premier league after 13 games

After 13 matchdays, Arsenal has 26 points, 8 wins, 2 draws, 3 defeats. That's one point more than last season after 13 games. Arsenal are second, 2 points behind leader Chelsea (28 points) and one point in front of ManU. Despite the pre-season expectations, rising stars City and Spurs have disappointed so far. City is still fourth (22 points) and Spurs seventh with 19 points. Arsenal and Chelsea both lost three games. Arsenal lost to West Brom and Newcastle home but snatched good away wins at Everton, City and Blackburn. Yet again, an unimpressive ManU with Rooney injured in half the games, manages to remain fully in the race thanks to their resilience, having come from being several times. The only undefeated team also had seven draws.

I have been twice at the Emirates stadium so far this season: the West Ham game (1-0) and the Braga game in Champion's League (6-0). 26 points in 13 games is a good performance considering difficult fixtures (Chelsea, City, Liverpool and Everton away) and the many injuries: Van Persie and Bendtner missed almost all of it, Vermaelen too, Walcott half of it. When we played Chelsea, Fabregas, Van Persie, Bendtner, Walcott were all missing. Drogba on the other side, was there, and scored, as usual. Thank god Chamakh and Wilshere have been fantastic.

the social network, by David Fincher

A really good film written by Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing) and directed by David Fincher (Seven, Fight Club). This is a sad film about sad people. Posh Harvard kids, frustrated computer geeks, hyper-social web partiers-entrepreneurs: sad people all of them.

The lawsuits against Facebook founder Zuckerberg from his earlier business associates are just a classic but efficient way of structuring the story, but it’s not another legal thriller. The real point of the movie is in the portrait of Mark Zuckerberg himself. The inherent weirdness of computer geeks is the subject, and this oxymoron: a computer geek turning businessman, whereas they normally lack both the social skills and interest. It’s the story of a man obsessed by computer programming and pushing their science project into a global business almost accidentally (the title of the original book is ‘The accidental billionaires’). It’s interesting to see that Zuckerberg was opposed to advertising or any ‘business model’ in early days and it’s very similar to how Brin and Page, the Google founders felt. They were all obsessed by growing their baby and not bothered to figure out whether it could be ‘monetized’ one day. Other similarity by the way: Brin and Page too were sued by Bill Gross the founder of GoTo.com for stealing the idea of their business model (keyword auctions and cost-per-click).

The secret ‘rosebud’ of citizen Zuckerberg in the film is that he did it to impress his ex-girlfriend after she dumped him. And if he could not win her back, at least he could make her feel bad. Other motivation: get revenge on the rich kids who wouldn’t accept the little Jewish nerd in their posh prestigious Harvard club. I suspect the real motivation for Mark Zuckerberg was simpler and probably indeed it was not primarily money. Like Page and Brin the Google founders, he just did what he was good at, obsessed by, i.e. focusing at designing cool web tools, and the ‘business model’ would follow popular success ultimately. But it took little time for those engineers to embrace the tricks of start up business and outwit ‘real’ businessmen (like Parker in the film).

Some may consider, with some reason, that the film carries the stereotypes against geeks. A mixture of disgust, contempt and fear that people from the ‘old’ media, from Hollywood and New York, feel for the young Silicon Valley geniuses. The ‘technology’ press has attacked the film for being ‘anti-geek’ or ‘anti-Zuckerberg’. I disagree with that. It shows Zuck as a sad guy. Arrogant certainly. Perhaps even a bit of an arrogant asshole in the way he treats people. Borderline autistic, driven with sexual and social frustrations but not really a bad guy. It reflects the ambivalence in the vision most non-geeks have of geeks. Zuck-the-Geek is no corporate Wall-Street villain. His idea of happiness is hacking all night with friends and pizzas, not buying yachts, cokes and prostitutes. And between the arrogance of the self-made billionaire and the arrogance of the posh Harvard twins (who in the end extorted him some $65m in settlement), our sympathy goes to Zuckerberg. Today’s web billionaires are in fact no more cynical than entrepreneurs and inventors have ever been and perhaps less (see the ruthlessness of a Thomas Edison). The dominant feeling is pity for all of them.

The conclusion of the film is that ‘social’ networks are ironically making people – including Zuckerberg - lonelier in a lonely world; that Facebook turned the social pressure of being cool and popular into a global real-time competition, luring people into thinking that happiness would derive from maximising the number of online‘friends’ and the volume of interactions with them.

Wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Network

christianity: a case study

Christianity was the first and most successful corporate story. It has developed brands and assets that have thrived, globally, for nearly 2,000 years.

A promising start-up

Christianity started small, as one of the many tiny dodgy sects in the Middle East. A few guys wrote a biography of a man called ‘Jesus’ based on second or third hand testimonies, which became a global best seller. Actually they wrote conflicting stories but for simplicity let’s say it was one book. The most successful compilation became known as the New Testament.

The religion started to gain market share in the competitive Eastern Mediterranean market, especially in Greece. But the first big breakthrough came when the franchise arrived to Rome. It was an instant hit with the plebs, the women and the slaves, all demographics that had been largely ignored by marketers up to that point. Rome had a tradition of free market and religious tolerance: you could pick and worship any big or small god you’d fancy in the Greek-inspired Roman pantheon and immigrants were allowed to worship their ridiculous foreign gods, provided they didn’t question the official Roman gods. During the Empire, Romans got bored of their old-fashioned gods and became increasingly fond of foreign, exotic deities. Isis, in particular, a sexy skinny Egyptian goddess, was quite fashionable. However, the official Roman religious staff grew uncomfortable with the success of ‘Jesus’. How come people would prefer to worship some miserable Jewish guru who died two hundred years ago rather Mighty Jupiter or the many utility gods Rome had temples for? Worse: the followers of ‘Jesus’ who started to call themselves ‘Christians’, seemed to believe that there was only one god, their own, and no other. They argued that Jupiter, Ares, Aphrodite were lies, that it was ‘bad’ to worship the ancient gods. And finally that mix of foreigners and stinking plebs started questioning the social order. That was too much too quickly and Roman competition authorities promptly made the sect illegal.

Some creative Roman emperors who liked combining order and entertainment had Christians eaten alive by lions in public. That was over-reacting and it backfired badly. Decadent Romans had gone soft and were no longer so fond of public bloodshed. The gruesome execution of Christians attracted public sympathy and turned out to be the most fantastic PR platform for early Christianity (later in Christianity, Christians would organise their own martyrdom industry, by sending their most fanatical members to suicide missions in deep pagan territories). Every lion meal drove new recruits and soon there were simply too many Christians and not enough lions. So Roman authorities gradually gave up on killing them off. Besides Christians sympathies were now running everywhere: many upper class kids – perhaps brainwashed by their Irish or Polish nannies – became fans of Jesus. The new religion was also attractive to intellectuals as it incorporated some elements of fashionable Greek philosophy.

Key success factors

The second massive breakthrough came when Emperor Constantine made his coming out as a Christian and legalised Christianity in 313 BC (the ‘Constantinian Shift’). Soon after that, in 392 BC, Christianity became the official religion of the Empire, leapfrogging a ‘legal’ free market stage. The other religions, the old ones, all of them, became illegal in the Empire. Like Communism later, in a master stroke, Christianity went from underground activism to absolute power.

At that point, Christianity changed its nature forever and soon developed an approach that made it global, allowing it to convert many nations and outlive the Roman Empire.

To the powerful it promised ‘give us legal monopoly over religion and education, and we’ll provide soft power, making sure peasants pay their taxes to you and fight for you if axed to’. That was the basis of many win-win deals with Constantine’s successors and pretty much every reasonable European ruler, from Louis XIV to Napoleon, from Clovis to Mussolini, from Charlemagne to Franco.

To the wealthy, it promised: ‘give us donations and we will keep the workers quiet, telling the poor fellow that the next life will be luxury; and by the way we can intercede with God to offer you a fast track to heaven if you are interested.’

To the poor, it promised: ‘Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Obey the powerful and the rich, don’t kill other people (unless your king or priest asks you to), and your afterlife will be wonderful because Jesus loves you, yes you. He’s not showing it on a daily basis but that is part of a plan to fool the rich, hence the misery and suffering. But he really cares’.

To men, it promised: ‘Women are sinful and impure; they have always been witches and bitches (except your mum and the Virgin Mary). So it’s okay to beat your wife a bit. If you don’t know exactly why, she does.’

To barbaric tribes it said: ‘If you convert now you will be loved by Jesus and become friends of Rome (or Spain, or England). You can continue to worship your pagan fertility goddess provided you call her Virgin Mary (and don’t tell anyone I told you that). Make up your mind quickly ‘cause I have three other tribes to see today. If we don’t have an agreement you’ll have to deal with those soldiers behind me and, believe me, you really don’t want that.’

To the medieval knights / conquistadores it said: ‘Rather than wasting your time raping dirty farm girls in cold wetlands, killing each other when drunk and plotting against your king, why don’t you take a holiday in Palestine/America?
There you can:
• Free Jerusalem/America from the infidel,
• rape local hotties,
• indulge in sanctified rampage and blessed looting,
• come back full of gold to impress your mum and cousins,
• while we’ll make sure your wives behave in your absence.
PLUS:
• if you die over there, all your sins and atrocities will be written off and you’ll go direct to heaven!
AND ANYWAY:
• if you stay you’ll probably die from the plague next year

So what are you waiting for?!

To the Spanish, it said: ‘God is Spanish’. To the French, it said: ‘God is French’, etc. etc.

As one can see, the Christian church had a good word for everyone. It was capable of reaching out to every interest group. No wonder it thrived for so long, all around the world, in all segments of society.

