Sobre desportos

Sinceramente, e digo isto com toda a honestidade que minha sinceridade permite, há desportos que me enervam sobremaneira.

Fui, sou, e, se a saúde me permitir, sempre serei um desportista. Um desportista de desportos a sério, bem entendido. Porque se é para me divertir, exercitar e quiçá tonificar (quiçá porque o meu corpo enfezadito continua enfezadito), então que seja com alguma actividade minimamente lógica, interessante, satisfatória e que, acima de tudo, não enerve sobremaneira rapazes honestos e simpáticos como eu.

Tomemos a marcha, essa magnífica modalidade do atletismo. Sem me permitem uma questão: mas o que é aquilo? Sinceramente, o que é aquilo? Correr, sim senhora, tem toda a lógica do mundo. Estou com pressa, corro. Quero dar uma volta à pista mais depressa que os meus adversários, corro. Tenho obstáculos à frente, salto barreiras. Mas em que circunstâncias da vida é que uma pessoa faz um movimento de locomoção apressado onde, e passo a citar, ‘se executa uma progressão de passos de maneira que se mantenha sempre contacto com o solo com, pelo menos, um dos pés, sendo que a perna que avança tem que estar recta, (ou seja, não flectida) desde o momento do primeiro contacto com o solo até que se encontre em posição vertical’? Que eu saiba nunca! Se querem andar depressa que corram, não façam um movimento completamente amaricado! Porque diabo é que não podem tirar um dos pés do chão? Porque diabo é que têm de ter a perna recta (ou seja, não flectida)? Só posso concluir que o tipo que inventou a marcha era um corredor que, coitadinho, um dia partiu a perna. Engessado, desgraçado, e não podendo flectir a perna, lá inventou o raio do desporto, para se divertir. E por muito espanto seu, tenho a certeza, a moda pegou. Mas qual é a piada disto? Qual é a lógica? É para seduzir as miúdas aquele dar de ancas? Se é isso, não me parece que resulte. Então só pode ser aquele prazer macabro da perna partida. Qual de nós não pediu as muletas a um amigo engessado, para dar umas curvas? E fizeram disso desporto!

Tomemos o curling, um desporto magnífico, apenas atrás em magnificência do bóccia. O curling poderá ter os maiores conceitos físicos alguma vez aplicados a um desporto. Para jogá-lo poderá ser preciso andar em Harvard, Oxford, Yale, no MIT e na C+S do Cartaxo (por esta ordem). Poderá fazer a delícia das pessoas que fazem exames nacionais: “um jogador de curling lança um peso a 3 km/h que bate noutro localizado a 20 metros de distância, em estado de repouso, sendo que o atrito do chão é…”. Mas se, por breves segundos, esquecermos todas estas considerações, chegamos à rápida conclusão que o curling consiste única e simplesmente em limpar o chão com uma vassoura. Resumindo, é um desporto de limpar o chão. Provavelmente foi inventado por uma empregada da limpeza (perdão, profissional de limpeza). ‘Que fazes com essa vassoura, Clodoalda, hoje não é o teu dia de folga’? ‘É sim, mas vou jogar Curling’! ‘Ah, bom’! Nunca percebi porque é que Portugal não tem uma equipa de curling. Talvez porque os portugueses, orgulhosos como são, não querem ir para a praça pública limpar o chão. Muito menos receber medalhas por isso. Só pode. Os Noruegueses e os Suecos podem. Mas nós não. Estamos acima disso. Mas provavelmente daqui a alguns anos vamos estar em condições de mandar uma equipa. Toda com Ucranianos e PALOPs, que é quem anda a fazer as nossas limpezas. Ou gestores dos bancos. Esses também limpam bem.

Tomemos os desportos oficiais americanos, o basebol e o futebol americano. Dizem que o golfe é o desporto dos reformados. Não concordo. No golfe, entre tacadas, ainda se anda a pé, ou se não a pé, ainda se mexe os pulso a conduzir o carrinho. No basebol e no futebol americano, entre jogadas, nem se anda a pé, nem se mexe os pulsos. Não se mexe absolutamente nada. Por cada 5 segundos de jogada há 5 minutos de pausa. Sem dúvida porque os 5 segundos devem ser extremamente esgotantes. Mexer num chapéu e fazer sinais com o nariz é deveras esgotante. Ah, e cuspir para o chão. Esgota as glândulas. Não admira que os americanos sejam lentos de raciocínio. Até no desporto precisam de largos períodos de pausa antes de passar à acção. Contudo essa acção é sempre intensa. O desporto é que não. Mas os americanos sabem sempre ser eficientes. Por exemplo, o desporto é concebido de maneira ao público poder descansar. Cura insónias. E ainda dizem mal do seu sistema de saúde.

