Many feel that Tim Burton has become a bit of a one-trick pony; that the whimsical genius behind Big Fish (2003), Edward Scissorhands (1990) and Beetlejuice (1988) has been replaced by a hack with a fetish for checks, swirls and Johnny Depp.  More specifically, Johnny Depp wearing white makeup and doing crazy things with Helena Bonham Carter sporting a crazy ‘do.  They also say that Burton’s typical weird world stories of monsters-that-are-misunderstood are becoming a bit of cliche.  They say that slapping on funny wigs and paint on actors with some creepy Danny Elfman music has been done and done and then done again in every single one of his earlier films.  Be it visual imagery or plot progression, we’ve seen it all (they say).

But allow me to make a case for Burton’s films.  Sure, most of them bear common motifs and trademarks, and many of them (Alice in Wonderland (2010), Planet of the Apes (2001)) cannot hope to be rescued by this apology but all his films are not cut from the same cloth, despite what popular opinion may claim.

Burton’s latest film, Dark Shadows (2012) has been accused of all of the above and panned universally.  Dark Shadows is about a rich philanderer, Barnabas Collins who philanders with the wrong girl, a witch named Angelique who curses him to an eternity in a box as a blood-thirsting vampire. He suffers for two centuries of painful solitude when he is accidentally released in the year 1972.  Imagine that.  To have to suffer the hell of isolation and and then to be subjected to hippies and disco.

Barnabas finds that even though they’re a bit low on fortune, his descendants have persisted in the grand old Collins manor.  But so has Angelique and her thirst for revenge.

The so-called Burton cliches of precocious children with a taste for the weird, Depp as an awkward fish-out-of-water fellow, Helena Bonham Carter in a funny wig and monsters with a heart of gold … are only what anti-Burtons see.  I saw one of the silver screen’s few vampires who is troubled by his eternal existence, who really feels the weight of the centuries on his shoulders, who grasps the meaning of “forever” and is terrified by the knowledge.  I saw Depp’s white face paint and anachronism, but I also saw a bloodthirsty creature unable to control itself.  I saw the beautiful Angelique who wasn’t a misunderstood monster… unless that is, you mistook her for someone who plays nice and doesn’t hold grudges. Even her ability to love is so gloriously twisted.  I saw Roger Collins, who uses his son as a lookout while he screws the coat check lady.  Or the quintessential Burton heroine, the sane-insane Victoria, who sees ghosts.  They’re a wonderful menagerie of well-developed characters, but do they make a wonderful story together?  Let’s put it this way: it isn’t the greatest epic story ever told or even Burton’s best film, but with the help of hilarious dialogue, AWESOME ’70s music that is surprisingly appropriate, Depp’s ability to get angsty without getting maudlin and some serious WTF moments, Burton weaves together an amusing Gothic soap opera that treats its characters with respect without taking itself too seriously.  It certainly doesn’t deserve the flak it’s getting.

That’s all very well, you say, but what about those very relevant criticisms levelled by Burton notfans?  To that I must ask you, are those criticisms REALLY criticisms or are Burton’s naysayers behaving like the pitchfork wielding townspeople in a Burton film, who don’t understand that it takes all kinds to make the world?  Yes, it’s a bit meta and I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out that we’re all actually characters in a Burton film and our supposed normalcy is the source of much horror and nervous mirth for an audience somewhere… but bear with me.

One does not say that Martin Scorsese is a one trick pony because of his numerous depictions of mafia, women in white dresses and overuse of Robert DeNiro/ Leonardo Dicaprio.  Many directors have this tendency of latching onto an actor and that shouldn’t automatically disqualify Tim Burton from among the most talented directors we have today.  Does anybody think that Raphael was a hack because he regularly milked the ‘soft shadows/ light reflective colours’ cow?   Well, the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood thought so, but nobody cares about them.

Artists have trademarks, artists tend to go back to things they have done before, to actors and muses they enjoyed working with, artists are constantly reworking and polishing their craft and yes, often fall back on things that have worked well in the past.  One can’t fault Woody Allen for making awesome, cerebral films about love and marriage and one can’t fault Burton for his desire to drag ogres and all manner of beings from the shadows and onto the silver screen. I mean, he is practically the latter-day J.M. Barrie.  If creaky, uneven stairs get your pulse racing and you are on first name basis with the monsters under your bed, then you will never tire of Burton.   If Edgar Allan Poe had to clamour for attention with  ’Go Jane, Go’, then possibly, you may not enjoy every one of Burton’s films.

Tim Burton has struck his colours and they are checks, spirals, fog and gorgeously warped monsters. If you don’t like it, then by all means follow the direction the bony, moss-covered hand is pointing at: it will lead you out of that creaky door (with a gargoyle for a knob) of the crumbling old, ivy-covered mansion and off the nearest wind-swept, brambly cliff.

Apparently when Devi Lal, the ‘tau’ of Indian politics, was asked why he had made his son, Om Prakash Chautala, the Chief Minister of Haryana on becoming the Deputy Prime Minister of India himself in 1989, he crudely responded  –‘aur kya, Bhajan Lal ke chhore ko banauu?’ That level of arrogance may not inform contemporary Indian politics but responses from a delegation of Indian MPs to a question on dynastic politics indicated that the tau’s ghost might linger for a while.

Responses from Supriya Sule (LS, NCP), Piyush Goyal (RS, BJP) and Deepender Hooda(LS, INC), who were part of a panel that also included Chandan Mitra (RS, BJP), Asaduddin Owaisi (LS, All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen), Jayant Chaudhary (LS, RLD) and Rajagopal Lagadapati (LS, INC), made it clear that solving the problem of entry barriers into Indian politics was far from being a priority. Their focus, as has very often been the case on this issue, was on justifying why positions of privilege do not prevent them from being sincere and hardworking MPs. The democratic deficit caused by the entry barriers hardly found any mention in the responses. Supriya Sule’s passionate declaration of the personal sacrifices she was making, Piyush Goyal’s treatment of his political lineage as an advantage and Deepender Hooda’s assertion that election victories (after the first one) were all about individual merit reeked of a power elite determined to hold on to its position of political privilege. Perhaps the question stood no chance given that it was being put to a panel where 6 out of 7 speakers were inheriting the political legacies of their families.

The panelists seemed more willing to introspect when posed a question on the institutional reforms needed to make Parliament functional again. They acknowledged problems with the system, and stated that attempts were being made to forge solutions across party lines. Details however were scant, apart from the mention of a proposal to introduce an annual minimum of parliamentary sittings. Chandan Mitra was of the view that, contrary to public perception, Parliament achieved significant results through consensus in its standing committees.

