OK the title of this post is a little misleading, the world finals is far from over yet, but unfortunately for one man it already is, and that one is the British number uno, Andy Murray, who regretfully withdrew from the tournament today due to a groin injury.
Andy already said that after his loss to David Ferrer that he had injured himself prior to coming into the event, a few days after the Paris Masters he pulled a groin muscle while training. And even when he reached the o2 and practised on the Sunday there, he still said he didn't feel good on court, so it was a bad omen for sure. In retrospect it seems to be a bit of a mistake for Andy to have aimed to finish as the World No.3 this year, as it looks like the hard work he put into that, especially during his success on the Asian swing of the tour, has been in vain. Because with Federer still going strong at the o2, who is also with a strong shout of getting to the semi finals, if he does get to that stage, he will reclaim his World No.3 ranking, and if he wins the title he will almost certainly get it back. So it feels like Andy once again has peaked at the wrong time of year, as he really did play some great tennis during the Asian leg of the tour, its a shame he didn't hold back a little and try and make sure he peaked at the right time.
Andy even admitted himself in the press conference after his announcement, that perhaps he should rethink his schedule for next year, and it would be a good idea to definitely prioritise around the big events and miss out on some of the smaller ones, so that way he will be in good shape for the year end championships next year. But he did make the right decision in withdrawing as he said himself that he still felt sore in the morning, and there is no way he could have gone out on court and taken on Tomas Berdych in that condition, it would have been a write off. Andy also wisely made the decision so it would allow him ample time to recover for next year, as he has already put his name forward for the Brisbane Open in Australia at the very beginning of next year (starts on New Year's day of all days!) and he will need that crucial time to get ready for Melbourne.
Soooo that is the end of Andy Murray's 2011 season, sadly it ended on a sour note, with a straight set loss, unlike last year where he played one of the best matches of his career despite losing to Rafa also at the o2. But overall he has had a great year and he has reached all four grand slam semi finals, and one final for that matter, won 5 titles, beaten Djokovic, beaten Rafa, not Federer however, as they never played each other this whole year, for once! And yes ok he still hasn't won that elusive major, but as 2011 has been Djokovic's year, just maybe 2012 could be Andy's year. But next year, you get the feeling that things have to happen for him, and it is crucial that he tries his absolute best to win in Melbourne for starters. However that's a bit off yet, for now, Andy, take heart in that you've had a great season, regardless of how its ended, and all the best to you for next year.
And just briefly an update on tonight's match between Roger and Rafa, which was another hugely anticipated showdown, but once again it didn't live up to its hype. So far to my knowledge this year, Roger hasn't beaten Rafa, but Roger drastically turned that around and made mince meat out of the Spaniard, by producing an exceptional display of tennis of the likes that heralds back to his glory days, crushing the World No.2 in 6-3, 6-0. Even I was surprised to see just how little Rafa got involved in this match as Roger ruthlessly dismissed virtually every shot he made, it wasn't that Rafa played bad, it was just the Swiss maestro was on absolute fire. In that regard I think Andy totally made the right decision to withdraw, as there is no way he could have lived with Federer in that mode, nor anyone else! So that is Roger safely through to the semi finals, and if I were Djokovic, I would be quaking in my tennis shoes by now, cos Roger means business!
But I have to say I do have a bone to pick regarding Federer, as he made a comment in the press about how Andy overtook him in the rankings, and depsite his impressive run in Asia, the only reason he won there was because he and Djokovic weren't playing there. Which basically is Roger's way of saying there is no way Murray would have beaten me if I was playing. This again really does bring up what I dislike about Roger Federer, that he can be an arrogant egotistical twat at times, and he can also be a sore loser when he loses out to some players too. Mind you after winning 16 grand slams I guess your ego inflates until its the size of a zeppelin, and then you almost look down upon everyone else. It doesn't take away from the fact that the man is a magnificently talented player, one of the all times greats without question. But when Federer makes comments like that, that's when I'd like to see Andy stick it to him, and it would be great to see him gub Federer sometime next year in a slam. Andy also wisely refused to rise to the comment as he simply said he doesn't pay much attention to stuff like that and he'll let the tennis do the talking (unfortunately though Andy as we know didn't get that far). Further to Federer's comment Andy also said "Well for Roger in Paris, I was injured, Rafa didn't play, Novak withdrew, and at the end of the day, you can only play against what's in front of you." Very well said. And that's the great thing about Andy Murray, he is reassuringly down to earth, and he doesn't have the arrogant ego of some other players (one of whom I just mentioned!).
Anyway more will follow on the remaining ATP World Tour Final matches, and with Andy now gone, Janko Tipsarevic takes his place, so again we have two Serbs in a big event, and yes they shall meet, and lets hope this match is another cracker, like the one they had at the US Open. One thing is for sure, that match is getting taped!
Aaaaaaand that's it for now.
Tuesday, 22 November 2011
Monday, 21 November 2011
Oooooohhhhh dear
Well this isn't the news I wanted to open this post with, as its to do with the ATP world tour finals matches that have taken place so far.
Quickly an update on the first day's matches, which featured a brief but entertaining 3 setter between Federer and Tsonga, who after a set apiece, Tsonga had a chance to take things further, unfortunately however he dropped his own serve at 4-4, and handed Federer the break to take the match. On the other match of the day (or evening) was a real battle between an ailing Rafa Nadal and the American No.1 Mardy Fish. Rafa right from the start didn't look right, as he apparently had struggled with an upset stomach after apparently having salmon pasta (I must admit I wouldn't like to try that!) prior to the match. Despite that Rafa managed to take the opening set easily, but in the 2nd that's when Fish mounted his fightback, pushing the World No.2 to a decider, which had its share of breaks, but in the end it needed a tiebreak to separate the two men, which Nadal won 7-3. So the final result was 6-2, 3-6, 7-6(3).
It has to be said that Rafa definitely does not appear to be in good form, struggling with a bad stomach isn't the way to come into a tournament, but he did get the win, even if it was by the skin of his nads. And his next match will prove to be a real test as he faces Roger Federer on Tuesday, but it all depends on how well Rafa is feeling, hopefully he will get better and be prepared to give us a really good match. But Roger could definitely have the upper hand, but time will tell on that.
Now onto today's opening match which was between Britain's Andy Murray and Spanish No.2 David Ferrer. By reputation we knew that this would be a tough match, but Andy was straight off pegged to be favourite to win it. Unfortunately however things didn't pan out that way, as Andy from the start looked quite drawn and tired, and despite gaining a break of serve early in the first set, he struggled really badly with his own serve and at one point had a medical timeout for his hip. This ultimately allowed Ferrer to break back and before we knew it, the Muzza was a set down. In the second set, Andy started off better with a break, but again he squandered it and let Ferrer back into the match, and toward the end at 6-5, Andy failed to hold serve once more, letting Ferrer win his first match of the group in 6-4, 7-5.
This certainly wasn't the result that we were all hoping for, and I am myself pretty disappointed for Andy as well. After the match Andy revealed that he sustained a groinal injury in training a few days after the Paris masters tournament, and that if it wasn't the season end championships, he would not have played. Andy also has stated that he will decide on Tuesday (22 Nov) whether or not he will quit the event, and given the nature of his injury, it might regretfully be the right decision to withdraw. I sincerely hope he doesn't withdraw as despite his loss, he could still be with a chance, but it is a very very slim one, as he will have to play the loser of the next Group A match, Djokovic vs Berdych, which most likely could be Berdych. And Berdych himself defeated Andy the last time they met in Paris, and it would seem given his current condition far more likely that Berdych would beat him again. But it would all hinge on Andy preparing and getting better for the next match, and it may well be unlikely that he could do so, however it would be great to see if Andy could get revenge on Berdych for his loss in Paris, but again if he does play Berdy it will be a real physical match, and he may just not be up to the task.
