London calls in the Army...

[Verdad]

I think that's part of it. Despite Americans being those corporate lackeys who drink the lifeblood of the masses and bathe in oil and spend all day at McDonalds...

We do know that putting McDonalds in the Olympics opening ceremony would be crass. We put McDonalds in the commercials that finance the Olympics and plaster their brands all over the athletes, you know, where it belongs.

I'm aware that the Olympics are in reality a celebration of personal ambition and corporate sponsorships. I get that.

But I'm a traditionalist and I actually indulge in pure nostalgia and idealism. I get about two hours every two years to feed that on an international level and get to believe that people all over the world are doing it with me.

And...we had Muhammad Ali light a torch, not box someone.

I think maybe you got me wrong in that last post. Possibly you took my contrasting of McCartney and Dizzy Whatshisface as a juxtaposition of the all-together-now sentiment with the brutality of the contemporary sound, in which I praised one as ‘true’ while dismissing the other as hopelessly naïve.

I didn’t mean anything quite so deep, though—both arose in their own time, and I had no ambition to comment on their respective aesthetics. It’s just that to my mind, McCartney clearly stood for the ground (over)tread, the safe and stale—not by virtue of the sing-along-y sentiment per se but by virtue of being an artist decades past his relevance—while Dizzy there stood for the present and the future, that which is alive and arises from the masses, the story whose chapters haven’t all been told yet.

If anything, I may have been too idealistic rather than too blasé in choosing to see it that way; as I hinted at with the relativity of what’s ‘underground’, that whole scene may have really hit sterility even as I was a teen, the resistance may really be futile and all that, but I was in a mood to play along and see it as the place where the embers may be kept alive.

 

[Recidiva]

I think maybe you got me wrong in that last post. Possibly you took my contrasting of McCartney and Dizzy Whatshisface as a juxtaposition of the all-together-now sentiment with the brutality of the contemporary sound, in which I praised one as ‘true’ while dismissing the other as hopelessly naïve.

I didn’t mean anything quite so deep, though—both arose in their own time, and I had no ambition to comment on their respective aesthetics. It’s just that to my mind, McCartney clearly stood for the ground (over)tread, the safe and stale—not by virtue of the sing-along-y sentiment per se but by virtue of being an artist decades past his relevance—while Dizzy there stood for the present and the future, that which is alive and arises from the masses, the story whose chapters haven’t all been told yet.

If anything, I may have been too idealistic rather than too blasé in choosing to see it that way; as I hinted at with the relativity of what’s ‘underground’, that whole scene may have really hit sterility even as I was a teen, the resistance may really be futile and all that, but I was in a mood to play along and see it as the place where the embers may be kept alive.

No, I didn't hear you wrong, I just went tangential and ran like hell off the field and down the block.

There's no real right answer. I've enjoyed hearing why people enjoyed it.

I don't know anything about Dizzy, so I can't speak to that, and I don't want to claim hip credit or fogey credit really. I love the representation of Scots drum lady, because I love that it defies stereotypes about what music is and what it should be. That's fitting. And the spirit of the drummers and the beat...that speaks to me. I know I saw Dizzy, but I saw him in the midst of MTV babble. If he had a message of counter culture it was smack dab in an 80's neon representation of adherence to culture, so I missed it.

I don't think music is really a bastion of cultural revolution, and even people who wax poetic about folk music just remind me of Hugh Laurie's folk song, "All We Gotta Do Is"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiAR-4UUhu0

I'm terribly cynical, but although I know music can inspire, very often the artists are just making money off an image.

I should disclose I actually can't listen to Bob Dylan, either, an American Icon. His heart's there, his poetry is there, but maaaan, does his voice suck. Now, that's nice and all...defying stereotypes, but...in my case it doesn't work. I don't like John Lennon because I think it's incredibly disingenuous to be singing about no money while living at The Dakota.

Dylan's like reading something with bad grammar. Lennon's like reading something with an overly idealized, trite message that the writer doesn't practice.

Hugh Laurie gets it. Singing doesn't change much, you have to have a plan, and then you have to execute it. The rest is really hot air. Fun, but not necessarily something that's universal.

 

[Verdad]

No, I didn't hear you wrong, I just went tangential and ran like hell off the field and down the block.

There's no real right answer. I've enjoyed hearing why people enjoyed it.

I don't know anything about Dizzy, so I can't speak to that, and I don't want to claim hip credit or fogey credit really. I love the representation of Scots drum lady, because I love that it defies stereotypes about what music is and what it should be. That's fitting. And the spirit of the drummers and the beat...that speaks to me. I know I saw Dizzy, but I saw him in the midst of MTV babble. If he had a message of counter culture it was smack dab in an 80's neon representation of adherence to culture, so I missed it.

