Gus Sanchez's Open Salon Blog

Where Were You When Landon Donovan Scored That Game-Winner?

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 18:06:48 -0400

Of all the places to watch a soccer match, I watched the US-Algeria match at a waiting room, while my wife was undergoing surgery. Nothing anyone could have done about that, really; my wife's surgery was scheduled weeks in advance, and there was no way anyone would know that the US faced a do-or-die game on that same day.

Trying to watch a soccer match at a waiting room is a tricky affair. For starters, every television was set to "Regis and Kelly Live," and a few blue hairs seemed keen on Regis and his wife interviewing Tom Cruise, and not too keen on someone asking if he could switch over to a soccer match. Thankfully, there's ESPN Mobile for my iPhone. Even better was the fact that I could stream the match live while piggybacking on the hospital's free Wi-Fi; this way, I wouldn't stream AT&T's 3G data, and eat up my allotted data for the month. So kudos to ESPN Mobile for bailing me out right then and there.

Once the semantics were settled, I found a chair away from the bleating drones of Regis Philbin (then later, Dr. Phil and the abhorrent "The View") and tried to remain calm. If you know me, you know that I can't possibly remain calm during a match. I'm squirming in my chair. I'm officiating. I'm cursing and rueing. But in the waiting room, you're trying not to make too much of an ass of yourself.

The mission for the US soccer squad is simple: win, and you advance to the Round of 16. Lose, you're out. A draw helps, as long as England either loses or draws against Slovenia. Easy, right? If you're familiar with how the US team plays, you know that they simply won't make things easy for us fans. 6 minutes in, Jay DeMerit, a solid rock in the back, misplayed a pass that allowed an Algerian player to launch a volley past keeper Tim Howard...it's a goal...but, thankfully, no, it hits the crossbar. With both teams playing attacking football, you just know right then and there that this match is going to be a heartstopper.

How so? Let's see...

- Jozy Altidore missing a point-blank shot.
- Edson Buddle's header blocked by the Algerian keeper Rais M'Bolhi.
- Clint Dempsey hitting the post in the 55th minute, on a goal he should have scored.

And then there's the disallowed goal. A scramble in the goal mouth, and there's Dempsey to slam the ball right in...but, no. The line judge rules Dempsey was offside. The replay, shown over and over again, showed Dempsey wasn't offside at all. Here we go again, I thought; another FIFA-approved officiant jobbing the US all over again. As the match progresses, I'm seriously entertaining the notion that maybe FIFA doesn't want the US to win. Maybe FIFA doesn't want the US to be a winning side, because, God knows, once the US gets good at something, like inventing the airplane or developing a vaccine for polio or landing a man on the Moon or killing people on the other side of the globe, we love gloating about that shit. The last thing FIFA wants is 300 million people gloating over winning a World Cup, something that's always been the exclusive domain of the Brazilians or the Italians.

Meanwhile, I'm getting more and more tense. I'm also keeping an eye out for the doctor or any nurse informing me of how my wife's doing. Around halftime, I get word from the doctor that she's out of surgery, and she should be in recovery for at least another hour. I'm glad she's recovering, and her surgery's gone well. I'm also glad I have another hour to finish the match. Selfish reasons, of course, but I can explain those reasons away.

The match is back and forth. Coach Bob Bradley's rolling the dice, substituting Maurice Edu for Edson Buddle, and, most tellingly, DaMarcus Beasley for Jonathan Bornstein. Switching to an attacking 3-4-3 formation, with 3 forwards, Bradley's almost daring the Algerians to counterattack, and when the Desert Foxes, as they're known back home, did counter, the defense held up. With this kind of formation, especially with the likes of Buddle and Beasley creating and actively seeking scoring opportunities, you just knew eventually the US would unlock the Algerian defenses.

90 minutes now. The ref's added 4 extra minutes to the game. Unless we score, it's yet another World Cup disappointment for the US. A lazy shot across the goal mouth, and Tim Howard easily recovers...and fires a 60-yard bomb to the streaking Landon Donovan. Jesus, Howard just looked like Peyton Manning there. Donovan launches a cross through the penalty area...Dempsey fires a shot, blocked...the ball's loose...here comes Donovan out of nowhere to play the rebound...

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAALLLL!!!

Sweet merciful Mother of Jesus, it's a fucking goal!

And, damn the torpedos, I'm jumping up and down in the waiting room!!!

Finally, the match ends. US 1, Algeria, 0. And with England winning their match, the US victory has an even bigger significance to it: by earning the most points in Group play, the US wins their group, and avoids playing the likes of Argentina, Germany and perhaps England again in the knockout stage. In this case, the US now faces Ghana (with a little revenge in mind, for Ghana knocked the US out of the World Cup in 2006), and, if they beat Ghana, would face either Uruguay or South Korea. Excellent teams, of course, and teams the US have better chances of defeating.

For Landon Donovan, that last-second act of heroism finally laid to rest the accusations that Donovan was never a big game player. If you've been watching the US' 3 Group Stage matches, Donovan's easily been their best player, scoring when needed, and orchestrating the offense, and leading by words and example. Maybe now the haters will stop refering to him as "Landycakes."

For the US team, yeah, guys, way to give us all heart attacks, and way to show heart and guts and leaving everything you've got out there. A loss would have been damaging. A loss would have meant some wholesale changes to the team and to management. But Bob Bradley's shown he's not so conservative when it matters; all the moves he's made in the 3 Group Stage games have impacted the game positively for the US.

For me, I bit my nails down to the quick, and tears rolled down my eyes. I still have tears in my eyes as I'm writing this.

Ultimately, June 23, 2010 will forever be remember as the day when people in the United States finally began to really care about US soccer. Don't believe me? See for yourself:

Now on to face Ghana Saturday afternoon...and this time it's really do or die!