Tomemos o futebol. Sim, o futebol, nomeadamente o futebol das classes mais jovens. As esperanças dizem eles. As esperanças que não são contratados por clubes da primeira divisão portuguesa. As esperanças que ninguém conhece, ninguém sabe, nem quer saber. As esperanças que não têm esperança. As esperanças que não recebem homenagens no Parque Eduardo Sétimo antes de partir. As esperanças que não têm direito a bandeiras nas janelas. As esperanças que não são Nani, nem Ronaldo, nem Miguel Veloso, essa maravilhosa geração que fez maravilhas no último mundial de juniores, essa maravilhosa geração que fez maravilhas nos últimos jogos Olímpicos, com exibições maravilhosamente vergonhosas. As esperanças cujos primeiros jogos na Colômbia nem sequer foram publicitados. As esperanças cujos resumos nem sequer davam no telejornal no dia seguinte. Até ao dia em que se qualificam. E aí tudo muda. E aí já são a geração coragem. Aí já são a selecção das estrelas do colectivo. Aí já há reportagens de analogia com a geração de ouro de 89 e 91. Aí já a TMN apoia a selecção. Onde estava a TMN quando partiram? Onde estavam os jornais, as bandeiras, as homenagens no Parque Eduardo Sétimo? Estes rapazes fizeram mais do que qualquer selecção de esperanças nos últimos 20 anos. Estes rapazes fizeram aquilo que os Nanis, os Coentrões, os Velosos nunca fizeram. A estes rapazes ninguém dá cavaco. Podem jogar pouco, mas jogam com garra. Não são umas sanguessugas que se agarram ao mérito que não têm, nem ao nome que adquiriram porque conhecem A, B ou C, ou jogam aqui ou ali. Estes rapazes deviam mandar todas as sanguessugas de jornalistas, comentadores, TMNs, empresários dar a volta ao bilhar grande, porque sem apoios, sem nome, sem publicidade, sem homenagens conseguiram verdadeiramente ser campeões. E provaram-no no campo. Não na conferência de imprensa. Não no Parque Eduardo Sétimo. Força Portugal! Esta noite, espetem o campeonato pela goela abaixo desses mafarricos. E que vão para o diabo essas sanguessugas, porque esses sim, sinceramente, enervam-me sobremaneira.

Up (2009)

