| 
Posts and words
Loading ...
society
Frankie Boyle on modern society
By Will last year, at the end of October, 1 Comment »
Political correctness and the banality it engenders. Frankie Boyle is an angry, brilliant man. I’ve always admired people who speak their mind. I try to, and often do, but not as much as my Grandfather who’d think nothing of seeing someone in a weird hat, going over to them, and saying “Were you paid to wear that?” Or, in the nicest possible way and with absolutely no malice, greeting a Jewish person in a very loud voice with “Shalom!”
1 Comment »Boyle’s problem – if it is a problem – is that life, or society, is too bland for him. He doesn’t really admire anyone on the mainstream comedy circuit, believing comedy has become a career – “There’s a lot of banality about” – and, despite his need to promote his autobiography, he rages against the fact that everything has become so PR-driven.
“Everything is so mediated,” he says, and swings into an amusing story about a contribution he was asked to make to The Culture Show.
“They wanted 10 celebrity inserts about ‘what is culture’,” he recalls. “And my thing was culture is a war of ideas. People such as stand-ups and artists and alternative thinkers are on one side and you’re fighting with pea shooters against these giant summer blockbusters that are designed to have this numbing ideology.
“They just looked at me and said, ‘What? We really can’t show that at all.’ So I said what do you want, and they said, ‘We had Patsy Kensit in today and that was good.’ She said, ‘Culture is buying my daughter an ice-cream at the Natural History Museum.’ So that’s what you’re up against. That’s the level of banality that’s desired.”
Twenty20: sport or reality TV?
By Will 2 years ago, mid-June, 12 Comments »
Simon Barnes questions whether cricket needs Twenty20:
Are we supposed to cheer for England? I don’t really think so; after all, the object of the match isn’t glory. It’s all about rich people suddenly getting even richer. Or not, of course.
And I ask myself: am I really going to get over-excited about Kevin Pietersen’s chances of buying a second Porsche? No, this is not the kind of fixture that is going to stir up the ancient loyalties that spring from ancient traditions.
But all the same, the match will have a kind of grisly fascination. I mean, say it comes down to the last ball, one wicket or one run to win; oh, and it’s a huge slog and the ball’s spiralling up in the air and if he catches it, every England player will get a million bucks, and if he drops it, they won’t, and who’s underneath it? Go, Monty, go!
This kind of simple yes-or-no test is a staple of modern television, but it’s not sport, it’s reality TV. We don’t care what they’re doing, we only care whether or not they can pull it off under as much artificial pressure as possible. “It’s always been my dream,” they sob. “It’s the chance of a lifetime.” And they blow it, or they don’t, tears prick the nation’s eyes, and then we put the kettle on.
It’s entertainment, but it’s not sport. In sport, the process itself matters: the beauties, the subtleties, the long-term relationships, the tactical nuances, the opposition, the quest for perfect execution. In reality TV, we put someone on the griddle, put him to the ultimate test, and then forget him for ever while we pour ourselves a nice drink.
Would Twenty20 have survived 20 or 30 years ago? It’s highly unlikely. If anything, the new, whizz-bang version mirrors our modern society’s insatiable greed for immediate entertainment. I’ve spoken to lots of fringe-fans (mainly taxi drivers) who find Test cricket dull and too long-winded yet are taken in by Twenty20. They can’t stand the slow-drip tension over five days but are happy to set aside four hours of urgent, in-your-face sport, safe in the knowledge they will see a result. It’s slightly safer, certainly simpler than Test cricket. People don’t have the time they did 20 years ago – or rather, there is a pressure to be doing things all the time – but perhaps also they don’t have the patience.
I suppose cricket should be applauded for reacting to what the public clearly want, but not if it comes at the expense of its grandest format.
12 Comments »Prince Harry at war
By Will 2 years ago, at the end of February, 3 Comments »
What does it say about the modern world that Prince Harry can lead a “relatively normal life” as a soldier in Afghanistan, arguably more normal than his life in this country? Judging by the interview he gave to the BBC yesterday, his few weeks out there were probably the highlight of his life so far. Just let him get on with it; all this nonsense about him being a sitting target for the Taliban is ridiculous. He’s not strolling the wadis on his own. He’s part of the army and attached to the Gurkhas.
On the other hand, Mick Smith – whose always enjoyable blog often gives snippets of defence news that might otherwise slip by unnoticed – suggests we might have made Harry a marked man for the rest of his life. Isn’t he already? If the Taliban or an Islamic extremist in the UK wanted to take a pot shot at him, they could – regardless of his involvement in Afghanistan. He and the Royals are sitting ducks every day of their lives, so why not just let them try and lead a normal life – even if that is at war?