10 Stray Observations Regarding the 2010 World Cup So Far...

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:06:35 -0400

Now that the opening matches for all the groups are in the books, here are 10 stray observations about the World Cup, the matches, and other miscellania:

1. Yes, the vuvuzelas are loud. Get over it. That droning BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ sound has been the bane of everyone's World Cup experience so far. The players have complained. The BBC is considering filtering out the sound of the vuvuzelas from their broadcasts. Some are even questioning just how traditional the vuvuzelas truly are. Regardless of what opinions exist, it's South Africa's right to run the tournament as they see fit. Trust me, when we get the chance to host the World Cup again, American stadiums will be filled with the irritating sounds of the ThunderStix. I think the vuvuzelas have created some fun, at least on the Internet. You could listen to the vuvuzelas without even watching a match. And, whaddya know, there's an app for the vuvuzelas as well.

2. Goal scoring is down. Way down. 25 goals in the first 16 matches (not counting Uruguay ringing up 3 against South Africa late today), in comparison to 34 scored during the first 16 matches in Germany '06. There's a multitude of reasons or scapegoats, ranging from the Jabulani ball created by Adidas, to the quality of the pitches (fields) themselves, to the diverse geography and altitude, to the long club seasons the majority of players are still recovering from, but I think it's the cautious nature of the offenses that's resulting in a multitude of draws and less goals being scored. Points come at a premium, so any points you can earn, even for a tie, boost your chances for advancing to the knockout stages. Even if it means goal scoring must be sacrificed.

which brings me to my next point...

3. Not all teams are playing cautiously. In fact, Germany, Argentina, and Chile are throwing caution into the wind. Yes, these three teams all employ fantastic striking forwards, but, as Germany with their 4-2-3-1 and Argentina employing a 4-3-3 formation, these formations reveal one giant truth regarding attacking football - games are won and lost in the midfield. By control possession and play in the midfield, midfield virtuosos like rising superstar Mesut Ozil of Germany have been able to exploit defenses more concerned with the likes of Lukas Podolski and Miroslav Klose.

4.Forget all this griping about the Jabulani. Goal scoring is down? Must be the ball's fault. Yep, with every World Cup comes a new ball from Adidas, one that players roundly criticize. Funny, that ball didn't seem to hinder the Germans from putting up 4 goals on Australia. Nor did it stop Uruguay from ringing up 3 against South Africa. Players will always gripe about the World Cup ball, but, in time, they'll get used to it, and the bitching will thankfully cease. Faulting a ball for the lack of scoring is like faulting a baseball bat for the lack of home runs: it's not the equipment, it's the player, silly.

5. The World Cup so far has been about the goalkeeping. Really bad goalkeeping. Robert Green's blunder aside (and more on his blunder in a bit), Justo Villar's brain-fart prevented Paraguay from pulling off an upset win against Italy. Algerian 'keeper Fawzi Chaouchi poorly misjudged Robert Koren's long-range shot, giving Slovenia a howler of a win against Algeria. Ri Myong-Guk's mental error on Maicon's dead-line shot prevented the gritty North Koreans from pulling off an upset against Brazil. With each game, there's more and more pressure mounting on the 'keepers to be at their best. Expect another mistake or two from goalkeepers as the pressure mounts.

Word also came that Italy's Gianluigi Buffon may be out of the World Cup with a herniated back. Buffon's proven to be perhaps the finest netminder in the game right now, so for Buffon to be out altogether robs us of the opportunity to see one of the best ever.

Still, not all the goalkeeping's been bad. In fact, some of it's been pretty spectacular, especially Nigerian 'keeper Victor Enyeama's miraculous saves against a relentless Argentina attack; his two saves on a pair of Lionel Messi point-blank strikes would have made Gordon Banks proud. And Tim Howard's performance against England also deserves praise; after absorbing an unintended cleat to the ribs from Emile Heskey, all seemed bad with Howard, but a painkiller shot and steely reserve were enough to keep that match at a draw. Howard was easily the best player of the US-England match.

6. Enough with Green's blunder already! Look, England, you didn't lose. Yes, you expected to win, of course you did, but Robert Green's brutal mishandling of Clint Dempsey's long-range shot was not the real reason you were deprived of 3 points. Wayne Rooney was virtually handcuffed all game, and what few scoring chances he was able to muster, his shot selection proved weak. Besides, in the annals of English goalkeeper, Green's gaffe doesn't even come close to Peter Bonetti's dismal display against West Germany at the 1970 World Cup, or David Seaman's brutal mishandling of a Ronaldinho free kick at the 2002 World Cup quarterfinals; both goalkeeper flops were the sole reason for England being drummed out of the tournament on each occasion. As for the match itself, for once the hype was justified; it wasn't a tactically flawless match, but the passion and the determination from both sides was clearly evident. There was some suggestion that Bob Bradley outcoached Fabio Capello, but I just didn't see it that way; Bradley once again showed a reluctance to make that go-for-the-throat substitution when it counts, meaning he should have subbed Robbie Findley for Hercules Gomez, and not Edson Buddle. But Bradley's the manager, not me.

For me personally, it was a thrill to catch this match at Courtyard Hooligans, a local soccer pub, where the members of the local chapter of the American Outlaws were there to provide a colorful, raunchy atmosphere.

7. Maybe Diego Maradona actually knows what he's doing. The man has always thrived on unpredictability, but, so far, he's managed to impress (albeit mildly) with a strong, attacking 4-3-3 (or 3-4-3, depending on how you see it) that exploited Nigeria's defensive gaps and gave Lionel Messi the room to create and improvise. Most importantly, by shifting the attention away from the team and onto himself, El Diego is possibly enjoying something very few Argentine managers have ever enjoyed with the national team: a happy, team-first ethos. The Argentina we saw against Nigeria, a swashbuckling, intense, joyous, united team, was light years away from the clumsy, dispirited, shambolically disorganized bunch that fumbled their way into the World Cup. Yes, Jonas Gutierrez was often caught out of position in this attacking-oriented offense, but, for once, Diego seemed to know what he was doing. I would have liked to have seen him sub the ineffective Gonzalo Higuain sooner, rather than later. Diego's, ahem, tactically know-how will be put to the test against the speed and dangerous South Koreans, and we'll see how he fares. So far, so good.