I don't think music is really a bastion of cultural revolution, and even people who wax poetic about folk music just remind me of Hugh Laurie's folk song, "All We Gotta Do Is"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiAR-4UUhu0

I'm terribly cynical, but although I know music can inspire, very often the artists are just making money off an image.

I should disclose I actually can't listen to Bob Dylan, either, an American Icon. His heart's there, his poetry is there, but maaaan, does his voice suck. Now, that's nice and all...defying stereotypes, but...in my case it doesn't work. I don't like John Lennon because I think it's incredibly disingenuous to be singing about no money while living at The Dakota.

Dylan's like reading something with bad grammar. Lennon's like reading something with an overly idealized, trite message that the writer doesn't practice.

Hugh Laurie gets it. Singing doesn't change much, you have to have a plan, and then you have to execute it. The rest is really hot air. Fun, but not necessarily something that's universal.

Well, I didn’t mean to make a huge a deal out of Dizzy Rascal. I’d spent rather a lot of time with pop music, so I get too easily distracted in that direction. It’s a reminder that the closer one is to a subject, the less sense one makes.

I wonder now if you’re not being a bit unfair to the whole thing, though. We were discussing an entertainment spectacle, so I thought we were judging it as such. To say that entertainment in general is all good and well but one’s gotta face the real world may be true but it shifts the goal post.

Certainly there’s enough occurring outside of the main stage to jar you out of the most carefully cultivated suspense of disbelief—from the pricing and ticket-selling policies, which make you wonder if the stage actors in coal-miner’s get up aren’t the only kind of proletarians the supposed lefties are ever to meet, to the Syrian banner bobbing cheerily in the colorful procession of humanity as the slaughter in that country continues. I don’t mind if you go on those tangents or any other, but it is unfair to criticize the show itself for failing to change the world.

For misrepresenting it, perhaps—but on that score, I kind of can’t decide in the end whether you found it too sappily insincere (“of course we care for the children and all things nice and fluffy!”) or on the contrary, not hopeful and cheer-leading enough.

Maybe it was something entirely third. In any case, I’m not out to persuade you of anything—I just did enjoy taking in both sides, so to say, and I like to think Boyle intended it that way.

 

[Recidiva]

Well, I didn’t mean to make a huge a deal out of Dizzy Rascal. I’d spent rather a lot of time with pop music, so I get too easily distracted in that direction. It’s a reminder that the closer one is to a subject, the less sense one makes.

I wonder now if you’re not being a bit unfair to the whole thing, though. We were discussing an entertainment spectacle, so I thought we were judging it as such. To say that entertainment in general is all good and well but one’s gotta face the real world may be true but it shifts the goal post.

Certainly there’s enough occurring outside of the main stage to jar you out of the most carefully cultivated suspense of disbelief—from the pricing and ticket-selling policies, which make you wonder if the stage actors in coal-miner’s get up aren’t the only kind of proletarians the supposed lefties are ever to meet, to the Syrian banner bobbing cheerily in the colorful procession of humanity as the slaughter in that country continues. I don’t mind if you go on those tangents or any other, but it is unfair to criticize the show itself for failing to change the world.

For misrepresenting it, perhaps—but on that score, I kind of can’t decide in the end whether you found it too sappily insincere (“of course we care for the children and all things nice and fluffy!”) or on the contrary, not hopeful and cheer-leading enough.

Maybe it was something entirely third. In any case, I’m not out to persuade you of anything—I just did enjoy taking in both sides, so to say, and I like to think Boyle intended it that way.

Well, yes, I'm being unfair. I grade tough, I know. I also tend to veer toward the comic punchline. I don't think it's unfair to say I felt excluded and confused during parts, even appalled. I've also never actually walked away from an opening ceremony before and didn't really want to keep watching later, though I did. My daughter and I always sat together and watched them. She wasn't home, and my son was conscripted into service, but he lost interest and left. So, you've got nostalgia and the inability to inspire right there, and me having to stay up late...I was glad my son left? Not the best outcome.

I didn't like things from many ceremonies, the last Canadian one being one of them. But I just felt vaguely disappointed, not...embarrassed for Great Britain.

It isn't about comparing it to China, really. It's comparing it to...a tone? No, nobody called me and asked me what my Olympic expectations were. I just had them.

Again, the music thing was a tangent. I do that.

Anyway, it was the only thing you were talking about and I like talking to you, sooooo...

 

[Verdad]

Well, yes, I'm being unfair. I grade tough, I know. I also tend to veer toward the comic punchline. I don't think it's unfair to say I felt excluded and confused during parts, even appalled. I've also never actually walked away from an opening ceremony before and didn't really want to keep watching later, though I did. My daughter and I always sat together and watched them. She wasn't home, and my son was conscripted into service, but he lost interest and left. So, you've got nostalgia and the inability to inspire right there, and me having to stay up late...I was glad my son left? Not the best outcome.

