The full moon shone bright and white over San Juan, its domination of the chill sky seeming a symbol of the lunacy that took over the Copa America this weekend. The tournament -- perhaps any tournament -- has never known a series of quarterfinals like it, as the three group-winners and the hosts all crashed out. The machinations of the schedulers, who had done everything in their power to ensure a third successive Brazil-Argentina final, are left looking a little silly.
Charles Reep, the British long-ball theorist, spoke a lot of nonsense, but one of his great insights was that there is an essential randomness to international competition. The three-week or monthlong span of a major tournament simply isn't long enough for luck to work itself out. For that matter, even a domestic-league season is too short to be influenced by random factors. James Walmsley, a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, hypothesizes that a season would have to be seven years long before it could be reasonably be considered "fair." Six games is nothing like enough.
Often, of course, the better teams do prevail, but sometimes there are weekends like this. Colombia missed a penalty and hit the post but lost 2-0 to Peru. Argentina was thwarted repeatedly by the brilliance of Nestor Muslera, the Uruguay goalkeeper, but lost on penalties. In Paraguay's Justo Villar, Brazil also met a goalkeeper in sensational form, and Fred had a header cleared off the line; it too, lost on penalties. By the time it came to Sunday evening's game in San Juan, the pattern was well established.
Venezuela is dogged, but frustrating, both to watch and, you imagine, to play against. Tomas Rincon and Franklin Lucena have been two of the players of the tournament, mopping up at the back of the midfield. It has technically gifted attacking midfielders and forwards in Cesar Gonzalez, Juan Arango, Nicolas Fedor and Giancarlo Maldonado, but it does spend an awful lot of time looking for free kicks. There were 31 in the first 45 minutes against Chile -- evidence both of tactical fouling and tactical being fouled.
It doesn't make for much of a spectacle, but it was effective partly because Chile kept dumbly conceding free kicks. First Arango crossed for Oswaldo Vizcarrando to capitalize on some slack marking and head Venezuela into the lead. Then, after Chile had twice hit the woodwork before finally equalizing, Gabriel Cichero forced the ball over the line after a right-wing free kick had caused havoc in the box. Venezuela has never previously reached the last four of the Copa America; the only negative on a night that will live on in its football history was the late red card shown to Rincon, presumably for clipping Jorge Valdivia with a flailing arm.
In the last four Venezuela will meet Paraguay. Gerardo Martino had opted for a much more attacking approach in this tournament than he had at the World Cup, but at the back of the midfield he left out Nestor Ortigoza, a ferocious tackler with a deft touch, for the more defensive Victor Caceres. He would probably argue the decision was vindicated, both by the result and the number of interceptions Caceres made, but it did mean that Paraguay offered far less of a threat to Brazil than it had in the group game between the two, in which Brazil was fortunate to plunder a last-minute equalizer through Fred.
Brazil will question itself. Mano Menezes was supposed to offer a return to the thrilling days of the past, to approach the altar of joga bonito. Observing how often Brazil's opponents seemed cowed simply by facing the yellow shorts, Rob Smyth once noted that "the greatest trick Brazil ever pulled was to convince the world it existed," but it may be that when it is not intimidating opponents, the mythical style becomes a burden to itself. After all, Dunga, to whom Menezes was supposed to be an antidote, won a Copa America and the Confederations Cup before (unfortunate) defeat in the World Cup quarterfinals.
In this tournament, Brazil toiled, struggling to get the balance right between attack and defense. On the two occasions it kept clean sheets, it failed to score; both times it did score -- two against Paraguay in the group and four against Ecuador, it let in two. That is a simplistic way of looking at things, and it had the better of the stalemates in the opening game against Venezuela and the quarterfinal, but then it was fortunate to get away with a draw in the group game against Paraguay.
Neymar and Ganso, the two great prospects brought in to the senior side in preparation for the 2014 World Cup, were inconsistent, showing flashes of talent but too often fading from games, something that calls into question the whole notion of using the Copa as preparation for the World Cup. Bedding in young players is a fine idea in theory, but three years is a long time in football, and Neymar and Ganso are both still young: what if it turns out in a couple of years that they are not the right young players to be promoting? What if exposure too soon damages them?