Weeks before "Up" came out back in the Summer of 2009 it was already hailed as the best animated feature ever made, and the Oscar (which it eventually got 6 months later) was already in the bag. There is no smoke without fire, true, but when that happens it's just clever marketing, often unsubstantiated. Yet everyone repeated that even before they saw the movie, so when they did, their minds were made up beforehand, and failed to see the inconsistencies it had! After "Wall-E", Pixar continued its "social pictures" knowing that nowadays you just need to hint at a theme to make a movie good. "Ratatouille" is one of the best Pixar films, if not the best, much better than "Up" or "Wall-E" but because it had not a "save the environment" or "elderly people are still people" theme, it was much less talked about. Don't get me wrong, "Up" is good, is very good, but it keeps with Pixar's tradition of only working out concepts and applying them skilfully just enough to make it stick, and then fill the picture around it. "Toy Story 3" is amazingly brilliant the second 45 minutes. The first 45 are boring as hell, a repetition of the first 2 Toy Stories, and with scenes which repeat themselves non-stop just to hit that middle-of-the-film mark so that the action can start. In "Up" it's the other way around, the first half of the film is fantastic, and then, again because of the 101 screenwriting rules (the need to be a villain) the movie hits a dead end. See Miyazaki's "Tonari no Totoro" (1988). Here is a film without villains, without drama, without all-is-lost scenes just before the big climatic ending. It just has that thrill to be young and be alive told with beautiful imagery. But americans would never understand that... "Up" has, quite simply, the best character development ever put on film. For the first 10 minutes, we see the entire life of Carl Fredricksen (voiced by Ed Asner), we understand his condition, his humanity, we know everything there is to know about him... and he doesn't speak once! In 10 minutes, with the beautiful score by Michael Giacchino (Oscar winner due to this scene, because the rest of the score is just average), he grows from boy to man, from man to old age, along side his wife, who eventually dies of old age. If you are not crying at the end of the first scene, then your heart is made of stone. It is just amazing, and rivals all the scenes you can throw at it, from "Casablanca" to "It's a wonderful life". And then he ties balloons to his house and flies away to seek Paradise falls, a place which he promised to take his wife but never did. Unfortunately, a scouts boy Russell (voiced by Jordan Nagai) is stuck along for the ride, but that's ok. The movie is still heartfelt, endearing and with beautiful animation. Yet all is destroyed because the screenwriting classes tell that a movie needs a villain. Well, this one didn't. Obviously we see the filmmakers reaching a dead end, because the early scenes in Paradise falls have the same dialog between Fredricksen and Russell over and over again. And in comes Christopher Plummer, an explorer seeking a rare bird. But how is that a villain? For all I can grasp, he claimed the bird existed but no-one believed him, so he seeks it out, and has been doing so for 50 years. He says he wants to prove the bird exists. Ok. So he wants to capture it, show it, prove his point and then.. what? Send it back to the wilderness or throw it in a zoo, perhaps? Obvious deduction but the movie doesn't make it. The movie treats the initial piece of information as a threat. No-one talks of killing the bird. No-one says that he isn't going to take it back to the wilderness once he proves it exists. Or is Pixar trying to send a message against zoos? Instead they make him do unbelievable things as going after everybody with a shotgun or killing anyone who tries to take the bird. But if they did, they would prove the bird existed anyway, so it should be all the same to Plummer! Anyway, "Up" fails because the plot needs to go through all those cliche-writer's class steps. If not for that, it would be brilliant. Fantastic portrayal of a character (Fredricksen), fantastic animation/score interaction, and a moving and heartfelt story. They shoud have a blu ray option that takes the villain parts out of it. Then you would really have material to rival "Tonari no Totoro", and it would truly be one of the best animated features ever. Pity filmmaking today is about ideas, and half-made stuff. And awards the same. As soon as I saw those 10 minutes in the movie theater the day the movie premiered I said "Giacchino will win the Oscar". And he did! Because the music stood alone and everybody listened to it. That's how Gustavo Santaolalla won back-to-back Oscars in movies with almost source soundtracks. Because his 5 minutes of composed music were in slow motions or establishing shots, with the volume turned out loud so that no-one could miss it. There can be better scores, but if they are embedded in the picture (say in action scenes) one only listens to it instinctively without knowing it or if one buys the cd. So that never wins, even though it can be a better soundtrack. "Up" is more than a great picture, it's a great marketing feet, and a lesson to all filmmakers out there in "what scenes I need to put in my picture to make it a success, regardless of all the rest of it". But boy, those few scenes really are something, regardless of all the rest of it!