Killing the father

Christianity was soon keen to forget its Jewish origins. You have to kill the father at some point. Later, from the Middle-Ages, Christians re-enforced its crowd-pleasing policy by introducing scapegoats and inner-enemies and distract people from real oppression. Jews – a religious minority that was found a bit everywhere - were an easy target. The rumour grew that ‘The Jews killed Jesus’. For centuries, no-one seemed to notice that the slogan was simply absurd. Perhaps Jews were not a random scapegoat after all – a self-made man is often ashamed of its origins. Anyway, that campaign was so successful that even individuals and rulers that were not very Christian embraced the new gizmo enthusiastically. That’s the secret of social networking and viral marketing: after a while people forget where and when they first heard about a slogan or a rumour. The Church didn’t need to confirm or deny officially that Jews had killed Jesus. It became conventional gossip.

Talking about Judaism, it’s interesting to notice that the inventors of mono-theism let their creature get away and ultimately turn against them. They were not able to retain intellectual property and the fantastic royalties that would have come in time. Perhaps they never saw that monotheism had global commercial potential. So much for the proverbial business skills of the Jewish people.

The Science challenge

Christianity however had to face many a challenge. For instance: science. In truth, Christianity picked the wrong fight with science. The bible was largely silent about it. Genesis, that Jewish myth, should perhaps not have been put into the credo. And where was the need for the Church to be so specific that the world had been created by God around -4,000 BC since no such date was in the Book. Similarly, the Bible said nothing about the shape of Earth or its position in the cosmos, so why bother and waste so much effort torturing scientists to hide the truth in physics or biology.

It was a lost battle in the long term. After having been adamant for centuries that the Bible narrative and the Church commentaries should be taken literally under penalty of death, the Church started to say, in the twentieth century, that we shouldn’t have taken it too seriously. ‘Yes, all right, Earth is not exactly the centre of the universe, even we suspected it. But after all who cares? The love of Jesus is the important thing. Okay we may have over-reacted when torturing those scientists but back then we didn’t want the ignorant crowd to be upset by such revelations’.

A balanced approach to science today is to have a ‘modernist’ pro-science stance for the wider public, while privately flattering the rank and file traditionalists. ‘Some of us still read the Bible literally? Well they may be a little enthusiastic that’s all. Besides the theory of evolution is just a theory isn’t it?’ You don’t want rogue Bible Belt nuts to steal your flock by keeping to principles you just officially abandoned. Throwing in blurry concepts like ‘intelligent design’ might be an efficient red herring to introduce confusion between natural selection and creationism.

Another challenge was recruitment. For many centuries, Christianity offered great job opportunities to the younger sons of the aristocracy. There were basically two careers tracks. Young cynical opportunists were able to rise quickly to the top – bishop or higher - and live in luxury. Poor but clever farmers’ sons also found a great way to escape a miserable life; through a remarkable scouting system the Church was quick at spotting youngsters with potential. Idealist nerds were also welcome, providing missionaries or honest-to-god, low-profile rural priests.

But nowadays rich kids and literate young men have much better career opportunities in financial services or consumer products. Poor black boys can become footballers. White trash can become reality TV stars. Applications are dropping and only ‘idealists’ are interested. And they can be a pain.

In an interesting historic loop, the Church is now back to being a minority, with a bigger proportion of employees sincerely dedicated to God and mankind, just as it was pre-Constantine. It does not mean disaster in business terms. Christianity has lost monopoly but remains legal. The classic product lifecycle theory tells us that a product nearing the end of its life and facing declining sales can still be profitable, simply because the brand is so strong that it requires little marketing investment. For instance, when the Pope visits the UK in September 2010, we called it a ‘State visit’ so all the logistics and security got paid by the British taxpayer, and Catholicism got tens of hours of free advertising on national channels, promoting Catholic schools and warning against ‘aggressive’ secularism. Yes secular democracies may have officially broken from the Church but there are still quite a lot of loopholes for clever marketers.

God is a full-time job

After 313 BC, Christians stopped being a club of gifted amateurs to embrace professionalism. They organised themselves as an army and a bureaucracy. Women
were excluded from any career in the church. One branch, the Catholics, demanded celibacy from their priest. Again that was a mixed option. Being forbidden to have any form of sexuality, no wife and no children, was not exactly great to maintain mental sanity and remain in the right mindset to advise everybody else on family and sexual issues.

Career priests of course have always managed to have a happy sex life undercover, but yet again it’s the idealists who suffered, those who insisted in taking the celibacy rule too seriously. Many of them developed frustration and perversion (chastity of course being the worst of all perversion). Commentators and the wider public are shocked at the apparent paradox that men of god were abusing children on a large scale, or covering for their colleagues doing it, for decades and centuries. But that was the natural yet unintended consequence of a very deliberate human resource policy. Ordinary men or priests are psychologically more likely to use prostitutes or – to the extreme - rape little girls when they are not capable or not allowed to have a normal sex life and family life. Fortunately, and despite all the idealists within, the church has kept the sense of solidarity and togetherness during the scandal, and generally doesn’t let the crowd or the police know about its dirty little secrets.

It is fascinating to see that Catholicism, unlike every other branch of Christianity, insists on male priesthood and celibacy, generating some bad press. I do believe however that the Catholic strategy is right. In the long term, all monotheist religions are going downhill but the more primitive and reactionary, the more likely one religion is to increase its market share in a declining market. They just have to keep their nerves. Forget about winning back the agnostics, refocus on your natural targets. Looking forward, male-exclusivity in priesthood will become increasingly attractive to frustrated men given the growing supremacy of women in many aspects of social life (education, health and soon enough politics).

Not only Catholicism must remain a gentlemen’s club, but I would even advise Catholics to develop their ‘unique selling proposition’ further and go back to all archaic traditions. Latin for instance. As George Brassens put it in a song called ‘Tempete dans un bénitier’ giving up Latin during masses was a terrible mistake, taken in a panic, a token to ‘modernity’ to try and accommodate the ridiculous fashion of the 50s and 60s. At least with Latin, there was a sense of mystery and awe. In French or English, a mass became just dull and pointless.

Catholic PR on the BBC

My complaint letter to the BBC

As a licence fee payer and a citizen, I was disappointed by the BBC’s coverage of the Pope in Britain. I watched large bits of Friday morning’s coverage and I was amazed how much coverage the catholic event took and how little debate or information there was. The tone of the programme was quite like the relaxed and consensual in-situ coverage of a pop music festival. The only people interviewed were children or adult catholic activists and they were typically asked one controversial question and that was it. To a question about the cover-up of child abuse by catholic priest, one activist he had been submitted himself to some of it, but that ‘there was healing’ in the holy presence of the pope. Such a shocking assertion should at least have led to a clarification question from the journalist. (by the way, the term ‘activist’ is not used by your journalists to refer to catholic activists, they are just ‘christians’; muslim individual speaking for their faith, or secular individual speaking against clergy are, by contrast, referred to as activists)

As a media, you may consider that the pope’s visit is a big event worth large coverage and I accept that, although the status of Vatican as a State, and considering the visit of that foreign clergyman as a ‘State visit’ is to me personally a joke. Anyway that might have justified broadcasting meetings with the Queen and government officials, or even let’s say a speech. But catholicism is also a business. At the least, no-one can deny that Catholic schools in this country are a successful and profitable business. Your Friday morning broadcast was, for more than an hour, a huge free advertisement and PR for a private organisation, the catholic education system, funded by taxpayers. With lots of cute little kids in their cute little uniforms telling the camera how excited they were to see the pope. If the BBC was supposed to cover a ‘State visit’ then the rallies with catholic children should not have been covered more than, say a foreign president meeting his fellow countrymen at the embassy i.e. in passing. As ‘head of State’, leader of one particular religion and CEO of catholic schools, the pope must have been delighted by the BBC coverage.

Premiere League - The 2009-2010 season

The new Premiere League season 2010-2011 starts this week-end. Good opportunity to look back on last year. My last post mid-January was to rejoice at the brief glimpse of Arsenal on top of the table. It was just before Arsenal lost again to ManU and Chelsea. We were expecting Arsenal without a valid striker to struggle against the Big Two but hoping that they would lose points to the small four in the last third of the season. And they did, beyond expectations, dropped points to Aston Villa, Everton, City and Spurs while Arsenal made six wins in a row against Liverpool, Sunderland, Hull, Burnley, Stoke and West Ham to come back to two points behind the leaders with easier fixtures coming up (MU and Chelsea playing each other in particular). In truth, many of the wins in that Arsenal series came in the dying minutes and not in very convincing way.

Then came another 'Birmingham moment' two years after that fatal February day (the Eduardo injury, the late equalizer and the Gaslas nervous breakdown). Poor game, Nasri opens the score ten minutes from time but then a stupid mistake in the box and a draw. And Fabregas gets injured for the rest of the season. We then won home to Wolves in the last minute, to reach 71 points – 9 more than the previous season - but the impetus was lost. For match-day 34 against in-form Spurs , Arsenal was missing four or five of its most important players: Fabregas, Arshavin, Song, Gallas, Van Persie (who came in, returning from six month injury, in the last 20 minutes). Spurs were favourite and won 2-1 logically. It was probably over at that point. But the final blow came at Wigan (match 35); Arsenal was leading 2-0 after 80 minutes and then conceded three goals to lose 3-2. Then a goalless draw to City at home and another defeat at Blackburn. In the end, Arsenal finished third with 75 points, only three more than the previous season, and 11 points behind Chelsea.

To be honest, it was a good performance to come back into contention, up to match-day 33 or 34 after having lost home and away – and so badly - to both ManU and Chelsea. But, with another batch of key players injuries in the last stand, the team was toothless and out of steam.

So what about the new season ahead? Never so few transfers. Top teams will remain essentially the same, only one year older, with minor additions: Chamakh and hopefully a new goalkeeper (Given, Schwarzer?) for Arsenal, Hernandez for ManU, Chelsea and Liverpool swapping Cole and Benayoun. Only City has, again, significantly strengthened the squad. One year older might be too old for ManU but perhaps Valencia, Nani, Anderson and Evans will raise their games to take over ageing Giggs, Ferdinand and Scholes.

Everybody expects City to be a contender for the title but I think Liverpool (16/1 to win for some bookmakers) should not be written off. With key players remaining and the excellent Hodgson as a new manager, with no pressure and low expectations, I believe they will surprise.