Given the history of the Third Front in Indian politics, it was surprising to see the degree of optimism amongst non-Congress/BJP panellists about the possibility of such a government in 2014. Perhaps the most enduring account of the problems surrounding the formation of a Third Front government is Devi Lal’s insistence on taking the oath as Deputy Prime Ministerin 1989 despite President Venkataraman’s strong suggestion during the ceremony that the Constitution permitted him to take oath only as a Minister (And well, it took a decision of the Supreme Court to finally resolve the issue). Supriya Sule’s answer, if implemented, might well be a way to counter such deep levels of suspicion and discord – she emphasised the necessity of presenting a pre-poll Common Minimum Programme to the electorate, rather than cobbling together a post-poll alliance. If voted to power, Asaduddin Owaisi was of the view that the economic and foreign policies of a Third Front government would be substantially different from the largely indistinguishable policies of the two national parties. However, Piyush Goyal believed that a government dominated by regional parties might be ill-suited to address national issues. In a polity that is increasingly dominated by regional parties, Deepender Hooda acknowledged the need to address regional aspirations and strengthen leadership in the States.

The responses to a question on whether identity politics impeded or enabled democracy were predictable. Chandan Mitra promptly held up the examples of Nitish Kumar and Narendra Modi and their brand of politics as moving away from the fixation with identity. Rebutting the mainstream discourse about Nitish Kumar’s development agenda, Asaduddin Owaisi claimed that the Bihar Chief Minister had merely got his religion and caste permutations right by carving out Maha-Dalits and Most Backward Classes from the Scheduled Castes and OBC categories respectively. While the jury might still be out on the political feasibility of Nitish Kumar’s strategy in other parts of the country, it certainly represents the next level of legal challenges for reservation policies. While courts have been willing to uphold the sub-classification of OBCs along economic lines, the constitutional fate of Nitish Kumar’s reservation policies for Scheduled Castes remains uncertain, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in EV Chinnaiah v State of AP & Ors.

Being rather dismissive of Narendra Modi’s model of development, Asaduddin Owaisi asserted that it was too high a price to pay. He delivered an impassioned justification for identity politics, especially in the context of safeguarding minority rights. The reactions from Mr. Owaisi and other Muslim MPs to the Supreme Court’s observations on the Haj subsidy have been interesting. Neatly capturing the benefits of identity politics, he concluded his remarks with a poetical flourish- ‘phool nahin toh phool ki patti hi sahi’ [if we can’t have the flower, then we may as well have the petals].

If one were to attempt to roughly label the responses, arrogance, predictability, lack of nuance and evasiveness would be good candidates, typical of so much of Indian political discourse. While some of the responses to questions on climate change, reservations based on economic criteria, and the Gujarat riots betrayed the latter two characteristics, other answers on the same issues were certainly more measured and reasoned. When asked whether India could afford not to transition immediately to a low-carbon economy, Piyush Goyal attempted to portray India as the victim in global negotiations and seemed to suggest that development and environmental protection were antithetical. In contrast, Mr Chaudhary remarked that this distinction was counter-productive, and that moves to adopt low-carbon measures ought not to be viewed as a conspiracy of the developed world. Instead, it was in India’s self-interest to move towards sustainable growth particularly in the light of our vulnerability to the effects of climate change.

Supriya Sule also displayed a lack of nuance when she cited the Right to Education Act as an example of affirmative action based on economic criteria without any reference whatsoever to the manner in which various State governments had, under their respective rules, divided up the 25% quota.

This lack of nuance is particularly ironic given that politicians are quick to accuse civil society of failing to appreciate the complexity of political challenges, the India Against Corruption movement being a case in point (Chandan Mitra couldn’t resist a self-congratulatory pat on the back as he reminded the audience of the high quality of parliamentary debate on the Lokpal bill).

The BJP’s defensiveness over Narendra Modi is evident in its reaction to the report submitted by the Supreme Court appointed amicus, Raju Ramachandran, on the Zakia Jafri case. It was also evident when, on being asked whether there would be adverse political consequences if Narendra Modi apologised for his moral culpability (rather than legal) for the Gujarat riots, Chandan Mitra’s initial reaction was a refusal to answer the question. It took him very little provocation to respond when Asaduddin Owaisi responded to a question on whether such an apology would suffice for the Muslim community. He said that Narendra Modi would never apologise because an apology for such an act required a ‘human heart.’ He asserted that all legal proceedings would have to continue, and indicated that a Truth and Reconciliation Commission based on the South African model might be acceptable. This response was sufficient for Chandan Mitra to spout the BJP line on Narendra Modi that there was no question of an apology, since no legal culpability had been established.

The session was a unique opportunity to interact with parliamentarians from across the political spectrum and although several trite responses were duly parroted, there were some well-articulated positions along with encouraging passion for convictions. It gave us a taste of what makes Indian politics exciting and frustrating at the same time.

Admit it.  You thought this film was going to be a self-indulgent Robert Downey Jr vehicle.  I was certain that Downey, being the most bankable star in the group would get all the limelight with some obligatory Scarlett Johansson cleavage and 30 seconds for everybody else. I expected bloated egos, one-upmanship between the A-listers, unnecessarily messy action sequences and a surfeit of CGI.  Ensemble casts can be tricky, especially when everybody in the ensemble has already had a taste of the top billing pie.  Either the actors stick around just long enough to pick up their cheques or they’re fighting each other for our attention.  Fortunately, this IS Joss Whedon we’re dealing with. A man who understand superheroes (The Astonishing X-Men) and how to bring it (Buffy the Vampire Slayer).

After five films’ worth of teasers, The Avengers film puts together the biggest and badassiest of Marvel’s superheroes.  The covert organisation S.H.I.E.L.D. is attempting to harness energy from a mysterious object, the tesseract. The tesseract opens a doorway to Loki, Thor’s evil brother who arrives on Earth, bent on wreaking destruction with the help of his mindlessly evil alien army.   In the face of certain destruction of the planet, Nick Fury, the director of S.H.I.E.L.D. decides to restart a once-abandoned scheme: The Avengers Initiative.  Abandoning that scheme was possibly the only sensible thing ever done by S.H.I.E.L.D.:  I mean, who in their right minds would put an angry/ strong green giant, a demigod of Asgard, a genetically engineered man from the 40s, a megalomaniac who hates playing by the rules and a couple of sexy assassin-spies in the same room and expect them to play nice?  Fortunately for us, S.H.I.E.L.D. values mega-awesome Iron Man v. Thor v. Captain America fight sequences over logic and prudence.