2011年4月13日 星期三
Atlas’s Rand Resists Bedding Down With Hollywood: Caroline Baum
How is it a novel so many readers describe as “life-changing” took 54 years and a gaggle of producers, writers and directors to bring to the screen?
One answer is Ayn Rand herself, author of “Atlas Shrugged,” which was published in 1957. Earlier attempts to make a movie based on the book were foiled by Rand’s insistence on creative control.
The second reason is the nature of the 1,168-page book. It’s about ideas. Rand’s characters are caricatures that reflect her ideas and ideals. Businessmen are good, government bureaucrats are bad. There is no middle ground.
A third reason, one implied by those involved, is the nature of the material.
“She’s a very controversial author,” said John Aglialoro, one of the film’s producers, who acquired the rights to “Atlas” in August 1992 from Rand’s estate. “She threw selfishness as a virtue in the face of society.”
That virtue is better described as rational self-interest. For Rand, capitalism was the only moral system, with each individual acting in his own self-interest. Productive achievement was the noblest activity and happiness, the ultimate goal.
You can see how Rand’s philosophy, so outlined, might ruffle the feathers of Hollywood’s do-gooders. Add that to the movie’s history of false starts, including six screenplays commissioned by Aglialoro alone, and it’s not hard to understand the industry’s resistance.
Rush to Production
“It was clear we were not going to get support from the Hollywood machinery, including talent agencies,” said producer Harmon Kaslow, who hooked up with Aglialoro in April 2010, three months before the rights were set to lapse.
Starting with a clean slate, the duo managed to assemble a team, come up with a fresh screenplay, cast the 41 speaking roles and begin “full principle photography” by June 15, 2010, according to Aglialoro.
“Atlas Shrugged, Part 1” opens tomorrow in 298 theaters across the U.S. A press release classifies the movie as “drama/mystery.” Veteran Hollywood producer Al Ruddy, who was the first to acquire the rights to “Atlas Shrugged” in 1974, was taken by the love story before he parted ways with Rand because of her insistence on final script approval.
Without a Trace
“Atlas” doesn’t fit into either genre. For those unfamiliar with Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged” tells the story of the gradual disappearance of the nation’s entrepreneurs as government bureaucrats impose increasingly burdensome rules and regulations to stifle their success and confiscate their wealth.
One by one, these captains of copper, steel, and oil industries quit, leaving the businesses they built, refusing to work for the benefit of anyone except themselves.
“Atlas Shrugged, Part I,” takes place in 2016 and ends before we even meet John Galt, who is the first to quit and inspire others to join him in his effort to stop the world. (Readers should look for the mysterious man in the raincoat.)
“Atlas” is unlikely to win the Palme d’Or at the Cannes film festival this year. I say this as both an admirer of Rand’s ideas and a devotee of the book.
Casting Errors
No one can accuse the producers of type-casting. The actors are too young. James Taggart, played by Matthew Mardsen, looks 22, unlike the middle-aged, pathetic character one envisions in the book.
“Everything was built around Dagny,” Kaslow told me.
Dagny Taggart, the story’s protagonist who effectively runs Taggart Transcontinental Railroad, is young. Therefore everyone else is young.
It was hard to look at Francisco d’Anconia, heir to the d’Anconia Copper empire. Couldn’t the producers find someone more dapper who could speak with a Spanish accent?
The pressure to start shooting before the rights lapsed forced the producers to focus on the ideology at the expense of potential cinematic qualities.
“We put words from the book into the characters’ mouths,” Kaslow said.
I suppose if it had been possible to do otherwise, someone would have done it by now.
A is A
Fans of the book, 7 million and counting, may not notice or care. They’ll get chills, as I did, when Dagny’s new railroad line, the John Galt Line, makes its first run on tracks made of Reardon metal, a new alloy created by fellow industrialist Hank Reardon that threatens to put steel producers out of business.
The government tries to scare the public by fabricating stories about the dangers of the new metal. Defiant, Dagny and Hank man the train’s locomotive as it speeds across the Colorado landscape, over the new Reardon bridge made from, of course, Reardon metal.
Above all, the movie is faithful to Rand’s philosophy, which is known as objectivism: the idea that reality is objective. Or, as encapsulated by Galt in a 60-page monologue near the end of the book, “A is A.”
No wonder the faithful are heaping lavish praise on the movie. For them, adherence to Rand’s ideas is enough. A is A. “Atlas Shrugged” is “Atlas Shrugged.”