8. Parity? You bet. And it's not so much that the teams are evenly matched. Far from it; what we saw during the Brazil-North Korea and Spain-Switzerland matches is that lesser teams won't be easily intimidated by the big dogs. Yes, Brazil was finally able to break down the spirited North Koreans, but we were left more impressed by the North Koreans' resolve than Brazil's eventual victory. Switzerland's stunning win over Spain was eerily reminscent of the US' victory over the same Spaniard The aforementioned gaffe by Paraguay's Justo Villar prevented Paraguay from defeating the world champion Italy. The Netherlands' display against Denmark was uneven and listless; a gruesome own goal from the Danes was all the Dutch really needed, and that's not good enough. Even Cameroon, perhaps the class of Africa, was frustrated by a gritty Japan, who stole a victory from Cameroon. The point being, the favorites are showing some glaring weaknesses. Brazil looks vulnerable, and Spain now has a mighty uphill battle ahead of them. And, to my surprise, the African teams, playing in their home continent, have failed to impress. Aside from a sterling, well-deserved victory from Ghana against the heralded Serbians, Algeria looked tactically inept, the Ivorians were content to play for a draw, Cameroon fizzled from the opening whistle, and, other than a stirring opening day draw against Mexico, South Africa was embarrassed today by Uruguay. So far for the African participants, 1 win, 4 losses, 1 draw.

9. For once, ESPN is getting their World Cup coverage right. From scoring a huge casting coup in the incomporable Martin Tyler calling the bulk of the matches, to setting up shop in front of Soccer City, to broadcasting every match on ESPN, ESPN 3, and ESPN Mobile, the network is finally dedicating the right resources in providing the best coverage for such an awesome event. Just 4 years ago, ESPN's coverage was abysmal, punctuated by Dave O'Brien's idiotically condescending play-by-play calling; O'Brien infamously brushed off criticism, saying the diehard and knowledgable football fans were not the audience ESPN was trying to attract. By dropping the layman's approach, ESPN's finally realized that there's no need to dumb down the game. As expected, Martin Tyler's been a breath of fresh air. Derek Rae is always spot-on and deeply insightful, Adrian Healey's done a solid job, and kudos to Ian Darke for making even the least tantalizing matches seem highly interesting.

The pre- and post-game shows have been the biggest revelation for me. Bob Ley has always been the defacto face of ESPN's football coverage, and he's done strong work anchoring a solid analysis crew. Yeah, Alexi Lalas does seem to be too in love with the sound of his voice, but his insights are often justified. It took a while, but I've grown to like Ruud Gullit's analysis, and he seems to grow more and more confident. For me, the revelation's been Roberto Martinez. It's easy to see why the Spaniard's so fancied as Wigan Athletic's manager. Plus, early reports indicate the ratings for ESPN's coverage are the best they've ever earned.

And, most importantly, thank you ESPN for keeping the insufferable Tommy Smyth away from the coverage!

10. The big stars, except for Lionel Messi, haven't shown up yet. Yet. Messi didn't score (despite taking 8 shots, 4 of them on goal), but his mesmerizing play that is part and parcel of the legend he's forging for himself at Barcelona was finally on display for Argentina. And there's nothing to suggest he won't be replicating the same. As for some of the other big name stars...Cristiano Ronaldo, despite a booming free kick that was mere inches from being the best goal of the tournament so far, instead resorted to what we dislike about Ronaldo: his penchant for diving and for endlessly whining. Wayne Rooney simply could never get unstuck from Jay DeMerit's fly-trap defending, and he was often seen complaining and throwing his hands in the air in frustration. Kaka was simply non-existent against North Korea. And despite his broken arm, Didier Drogba's bravery could not translate into efficient playmaking; aside from one daring run in the box, Drogba wasn't very effective in a drab, colorless match against Portugal. Surely they'll all put on better displays, but, for the sake of their squad's chances, they need to put on those better displays sooner, for later will be too late.

We've got several good matches coming up. Argentina takes on South Korea, the US faces a very crucial group match against Slovenia, Brazil faces Ivory Coast, and, perhaps in an upset in the making, North Korea looks to stun Portugal.

The Idiot and Non-Idiot's Guide to the 2010 FIFA World Cup

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 23:06:39 -0400

By now, you've probably heard of a little something starting tomorrow at 10AM EST called the World Cup. Here's what you need to know:

The World Cup is hosted every four years, with South Aftica acting as the host nation this time around. As such, this is the first time the World Cup is being hosted on African soil, which, obviously, is a huge source of pride for the entire continent. Without question, the World Cup is the biggest, most anticipated sporting event ever. The World Cup dwarfs every single sporting event out there: the Olympics are fun, full of pomp and pageant, but unless you've got a hard-on for track-and-field or figure skating, chances are people watch just for the sake of watching. The Super Bowl, until recently, has been swallowed whole by hype and commercialism - more often than note, the game itself is a sidenote to the circus-like atmosphere before and during the game. March Madness may come close, but it's an extremely far close. The World Cup is a completely different beast of sorts. It's the only event that truly brings people from different ethnic and national backgrounds together. Daily occurences literally grind to a halt, as people gather in pubs and bistros and public parks to watch the matches - it's no surprise that productivity declines during the one-month duration of the World Cup, and, frankly, no one really seems to mind.

This isn't just some tournament that the soccer haters love dismissing (and if you come across one of the haters who complains about how boring the game is, kick 'em in the crotch. With a cleat, if possible), but a full-scale transcendental experience. I mean, when was the last time the Super Bowl prevented a civil war? True story: when Ivory Coast qualified for their first World Cup in 2006, their star player Didier Drogba dared his people to lay down their arms and give up the bloody civil war that tore his nation apart for decades. And his people did heed his call and finally ended their long civil war. Yes, football can be a catalyst for peace.