The best thing about this film is that there was none of that tedious origin stuff which is so popular these days because even superhero movies now have a chance at the Oscars.  Every single motif in the film: the heroes, the villain, the plot helper-alongers and the Macguffin are from previous films.  So they basically had to fill two hours with superhero banter,  well choreographed fight sequences and mind-blowing alien ship explosions. Check, check and CHECK! But action scenes aside, Joss Whedon and his screenwriters’ homework has paid off: they really understood their characters and their origins.  That said, the comic book references never became excessive or irritating. This film also managed to give far, far more depth to The Hulk than the two previous Hulk films combined. With all due respect to Edward Norton’s formidable acting prowess, Mark Ruffalo brought a Jekyll-Hyde facet to The Hulk which was never sufficiently believable in the 2008 film.  The allusion to the Black Widow and Hawkeye’s evil past gave their friendship depth without having to resort to exposition or flashbacks. Little touches like these ensured that no character (with however little screen time) went under-appreciated or underused.  Except for Maria Hill (played by Cobie Smulders):  Give that woman an ass-kicking role already!

I also can’t get over how excellent the chemistry between the characters was:  Everybody brought a different sort of energy to the group and managed to stand out without trying too hard.  Doubtlessly, Iron Man was the fulcrum on which the group turned and he got some very funny lines but most of them wouldn’t have worked if it wasn’t for his co-stars’ prowess.  The group dynamics evolved so naturally:  Captain America slipped into a leadership role which would never suit Tony Stark, who works better as that unbearably cool guy who regularly pisses everybody off.  The Hulk is the quiet guy in the background that everybody’s just a little bit wary of while Thor was largely relegated as the butt of all Tony Stark’s jokes but he got some sweet Mjolnir smashing scenes to make up for it.

My only not-quite-a-quibble-quibble is that Tom Hiddleston as Loki just didn’t pack enough punch, especially in comparison to the  superb development of the Avengers.  That said, I can see why they used Loki as villain and why it worked in this film.  Tim Burton’s Batman (1989) was among the first films to realize the importance of villains. Few comic book villains on screen have been as lovingly portrayed as Danny DeVito’s Penguin and Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman.  The Dark Knight was almost entirely carried by Heath Ledger’s dramatic and terrifying performance.  But The Avengers didn’t necessarily need a deep and interesting villain because this film is not about that complex relationship between superheroes and villains. A non-charismatic villain worked perfectly in this film because it wasn’t so much about who the villain was, but how a bunch of alpha dogs and lone wolves set aside their differences and came together to overcome their common foe.

Did Christopher Reeve and Adam West ever imagine that just a few decades after their campy, Good-versus-Evil films, this genre would evolve into something that would be taken seriously by critics?  I doubt it, but  the re-imagining of superheroes and the gritty realism that now defines this genre became inevitable after Alan Moore’s Watchmen was published and Tim Burton’s Batman films hit the theatres in the 80s.

Many have prophesied that the superhero genre is in its dying throes and Christopher Nolan’s upcoming film The Dark Knight Rises will be its swan song, but Marvel’s latest offering has proved that this genre still has a few rabbits in the hat.  Besides, if they made an Avengers sequel with Wolverine and Spider-Man joining in the fray, we’d have to come up with new words to describe the sheer levels of superbificenticity it would reach.

]]> http://www.criticaltwenties.in/mediapopularculture/the-avengers-2012/feed 2 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/mediapopularculture/the-social-experience-of-going-to-the-movies http://www.criticaltwenties.in/mediapopularculture/the-social-experience-of-going-to-the-movies#comments Wed, 02 May 2012 18:55:52 +0000 Mukul http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=4892 Sometime back, in response to a comment that I seem to have all the time in the world to watch every single movie that is released, I cited my lack of social life as a definite advantage. Although I only wanted to sound funny but this did get me thinking about the social nature of the act of watching movies. Going to the movies is widely regarded as an acceptable form of casual social interaction almost at par with dinners and drinks although on some occasions it also goes together with those two. We are talking about going to a cinema hall to watch a movie. Watching a movie at home, whether on TV or computer is barring some exceptions not a communal affair.

When people do go out to watch a movie, they do so in a group. This can be attributed to the fact that going to the movies has for long provided people a reason to go out and do something together which is not as expensive or unhealthy as dinner and kills much more time. It also gives couples an opportunity to spend time together without having to talk too much. Same goes for casual acquaintances and work friends. Nowadays, the entire process of going to the movies is usually preceded or followed by food/ drinks or as has become the norm recently, (window) shopping at the malls. It is rarely just about watching the movie and that is what necessarily makes it a social experience.

After the lights go dim though, it’s a different matter. In an ideal situation, well behaving audience are expected to engage directly with what’s happening on the screen and not with the person sitting beside them. Of course more often than not, people do talk a lot between the movie. They try to act wiser than the actors on the screen to get the approval of the people accompanying them. In a lot of cases they proclaim the makers of the movie as complete idiots just in case the person(s) sitting beside them could not process that on his/ her own.

The best form of social interaction while watching a movie is to be part of an audience and its collective reactions. Simultaneous cheers and claps during a heroic act, whistles during corny one liners or shrieks during a thrilling sequence accentuate the experience of watching a movie. This is what you miss when you watch a movie sitting at home. Of course, the big screen and dolby sound speakers are also hard to recreate. A lot of times, the theatre and by that I mean the kind of audience you watch a movie with can affect whether you enjoy a movie or hate it. An out and out crowd entertainer like a typical Salman Khan movie is more enjoyable in a single screen whereas a movie like Drive or Descendants can be enjoyed only around a serious and subdued late night multiplex audience. But then, the thing about being part of such a collective experience is that you are sharing in the reactions and experiences of complete strangers; people, whom you have never spoken to and barring some strange coincidence, never will. So then, does this qualify as a socializing experience? Can I say that I have socialized if I went and watched a movie in theatre where other people also came and watched a movie?

For some people watching a movie alone is a big taboo but personally I don’t see anything wrong with it. I mean it’s not as if you have been caught in public with a blood dripping axe. Sorry, that image transposed from American Psycho probably made things worse here. Anyways, the point that I am trying to make is that there is or at least there should be some merit in watching a movie for the sake of watching the movie itself rather than the whole social activity of going to watch a movie.

So then may be there is a difference between going to a movie and going for a movie. In the former category are people who want to go to a movie because they have to meet someone and watching a movie is a good way to go around that. If they do not get tickets to a particular movie, they’ll probably watch some other movie. If someone comes up with a more ingenious way to spend time, they would much rather go for that. If however, you are going for a movie, then everything revolves around that, including I would assume, the people that you could watch it with. In the former case, watching a movie is just a form of social interaction whereas in the latter watching a movie in the theatre in itself is the motive and the social interaction is just a byproduct of the same. It is the former kind of people who make up the majority of numbers but it’s more people of the latter kind who pre book for the first show and watch a movie many times over.