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Aside from the original "Planet of the Apes" (1968), this is, quite simply, the best film to come out of the franchise. Actually this is not that difficult, as the 70s four sequels were nothing more than B-pictures ('Beneath the Planet of the Apes', 1970, is particularly ghastly), and Tim Burton's 2001 remake took so many liberties that it forgot what is was all about. But "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" not only gives a fresh view as to the origin of the ape planet, it also delivers a good emotional story-line, combined with an action ape-packed last third of the picture. So, all in all, a successful summer blockbuster, although, off course, it will not win any awards. The story of the birth of the planet of the apes, and of the first talking ape, Caesar, who led the rebellion, was portrayed in "Escape from the Planet of the Apes" (1971) and "Conquest of the..." (1972). Here the story is completely different. Caesar is not the son of ape time travelers, but a mere ape whose mother was a lab-rat (or rather ape) for James Franco's Alzheimer cure research. After something goes wrong the experiments are shut down and all the apes are killed except little Caesar. Franco takes him to his house and raises him. The cure for Alzheimer stimulates brain cells so Caesar becomes super smart. There are surprising sub-plots (surprising for this kind of picture), which were a breath of fresh air. Namely Franco father's battle against Alzheimer (great performance by John Litghow), and Caesar coming of age, curious of the world, of people, of games, of love. There is also Freida Pinto, a veterinarian, who is Franco's girlfriend, whose character is rather irrelevant, but helps to give the picture a more human scope. For that, it is a success, for human background drama usually is nonexistent in such films. Eventually the caged apes are pushed too far and Caesar chooses to be free from humans and starts a rebellious escape, and that's the action packed last third of the film. They conquer the planet? No way, they just reach the forests near San Francisco, but its a good solid start for a sequel. For those who know the franchise, there are a couple of almost hidden nods to the events of the original film, so it's solid prequel material, eclipsing off course the 70s sequels and their stupid storyline. There are however two stupid things: first Tom Felton (Malfoy from Harry Potter) delivering the "take your stinking paws" line from Charlton Heston. Worse line-delivery I have ever seen, completely ruining a classic cinema line. And second, because the filmmakers obviously realised that an event in San Francisco couldn't represent the whole planet (a mistake made in the originals) they decided to give the apes a hand, so there is also a subplot of a human "12 monkeys"-style virus. Ridiculous. Let the apes conquer the earth for themselves! Although the originals had Oscar-winning ape-makeup, nothing compares to Motion Capture and the brilliance of Andy Serkis. Absolutely realistic. It is a thrill to watch these apes. This is the prequel that the magnificent original never had. The two form a great pack, although the original is, off course, unbeatable. And forget the other 5 films! Those are just for die-hard fans.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

30 guys with modern laser guns face 30 guys with 1940s rifles in the middle of the German forest. In a sinch, the guys with the rifles knock down the guys with the lasers. Why? Because they are the Allied forces, and can’t lose, even though the germans have a sci-fi armament. “Captain America: The First Avenger”, is the last desperate attempt of Marvel studios to get a film out there before the eagerly anticipated “The Avengers” in 2012. Last year, reviewing “Iron Man 2” I wrote “…the movie's only point is to promote the 2012 movie "The Avengers", which will be a league of super heroes, Iron Man included, leaded by L. Jackson (…) And if they wanted to promote "The Avengers", well, buy a billboard, don't make a movie!”. After seeing another not that good a Marvel movie, all I have to say is: Marvel, ‘Avengers’ better be a hell of a movie. That better be the freakin’ best comic-book hero film adaptation I will ever see in my lifetime, because for the last 4 or 5 years you have been producing film after film with little to offer, but promising a lot at the end, and saying to people ‘well, this was just the build up for the real thing, and the real thing is the Avengers movie next year’. To put it simply, Captain America (Chris Evans) is a puny Brooklyn nobody who due to a secret experiment gets superhuman strength. Aided by their very own Q (Iron Man’s father Howard Stark), and a lot of gadgets, Captain America leads the Allied soldiers deep into Europe, where they face Nazi dissidents lead by Hugo Weaving (the villain Red Skull), who has the same powers as Captain America. But he has one more thing. He goes to Norway or whatever at the beginning of the movie and finds a God-like artifact which allows him to have laser guns and whatnots. There are other things (unimportant ones), like a great performance by Tommy Lee Jones, but that’s beside the point. The movie consists of 1h of fill-up how-Captain-America-became-Captain-America, and then a second hour which consists of a bunch of disloyal fights. Captain America kicks everybody’s butt because, well, he has superhuman strength. All the Allied forces kick the Nazis’ butt, because everyone knows that bullets are more effective than lasers. And finally, (spoiler alert… but who cares!), when Captain America finally has a worthy opponent, a villain with the same powers, he doesn’t even have to fight for Red Skull to die. Skull dies victim of something else (a stupid thing by the way). I saw the movie with a comic book specialist and he carefully pointed out to me the various nods to the fans, and explained how well the movie reproduced these elements. So I guess that for a connoisseur (not my case) it will have some interesting features. But he also agreed with me in saying that in isolation this movie has little to offer. Fight scenes, explosions, one or other amusing one-liner (Lee Jones’ “I will not kiss you!”), but all in all, mindless entertainment, a disappointing tradition from Marvel Studios, especially in the movies related to “The Avengers”, which appear to be made in such a hurry, that the mere process of filmmaking seems to be forgotten. So, again I repeat: “The Avengers” better be the best comic-book film I will ever see, or else all these movies are pointless. Oh, almost forgot, and what about those Alô-Alô german accents?!