As for Arsenal, Fabregas is staying one more year. Barca made a £30m offer but Arsenal rejected it and that was it. Fabregas has consistently been very clear that he wants to go to Barcelone at some point but he realized he was not on top of their shopping list this year and in the meantime he still likes playing for Wenger. Let’s hope the World Champion and Arsenal captain will instil confidence and maturity in the team and will find extra motivation in the fact that it may well be his last year in London.

Inception, de Christopher Nolan

Comme Batman 2, Inception est brillant et surprenant mais inutilement long et compliqué. Christopher Nolan est doué mais il veut trop en faire. Si l’on veut être méchant, c’est The Matrix pour adulte, avec un prétexte freudien, mais pour finalement nous faire le plein d’explosions numériques au ralenti, comme dans The Matrix. Le rêve dans le rêve aurait suffi. Etait-il nécessaire d’en rajouter une troisième couche, puis une quatrième couche in extremis? Surtout quand la deuxième couche est l’occasion d’une poursuite en voiture dans New York et la troisième une poursuite/fusillade à ski, entre James Bond et Lara Croft (cette dernière scène sombre un peu dans le ridicule). Tout de même, avec tout l’argent d’Hollywood pour les effets numériques, on aurait pu nous donner des rêves un peu plus... oniriques, et des situations un peu plus originales.

Pour être méchant encore, on pourrait appeler ça du sous Philip K. Dick. Cette histoire sur le thème du rêve, des altérations de la conscience, de la schizophrénie et des niveaux de réalité, est pratiquement un plagia de Philip K. Dick l’auteur de Minority Report et de Blade Runner, et surtout de Ubik (son meilleur livre à mon avis, pas encore adapté au cinéma - mais il parait que c’est en projet).

Voila, c’est donc tentant de dénigrer ce film pour boursouflé, agaçant, vain et prétentieux. Et cependant, le gars Nolan a un véritable talent pour raconter son histoire et certains plans, certains décors, sont vraiment beaux, comme le Paris plié en quatre. Et puis, malgré le scénario compliqué il faut reconnaître qu’on arrive à peu près à suivre et à comprendre. Bref au total, je recommande le film aux amateurs du genre.

Toy Story 3, by Lee Unkrich

Toy Story is back and our old friends too. John Lasseter was too busy being the boss of Pixar-Disney animation studios, so after co-writing the story he stepped back and let Lee Unkrich, a Pixar veteran too, taking the lead role of Director. But it is very much a Pixar team work that, as Time Out says, ‘puts their gorgeously detailed digital craftsmanship at the service of a pleasingly simple fantasy set-up, warm, complex characterisation and classically elegant storytelling’.

First we are told ‘put your 3D glasses on now’ and we are blessed with the latest of Pixar’s short film gems. The new one, ‘Day and Night’ is well in the Pixar tradition: no dialogues, a cool classic jazz soundtrack, an entirely original graphic design, warm, funny, poetic. Sheer genius. And this time, of course, in 3D. Contrary to the feature film that takes the right approach of a light 3D touch, the short film explores the 3D opportunities and 3D/2D contrasts in marvellous ways. Impossible to describe this artistic collage. It reminded me a bit of the slapstick and surreal quality of Les Shadocks.

Then the big film. Pixar Opus eleven. Andy is 20 and about to go to college. His childhood toys have been sleeping untouched in a box for many years. As Andy must clear his room, toys anxiously face several options: move to the attic, donation to a daycare centre, or being thrown away. The toys are divided on what would be the best option for them to retire.

The Timeout review is quite good at spotting the weaknesses. It’s true that too many plot patterns from Toy Story one and two are repeating here, but everything is so brilliantly written and filmed that pleasure is constant and intense again. However I am not a huge fan of the Barbie/Ken subplot (too easy) and Buzz in Spanish mode is fun but overdone.

It is also the second Pixar in a row to be so deeply emotional. Nostalgia, passing of time, despair and separation were always part of the Toy Story saga but the theme is very explicit this time.

I am one of those, many, who cried here, after having cried at Up (twice). Somehow it's okay now, even for a guy, to admit crying when it's a Pixar film. Minor spoiler is coming now. I am referring to the final scene, of course, where Andy eventually chooses to give his favourite toys to an adorable little girl of the neighbourhood and then plays with her – and with them – for the last time. Feeling tears is always an uncomfortable feeling and we should of course be wary of cheap melodrama. There may an argument here but for me there is nothing outrageously cheesy in that scene. It’s simple, true and beautiful.

But another scene took me by surprise. The very short and simple scene where Andy’s mum is suddenly stricken by emotion at the sight of Andy’s room being emptied. Perhaps because I am about to become a father myself I can start to imagine how hard it must be to see your child leaving the family home for good and how I, like most of us probably, was an unfair and insensitive brat to my mum when I moved away to university.

Corpse Bride, by Tim Burton

For the first session of a new cine-club series, on Saturday 6 of February at Alexes's place, I have drawn the ‘animation’ genre from the hat. I had already showed my all-time animation favourite, Monsters Inc. in a previous cine-club back in Meudon in 2006 . So this time I decided to go for my favourite director Tim Burton, and take the opportunity to illustrate my favourite animation technique: stop-motion puppetry.

As a matter of facts, I already wrote a paper on Corpse Bride in 2006.
I only have a few things to add today.

Burton started his career as an animator for Disney but left quickly as his gothic personality didn't fit well in the Mickey Mouse empire. Except for his brilliant short film Vincent in stop-motion, Burton then filmed mostly with live actors. He's to me one of the greatest film artists of our time. Apart from Corpse Bride and The Nightmare before Xmas, my favourite Burton films remain Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood.

Time Out recently published a list of the ‘top 50’ greatest animation films of all time, with good reviews in it and comments from Terry Gilliam. I was shocked by their ranking (22nd) and comment on The Nightmare before Christmas and Coraline. They basically say that Coraline comes as no surprise as The Nightmare was already the works of Henry Selick and not Tim Burton. I think it’s pointless and ridiculous to deny Burton parenthood in The Nightmare as they try to do. Corpse Bride, written and directed by the master himself – and not even mentioned by Time Out’s list! - is proof that The Nightmare, though shot by Selick indeed, was a Burton production, out of Burton’s imagination and visual genius; he delegated the shooting to Selick but he remains the main author in my opinion. On the other hand, James and the Giant Peach (1996) was already the proof, if one was needed, that Selick is a great artist in his own right too. I personally consider Burton and Selick to be co-authors in The Nightmare, and the third father, composer Danny Elfman was essential in it, as he is again in Corpse Bride.

Anyway, it’s a shame to rank Nightmare or Coraline #22, and to ignore Corpse Bride altogether. They are both authentic, major masterpieces, not only among the very best animated movies of all time but simply among the best pictures of all time. In my personal list, the three in the top 10.

Where I may be partial to the Burton/Selick production and chose of their films for the cine-club is because puppet animation has a tremendous emotional appeal to me. To me, the best CGI rendering will never give me the light reflections and textures of puppet stop motion. And if it did, I would still prefer the idea of watching hand-made plasticine-and-fabric puppets rather than virtual CGI puppets. That’s me and my ‘rosebud’ childhood toy, the ViewMaster, the little magic lantern.

Flipping again through the beautiful book Corpse Bride, an invitation to the wedding (Titan Books), I found that quote from Tim Burton that summarises my feeling in better words: ‘There’s a magic and a mystery to stop-motion, a tactile quality, a handmade quality that gives it an emotional resonance to me.’

Finally, don't miss the upcoming Alice in Wonderland by Tim Burton in 2010!

l'âge d’or de l’animation

Suite au best 50 de Time Out, j'ai eu envie de faire mon propre classement des meilleurs films d'animation. C'est l'occasion de revenir sur mon idée que nous vivons dans un age d'or de l'animation, allelujah.

Tout s’est passé au milieu des années 90 et, comme toujours dans l’histoire de l’art, les grands chefs d’œuvre sont arrivés tout de suite dès le début de la période, dans sa fraicheur et son immaturité technologique. Quatre sources majeures ont alimenté la révolution: Pixar (Lasseter et alii), Studio Ghibli (Miyazaki et Takahata), Aardman (Nick Park et alii), et les productions de Tim Burton et Henry Selick. A l’inverse de la tendance générale de l’industrie, il existe encore un véritable systeme de studio dans l’animation, ce qui signifie non seulement surface et sécurité financière pour monter de gros projets, capacité à planifier longtemps à l’avance mais aussi une continuité dans les talents, les styles et l’émulation créative entre les différents réalisateurs appartenant à la meme écurie.

Ces quatre ‘sources’ se sont déployées dans quatre techniques différentes: le dessin animé ‘2D’ traditionnel pour le Studio Ghibli, mais aussi - nouveauté des années 1990 -, l’animation par ordinateur (Computer Generated Images) pour Pixar et ses suiveurs ; et la renaissance de l’animation image-par-image (‘stop-motion’) en volume: personnages de plasticine (Aardman studios) et marionnettes (Burton, Selick). L’animation en volume se prête d’ailleurs naturellement à l’arrivée des technologies de captation et restitution en 3D qui vont marquer les années 2010. En termes de rendu esthétique, ma préférence va vers l’animation en volume, mais il fait chaud au cœur de voir qu’après la longue agonie artistique de Disney, il est encore possible de créer des œuvres d’art pour grands et petits selon des méthodes et dans un style graphique relativement classiques : Hayao Miyazaki et Isao Takahata. Cela veut dire que l’histoire et les personnages sont, évidemment, toujours la chose la plus importante, ce que, par contraste, quelques opportunistes du CGI (Dreamworks) ont parfois oublié.

