It's kind of a misunderstanding. The film is not going to be in any relation to Dogme. It's just a Danish film. At some very early stage, it started as a Dogme project but I moved away from that. It's just going to be a Danish film, but there's no connection to Dogme.
Question: Why did you decide to move away from Dogme?
Kári: What is good is about Dogme is the flexibility and space to be spontaneous. It cuts right to the bone of the essence of filmmaking, because you're not allowed to use any effects or tricks or gimmicks. I think it was a very powerful thing what happened with these films, and it brought a lot of energy to the Danish film industry. Denmark became a trendsetter for much of Europe and even the world. But at this moment in time, I think it's quite ridiculous to make films according to some rules and to have the results approved by the Dogme brotherhood. It's done its job, I think.
Question: What else can you tell me about your new film?
Kári: We start shooting in May of this year. It's quite different from Noi. This time I started from scratch with no story and no characters. I wrote the script with a friend. We just emptied our notebooks and started to collect ideas and out of that grew a story. Noi was shot in the winter and it was cold and difficult, so I attempted to make a summer film this time.
Stimulating cinema: Noi
Year: 2003
Editor's note: The following was originally written for my short-lived movie blog that had the catchy name of "A-flick-ted." Get it? Well, I like it. Anyway, that would explain the cold weather references even though this is being posted in June. I've been too busy today to do the required editing so that's that. Good movie though, should definitely check it out again.
It's been cold here in Memphis, Tennessee over the last couple of weeks. A couple of days ago, we got hit with "Snowmageddon 2011." It really came down and we ended up with a good four or five inches. I know, if you're reading this in the mid-Atlantic or up north you're going "cry me a river, man. You wouldn't last 10 minutes up here." And you'd probably be right, because the older I get the less I like the cold. I remember being a kid and playing football in the snow WITHOUT COATS and rolling around on the ground for hours on end. How did I do it? I really have to shake my head at that one.
I also probably wouldn't last very long in rural Iceland, the setting for this great, great film. If I ever make a "top 10" list, this will definitely be on it. "Noi" hits me in all the right places--it makes me laugh, think and while not it doesn't make me cry, there is still an element of sadness that hangs over the proceedings that does affect me. I've watched this movie twice lately and each time it ended I felt that same way--warmth toward Noi the character, tinged with sympathy and sorrow. One of the frequent complaints about bad movies is how there is often little connection between the characters and the viewer--you don't "care about" the characters. I dare anyone with a heart to not care about the character of Noi and his trials as he tried to find himself at a difficult age and in difficult surroundings.
Noi (played by the wonderfully expressive Tomas Lemarquis) is a high-school student and the brightest kid in the school. But school holds no interest for him and when he's not skipping class altogether, he's snoozing at his desk. Noi lives with his grandmother (Anna Fridriksdottir), a really funny, eccentric yet loving character who fires a shotgun in order to wake Noi in time for school and gives him a Viewmaster for his birthday (in a brief, but really touching scene). He also frequently sees his dad, Kiddi (Throstur Leo Gunnarsson), a failed singer, Elvis fanatic and hard drinking loser. A ray of sunshine appears early in the form of Iris (Elin Hansdottir), a city girl who has come to work at the local gas station. Noi and she quickly become an item and both yearn to escape their dreary surroundings to someplace better. After Noi's inevitable expulsion from school, he concocts a plan for them to do just that, but things don't go to plan, leading to the film's gut-wrenching climax.
There is so much to admire about this film. The Icelandic scenery is breathtaking--I'd love to go one day and experience it in person but for now, this will have to do. There are several really funny scenes--not laugh-out-loud funny necessarily but truly, genuinely funny all the same. And the cast is really stellar, from Lemarquis on down. Lemarquis really is something to watch in this movie. Everything he does is subtle--an offhand comment here, a raised eyebrow there--but he is able to convey 1,000 words in each expression. And his look just adds to the character. Noi is an outcast because he is refusing to conform to small-town life. But Noi is a physical outcast as well--with his bald head and deep-set eyes, Lemarquis looks like a human embodiment of the guy in Munch's "Scream." He looks like no one else in town and pretty much like no one else you've ever seen. But his look works with the character and adds extra layers of sympathy and believability.