I didn't like things from many ceremonies, the last Canadian one being one of them. But I just felt vaguely disappointed, not...embarrassed for Great Britain.

It isn't about comparing it to China, really. It's comparing it to...a tone? No, nobody called me and asked me what my Olympic expectations were. I just had them.

Again, the music thing was a tangent. I do that.

Anyway, it was the only thing you were talking about and I like talking to you, sooooo...

The pleasure is entirely mutual. You could probably get me to talk about the more fascinating aspects of doing laundry.

I’ve not been around lately and don’t expect to return to regular posting at present, but it was great seeing you and some of the other folks.

Off to see a movie now—I’m in one of those phases where I binge my way through the (numerous) backlogs.

 

[Handley_Page]

Anyway, outside audience criticism with the understanding that it might have been wonderful for GB audiences. All I saw was the trappings of branded corporate logos and movies, and fully embracing them and selling them, not commenting on them.

There's a fair bit of vocal opposition to all the "corporate" junkets, the sponsorship (taking it much too far in the rest of the UK) and all the rest of the ballyhoo.

And meanwhile, the nosebleed seats are standing room only.

As soon as an event starts, they should move people down from the nosebleed seats to the ringside seats. Any latecomers with tickets for ringside can fill-in the nosebleed seats.

Questions Have Been Asked about this problem, too. Real criticism of the organisers for the problem.

 

[Recidiva]

There's a fair bit of vocal opposition to all the "corporate" junkets, the sponsorship (taking it much too far in the rest of the UK) and all the rest of the ballyhoo.

Questions Have Been Asked about this problem, too. Real criticism of the organisers for the problem.

I understand there's a limited budget, but "Clerks" had a limited budget and did something entirely different with it. If money were everything I'd love "Waterworld" and not "Clerks"

Even before the ceremony, I heard a quote from Danny Boyle saying he knew that he couldn't do as well as the Beijing games. My immediate thought was "Shouldn't they have given the job to someone who thought they could?"

 

[oggbashan]

Even before the ceremony, I heard a quote from Danny Boyle saying he knew that he couldn't do as well as the Beijing games. My immediate thought was "Shouldn't they have given the job to someone who thought they could?"

He didn't have the budget or the manpower that Beijing could afford. To out-do Beijing would have required a massive budget that the London organisers couldn't produce, nor perhaps, could any subsequent Olympic Games host.

Beijing's spectacle was more about selling their country, deflecting criticism, and making a large political statement - than the Olympic movement. To be fair to the Chinese, many Olympic Games' Opening Ceremonies since Berlin 1936 have been more about politics than sport.

Berlin introduced the Torch relay which was a great success for 2012 in the UK. Leni Riefenstahl's film of the 1936 Olympics is still compelling viewing but had a strong message about Nazism.

 

[Recidiva]

He didn't have the budget or the manpower that Beijing could afford. To out-do Beijing would have required a massive budget that the London organisers couldn't produce, nor perhaps, could any subsequent Olympic Games host.

Beijing's spectacle was more about selling their country, deflecting criticism, and making a large political statement - than the Olympic movement. To be fair to the Chinese, many Olympic Games' Opening Ceremonies since Berlin 1936 have been more about politics than sport.

Berlin introduced the Torch relay which was a great success for 2012 in the UK. Leni Riefenstahl's film of the 1936 Olympics is still compelling viewing but had a strong message about Nazism.

If you check my post above the one you quoted, I don't think it's all about money.

I have a different viewpoint about Beijing. I do separate the Olympics from politics, as that is the point of the cultural exchange.

Beijing was a reflection of their worldview and culture, imperial, grand and based on synchronous activity to the glory of the group.

England could have done quite well on charm and humor and grace. A cottage in the Cotswolds may not be as imperious, but it's certainly got its own charm and culture and expression of an idea of simplicity and beauty. I know where I'd rather relax anyway.

 

[Handley_Page]

The organisers of London 2012 were told in no uncertain terms; "Limited Budget".
This was for several reasons;
limited cash (understandably),
to placate those in the population who, even if they watched it, would not like to see the Event in the UK; they'd rather build a new Hospital, or something,
And there was no point in even thinking about making a statement like China.

I think they did jolly well.
[ as an aside, I find it hard to see that we are struggling for medals after all the effort. But it is early days yet.]

 

[Handley_Page]

The organisers of London 2012 were told in no uncertain terms; "Limited Budget".
This was for several reasons;
limited cash (understandably),
to placate those in the population who, even if they watched it, would not like to see the Event in the UK; they'd rather build a new Hospital, or something,
And there was no point in even thinking about making a statement like China.