Au commencement, donc, il faut se souvenir que le méchant magicien Walt Disney, businessman visionnaire, cynique et conservateur, mort depuis vingt ans (1966), continuait pourtant de régner sur l’industrie du ‘dessin animé’. Son monopole incontesté sur le cinéma pour enfants entrainait l’animation toujours plus bas dans une création toujours plus infantile, laide, dénuée d’humour, méprisant l’intelligence des enfants et des adultes, véhiculant une idéologie douteuse. Les années 70 donnaient le médiocre Bernard et Bianca. Le Roi Lion, le plus gros succès des années 80 symbolisait tout cela jusqu’à l’écœurement : laideur des images et de la musique, absence d’humour, idéologie reaganienne.

Et puis soudain, donc, trois coups de tonnerre: The Nightmare before Xmas (1993), Wallace & Gromit (1996), Toy Story (1995). Burton, Aardman, Pixar. Miyazaki et le studio Ghibli produisaient des longs métrages depuis 15 ans déjà mais c’est au début des années 90 (Porco Rosso 1992, Princesse Mononoké 1997) que le public occidental a commencé à le découvrir. L’originalité d’Aardman et la profondeur de Miyazaki ont été rapidement reconnues mais les critiques ont mis plus de temps à saluer la veine Pixar, qui formellement, se rapprochait plus de la source Disney (lovable characters, happy ends, family values). Le fait que Disney distribuait les films Pixar ajoutait à la confusion: puisque Disney appliquait son sceau, il s’agissait probablement de ‘films pour enfants’ mais juste en ‘images de synthèse’ comme on disait.

Je me souviens que le premier janvier 2000, à Barcelone je discutaillais avec mes copains cinéphiles sur l’idée d’un âge d’or de l’animation, leur disant que The Nightmare ou Toy Story étaient non seulement des œuvres d’art, les meilleurs films d’animation jamais produits, mais aussi des films supérieurs à la quasi-totalité des films en prise de vue ‘réelles’ produits dans les années 90. Pendant la décennie 2000, les quatre grandes sources ont continué de produire des chefs d’œuvres quasiment chaque année, et d’autres maisons, beaucoup d’autres auteurs ont bénéficié de financements toujours plus importants pour créer des longs métrages d’animation.

2009 a été une année exceptionnelle, avec pas moins de quatre films majeurs : Up (Pixar), Ponyo (Miyazaki), Coraline et The Fantastic Mr Fox de Wes Anderson. Le fait qu’un réalisateur comme Wes Anderson (que j'adore) choisisse l’animation stop-motion (que j'adore) pour adapter Road Dahl (que j'adore) et en faire une œuvre totalement personnelle, alors qu’il n’est pas un animateur de formation, était apparemment destiné à me combler personnellement. C'est aussi une nouvelle preuve que l’animation a quitté le ghetto et va continuer d’occuper une place de plus en plus importante dans la création cinématographique, dans tous les genres

Pour en revenir à l'histoire de cette révolution, l’achat de Pixar par Disney, avec les patrons de Pixar prenant de fait la direction créative de Disney, fut la consécration financière pour le principal pilier de l’âge d’or. La prochaine étape sera la consécration artistique ‘institutionnelle’.

Je prédis que verrons dans la décennie 2010 des films d’animation couronnés par les récompenses professionnelles majeures, Oscars et Palmes d’or. Si ceci n’est pas encore arrivé c’est que les professionnels du cinéma et les critiques de cinéma se rendent compte que les meilleurs films produits depuis 15 ans, quel que soit la combinaison de critères qu’on veuille considérer (succès public, qualité cinématographique, innovation technique et narrative, ou simplement une œuvre ‘qui restera’) sont pour la plupart des films d’animation. Lorsqu’on regarde la liste des Oscars en particulier depuis 10 ans, on voit que le Pixar ou le Miyazaki de cette année là était presque toujours un film supérieur au film vainqueur. Si donc on confine les films d’animation dans une catégorie secondaire c’est qu’ils rafleraient toutes les récompenses si on les comparait honnêtement aux films ‘normaux’ produits depuis 10 ans.

J’aime rappeler que Toy Story 2 eut droit à 10 lignes dans les Cahiers du Cinéma en 2002, dans lesquelles le critique condescendait à dire que ‘si le cinéma est l’art du divertissement, alors Toy Story 2 est un bon film.’ Le fait que Pixar, par exemple produise des films divertissants et accessibles aux familles et qui rencontrent un succès considérable a été longtemps difficile à avaler pour les critiques (et en écrivant cela je pense au critique gastronomique peine-à-jouir de Ratatouille).

Mes films préférés, donc:

1. Monsters Inc. by Pete Docter (2001) (Pixar)
2. The Nightmare Before Christmas by Henry Selick (1993)
3. Toy Story 2 by John Lasseter (1999) (Pixar)
4. My Neighbour Totoro by Hayao Miyazaki (1988)
5. Corpse Bride by Tim Burton (2005)
6. WALL-E (2008) by Andrew Stanton (Pixar)
7. Coraline by Henry Selick (2009)
8. Spirited Away by Hayao Miyazaki (2001)
9. Wallace & Gromit: The Best of Aardman Animation (1996) (Aardman)
10. Toy Story by John Lasseter (1995) (Pixar)
11. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
12. A Bug's Life' (1998) by John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton (Pixar)
13. The Incredibles (2004) by Brad Bird (Pixar)
14. Fantasia (1940)
15. Ratatouille (2007) by Brad Bird (Pixar)
16. Chicken Run by Nick Park and Peter Lord (2000) (Aardman)
17. Fantastic Mr Fox by Wes Anderson (2009)
18. Grave of the Fireflies (Hataru no haka) (1988) by Isao Takahata
19. Up by Pete Docter (2009) (Pixar)
20. Alice in Wonderland (Disney) (1951)
21. Le roi et l'oiseau by Paul Grimault (1980)
22. Ponyo by Hayao Miyazaki (2009)
23. Kirikou and the Sorceress by Michel Ocelot (1995)
24. Curse of the were-rabbit by Nick Park (2005) (Aardman)
25. Porco Rosso (1992) by Hayao Miyazaki
26. The Jungle Book (1967) by Wolfgang Reitherman
27. Les triplettes de Belleville (Belleville Rendez-vous) by Sylvain Chomet (2003)
28. Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi & Vincent Paronnaud (2007)
29. Shrek by Andrew Adamson & Vicky Jenson (2001)
30. Team America: World Police (2004)
31. The ice age (2002)
32. Flushed away (2006) (Aardman)
33. Cinderella (1950)
34. James and the Giant Peach by Henry Selick (1996)

Time Out's best 50 animation films

Time Out a publié en Septembre 2009 une intéressante liste des 50 meilleurs films d’animation 'ever' avec de chouettes commentaires de Terry Gilliam. Ca m'a donné l'envie de faire mon propre classement.

Le numéro un de Time Out est My neighbour Totoro (Tonari no Totoro) de Hayao Miyazaki. Je trouve aussi que Totoro est un des deux ou trois meilleurs Miyazaki et ca suffit pour avoir sa place dans le top 10 de tout amateur d’animation. C’est une pure merveille pour les enfants et c’est un des plus merveilleux films écrit sur l’enfance. Le cinéma américain aurait été incapable de montrer avec une telle distance et une telle pudeur, les ressorts de l’imagination enfantine pour fuir les difficultés familiales. Et sans les complications mythologico-écologiques qui rendent parfois les Miyazaki un peu touffus pour un spectateur européen et nuisent un peu à sa fraicheur (je pense à des films par ailleurs majeurs comme Mononoké et même, dans une certaine mesure, Spirited Away).

Etonnant dans le top 50 de Time Out, l’absence de tout film Dreamworks (Shrek) et de tout film Blue Sky (les producteurs de la série Ice Age. Les rédacteurs s’en expliquent dans par ce qu’il considèrent être ‘this century’s most annoying cartoon bugbear: cultural referencing’. From the industry in-jokes of ‘Shrek’ to the soul-searching self-help psychology of the ‘Ice Age’ movies, animators seem to have forgotten how to make movies for kids without patronising their parents’. Ils n’ont pas tort. Le pire dans le genre, clins-d’oeils-aux-ados-et-aux-parents étant atteint dans des productions mineures déjà tombées aux oubliettes (Sharks, de Dreamworks). Néanmoins le premier Shrek était vraiment drôle et nouveau. Les suivants, self-referencing et pastichant le pastiche, tourne à vide. Quant à Ice Age, j’ai aussi une certaine tendresse pour le premier opus. Le synopsis est certes un copié-collé du Livre de la Jungle, mais j’aime le rendu léger et schématique des décors qui me rappelle le ViewMaster. Et pour balancer la sensiblerie famille, quelques uns des interludes ‘screwball’ avec le rat sont au contraire dingues et drole, dans l’esprit de Tex Avery.

Mais la plus inexplicable absence dans la liste est celle des studios Aardman, oubli d’autant plus étonnant venant d’un magazine anglais. Quelle fierté pourtant, pour l’Angleterre d’avoir enfanté Aardman. La France a certes créé Kirikou, les Triplettes et pleins de petites merveilles en court métrage. Mais elle n’a pas vu l’éclosion d’un véritable studio comme Aardman qui est, toutes proportions gardées, le Pixar européen : une structure créée et dirigée par des artistes intransigeants sur la qualité, générant un volume de production important et régulier de court et de longs métrages qui ont tous rencontrés succès public et critique. Aardman a aussi atteint une surface financière garantissant son indépendance artistique grâce à des films publicitaires et des séries TV (Shaun the sheep) et c’est peut-être ce genre de choses que les animateurs français, aidé par le système de soutien, se refusent à faire. Tous les longs métrages Aardman ont leur place dans un top 50 et j’ai beaucoup de mal à choisir entre eux. Mon préféré est tout de même Chicken Run. J’ai hurlé de rire devant The curse of the were-rabbit mais j’ai plus de tendresse encore pour les courts et moyen-métrages de Wallace et Gromit, dont les trois premiers (accompagnés du court oscarisé Creature Comforts et de Never without my handbag) ont été montrés en un programme long dans les salles françaises vers 1995.