This is the kind of movie that it's really a shame more people haven't heard about it or seen it. But in a way I'm glad--it's like my own little secret that I have just for me, that I can enjoy over and over again.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Stimulating somebodies: Harold Williams, the world's greatest polyglot
New Zealander Harold Williams was listed by the "Guinness Book of Records" as the world's greatest linguist. He is said to have spoken over 58 languages fluently as well as some of their dialects--Swahili, Hausa and Zulu among them. This amazing polyglot was said to "read grammars as others read detective stories." He was the foreign editor of the times; described as "the most brilliant foreign correspondent" his generation had known, he "knew everyone and everything ... and was always at the point of greatest interest and risk." Williams' editorials on foreign affairs were regarded as the authoritarian version. His personal qualities and his expansive knowledge, particularly of Russian affairs, led to associations with some of the most influential people of the time, from statesmen to writers such as H.G. Wells and Hugh Walpole (also born in New Zealand).
An Explosion in the Brain
Williams was born in Auckland on 6 April, 1876, the eldest of seven sons. His parents had emigrated from Cornwall, England, and his father, the Reverend W.J. Williams, was one of the early leaders of the Methodist church in New Zealand, for many years editing the Methodist Times. Williams senior was well-read and gave Harold early instruction in the classics. Like most youngsters his age, Harold wasn’t possessed by a voracious appetite for learning, but he recalled that, when he was about seven, ‘an explosion in his brain’ occurred and from that time his capacity to learn, in particular languages, grew to an extraordinary degree. He began with the study of Latin, one of the great root languages, and hungrily acquired others, almost by osmosis.
As a schoolboy he constructed a grammar and vocabulary of the New Guinea language, Dobuan from a copy of St Mark’s Gospel written in that language. Next he compiled a vocabulary of the dialect of Niue Island, again from the Gospel written in that language, and was published in the Polynesian Journal. Behaving as if he were single-handedly attempting to restore the tower of Babel, Harold spent his pocket money purchasing New Testaments from an obliging Christchurch bookseller in as many languages as he could. By the end of his life he had studied the bible in twenty-six languages, including Zulu, Swahili and Hausa. Before attending Christchurch and Timaru Boys' High Schools he had managed to teach himself Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Maori, Samoan, Tongan, Fijian and other Polynesian dialects.
In 1893 the Williams family moved to Auckland, where the teenage Harold would visit ships at the Auckland wharves so that he could converse with Polynesian and Melanesian crew members in their own tongue. He sat for his BA at Auckland University, but was failed because of an inability to sufficiently master mathematics, and, on the instruction of his father, entered the Methodist Ministry at the age of 20. After appointments in St Albans, Christchurch, and Inglewood, Taranaki, he went to the Northern Wairoa district around Dargaville where there were crowds of gumdiggers of diverse nationalities. He quickly absorbed their languages and then begun to study Russian and Polish, inspired in part by an interest in the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy (War and Peace, Anna Karenina).
As Harold wrote to a Christchurch friend Macie Bevan Lovell-Smith, he was "struggling with reading Tolstoy in his native tongue". Harold’s admiration for Tolstoy was not only literary, but philosophical. Like Tolstoy, Williams was a vegetarian, he tried to practice non-resistance, and was a proponent of "the doctrine of Christian Anarchism." He enjoyed preaching, but his speech was marred by a stammer, and some members of his congregation were suspicious of his intellectualism, socialist views and pacifism. Conservative members of the clergy also harboured suspicions, as Eugene Grayland writes in Famous New Zealanders, "His clerical superiors distrusted his views and disapproved of some of the heterodox books in his library, touching on evolution and such matters."
Slavonic Crazes
In June 1899 Harold wrote, "I have had rather slavonic crazes lately." One of these crazes would eventually be the compulsion for him to leave New Zealand. In 1900, aged 23, Harold decided to "embark on a pilgrimage" determined to visit the home of Tolstoy at Yasnaya Polyana. With a grant of £50 to cover the voyage (from a director of the New Zealand Herald who had been informed of his talents), and no scholarships or other assistance, he set off for Europe. He went first to Berlin and by the time he arrived at Berlin University he already knew twenty languages. There, and at Munich University, he studied philology, ethnology, philosophy, history and literature. These years as a student were marked by poverty - Harold’s money from New Zealand had quickly run out - and he was forced to sell his books and the prizes he had won at school. He taught English part-time to make some money and he often had only a few hours each day to pursue his studies. There were days when he had nothing to eat, but he persevered and gained his PhD (in languages) from Munich in 1903.
