The Semis'

Match 1: Netherlands vs Uruguay; Oranje won 3-2


This was too ordinary a match that I felt that staying up till midnight was not really worth it. If one has to achieve a certain quality for a the match Not even close to a WC Finals clash. It was more like a I-pass-the-ball-to-the-opposition-player game. There were a lot of fake falls trying to get fouls on both sides. There was a lot of rough-play and indecent behavior on field from both teams. I know that football is not essentially the gentleman's game and the passion should override everything else. But when passion comes across without flair, it looks grotesque. In other words, passion without flair is not passion at all. Their "aggression" was not backed up by a good game but poor shot-making. Both teams were immature and lacking in respect for both their opponents and the game itself. The longest period that the ball was in play continuously would not have been more than a couple of minutes at best. The Oranje did not look like Total Football; but more like Total Goofball. Every team has their best playmaker in #7. There was Raul Gonzalez, David Beckham, Louis Figo and recently, Bastian Schweinsteiger. However the Dutch #7, Kuyt is nothing but a rough-shodding, brawler who has little play-making ability and a major problem of being a jackass. Arjen Robben was the only one who shone in his good play; but even his sparks came in streaks. The best football in the match was played in the first goal of each team. Both were executed by the captains. Both from a prodigous distance. And both showing excellent control of the so-called disaster ball, Jabulani. However, the magic stopped there. After a racing start, the match was a damp affair. Though the team that I wanted to win succeeded, they were nowhere in the zone. No team deserved to win; but Uruguay blinked first.


Match 2: Spain vs Germany; The Red Devils won 1-0

Another match with lacklustre performances. Seriously, what is the jinx on the semis?? Interestingly, the quarters were a lot more thrilling, whether it was Argentina getting mauled or witnessing Oranje making us go More Oranjy or even Uruguay cheating their way up. This match was boring; not because the team I backed lost - but because they were on the field without a single idea of what was going on. At least half a dozen times, Spain could bring the ball into the Germans' goal-zone using the SAME FRIGGING PLAY!!! How hard is it to mark Villa or better, wise up and change the stupid/repetitive right wing cross to the center. Almost every German pass that looked good was followed up with a German pass that made one cringe. It was a bad day to be a German football fan; not because they lost poorly (which they actually did not - for there were a couple of decisions that went against them); but because they did not play to their potential. The speeed and precision that amazed everyone in the quarters against Argentina, was not there. They were happily losing their plot. Off color is a word that I am forced to use again; but ironically, the Germans were in Black and White. The Spaniards, to give where it is due, were good in parts. The sheer dominance in the ball-possession put a noose around the German team's neck which they themselves tightened by their poor playing. However, the Red Devils were not well-behaved at all. The Podolski-Aamos situation was a classic example for their foul-play. Deliberately stepping on another player's toes is bad enough; but trying to make an appeal for a foul of the other team; how low can you go? But nothing could make a fair excuse for the poor display by the entire German unit.

So overall, which was the better of the two matches for me? Though the pickings are slim; I go with the Spain-Germany match giving it a 2.75 stars out of five for a controlled and even gameplan by the Spaniards. The first Semi gets a barely passing 2.25 stars thanks to the two amazing goals in the first half of the match. Hopefully both the teams that made it to the finals will step up their games. Praying for an explosive final where Oranje and Red cut loose; I sign off!

Tudors season01

In a day where we are worried about the mythologies of Lost or Supernatural; here is a brave venture where we all know the story and the its implications. If history tells what happened, only the artist can capture how it happened. This story does that quite efficiently. Michael Hirst wrote this for Showtime about five years ago and after four seasons, the story came to a close. One decision by the creative makes this so much different from other films/TV programs of this genre; it is the focus on drama even at the cost of history. This is a genius move, I would say, for it grasps the fundamental purpose of history. History has no obligations except for being there. It is recorded from manuscripts, dates and names of people. However, the motivation behind history is beyond human understanding. Even documents where people are seen exposing their motives behind their actions have to be treated with caution; for every action is a performance. What gives that just because a person is dead, (s)he is speaking the truth?

The first thing that captivates the audience while watching this program is the music. The haunting quality of music chosen from contemporary styles lingers on as a character of its own. The importance of the performative in the court of Henry VIII is brought to attention with many of the significant actions developing over ballroom sequences. Perhaps the most poignant use of this feature is felt in the season finale, drawing a parallel between the fallen Wolsey and a farce at the court. The drama at "play" builds itself to moments, rather than forcing moments to appear because it is said so in history. The historical awareness balanced by her love for her husband, in Queen Catherine makes for an image that will not fade quickly.

Some criticize this of reducing historical moments to personal and petty decisions; but that is where this series is so overwhelmingly real. As someone who cannot tolerate the obnoxious views of those who claim to know the "authentic" history, I welcome this method of story-telling. Let us face it, NOBODY from this generation can get even close to understanding what happened or how it happened in a different generation. The passages of time is so completely self-sustained that contemplating history with however much or little "facts" is equally speculative. Therefore, it comes as a breath of fresh air that instead of wooden characters who speak on behalf of history, these are living, breathing personalities that deal with their personal problems; for whom their actions becoming history is merely an afterthought. Not all are aware of their historical image (a point raised in the show more than just once) and those who are aware, are not always able to use their awareness to step outside their problems of reality. Many characters like the Cardinal Wolsey, Sir Thomas Moore and the King Henry VIII himself, are willing to go to any extreme to create a specific image for history (in the story) which could be as equally real as any other "authentic" version; and it should be appreciated that the writer tries to hold a prism to the everyday reality behind historical tapestries. The inaccuracies have been criticized as well; but the writer has been given a job of entertaining people with a story, not a lesson in history and therefore that can be excused. What I do hold against their method of programming is their insistence of showing two pairs of breasts every week, almost simply to adhere to the "edgy" tag they have gained. I find it silly and forced; for it was edgier to see a moment where Wolsey prays to God without remorse in his voice and goes on to kill himself rather than to see a woman who is simultaneously flat-chested and with sagging boobs giving a fake orgasm.

The casting, it must be noted, is excellent. The pick of the actors is definitely Jonathan Rhys Myers as King Henry VIII. At times childish, at times cruel; Myers' portrayal is that of a tough lord who will go to any length to hold on to his powers. One feels at times that Anne Boleyn was just an excuse for the historical inevitable. One gets the feelingt that even without her, someone like Henry VIII would not have been content to having a cap on his powers. I have seen Myers in Matchpoint as a lucky fool and in August Rush as an impulsive Irishman. But here, as Henry VIII, he opens up so many avenues for himself as an excellent actor. Sam Neil as the Cardinal Wolsey is the other "big name" actor who lends dignity and intrigue to this power-hungry, machiavellian, but at times practically "right" elderly gentleman. The actor playing Anne Boleyn does it well enough to make us hate her. While the actor playing the Queen Catherine is grace personified. All the bits and peices actors do an adequate job; particularly the cowardly fierce trinity of Suffolk, Norfolk and Boleyn. The costumes and the lighting have always shown the actors in good light while the top-notch camera work and seamless editing gives the narrative a racing beat. Since a majority of the action happens in court, there is not much scope for the historical details but they serve an adequate backdrop. The computer-graphics generated castles look very poor though.

Overall, this is a must-watch for anyone who likes a serious political drama; even if one is not particularly historically inclined. On a scale of ten, I would give the writing 8 points; the production itself gets a healthy 7 points.