Speaking of which as an update Djokovic did indeed defeat Tomas Berdych but it was a very very close match, and Djokovic himself saved one match point before taking the final set to a tiebreaker, which he won. So it will be Berdych, after all, that Andy is scheduled to face, but judging by Berdy's current form, if I were Andy I'd probably save any humiliation, pain and hassel and quit now! As Djokovic had a narrow scrape there, and if Berdych can push the World No.1 that far, then he is sure to punish Andy physically and mentally even further!
So it all hangs in the balance for Andy Murray at the ATP World Tour Finals, and it would be a great shame and a big disappointment if he decided to withdraw, so a big question mark hangs over the Muzza's bonce on this one. But in the end, health has to come first and if Andy has to withdraw, then that's what he'll have to do, and its a great shame to see what has arguably been his best season so far, end on such a sour note. However time will once again soon tell all.
Aaaaaaaaaaaannd I'll leave it there the now.
Quickly an update on the first day's matches, which featured a brief but entertaining 3 setter between Federer and Tsonga, who after a set apiece, Tsonga had a chance to take things further, unfortunately however he dropped his own serve at 4-4, and handed Federer the break to take the match. On the other match of the day (or evening) was a real battle between an ailing Rafa Nadal and the American No.1 Mardy Fish. Rafa right from the start didn't look right, as he apparently had struggled with an upset stomach after apparently having salmon pasta (I must admit I wouldn't like to try that!) prior to the match. Despite that Rafa managed to take the opening set easily, but in the 2nd that's when Fish mounted his fightback, pushing the World No.2 to a decider, which had its share of breaks, but in the end it needed a tiebreak to separate the two men, which Nadal won 7-3. So the final result was 6-2, 3-6, 7-6(3).
It has to be said that Rafa definitely does not appear to be in good form, struggling with a bad stomach isn't the way to come into a tournament, but he did get the win, even if it was by the skin of his nads. And his next match will prove to be a real test as he faces Roger Federer on Tuesday, but it all depends on how well Rafa is feeling, hopefully he will get better and be prepared to give us a really good match. But Roger could definitely have the upper hand, but time will tell on that.
Now onto today's opening match which was between Britain's Andy Murray and Spanish No.2 David Ferrer. By reputation we knew that this would be a tough match, but Andy was straight off pegged to be favourite to win it. Unfortunately however things didn't pan out that way, as Andy from the start looked quite drawn and tired, and despite gaining a break of serve early in the first set, he struggled really badly with his own serve and at one point had a medical timeout for his hip. This ultimately allowed Ferrer to break back and before we knew it, the Muzza was a set down. In the second set, Andy started off better with a break, but again he squandered it and let Ferrer back into the match, and toward the end at 6-5, Andy failed to hold serve once more, letting Ferrer win his first match of the group in 6-4, 7-5.
This certainly wasn't the result that we were all hoping for, and I am myself pretty disappointed for Andy as well. After the match Andy revealed that he sustained a groinal injury in training a few days after the Paris masters tournament, and that if it wasn't the season end championships, he would not have played. Andy also has stated that he will decide on Tuesday (22 Nov) whether or not he will quit the event, and given the nature of his injury, it might regretfully be the right decision to withdraw. I sincerely hope he doesn't withdraw as despite his loss, he could still be with a chance, but it is a very very slim one, as he will have to play the loser of the next Group A match, Djokovic vs Berdych, which most likely could be Berdych. And Berdych himself defeated Andy the last time they met in Paris, and it would seem given his current condition far more likely that Berdych would beat him again. But it would all hinge on Andy preparing and getting better for the next match, and it may well be unlikely that he could do so, however it would be great to see if Andy could get revenge on Berdych for his loss in Paris, but again if he does play Berdy it will be a real physical match, and he may just not be up to the task.
Speaking of which as an update Djokovic did indeed defeat Tomas Berdych but it was a very very close match, and Djokovic himself saved one match point before taking the final set to a tiebreaker, which he won. So it will be Berdych, after all, that Andy is scheduled to face, but judging by Berdy's current form, if I were Andy I'd probably save any humiliation, pain and hassel and quit now! As Djokovic had a narrow scrape there, and if Berdych can push the World No.1 that far, then he is sure to punish Andy physically and mentally even further!
So it all hangs in the balance for Andy Murray at the ATP World Tour Finals, and it would be a great shame and a big disappointment if he decided to withdraw, so a big question mark hangs over the Muzza's bonce on this one. But in the end, health has to come first and if Andy has to withdraw, then that's what he'll have to do, and its a great shame to see what has arguably been his best season so far, end on such a sour note. However time will once again soon tell all.
Aaaaaaaaaaaannd I'll leave it there the now.
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
The ATP finals clash
Just when you thought you wouldn't see yet ANOTHER tennis post, another one creeps along and here it is!! Just a quick one about the ATP World Tour Finals, which is coming up next week in London, as the draw for the event has been announced this week and it looks like quite an exciting set up (well we know that anyway).
The format of the event is pretty much the same as the WTA, as there will be two groups, and four players in each group, and it has been announced that in Group A there will be Djokovic, Murray, Ferrer and Berdych, while in Group B we will have Nadal, Federer, Tsonga and Fish. So its a mouth watering set up and without a doubt each player will have their hands full with whoever they play at each stage. But the big question is, who out of those eight players stands the best chance of winning the title? Its a tough one, but for me personally I think the two players that have best chance are Djokovic and Federer, and if I was a betting fella I would probably wager on Federer. I say Federer because since he has come back into the tour, he has been playing some incredible tennis reminiscent of his glory days, and on that kind of form, he is impossible to beat. But on the other hand, Djokovic has had the best year of his life on the tennis court and has played tennis that has been at times out of orbit, especially earlier in the year when he was on that amazing 41 match winning streak. So to dismiss Djokovic would be insane, and if he has recovered sufficiently from his shoulder injury he would be an utterly formidable opponent.
Then we have Rafa, who has taken some time out from the game to get himself prepped for this event and the Davis cup, but I have to say I wouldn't rate his chances quite as strongly as the other two guys, simply because Rafa for one has been beaten by Djokovic six times in a row now, not only that he was defeated by Roger last year. But however given that extra training time, Rafa might just be in with a shout all the same of lifting that elusive year end championship trophy.
Now we get on to Andy Murray, and overall Andy has had a great season, 5 titles, one slam final, and three semi finals, he is also the home favourite, and will get the best support, but can he win what would be the biggest title of his career???? Hmmmmmmmmm, against these other guys it seems doubtful, he can do it for sure if he serves and plays well enough, but it is a mighty big ask. Andy also has to contend with Djokovic and Berdych in his group, and depending on how Djoko is, he could again prove to be very tough. Also there is Berdych who last week defeated Andy in Paris, who again could prove to be a tricky customer, so there is a danger that Andy could go out early from the tournament. For Andy's sake I hope he doesn't and hopefully he will get revenge on Berdych for his loss at Paris, it would also be perfect place to do it. In fact out of those players, Ferrer should be the easiest for Andy to play, but having said that, Ferrer is no pushover either, so all round it will be tough for him. But just maybe with the home crowd behind him, it might prove possible for Andy to move to those later stages.
After that we also have Tsonga and Fish, but I have to say I don't rate either of those players chances quite as much, particularly Fish, who despite being a very talented player, hasn't quite got the chops to win a big title. Tsonga on the other hand does have the chops, but he can appear to fall that bit short on the big occassions, regardless though, he could do very well as he has already beaten Federer and Rafa this year, but with the year end championships, it is a bigger deal, and the big guys will bring their A-game to the proceedings.
So there's not long now before the event starts, its going to be a great one, and plenty of terrific tennis awaits, till then that'll do for now.