Williams next undertook the study of Slavic languages and as a result became interested in Russian affairs. He toyed with becoming a University teacher, but instead entered journalism. The Times correspondent in St. Petersberg, D.D. Braham, had been expelled and was organising a news service from adjacent countries. He appointed Williams as a special correspondent to work with exiled Russian liberals in Stuttgart. The city had become the centre of organised political opposition by Russian political refugees working towards reform in their own country.
Later Williams obtained positions with the progressive Manchester Guardian in Russia, and worked towards Anglo-Russian rapprochement as special correspondent for the Morning Post in Russia in 1911 and Turkey in 1912. By 1914 he was writing for the Daily Chronicle dispatching telegrams and feature articles from all over the Russian Empire. He was in constant pursuit of his avowed quest "to serve the great cause of liberty".
His work in Russia enabled him, in 1905, to meet Tolstoy, and they talked of politics, literature and morality. Reportedly Tolstoy asked him why he had learnt Russian and received the reply,
"Because I wanted to read Anna Karenina in the original."
"But how many languages do you know?" Tolstoy asked.
"A few."
"But how many? Ten?"
Finally, Tolstoy insisted on the languages being enumerated. The interview was published in the Manchester Guardian on 9th February 1905, but for Williams the meeting was not a success. He was disappointed with Tolstoy’s withdrawal from the world of political reality and the consequences of contemporary events. A believer in individual liberty, Williams found himself sympathetic towards the left-wing reformers, the Cadets and Liberals. In these circles he met and married Ariadna Tyrkova, the ‘Madame Roland’ of Russia.
Authority on Russian Affairs
His remarkable knowledge of Russia soon established him as an authority on Russian affairs. He had freely travelled into every part of the country accumulating an immense amount of knowledge about Russia--its people, history, art and politics--augmented no doubt by his acquisition of Finnish, Lettish, Estonian, Georgian and Tartar. He also acquired a grasp of Russian grammar that was better than that of most of his Russian friends. His dispatches were thus more than disinterested journalism they were the personal accounts of an observer living intimately in a society. His book, Russia and the Russians, reflected not only Williams' knowledge, but his astute mind, as H.G. Wells (War of the Worlds, Time Machine) appreciates in a glowing 1914 review for the Daily News:
"In a series of brilliant chapters, Doctor Williams has given as complete and balanced an account of present-day Russia as any one could desire … I could go on, sitting over this book and writing about it for days ... it is the most stimulating book upon international relations and the physical and intellectual being of a state that has been put before the English reader for many years."
Williams was always liberal in sharing his knowledge (the title of Tyrkova’s biography of him is Cheerful Giver), and it was his many interest, broad and esoteric, that initially led to associations with eminent writers of the time, Wells*, Frank Swinnerton, and Hugh Walpole, associations that would develop into enduring friendships. In September 1914 Walpole arrived in Russia, and he met Williams in Petrograd. After the out- break of war, both accompanied the Russian Army into the Carpathians. Williams was the only foreign correspondent to take part in Cossack raids penetrating over the Hungarian frontier. From there he dispatched to the British public authoritative reports on military, political and social conditions.
War and Peace
During these times, Williams often reminisced about his life in New Zealand. Confronted by a decimated little church surrounded by devastation and the bodies of dead Austrian soldiers, Williams was provoked to make telling, uneasy comparisons with his life in New Zealand.
"Russian troops have gone to France, and no doubt will meet there Englishmen, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and even brown men from the Pacific Islands of Raratonga and Niue. It would be a delight to see a little Russian Soldier dancing a hopak as an offset to a Maori haka. This is romance, but the reality from which it springs is that the British and Russian Empires are now engaged in mutual discovery. The spirit of the world is weaving out of this new friendship between Russia and England a wonderful garment of colour."
In 1916, Walpole and Williams, on the instruction of the Foreign Office, set up a British Propaganda Office in Petrograd. Co-operating with the Russian press, they organised and managed efforts to bring the Allies together, working towards "this quickening interchange of thought and feeling and aspiration" between the British and Russians. Walpole would later refer to Williams' "tact, experience, and kindness" to him during his time in Russia, and would often defer to Williams' "encyclopedic" knowledge. In August 1916, he returned briefly to Britain to give a special lecture at Cambridge University, entitled, "Russian Nationalities".
As the war progressed Williams foresaw the coming revolution in Russia, insistently reporting to British Ambassador Buchanan that discontent was growing. Williams often acknowledged the romantic quality of his yearning to see international peace realised, and began also to see that the war had obscured vast tears in the fabric of the Russian domestic environment.