Anyway, the 32 teams in the tournament play for this lovely trophy.

Kinda ugly, ain't it? Sorta like some goof of a sculpture that some mad Danish sculptor slapped together and called it "art" and is now fetching thousands of bucks at a SoHo gallery. Yeah, it's ugly. But it's the most coveted trophy in the sporting world.

Each of the 32 teams in the World Cup are split into 8 groups of 4 teams, Groups A through H.

The top two teams in each group advance to the knockout rounds, essential a win-or-go-home process, until a winner is crowned. Here's where the drama really takes place; the knockout rounds have produced some great moments of drama, upsets, and controversy. Because these games are do-or-die, several will end up being decided by penalty kicks. Basically, each team sends one player to convert a penalty kick; the team that converts the most kicks wins the match. This may seem strange to those who don't follow football, but the penalty shootout is a nerve-wracking, heart-stopping, and completely cruel process that tests the nerve, mettle and skill of both the penalty taker and the goalkeeper whose job it is to stop that kick from going into the goal. As a note of worth, some nations, like Italy and Germany, do well in the penalty shootouts; England, on the other hand...

And speaking of England, you have had heard that England will be playing the USA on Saturday. Logic dictates that England, fielding perhaps their finest team ever (more on that later as well) should beat the US, but I'd like to remind our former colonial overlords that we beat your asses in 1783, beat 'em again in 1815, and once more in 1950, so keep up the trash talk, Limeys, because we're fixing on spanking your asses all over the pitch again. America! FUCK YEAH!!!

Here now is what you need to know about a handful of the 32 teams chasing the coveted World Cup trophy:

The 2 Teams Everyone's Picking to Win The Whole Shebang:

Brazil - Brazil is to football what the Yankees are to baseball: the standard bearers. Brazil's won the WC a record 5 times, and all signs point to Brazil winning a 6th. But I hate Brazil with the passion of a thousand exploding suns (what can I say, I'm the son of Argentines, and we're taught to hate the Brazilians with their pansy-assed yellow jerseys and their pretty but selfish football), and nothing would please me more than to see them lose at any stage of the event. Plus, this current squad, even with thoroughbreds like Kaka, Luis Fabiano, Robinho, Daniel Alves, etc., is eschewing free-flowing, individual football for a more team-oriented, defense-first style, which is like the Yankees forgoing the long ball and playing hit-and-run ball...either way, this new style, while shedding positive results, runs counter to the Brazilian style, and that might cost them. They won't win this year, bank on it.

Spain - The best team in the world right now wasn't always the best. In fact, Spain has been the most notorious bunch of underachievers the game has ever seen. It seems like when Spain is in the thick of things at the World Cup, their thoughts move away from the pitch and onto filling their bellies with paella and vino tinto under the Iberian sun. But that won't happen this time around; even if superstar striker Fernando Torres isn't 100%, they still boast a superb attack spearhead by the best midfield duo alive in Xavi and Andres Iniesta, plus another super striker up front in David Villa. 2010 may be the year La Furia Roja finally wins it all.

The 5 Teams That Have Good to Excellent Chances of Winning, Or: It Shouldn't Come As Any Surprise if They Win or Don't Win it All:

Germany - There's a long-standing cliche about the Germans, how they're efficient, well-organized, and tenacious. That cliche stems from the truth: no matter the score, Germany never quits until the final whistle is blown, and if you've got a lead against the Germans late in the game, you better make damn sure you put 'em away. Just ask France. Or England. Or Argentina. This time around, Germany's got a ton of injuries to bear, the biggest being to team captain Michael Ballack. But Ballack's understudy Mesut Ozul is ready to assume his place, and strikers Miroslav Klose and Lucas Podolski give every defensive line they've faced nightmares. Regardless of the injuries, Germany will always be Germany on the pitch, and they'll find a way to get past their inefficiencies and earn a hard-fought victory. They're the anti-Brazil, not flashy, but they get results.

Italy - Winners of the last World Cup, Italy comes into this World Cup as an aging team; their average age is 32, which is ancient in football years. They're boosted by lucking out in the group draw, matched against opponents they shouldn't have a hard time with, but, yes, age is a huge negative, and against a faster-paced squad, even their vaunted tactical superiority may be put to a test they'll likely fail. Still, there's a ton of talent and experience, and with the excellent goalkeeper Gianluca Buffon minding the net, Italy could prove the naysayers wrong.

Argentina - This will be the most talked-about and scrutinized team coming into the tournament. They boast the best player in the world in Lionel Messi, an embarassment of riches in the forward position with Carlos Tevez, Gonzalo Higuain, Diego Milito, and Sergio Aguero, and a solid midfield core in Javier Mascherano, Juan Veron, and Angel di Maria. So what's the problem? Diego Maradona's the problem, that's who. The man many consider to be the best player ever (myself included, no surprise) has proven to be comically and heartburn-inducing inept at coaching, and his off-pitch antics (which include diva-like demands, running over the leg of a reporter and insulting said reporting in the process, and crudely requesting the media to "blow him and keep blowing him") has proven embarassing, as Argentina barely qualified for the World Cup. But being the mad genius he is, his antics may actually help Argentina; by keeping the media's attention off the team, Messi could further assert his current state as the game's best, spurring Argentina deep into the tourament.