Les films français n’ont pas été oubliés par Time Out et c’est avec plaisir que j’y trouve Kirikou, que j’adore, et les Triplettes de Belleville, encore que je soupçonne un étranger d’aimer surtout ce film étrange pour son coté franchouillard. Sylvain Chomet créativement, bizarrement sur des stéréotypes français (le tour de France) et l’imagerie des années 30. Persépolis est mentionné est c’est mérité mais cela pose la question de la définition de la catégorie, car Persépolis est un roman graphique et un film pour adultes. A ce compte il faudrait certainement inclure Walz with Bashir dans la liste. Et le jour où l’on fait un film à partir de Maus, faudra-t-il le comparer aux Disney/Pixar/Ardman/Miyazaki ? Il me semble que les films d’animations destinés aux familles peuvent difficilement partager une liste avec les films animés exclusivement destinés aux adultes et éventuellement dénués d’humour. J’ai fini par considérer que oui et j’inclus également Persépolis et Le Tombeau des Lucioles dans ma propre liste. J’ai aussi des réserves sur la présence de A Scanner Darkly, film en motion-capure, et pour Final Fantasy, CGI au rendu hyper-réaliste. Lorsque le jeu de véritables acteurs est capté par motion capture et rendu de manière hyper-réaliste, on n’est plus tout à fait dans l’animation telle que je l’entends ici. D’ici quelques années un grand nombre des films d’actions et de science-fiction – comme Avatar - utiliseront tellement de CGI ‘invisible’ et de motion-capture d’acteurs réels qu’ils pourront tous, techniquement parlant, être qualifiés d’hybride de films d’animation sauf à considérer que le genre, si s’en est un, signifie un décalage irréaliste dans le monde créé et l‘humour.

Enfin les vieux Disney. Il y a en a 9 dans le top 50 de Time Out. Je suis d’accord avec Snow White, un incontournable et indémodable joyau, une œuvre révolutionnaire pour 1937. J’aime aussi beaucoup Le Livre de la Jungle et Fantasia. Mais je ne suis pas trop sur de la Belle au bois dormant, pour moi typique de l’édulcoration industrielle des contes par la firme Disney. Quant à Aladdin je me souviens juste d’avoir pensé ‘pas trop mal’ pour un Disney qui touchait le fond au début des années 90, mais je n’ai jamais eu aucune envie de le revoir depuis. Dumbo et Bambi sont toujours charmants, avec des petits, mais c’est tout de même un peu dégoulinant de cuteness. J’ai de la tendresse pour Robin des bois, un des tout premiers films que j’ai vu au cinéma avec ma maman, mais on n’est certainement pas en présence d’un film majeur. J’ai par contre été impressionné à la revoyure d’Alice.

Le classement de Time-Out
1. My Neighbour Totoro by Hayao Miyazaki (1988)
2. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
3. The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Movie (1979)
4. Fantasia (1940)
5. Toy Story by John Lasseter (1995)
6. Spirited Away by Hayao Miyazaki (2001)
7. Yellow Submarine by George Dunning (1968)
8. Belleville Rendez-vous by Sylvain Chomet (2003)
9. South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut by Trey Parker (1999)
10. Robin Hood (1973)by Wolfgang Reitherman
11. Bambi (1942) by David Hand
12. Grave of the Fireflies (1988) by Isao Takahata
13. Dumbo (1941) by Ben Sharpsteen
14. Gandahar (1988) by René Laloux
15. The Iron Giant (1999) by Brad Bird
16. Akira (1988) by Katsuhiro Ôtomo
17. The Brave Little Toaster (1987) by Jerry Rees
18. The Jungle Book (1967) by Wolfgang Reitherman
19. When the Wind Blows (1988) by Jimmy T Murakami
20. Pinocchio by Hamilton Luske & Ben Sharpsteen (1940)
21. Whisper of the Heart (1995) by Yoshifumi Kondo
22. The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) & Coraline (2009) by Henry Selick
23. Perfect Blue (1997) by Satoshi Kon
24. The Incredibles (2004) by Brad Bird
25. Watership Down (1978) by Martin Rosen
26. Princess Mononoke (1997) by Hayao Miyazaki
27. Antz (1998, Dreamworks), 'A Bug's Life' (1998, John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton, Pixar)
28. Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi & Vincent Paronnaud
29. The Secret of NIMH (1982) by Don Bluth
30. Porco Rosso (1992)by Hayao Miyazaki
31. WALL-E (2008) by Andrew Stanton
32. Kirikou and the Sorceress by Michel Ocelot
33. Aladdin (1992) by Ron Clements and John Musker (Disney)
34. Ghost in the Shell (1995) by Mamoru Oshii
35. Beavis and Butt-head Do America (1996) by Mike Judge and Yvette Kaplan
36. The Lord of the Rings (1978) by Ralph Bakshi
37. A Soldier’s Tale (1984) by RO Blechman & Christian Blackwood
38. Ratatouille (2007) by Brad Bird (Pixar)
39. Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theatres by Matt Maiellaro & Dave Willis
40. Animal Farm (1954) by John Halas & Joy Batchelor
41. FernGully: The Last Rainforest (1992) by Bill Kroyer
42. Fritz the Cat (1972) by Ralph Bakshi
43. Happy Feet (2006) by George Miller
44. Waking Life (2001) / A Scanner Darkly (2006) by Richard Linklater
45. Transformers – The Movie (1986) by Nelson Shin
46. Paprika by Satoshi Kon
47. Sleeping Beauty (1959) by Clyde Geronimi
48. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001) by Hironobu Sakaguchi
49. Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs (2009) by Phil Lord
50. Heavy Metal (1981) by Gerald Potterton

les big four entre eux

Manchester, la saison dernière, a montré qu’on peut être champion tout en perdant le mini-championnat entre les big four. United n’a marqué qu’un piteux 5 points sur 18 possibles contre les trois autres big four et a perdu deux fois contre son concurrent direct Liverpool, qui, lui, a marqué 14 points sur 18 possible… et pourtant, United a été champion avec 4 points d’avance sur Liverpool

Arsenal leader: regardons bien ce tableau

Ne boudons pas notre plaisir. Voir Arsenal leader du tableau fin janvier, ça fait chaud au cœur. Qui l’aurait prédit après l’humiliation subie contre Chelsea en novembre qui nous avait laissé groggys, ridiculisés… et 11 points derrière. Certes c’est seulement le nombre de buts marqués qui nous sépare de Chelsea (même nombre de points, même goal difference). Certes nous avons maintenant un match de plus qu’eux. Mais tout de même nous avons bel et bien surpassé ManU qui est maintenant un point derrière avec le même nombre de matchs (22).Voir Arsenal leader du tableau fin janvier, ça fait chaud au cœur. Qui l’aurait prédit après l’humiliation subiecontre Chelsea en novembre qui nous avait laissé groggys, ridiculisés… et 11 points derrière. Certes c’est seulement le nombre de buts marqués qui nous sépare de Chelsea (même nombre de points, même goal difference). Certes nous avons maintenant un match de plus qu’eux. Mais tout de même nous avons bel et bien surpassé ManU qui est maintenant un point derrière avec le même nombre de matchs (22).

La performance de mercredi contre Bolton était typiquement mancunienne d’ailleurs. Le ManU champion ces deux dernières saisons s’était fait une spécialité de marquer les trois points même dans les mauvais jours, et malgré des débuts de match catastrophiques, et de revenir en trombe en deuxième mi-temps. J’ai par exemple en mémoire il y a deux saisons, alors que Arsenal, Chelsea et ManU était au coude-à-coude, le renversement de situation contre Spurs à Old Trafford, de 0-2 à 4-2, exactement ce qu’a réalisé Arsenal hier.

L’égalisation contre Everton dans les arrêts de jeu il y a une semaine était aussi typiquement mancunienne. Encore plus que le point marqué (contre une très bonne équipe d’Everton), c’était un grand point marqué psychologiquement. Je veux dire que comme le Manchester des trois dernières saisons, Arsenal parait ‘resilient’, et parvient à gagner des points à l’arraché, malgré la fébrilité défensive, malgré les passages à vide.

Ne boudons pas notre plaisir, donc, et regardons bien le classement au 20 janvier que j’ai capturé sur le site de la BBC. On n’aura peut-etre pas l’occasion de revoir Arsenal au top très souvent d’ici la fin de la saison.

Il va maintenant falloir tenir pendant les 15 jours ‘de la mort’ contre les gros calibres. Il faut espérer que Song va revenir de la CAN en bon état et le plus tôt possible, surtout après la blessure de Diaby. Mais si nous reperdons un peu de terrain contre les adversaires directs à l’issue de ces 4 matchs, ce ne sera pas forcément une catastrophe d’ailleurs. Manchester encore, la saison dernière, a montré qu’on peut être champion tout en perdant le mini-championnat entre les big four. United n’a marqué qu’un piteux 5 points sur 18 possibles contre les trois autres big four et a perdu deux fois contre son concurrent direct Liverpool, qui, lui, a marqué 14 points sur 18 possible… et pourtant, United a été champion avec 4 points d’avance sur Liverpool….(voir autre post). Et la compétitivité des ‘small four’ va faire encore perdre des points à chacun des quatre grands dans la deuxième partie de saison. Manchester va devoir se déplacer à City et à Everton, qui revient en super-forme. Chelsea va jouer à Everton, ainsi qu’à United et à Liverpool.

Ce qui m’inquiète et me déçoit, c’est que Wenger prend prétexte du nombre de buts marqués et du retour prochain de Bendtner (Bendtner…) pour dire que finalement, il n’est peut-être pas nécessaire de recruter un attaquant supplémentaire pour remplacer van Persie, malgré le fait qu’Arsenal a probablement la meilleure santé financière de la League et pourrait largement se permettre de dépenser 10 ou 15 millions. Certes on gagne et on marque contre Bolton, Portsmouth and co. Mais on a bien vu contre Chelsea - sans van Persie, sans Adébayor, sans Bendtner - qu’Eduardo est trop poids plume contre des défenseurs grands par la taille et l’expérience. En face il y avait un striker, un vrai, et qui a fait la différence: Drogba. Même si nos milieux de terrains savent marquer en pénétrant les surfaces avec des une-deux de poche, on ne peut pas se priver de l’option tactique d’un vrai striker, d’un renard de surface doublé d’un grand gars physique pour avoir une chance sur les centres et les set pieces.