Throughout 1917, as the events of the Bolshevik revolution unfolded, he sent regular dispatches to the Daily Chronicle, up until 18 March 1918, the date of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty by the All-Russian Council of Soviets. The scholar Sir Bernard Pares noted in 1931, that Williams' accurate and vivid articles "are amongst the sources of Russian history".
In 1918 increasingly violent events forced Williams and his wife to flee their beloved Russia, and he was immediately recruited as part of the Committee on Russian Affairs, along with Buchanan, Walpole, Bernard Pares and others. An advocate of liberal reform, Williams advocated Allied intervention in the revolution, and he was sought after as one of the few people who knew the Soviet leaders intimately, recounting to the British Prime Minister Lloyd George that Trotsky’s last words to him before he left Russia were, "It will be the happiest day of my life when I see a revolution in England." Lloyd George disregarded his advice of intervention in Russia, even as Williams' prophecies were being realised. Williams continued to write for the Daily Chronicle and addressed a more influential reading public with his contributions to New Europe. He met Frank Swinnerton at the Lyceum Club. Swinnerton like Walpole, reviewed for Rhythm and the Blue Review - two avant-garde journals run by Katherine Mansfield and John Middleton Murry. Later in his autobiography Swinnerton would affectionately regard Williams as "the sort of friend who told me his affairs without disguise and received my domestic news as if they had affected himself." And wrote of his qualities as a journalist:
"…one who seemed by instinct to go where the raw material of the news was occurring, who if one walked with him in any street or town, would often dart across the road to buy another newspaper; but he found time to hear of and read all sorts of unlikely books in multitudinous languages, and would often give one unexpectedly humorous summaries of what he had been reading which threw glancing lights upon the irony underlying his simple faith … one thought of him as a scholar and a visionary as well as a journalist. He combined a serenely happy-go-lucky air with an unembittered sadness at the fate of Russia."
Down and Out in Fleet Street
On his return from Russia he taught himself Japanese, Old Irish, Tagalog, Hungarian, Czech, Coptic, Egyptian, Hittite, Albanian, Basque and Chinese. He mastered the Cunniform inscriptions and a book of 12,000 Chinese Mandarin characters.
Back in London Williams felt underemployed and despondent. Despite the fact that he had witnessed first-hand two wars, three civil wars and revolutions, and was applauded as one of the great journalists of his age, he now found himself jobless. It seems vast knowledge of languages and societies wasn’t high on the list of post-war curriculum-vitae priorities.
Foreign Editor for the Times
In 1921 his luck changed. The editor of the Times, Wickham Steed (who himself spoke several languages), offered Williams a position as a leader writer. In May 1922, he was appointed foreign editor (or as the Times would phrase it, ‘Director of the Foreign Department’). Although his interest in Russia never waned, in this influential position he was now responsible for interpreting and passing judgement on political events all over the world for the pre-eminent newspaper of the time. As always, he was outspoken on issues that he believed were morally right, commenting on European affairs, but also those in Asia, China, the United States, Japan, India and the Commonwealth. The impetus of his leader articles always gestured towards a desire to preserve peace through the creation of European security. Aspiring towards "moral disarmament" he did much to promote and bring to a gratifying conclusion the Treaty of Locarno of December 1925. As he wrote to his father in New Zealand,
"For the first time for eleven years, the chief nations of Europe are really at peace … I am very thankful today. After all one can sometimes do a good piece of work."
Typically, he used his knowledge as a tool of diplomacy and was able to talk to every delegate in their own language. Williams held the position of foreign editor for six years before his untimely death in 1928. He had been unwell, but was about to go to Egypt on an assignment for the Times, when he collapsed. He had blood transfusions and seemed to rally, but died on 18 November 1928, after taking the sacraments of the Russian church the night before.
Death of a Cheerful Giver Mourned
The Times, a newspaper normally careful to project an aura of objectivity through its policy of maintaining staff anonymity devoted an entire column to Williams' obituary.
"His literary ability and political judgement were abundantly manifested in the numerous leading articles which he contributed to the Times until within the last fortnight of his life … to the Times indeed, his loss is irreparable. Not only was his knowledge of international affairs most extensive and accurate, but he had a remarkable gift of sympathy which enabled him to write of them both definitely and without offence, while his origin as a New Zealander always preserved him from too narrow a regard for the politics of Europe. He had many friends in the diplomatic world, where he was as much respected for his kindness as he was for his experience and his grasp of the essential factors of the most complicated situations."
