On January the 6th this year the Northcote Leader reported that following a reduction in the High Street Northcote/Thornbury speed limit from 50 to 40 km/h in June last year, the number of collisions in the July to November period was 68. This compares to 45 for the same period the previous year. Incidents involving pedestrians almost doubled from 5 to 9.
Now it seems that buoyed by their "success" the council now wants to spread the 40 km/h joy to all streets in the council area. The reason - people are using residential side streets where they can do 50 rather than High Street where they are restricted to 40. Really? I'm shocked. The rest of the article goes on to outline the benefits to pedestrians of a lower speed limit (without actually linking this to the councils reasoning). Specifically it cites the benefits for cars to be limited to 30 km/h. I guess this means that once the side streets are 40km/h, High Street will be headed towards 30. I'm sure we have all gone mad.
Saturday 2 April 2011
Tuesday 29 March 2011
Cricket: RIP Captain Ponting
Today Ricky Ponting retired as Australian Cricket Captain. The comments I have read have painted Ponting as unrealistically good, or unrealistically bad. So what should we make of him?
Well firstly, he is the best batsman that Australia has produced in the last thirty years or so. Perhaps the best since Bradman, but I am unable to make that judgement. He is certainly one of the four great batsmen of the last twenty years. Only Sachin consistently outshines him, and even that was a close run thing until the last two years. Lara was better at his best, but Ponting had him in the long haul. Kallis is the invisible one of the four, included because of sheer weight of numbers.
As a batsman, he is a great, but as a captain? If Kallis is one of the greats by sheer weight of numbers, then perhaps Ricky is one of the great captains. He has a winning record that is amazing - 48 test wins is more than any other Aussie captain, and until Australia's recent slump, the best winning percentage. He won over 70% of his one day games as captain, including two world cups in which Australia went through unbeaten. Yet on the other side of the ledger is the fact that he is the only Australian captain to lose the Ashes three times.
Comparing him the his three predecessors, I don't think he stands up well. Border was not a natural captain, but grew into the role. He handed Taylor a far better team than he inherited. Taylor was the most natural captain I have ever seen (Flemming of New Zealand was an extremely close second). He seemed to read the game in amazing ways and come up with great moves more often than not. Once again the team that he handed Waugh was even better than he received. Waugh read the game well, if not as well as Taylor, but he also added a level of steel and aggression to the team. The team he left Ponting was amongst the best in history. Ponting's record was built on the back of a team that included, at different times, players like Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Hussey, Gilchrist (not to mention one Ricky Ponting) amongst the batsmen, and Warne, McGrath, McGill and Gillespie amongst the bowlers.
A team like that would probably have won if my grandmother had captained it - provided she didn't have to bat or field. Not only were the players exceptional, but there was a winning culture around the team. McGrath and Warne in particular felt they could pull the team back from any position, and did often enough that everyone else believed it too. Ponting's strategy - a good one under the circumstances - was at the first sign of trouble hand one of them the ball. On the other side, the batsmen intimidated all but the best of bowlers. Teams were often psyched out before even a ball was bowled (remember Steve Harmison's howler in Brisbane anyone?). The culture and the aura survived the departure of most of these players, with only a few small cracks (2005 Ashes, 2008-9 home series vs. South Africa) until 2009. Australia was still the world number one test team after the return series to South Africa that year. Unfortunately the cracks opened up quickly from there on.
The leader of this team, Ponting, was not a natural captain. Unlike Border, I don't think he grew up into the job. At the end he still struggled to think creatively on the field. He seemed a bit lost with how to deal with a spinner who needed guidance - Warne and McGill had known their games so well and were so well established that they virtually took care of themselves.
Ponting did however have one outstanding leadership quality. Those who played under him seem to be incredibly loyal to him. With only one exception, I have never heard any of his players - past or present - say or do anything to undermine him. Rather there is a fierceness to their loyal support when Ponting is attacked. The one exception was Shane Warne - the man who probably would have had Ponting's job if he had been able to clean up his off field behaviour at least as much as Punter did. Such loyalty from such a diverse group as the Australian XI has been over the years says something for his leadership. He more than his immediate predecessors won the heart of his team. Only Border came close, and that because he was the father figure of the team.