Mona Lisa Smile (2003)

"Mona Lisa Smile" is a sort of a "Dead Poets Society" with (and for) women. Yet, Mona Lisa is to Poets what Julia Roberts is to Robin Williams, or the acting talents of Robert Sean Leonard or Ethan Hawk are to the likes of Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles or Maggie Gyllenhaal. Not that they are bad, they aren't (Gyllenhall is exceptionally good, for example, as she proved in 'Crazy Heart' or 'Dark Knight'). Yet their face value is greater than their actual depth. Robin Williams is a comedian, but when he needs intensity, he gives it, as he shown in 'Good Will Hunting', 'Bicentennial Man' or Poets. On the other hand, Julia Roberts always gives similar performances, but she smiles a lot, and her smile is captivating. The same happens with "Mona Lisa Smile". Everything looks good, but underneath there is little to see, understand or go about. The action is set in the 50s, in a prestigious private school for woman. Although they are the greatest young minds in the country, they are groomed for etiquette and marriage. And once they marry, they are destined to be housewives. Julia Roberts, an art teacher, arrives to fill a teaching position for the new year. She is broadminded and ready to go against the establishment, trying to instill a sense of individuality and "your life is yours, live it" in the young girls. She will, off course, face the opposition of everyone, from some of the girls (specially Kirten Dunst), to the head master, to the small elite society of the town. And basically that's it. With the exception of the suicide, everything is the same as in Dead Poets, right to the end. But when in Poets we could see believable characters, in Mona Lisa everything is stereotyped. Poets was a movie which could exist beyond the context it portrayed, because the characters were incredibly powerful, a great force that drove the picture. In Mona Lisa, it is the portrayal of that 50s context that's important, and so the characters are sent to the background. They are there just to show said context, so they are superficial and their actions are screenplay actions, not human ones. The movie focuses in 3 or 4 girls in the class, those with a closer bond to Roberts. One has affairs with older teachers, one is trapped in a loveless marriage at 18, one has no prospects of a husband which leaves her a sort of an outcast, all are victims of etiquette and parental control, etc, etc. Each one represents a specific problem of the era, and the scenes they are in exist to give examples of the restrictions and conventions of the time. There is everything here except one girl that needs an abortion. I felt cheated! Honestly, that's the one thing that was missing! What is the point of Mona Lisa? To give a condensed history lesson? If that's it then it's a sort of a success. But as a drama it leaves something to be desired. This does not have a meaning that could have a parallel in present society, nor is the drama of the several characters interesting enough. The acting is good (check out Marcia Gay Harden), set design as well, plunging you right into the decade. Yet, showing only the dated conventions scene after scene, the movie becomes a dated convention as well. Director Mike Newell keeps with his good-directing-not-that-good-a-script, tradition. Even "The Emperor's Club" (2002), a sort of Dead Poets, part II, is better than this.

Wings (1927)