The format of the event is pretty much the same as the WTA, as there will be two groups, and four players in each group, and it has been announced that in Group A there will be Djokovic, Murray, Ferrer and Berdych, while in Group B we will have Nadal, Federer, Tsonga and Fish. So its a mouth watering set up and without a doubt each player will have their hands full with whoever they play at each stage. But the big question is, who out of those eight players stands the best chance of winning the title? Its a tough one, but for me personally I think the two players that have best chance are Djokovic and Federer, and if I was a betting fella I would probably wager on Federer. I say Federer because since he has come back into the tour, he has been playing some incredible tennis reminiscent of his glory days, and on that kind of form, he is impossible to beat. But on the other hand, Djokovic has had the best year of his life on the tennis court and has played tennis that has been at times out of orbit, especially earlier in the year when he was on that amazing 41 match winning streak. So to dismiss Djokovic would be insane, and if he has recovered sufficiently from his shoulder injury he would be an utterly formidable opponent.
Then we have Rafa, who has taken some time out from the game to get himself prepped for this event and the Davis cup, but I have to say I wouldn't rate his chances quite as strongly as the other two guys, simply because Rafa for one has been beaten by Djokovic six times in a row now, not only that he was defeated by Roger last year. But however given that extra training time, Rafa might just be in with a shout all the same of lifting that elusive year end championship trophy.
Now we get on to Andy Murray, and overall Andy has had a great season, 5 titles, one slam final, and three semi finals, he is also the home favourite, and will get the best support, but can he win what would be the biggest title of his career???? Hmmmmmmmmm, against these other guys it seems doubtful, he can do it for sure if he serves and plays well enough, but it is a mighty big ask. Andy also has to contend with Djokovic and Berdych in his group, and depending on how Djoko is, he could again prove to be very tough. Also there is Berdych who last week defeated Andy in Paris, who again could prove to be a tricky customer, so there is a danger that Andy could go out early from the tournament. For Andy's sake I hope he doesn't and hopefully he will get revenge on Berdych for his loss at Paris, it would also be perfect place to do it. In fact out of those players, Ferrer should be the easiest for Andy to play, but having said that, Ferrer is no pushover either, so all round it will be tough for him. But just maybe with the home crowd behind him, it might prove possible for Andy to move to those later stages.
After that we also have Tsonga and Fish, but I have to say I don't rate either of those players chances quite as much, particularly Fish, who despite being a very talented player, hasn't quite got the chops to win a big title. Tsonga on the other hand does have the chops, but he can appear to fall that bit short on the big occassions, regardless though, he could do very well as he has already beaten Federer and Rafa this year, but with the year end championships, it is a bigger deal, and the big guys will bring their A-game to the proceedings.
So there's not long now before the event starts, its going to be a great one, and plenty of terrific tennis awaits, till then that'll do for now.
Back and to the left
I thought its time to continue my little selection of movies to critique and look at, and this time I chose rather appropriately on as its nearing the anniversary of the JFK assassination (on 22 November) so I'm going to have a look at Oliver Stone's acclaimed epic drama JFK. JFK is a dramatisation of the events that surrounded John F. Kennedy's assassination that took place on 22 November 1963 in Dallas, Texas and the aftermath of its investigation. So here's a bit more about the storyline of the film:
On the day of the assassination, in New Orleans, District Attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) is informed by one of his staff Lou Barnes (Jay Sanders). After Kennedy's death is announced officially on television, the suspected assassin Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman) is arrested and taken to the station for questioning. Garrison then plans to investigate any suspects and associates of Lee Harvey Oswald's that might be under his jurisdiction in New Orleans, however before he can do that, Oswald is assassinated live on TV by Dallas mob man Jack Ruby (Brian Doyle Murray). Regardless of Oswald's shock assassination, Garrison brings in one of Oswald's alleged known associates, David Ferrie (Joe Pesci) who naturally denies he ever knew Oswald. However Ferrie gives a very shaky account of his activities on the day of the assassination which Garrison quickly disbelieves and has Ferrie detained for more questioning by the FBI, regardless of this though Ferrie is let go, after which Garrison decides not to continue investigating any further.
Three years later in 1966, after sharing a conversation with a senator (played by the late great Walter Matthau) on an airplane, Garrison starts to have serious doubts and suspicions about the events of the assassination and that Oswald was the lone gunman. After more digging around, and reading over the 26 volumes of the official assassination investigation, published by Warren Commission and conducted by chief judge Earl Warren, Garrison decides to re-open the investigation of the crime. With his small team of staff, Garrison questions many different witnesses to the shooting, and potential suspects that may have been connected to the assassination. As Garrison and his team investigate further, a name that keeps popping up is Clay Bertrand, who is later revealed to be Clay Shaw (played by Tommy Lee Jones) a well respected businessman and entrepeneur. However on bringing Shaw in for questioning, Shaw categorically denies any knowledge of Oswald, Ferrie or any one else potentially involved in the conspiracy, as well as denying his Clay Bertrand alias. But soon after their meeting, Garrison's investigation is made public and soon the press and media come down hard on him. Now forced to operate out in the open, Garrison faces tough choices ahead of him in carrying out his investigation, after receiving various death threats, crank calls, and narrowly escaping frame ups to discredit him. Eventually after rigorous investigations, including a discussion with an ex-military figure who simply calls himself "X" (Donald Sutherland) who provides him with important background knowledge to the events surrounding the assassination, Garrison decides to arrest Shaw and prosecute him for his possible involvement in the alleged conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy.
JFK is without a doubt a great achievement in its own, as Oliver Stone took a controversial subject and turned into a film that is fascinating, intelligent and gripping. If you look at the events and evidence that are presented in the film, it certainly does a great job at convincing you that there was a possible conspiracy involved. Jim Garrison himself showed tremendous moral courage and character in bringing such a trial to the public eye, as he himself faced great danger in pissing off the government and endangering his own life in the process. But Garrison is never potrayed as anything else other than a very decent man who in reality at first was never really keen on Kennedy at the time, but during his investigation came to admire him for what he stood for and tried to do in the United States.
But whether or not a conspiracy took place in Dallas that day or not, no one really knows, but I do think there was potentially enough evidence to point towards one. One of key aspects of the assassination as highlighted in the film was that it seemed highly unlikely that Oswald could have fired 3 shots that from the book depository window, at a moving vehicle with trees and heavy foilage in his way, especially considering the poor quality of the firearm. It would seem more likely that a team of riflemen could have had a much better chance of killing Kennedy from fixed positions. Another crucial crux of the film and the case was, there had to be more than just 3 shots, as if for no better reason, there were four known wounds, three to Kennedy (in the throat, back and head) and one to Governor Conally (one in the back). This is where the Warren Commission presented the ridiculous "magic bullet" theory that one bullet accounted for the wounds between Connally and Kennedy. It also seems unlikely that if after Oswald committed the crime, that he would be able race down the stairs in about 90 seconds, only to face a police officer who was checking out the building, to ask whom he was, and appear not to be out of breath, which the policeman testified later that Oswald was absolutely not out of breath.
And overall too much evidence points toward the possibility of a conspiracy, with so many witnesses later on dying in mysterious circumstances, or being bribed in order to be kept quiet, the events after the assassination regarding the car also appear strange, as the car is washed and rebuilt before any forensics can be taken. There were also many different documents, interview notes from suspects that were also either torn up or burnt. But the one piece of evidence that does remain however is the film footage, taken by an onlooker Abraham Zapruder, which shows the assassination itself, and gives possible clues of the direction of where the bullets came from. The footage itself is terrible to watch, as it signified the start of several public assassinations (Oswald, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy followed), and Garrison himself later subpoenaed the Zapruder film for his trial (the footage itself was later televised for the first time in 1975 on American television). Another key point was surely, if Oswald was even the lone gunman, he would not have acted alone, as he must been acting on behalf of powerful people behind the scenes, in this regard Oswald himself could well have been a sleeper cell, who was set in motion at the key moment, but again this is just a bit of speculation.