In the past couple of years the pressure got to Ponting. As the team deteriorated, so did his performances. He was trying to be everything. Captain, Premier Batsman, Rebuilder, Mentor, Chief Spokesman and cheerleader, everything. I think that it was the right decision to hand over the reigns and concentrate on what he does best - batting. We need him to help the team over this hump. And for that he needs a clear mind - one focus - score as many runs as he can. And if he helps some of the young guns get into the game - all the better.
Well firstly, he is the best batsman that Australia has produced in the last thirty years or so. Perhaps the best since Bradman, but I am unable to make that judgement. He is certainly one of the four great batsmen of the last twenty years. Only Sachin consistently outshines him, and even that was a close run thing until the last two years. Lara was better at his best, but Ponting had him in the long haul. Kallis is the invisible one of the four, included because of sheer weight of numbers.
As a batsman, he is a great, but as a captain? If Kallis is one of the greats by sheer weight of numbers, then perhaps Ricky is one of the great captains. He has a winning record that is amazing - 48 test wins is more than any other Aussie captain, and until Australia's recent slump, the best winning percentage. He won over 70% of his one day games as captain, including two world cups in which Australia went through unbeaten. Yet on the other side of the ledger is the fact that he is the only Australian captain to lose the Ashes three times.
Comparing him the his three predecessors, I don't think he stands up well. Border was not a natural captain, but grew into the role. He handed Taylor a far better team than he inherited. Taylor was the most natural captain I have ever seen (Flemming of New Zealand was an extremely close second). He seemed to read the game in amazing ways and come up with great moves more often than not. Once again the team that he handed Waugh was even better than he received. Waugh read the game well, if not as well as Taylor, but he also added a level of steel and aggression to the team. The team he left Ponting was amongst the best in history. Ponting's record was built on the back of a team that included, at different times, players like Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Hussey, Gilchrist (not to mention one Ricky Ponting) amongst the batsmen, and Warne, McGrath, McGill and Gillespie amongst the bowlers.
A team like that would probably have won if my grandmother had captained it - provided she didn't have to bat or field. Not only were the players exceptional, but there was a winning culture around the team. McGrath and Warne in particular felt they could pull the team back from any position, and did often enough that everyone else believed it too. Ponting's strategy - a good one under the circumstances - was at the first sign of trouble hand one of them the ball. On the other side, the batsmen intimidated all but the best of bowlers. Teams were often psyched out before even a ball was bowled (remember Steve Harmison's howler in Brisbane anyone?). The culture and the aura survived the departure of most of these players, with only a few small cracks (2005 Ashes, 2008-9 home series vs. South Africa) until 2009. Australia was still the world number one test team after the return series to South Africa that year. Unfortunately the cracks opened up quickly from there on.
The leader of this team, Ponting, was not a natural captain. Unlike Border, I don't think he grew up into the job. At the end he still struggled to think creatively on the field. He seemed a bit lost with how to deal with a spinner who needed guidance - Warne and McGill had known their games so well and were so well established that they virtually took care of themselves.
Ponting did however have one outstanding leadership quality. Those who played under him seem to be incredibly loyal to him. With only one exception, I have never heard any of his players - past or present - say or do anything to undermine him. Rather there is a fierceness to their loyal support when Ponting is attacked. The one exception was Shane Warne - the man who probably would have had Ponting's job if he had been able to clean up his off field behaviour at least as much as Punter did. Such loyalty from such a diverse group as the Australian XI has been over the years says something for his leadership. He more than his immediate predecessors won the heart of his team. Only Border came close, and that because he was the father figure of the team.
In the past couple of years the pressure got to Ponting. As the team deteriorated, so did his performances. He was trying to be everything. Captain, Premier Batsman, Rebuilder, Mentor, Chief Spokesman and cheerleader, everything. I think that it was the right decision to hand over the reigns and concentrate on what he does best - batting. We need him to help the team over this hump. And for that he needs a clear mind - one focus - score as many runs as he can. And if he helps some of the young guns get into the game - all the better.