With the increasing sizes of television screens with astounding number of pixels per square inch (or something like that), it would have been expected that the number of people going to the cinema halls would fall but the recent trends indicate to the contrary. More and more people today go to watch movies in theaters. The primary reason probably not being the cinematic experience but the fact that for a lot of people going to the movies is a wonderful way to spend time with friends and family; an outdoor activity of sorts. This is certainly not a bad thing (or at least I am not judging such people). I am just wondering if watching a movie minus this socializing experience is.

It is May 2072 — Barcelona is playing Paris St. Germain in a hugely important league game. Some 20 years earlier the elite football clubs of Europe had broken away to form a rogue league, a commercial behemoth, the formation of which people had anticipated for decades. There are some clubs from outside the continent too in the league, and games are played across the globe, from Melbourne to Hong Kong, San Francisco to London, and Sao Paulo to Durban. Today’s game is at the Princeton Hall Stadium, a sparkling state-of-the-art arena in Tokyo that can seat close to 120,000 spectators. Barcelona, two points ahead of Bayern Munich — the German giants who have won the league three out of the last five years — in the competition can seal the trophy with a win today. PSG has nothing to lose or gain, it is fourteenth in the league and is comfortably clear of the relegation battlers — the poor teams that may have to return to their respective national leagues.

The young boy, a Barcelona fan since he started watching football — down to his grandfather’s allegiance to the club – has never seen his team win any honours. The old man hasn’t seen his beloved Blaugrana win in years either. He longs for the 2050s when the team lifted the last of its European trophies; he longs even more for the brief days when Josep Guardiola prowled the sidelines, the days of Xavi, Messi, Iniesta and Puyol. “Oh what a team that was,” he thinks to himself, reminiscing in his mind about the foundations of his fandom, as the Ukrainian referee blows the whistle to signal the beginning of the match.

The Barcelona eleven is made up of players from all over the world — two Spaniards, an Italian, a Russian, a Bulgarian, an American, two Brazilians, a Japanese, an Australian, an Egyptian and a Paraguayan. Twenty minutes into the game, and it’s still goalless. Not much of consequence has happened, except a video referral for a contentious tackle near the edge of the box that the referee had waved on. Replays show that Barcelona’s Japanese center back Haruki Kiyo had got none of the ball and had, in fact, cynically hacked down PSG’s Brazilian winger Falcao. The decision is reversed; PSG is awarded a freekick, and Kiyo receives a blue card (one that is these days accorded for violations that are not so bad as to be sent off for, but are nonetheless more severe than ordinary yellow card offenses). Falcao takes the free kick himself, and blasts it high, wide and handsome. The score remains unaffected.

“How times have changed. Back when I was growing up, we played so fluidly,” the man tells the boy, cursing the rigid 5-4-1 that Barcelona plays today — a return almost to the dreaded Catenaccio days of Italian football under Helenio Herrera some 100 years ago.

“At least we’ve been tight this year, not conceding silly goals like we did last year,” says the boy in reply. “And Anakolov is in such great form. I hope he scores today.”

Anakolov is 6-foot-3, is built like an ox, has two good feet (as they say in football) and can score goals of astonishing variety. He has almost singlehandedly carried Barcelona this season. But the old man yearns for the golden era; he yearns to watch for one last time Barcelona play in a nonpareil style, pinging it around with élan, tiki-taka football as the history books refer to it as.

“This is such anti-football. How can the same team that once under Pep played such a lovely game play like this?” the man asks the boy, who is beginning to get somewhat irritated with the story telling. In truth, at all times except during an actual game, he loves listening to his grandfather speak about the glory days, the days when Barcelona was the best team in the world, a team that redefined football, a team that invented a new style, a team that others could only look at with dreamy-eyed wonder.

Another few minutes pass by; Anakolov has a shot from distance that sails over the bar. PSG is now beginning to put Barcelona under pressure, with Falcao particularly rampant on the right wing.

“I still remember that goal against Sevilla or maybe it was Mallorca, in 2010,” says the old man. “I was your age at the time. Xavi, Iniesta, Messi, Villa, Pedro were all involved. Oh boy, how glorious we were. We must have played some 15 one-touch passes, before Villa finished.”

“Players were moving diagonally, vacating constrained areas and taking up new spaces, they were constantly stretching the game,” continued the old man. “Possession was everything for Pep. We’d pummel teams into submission by passing the ball around. Simple, effective passes, and then suddenly a bit of genius from Xavi or Iniesta, which would crack open the opponent’s defense.”

The boy is now beginning to get a bit worried about his team’s chances. The PSG striker Marc Ventura has hit the woodwork once, and has gone close on two other occasions.

“We were never dominated like this in those days,” says the old man. “Pep wouldn’t have tolerated it. Whether we were playing Manchester United in the final of the Champions League or Real Madrid in El Clasico, we controlled the game. We played it on our own terms.”

“What do you mean we played it on our own terms,” the boy queries. “Was it like how Bayern play these days?”

“Oh no, the Germans aren’t a patch on that Barca team,” says the old man. “We would have 70 percent, sometimes 80 percent possession. Every time we gave the ball away, we’d press from the top, we’d hound teams into giving the ball back, and once we got it back, we kept it. Busquets would play neat and simple balls in midfield to Xavi, who was the chief conductor. Xavi would then spray it around if needed to Alves on the right wing, or maybe to Messi or Iniesta ahead of him. It was just such unbounded joy.”

“Why don’t we play like that these days,” the boy asks, even as Barcelona once again gives away possession easily in midfield.

“You would think it’s easy to replicate,” says the old man. “But we had a lot of things going on. We had a bunch of footballers that had grown up together in La Masia. There was a philosophy installed by the great Dutchman, Johan Cruyff.”

“We won 13 trophies in four years then, didn’t we,” says the boy, as he reaches out for a coke from the fridge at half time.

For the first time that evening, the old man smiles nice and wide, showcasing all his missing teeth.

“Yep. Thirteen in four years! Can you believe it,” he says. “I think it was all down to Pep. Yes we had great players, Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, but he gave them the belief. He laid down the style. We were nothing without the ball, so he made sure we kept it, and we kept it well.”

“So was it then that you started supporting Barca,” the boy asks, even as they wait for the second half to start.

“Well, I was just starting to watch football then, all my friends were either Man United or Chelsea or Arsenal fans, they loved the English league. I did too. But once I saw Barca, I was hypnotized. Oh that 2011 Champions League final against United. We killed them. This was the final of the Champions League, but Pep had us playing with such fluidity. Messi, Pedro, Villa up front, Xavi and Iniesta in midfield, it was just gorgeous.”

“You keep talking about that Pedro goal,” says the boy, who has watched the goal himself many times, but isn’t old enough to appreciate the genius in Xavi’s play, yet. He’ll get there, the old man thinks to himself.

“The way Xavi delayed the pass there was just phenomenal. Messi made an initial run, but Xavi waited, Messi took the left back, Evra, I think it was, with him centrally, opening up space for Pedro, and Xavi immediately slipped him through. It was a simple ball, but it was ingenious. It was football of the highest quality.”