Premier League 2009-2010: bilan à mi-parcours

Une saison spectaculaire et étonnante. Bien que trois des quatre big four soient dans le top four encore, ils ont tous montré beaucoup de vulnérabilité, cédant des points chacun à leur tour devant Aston Villa, Man City et même Wigan ou Fulham. Chelsea qui a fait la course en tête, était et reste le favori. C’est clairement l’équipe la plus solide. Mais, pour Chelsea, finir les matchs aller avec seulement deux points d’avance sur ManU et quatre sur Arsenal (un match en moins) compte tenu qu’ils ont battu les trois autres big four et que c’est la seule équipe du big four à avoir été épargnée par les blessures, est sans doute en deçà du plan de route. Reste donc à voir comment ils vont se passer de Drogba pendant la CAN.

Manchester sans Ronaldo reste complètement dans la course malgré une saison et un niveau de jeu moins qu’impressionnants (cinq défaites déjà soit plus que toute la saison dernière). Reste à voir s’ils vont pouvoir – comme d’habitude - accélérer pendant l’hiver et le printemps.

Peu pariaient sur un Arsenal décevant l’an dernier, ayant cédé Adebayor sans se renforcer pendant l’intersaison, et maintenant privé de son meilleur attaquant depuis la onzième journée. Les gunners ont pourtant pratiqué dans l’ensemble le meilleur football du royaume et marqué la bagatelle de 47 buts en 18 matchs. Ils restent aussi dans la course au titre, mais dégagent toujours cette impression de fragilité physique, tactique et morale lorsqu'ils affrontent ManU ou Chelsea.

Bref les big four sont un peu moins forts que l’an dernier, les small four sont compétitifs et le reste de la saison parait totalement imprévisible. Le calendrier a gratifié Arsenal d'une période folle avec, entre le 27 janvier et le 10 février, Aston Villa puis ManU, puis Chelsea, Liverpool et Porto en Champion's League. Le match à Chelsea, 7 février, aura lieu après la fin de la CAN donc avec la menace Drogba tandis que même si Arsenal recrute un nouvel attaquant en janvier, il risque de n'être pas prêt à jouer durant cette période contre les principaux adversaires.

Les ‘small four’ font le spectacle

Les outsiders traditionnels des saisons récentes, Aston Villa, Tottenham, Manchester City, Everton, mettent du sel cette saison, bénéficiant de la fragilité des big four.

Avec un recrutement ‘galactique’ l’été dernier (100 millions pour Tevez, Adebayor, Kolo Touré) en plus de Robinho, Bellamy, Gareth Barry, Shay Given, Manchester City était sensé jouer le top four voire se mêler à la course au titre, et c’est ce qu’ils ont fait pendant le premier tiers, avec seulement deux défaites au compteur, battant Chelsea et Arsenal, nul à Liverpool, et ne perdant le derby Mancunien à Old Trafford que 4-3 après six minutes d’arrêts de jeu. Mais City a ensuite enchainé six nuls de suite contre des petites équipes, pour finir sixième à 10 points de Chelsea (32 points, un match en moins). La grande star est comme prévu Tevez (10 buts dont 7 en championnat) plutôt qu’Adebayor toujours irrégulier et sujet aux problèmes de discipline. Ce début de saison tout à fait décent n’a toutefois pas satisfait le nouveau propriétaire, un milliardaire arabe, et l’entraineur Mark Hughes a été remplacé brutalement par Mancini fin décembre. On voit une fois de plus que gaver un club moyen de stars ne fonctionne pas si la gouvernance du club se résume aux l’impatience et les caprices d’un propriétaire étranger au business du sport et dont c’est la danseuse. La seule exception à cette règle a été le Chelsea de 2004-2005 mais il y a avait le ‘special one’ aux manettes pour gérer les stars.

Tout le contraire d’Aston Villa, qui devient de plus en plus fort chaque saison, sans star, grâce à la stabilité de son entraineur Martin O’Neil, de ses jeunes internationaux anglais (Ashley Young, Agbonlahor) et de ses cadres (l’excellent gardien américain Friedel, Dunne, Davies, Heskey). Ils méritent amplement leur quatrième place à mi-parcours. L’an dernier, Aston Villa semblait bien accroché à la quatrième place, devant Arsenal avant de subir un mauvais printemps et de finir sixième. Cette année ils ont déjà battu Liverpool et United à l’extérieur, Chelsea à domicile, et sont bien partis pour devenir la première équipe en vingt ans à battre chacun des big four dans la même saison.

Tottenham sur le papier est presque aussi fort que City cette année. Un bon entraineur, Redknapp, et une tripotée de bons joueurs offensifs: Defoe, Jenas, Crouch, Keane, Modric, et leur Walcott à eux, Lennon. Ils ont passé presque toute la première partie de saison dans le top four mais leur irrégularité traditionnelle leur a fait perdre des points : typique des Spurs leur victoire 9-1 contre Wigan (5 buts de Defoe) suivie d’un défaite 0-1 contre Wolverhampton.
Le quatrième des small four, Everton, cinquième l’an dernier, est totalement dans les choux cette année: 14ème avec 19 points (18 matchs). Ils ne se sont jamais remis de leur humiliation de la première journée, 6-1 à domicile contre Arsenal.

Arsenal

Arsenal comme d’habitude, a soufflé le chaud et le froid. Comme beaucoup j’ai été choqué qu’on ait laissé partir Touré et Adebayor à City (un concurrent direct pour les places européennes), remplaçant Touré par Vermaelen (une satisfaction) et Adebayor par… personne, après que la piste Chamakh eut été abandonnée. Comme d’habitude Wenger promettait qu’il pourrait faire plus avec moins, grâce à la maturité de ses jeunes. Comme d’habitude le jeu du début de saison fut brillant, malgré les deux défaites des journées 3 et 4, un peu imméritées, à United et à City, et comme d’habitude les blessures ont frappés en novembre (Persie, Clichy, Gibbs, Bendtner), révélant le manque de profondeur de l’effectif: fin de saison pour van Persie qui avait été le meilleur joueur des 11 premières journées (7 buts). (C’est par exemple sur un exploit individuel de van Persie qu’on prend trois points à Fulham contre le cours du jeu). Bendtner étant blessé pour deux mois au même moment, Eduardo n’a pas été capable de compenser cette double absence : deux défaites et zéro but contre Sunderland et Chelsea pour les matchs 12 et 13. Ce dernier match, 0-3 à domicile a été particulièrement douloureux. Comme l’an dernier dans la même rencontre (1-4), les joueurs d’Arsenal avaient l’air de petits garçons impuissants contre l’acier et l’organisation d’Essien et Terry, et l’efficacité d’un Drogba. Le déni de réalité dans les déclarations d’après-match de Wenger, mettant la défaite sur le dos de la malchance, avait aussi de quoi inquiéter. Mais, curieusement, après ce point bas, Arsenal a rebondi, marquant 13 points sur 15 dans les 5 matchs suivants (dont les victoires contre Aston Villa et à Liverpool) tandis que Chelsea perdait à City et laissait échapper des points contre Everton, West Ham et Birmingham.

Chaud et froid classique d’Arsenal et de Liverpool cette saison. Après un début calamiteux, Liverpool réalise une brillante première mi-temps à Anfield devant un Arsenal inexistant. Le score 1-0 aurait pu être beaucoup plus lourd pour Arsenal. Je quitte le pub totalement écœuré et je boycotte la deuxième mi-temps. Résultat plus tard sur bbc.co.uk : Liverpool 1, Arsenal 2. Incroyable. Liverpool est retombé dans sa nervosité et Arshavin marque un but superbe venu d’ailleurs, lui qui avait été le bourreau des Reds l’an dernier (4 buts). On a appris par la suite que Wenger avait hurlé dans les vestiaires à la mi-temps. ‘Je ne l’ai jamais vu comme ça’, déclara Fabregas.

Satisfactions cette saison: Song, le poumon de l’équipe a presque pris la dimension qu’avait Flamini avant son départ. Diabi, traditionnellement irrégulier et souvent blessé, est encore loin du grand Vieira, mais c’est probablement sa meilleure saison jusqu’à présent (5 buts en 13 titularisations). Arshavin est devenu le chouchou du public : un gars mature et intelligent, qui ne doute jamais et marque des buts spectaculaires (6 en championnat) et qui mouille le maillot. Fabregas, enfin, plus que jamais, est le joueur indispensable et l’âme de l’équipe. Déjà 12 buts dont 9 en championnat et quelques buts fantastiques comme le coup franc contre Aston Villa (deux buts en 27 minutes sur le terrain) et l’action personnelle contre Spurs. Autre satisfaction cette année, Ramsey, et Vermaelen qui s’est imposé immédiatement aux coté de Gallas.

Les déceptions: Eduardo et Vela qui ont beaucoup raté, malgré un assez important temps de jeu. Walcott et Nasri ont peu joué en raison des blessures. Les blessures d’Almunia et Fabianski en tout début de saison ont donné leur chance au troisième gardien Vitto Mannone qui a commencé par quelques performances épatantes avant d’atteindre son point d’incompétence devant West Ham, mais le jeune italien a un gros potentiel. Almunia tient maintenant bien son rang parmi les meilleurs gardiens surtout depuis que Czech et Reina ont baissé d’un ton.

Au total Arsenal a marqué 47 buts en 18 matchs, meilleur attaque devant Chelsea (43 buts, 19 matchs) et ManU et Spurs (40 buts chacun en 19 matchs) sans posséder aucun des 6 premiers marqueurs (Defoe et Drogba leaders avec 13 buts devant Rooney, Bent, Torres, Saha). Comme d’habitude depuis le départ de Thierry Henry, ce sont tous les joueurs qui peuvent, et doivent, marquer.