Williams' pacific openness was exemplified in his relationship with H.G. Wells. Despite marked differences of opinion and philosophy over the direction events in Russia had taken, they had an understanding based on mutual respect. As Tyrkova-Williams writes in Cheerful Giver, "they understood each other at half a word, at a glance even." In a letter before Williams died, Wells refers to his "old friend", and after Williams' death he wrote that his admiration for him remained "very great indeed."
Sir Austen Chamberlain, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, described Williams' death as, "in a very real sense a national loss." He walked with the most prominent figures of his day, yet remained unassuming; the Times obituary called him, "a very lovable man, modest to a fault."
Williams with his grand-daughter, late 1920s.
Williams traversed the edges of the globe, literally and linguistically. His parents came from Cornwall to New Zealand and as Eugene Grayland writes, "their boys inherited their love of the sea. Harold Williams' wife has said that whenever Harold looked at the sea his light blue eyes would grow more tender and darker." Williams went from New Zealand to devour the world. He stood, absorbing, on the edge of countries, civilisations and cultures, offering a life to match the expanse of his experience. The poet Maurice Baring wrote these lines as a tribute to Harold Williams:
Upon the bread and salt of Russia fed,
His heart her high sorrow seared and bled;
He kept the bitter bread and gave away
The shining salt, to all who came his way.
Stimulating sports: The sad story of Matthias Sindelar
A few seconds of grainy newsreel, a handful of fragile press cuttings, a street name, a grave. Such is the meagre legacy of Matthias Sindelar--one of the world's greatest soccer players, the Pelé of the interwar years, a sporting genius who not only took the game into the modern era, but snubbed Hitler en route. Many believe that the Austrian centre-forward's contempt for the Nazis cost him his life. But has Austria snubbed Sindelar?
In a small country not overflowing with world-class sports heroes or, for that matter, high-profile anti-fascist martyrs, the absence of Sindelar from Austria's official past and present is strange. No statues, no stadium name, no posters. No football academy bears his name; there has been no big biopic, no exhibition, no plaques, no new investigation into his suspicious death. A recent poll in Austria confirmed Sindelar as the nation's all-time greatest sports star, yet soccer fans in the country for Euro 2008 will struggle to find any sign of him.
It's an omission that even some Austrians, long used to institutionalised strangeness, find baffling. "It is an amazing lack-- a puzzle, but also a real shame," says the Austrian soccer historian Dr Erich Krenslehner. "For a great star like Sindelar, not to have a memorial of some sort is very unusual, a mystery." So why is a nation so adept at the chocolate-box glorification of Mozart, Strauss and Haydn reluctant to embrace the memory of its finest sportsman?
A bronze football tops the marble slab over Sindelar's grave at Vienna's Zentralfriedhof cemetery. His gentle face, cast in bronze-- high forehead, hair receding, the metal bright green with verdigris-- stares out from the headstone above the dates 1903-1939. He is in vintage kit-- floppy collar, lace-up neck. On the green metal face, seven decades of rain have left dark streaks from the hairline down to the neck that look like ghostly post-match sweat. There are no flowers.
Austria, Euro 2008 co-hosts, start this year's competition ranked 88th in the world, yet for the best part of a decade--and just about within living memory--Austria was, with England, the most feared side in world soccer, and it could boast the world's leading player.
Matthias Sindelar was an almost freakishly talented footballer who waltzed around opponents with ease. Above all, he possessed what the pundits called "wit"; he was, said one, a man who played soccer "as a grandmaster played chess".
The sports writers christened Sindelar "der Papierne"--"the paper man" who fluttered around the pitch. To the ethnic Czech, Hungarian and Polish factory workers and the cafe-society dilettantes and bourgeoisie, many of them Jewish, who flocked to see him play for his club, FK Austria Wien, however, he was their "Sindi". And Sindi, quite simply, was playing soccer like no one else in the world.
Sindelar was "new" Viennese. His parents were Catholics from Moravia, now in the Czech Republic. He spoke in the slurred Viennese dialect, and grew up in the drab, poor suburb of Favoriten, a bastion of the left. "In his speech, in his manner, he was an ordinary Viennese person," recalls Franz Schwarz, son of the 1920s and 1930s Austrian team president and now, in his nineties, one of the few people alive to have met Sindelar. "But he was something very special in his talent, really exceptional."
