On why football is better than theatre
Football is better than theatre because it is unpredictable. In a real sense. A plot twist may be left unpredicted. But when something is unpredictable it means that it has to be left unpredicted. You may get it right, in football, but that is not to say you have predicted. A plot twist is something a mind has thought- something man made. Some human being holds all the secrets to a plot. He is the plot’s creator, its deity. But still a human being, a maybe remarkable one, but still a human mind. Biologically- over 99% compatible with a chimp.
Yet consider what can happen when you put 22 men on a field and tell them to put a ball in the back of two nets. Well, they will start by trying individually to do it, and then realize that specialisation pays and start playing in positions. Some will play midfielders, some strikers, the bravest in defence. But from then, no one can tell. That is, as it involves more than one person, it is impossible for one single mind to predict what will happen next. There is no creator, yet there is a plot. A cynical plot at times, an heroic one other ones. And then, of course, what you do not know you can explain in all the ways possible, possibly choosing the best ones. Beating a team after they have badly beaten you can be called revenge, or justice. You can say: surely, in theatre you get such ideas of Justice, revenge, nemesis. And more than in football. True, but, as said before, it is the product of a human mind, the piece is its child: if you ignore this, you enjoy theatre more. While in football, because no one has written any script, it actually might be Justice at work. Probably not, but then again, what you do not know you can explain in any way you want. And at this point why not choose the best ones? They are just as true as the worst ones, when one does not know. To choose the worse explanation in such cases is pettiness of the soul.
It is often argued that if something originated in a particular context it can not be universal. What they mean by universal, those lovers of moral castration, is unclear, but whatever it means they are proven dead wrong a million times by football. Of all the examples possible in football, football itself is the greatest. A 19th century British upper class activity for glorious English spring days, it becomes in a few decades the game of much of the world. How, is not very important. John Stuart Mill says that persecution is useless against truth: truth always comes back. Thus, how football spreads and British imperial sailors are not very important. What matters is that it becomes the game of the world: universal in any possible understanding of the word. So- our preservers of dead cultures, those who see the world as a museum to humanity, would have each stuck in their own little game, each one dying in its own way. Much like plants that can not any longer stay in a pot and need to be planted in the ground, we, the human animal, like and need to go beyond. Beyond what is local to what is good: by any standard. From Eton to: Bahia, Genova, Paris, Montevideo, Sao Paulo, Madrid and Barcelona, Kiev, Donetsk, Moscow, Seoul and Tokyo, Lagos, Teheran, Munich, Brisbane… This was the march of football, the local and particular game of educated upper class white males. But where it comes from matters little, really. Incidentally, to testify this, it is sufficient to look at the English team now.
Football, said once a trainer, is the most important thing of the things that are not important. So simple and good as a means football is, that anything, virtually anything, can be shown trough football. For example, British imperial arrogance, and Justice. From the start of the century, through to, say, the second world war, the English team was the best in the world. So good it was, that, like Americans used to do in basketball, they sent amateur teams over the world to represent them, and they would win. So great this arrogance, that the FA did not join FIFA for decades, and England did not win the first World Cups for they did not bother to play. So good we are that we are not going to grace this cup with our presence: that was more or less the thinking. And now, 2007, England have won only one world cup, and the regrets that come with that must be enormous- and enormously deserved. We do not know what it is: but it might be Justice. The harder they come, the harder they fall, one and all, even mighty England now has enormous regrets. You would really- but then again to feel so superior as not to engage in world cups should bring you some punishment. And punishment is here, every time you look at the white shirt, the three lions, and the one star. The shirt of Uruguay has two.
5 comments:
Lovely. But on an unrelated note:
Do you think it is worth to die for football? Football is unpredictable, its events can be explained as one wishes. I may call Roma's future win against Man Utd both an instance of revenge and of Justice. And I am one who would die for Justice. But for sure I wouldn't die to see Roma win against Man Utd in Champions League. Does that not mean that the meanings we associate with football ing events are, to some degree, false?
NB - Of course I cannot dispute that football is more interesting than theatre.