Wednesday 16 February 2011
Toxic Fame: Desperately seeking Hannah
In our house Hannah Montana gets at least her fair share of air time. For the uninitiated Hannah is the alter ego of mild mannered teen Miley (Miley Cyrus). In the show Miley and her father Billy Ray (real life father Billy Ray Cyrus) created Hannah so that she can have the 'best of both worlds'. Adding a blond wig and a trendier wardrobe allows her to live the rock star lifestyle. Removing them allows her to live a normal life without the problems of celebrity.
So it was interesting, and very sad to read the following article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/16/3140105.htm
In it Billy Ray Cyrus blames the show Hannah Montana for ruining his family and setting his daughter on a dangerous spiral. Indeed in the last twelve months Cyrus has filed for divorce from his wife, and his daughter has stumbled from controversy to controversy.
She seems to be sliding off the rails. It appears that she might be taking the first steps down a road too often trod by young celebrities. Names such as Drew Barrymore, Dana Plato (Kimberley from Different Strokes) and don't forget the current pin up of off-the-rails-child-actors Lindsay Lohan, lead the list of stars who have struggled with being thrust into the spotlight as children or teens. Others have not gone quite so far down this road, but still had difficulties - Macaulay Culkin, the Olsen twins and Tracey Gold (Growing Pains) come to mind. Nor is this a new phenomenon. Child stars Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney are almost as well known for their seeming inability to have a long term relationship (each married 8 times - though to be fair Rooney's last marriage has lasted over 30 years) as they are for their film careers.
It seems that celebrity has a potentially toxic effect, especially on the young stars. Some seem to be able to cope. Hilary Duff seems to have survived in ways that near contemporaries Cyrus and Lohan haven't. This may be because she seems to understand the place she plays in the lives of her fans, and has tried to be a good role model. Others like Candace Cameron (Full House) largely turned their back on fame after the show finished, and are content to live a "normal" life. However for those caught in the celebrity trap life seems difficult. Even one mistake can come back to bite you - ask Vanessa Hudgens. A series of them, and it all snowballs. One seems to have to be almost impossibly good, or reject celebrity to survive.
I wonder how differently the Cyrus story would have been if Miley Cyrus had had a Hannah Montana. Then her mistakes would have been private, rather than held out for the world to see. She could have had a shot at a "normal" childhood, free from the scrutiny of celebrity.
Billy Ray wishes there had never been a Hannah Montana, but I wonder if Miley sometimes wishes there had been...
So it was interesting, and very sad to read the following article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/16/3140105.htm
In it Billy Ray Cyrus blames the show Hannah Montana for ruining his family and setting his daughter on a dangerous spiral. Indeed in the last twelve months Cyrus has filed for divorce from his wife, and his daughter has stumbled from controversy to controversy.
She seems to be sliding off the rails. It appears that she might be taking the first steps down a road too often trod by young celebrities. Names such as Drew Barrymore, Dana Plato (Kimberley from Different Strokes) and don't forget the current pin up of off-the-rails-child-actors Lindsay Lohan, lead the list of stars who have struggled with being thrust into the spotlight as children or teens. Others have not gone quite so far down this road, but still had difficulties - Macaulay Culkin, the Olsen twins and Tracey Gold (Growing Pains) come to mind. Nor is this a new phenomenon. Child stars Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney are almost as well known for their seeming inability to have a long term relationship (each married 8 times - though to be fair Rooney's last marriage has lasted over 30 years) as they are for their film careers.
It seems that celebrity has a potentially toxic effect, especially on the young stars. Some seem to be able to cope. Hilary Duff seems to have survived in ways that near contemporaries Cyrus and Lohan haven't. This may be because she seems to understand the place she plays in the lives of her fans, and has tried to be a good role model. Others like Candace Cameron (Full House) largely turned their back on fame after the show finished, and are content to live a "normal" life. However for those caught in the celebrity trap life seems difficult. Even one mistake can come back to bite you - ask Vanessa Hudgens. A series of them, and it all snowballs. One seems to have to be almost impossibly good, or reject celebrity to survive.
I wonder how differently the Cyrus story would have been if Miley Cyrus had had a Hannah Montana. Then her mistakes would have been private, rather than held out for the world to see. She could have had a shot at a "normal" childhood, free from the scrutiny of celebrity.
