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...
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
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.
Thursday, 30 December 2010
The next Border
Well the Ashes are staying with England for another couple of years. Well done they deserve it.
The question that comes to mind is who will be Australia's next Border. Our situation now is not so different to the mid eighties. Back then Kim Hughes had taken over a team devastated by the loss of several stars of the previous era. The pressure was too much, and shortly afterwards the team was handed to the talented, if reluctant, Alan Border.
Border was the one outstanding player left in the Australian team. He was given a crop of young players with potential, players like Steve Waugh, Dean Jones, Craig McDermott, David Boon just to name a few. He showed them how to fight- by example: he fought rearguard action after rearguard action. He set high standards, and his teapot stance when they didn't deliver earned him the moniker 'Captain Grumpy'. By example, expectation and the occasional goading (he apparently insulted Dean Jones to his double hundred in Madras) he helped shape potential into talent. Eventually he took the 'worst Australian team ever' to England and won 4:0 starting almost two decades of dominance over the old enemy, and laying the foundations of Australia's climb to the top of World Cricket.
We need another Border. The question is who. Ponting is the one player in the current team who can lay claim to greatness. The problem is that he is a decade older than Border was when he took the job. His current poor form, and the fact that he probably will not be around much longer (assuming he comes back from injury at all) mean that he is unlikely to take the role. This despite the fact that this is the role he seems to have seen for himself over the past couple of years. Unfortunately this coincides with his own decline in form.
Hussey is the other player that is a proven star. Unfortunately he is already 35. He may have more longevity than Ponting in test Cricket as he came to it so late, especially if he keeps up his newfound form. Whatever happens over the next year or two, one of these two needs be there to mentor the younger players.
Katich is also 35, and Haddin - perhaps the best candidate at the moment - is 33. All of these are getting towards the end of their careers, and (with the possible exception of Haddin) can't rebuild over the next 5-10 years the way Border did.
Theoretically Clarke should be the one to do it. He is not yet 30. At his best he is a cut above everyone, except Ponting. The trouble is, he reminds me more of the other mid eighties star - Kim Hughes - than he does of Border. He does not strike me as being of the right temperament - I would be happy to be proved wrong. I see him more as the star player (like Sachin) around whom the leader (like Dhoni) can build a team.
Of the rest only Watson looks like he might have the credentials in the long term. He has the potential to be a class player, with both bat and ball. If he is going to do a Border though, he needs to bat at 4 or 5 not at the top of the order. He seems to suffer from the pressure already if his run of unconverted 50s is any evidence. The rest of the team is too inexperienced. Hughes and Smith have yet to establish themselves. Mitchell Johnson is way too up and down. The other bowlers are a revolving door.
The upshot is that Haddin is the best option, provided he can stick around long enough. Watson and Clarke are longshots. Unfortunately that is as good as it gets...
...Actually there is one other option - Cameron White. He has taken the Victorian team - a team without many superstars (the often overlooked Hodge excepted), and formed a very strong Shield unit over the past few years. He is still young enough to have influence for the next 8-10 years. He is an exceptional captain. He is a very capable batsman, excellent fielder and handy part-time bowler (he started cricketing life as the "next Shane Warne", but has really developed into a batsman). He is good at everything he does on the cricket field, but has never been the best at any of them (other than captaincy), so can't seem to get himself selected. Yet if he was selected, he has the skills and temperament to be the next Border.
The question that comes to mind is who will be Australia's next Border. Our situation now is not so different to the mid eighties. Back then Kim Hughes had taken over a team devastated by the loss of several stars of the previous era. The pressure was too much, and shortly afterwards the team was handed to the talented, if reluctant, Alan Border.
Border was the one outstanding player left in the Australian team. He was given a crop of young players with potential, players like Steve Waugh, Dean Jones, Craig McDermott, David Boon just to name a few. He showed them how to fight- by example: he fought rearguard action after rearguard action. He set high standards, and his teapot stance when they didn't deliver earned him the moniker 'Captain Grumpy'. By example, expectation and the occasional goading (he apparently insulted Dean Jones to his double hundred in Madras) he helped shape potential into talent. Eventually he took the 'worst Australian team ever' to England and won 4:0 starting almost two decades of dominance over the old enemy, and laying the foundations of Australia's climb to the top of World Cricket.
We need another Border. The question is who. Ponting is the one player in the current team who can lay claim to greatness. The problem is that he is a decade older than Border was when he took the job. His current poor form, and the fact that he probably will not be around much longer (assuming he comes back from injury at all) mean that he is unlikely to take the role. This despite the fact that this is the role he seems to have seen for himself over the past couple of years. Unfortunately this coincides with his own decline in form.
Hussey is the other player that is a proven star. Unfortunately he is already 35. He may have more longevity than Ponting in test Cricket as he came to it so late, especially if he keeps up his newfound form. Whatever happens over the next year or two, one of these two needs be there to mentor the younger players.
Katich is also 35, and Haddin - perhaps the best candidate at the moment - is 33. All of these are getting towards the end of their careers, and (with the possible exception of Haddin) can't rebuild over the next 5-10 years the way Border did.
Theoretically Clarke should be the one to do it. He is not yet 30. At his best he is a cut above everyone, except Ponting. The trouble is, he reminds me more of the other mid eighties star - Kim Hughes - than he does of Border. He does not strike me as being of the right temperament - I would be happy to be proved wrong. I see him more as the star player (like Sachin) around whom the leader (like Dhoni) can build a team.
Of the rest only Watson looks like he might have the credentials in the long term. He has the potential to be a class player, with both bat and ball. If he is going to do a Border though, he needs to bat at 4 or 5 not at the top of the order. He seems to suffer from the pressure already if his run of unconverted 50s is any evidence. The rest of the team is too inexperienced. Hughes and Smith have yet to establish themselves. Mitchell Johnson is way too up and down. The other bowlers are a revolving door.
The upshot is that Haddin is the best option, provided he can stick around long enough. Watson and Clarke are longshots. Unfortunately that is as good as it gets...
...Actually there is one other option - Cameron White. He has taken the Victorian team - a team without many superstars (the often overlooked Hodge excepted), and formed a very strong Shield unit over the past few years. He is still young enough to have influence for the next 8-10 years. He is an exceptional captain. He is a very capable batsman, excellent fielder and handy part-time bowler (he started cricketing life as the "next Shane Warne", but has really developed into a batsman). He is good at everything he does on the cricket field, but has never been the best at any of them (other than captaincy), so can't seem to get himself selected. Yet if he was selected, he has the skills and temperament to be the next Border.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