But back to the actual film, JFK is without a doubt fascinating to watch, and features so many great performances and cameos from its a big cast. Kevin Costner, while not the best actor in the world, does give a fine performance as the DA Jim Garrison, who takes on the massive task of bringing the JFK assassination to trial, he also shows Garrison as being a man of moral decency, as well as being very strong and stubborn in the face of adversity. Joe Pesci also probably gives the film's best performance as Dave Ferrie, the crazed suspect (replete with a ridiculous wig and eyebrows!) who later admits to his involvement with Oswald, as he shows a mixture of malice and remorse. Tommy Lee Jones gives an excellent performance also as Clay Shaw, and he depicts as a very sly businessman, who is clearly also very manipulative. The other smaller character roles are equally impressive, with fine stuff from Michael Rooker as Bill (one of Garrison's staff), Laurie Metcalf as Susie, another staff member, and of course Jay Sanders as Lou Barnes, who was in reality one of Garrison's key members of staff (although the film depicts Barnes as quitting the investigation, in reality he didn't). Also Kevin Bacon, is excellent as the homosexual Willie O'Keefe (who in reality was based on one of Garrison's key witnesses, Perry Russo) who claimed to have known and had sexual relations with Shaw. Donald Sutherland is similarly great as the mysterious "X" who delivers a very lengthy 17 minute dialogue giving Garrison the background info surrounding the events leading up to the assassination. Also there is the superb Jack Lemmon as Jack Martin, who worked for another one of the possible key people behind the assassination, Guy Banister (played by Ed Asner) who died shortly after in 1964. And last but by no means least, there is Gary Oldman as Lee Harvey Oswald. Oldman is great as Oswald, and potrays him as a complex and private man, who remained a mystery even after his death. Gary Oldman also facially resembles Oswald a fair bit, and does an excellent job at reproducing his unusual American accent, which had a tinge of Russian to it.
Overall the film moves at a great pace, but also is on the verge of bombarding you with too much information at times, so it definitely takes a few viewings to get the gist of all the details. The only other thing I would say about the film that probably lets it down slightly is the melodrama of Garrison's home life, as he argues with his wife Elizabeth (Sissy Spacek) who is frustrated by the amount of time he devotes to the case. It is however key to the film as well I guess, as it is important to show how the events of the investigation impacted on Garrison's personal life, and later in reality, his first wife Elizabeth did divorce him. But not to take away from Sissy's performance, as she herself does very well with her role in the film, for her all she wants to do is get her normal life back. Another slight problem with the film, and probably the case in general is there is not much evidence that cold links Shaw to knowing Oswald, as it ultimately is just the word of people who have witnessed seeing Shaw and Oswald together in the past. But it was later revealed in 1978, four years after Shaw's death, by the at the time CIA director, Richard Helms, that Shaw did actually work for the CIA as a contractor. And based on the Richard Helms testimony, it proved that Shaw was guilty of perjury. But as Garrison in the film says people like Shaw can "walk between the rain drops" and indeed get away with murder (or assassination in this case).
However Garrison's trial definitely did raise enough questions about the dubiety of the Warren Commission's conclusions and of the many loose ends that peppered the investigation. And as portrayed in the film, a key moment where Clay Shaw gives away his alias as Bertrand to a police officer after his arrest, the officer in question Aloysius Habighorst's testimony wasn't allowed and was ruled inadmissible by the judge. This in itself seems very peculiar that the testimony wasn't allowed, and as the film almost shows that even the judge and court system was corrupt enough to cover things up. In the end of course, Clay Shaw is acquitted of the charges and found not guilty and allowed to go free, once again to "walk between the rain drops". It also does raise that Clay Shaw could also been as Ferrie in the film states as being "untouchable, with the highest clearance". Whatever way it was, Shaw was also an enigma and in the end he got away, guilty or not.
Soooooooo after that rather exhaustive entry, JFK is definitely one of my favourite films and its great to revisit it once in a while, kind of like a fine wine (don't buy (or watch) it too much in other words). And if you haven't seen it, then it certainly will be an eye opener behind the events one of America's most disgraceful crimes.
So that is that.
On the day of the assassination, in New Orleans, District Attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) is informed by one of his staff Lou Barnes (Jay Sanders). After Kennedy's death is announced officially on television, the suspected assassin Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman) is arrested and taken to the station for questioning. Garrison then plans to investigate any suspects and associates of Lee Harvey Oswald's that might be under his jurisdiction in New Orleans, however before he can do that, Oswald is assassinated live on TV by Dallas mob man Jack Ruby (Brian Doyle Murray). Regardless of Oswald's shock assassination, Garrison brings in one of Oswald's alleged known associates, David Ferrie (Joe Pesci) who naturally denies he ever knew Oswald. However Ferrie gives a very shaky account of his activities on the day of the assassination which Garrison quickly disbelieves and has Ferrie detained for more questioning by the FBI, regardless of this though Ferrie is let go, after which Garrison decides not to continue investigating any further.
Three years later in 1966, after sharing a conversation with a senator (played by the late great Walter Matthau) on an airplane, Garrison starts to have serious doubts and suspicions about the events of the assassination and that Oswald was the lone gunman. After more digging around, and reading over the 26 volumes of the official assassination investigation, published by Warren Commission and conducted by chief judge Earl Warren, Garrison decides to re-open the investigation of the crime. With his small team of staff, Garrison questions many different witnesses to the shooting, and potential suspects that may have been connected to the assassination. As Garrison and his team investigate further, a name that keeps popping up is Clay Bertrand, who is later revealed to be Clay Shaw (played by Tommy Lee Jones) a well respected businessman and entrepeneur. However on bringing Shaw in for questioning, Shaw categorically denies any knowledge of Oswald, Ferrie or any one else potentially involved in the conspiracy, as well as denying his Clay Bertrand alias. But soon after their meeting, Garrison's investigation is made public and soon the press and media come down hard on him. Now forced to operate out in the open, Garrison faces tough choices ahead of him in carrying out his investigation, after receiving various death threats, crank calls, and narrowly escaping frame ups to discredit him. Eventually after rigorous investigations, including a discussion with an ex-military figure who simply calls himself "X" (Donald Sutherland) who provides him with important background knowledge to the events surrounding the assassination, Garrison decides to arrest Shaw and prosecute him for his possible involvement in the alleged conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy.
JFK is without a doubt a great achievement in its own, as Oliver Stone took a controversial subject and turned into a film that is fascinating, intelligent and gripping. If you look at the events and evidence that are presented in the film, it certainly does a great job at convincing you that there was a possible conspiracy involved. Jim Garrison himself showed tremendous moral courage and character in bringing such a trial to the public eye, as he himself faced great danger in pissing off the government and endangering his own life in the process. But Garrison is never potrayed as anything else other than a very decent man who in reality at first was never really keen on Kennedy at the time, but during his investigation came to admire him for what he stood for and tried to do in the United States.
But whether or not a conspiracy took place in Dallas that day or not, no one really knows, but I do think there was potentially enough evidence to point towards one. One of key aspects of the assassination as highlighted in the film was that it seemed highly unlikely that Oswald could have fired 3 shots that from the book depository window, at a moving vehicle with trees and heavy foilage in his way, especially considering the poor quality of the firearm. It would seem more likely that a team of riflemen could have had a much better chance of killing Kennedy from fixed positions. Another crucial crux of the film and the case was, there had to be more than just 3 shots, as if for no better reason, there were four known wounds, three to Kennedy (in the throat, back and head) and one to Governor Conally (one in the back). This is where the Warren Commission presented the ridiculous "magic bullet" theory that one bullet accounted for the wounds between Connally and Kennedy. It also seems unlikely that if after Oswald committed the crime, that he would be able race down the stairs in about 90 seconds, only to face a police officer who was checking out the building, to ask whom he was, and appear not to be out of breath, which the policeman testified later that Oswald was absolutely not out of breath.
