Hollywood has always had fun with spy movies, from James Bond to Jason Bourne and I've generally enjoyed them in an escapist sort of way. Stephen Spielberg's recent addition to the genre is anything but escapist. Like Syriana, this movie freaked me out somewhat in that they were based on real events. The spy v. spy stuff you see in Bourne et al. is, in these two films, at least to some extent, based on real-life events.

Unlike Syriana, Munich has a single clear plotline and one central character that you follow throughout the film. Eric Bana plays a young Mossad agent drafted by Golda Meir to avenge massacre of Israeli athletes at the '72 Olympics at the hands of Palestinian extremists. Through the course of the film, Bana's character is forced to confront the apparent futility of his mission and the self-perpetuating cycle of violence that is the norm, almost taken for granted, in the world of international espionage.

In both films, Munich especially, assassination is not so much undertaken as a means of promoting an agenda or protecting national interests. These killings become a form of communication. All over the world, governments are passing secret messages to each other in the form of a poisoned diplomat or in the carefully arranged bulletholes in the back of the skull of an intelligence officer.

These films made me glad that I don't live in the world if international espionage, but they also make me fear what would happen if that world were, for some reason, to begin blending into the world the rest of us live in.

Posted by ksmoker at 7:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Kodak announced a new logo today. They are apparently going for a more "contemporary" look. I can't say that I find it as offensive at&t's, but it's bugging me just a little. Must be that "a." It's, like, gonna fall over or something.

Posted by ksmoker at 11:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While watching the excellent Arsenal v. Aston Villa match today, I was struck by this line spoken by the commentator:

It was a ponderous ball played by Arsenal, in a game with no room for ponderousness.

Now, where on the US TV dial (since Howard Cosell's retirement ) would you find an announcer who would even know the meaning of ponderous, let alone use it as part of the running commentary of a game?

I'm not trying to make an argument that soccer is somehow inherently better, or more intellectual, or superior in any way to American football. But the game of soccer is (in general¹) more graceful and as such is more conducive to flowery prose. Luck and individual effort plays a large role in a game's outcome such that commentators may describe an individual effort as "ambitious" and the results as "deserved" (or not).

Again, I'm not necessarily picking on American football; after all, it's an entirely different sport and different sports culture. I reserve most of my criticism for US soccer commentators. I never cringe harder or yell at my tv screen more than when I'm watching soccer being called by US commentators. First off, they seem to feel the need to fill all the available airtime with something, anything, just so long as one of them is talking. English commentators, when the game is speaking for itself will just shut up, maybe calling out the names of players as possession changes. American commentators would discuss Claudio Reyna's hangnail problem or what Bruce Arena had for breakfast if they thought they could avoid a little dead air.

During the 2002 World Cup, I would sometimes intentionally listen to Telemundo's Spanish-language broadcast just to avoid the US announcers. Here's hoping ESPN hires some Brits for this year's World Cup. Or, better yet, just pick up the BBC's feed. That, or I need to learn Spanish.

Posted by ksmoker at 11:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)