England - This will be the second-most talked-about and scrutinized team coming into the tournament. England are like the Boston Red Sox, before they finally won the World Series in 2004. Every time England comes into the tournament, the pundits will declare this to be the best team the Three Lions have ever fielded, and like those miserable failure Red Sox, England finds thrilling and exciting ways to fail at the World Cup. The Sox had Game Six; England has the quarterfinals against Germany in 1990. All kidding aside, this is a terrific team, and, yes, it's the best team England has ever fielded, but it comes at a price; key defensive specialist Rio Ferdinand is out of the tournament, Ashley Cole may not be at 100%, and their goalkeeping situation (Joe Hart vs. Robert Green?) hasn't been solidified yet, but solid veteran savvy from Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard says a lot, and world-class striker Wayne Rooney (who looks like a hooligan, and has the mouth and temper of one) pretty much scares the shit out of anyone; his tenacity is perhaps second to none. Plus, manager Fabio Capello has instilled a team-first attitude, and he's got further incentive to win it all; he would be the first foreign-born coach to lead a team to WC victory.

Netherlands - On paper, the Orange may very well have the best team, with just the right mix of talent and experience to finally capture their first title; Holland plays "Total Football", an attack-oriented game in which all players are equally involved in running the offense, and it's a gorgeous, attractive style, much like the Brazilian way. BUT...the Dutch are a bunch of cockblockers, always showing the goods, but never going all the way. Plus, their team chemistry, like it's always been, is awful: already, Rob van Persie is publically questioning why Dirk Kuyt is even on the team, and Wesley Sneijder pretty much hates van Persie. Additionally, their best player, Arjen Robben, is injury-prone, so guess what? He's going to miss their first match. If they can learn to get along, they'll go all the way, but the Netherlands have always seemed to be allergic to winning. Really. They're almost all OCD about needed to be lovable losers.

The Dark Horses Who Might Pull Off a Shock or Two (Or, Oops! Pow! Surprise!):

Ivory Coast - How far the The Elephants will go all depends on the aforementioned Didier Drogba, who suffered a broken arm last weekend during a friendly match. If Drogba is medically cleared to play, he'll provide a big boost to his team. If he's unable to go, Ivory Coast may find it difficult to advance past their group. On the flip side, they're often underachieved on the international side (they flopped miserably during last January's African Cup), and they're now managed by Sven-Goran Erickson, who may be the most overrated coach in history. Why this man is still finding employment as a manager is beyond me.

Portugal - To be honest, this is a drab and boring team, and key players such as Nani and Jose Bosingwa have been ruled out of the World Cup, but Portugal boasts perhaps the 2nd-best player in the game in Cristiano Ronaldo - you may have seen him preening on the cover of Vanity Fair lately - and that has to count for something. Ronaldo's got that rare ability to take a game by the balls, but the knock on him is, the bigger the game, the more he's prone to wilt under the pressure. But Cristiano Ronaldo comes into the World Cup with something to prove, and that may be enough to take Portugal far. I said may be.

USA - the US National Team has put together their strongest team yet, and there's no reason, baring injuries or lackluster play, why they can't progress far in the tournament. Several of their star players, such as Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey, Tim Howard, and Jozy Altidore, have plied their trade overseas, so they've earned much-needed international experience. The problem is USA can be maddeningly inconsistent; the key to a successful run is to minimize their inconsistencies and actually bring the game to their opponents. They'll advance out of the group stages, and it's a good possibility they may advance far enough. So get behind 'em, people. America...FUCK YEAH!!!

Serbia - The darling dark horses right now. They're well-coached by former national team and Real Madrid star Radovic Antic, possess a strong wing attack, and they're anchored defensively by the bad-assed Nemanja Vidic - who's the subject of one of the best chants around - and the equally tough Branislav Ivanovic. Seriously, have you seen Vidic? He looks like he's rolled with some Serbian ass-kickers who've probably thumped a man or twelve. Having said this, Serbia looks like they may progress far in the tournament, or at least leave a few bodies in their wake.

France - Right now, there is no team more hated (especially by the entire nation of Ireland) more than France. Why? Because, a) they cheated their way into the World Cup, at the expense of Ireland, B) their coach, Raymond Domenech, is a complete clusterfuck of a manager, who'd rather consult tarot cards than his coaching staff with regards to tactics and lineups, and C) there's the not-so-little matter of star player Franck Ribery involved in a teenage prostitution scandal. They're on this short list because, well, they're France, but right now, they're such a mess that it's more likely they'll lose 2 or even all 3 of their group matches and head home in shame. But, then again, the French are always good at confounding expectations.

Chile - Want to see a team play the equivalent of a fast-break, shoot-at-will, breakneck-speed game? Then Chile's your team. They might give up a few goals, since coach Marcelo Bielso (aka "El Loco") prefers to play 3 defenders back, as opposed to 4, but their attack-attack-attack style promotes a lot of scoring chances, and goals, of course. They're the antidote for the haters who say football is boring: Chile is NEVER boring.

Uruguay - Most people, even those who follow football, don't remember that it was Uruguay who won the first World Cup, back in 1930, and in their home soil, nonetheless. They followed this with another victory in Brazil, against Brazil, in 1950. Since then...not much. This time around, their front two of strikers Diego Forlan and Luis Suarez will certainly get their scoring chances, but defensively they're a shambles. It's very likely they'll get out of their group, but not very far in the knockout stages.

South Africa - I'm only adding the host nation because of this very crucial factoid: no team that has hosted the World Cup has failed to advance out of the Group stages. Though the Bafana Bafana don't necessarily have the talent, they've got the hopes and dreams of a home country to carry them. Chances are they may not advance out of Group A, but, then again, no one thought the US would advance out of their group when they hosted the World Cup in 1994.

Predictions

WINNER: Spain

RUNNER-UP: Netherlands

THIRD PLACE: Argentina

FOURTH PLACE: England

So there you have it. Starting tomorrow at 10AM EST, the insanity begins. Don't be shy, check it out. And I'll certainly keep you abreast of what's going on in future entries.

Riffs From a Film Junky: My 101 Favorite Films (#90 - #81)

Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:06:41 -0400

Author's Note: The following ten films, Nos. 90-81, seemed to take a bit out of me when it came to summarizing my feelings. Not sure why that happened, but it happened. At any rate, here's the next ten.