One answer is Ayn Rand herself, author of “Atlas Shrugged,” which was published in 1957. Earlier attempts to make a movie based on the book were foiled by Rand’s insistence on creative control.
The second reason is the nature of the 1,168-page book. It’s about ideas. Rand’s characters are caricatures that reflect her ideas and ideals. Businessmen are good, government bureaucrats are bad. There is no middle ground.
A third reason, one implied by those involved, is the nature of the material.
“She’s a very controversial author,” said John Aglialoro, one of the film’s producers, who acquired the rights to “Atlas” in August 1992 from Rand’s estate. “She threw selfishness as a virtue in the face of society.”
That virtue is better described as rational self-interest. For Rand, capitalism was the only moral system, with each individual acting in his own self-interest. Productive achievement was the noblest activity and happiness, the ultimate goal.
You can see how Rand’s philosophy, so outlined, might ruffle the feathers of Hollywood’s do-gooders. Add that to the movie’s history of false starts, including six screenplays commissioned by Aglialoro alone, and it’s not hard to understand the industry’s resistance.
Rush to Production
“It was clear we were not going to get support from the Hollywood machinery, including talent agencies,” said producer Harmon Kaslow, who hooked up with Aglialoro in April 2010, three months before the rights were set to lapse.
Starting with a clean slate, the duo managed to assemble a team, come up with a fresh screenplay, cast the 41 speaking roles and begin “full principle photography” by June 15, 2010, according to Aglialoro.
“Atlas Shrugged, Part 1” opens tomorrow in 298 theaters across the U.S. A press release classifies the movie as “drama/mystery.” Veteran Hollywood producer Al Ruddy, who was the first to acquire the rights to “Atlas Shrugged” in 1974, was taken by the love story before he parted ways with Rand because of her insistence on final script approval.
Without a Trace
“Atlas” doesn’t fit into either genre. For those unfamiliar with Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged” tells the story of the gradual disappearance of the nation’s entrepreneurs as government bureaucrats impose increasingly burdensome rules and regulations to stifle their success and confiscate their wealth.
One by one, these captains of copper, steel, and oil industries quit, leaving the businesses they built, refusing to work for the benefit of anyone except themselves.
“Atlas Shrugged, Part I,” takes place in 2016 and ends before we even meet John Galt, who is the first to quit and inspire others to join him in his effort to stop the world. (Readers should look for the mysterious man in the raincoat.)
“Atlas” is unlikely to win the Palme d’Or at the Cannes film festival this year. I say this as both an admirer of Rand’s ideas and a devotee of the book.
Casting Errors
No one can accuse the producers of type-casting. The actors are too young. James Taggart, played by Matthew Mardsen, looks 22, unlike the middle-aged, pathetic character one envisions in the book.
“Everything was built around Dagny,” Kaslow told me.
Dagny Taggart, the story’s protagonist who effectively runs Taggart Transcontinental Railroad, is young. Therefore everyone else is young.
It was hard to look at Francisco d’Anconia, heir to the d’Anconia Copper empire. Couldn’t the producers find someone more dapper who could speak with a Spanish accent?
The pressure to start shooting before the rights lapsed forced the producers to focus on the ideology at the expense of potential cinematic qualities.
“We put words from the book into the characters’ mouths,” Kaslow said.
I suppose if it had been possible to do otherwise, someone would have done it by now.
A is A
Fans of the book, 7 million and counting, may not notice or care. They’ll get chills, as I did, when Dagny’s new railroad line, the John Galt Line, makes its first run on tracks made of Reardon metal, a new alloy created by fellow industrialist Hank Reardon that threatens to put steel producers out of business.
The government tries to scare the public by fabricating stories about the dangers of the new metal. Defiant, Dagny and Hank man the train’s locomotive as it speeds across the Colorado landscape, over the new Reardon bridge made from, of course, Reardon metal.
Above all, the movie is faithful to Rand’s philosophy, which is known as objectivism: the idea that reality is objective. Or, as encapsulated by Galt in a 60-page monologue near the end of the book, “A is A.”
No wonder the faithful are heaping lavish praise on the movie. For them, adherence to Rand’s ideas is enough. A is A. “Atlas Shrugged” is “Atlas Shrugged.”
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)