And overall too much evidence points toward the possibility of a conspiracy, with so many witnesses later on dying in mysterious circumstances, or being bribed in order to be kept quiet, the events after the assassination regarding the car also appear strange, as the car is washed and rebuilt before any forensics can be taken. There were also many different documents, interview notes from suspects that were also either torn up or burnt. But the one piece of evidence that does remain however is the film footage, taken by an onlooker Abraham Zapruder, which shows the assassination itself, and gives possible clues of the direction of where the bullets came from. The footage itself is terrible to watch, as it signified the start of several public assassinations (Oswald, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy followed), and Garrison himself later subpoenaed the Zapruder film for his trial (the footage itself was later televised for the first time in 1975 on American television). Another key point was surely, if Oswald was even the lone gunman, he would not have acted alone, as he must been acting on behalf of powerful people behind the scenes, in this regard Oswald himself could well have been a sleeper cell, who was set in motion at the key moment, but again this is just a bit of speculation.
But back to the actual film, JFK is without a doubt fascinating to watch, and features so many great performances and cameos from its a big cast. Kevin Costner, while not the best actor in the world, does give a fine performance as the DA Jim Garrison, who takes on the massive task of bringing the JFK assassination to trial, he also shows Garrison as being a man of moral decency, as well as being very strong and stubborn in the face of adversity. Joe Pesci also probably gives the film's best performance as Dave Ferrie, the crazed suspect (replete with a ridiculous wig and eyebrows!) who later admits to his involvement with Oswald, as he shows a mixture of malice and remorse. Tommy Lee Jones gives an excellent performance also as Clay Shaw, and he depicts as a very sly businessman, who is clearly also very manipulative. The other smaller character roles are equally impressive, with fine stuff from Michael Rooker as Bill (one of Garrison's staff), Laurie Metcalf as Susie, another staff member, and of course Jay Sanders as Lou Barnes, who was in reality one of Garrison's key members of staff (although the film depicts Barnes as quitting the investigation, in reality he didn't). Also Kevin Bacon, is excellent as the homosexual Willie O'Keefe (who in reality was based on one of Garrison's key witnesses, Perry Russo) who claimed to have known and had sexual relations with Shaw. Donald Sutherland is similarly great as the mysterious "X" who delivers a very lengthy 17 minute dialogue giving Garrison the background info surrounding the events leading up to the assassination. Also there is the superb Jack Lemmon as Jack Martin, who worked for another one of the possible key people behind the assassination, Guy Banister (played by Ed Asner) who died shortly after in 1964. And last but by no means least, there is Gary Oldman as Lee Harvey Oswald. Oldman is great as Oswald, and potrays him as a complex and private man, who remained a mystery even after his death. Gary Oldman also facially resembles Oswald a fair bit, and does an excellent job at reproducing his unusual American accent, which had a tinge of Russian to it.
Overall the film moves at a great pace, but also is on the verge of bombarding you with too much information at times, so it definitely takes a few viewings to get the gist of all the details. The only other thing I would say about the film that probably lets it down slightly is the melodrama of Garrison's home life, as he argues with his wife Elizabeth (Sissy Spacek) who is frustrated by the amount of time he devotes to the case. It is however key to the film as well I guess, as it is important to show how the events of the investigation impacted on Garrison's personal life, and later in reality, his first wife Elizabeth did divorce him. But not to take away from Sissy's performance, as she herself does very well with her role in the film, for her all she wants to do is get her normal life back. Another slight problem with the film, and probably the case in general is there is not much evidence that cold links Shaw to knowing Oswald, as it ultimately is just the word of people who have witnessed seeing Shaw and Oswald together in the past. But it was later revealed in 1978, four years after Shaw's death, by the at the time CIA director, Richard Helms, that Shaw did actually work for the CIA as a contractor. And based on the Richard Helms testimony, it proved that Shaw was guilty of perjury. But as Garrison in the film says people like Shaw can "walk between the rain drops" and indeed get away with murder (or assassination in this case).
However Garrison's trial definitely did raise enough questions about the dubiety of the Warren Commission's conclusions and of the many loose ends that peppered the investigation. And as portrayed in the film, a key moment where Clay Shaw gives away his alias as Bertrand to a police officer after his arrest, the officer in question Aloysius Habighorst's testimony wasn't allowed and was ruled inadmissible by the judge. This in itself seems very peculiar that the testimony wasn't allowed, and as the film almost shows that even the judge and court system was corrupt enough to cover things up. In the end of course, Clay Shaw is acquitted of the charges and found not guilty and allowed to go free, once again to "walk between the rain drops". It also does raise that Clay Shaw could also been as Ferrie in the film states as being "untouchable, with the highest clearance". Whatever way it was, Shaw was also an enigma and in the end he got away, guilty or not.
Soooooooo after that rather exhaustive entry, JFK is definitely one of my favourite films and its great to revisit it once in a while, kind of like a fine wine (don't buy (or watch) it too much in other words). And if you haven't seen it, then it certainly will be an eye opener behind the events one of America's most disgraceful crimes.
So that is that.
Sunday, 13 November 2011
The Fed express returns
All things come to an end, and that is nearly the end of the ATP tour season, as the final 1000 Masters series event has come to a close at the BNP Paribas Masters in Paris. In the final Roger Federer took on the previous champion Jo-Wilfried Tsonga for a chance to lift his first Paris trophy.
So more on the actual match, in the first set, Federer proved once again to be totally dominant, as he raced past Tsonga, breaking early on and winning the set in 6-1. The second set was however more tightly contested as Tsonga held serve, and also had a chance to break Federer at 4-3 on Fedora's serve, however Tsonga overcooked his shots and missed the boat. Tsonga continued to hold serve and push the set to a tiebreak, but in the tie, it was the ol Swiss maestro that came out on top, as he won the tiebreak, set and match to clinch his first Paris Masters title (well there is a first for everything!), the final score reading 6-1, 7-6(3).
You could tell right from the start of this match that there really would be only one winner as Federer, having come back into the game after his rest, has been on top form, and the rest has left him fresh and fit, as well as giving him a chance to play some of his best tennis. Tsonga however did well to take the second set to a tiebreak, but ultiamtely he had no stanglehold over Federer, and when it came to the break points, Federer was able to save them. Regardless of the loss though Tsonga has had an excellent season and return to form as well as to the top 10, where he belongs and he has opportunity ahead of him at the o2 arena next week. And it was good to see how much the win meant to Federer also, as he nearly shed a tear after the win, and its also his biggest title win this year. So big well done to Fed, and its good to see him back into winning in the big tournaments again this year, even though the BNP Paribas Paris Masters trophy is an ugly looking thing that resembles a black spider on a brick!
And with that, all is left for the season is the ATP World Tour Finals, which takes place next Sunday at the o2 Arena in London, and there is a very strong set up for the top 8, as we have Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Federer, Ferrer, Berdych, Tsong and Fish. Its quite a list of players and it promises to be a great finale to a terrific year of tennis. Out of that lot you really would have to favour one of the top four to lift the title, but you can never write off the bottom four's chances either (just look at Delpo and Davydenko two years ago who both got to the final two years ago, with Denko winning as none of the other top guys had a look in). And its hard to call a favourite to win, as I said Federer in his current form stands a strong chance, and with the extra preparation and time out, you can never dismiss Nadal either, and there is also that Serbian chap who has had the year of his life, and has been lifting nearly every trophy in sight. And of course there is Andy Murray, who has so far only got as far as the semi finals at the ATP World Finals, like he did last year in that amazing match against Nadal when he fell in a nail bitingly close battle. It would also be the biggest title of his career if he can win, and I hope he does, but the field is so strong, I have to say the other three guys might stand a better chance.