The referee blows the whistle; the second half gets underway and almost immediately PSG takes the lead. Their English center back Ryan Jones heads home Falcao’s bending free kick. The old man cusses and then apologizes. The young boy sighs and plants a kick into thin air. They had heard at half time that Bayern were leading 2-0 against Ajax Amsterdam, and if things stayed that way the Bavarians would retain the title.

The man and the boy watched on in anguish as PSG continued to mount wave after wave of attack. Their club was doomed, to another year of failure, to another year of sacrificing a rich tradition.

“I at least wish we didn’t lose playing such rubbish,” says the old man. “Even in Pep’s last important game as our manager, against Chelsea in the Champions League, we stayed true to our style. Chelsea was down to ten men, and we should have probably won. But it wasn’t for a want of trying. We still passed the ball around superbly, we still stretched the game, and we played like Barcelona should.”

Another few minutes elapse, and PSG doubles its lead. Falcao is again the tormenter, planting a cross virtually onto the feet of Ventura, who, this time, finds the net.

“I still remember our 5-0 win against Madrid, like it was yesterday,” says the old man, beginning to show nonchalance towards the ongoing game. “This was against Mourinho’s Madrid, not any team.”

“Yes, I read about it in that book on Barca,” says the young boy, referring to one of the strings of works that have been written about the period. “Xavi scored the first goal, didn’t he? Has there really been no one else like him?”

“Yes, he was special that boy,” says the man. “But Pep gave him the freedom. Under Rijkaard, Xavi was still treated as an anchor, sitting in front of the defence. Pep saw Xavi as the fulcrum. And when Iniesta, Xavi and Messi played together, it was poetry in motion. They’d zip the ball around with pace and precision, and they’d constantly flitter in and out of confined spaces.”

The doorbell rings, and the boy races to get it. Another old man, bald with a disheveled beard and wearing a tweed coat, walks in cane in hand.

“He’s still reminiscing about the old days, isn’t he,” he says to the boy.

“Let me tell you something. I was a Madrid fan, have always been. But what your grandfather tells you is true. That Barca team under Pep was special. Very special. There hasn’t been another team like that since.”

“I read about Di Stefano’s team and the Dutch total football teams,” says the boy. “They said those were very good too.”

“Well, those were before even our times. What I can vouch for is that I haven’t seen football of the calibre that Pep’s Barca produced being repeated, since,” the old man’s friend says.

PSG scores another. Eighty minutes have gone. The league is Bayern’s. The boy switches the television off. The three decide to take a walk.

“That Barcelona team came to define an epoch,” says the guest as the three walk out of the door. “When they beat us 5-0, all us Madridistas could do was to stand up and applaud.”

“We haven’t seen football like that again, and we probably never will.”

First, sample the image below:

This is Anil Kapoor in 1985. Long dishevelled hair, the compulsory 80s moustache, the leather jacket with steel shoulder buttons, epitomising the aspirational apogee of male machismo and an innocent smile, longing for something unattainable yet content. Much like a smile of happiness on seeing someone you love but who you know will never be yours.

Now take a look at the next image:

This is Anil Kapoor in 2009. Gelled hair, styled impeccably, black tie and tuxedo, the signature outfit of male Hollywood filmstars at any event that matters, hands spread wide taking in the applause for an uninspiring cameo in Slumdog Millionaire and a smile which says ‘I’ve arrived’. Oh and perhaps a botoxed face as well.

The changing face of Anil Kapoor in the last two-and-a-half decades is as accurate a reflection as any, of the changing face of India, pre and post-liberalisation. Awkwardness and innocence replaced by an easy conviviality, a seamless integration into the ways of the world and a constant quest for global recognition. With a growing economy has come an unquestioning assertiveness, with liberalisation a chutzpah loudly declaring India’s arrival on the world stage, and with fame, success and the world’s attention, a constant desire for gratification based on the flattery of others, fueling at times into a self-righteous rage in not getting one’s due, or a vicious one-upmanship to show who’s boss.

Take the BCCI in world cricket. The recent independent governance review of the ICC by Lord Woolf, suggested large-scale changes to the governance structure of the ICC so that it is not dominated by a few powerful boards with vested interests, but rather becomes optimally independent so that it can fulfil its role as “the leader of the international game”.  The suggestions, while certainly provocative, have considerable merit especially given the universal recognition of the flux that world cricket is in currently with three formats competing for time and attention and the increasing feeling that something is going to give. At the very least it deserved the BCCI’s fullest consideration. However the BCCI Working Committee, unsurprisingly, viewed the report as a threat to their dominance of the game and rejected it outright without going into which of the proposals it was against, let alone explaining why it took such a stand. This increasing proclivity to play victim while being the bully, epitomised by the BCCI, is a curious and defining trait of 21^st Century, post-liberalisation India.

Again, take a look at how the Indian media discusses success stories of Indians abroad. Particularly striking in recent memory was the euphoric coverage in sections of the Indian media regarding the appointmnet of Nikki Haley as Governor of South Carolina. The fact that a person of Asian origin, that too a woman, became Governor of a state in the deep South is certainly news anywhere. But in India it was not just news; it was a cause for celebration because Nikki Haley, originally Nimrata Randhawa was born to Sikh parents, and thus her victory was India’s victory. Never mind that she is as Indian as Barack Obama is Muslim and is constantly at pains to point out her Americanness, exemplified by her unimaginative and convenient change of name. The Indian media’s desire to seek out such success stories, to crave for the world’s attention through imagined notions of achievement is not its sole doing: it’s rather an incident of the operation of the market, reflective of what the middle-class Indian consumer wants to read, and the sort of stories that make him happy.

Underlying this new India, like the new Anil Kapoor is an excessive desire to be accepted on the world stage. Otherwise why would Kapoor agree to an unchallenging role of a lecherous, skirt-chasing Indian millionaire who appeared on screen for a sum total of four minutes only to be made a fool of ultimately, in Mission Impossible 4, one of the most mindless action films to be made in the history of cinema? Clearly, Kapoor himself or the Indian film fraternity didn’t think the same way since post-MI4 he became the toast of tinseltown, celebrated as India’s first real crossover star. Key to this ‘new and improved’ Kapoor and the new India, is a pervading sense of falsity, a pretence of being something or someone that one is not. Much like India’s standard story to the world today of being a country of exceptional growth whose teeming poor, despite leading desperately woeful existences are suffused by the hope of a better, brighter tomorrow.  Nothing could be further from the truth. And unlike Kapoor’s wrinkles, there’s no botox to cure this one.