Starting in spring 1931 with a 5-0 demolition of Scotland, at the time one of Europe's most revered teams, the red-and-whites would be unbeaten for the next 19 internationals, pushing 11 goals past Germany's goalkeeper in just two matches, with none conceded. All of Europe's top teams were toppled. In December 1932 the side, now dubbed the Wunderteam, was ready to take on the world's most potent force: England.
A crowd of 60,000 packed Stamford Bridge to see the Austrians play England, while an even bigger throng crammed into Vienna's Heldenplatz for a radio commentary. The Wunderteam nearly pulled it off, running circles around England-- but lost, just, 4-3. The British press hailed the newcomers: "English team lucky to win", was the Manchester Guardian's verdict. "There could not be the slightest doubt that as a team (Austria) were the superiors." "It was victory and no more," said the Times. "And it was by no means easily earned."
By the summer of 1934 Austria had won or drawn 28 out of 31 games and Sindelar's fame had spread even to the soccer-phobic United States. Sindi had begun to earn big money, endorsing sharp suits and luxury cars, gambling and womanising much of the cash away. The Wunderteam seemed unstoppable--but this was 1930s Mitteleuropa.
The Nazi ideologues liked international soccer. It was mass-propaganda-friendly, and there was the prospect of inevitable victory upon victory: a collective triumph of the national athletic will. Nazi Germany's soccer team found victory far from inevitable: they were, at best, middle-rankers. But the Führer's pudgy sports advisers had a plan.
One of the first actions of the new National Socialist government in Austria, set up after the March 1938 Anschluss, was to disband the country's professional football association, one of the oldest in the world. Jewish sports clubs and soccer teams were outlawed and their grounds seized, Jewish players barred, Jewish club officials sacked. Many fled abroad. Others, fatally, stayed put. Austria was to become Ostmark, a province of the Reich. Its soccer team would itself be annexed, players "invited" to join the German side; the team name "Austria" would go.
Many players and officials acquiesced to the takeover and some were even enthusiastic, active supporters. Sindelar, it seems, was not.
FK Austria Wien shed many of its directors, players and officials, sacked for being, or suspected of being, Jewish. Among them was the veteran club president Dr Michl Schwarz. Those who survived the purges were instructed not to speak to sacked colleagues. Sindelar refused. "The new club president has forbidden us to talk to you," he told the highly respected Schwarz shortly before the deposed president fled abroad, "but I will always speak to you, Herr Doktor." A clash with the New Order was on the cards.
On 3 April 1938, just weeks after the Nazis annexed Austria, the Wunderteam took to the field for the last time-- against Germany. The Nazi sports authorities billed the match, at Vienna's Prater Stadium, as a "reunification" derby, a 90-minute celebration of Germanic brotherhood. It proved to be one of the most extraordinary soccer matches ever played.
Nazi propagandists ordained that the showpiece clash was to end as a low-scoring draw. For his part, Sindelar, it is said, demanded that his team be allowed to wear their traditional strip, not a new "non-national" kit, and that they be known for this, their last match, as "Austria". The Nazis agreed.
The Wunderteam spent the first half of the match sullenly trying not to score. Up front, Sindelar and his team-mate Karl Sesta acted dumb, allowing the Germans to dictate play. The play-acting continued into the second half. But then, at around 70 minutes, something snapped. Sindi flicked a rebound from the German goalkeeper into the bottom right-hand corner of the net. The crowd erupted.Nazi functionaries looked on in disbelief as, minutes later, Sesta slammed the ball into the German goal from 45 yards. 2-0. At full-time, the Prater Stadium crowd went wild, shouting: "Österreich, Österreich!" while, one account goes, Sindi ran up to the box containing Nazi dignitaries and club officials and waltzed around, alone, grinning.
Ten months later he was dead.
Sindelar's last year was bizarre. Even as Vienna lurched towards open thuggery and the "legal" seizure of property from Jewish citizens began, Sindelar apparently maintained close - and public--friendships with Jews.
Several times he was "requested", reportedly at the very highest level, to join the German (and thoroughly Nazi) national sports training organisation. Again he refused.
Was he suicidally principled, or just taking yet another losing punt - this time on the New Order fading fast? It would have been easy for Sindelar to take a job abroad, and he had influential friends in English soccer, but his next move was an unpredictable twist.
In summer 1938 Sindi, the "chess grandmaster of soccer", even in his mid-thirties one of the most bankable players in the world, bought a scruffy street-corner cafe in lowly Favoriten and turned his back on soccer.