Oh, and here's a link to the previous 11 - Riffs From a Film Junky: My 101 Favorite Films (Nos. 101-90)

90. The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover – To this day, I still don’t know what possessed me to see this film at the theaters. My friends and I weren’t part of the art-house movie set – my art-house sensibilities hadn’t quite kicked in yet – and somehow we ended up seeing this film. For the better part of 2 hours, we sat there, entranced by director Peter Greenaway’s sumptuous and abrasive use of bold colors, and repulsed by Michael Gambon’s extraordinarily over-the-top portrayal of an out-of-control gangster whose penchant for gastronomic excess and his need to assert his control via humiliation, mayhem and murder. We sat at a diner after the film, not saying a single word over what we saw, because, I think, we must have realized no words could have described what we’d just seen. Then one of us made a crack about whether or not the restaurant served roasted cock (a reference that makes no sense if you haven’t seen this film), which broke the silence. Almost compulsively, we ate our meal and talked endlessly about The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover, seeming grateful for taking the chance on seeing this film. I’ve seen The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover on several occasions since that first time, and I’m always blown away by just how gorgeous that film is, despite its’ explicit themes.

89. Nikita (aka ‘La Femme Nikita’) – Whenever a conversation, in person or online, turns towards the most bad-assed female characters on film, the usual suspects tend to come up: Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, Beatrix Kiddo (aka the Bride), etc, yet the name Nikita, the street punk turned government assassin, never comes into the conversation. A shame, perhaps, because I think Nikita is the direct link between Sarah Connor and whichever bad-assed female ass-kicker usually portrayed by either Angelina Jolie or Milla Jovovich. As it is with any Luc Besson film, La Femme Nikita is unapologetically cool, stylish to a fault and often entertaining, as ridiculous as the plot may seem – the plot being a smack-addled street punk is given the choice between facing execution for the murder of a cop or serve her country as a super-sexy yet super-deadly assassin can be a bit too contrived, but Anne Parillaud (whatever happened to her?) is utterly believable, dangerous yet vulnerable as Nikita, who isn’t so much an ass-kicker as she is a survivor. Given the choice to kill on behalf of France isn’t much of a choice, but she pays for that freedom with body and soul. And, eventually, she learns of a way out, survivor that she is.

88. Inglorious Basterds – Using the Holocaust as a backdrop for a film can be a tricky subject to broach. Most directors would shy away from any kind of film that wouldn’t treat the systematic murder of 6 million Jews without sobriety, but, then again, fuck it, this is Quentin Tarantino we’re talking here. And QT loves to fuck convention up its’ ass. Yeah, Inglorious Basterds, as a film, shouldn’t work whatsoever – it’s pitched as a revenge flick, with Brad Pitt lead a band of Jewish-American soldiers terror-assing throughout Nazi-occupied France – but it works gloriously, with all the now-familiar Tarantino trademarks – extended monologues, overlapping storylines, pop culture riffing, ultraviolence, etc. – firmly in place. Of course, the entire notion of vengeance-seeking Jews out to exterminate Nazis seems like role-reversals, but in Tarantino’s parallel WWII universe, everyone is fair game, and there are no heroes and villains, only like-minded killers all wearing different uniforms. This contradiction is most evident in the part of Col. Hans Landa, played with cheerfully sociopathic abandon by Christopher Waltz (in a career-defining role); Waltz’s Col. Landa, a notorious “Jew hunter” isn’t bound by some oath to Nazi Germany or a particular hatred towards Jews (although in the film’s opening scene, a brilliant monologue in which he backhandedly praises Jews by comparing their knack for survival to that of rats), but more by his own need to satisfy his particular ego. Landa lives for the thrill of the hunt, the desire of playing cat-and-mouse with his prey, and you find yourself actually rooting for him. Will he finally capture Shoshana Dreyfuss, the sole survivor of her family’s massacre at his hands? Will he successfully trap the Basterds? You want him to do this, really, you do, and that’s Tarantino’s genius in both identifying the anomaly in being compelled to actually like a character that’s so charming yet so loathsome. Waltz steals every single scene he’s in, and he’s a huge reason why I love this film, so utterly suspenseful, ridiculously funny, breathlessly bloody, and a fine work of art.

87. Secretary – Admittedly, sadomasochism isn’t my bag. I get it. I can easily see how and why some people would be attracted to it. But S&M isn’t something I would be readily willing to pursue. However, the sadomasochism subplot to Secretary is just that, a subplot that never drowns or over-dramatizes the real driving force behind this film – a quirky love story about two emotionally crippled people who discover a mutual connection far beyond their need to punish and be punished. This was the film where I first noticed Maggie Gyllenhaal, who, as Lee, a socially awkward girl with a history of self-harm, plays this role with an interesting mix of vulnerability and scratching-the-surface raw sexuality, and she’s matched perfectly with James Spader (who’s made a career out of being quirky and slightly unhinged characters) as Edward Gray, the eccentric lawyer who hires the unpolished Lee as his secretary, thus beginning a mutually abusive relationship in which each other’s pain is the key to their recovery. Secretary was the kind of film whose emotional content, one which far exceeded the S&M subtext (which, by the way, is treated with fairness and delicacy, and carefully avoids any shock value or needless humor) snuck up on me; I most fell for that sequence towards the end when Edward swoops in to take Lee in, after she faithfully submits to his request to sit in his office chair without moving hands or feet until he returns; her willingness to test the boundaries of her love for Edward, and Edward’s eventual rewarding of her devotion by swooping her off her feet like a knight on a white horse serves to dramatically punctuate their relationship as being built upon more than just dominant and submissive roles; hell, even I swooned when Edward so delicately bathed and nurtured Lee (metaphorically) back to life, washing away her pain and sorrows. Now that’s love.