This is not to suggest that pre-liberalisation India was a beautiful place where everyone was poor but happy, innocent and contented. There is a natural tendency to look at history with rose-tinted glasses, harking back to the past as a ‘golden age’ where everything was perfect. Pre-liberalisation India was anything but. Like Anil Kapoor in 1985, it was all over the place, a trifle cheesy, unambitious and easily satisfied. But its one redeeming feature though was that it was comfortable with its own identity, not chasing false hopes and basking in global encomiums that are clever disguises to tap into India’s ever bulging middle class wallets.

So what should we do about it? Well, nothing except hope that soon Anil Kapoor realises in real life, like he did on screen 25 years ago, that it’s best for India if he becomes invisible.

The Invisible Mr. India

[Photo sources: Here and Here]

It is no secret that cricket is the most popular sport in India. Its reach is so far that it is impossible for any other sport to even dream of being the number one sport in the country. But number two? That’s what everyone is fighting for. As less as the reach is compared to cricket, it is still, as an absolute number, remarkable to be in second position. In recent years, with the slow death of hockey, football and basketball have emerged as leading candidates eager to catch that spot. Within the next five years, basketball is headed in all the right directions to make that spot its own in the country.

To grow as a sport a lot of things need to click, and at the same time. Awareness, internal growth, funds just to name a few. It is not often this is said about governing bodies in the country, but the Basketball Federation of India (BFI) is an organization that is well aware of the growth bubble and is making all the right moves to try and cement that second spot. A lot of it goes down to a man named Harish Sharma, who recently expired. Mr. Sharma was a visionary, not only with respect to ideas, but also with execution. He tried to build a model that was beneficial to all parties involved – players, coaches, as well as potential investors.

Investors is the biggest key word here, and the one that will tip things in favour of basketball by a long way. In the last couple of years, Indian basketball has been significantly improved by two major deals. The NBA, by far the world’s best basketball spectacle, has signed up a deal with the BFI to promote the sport in the country. Being the lucrative market that India is, the NBA wants to make the most of it, much like they did with China 15-20 years ago. The effect of its work in China is there for everyone to see. Be it medal winning performances, or Yao Ming, or just the sheer interest in the sport the country has, a lot of it is attributed to the NBA’s work. The NBA has partnered with Mahindra to start community leagues, and school leagues to target both the casual fan, as well as the grass roots hence covering both potential markets. The NBA has also committed to refurbishing and building state of the art infrastructure in multiple places across India.

In addition to the NBA memorandum, sports entertainment leader IMG has signed up long term with Reliance to kick start a professional league. Two years into the deal, both parties have made press releases to confirm that everything is on track, and we are rather close to a well planned professional league. It is important here to take note of the careful planning going in to make it a worthwhile venture that also has longevity. As we have seen with the likes of PHL, poor planning can yield immediate results but fail in the long run. The positives that a professional league ensures are mouth watering. On one hand it gives players a chance to take up the sport seriously, and for a living, and on the other hand it provides for multiple revenue sources like media rights, merchandising and so on.

The rise in popularity and the investments from abroad are not going unnoticed. Television channels are making the most of the bubble. In the last couple of years the amount of telecast of the NBA has gone up tremendously. From two games a week not too long ago to, up to six games a week shown live, not forgetting to add replays and extra programming, the NBA fan in India is watching a lot more hoops than he or she used to.
All is not about money and corporate bigs, the sport per se is also making huge progress. More progress that it was in previous years, as well as more progress than most other competitive sports. More emphasis at all levels is going on all round player development. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that an Under-18 team of today is far superior to one from say, five years ago, be it at club, state or national level. The difference in the senior team will of course not be that high, because the benefits of what is sown now, will only be reaped in time to come. The BFI hired two top class, experienced coaches from the USA to coach the national men’s as well as women’s teams. The progress is evident in our teams finishing in positions higher than they normally do in international tournaments conducted by the governing body of the sport FIBA.

All of this progress will be truly elevated to the next level, if an Indian makes it big on the international stage, and for the moment, the country’s hopes rests on the shoulder of a young Punjabi lad named Satnam Singh Bhamra. A quick Google search will tell you about the potential of this immensely talented 16 year old that has now been handpicked by IMG and BFI for a sports scholarship. Satnam plays for the U-16, U-18 as well as the senior national team. The 7 foot giant was awarded for his performances in the FIBA Asia tournament where his performances made waves all around the world. The best part? He was playing against kids older than him. And he is still considered really raw. There are multiple prospective careers like this that have gone bad with one mistake, but so far so good for the way the BFI have handled his growth. You can be sure that if he makes it big, he will have the same, if not a bigger impact than what Yao Ming had for China.

Going by all these things, and how carefully the development is planned, along with the support from organizations with expertise as well as reach, things look very bright for basketball in India. In two to three years time, it would be a safe approximation to state that basketball will be well and truly the clear number two in Indian sports.

[Photo Credit: The Hindu]

From the perspective of law students, one of the main incentives for applying for clerkships is to boost their chances of pursuing higher studies at prestigious foreign universities. Some others apply with the hope that the clerkship experience will enable them to gain a better understanding of the judicial process before making a foray into litigation. While it is an oversimplification to view this option in purely instrumental terms, the above-stated motivations cannot be dismissed since pursuing a clerkship entails some opportunity costs especially when compared to other lucrative options in the legal services market. Needless to say it is up to the individuals involved to extract the most value from their short period of service. It is undoubtedly a great opportunity to observe the nuances of appellate litigation, decision-making and the institutional structure of our apex court.

At present, the clerkship system is still in a nascent stage and many of the Justices often hesitate to entrust their law clerks with substantive research tasks. While most of the Justices have started recruiting at least one or two law clerks every year, there is a widespread feeling that the roles and responsibilities of the law clerks are not sufficiently clear at the outset. While each Justice has a distinctive style of functioning, it is important for those recruited as law clerks to have a coherent idea of what they are expected to do. Based on my own experience as well as interactions with other law clerks, the main research tasks can be outlined under three categories, namely (i) preparation of briefs on facts and legal questions in freshly instituted matters, (ii) assistance with preparation of orders and judgments and (iii) preparation of speeches, articles and notes on contemporary legal developments.

Those who are familiar with the scheduling of cases in the Supreme Court are well aware of the fact that most of the Justices’ workload is attributable to the preparation required for initial hearings in cases (‘miscellaneous matters’) that are usually listed for Mondays and Fridays every week. On average, each bench has to process nearly 40-50 freshly instituted matters every week. It goes without saying that this is a laborious task that requires immense concentration and attention to detail. A large portion of the miscellaneous matters filed in the Supreme Court are dismissed at this preliminary stage, either without assignment of reasons or by way of short orders. It is only a relatively small portion of these miscellaneous matters which are admitted for a subsequent hearing on merits (‘regular hearing matters’). Even though the decision-making at this stage is made after hearing brief submissions by the lawyers appearing in Court, the Justices usually make up their minds about the merits of the case during the preparation time itself. It is in this context that the law clerks can be relied upon to prepare summaries of the materials on record and short memoranda on the contentious issues. Furthermore, the written submissions made by the parties at this initial stage are usually not very well fleshed out and hence the Justices can profit from able research assistance, especially to verify and search for applicable principles and precedents. While most Special Leave Petitions (filed under Article 136 of the Constitution) are easily dismissed for raising frivolous questions, occasionally the Justices encounter cases that frame important legal questions. It is mostly the cases of the latter variety that are admitted for hearings on merits.