"Wings" is remembered for many things. It is remembered for being the first film to win the Oscar for Best Picture back in 1927 (Best Production they called it), and the only silent film ever to do so. It is remembered for it's brilliant plane stunts and battles, with cameras placed on the wings, tails and cockpits of actual planes to fabulous effect (a major feet in 1927 if you think how planes and cameras were). It is remembered for the brief, yet striking, 2 minute appearance of a very young Gary Cooper, which earned him a contract as a major player. But, besides this, this 2h20 minutes World War I epic has little more to offer, and actually has not aged very well. True that when this was presented in 1927 it was like anything the audiences had seen so far, so it is not hard to believe that it blew them away. Actually, even in modern movies with massive special effects (yes, I am looking at you Pearl Harbor), the magnificence and realism of these plane battles was seldom repeated. But that it's not the movie's problem. The back story (actually one which Pearl Harbor might have been inspired in) is a soap opera with little interest, and in which the movie looses a great amount of time, and, which is worse in silent films which need to be fluid, a great amount of titles. Jack and David (Buddy Rogers and Richard Arlen) are two carefree american boys both in love with the same girl, who only loves back Jack. Clara Bow (whose famous image in the truck always appears when this movie is mentioned) is Mary, in love with David. Carefree existence still ensues before the boys go to, first boot camp (where still they are joyous and carefree) and then the actual war, when the dog fights are a constant in the skies, and the horrors finally strike them. Bow also goes to war, as a truck driver. Only the other girl never appears again, so why waste time with her in the beginning? The reason? To give the boys motives to fight about during the war. Nevertheless the first hour of the movie is great to watch (the boot camp and first part of the war). Be impressed with the camera angles they devised (all real), and the deadly stunts performed. Yet, when they have a weeks leave in Paris, so the movie takes a leave. The movie slackens and looses a lot of time showing them getting drunk in bars, and never gets back to its feet again. The rhythm is lost, and for a silent movie that's death. So, even if the second half of the war shows the final, decisive, big push, with air and ground battles, the attention of the audience is more difficult to grasp. Only in the climatic final chase in which one of the boys will meet his fate in an impressive twist of events, does the movie grasp the audience back on. Low on its human side, very high as a technical achievement. No other movie has so captured the essence of plane flying, with the exception of "The Right Stuff" (1983). "Sunrise", the picture which in the very same year won The Oscar For Best Picture, Unique and Artistic Production (an award which only existed in that year), is still a much better film all around. It's master piece of filmmaking, when "Wings" is 'only' a masterpiece of technical aspects, made by a director, William A. Wellman, who would latter direct masterpieces as "Public Enemy" (1931) or "the Ox-Bow Incident" (1943).

Dinosaur (2000)

An impressive 200 million dollars, and 5 years of work, were spent in the making of Disney's first fully CGI animated film. All this money and all this time were well spent, if you think in terms of the magnificent visual spectacle "Dinosaur" is, yet it seems that the thoughts of the filmmakers were all on that, so the storyline does not live up to the visuals, and the movie is actually pretty uninteresting, or rather, presents nothing new or noteworthy as related to other less noticeable Disney films. Disney was, of course, in major decline, Pixar riding high, and with the dawn of Blue Sky's "Ice Age" or Dreamworks' "Shrek" coming just around the corner with a new type of animation and storyline-model more "up to date". Disney's "Dinosaur" has brilliant CGI effects, the dinosaurs are truly extraordinary and very believable creations, the backgrounds are incredibly real, and many actually are. Forests, skies and lakes were filmed and superimposed into the digital world to create a marvelous palette. But then the story is simple, worn out and full of holes. It starts with a dinosaur egg being lost. It is found by a tribe of monkeys, who raise Aladar as their own. Here a series of things start to go wrong with the picture. Did dinosaurs co-exist with monkeys? Are there any other species on the planet? The movie only shows dinosaurs and the monkeys! What is the plot consequence of the dinosaur being raised by the monkeys? There appears to be none that the movie shows. After Aladar finally meets the other dinosaurs, when he has grown to full size, his behavior is not a single inch different. He is not surprised, he does not need to explore his new identity, he behaves exactly like if he had been a dinosaur all his live. Anyway, little into the picture, huge chunks of asteroids destroy the surface of the earth and kill almost all the dinosaurs. And then the movie becomes a sort of "Land Before Time". Aladar, his monkey friends, and the dinosaur herd they meet all head for a valley that supposedly is still green and alive. As all the earth seems to be transformed into a desert after the meteor shower, it is strange that the dinosaurs know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this particular valley is unaffected. Did they hear it on the radio? The villains are the meat-eater dinosaurs that go after them, and Kron, the self-imposed leader of the herd, who is a false villain (like the one in "Up"). What he does is actually nothing wrong, but the movie presents it with an evil connotation, just so that he can be the villain. Actually, Aladar does much of the same things, he just phrases them differently, so he is the hero. There is also, off course, a love interest. Anyway, at 75 minutes, "Dinosaur"'s plot is surprisingly unsurprising. Disney had, at that time, used us to much more intelligent ways to appeal to both children and adults, even though after "Hercules" it all started to go south. Fortunately, Disney is back on its feet again. See "Dinosaur" for its fantastic visual effects. Show "Dinosaur" to a child, because he will enjoy the imagery immensely. But adults will find little more in "Dinosaur". It's the 'Avatar' syndrome. A hell of a lot of fabulous special effects. A lousy story, fit only for 6 year olds (who haven't seen other Disney's or Land Before Time).