But we'll soon find out, and it promises to be a great end to a stellar year in the sport.
That's it for now.
So more on the actual match, in the first set, Federer proved once again to be totally dominant, as he raced past Tsonga, breaking early on and winning the set in 6-1. The second set was however more tightly contested as Tsonga held serve, and also had a chance to break Federer at 4-3 on Fedora's serve, however Tsonga overcooked his shots and missed the boat. Tsonga continued to hold serve and push the set to a tiebreak, but in the tie, it was the ol Swiss maestro that came out on top, as he won the tiebreak, set and match to clinch his first Paris Masters title (well there is a first for everything!), the final score reading 6-1, 7-6(3).
You could tell right from the start of this match that there really would be only one winner as Federer, having come back into the game after his rest, has been on top form, and the rest has left him fresh and fit, as well as giving him a chance to play some of his best tennis. Tsonga however did well to take the second set to a tiebreak, but ultiamtely he had no stanglehold over Federer, and when it came to the break points, Federer was able to save them. Regardless of the loss though Tsonga has had an excellent season and return to form as well as to the top 10, where he belongs and he has opportunity ahead of him at the o2 arena next week. And it was good to see how much the win meant to Federer also, as he nearly shed a tear after the win, and its also his biggest title win this year. So big well done to Fed, and its good to see him back into winning in the big tournaments again this year, even though the BNP Paribas Paris Masters trophy is an ugly looking thing that resembles a black spider on a brick!
And with that, all is left for the season is the ATP World Tour Finals, which takes place next Sunday at the o2 Arena in London, and there is a very strong set up for the top 8, as we have Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Federer, Ferrer, Berdych, Tsong and Fish. Its quite a list of players and it promises to be a great finale to a terrific year of tennis. Out of that lot you really would have to favour one of the top four to lift the title, but you can never write off the bottom four's chances either (just look at Delpo and Davydenko two years ago who both got to the final two years ago, with Denko winning as none of the other top guys had a look in). And its hard to call a favourite to win, as I said Federer in his current form stands a strong chance, and with the extra preparation and time out, you can never dismiss Nadal either, and there is also that Serbian chap who has had the year of his life, and has been lifting nearly every trophy in sight. And of course there is Andy Murray, who has so far only got as far as the semi finals at the ATP World Finals, like he did last year in that amazing match against Nadal when he fell in a nail bitingly close battle. It would also be the biggest title of his career if he can win, and I hope he does, but the field is so strong, I have to say the other three guys might stand a better chance.
But we'll soon find out, and it promises to be a great end to a stellar year in the sport.
That's it for now.
Digging deep in Paris
Well the ATP Paris Masters grows ever closer to an end, as today we had the two men's semi finals matches, as the four remaining players had it out to see who would get through to the final.
In the first match of the day, Federer took on Tomas Berdych, who previously had beaten Andy Murray, in what promised to be a tight contest. However Federer as he proved throughout the week, continued his dominant form as he didn't allow Berdy into the match at any point, as he broke the big Czeck early on in the 1st and again in the 2nd, as he closed out the match in straight sets winning 6-4, 6-3. In the last week or so, Federer definitely has re-announced his arrival as a player, who after having taken some time out to deal with some nagging injuries, is fresh as a daisy and looks to be as in good form as he has ever been. This also marks Fedora's first Paris Masters final, so it would be fair to say he stands a good chance of lifting the title there.
The second match of the day was however, by far the better of the two, as the home favourite Jo-Wilfried Tsonga took on the gentle giant John Isner. And straight off Isner came out on form, breaking Tsonga's serve in the first set, and his own serve was inpenetrable, allowing him to take the first set. However in the 2nd and 3rd sets, there was nothing to separate the two men except the tiebreaks, with Tsonga winning the 2nd set tiebreak, he was in danger of losing the match at 5-6 on his own serve, but Isner gifted him a few get out of jail cards, which Tsonga finally took to push the match to a final tiebreak. And in the tiebreak, Tsonga once again bossed Isner to seal it and win the match, earning him a place in his second Paris Masters final, digging out that win in 3-6, 7-6, 7-6.
This was a terrific match throughout and featured plenty of great tennis from both players, Tsonga in particular thrived off the energy he got from the home crowd, whom provided a great atmosphere in backing their native player. The match also marked the 2nd biggest match of John Isner's career, the biggest of course being the US Open quarter final earlier this year, as it was a chance for the big guy to reach his first 1000 Masters series final. But there were honestly times in the match I thought it would go Isner's way, and he had a few opportunities, but ultimately he didn't take them. Regardless of his loss, Isner put up an incredible fight and a formidable display of serving throughout the tournament, and the fact that his serve wasn't broken once throughout the match was quite remarkable. Isner as a player has also undoubtedly come on in leaps and bounds this year, having already reached the quarter finals of the US Open, nearly defeating Nadal at the French Open (in the 1st round), and having picked up two titles, he is fast becoming a nightmare for the other players on the tour. And it was a bit of a pity that Isner didn't make it to the final as he played so well, and it would have been a fine end to an excellent season, but I'm sure we will see more from the big fella next year.
So that's the final set up tomorrow between Federer and Tsonga, which promises to be a really good one, although its hard to tell which way it will go. My money is on Federer to lift the title, although how easy the match will be is not certain, I'm hoping it will go the distance and Tsonga has already defeated Fedo twice this year, but its not beyond the Frenchman's abilities to win either. Tsonga has already won in Paris 3 years ago, having defeated David Nalbandian in the final back in 2008. And if you ask me who is the better French player between Gael Monfils and Tsonga, there is no comparison, as Tsonga is by the far the better player. Not to take away from Monfils fine achievements of reaching the Paris Masters final the last two years running, but Tsonga has the talent to make the push and take it that bit further, and he deservedly is the current No.1 French player, as he was three years ago at this time too. He is for my money also one of the special players out there who deserves to be in the top 10, just like Juan Martin Del Potro, and this year has been a great one for him, so we will see if he can lift that 2nd Masters title.
Right so more will follow tomorrow after the much anticipated final is over. Should be a good one!
In the first match of the day, Federer took on Tomas Berdych, who previously had beaten Andy Murray, in what promised to be a tight contest. However Federer as he proved throughout the week, continued his dominant form as he didn't allow Berdy into the match at any point, as he broke the big Czeck early on in the 1st and again in the 2nd, as he closed out the match in straight sets winning 6-4, 6-3. In the last week or so, Federer definitely has re-announced his arrival as a player, who after having taken some time out to deal with some nagging injuries, is fresh as a daisy and looks to be as in good form as he has ever been. This also marks Fedora's first Paris Masters final, so it would be fair to say he stands a good chance of lifting the title there.
The second match of the day was however, by far the better of the two, as the home favourite Jo-Wilfried Tsonga took on the gentle giant John Isner. And straight off Isner came out on form, breaking Tsonga's serve in the first set, and his own serve was inpenetrable, allowing him to take the first set. However in the 2nd and 3rd sets, there was nothing to separate the two men except the tiebreaks, with Tsonga winning the 2nd set tiebreak, he was in danger of losing the match at 5-6 on his own serve, but Isner gifted him a few get out of jail cards, which Tsonga finally took to push the match to a final tiebreak. And in the tiebreak, Tsonga once again bossed Isner to seal it and win the match, earning him a place in his second Paris Masters final, digging out that win in 3-6, 7-6, 7-6.