38 points c’est 7 points de plus que l’an dernier après 18 journées. Arsenal est donc toujours dans la course, mais pour qu’on ait une chance d’aller au bout il faudra réunir trois conditions: qu’on recrute un véritable buteur pour remplacer van Persie, que Fabregas ne se blesse pas et que Gallas/Vermaelen ne se blessent pas. La chance d’Arsenal c’est que ManU est visiblement moins fort que l’an dernier et que Chelsea n’est pas toujours le rouleau compresseur annoncé.



En Champion’s League, Arsenal s’est qualifié facilement dans un groupe facile, et jouera Porto en février. En Carling Cup, j’ai vu avec Teun à l’Emirates la victoire de l’équipe B contre le B de Liverpool. Un très bon match où se sont mis en valeur les jeunes Craig Eastmond et Fran Merida et où les défenseurs centraux B, Sylvestre et Senderos, ont encore montré leurs faiblesses. Mais les petits gars se sont fait battre au tour suivant à City qui devient décidément notre bête noire. En FA cup, nous jouerons West Ham le 3 janvier.

C’est tout de même frustrant de devoir si souvent consulter la rubrique 'Injury News' avant toute autre. Je suis obligé d’avouer que pour moi les ‘break’ internationaux, c’est une semaine d’anxiété: espérer, avant toutes choses, que Fabregas, van Persie, Sagna, Arshavin etc. ne se blessent pas. Wenger, victime récurrente de blessures internationales de long terme (Walcott, van Persie) se pose en champion du football de club contre le foot international et a fait un pas de plus en attaquant la fédération néerlandaise suite à la grave blessure de van Persie en match amical – pour que la fédération néerlandaise paie au moins le salaire de van Persie pendant les longs mois d’indisponibilité du joueur.

Le big four

On peut raisonnablement espérer que Chelsea et ManU vont continuer de perdre des points et que le titre se jouera à un niveau le plus bas depuis 10 ans. Chelsea, après un départ météorique (7 victoires dans les 7 premières journées) a ensuite enregistré trois défaites et a récemment montré des hésitations défensives étonnantes. Au total ils n’ont pas réussi à conserver une avance importante en tête avant le début de la CAN qui va les priver de plusieurs joueurs clefs (Drogba, Essien, Mikel, Kalou) pendant plusieurs semaines.

Manchester United semble avoir beaucoup perdu de percutant suite au départ de Ronaldo. Au niveau défensif, entre blessures et méformes le trio Ferdinand-Vidic-Van der Sar est loin d’avoir brillé autant que l’an dernier. Déjà cinq défaites soit plus que toute la saison dernière. Vu le niveau de jeu de ManU, et l’épidémie de blessures qui a frappé la défense, ils peuvent s’estimer heureux de se retrouver à deux points de Chelsea à la mi-temps. Rooney marque, Giggs et Scholes ont encore marqué des buts décisifs, mais ManU fait l’effet d’une équipe vraiment vieillissante.

Liverpool enfin connait une saison en enfer jusqu'à présent. C'est la principale victime de la montée des small four. Septième à douze points de Chelsea, avec déjà 7 défaites, notamment contre Aston Villa et Tottenham, et éliminés dès le premier tour de la ligue des champions. Les bookmakers prennent des paris sur le départ de Benitez au Real. Cependant, il faut être juste, peu d’équipes auraient fait beaucoup mieux avec leurs deux meilleurs joueurs, Torres et Gerard, blessés ou diminués pendant l’essentiel de la période. Que feraient – que vont faire ? - Chelsea sans Drogba, ManU sans Rooney, Arsenal sans Fabregas? Un retour en forme de leur deux joueurs emblématiques pourraient remettre Liverpool sur les rails du top four voire, pourquoi pas, dans la course au titre de cette folle saison.

why we love disaster movies

First, Time Out's Review of '2012' the latest disaster movie by Roland Emmerch

Let’s get the sniffy movie-snob protests out of the way. Yes, ‘2012’ is infantile. Yes, it treats the deaths of six billion people as little more than a tragic footnote. Yes, it’s about as interested in subtlety, narrative invention or character development as the Corkscrew at Alton Towers. But what a ride. There are moments – sights, sounds, special effects – that have never been seen or imagined before, sequences of staggering complexity, immaculate detail and breathtaking scale. In summary, it may seem like just another disaster movie, but this one is bigger, louder, crazier and more wildly exhilarating than anything previously attempted, even by Roland ‘Independence Day’ Emmerich’s own smash ’n’ grab standards.

The plot is little more than a framing device, the MacGuffin something to do with sunspots, plate tectonics and the Mayan calendar. The closest we have to a hero is John Cusack’s shambolic failed author Jackson Curtis, whose attempts to save his estranged family from a fiery death somehow involve Russian plutocrats, Himalayan plane crashes and Woody Harrelson in a fez.

But nobody goes to a movie like this for the storyline. This is disaster porn, and unashamedly so: pavements crack, buildings topple, crowds flee, planes plummet and world leaders scramble to save their own skins as the planet goes to hell in a handcart. Posterity will not be kind to ‘2012’ – and it definitely won’t work on DVD – but catch it on the biggest, noisiest screen available and approach it on its own terms, and it’ll knock your socks off.

My view

Thinking of the attraction most of us feel for silly disaster movies, I would relate to the building toys we all play in childhood. Maybe that’s the secret of Lego’s success, Lego structures break easily and tumble without damaging the blocks themselves. Building the blocks was fun, but the best part was always destroying the whole thing with a ‘giant’ furry rabbit in the role of the space monster. Same with sand castles. Same with Sim City: we like that the random tornado rampages the city that took hours to build. Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes is a wonderful 6-year-old destruction junkie.

On top of the very deep guilty pleasure we feel while watching the destruction of New-York, Tokyo or, like here, the whole world, in the safety of the playground and the comfort of the cinema seat, such shows probably have a social element. We feel guilty for all the greed and injustice and ecological disasters we have caused. Some sort of fictional natural revenge on mankind soothes our anguish just as Gods’ destructive anger in the old testament. The Father punished us and then at the last moment spared mankind; we feel better leaving the theatre. Our pleasure was not only the sadistic regressive joy, we feel morally justified, slightly mortified. There’s hope in mankind and family; it’s never too late to come to terms with daddies and ex-husbands.

Talking of the old testament, the Time Out review fails to mention the explicit reference to Noah’s ark. That’s the most explicit reference I have come across yet in modern disaster movies, even if biblical flooding is perhaps the blueprint of every disaster story (Spoiler coming). Flooding, as a side-effect disaster, was already in the two asteroid movies Armageddon and Deep Impact and also the first explicit ‘global warming’ disaster movie The day after tomorrow. This time, it’s not actually global warming that’s causing the flooding, it’s the inside of the globe that’s warming, melting the upper crust and causing tectonic plaques to sink in the ocean (if I got it well), but the metaphor of global warming flooding remains.

The Noah twist is actually fun here: we kind of assume that mankind will flee in a spaceship, but it turns out to be in actual, huge ships. And elephants and giraffes are on board too. The big Meccano have been built secretly in the Chinese Himalaya (mount Ararat was not high enough this time), but curiously, Yankees and Westerners seems to be in charge on board; I am not sure the Chinese would be that gracious to foreigners. Maybe one of the next Emmerich flicks will explore a spatial ark - Wall E did it brilliantly...

There must also be something with the family reunion plot that is always the background of such movies. All Spielberg films have that for instance. Whether it’s aliens or dinosaurs who are attacking, a divorced man, failed writer or obscure scientist, with low self esteem repents, saves his family and saves day at the same time. In the end, if he survives (generally he does against all odds), he wins back his ex-wife and kids, restores his dignity fatherly image and his virility. Around the male hero and his kids/ex-wife, side-kicks die in horrible, cowardly or heroic fashion. Here the ‘other man’, although a good guy, disappears conveniently a bit before the end. Secondary plots always include elderly fathers estranged from their adult kids and ‘coming to terms’ just before death.

Read Emmerich's unrepentant guide to make a disaster movie on Time Out.

les oreilles du chef de l'Etat

Entendu sur France Info à propos d’une manifestation du ‘collectif des précaires’ devant un magasin du groupe LVMH offrant des stages non rémunérés de 12 mois’. Commentaire du journaliste : ‘Hier ils n’étaient qu’une dizaine. Ils espèrent malgré tout que cela suffira à chatouiller les oreilles du chef de l’Etat’. Un tel commentaire ne parait plus incongru en France. Le réflexe des groupes d’intérêt et de la presse d’en appeler directement au ‘chef de l’Etat’ et à nul autre autorité ou corps intermédiaire, à tout propos, a commencé il y a peut-être dix ans mais il s’accéléré et systématisé depuis l’élection de Sarkozy en 2007, quand il est devenu clair que le Président encourageait le petit peuple à en référer à Lui. Il est intéressant de constater que dans ce reportage, c’est la journaliste et non pas le responsable syndical interviewé, qui ‘en appelle’ au chef de l’Etat.

La méthode est désormais bien connue : ile Président entouré d’un petit groupe de conseiller sélectionne une fois par mois, de manière apparemment aléatoire un sujet une cause ou un groupe, réagissant à l’actualité, et c’est ‘l’opération coup de poing’ court-circuitant les ministères responsables. Le Président ‘se rend sur place’ pris d’une sainte colère et annonce la création d’une ‘Commission’, d’un ‘Plan’ ou d’une ‘loi’.