In comparison to freshly instituted matters, the scope for reliance on law clerks is relatively lesser when it comes to the regular hearing matters that are usually listed on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. At this stage, the lawyers appearing on behalf of the interested parties are involved in extensive oral arguments before the respective benches and the same are further supported through written submissions. While this is not the proper forum to comment on the inefficiencies of the current institutional practices pertaining to regular hearing matters, it will suffice to say that Justices usually gather enough material from the submissions made by the parties. In the process of writing substantive judgments, most of our Justices are also conscious about confining the basis of their decisions to the materials submitted during the hearings. Unlike Constitutional Courts in some foreign countries, most judges in our appellate courts are less likely to pursue their own research and rely on materials other than those cited by the lawyers who have argued before them. Given the heightened importance of decision-making at this stage, the involvement of law clerks is likely to be less pronounced. However, some Justices have been known to ask their assistants to prepare first drafts or notes on contentious questions. The involvement of law clerks in the preparation of substantive judgments can prove to be a game changer since they are more likely to consult academic writings as well as precedents from other jurisdictions that might have escaped the attention of those who have argued the case. In this sense, the generational difference between the Justices and their law clerks also corresponds to increasing familiarity with a wider array of resources for legal research. Law clerks are far more likely to be adept at using electronic databases for locating commentaries and precedents. At the same time, the expansion of inputs into judgment-writing can also attract the skepticism of practicing lawyers who might feel shortchanged if judgments travel beyond the submissions and cite materials that the latter are not familiar with. Regardless of such apprehensions, it must be reiterated that while the substantive decision-making is necessarily informed by the accumulated experience of the judges in each bench, the involvement of much younger research assistants in screening documents and submissions has created considerable efficiency-gains vis-à-vis preparation time as well as disposal rates. It would indeed be futile and counterproductive to point to the involvement of law clerks as a cause for concern about the quality and integrity of decision-making by our apex court.

As outlined earlier, law clerks are also frequently asked to prepare speeches or notes when Justices are invited to make presentations at academic conferences and public lectures. Most of these extra-judicial statements tend to dwell on themes such as improving access to justice, bench-bar relations, legal aid and the promotion of dispute-resolution methods such as mediation. The channels for learning are of course not confined to the tasks mentioned above. Apart from the broader understanding of judicial process, the clerkship experience also exposes one to institutional processes such as those related to filing of cases, listing of matters, the perceived impact of bench-composition on decision-making and the different methods of case-management adopted by the respective benches. The multi-bench structure of our Supreme Court has led to the creation of institutional dynamics that are quite distinct from apex courts in other countries which either tend to sit en banc (i.e. all judges sitting together to decide a case) or have fewer panels. Furthermore, there are also numerous opportunities to observe the country’s most prominent lawyers as they present arguments.

However, this note will be incomplete if I only choose to dwell on the nature of tasks assigned to law clerks. As outlined earlier, I will now turn to some suggestions with regard to the recruitment of law clerks in the first place. One of the difficulties faced at present is that the top students from the empanelled law colleges are usually not interested in judicial clerkships since they have direct access to more lucrative career options. This disparity is even more striking when one takes note of the fact that in many foreign countries such as the United States of America, Canada, Australia and South Africa among others, judicial clerkships attract the best law graduates in spite of the availability of lucrative career options. While I understand that it may be difficult to increase the stipends paid to the law clerks (for the 2011 intake the pay is Rs. 25,000 per month) some decisive steps must be taken to convince law students that undergoing a judicial clerkship can yield benefits in the long run. For starters, the notification inviting applications can clearly mention that applicants stand to gain a lot in terms of understanding the judicial process as well as improving their prospects for higher studies and professional growth. We must remember that final year law students at most of the prominent law colleges in the country are being actively pursued by leading companies and law firms, both from India and abroad. In this setting, the Supreme Court should at least make an effort to have its presence felt so as to attract the best law students. Another suggestion is that of broadening the pool of applicants by allowing recent graduates with a few years of work-experience to apply for these positions. Their applications can be accepted on a rolling-basis throughout the year. The same practice is followed by courts in many foreign nations and there is no principled reason for confining the intake to final year students. This can be easily done by uploading a call for applications on the Supreme Court website. It goes without saying that many law graduates who are unsure about their career choices may benefit from clerking in the Supreme Court in the interim. However such an expansion of the applicant pool should not extend to those who have already worked in the chambers of lawyers who regularly appear before the Supreme Court.

Since the Justices are unquestionably overburdened with the large number of freshly instituted matters each week, there is often the risk of inadequate attention being given to the preparation of substantive orders and judgments in matters reserved after regular hearing. While this observation may perhaps not be true for all Justices, there is no doubt that Justices need to be very confident about the abilities of their law clerks before delegating important tasks such as the preparation of drafts for judgments. Needless to say, such tasks require the capacity for prolonged study and rigorous analysis. However, the present method of recruitment of law clerks does not account for these skills. It is better to recruit a few motivated and competent law clerks every year rather than recruiting a large number of applicants who may be indifferent to the tasks assigned to them. While the short-listing of candidates on the basis of their resumes is a necessary filter, it would be better if the candidates are also required to send writing samples (either a term paper or a thematic essay). Questioning on the basis of such writing samples is an effective method for testing the applicant’s familiarity with a particular topic as well as the ability to defend one’s views. Such a process will enable the Committee of Judges to conduct a more meaningful interview and accurately gauge the candidates’ capacity for research and analytical writing.

It would also be useful to hold an orientation session at the beginning of the Supreme Court’s term, i.e. during the first week of July each year. As I mentioned earlier, most of the applicants are clueless about the tasks expected from them. It is only after several weeks that they are able to work out a comfortable equation with their supervisors, often through trial and error. While the specific responsibilities will depend on the individual working style of each Justice, the law clerks should at least be given a broad idea of what to expect. This entails that the applicants must be clearly told that they will be expected to prepare briefs for freshly instituted matters as well as rendering assistance in the preparation of orders and judgments. This can be easily achieved through an interaction-cum-orientation session that can be held a few days after the fresh batch of law clerks has been assigned to the respective Justices’ offices. This session can be conducted either by an official from the Registry or by those who have served as law clerks in the past. It should also be kept in mind that the law clerks mostly work at the residential offices of the Justices and are expected to maintain a high degree of confidentiality about their involvement in pending cases. This means that they usually work in an environment of relative isolation from their immediate peers, a factor that often leads to several drop-outs from the clerkship programme. An orientation session at the beginning of the service-period will ensure that there is healthy collegiality and interaction amongst the entire pool of law clerks.