This was a terrific match throughout and featured plenty of great tennis from both players, Tsonga in particular thrived off the energy he got from the home crowd, whom provided a great atmosphere in backing their native player. The match also marked the 2nd biggest match of John Isner's career, the biggest of course being the US Open quarter final earlier this year, as it was a chance for the big guy to reach his first 1000 Masters series final. But there were honestly times in the match I thought it would go Isner's way, and he had a few opportunities, but ultimately he didn't take them. Regardless of his loss, Isner put up an incredible fight and a formidable display of serving throughout the tournament, and the fact that his serve wasn't broken once throughout the match was quite remarkable. Isner as a player has also undoubtedly come on in leaps and bounds this year, having already reached the quarter finals of the US Open, nearly defeating Nadal at the French Open (in the 1st round), and having picked up two titles, he is fast becoming a nightmare for the other players on the tour. And it was a bit of a pity that Isner didn't make it to the final as he played so well, and it would have been a fine end to an excellent season, but I'm sure we will see more from the big fella next year.
So that's the final set up tomorrow between Federer and Tsonga, which promises to be a really good one, although its hard to tell which way it will go. My money is on Federer to lift the title, although how easy the match will be is not certain, I'm hoping it will go the distance and Tsonga has already defeated Fedo twice this year, but its not beyond the Frenchman's abilities to win either. Tsonga has already won in Paris 3 years ago, having defeated David Nalbandian in the final back in 2008. And if you ask me who is the better French player between Gael Monfils and Tsonga, there is no comparison, as Tsonga is by the far the better player. Not to take away from Monfils fine achievements of reaching the Paris Masters final the last two years running, but Tsonga has the talent to make the push and take it that bit further, and he deservedly is the current No.1 French player, as he was three years ago at this time too. He is for my money also one of the special players out there who deserves to be in the top 10, just like Juan Martin Del Potro, and this year has been a great one for him, so we will see if he can lift that 2nd Masters title.
Right so more will follow tomorrow after the much anticipated final is over. Should be a good one!
Saturday, 12 November 2011
Dum dum dum dum dum dum
Since I've overstuffed this blog, which to my knowledge has largely been unread by most of the Western civilisation, with tennis posts, here's a different one this time, once again about a classic movie, last time it was Pulp Fiction, this time I thought I'd look at Jaws, the old Spielberg classic, which I saw recently on TV.
Jaws is without doubt an absolute classic thriller, and is easily one of Steven Spielberg's best films, it was the film that announced his career and he effectively invented the summer blockbuster with this one film as well. However as time has gone on its interesting to be able to pick out some of the film's lesser aspects and while it is a great suspense film, it does have quite a few cheap thrills and Holywood cinematic devices to get more of a reaction out of an audience. But more on that soon, to start with, why not have a look at the plot of the film.
Soooo, it starts in the quiet seaside down of Amity Island (ficitional in case you wondered) where a rouge great white shark swims the waters, and a young girl Chrissie Watkins (Susan Backlinie) is killed by the shark while take a dip in the water. After this the town chief of police, Martin Brody (Roy Schneider), alerts the town mayor Larry Vaughan (Murray Hamilton) of the danger, who is largely uninterested as he is more concerned that the tourists come to town as they are town's main source of income, and also goes as far as asking Brody to cover his autopsy report on the girl as a "boating accident" rather than a shark attack. Despite Brody's warnings and the mayor's negligence to do anything about it, a young boy is killed in the water by the shark, after which a bounty is put out, which brings in a whole bunch of greedy fishermen who want the prize money for killing the big fish, but despite their best efforts, they fail to kill the shark they were looking for and instead catch a "tiger" shark as identified by an expert from the Oceangraphic institute, Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfus) called in by Brody, who helps him try and locate the shark. But despite their best efforts, on 4th of July, their busiest day of the summer, the mayor insists the beaches stay open, which leads to yet another shark attack, where a young man is killed in a boat. Finally Brody convinces the mayor to hire local veteran fisherman, Quint (Robert Shaw) to hunt and kill the shark. Brody also persuades Quint into bringing along Hooper to help out in their quest, but of course Quint being a stubborn old school guy takes umbrage to the young college boy upstart in Hooper. And the rest of the films sees the men embark on their dangerous journey to find the rouge great white shark.
Even after 36 years, Jaws is still as effective as ever, as a piece of suspense it is nearly second to none, Spielberg adds in as many cheap frights as he can, and I'm sure the audiences back then would have been jumping out of their seats. But the film definitely works best when we don't see the shark, particularly early on in the film in the opening scene where the first victim Chrissie Watkins is being violenty pulled back and forth in the water by an unseen force, as well as the scene with the two fishermen using a pound of roast to attract the shark to shore, which it takes as bait and attacks the men.
However as soon as we get to the three mens journey to catch and kill the shark, we get to see the shark in the flesh, so to speak, and its a totally unconvincing rubber creation, as the shark is clearly too big in proportion, and it looks beyond fake, although Spielberg does make very effective use of the underwater footage of real sharks. In fact it really is the shark that lets the movie down in places, and toward the end it shifts from being a gripping thriller to being ridiculously over the top, with the shark blatantly rising out the water to crash onto the boat's transom, so it can eat Quint and Brody. In reality of course, there is no way sharks would ever behave in such a way, as they are largely terratorial creatures who stick to their own environments, and despite the fact that yes there have been many shark attacks over the years, sharks themselves largely life off a diet off sea lions and they don't deliberately hunt out people in the water! But of course with people in the water and in a close proximity, sharks will be dangerous, and if they swim from below and see human flesh they could mistake it as their diet of fish or sea lions, or the scent of blood could be enough to attract a shark. (OK that's enough on my shark lesson!).
Depsite all that though, one of Jaws main strengths definitely lies within its writing, as the characters in the film as so well written, particularly the three men, Brody, Quint and Hooper. Brody is the decent police man, who has the most common sense in the island, and who also gets some of the best dialogue in the film "You're gonna need a bigger boat!" and "Why don't we get another drink and cut that shark open" his wife says "can you do that?" and Brody replies "I can do anything I'm the chief of police!". Hooper is also great as he is young guy who could almost be spoilt and bratish in his manner, as he comes from a wealthy background, but ultimately Hooper is far more sussed than just about everyone else in the film, and his line after he gives up trying to convince the mayor is class "Right that's it, Martn, I'm not staying here listening to a man, lining up to be a hot lunch, I'll see you later!". And Quint is a great character, being the old veteran seaman, who almost instantly takes a disliking to Hooper "you've got city hands, Mr Hooper, you've been counting money all your life!", but despite that, he shares with the men his stories of being at sea and "here's to swimming with bow-legged women!".
And its the relationship between the three men that really drives the film, and how they adapt to the situation, particularly Brody who has a fear of water, and in a way he goes out there determined to prove he can face his fears and deal with the town's problem. Hooper and Quint's mutual dislike for each other, adds a nice element of competitiveness to the film, as no one wants to see three guys get along fine on a boat when they have a crisis! :-) But one of the film's main highlights undoubtedly of course is where they sit around at night in the cabin of the Orca (Quint's boat) sharing jokes, and Quint gives his chilling account of his experience of being one of the crewmates onboard the USS Indianapolis, during the Second World War, which was attacked by the Japanese, which left the survivors in the Pacific ocean at the mercy of sharks.
But as I said earlier the ending is a weakness, as Spielberg at the time wanted a big ending that would have the audiences screaming and on their feet, and the idea to actually blow up the shark was and is quite ridiculous. There is no doubt the fact that while the end is farcical it is also quite entertaining, and yeah ok you can't but help feel when Brody finally shoots the compressed air canister the shark has in its open jaws, when the sharks explodes, it is a crowd pleaser. The film also probably didn't do the species a favour itself, if anything it demonised sharks in the public, and it would take many years later before the myth behind sharks, being monsters, would itself explode.