Je ne veux pas dire que ce style de gouvernement médiatique, en bousculant (apparemment) la bureaucratie, est nécessairement toujours mauvais. Je ne dis même pas ici que je désapprouve toujours les décisions prises par Sarkozy. Mais ca me rend malade de voir la démocratie régresser à ce point depuis une dizaine d’année, la litanie des revendications catégorielles, l’incompétence de la presse, un chef de l’Etat qui est non seulement désormais ouvertement le chef de l’exécutif mais aussi, plus que jamais, le patron du législatif et du judiciaire (au lieu d’être l’arbitre et le défenseur de ces pouvoirs), et enfin, donc, l’infantilisation du réflexe démocratique. On en ‘appelle’ au Président, comme en d’autre temps, au Maréchal, ou au jugement de Saint Louis sous son arbre. La berlusconisation de la vie publique. Une forme de monarchie élective et médiatique – menant tout droit au bonapartisme ? – progresse à grands pas.

recession deals

It’s been several weeks now that one of the local cafés of Camden Town where I buy sandwiches advertises a ‘recession deal’ or ''credit crunch special' offer of the day. For instance 'hot drink and pain au chocolat for £2!' So I guess we are now officially in the thick of it.

As for the consequences on advertising spending – and advertising revenues for media owners – they will be disastrous in 2009. We currently believe that total ad spending will shrink between five and six per cent in 2009 compared to 2008 which was already down [this was before IMF downgraded GDP forecasts from -1.3 to -2.8].

Whatever the economic slowdown, advertising markets will do worse. They are fundamentally volatile and amplify economic fluctuations. Why this relation between advertising markets and the economy? I see at least three fundamental reasons.

First, marketing spending is the easiest cost to cut in the short term when managers are anxious to limit operational losses. Among marketing expenditure, this is especially true for brand display advertising, whilst, on the other hand, direct marketing may be maintained as a way to support sales in tough times; and online search may grow even further because of its superior scalability and accountability. Mediabuying agencies try their best begging advertisers to hold their nerves in adversity, warning that dropping brand advertising could jeopardize years of brand-building investments and leave the way to competitors; quoting virtuous stories of marketers who kept investing during a slump and came out stronger. This has little or no effect on and they are being judged by general on their ability to cut or optimise the advertising costs during such a period. The maths are obvious: if your revenues fall by ten per cent and all other costs (rentals, payroll etc.) are fixed in the short term, one of the few disposable expenditures is advertising, and, since it is relatively small at the scale of the company, the cut has to be much higher than ten per cent to make any significant impact on the bottom line.

It’s tempting to be cynical about this and say that if marketers did really believe in the power of advertising they would actually increase spending in tough times, instead of cutting. However big brands actually fight for market shares rather than for volumes. Therefore marketing managers are being rational in cutting adspend when they anticipate – as it is the case - that their brand competitors will also cut their marketing spending, and the shares of voices will remain unchanged. That is a classic case of cross-expectation and me-too behaviour pattern fuelling spiralling deflation

The second reason behind the volatility of advertising is that ad spending is concentrated around a limited number of big consumer brands in a handful of BtoC sectors, and these are disproportionately affected by the recession. Anxious consumers cancel new cars, new couches and new TVs; they go for no-brand products and hard discount stores.

In the US in 2008, automotive advertising alone (dealers and manufacturers) accounts for approximately 25 per cent of broadcast television’s revenues. A combination of fuel inflation and then credit crunch have hit sales like never before in 2008, resulting in 20-25 per cent cuts of advertising spending.
In the UK, the retail sector has maintained advertising expenditure in the first half of 2008 but since Q3, following the collapse of Savvi and Woolworth and the weakness of M&S, things are going to get much tougher in 2009 ; it was indeed anticipated that retailers would reduce their spending but if it turns out that some them simply disappear, we are reaching deeper waters in terms of ad recession. In any sector with major casualties, surviving brands will certainly not increase their own spending and so compensate for the dead - quite the opposite if they see the level of competition reduced.

A third reason is that advertising is essentially a fixed-capacity, fixed-costs activity like air transport. Whether they carry ads or not, TV channels and outdoor billboards cost about the same to produce and maintain. Therefore the volume and price of ad bookings is subject to yield management and volatile prices, despite facial rate cards. In periods of weak demand many media owners are tempted to drop prices while advertisers and their agencies are good at negotiating bargains.

In this context, how are ad-funded businesses likely to fare the storm, compared with other media/entertainment sectors? There are three categories of media/entertainment companies: those living on subscription-based services like pay TV or broadband; those living on discrete consumer sales, like theatrical exhibitors and DVD publishers/retailers; and finally those living on audience and advertising sales.

The first category, although not entirely immune from recession effects, is likely to be better off because subscribers are cannot leave overnight and face exit barriers ; and staying at home and watching football or movies on Sky – for which you are already paying every month anyway - is after all the cheapest way to spend a family evening. BSkyB reported excellent results in the last quarter of 2008, and announced it would hire 1,000 new staff in 2009.

The second category, living on discrete consumer sales have more to worry about: going out or buy yet another DVD is the kind of small luxuries that are easy to cut. When your PVR is full of recorded movies you haven’t watched yet, why buy yet another DVD?

Compared to these, we would argue that the worst place to be these days is the third category: being a media owner exclusively or predominantly financed by advertising revenues.
And the best place to be these days? Perhaps a cheap café in Camden Town.

Jeremiah Johnson

I presented Jeremiah Johnson at the London cine-club in December 2008, at Severine and Chris' place in Chelsea.

Jeremiah Johnson is a 1972 film directed by Sydney Pollack, starring Robert Redford. It is not another agitated Western story but a slow, contemplative chronicle of a man trying to live in the Rocky Mountains.

Jeremiah Johnson, a fictional character, is inspired by novels about fur hunters, like 'Mountain Man' by Vardis Fisher, a novelist from Idaho. The script was written by the multi-talented John Milius who also wrote Apocalypse Now, Conan the Barbarian and, more recently Rome. The movie was filmed in Utah at various mountain locations in extreme winter conditions.

I was supposed to show a film on the theme ‘Nature’ and I hesitated with three other options:
· A Kurasawa film: the beautiful Derzou Ouzala (the story of a Russian explorer in Siberia and his old local guide) would have been an obvious choice. Earlier in his career, the wonderful BW photography of forests in Rashomon and Kumonosu jô (Macbeth, Spider Web Castle, 1957) oozes pantheist magic.
· A Terence Mallick film. In all his films - I think he made only four - the most important thing is the long shot on fields waving under the wind.
· I also contemplated showing one of the episodes of ‘Planet Earth’. BBC Natural history production has reached near perfection with Blue Planet and Planet Earth. Unlimited resources from BBC, NHK and Discovery, high definition photography, great music and the warm narration of David Attenborough. Best moments: the Snow Leopard, lions killing an elephant, starving polar bear swimming in open sea and attacking a herd or walruses out of desperation, killer whale catching a seal and playing with their food, great white shark catching a seal in ultra slow motion, the many aerial shot and satellite shots, the fixed automated cams catching seasonal change or the movement of flowers.

Why Jeremiah Johnson?

Difficult to say why this nice but relatively low-key film is one of my all-time favourites, although it’s arguably not a heavyweight classic and Pollack probably not a one of the greatest directors. I fell in love with that film when I was 12. It impressed me a lot in many ways. At the same age I was also very much impressed by Little big man (1970), and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid (1969), two other sad, adult, compelling Westerns from the 60 and 70s. In Jeremiah I loved the naïve a capella songs, the simplicity of the tale (no plot, a chronicle). I love the music: a mixture of Western fiddle folk music and Indian flute. I love the voice over - I always love that in films.

Sydney Pollack died in May 2008. He was 73. Redford and Pollack were great friends and made seven films together, arguably some of their best including Three Days of the Condor (1975), The way we were (1973), Electric Horseman (1979), and Out of Africa (1985). Pollack won Best Movie and Best Director for Out of Africa. Redford and Pollack shared a great love for nature. Jeremiah was partly shot near Redford property in Sundance, a very remote ski resort in Utah, where Redford lives and where he created an Independent Film Festival in 1981. Redford’s own film A River Runs Through It (1992) was another beautiful film on nature. Redford has always been politically liberal and a militant environmentalist.

Jeremiah is one of the first and one of the best ecological films. When soldiers guided by Johnson cross an Indian cemetery and Johnson’s family is slaughtered in revenge by the Crow tribe, we don’t see the Indians at all. The whole episode works as a metaphor of Western white men disregarding nature’s rules and unleashing the wrath of natural gods. Before that Johnson had reached autarcic happiness with his squaw and son and was leaving in peace with all tribes; once that edenic harmony is broken starts the last part of the movie, a dark chronicle of vendetta between Johnson and the Crows.

On the other hand Jeremiah Johnson is not a preachy overstated ecological fable. Nature is not glorified. Johnson is not in search of a mystical experience. Nature is neither good or bad, indifferent to mankind. It is beautiful, brutal, awesome and bitterly cold. Indians, too, are neither better or worse than white men, but they tend to be wiser. They are part of nature, ordinary folks. They are more or less tolerant with white hunters who trespass their land. Jeremiah is one of the first Westerns where Indians are played by native Americans and speak Indian languages.

Is the film a Western or not? Those mountain men are not romanticized as the cow boys and heroes of the legendary Far West in classic Fordian Westerns; they struggle, they fail; they hardly survive. One of the first ‘realistic’ Western, but still a Western: the music, the beginning and the ending that tap into American legend. Contrast between the storytelling that is sober, simplistic, a chronicle or a survival, and the voice over, that tells us a legend and the beautiful, open end. ‘Et on raconte… qu’il y est encore’. I love the simplicity of beginning too, no lengthy introduction: Johnson arrives by the river and asks the first man he meets where to find game in the region. The man says go to the mountains on the left. Johnson says thank you, and he’s off.

Why exactly Johnson has come to the mountains is never explained. In a classic Western plot, Johnson would have committed a crime or would falsely be accused of a crime. In any case, near the middle of the film rescuing the migrants would then be his redemption, and the hermit would re-integrate the human society and marry the girl. Here, on the contrary, this good deed eventually will destroy Johnson’s life. Classic Westerns, like Greek tragedy, is about wild men trying to become decent civilized people. In the desillusioned vietnam-war America of the early 70s ,Jeremiah Johnson is a man who rejects civilisation, decides to go West to get lost, to become wild.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_johnson
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068762