Unlike their contemporaries who begin as apprentices under established lawyers, law clerks usually do not have to face the unpredictable behaviour of clients and fellow lawyers involved in a case. While handling such uncertainties can be glorified as a rite of passage for a budding litigator, law clerks have to negotiate their way through the labyrinthine bureaucracy of the Court as they interact more closely with the personal staff at the residential offices of the Justices. Once in Court, law clerks often find themselves interacting with the security personnel and the staff at the judges’ library, often with comical consequences. Irrespective of these differences, clerkships offer the opportunity for deep and sustained engagement with cases that are heard on merits. Unlike a legal scholar who usually has to confine his/her analysis to the reading of the eventual judgment, a law clerk gets to see the records from the lower courts, the inputs made by the counsels for the interested parties, the courtroom dynamics and often gets to contribute to the decision-making process. All in all it is an experience that I would highly recommend for those interested in studying our judicial system in the long-run.

1. The new HBO Series, Girls is taking the TV world by storm. Touted as the new-age Sex and the City, this TV show is only 3 episodes old but already has critics acclaiming it all over the place!

*****

2. In other news, Hollywood seems to have gotten over its doomsday visions of Youtube, with several major studios entering into a movie screening deal with the video streaming giant. The latest to join the pack is the heavyweight studio, Paramount Pictures with nearly 500 films in the kitty. The deal is only for US and Canada, but someday when the threat of hitting your high speed data limit and being abandoned with a 256 kbp/s connection is a distant nightmare, maybe we might discover this joy of cheap(?) Youtube movies as well.

******

3. Check out this fascinating Fictional Characters Birthday Calendar! Find out which  fictional character shares your birthday and marvel at the dedication of the people who managed to put this calendar together.

******

4. Ever watched Dexter or How I Met Your Mother and expressed doubts about their portrayal of blood spatter analysts and architects?  The Atlantic feels your pain and has rated several TV characters for how realistically they portray their jobs.

*****

5. Since no digest is complete without an awesome Game of Thrones link, check out this interview with the author of “The Game of Thrones Cook Book” and maybe you’ll discover the need for an authentic Dothraki recipe for horse heart or a Meereenese dragon bone soup recipe.

*****

The very next day, Manchester United was at home to Queens Park Rangers — another relegation threatened club. A few minutes into the game, Ashley Young showcased the dexterity of an ace diver, and fell down under the slightest of contacts from Rangers defender, Shaun Derry. Referee, Lee Mason, almost immediately blew the whistle, awarded a penalty to United and accorded a red card to Derry (apparently he denied a clear goal-scoring opportunity). Wayne Rooney knocked away the resultant spot-kick, and United went on to win the game 2-0. Instant replays showed that not only did Young dive to win the penalty; he was also a good yard offside when Rooney played the through-ball. It was a farcical decision that would have taken a few seconds to correct, had the referee been given the benefit of a video-replay.

These are but only two instances in a series of refereeing follies that have impacted football games in Europe this season. A solitary error — whether it is a failure to spot a handball in the penalty box or a failure to see the ball cross the goal-line — can directly affect the final result of a match, and therefore even a team’s entire season. While efforts are being made to introduce goal-line technology, there has been little debate on the larger use of video referrals to correct palpable refereeing errors.

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) — the sport’s law making authority — is expected to announce the incorporation of goal-line technology into football’s rulebooks in time for next season. FIFA’s president, Sepp Blatter, once vehemently opposed to such methods, recently said in a statement: “We don’t want a repeat of last World Cup … I think I can convince the International Football Association Board that we must go forward with technology.” He was referring to Frank Lampard’s disallowed goal in the round of 16 of the World Cup in South Africa against Germany. As you may well remember, England was trailing 1-2 when Lampard’s strike ricocheted off the crossbar and crossed the goal-line, only for the officials to rule that it didn’t. Germany won the game 4-1, and qualified for the quarterfinal.

But the goal line technology, which Blatter now wants in place, at least in time for the next World Cup in 2014, sees opposition from several important stakeholders. Michel Platini, the former French center forward, and president of UEFA — the administrative body governing football in Europe — has been steadfast in his disapproval of such equipment. He believes the use of an additional official behind each of the goal-lines negates the need for technology. Yet, even in European games in which such additional referees have been experimented with, though no direct goal-line controversies may have arisen, questionable decisions continue to mount. In the first-leg of its quarterfinal against AC Milan, Barcelona was denied a clear penalty when Alexis Sanchez was brought down in the box. The additional official was only a few yards from the action, but play continued, and the game ended scoreless. Even if goal-line technology were in place, it wouldn’t have remedied errors of that ilk, which are just as influential in determining the result of a game.

Refereeing mistakes have existed for as long as the sport of football has existed. But with the improvement in television broadcast, the slipups are more obvious than ever before. In almost every other major sport, video referrals are in place in some form or the other. In America’s National Football League, head coaches are allowed two challenges per half to question on-field decisions. While the NFL incorporated these rules as early as in 1999, football’s governing authorities cannot be bothered to even consider the implementation of such challenges. Had the referee been given 60 seconds to examine video evidence of Ivanovic’s goal against Wigan, the decision would almost surely have been overturned, and the game would have continued goalless.

The arguments against the incorporation of technology in football are primarily twofold: that human errors are part of the game’s attraction, and that football is a fluid game without natural breaks, and introducing video referrals will slow it down. Neither argument passes muster. Ask any fan of the game, and they will tell you that there is nothing more infuriating than the outcome of a contest being determined by a referee’s mistake. Manchester United would have perhaps beaten QPR even without the aid of Mason’s decision; but it unmistakably sullied the result.

Claiming that the game’s fluidity will be threatened by video referrals is just as ludicrous — one one only needs to look at the time wasted in treating on-field injuries. A total of ten minutes to review decisions in a match will by no means affect the sport’s pace and movement. Wouldn’t you rather see a few seconds being taken to inspect a video instead of the final result being affected by an obvious refereeing error?

Admittedly, the nitty-gritties of how to implement video referrals need to be worked out. Should team managers be given the option to review two decisions every half, or should the referee suo moto refer decisions that he believes merits a second look? The former choice, perhaps, provides the more balanced solution in terms of helping eliminate obvious error, while ensuring that the flow of a game is not unduly affected. As it stands, in shunning any talk of a referral system, as an option to cut down on officiating errors, football has fallen well behind the times.