But despite all that, Jaws still stands as one of the most entertaining and thrilling films from the 1970s, and for better or worse, it helped change cinema, by introducing the summer blockbuster to audiences, as it remains one of the highest grossing films of all time. And I can't forget to also mention John Williams unforgettable score, which he literally tinkled out on the piano one day to Steven Spielberg, and its funny how two musical notes could prove to be so memorable. Jaws also stands head and shoulders over its naff sequels, which by the time we reached the truly God awful Jaws 4: The Revenge, the sharks suddenly took on the concept of revenge and that they had to hunt down the rest of the Brody family! Yeahh ok!! Surely by then they should have taken note of the concept of horror-thriller sequels is not a good idea! Although Michael Caine has frequently since said he only took up the part in Jaws 4 in order to help buy a new house for his grandmother (so at least his fee to use!).
So that's my critique on Jaws, also finally I'd like to say the film ends with one of my favourite pieces of ending dialogue, which is between Brody and Hooper, as the two men paddle to shore, Brody says "I used to hate the water" and Hooper replies "I can't imagine why!".
Dum dum dum dum.
Jaws is without doubt an absolute classic thriller, and is easily one of Steven Spielberg's best films, it was the film that announced his career and he effectively invented the summer blockbuster with this one film as well. However as time has gone on its interesting to be able to pick out some of the film's lesser aspects and while it is a great suspense film, it does have quite a few cheap thrills and Holywood cinematic devices to get more of a reaction out of an audience. But more on that soon, to start with, why not have a look at the plot of the film.
Soooo, it starts in the quiet seaside down of Amity Island (ficitional in case you wondered) where a rouge great white shark swims the waters, and a young girl Chrissie Watkins (Susan Backlinie) is killed by the shark while take a dip in the water. After this the town chief of police, Martin Brody (Roy Schneider), alerts the town mayor Larry Vaughan (Murray Hamilton) of the danger, who is largely uninterested as he is more concerned that the tourists come to town as they are town's main source of income, and also goes as far as asking Brody to cover his autopsy report on the girl as a "boating accident" rather than a shark attack. Despite Brody's warnings and the mayor's negligence to do anything about it, a young boy is killed in the water by the shark, after which a bounty is put out, which brings in a whole bunch of greedy fishermen who want the prize money for killing the big fish, but despite their best efforts, they fail to kill the shark they were looking for and instead catch a "tiger" shark as identified by an expert from the Oceangraphic institute, Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfus) called in by Brody, who helps him try and locate the shark. But despite their best efforts, on 4th of July, their busiest day of the summer, the mayor insists the beaches stay open, which leads to yet another shark attack, where a young man is killed in a boat. Finally Brody convinces the mayor to hire local veteran fisherman, Quint (Robert Shaw) to hunt and kill the shark. Brody also persuades Quint into bringing along Hooper to help out in their quest, but of course Quint being a stubborn old school guy takes umbrage to the young college boy upstart in Hooper. And the rest of the films sees the men embark on their dangerous journey to find the rouge great white shark.
Even after 36 years, Jaws is still as effective as ever, as a piece of suspense it is nearly second to none, Spielberg adds in as many cheap frights as he can, and I'm sure the audiences back then would have been jumping out of their seats. But the film definitely works best when we don't see the shark, particularly early on in the film in the opening scene where the first victim Chrissie Watkins is being violenty pulled back and forth in the water by an unseen force, as well as the scene with the two fishermen using a pound of roast to attract the shark to shore, which it takes as bait and attacks the men.
However as soon as we get to the three mens journey to catch and kill the shark, we get to see the shark in the flesh, so to speak, and its a totally unconvincing rubber creation, as the shark is clearly too big in proportion, and it looks beyond fake, although Spielberg does make very effective use of the underwater footage of real sharks. In fact it really is the shark that lets the movie down in places, and toward the end it shifts from being a gripping thriller to being ridiculously over the top, with the shark blatantly rising out the water to crash onto the boat's transom, so it can eat Quint and Brody. In reality of course, there is no way sharks would ever behave in such a way, as they are largely terratorial creatures who stick to their own environments, and despite the fact that yes there have been many shark attacks over the years, sharks themselves largely life off a diet off sea lions and they don't deliberately hunt out people in the water! But of course with people in the water and in a close proximity, sharks will be dangerous, and if they swim from below and see human flesh they could mistake it as their diet of fish or sea lions, or the scent of blood could be enough to attract a shark. (OK that's enough on my shark lesson!).
Depsite all that though, one of Jaws main strengths definitely lies within its writing, as the characters in the film as so well written, particularly the three men, Brody, Quint and Hooper. Brody is the decent police man, who has the most common sense in the island, and who also gets some of the best dialogue in the film "You're gonna need a bigger boat!" and "Why don't we get another drink and cut that shark open" his wife says "can you do that?" and Brody replies "I can do anything I'm the chief of police!". Hooper is also great as he is young guy who could almost be spoilt and bratish in his manner, as he comes from a wealthy background, but ultimately Hooper is far more sussed than just about everyone else in the film, and his line after he gives up trying to convince the mayor is class "Right that's it, Martn, I'm not staying here listening to a man, lining up to be a hot lunch, I'll see you later!". And Quint is a great character, being the old veteran seaman, who almost instantly takes a disliking to Hooper "you've got city hands, Mr Hooper, you've been counting money all your life!", but despite that, he shares with the men his stories of being at sea and "here's to swimming with bow-legged women!".
And its the relationship between the three men that really drives the film, and how they adapt to the situation, particularly Brody who has a fear of water, and in a way he goes out there determined to prove he can face his fears and deal with the town's problem. Hooper and Quint's mutual dislike for each other, adds a nice element of competitiveness to the film, as no one wants to see three guys get along fine on a boat when they have a crisis! :-) But one of the film's main highlights undoubtedly of course is where they sit around at night in the cabin of the Orca (Quint's boat) sharing jokes, and Quint gives his chilling account of his experience of being one of the crewmates onboard the USS Indianapolis, during the Second World War, which was attacked by the Japanese, which left the survivors in the Pacific ocean at the mercy of sharks.
But as I said earlier the ending is a weakness, as Spielberg at the time wanted a big ending that would have the audiences screaming and on their feet, and the idea to actually blow up the shark was and is quite ridiculous. There is no doubt the fact that while the end is farcical it is also quite entertaining, and yeah ok you can't but help feel when Brody finally shoots the compressed air canister the shark has in its open jaws, when the sharks explodes, it is a crowd pleaser. The film also probably didn't do the species a favour itself, if anything it demonised sharks in the public, and it would take many years later before the myth behind sharks, being monsters, would itself explode.
But despite all that, Jaws still stands as one of the most entertaining and thrilling films from the 1970s, and for better or worse, it helped change cinema, by introducing the summer blockbuster to audiences, as it remains one of the highest grossing films of all time. And I can't forget to also mention John Williams unforgettable score, which he literally tinkled out on the piano one day to Steven Spielberg, and its funny how two musical notes could prove to be so memorable. Jaws also stands head and shoulders over its naff sequels, which by the time we reached the truly God awful Jaws 4: The Revenge, the sharks suddenly took on the concept of revenge and that they had to hunt down the rest of the Brody family! Yeahh ok!! Surely by then they should have taken note of the concept of horror-thriller sequels is not a good idea! Although Michael Caine has frequently since said he only took up the part in Jaws 4 in order to help buy a new house for his grandmother (so at least his fee to use!).
So that's my critique on Jaws, also finally I'd like to say the film ends with one of my favourite pieces of ending dialogue, which is between Brody and Hooper, as the two men paddle to shore, Brody says "I used to hate the water" and Hooper replies "I can't imagine why!".
Dum dum dum dum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)