3 Comments »‘World cricket all but paralysed’
By Will 3 years ago, mid-October, 31 Comments »
You know your sport’s in a real mess when, in the space of 12 months, it can host a disastrous World Cup; investigate a murder; have an umpire take the game’s governing body to court; host a much more successful World Cup six months later but not call it a World Cup. Oh, and racism has popped up its ugly duplicitous head again.
The ICC has lost all credibility. I don’t know of another governing body in any sport which is quite so dysfunctional, and this latest spate of racism will further divide the Members unless the ICC – and India – act now. I refer you to Patrick Smith’s excellent column:
WORLD cricket is all but paralysed. The ruling body cannot make a decision that is not compromised. Bowling has been reduced to throwing, umpiring to the art of convenience, racial abuse to a point of view. Player behaviour teeters on the brink of violence.
Sri Lanka’s Muttiah Muralidaran is outside the law, so change the law and not the action. The ICC considers Darrell Hair umpires by the book and is not a buddy of the players. Sack him.
Pakistan and India refuse to appoint officers to investigate racism in the sport. The ICC has been reduced to writing letters that are ignored and beating the heat in Dubai. Apparently Pakistan and India players and supporters can only be offended and never offensive.
Racial vilification has been redefined. What is said is no longer critical, but who says it to whom is at its heart. So Symonds is vilified by Indian supporters and it goes unheard and ignored. CA whimpers its concern but fails to report the matter officially.
I don’t believe any sport is rife with racism. Not at all. But sportsmen are as much members of society as the rest of us, and we are living in a confused and fragmented world these days. Sport can reflect that with uncomfortable clarity.
31 Comments »Sporting success and failure mirroring society?
By Will 3 years ago, mid-June, 2 Comments »
I’m about to sit down and watch Nation in Film, that BBC programme of West Indies’ tour in 1976. And the following teaser was uttered by Darcus Howe, one of the contributors.
I don’t think West Indian cricket ever had such an intense reflection of what was taking place in society
Is the same true of West Indies now? Does the success of a national sporting team reflect the successes or failures, depressions and moods of society? If it did back then (Howe says that Tony Greig’s “grovelling” comment was, in West Indians’ view, distinctly racist: white versus black), the effect is certainly less so nowadays.
I like stuff like this. Thoughts welcome.
2 Comments »Cricket and the white white van driver
By Will 4 years ago, mid-March, 17 Comments »
There is a feast of socialogical debate that could spawn from this, but for now I’ll just paste it. Really charming piece from a Sri Lankan bloke who’s just moved house in London. And…
On Saturday the moving van came home and we finally packed away the last bits of our life. The journey was uneventful until we came towards Hyde park where there was a massive traffic block bc of some parade. The driver and I didn’t exchange much conversation all this time, mainly bc I was too tired to say anything. He then received a phone call and said, “434?! Is it a one day game?? Faaarking hell.†Shit shit, I thought, our record. I asked him to clarify and he said that Aussie had scored 434-4 against South Africa, a new world record team score. We spent the next 40 mins or so talking about cricket, it’s very rare to see an Englishman so fascinated by the game. His knowledge was very impressive too, he knew about the Sri Lankan team and even about the not so prominent guys like Malinga Bandara. It was amusing to find that he had the same problem as I when it came to bowling leg breaks, we both end up producing only googlies and toppies. With an average male in India, Sri Lanka or Pakistan such a conversation would be expected, but in England with a young white Englishman, it was truly surprising. He took my phone number and invited me to play for his club up in Mill hill. We ended the day comparing our bowling actions on the main road, run-up and all.
Since working for Cricinfo, everyone talks about cricket. It’s normal. It’s a cricket office. We talk cricket, we laugh at cricketers, we make crude cricketing puns. We abhor the drivel, and dribble, from certain commentators and lavish praise on, well, nobody. It’s all thoroughly normal. But in most other offices, well, you talk about other stuff (other far less interesting stuff). When’s the photocopier being fixed? Can someone help me lift the water bottle thing? I’ll only hurt my back and I can’t be dealing with a sore back in March, the wind cuts right through me (I used to hear that twice a week in my last job. Moaning old bastards). Who’s got my fucking stapler? (as if anyone would want to steal a stapler). Anyway, shan’t depress you any further – I’m sure you’re all well aware of the crap which people talk about in offices. Onto my point, then.
Cricket’s not really on the same “general chit chat” level as, for example, football.
So I think this guy highlights an interesting point in British society which, actually, raises another question: (oh, two actually) on what level is cricket’s popularity in Britain? It’s not on a par with Football, and nor will it ever be. Which is perhaps why it’s so humbling, if that’s the right word, when you bump into someone who at first glance might not appear to know the other definition of a fine leg. Or a short leg, for that matter. Or any bloody leg, frankly.
Sport’s a great leveller and a great connector. And there wasn’t another question to be asked, so I’ll log off now.
17 Comments »