Billy Ray wishes there had never been a Hannah Montana, but I wonder if Miley sometimes wishes there had been...
Wednesday 19 January 2011
Thoughts on the World Cup Squad
So the Aussie team for the world cup is out. I've had a few hours to digest the team list and here is the initial reaction:
The things that worry me:
1. We are taking five players who are or recently have been injured. Tait and Ponting missed the last match through injury. M. Hussey injured himself in that match, and is in a race to recover from surgery. And finally Lee, Bollinger and did I mention Tait are all trying to reestablish themselves at international level after significant injuries.
2. We have a bowling attack that could go horribly wrong. Johnson is notoriously brilliant or bad. Lee, Tait and Bollinger are all struggling to recapture the form that their reputations are built on, and at the pace they bowl the margin between unplayable and boundary balls is fairly small. Worse than that, there is the constant worry that one of them will break down again. I don't think we should have all four of these in the squad. Perhaps someone like McKay or Siddle for Tait would have been better (Harris if he was fit but...). Hauritz is perhaps the pick of the bowlers - a sentence that that in itself worries me.
3. The two people who have, at least in theory, the most influence on the team are both struggling for form. Captain and vice captain have both struggled all summer to put together much of a score. As these two are almost certainly the first two picked that puts pressure on the rest of the team. I am not sure that Clarke should be in the squad at all given his form in the two short forms of the game over the last year or two.
It is not all bad news though. Things I like include:
A. This is a versatile team. Both wicketkeepers have the potential to play as batsmen. Watson, Hastings, Smith and David Hussey are all effectively allrounders in this form of the game. White and Clarke are more than useful part-timers with the ball. Add to that the fact that Lee and Johnson can both hit the ball a mile on a good day, and most of the squad can be useful in more than one area. This has been the secret to Victoria's success over the past five or so years.
B. It is good to see that there are a few Victorians in the team. Victoria has been in 13 of the past 15 finals across the three disciplines in the last 5 years. I just hope it is not too little too late. They still haven't found room for Hodge- the best domestic one day player going around. You wonder what he did to the selectors. Hastings gets a run, but at best will have eight internationals under his belt when he starts the World cup.
Overall a mixed bag. The question is whether we can win with this combination. I think we can, if all our risks pay off. If Lee, Johnson and co bowl to potential, and Ponting and the batsmen find form, then this team will be hard to beat. However I think in reality it is between South Africa and India, with England, Sri Lanka and the Aussies as outsiders.
The things that worry me:
1. We are taking five players who are or recently have been injured. Tait and Ponting missed the last match through injury. M. Hussey injured himself in that match, and is in a race to recover from surgery. And finally Lee, Bollinger and did I mention Tait are all trying to reestablish themselves at international level after significant injuries.
2. We have a bowling attack that could go horribly wrong. Johnson is notoriously brilliant or bad. Lee, Tait and Bollinger are all struggling to recapture the form that their reputations are built on, and at the pace they bowl the margin between unplayable and boundary balls is fairly small. Worse than that, there is the constant worry that one of them will break down again. I don't think we should have all four of these in the squad. Perhaps someone like McKay or Siddle for Tait would have been better (Harris if he was fit but...). Hauritz is perhaps the pick of the bowlers - a sentence that that in itself worries me.
3. The two people who have, at least in theory, the most influence on the team are both struggling for form. Captain and vice captain have both struggled all summer to put together much of a score. As these two are almost certainly the first two picked that puts pressure on the rest of the team. I am not sure that Clarke should be in the squad at all given his form in the two short forms of the game over the last year or two.
It is not all bad news though. Things I like include:
A. This is a versatile team. Both wicketkeepers have the potential to play as batsmen. Watson, Hastings, Smith and David Hussey are all effectively allrounders in this form of the game. White and Clarke are more than useful part-timers with the ball. Add to that the fact that Lee and Johnson can both hit the ball a mile on a good day, and most of the squad can be useful in more than one area. This has been the secret to Victoria's success over the past five or so years.