Well - Mr. Sacchi said:
"Il calcio e' la cosa piu importante delle cose che non sono importanti".
So I think that they are to some degree, if not false, unimportant. However, consider that we think it alright if one dies a hedonist's death. Think of extreme sportsmen who declare to do it "for the thrill". When they die, do we think of them in the same way as an hooligan stabbed in a brawl?
However, I think you should come up with an instance of Justice that you would die for. Then we can talk and make comparisons with football.
I may think of a situation in which I would die for a given reason, a personal reason that could also a just one. I struggle to find instances in which i would die for Justice per se...
then Sacchi has ragionz - in the realm of unimportants, football is the most important. But one must add the caveat that values like justice change if one speaks of "importants" or of "unimportants". or no?
In ogni caso come fai a paragonare lo sport con la cultura?? Sono totalmente su due sfere diverse il cui unico punto di contatto è rappresentato dagli spettatori...ma vuoi mettere la letteratura vecchia e nuova portata in scena con rivisitazioni o esatta conformità, in cui si mescola il genio creativo dell’autore e l’espressione dell’attore con un mondo corrotto (perché è oggettivamente tale) composto da individui che ne manovrano altri che hanno fatto di uno sport genuino, e se vogliamo tra i più antichi, un mezzo per arricchirsi in maniera disgustosa…Perché è proprio il disgusto, la “nausea” come direbbe Sartre, ciò che provo per tutto quello che oggi rappresenta il calcio. Io ho sempre amato il calcio, da giocatrice e da tifosa, chè è esso stesso imprevedibilità,velocità, forza, astuzia, anticipo, e credo nello sport in generale come portatore di sani valori che si accrescono senza volere nello sportivo. Ecco che lì il calcio è vincente, quando riesce a dare ad ognuno di noi esempi di rispetto, di sana competizione, senza altri fini che esulino da quella mera partitella circoscritta dal campo verde, perché tutto rimane lì, trascorsi i 90 minuti. Lo spettatore di un match del genere, con un minimo di civiltà, avverte tutto questo e ne trae il meglio. Questo accadeva una volta.
Oggi la realtà è ben diversa e il calcio, a dirla tutta, non è poi così imprevedibile (vd calcio scommesse e tutto il marcio che ne consegue!)…I valori citati prima non li riscontro più, ma non in tutti i giocatori, e comunque non nella recezione che ha lo spettatore.
Il teatro è un momento catartico, sempre, perché quando esci dopo aver visto qualsiasi genere di opera, dalla commedia brillante alla tragedia, ti è rimasto qualcosa che è solo tua, sentimenti o turbamenti che ti stimolano ad essere migliore, a valutare meglio certe situazioni..è una forma di cultura che sensibilizza l’animo.
Non mi sembra che il calcio “sensibilizzi”, per quanto mi piaccia e in sé sia davvero un gran bello sport, e i fatti dimostrano questa mia modesta opinione. Non si generalizza, vero, ma come mai gli stadi sono sempre pieni e i teatri sempre più vuoti???Forse perché l’uomo preferisce non sforzarsi troppo di pensare alle battute dei commedianti e non essere costretti a stare seduto per ore senza fiatare piuttosto che urlare il proprio “tifo” per la squadra e inveire contro l’altra facendo un uso davvero ignobile dell’uso della parola??
Seguire una partita di calcio è uno svago e DOVREBBE essere un piacevole momento per ritrovarsi in compagnia ed emozionarsi, nel bene o nel male, moderatamente. Giocare a calcio è tutto un altro conto, e sinceramente preferisco giocarlo piuttosto che essere passiva, perché ne traggo maggiore utilità e vantaggio, arricchendomi di più sia fisicamente che moralmente!!Allo stesso modo andare a teatro e seguire una commedia è uno svago, ma al contrario del calcio È SEMPRE un piacevole momento di crescita e di cultura, che non necessita sicuramente di carabinieri che ti proteggano, perché i luoghi in cui si manifesta la cultura sono essi stessi posti di civiltà.
Ps. I’m sorry, but I can’t write quickly my thoughts in English, so all of you should make do with this!:D
Post a Comment