The cafe's previous owner, a Jewish acquaintance of Sindelar's called Leopold Drill, was being turfed out by the Nazis--one of the many "legalised" thefts taking place throughout the city. The star, it is said, stepped in with a cash offer for the business that was far more generous than the pittance offered by local party bureaucrats. The deal done, Sindi slicked back his hair and quietly served beer and coffee to his old mates. The Gestapo kept the cafe under surveillance, noting that its new owner was friendly with all customers, Jews included. About half the clientele had been Jewish, the Gestapo estimated. Sindelar was known to be "not sympathetic" to the party, it was reported.
And then, on 23 January 1939, a friend, worried that he had not seen Sindelar for some time, forced his way into his flat on Annagasse in the city centre. He found the star in bed, dead. Lying beside him was his latest lover. Unconscious, she lived a few hours longer. Sindelar was 35. The police investigation concluded that the couple had died from carbon monoxide poisoning. A chimney flue was found to be blocked, and poor maintenance blamed. Few believed the official version.
More than 20,000 people turned out for Sindi's funeral. In some ways it was Vienna's first, and last, rally against the Nazis. In other respects, however, it was no more than a fare well to a local hero.
That ambiguity, a Viennese trait then and now, is at the heart of the Sindelar story. The British film classic The Third Man, filmed in part amid the bomb sites of the Austrian capital nearly a decade after the player's death, captured the mood and manners of the city: shadows, secrets and whispers. The whispering endures.
The few facts surrounding Sindelar are entwined with rumours still circulating in Vienna. Take the police report on his death: lost in the war, says the Austrian national archive. No, there for the reading but hard to find, maintain some historians. Or Sindelar's cafe: bought by the star at a fair price to help out its fleeing Jewish owner, say some. No, "stolen" by an opportunist Sindelar for a fraction of its true value, say others. Or the player's death: clearly murder, many believe. No, it was suicide, a few argue, an act of despair at the fate of Austria - a theory popular among the left-leaning coffee-house literati who idolised him. Or a gangland hit, linked to the star's supposedly huge gambling debts. Or murder at the hands of his lover, who then poisoned herself. Or a Gestapo killing to prevent Sindelar embarrassing the Reich by fleeing abroad. Or, yes, just an accident.
About Sindelar himself, Vienna's rumour mills have been working overtime. "He was really Jewish, not Catholic, you know, but kept it secret," went one whisper this past week. "Actually he was a Nazi, but maybe only 1 per cent of him. He could see the way things were going," was another.
The building that was once Sindelar's cafe was quietly demolished a couple of years ago. "They did not want it there as a reminder of him," said one fan, declining to elaborate on who "they" might be. "It was old, it had to go, development," shrugged another.
The few seconds of newsreel footage of Matthias Sindelar the football player are all that remains beyond doubt--a glimpse of a delicate, intuitive player with a kind face. And a face, for whatever reason, is just about all that survives of the Paper Man.
Stimulating cinema: Ace in the Hole
Year: 1951
It wasn't planned this way but it is fitting that the first time I ever saw this startlingly prescient movie during the week last year that Tiger Woods returned to The Masters following a self-imposed sabbatical in the wake of revelations about his marital infidelity and kinky sex life. Woods has been welcomed back by the fans with open arms--even though he has never gone out of his way to be particularly fan friendly. It is a huge problem that I have with modern day American culture--we are so desperate to be part of the scene--part of the story--that we will do almost anything to get involved, whether it's cheering for someone whose behavior is reprehensible or laying a teddy bear in the front yard of a kidnapped child we don't know.
Where does this need to be part of the story come from? Is it because most of our lives are so mundane? Are people hoping they'll be somehow magically discovered and their life will be transformed? Why do we make signs and run to the hospital when Michael Jackson is taken ill? Why does cable news go wall-to-wall with coverage of the Balloon Boy? Are we that pathetic? I've raised the questions but I have no answers. You see it all the time in sports but in real life too, where some family's tragedy becomes someone else's chance to shine. It's sad and it's a poor reflection on our national character. We are not all stars--there are stars and then there are us. They operate in their world and we operate in ours. They go to parties, date beautiful people and make zillions; we go get our oil changed and take our kids to the park if the weather is warm. Why can't we be happy with what we have? And why do we find someone else's tragedy a chance for us to get our 15 minutes?
Wilder once called the film "the runt of the litter," and apparently it was a big flop upon its initail release. But it is brilliant in the fact that it foreshadows so much of what today's media has become--covering the sizzle and not the story. For that alone, it deserves considerable praise and attention. It's not perfect--my main criticism was Kirk Douglas' hammy, almost cartoonish acting--but the supporting cast was tremendous and the story was gripping.