B. It is good to see that there are a few Victorians in the team. Victoria has been in 13 of the past 15 finals across the three disciplines in the last 5 years. I just hope it is not too little too late. They still haven't found room for Hodge- the best domestic one day player going around. You wonder what he did to the selectors. Hastings gets a run, but at best will have eight internationals under his belt when he starts the World cup.
Overall a mixed bag. The question is whether we can win with this combination. I think we can, if all our risks pay off. If Lee, Johnson and co bowl to potential, and Ponting and the batsmen find form, then this team will be hard to beat. However I think in reality it is between South Africa and India, with England, Sri Lanka and the Aussies as outsiders.
Sunday 9 January 2011
Whatever happened to fairytale endings?
***********Spoiler Alert: This blog tells the end of several movies.***********
There used to be a day when movies were made about underdogs who triumph against all odds. You know what I mean. Something like Sister Act 2 (1993), where a Catholic School that is about to close, located in a down and out area ends up competing in the state choir championships and not only wins but saves the school. Sports variations like Champions (1992), or Rocky (1976) come to mind as well. You knew if there was a contest at the end of the movie, and everything was stacked against the hero/s then they would definitely win.
Then in the mid nineties, something changed, particularly with "teen" movies - those starring 'teens' (whether actual or supposed) and aimed at the young teen/ preteen market. For example: in Bandslam (2009) a bunch of misfits are brought together by a former head cheerleader, and molded by a music loving loner to compete against the school's popular band Glory Dogs (among others) in a battle of the bands type competition - the eponymous Bandslam. The odds are stacked against them. Not only are they misfits, but they are betrayed by the former cheerleader, and the loner is targeted cruelly by the leader of the Glory Dogs. Finally their song is sung by the Glory Dogs just before they go on, and they have only minutes to change their song. A perfect set up for the typical fairytale ending. But of course we are too sophisticated for that now. A third party, neither Glory Dogs nor our heros, wins the competition. The happy ending is instead supplied by the popular response to their performance that leads to a record contract with David Bowie's indi label.
The Camp Rock (2008) franchise also follows suit. The camp builds to the Final Jam, the winning of which leads to recording with rock star Shane Gray (Joe Jonas). The heroine has been banned from activities until 'the end of Final Jam', so the stage is set for the rival to win. The rival falters, and the heroine is given a last chance to perform (though it is unclear whether it is included in the competition). Once again, a third party wins the prize. In this case the happy ending is that hero and heroine are reunited after an earlier problem. The sequel (Camp Rock 2 (2010)) sets up a competition between Camp Rock and a rival camp: Camp Star. To cut a long story short, the odds are stacked against them, and they lose despite a spirited performance. The happy ending here is that the Camp, which had been threatened, is saved because it seems more fun than Camp Star.
An earlier example - somewhat left field- is Jingle All the Way (1996) where the Governator's character finally gets a 'Turbo Man' action figure for his son for Christmas - beating his rival (played by Sinbad)- only for his son to give it to the rival. The fact that the father had forgotten to get the doll was symbolic of his self-absorbed neglect of the son. The reconnection between the father and the son in the later moments of the film has rendered the giving of the doll less important.
These are just a few of the many examples in recent years where the hero/s of the film fail to win the competition that provides the crux of the storyline, but supposedly attain "something better". Very few follow the traditional fairytale ending.
Stories play a large part in shaping the way we, as individuals and as a collective, view the world (as well as being in part shaped by the same). So the question is why have we had this collective shift in the stories that we tell? What message about our world are the film makers giving, whether wittingly or otherwise?
Among the many possibilities two stand out to me. The first is that the message of many of these films is that there are more important things than those that seem so all consuming: Connecting with your child is more important than finding the popular Christmas present; having fun and relationships are more important than winning the music competitions; losing a competition is not the end of the world.
However I suspect that the film makers want to make their stories more 'realistic'. It is true that in real life the fairytale often does not come true. However there are those occasions when they do - the truth is stranger than fiction category. I can't help but think of Steven Bradbury the first person from the Southern Hemisphere to win a winter Olympic gold. He made the semi finals because one of his opponents was disqualified. He made the final because three of his semi final opponents crashed, and he won the final because all of the other finalists went down. These are the stories that get told precisely because they are extraordinary (cf. Remember the Titans (2000) which was made because the team was still being talked about decades after the events). When filmmakers abandon the fairytale endings as unrealistic, they forget that we expect the stories told to be extraordinary. They also forget that such stories provide a glimmer of hope: no matter how bad things might be, it may still be possible for a fairytale ending. While realism is good sometimes, the fairytale endings are needed too.