86. Bullitt – As a police procedural, Bullitt is at times unnecessarily convoluted, and needlessly confrontational; one never quite understands Lt. Frank Bullitt’s true motives, nor do we ever truly learn if Senator Chalmers (the de facto bad guy in this film) is either morally bankrupt or simply too ambitious. Such ambiguities are part and parcel of Bullitt, yet those ambiguities work quite well. What we see in Bullitt is a clear seismic shift away from the clichéd morally upright cop – Frank Bullitt, it should be pointed out, isn’t quite as upright, but he’s sworn to his badge – and towards a more accurate portrayal of the obsessive nature of police work and the protagonist as a rebellious, idiosyncratic, and insubordinate cop. But, frankly, all that is cast aside for two reasons: one, this is Steve McQueen we’re talking about here; McQueen as the tenacious Bullitt exudes the kind of Zen-like coolness I would punch a nun in her mommy socket for, and his coolness is a microcosm of the bend-but-don’t-give quality of this film (despite my misgivings about the plot); two, with the possible exception of The French Connection, there’s never been a car chase captured on film so impossibly riveting; it’s not just the breakneck stunt driving (McQueen did his own stunt driving!) or the frenetically-paced editing, but the sounds of the engines from Bullitt’s Ford Mustang GT and the hit men’s Dodge Charger 440 Magnum that punctuates how pulse-pounding exciting that sequence is. Those engines humming are like the sweet purr of a woman in the throes of orgasm, I tell you.

85. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy – When asked about the buffoonish quality of the characters he often portrays, Will Ferrell correctly identified them as possessing “unearned confidence.” That description may be accurate for some of his other characters, but Ron Burgundy certainly earned his confidence. I mean, look at this man: he’s got perfect hair, spectacular taste in clothing, a fondness for Scotch, a gift for delivering the news on camera, and a libido that could drown every woman in San Diego, and Southern California to boot. On the other hand, Ron Burgundy is impossibly stupid, – he brags of owning books bound in rich mahogany, yet has never read any – insanely egotistical, unbelievably misogynistic and highly narcissistic. And very, very, very funny. Anchorman is a genuinely funny, very tongue-in-cheek, loving spoof of local news, especially anchored by the self-absorbed, self-important newsman, who, in the words of Ron Burgundy himself, is “kind of a big deal around here.” Watching Ron Burgundy is like watching the newscasters of any local news broadcast; Ferrell’s performance, while exaggerated around the edges, is dead-on accurate for its’ portrayal of the anchorman who believes he’s more important than the news. Anchorman also gives us the roots of Paul Rudd and Steve Carrell cementing their status as 2 of the funniest comedic actors working today, and a lot of credit I’ll give to Christina Applegate for hanging more than tight as the ambitious anchorwoman who gamely battles Burgundy and his crew’s not-so-subtle sexism with equal parts sexy and sassy. Stay classy, San Diego.

84. House of Games – It’s entirely possible to watch a film written by David Mamet and not be bothered with watching the film at all; instead you’re immediately and impossibly drawn to the innate rhythms of his dialogue, how characters don’t so much speak to one another as they do express themselves in musical cadence, like the great jazz musicians reveling and sparing in each other’s company. And, by the way, that’s not to say that you shouldn’t watch a David Mamet film, because he’s a fine director, but like Quentin Tarantino, you watch a David Mamet film to listen to how his characters interact with one another; House of Games, his directorial debut, is an outstanding example of how dialogue – and how that dialogue is wonderfully brought to life by Joe Mantenga and Lindsey Crouse – builds tension, suspense and deception. House of Games is a classic example of the con game as movie, and how the con game begets another con begetting another con, until you find it impossible to decipher who’s the con and who’s the victim. I love the intricacies of the con game Mike (Joe Mantenga) and his colleagues in crime play, as their deceptions are peeled away like an onion, revealing more and more untruths. As many times as I’ve seen this, I always find yet another Easter egg of dialogue, nuance or action that makes me love this film more and more. David Mamet’s a master of hard-boiled dialogue and plot, and House of Games is easily my favorite of his works, more so than the now-legendary Glengarry Glen Ross.

83. Plan 9 From Outer Space – Okay, okay, I see you making that face. How is it that a film that’s universally considered to be one of the single WORST films ever made be on your list of favorites? That’s like saying that one Milli Vanilli album that every sucker bought is one of your favorite albums ever. Well, regarding the latter, I didn’t buy that Milli Vanilli record, and, as for the former, yes, it’s that astonishing badness that makes this film so endlessly watchable. You’ve got to give it up for Ed Wood as a writer and director; as bad as each frame is shot, as wretched as each line of dialogue is uttered with the straightest of faces, one can see passion in Ed Wood’s work. To dismiss Wood as a clueless hack is unfair. Clueless he was, but he was determined to make the films he wanted, no matter how bad those films truly are. As for Plan 9 from Outer Space, I’m not alone in saying there’s a special place in cinematic history for how truly awful this film is, yet I’m compelled (again, also not alone) to show this film a lot of affection. Tim Burton’s biopic sheds a lot of light on Ed Wood and Plan 9 from Outer Space – yes, Plan 9 is a spectacularly awful film, written and directed by someone with astonishingly little talent, but, dammit, Wood believed in himself and in his films, and you can see that in every miserably framed shot. And I think every Favorites list should include one film that is so bad, it’s good, and, as you can see, I'm not the least bit shy about admitting there's a place for a film so spectacularly bad on my list of all-time favorites.

82. Spirited Away – Hayao Miyazaki understands the key to animation better than no animator ever has: sure, if the kids love it, that’s great, but if the adults can relate to the fantasy without feeling like you’re being condescended to, then you as an animator have completely succeeded (I'm generalizing here, I realize that). Miyazaki’s brilliance as an animator stems from both his overactive and wildly vivid imagination and from the intelligence with which he treats his films and his audiences, and, as an audient, I feel like I’m always rewarded by the graceful manner in his filmmaking. Spirited Away is, in obvious regards, Miyazaki’s version of Alice in Wonderland, a madcap, visually stunning romp in which our heroine, Chihiro, gets lost in a fantasy world of spirits and monsters, and, in the process, learns to survive and adapt to both a fantasy world that is foreign to her, but a human world that brings her much dread and discomfort. I read a quote once from Miyazaki that I think reflects both on Spirited Away, his films, and his filmmaking process – “I created a hero who is an ordinary girl, someone with whom the audience can sympathize. It's not a story in which the characters grow up, but a story in which they draw on something already inside them, brought out by the particular circumstances. I want my young friends to live like that, and I think they, too, have such a wish.” I don’t think I could have said it better myself.