The scene: Albuquerque, N.M. Newspaper reporter Charles Tatum arrives in town with a broken down career and a career that is equally in trouble. By his own account, he's been fired from 11 newspapers with a combined circulation of over seven million. He's worn down his welcome in the big leagues so now he's in Albuquerque where the scrupulously honest and decent boss Mr. Boot (Porter Hall) agrees to take him on. After a year of covering the banal goings on in New Mexico, Tatum is going a little stir crazy and is dying to get back into the big time. But duty calls, and Boot sends him and impressionable young reporter Herbie (Robert Arthur) to cover a rattlesnake roundup a couple of hours down the road.
The two soon discover a much bigger story when they arrive--shopkeeper Leo Minosa (Richard Benedict) is trapped in an abandoned mine. Tatum goes down to see Leo, finds that he's in pretty good shape all things considered and promises they'll start to work on getting him out. But in reality, Leo is Tatum's meal ticket back to New York--he is good copy. As he tells Herbie, 84 people trapped in a mine really doesn't register but one person is human interest. Tatum files his initial story and it's the sensational hit he hoped. But it would be bad for business if Leo was rescued too soon--he needs to keep things going for a few days. Leo's wife Lorraine (Jan Sterling) is on board with this plan--their general store and souvenir business is practically dead and the inevitable attention would be good for business. Plus, she doesn't really care about Leo anyway and pretty much takes him for a sucker.
Tatum's plan unspools perfectly for all concerned--except of course Leo. Tatum convinces contractor Sam Smollett (Frank Jaquet) to drill straight down in an effort to reach Leo. This of course will drag a process that could have been done in 16 hours out several more days. He also buddies up to slimy sheriff Gus Kretzer (Ray Teal) who can protect his exclusivity on the story by making sure that other journalists can't get access to the trapped man. Kretzer is as dirty as the day is long, but he wants to get re-elected and playing ball with Tatum will help that become a reality.
Soon tourists are flocking to the site (admission to see the Indian ruins jumps from free to $1.00 in the course of the movie). Songs are written about Leo and carnival is even set up. Business is booming and Lorraine is making money hand over fist (she justifies her behavior by convincing herself that it's all for Leo's behalf). It's all great fun with everyone eagerly tuning into to live radio broadcasts in the hopes of receiving the latest word on Leo's condition or some precious nuggets of wisdom from star reporter Tatum. Meanwhile the only two people who truly care for the stricken man, his kind father (John Berkes) and grief-stricken prayerful mother (Frances Dominguez) are shamefully being manipulated along with everyone else.
I'll stop there because any more will probably jeopardize the ending. This movie was a real revelation for me, one that I had never heard of until recently. The best thing about this one is the supporting cast--characters like Boot, Leo, Smollett, Leo's dad and Kretzer conjure up genuine emotion and feelings. We admire Boot and Smollett for taking (or trying to) the high road; our heart breaks for Leo's dad, who only wants his boy back and we are reviled by the cynical machinations of Kretzer. And the New Mexico landscape provides a gorgeous setting for the spectacle that unfolds.
As I mentioned above, the film was not a huge hit. Bosley Crowther, writing in the New York Times called it a "a masterly film," but added. "Mr. Wilder has let imagination so fully take command of his yarn that it presents not only a distortion of journalistic practice but something of a dramatic grotesque ... (it) is badly weakened by a poorly constructed plot, which depends for its strength upon assumptions that are not only naïve but absurd. There isn't any denying that there are vicious newspaper men and that one might conceivably take advantage of a disaster for his own private gain. But to reckon that one could so tie up and maneuver a story of any size, while other reporters chew their fingers, is simply incredible." The Hollywood Reporter called it "ruthless and cynical ... a distorted study of corruption and mob psychology that ... is nothing more than a brazen, uncalled-for slap in the face of two respected and frequently effective American institutions--democratic government and the free press."
But the movie has gained renewed critical appreciation in recent times in light of the way our mass media now functions. Writing for Slant Magazine, Ed Gonzalez summed it up the best: "(It) allowed Wilder to question the very nature of human interest stories and the twisted relationship between the American media and its public. More than 50 years after the film's release, when magazines compete to come up with the cattiest buzz terms and giddily celebrate the demise of celebrity relationships for boffo bucks, "Ace in the Hole" feels more relevant than ever." The only question that now remains is, how low can we go?