There used to be a day when movies were made about underdogs who triumph against all odds. You know what I mean. Something like Sister Act 2 (1993), where a Catholic School that is about to close, located in a down and out area ends up competing in the state choir championships and not only wins but saves the school. Sports variations like Champions (1992), or Rocky (1976) come to mind as well. You knew if there was a contest at the end of the movie, and everything was stacked against the hero/s then they would definitely win.
Then in the mid nineties, something changed, particularly with "teen" movies - those starring 'teens' (whether actual or supposed) and aimed at the young teen/ preteen market. For example: in Bandslam (2009) a bunch of misfits are brought together by a former head cheerleader, and molded by a music loving loner to compete against the school's popular band Glory Dogs (among others) in a battle of the bands type competition - the eponymous Bandslam. The odds are stacked against them. Not only are they misfits, but they are betrayed by the former cheerleader, and the loner is targeted cruelly by the leader of the Glory Dogs. Finally their song is sung by the Glory Dogs just before they go on, and they have only minutes to change their song. A perfect set up for the typical fairytale ending. But of course we are too sophisticated for that now. A third party, neither Glory Dogs nor our heros, wins the competition. The happy ending is instead supplied by the popular response to their performance that leads to a record contract with David Bowie's indi label.
The Camp Rock (2008) franchise also follows suit. The camp builds to the Final Jam, the winning of which leads to recording with rock star Shane Gray (Joe Jonas). The heroine has been banned from activities until 'the end of Final Jam', so the stage is set for the rival to win. The rival falters, and the heroine is given a last chance to perform (though it is unclear whether it is included in the competition). Once again, a third party wins the prize. In this case the happy ending is that hero and heroine are reunited after an earlier problem. The sequel (Camp Rock 2 (2010)) sets up a competition between Camp Rock and a rival camp: Camp Star. To cut a long story short, the odds are stacked against them, and they lose despite a spirited performance. The happy ending here is that the Camp, which had been threatened, is saved because it seems more fun than Camp Star.
An earlier example - somewhat left field- is Jingle All the Way (1996) where the Governator's character finally gets a 'Turbo Man' action figure for his son for Christmas - beating his rival (played by Sinbad)- only for his son to give it to the rival. The fact that the father had forgotten to get the doll was symbolic of his self-absorbed neglect of the son. The reconnection between the father and the son in the later moments of the film has rendered the giving of the doll less important.
These are just a few of the many examples in recent years where the hero/s of the film fail to win the competition that provides the crux of the storyline, but supposedly attain "something better". Very few follow the traditional fairytale ending.
Stories play a large part in shaping the way we, as individuals and as a collective, view the world (as well as being in part shaped by the same). So the question is why have we had this collective shift in the stories that we tell? What message about our world are the film makers giving, whether wittingly or otherwise?
Among the many possibilities two stand out to me. The first is that the message of many of these films is that there are more important things than those that seem so all consuming: Connecting with your child is more important than finding the popular Christmas present; having fun and relationships are more important than winning the music competitions; losing a competition is not the end of the world.
However I suspect that the film makers want to make their stories more 'realistic'. It is true that in real life the fairytale often does not come true. However there are those occasions when they do - the truth is stranger than fiction category. I can't help but think of Steven Bradbury the first person from the Southern Hemisphere to win a winter Olympic gold. He made the semi finals because one of his opponents was disqualified. He made the final because three of his semi final opponents crashed, and he won the final because all of the other finalists went down. These are the stories that get told precisely because they are extraordinary (cf. Remember the Titans (2000) which was made because the team was still being talked about decades after the events). When filmmakers abandon the fairytale endings as unrealistic, they forget that we expect the stories told to be extraordinary. They also forget that such stories provide a glimmer of hope: no matter how bad things might be, it may still be possible for a fairytale ending. While realism is good sometimes, the fairytale endings are needed too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