81. The Seventh Seal – There’s a perception that Ingmar Bergman’s film are always dour, sober, existential meditations on life and its’ hidden meanings. I tend to agree with that perception somewhat, but more often than not, the fact that Bergman can often be very funny tends to get lost in translation. Honestly, I never could get myself caught up in the whole existential dread and the themes of life and death, as characterized by Max von Sydow’s Antonius Block (who, as a knight, we never see him doing any bad-assed knight kind of things, but one gets the impression he probably kicked a shit-ton of ass while on the Crusades) and Death himself. And Death himself is, in a shallow and superficial way that only an Ingmar Bergman film can ever allow me to be shallow and superficial, the real reason behind me really loving this film. Death, as a white-faced man in a dark cape and aside from being one of cinema’s most iconic images, seems so matter-of-fact, so inevitable, so ever-present in our lives that he’s almost like one of us, constantly brooding, always searching, yet gravely determined to meet his goal, whatever that goal may be. Death is what it is, and while Block is determined to stave off death via a chess game (yet another iconic image from the film), Death cannot truly be reasoned with. It’s gonna happen, you know what I mean? The Seventh Seal, for all its’ art-house glories and pretentions, is never boring or insufferably hyper-intelligent. It is leisurely paced and quite chatty, but if you pay close attention, and realize this film is really a dark comedy, you come away with what Ingmar Bergman was trying to say, in no uncertain terms: life is a fucking joke, and then you die. The end. I mean, that dance of death at the end of the film (the final iconic image of The Seventh Seal)…people joyfully being led to their deaths by a pied piper of doom, whilst having lived through both wars and the Black Plague…you tell me if they don’t get the joke?

Voting to Extremes: The American Right To Screw Up a Vote

Thu, 27 May 2010 11:05:09 -0400

Author's Note: I realize this is kind of a stretch here, but I think my point's pretty obvious - Americans are irrational when it comes to voting choices

I posted this on my Facebook profile this morning, which summarizes my puzzlement over the American voting public's voting choices:

"Riddle me this, America: you'll vote a bland, safe, boring contestant who sounds like a Jack Johnson/Dave Matthews/Jason Mraz wannabe (over a far more interesting and more dynamic singer with a ton of personality) as your 'American Idol' winner BECAUSE he's bland, safe, and boring...yet you'll elect a racist moonbat in the primaries because he's 'different' and 'edgy?'"

Mind you, I'm not equating voting the winner of American Idol to be just as important as voting for the person representing your district or state in our nation's capital, but after watching American Idol in its' entirety for the first time ever, it further reinforced my belief that when given the choice, Americans will vote for mediocrity over originality. Case in point: name the contest who won it all last season. Yeah, I don't remember his name, but I remember him being stupefyingly dull. But we all remember Adam Lambert, right? He was clearly the contestant to beat, yet he lost to a dullard. It's as if we don't want original and edgy; that's for those who live outside the fringes of Top 40 radio. We want safe and predictable and nice.

This isn't to say I dislike Lee DeWyze; on the contrary, he seems like a nice guy, humble and not at all shy about showing his emotions. He's coachable, and he does have a nice voice. But there's hundreds of other guys with recording contracts with the same voice. He's going to struggle to make himself stand out, and I honestly don't believe he's got that in him.

Still, I wouldn't feel sad for Crystal Bowersox. History has shown that, with the exception of Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood, the winner of American Idol has never amounted to much, yet the runners-up (or close enough) have done very well for themselves - Adam Lambert, Jennifer Hudson, Chris Daughtry, and, yes, Clay Aiken, just to name a few.

On the other hand, this air of fear and loathing makes voters turn to the likes of Rand Paul. Sure, I get the whole anti-incumbent anger; I applauded Arlen Specter's loss in the primaries, but I was bothered at how the White House could see Specter's loss as damaging. Was it better to have a faux Democrat in your corner than a Democrat who actually believes in Democrat core principles? But when anti-incumbent anger means the likes of Rand Paul and whatever other politically naive politician wannabes spewing tea baggery nonsense

Unlike American Idol, now we don't want our politicians to be safe and nice and bland; we want the opposite, confrontational and bigoted and incredibly narrow minded. We want our elected officials to wrap themselves around the American flag and Jesus and the cross. Don't believe me? Just look around you, and look at some of the politicians representing your states and districts: Michelle Bachman, Jim DeMint, Ron Paul, Tom Coburn, JW Hayworth, just to name a few.

And, please, spare me with Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank or Dennis Kucinich; yes, they're batshit nuts, but neither of them have ever suggested a repeal of the Civil Rights Act, or suggested President Obama is a Muslim Socialist Nazi baby-killing terrorist lover who was born in Kenya and therefore is Constitutionally prohibited from being President. Yes, it's a cultural of corruptionthat exists in DC, a culture that I think will diminish if the cowards representing us in our nation's capital had the guts to enact term limits. That's a debate for another day. But to suggest the only way of fighting this culture of corruption in Washington is to elect ideologically hardcore figures on the Right, seemingly hell-bent on reshaping the Constitution to fit their agenda, only means your anger is completely misplaced.

Or, it could just be, like several of my friends have pointed out (and, I believe, it's been pointed out by Thomas Jefferson, no less), that these irrationalities we express either at the voting booth or via unlimited texting demonstrate that we Americans cherish the right to be as dumb as we want to be.