I think they did jolly well.
[ as an aside, I find it hard to see that we are struggling for medals after all the effort. But it is early days yet.]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Frank Lloyd Wright occasionally designed modest cottages for folks with tight budgets, and pound for penny they were the equal of his hotels and colleges and museums.

London 2012 is.....shabby.

 

[sr71plt]

Frank Lloyd Wright occasionally designed modest cottages for folks with tight budgets, and pound for penny they were the equal of his hotels and colleges and museums.

London 2012 is.....shabby.

He still overcharged for them, and most are unlivable. (I track them down and visit them, when possible. Have even stayed in a couple. The overriding priority for all is that Wright's aesthetics win over livability.)

 

[oggbashan]

Danny Boyle must have done something right.

The world is still talking about the opening ceremony, if only to repeat wtf?

 

[Verdad]

All I saw was the trappings of branded corporate logos and movies, and fully embracing them and selling them, not commenting on them.

I hate to be the abuser of dead horses, but I had a moment right now and I found myself thinking back to what you said.

Maybe we lost track of the big picture earlier; one naturally assumes the other saw the same story and all that is left to discuss is how well a particular detail worked. But maybe we need to go back to basics first. Such as, what we mean by 'genuine', 'dignified' etc. vs. 'cynical'.

There's a problem in presenting grand, hopeful, idealist, 'olympic' messages. The problem is that we're perfectly aware of the reality that falls short of them, as we're aware of the marketing and propaganda wizardry that have long mastered every kind of heart-string pulling trick. We're wary of 'moving' moments, as we suspect them, usually correctly, of exploitativeness and manipulation. True cynicism lurks behind grandiose statements as well as behind carefully staged 'human' moments.

So if you want to say something like “This is for everyone”—the words that appeared on the screens, tweeted from the stage by Tim Berners Lee, summing up Boyle's message and working on many levels, related and unrelated to the olympics—how do you say it?

Neither wrapped in the national flag nor sung by a chorus of paraplegic children, I don't think. Paradoxical though it may seem, if you want it taken as half honest, I think you need the distancing devices that much more. Pomo irony, Brechtian distance, dodgy humor, whatever it takes. The audience's reality needs to be acknowledged first (and I certainly mean the world audience, here), like, “yes, of course you're being fucked up the ass by everyone, the state, the media, the corporations, etc,” before you can even attempt to impart some hope there's still chance for individual dignity for all people.

Many a review, from what I've seen, called Boyle's show 'subvervise', and I tend to agree. I absolutely don't mind that you didn't like it—I love disagreement—but it kind of baffled me that you got exactly the opposite out of it.

 

[Recidiva]

I hate to be the abuser of dead horses, but I had a moment right now and I found myself thinking back to what you said.

Maybe we lost track of the big picture earlier; one naturally assumes the other saw the same story and all that is left to discuss is how well a particular detail worked. But maybe we need to go back to basics first. Such as, what we mean by 'genuine', 'dignified' etc. vs. 'cynical'.

There's a problem in presenting grand, hopeful, idealist, 'olympic' messages. The problem is that we're perfectly aware of the reality that falls short of them, as we're aware of the marketing and propaganda wizardry that have long mastered every kind of heart-string pulling trick. We're wary of 'moving' moments, as we suspect them, usually correctly, of exploitativeness and manipulation. True cynicism lurks behind grandiose statements as well as behind carefully staged 'human' moments.

So if you want to say something like “This is for everyone”—the words that appeared on the screens, tweeted from the stage by Tim Berners Lee, summing up Boyle's message and working on many levels, related and unrelated to the olympics—how do you say it?

Neither wrapped in the national flag nor sung by a chorus of paraplegic children, I don't think. Paradoxical though it may seem, if you want it taken as half honest, I think you need the distancing devices that much more. Pomo irony, Brechtian distance, dodgy humor, whatever it takes. The audience's reality needs to be acknowledged first (and I certainly mean the world audience, here), like, “yes, of course you're being fucked up the ass by everyone, the state, the media, the corporations, etc,” before you can even attempt to impart some hope there's still chance for individual dignity for all people.

Many a review, from what I've seen, called Boyle's show 'subvervise', and I tend to agree. I absolutely don't mind that you didn't like it—I love disagreement—but it kind of baffled me that you got exactly the opposite out of it.

That's cool. Happy to flog anything, dead or alive, with you.

I'm in the ticklish position of saying I prefer the illusion of Tinkerbell and the ritual of clapping and that having her dragged out smoking and giving me the finger is unnerving.

In the end the truest show is the athletes, and I get two weeks of that, so all's well.

 

[Verdad]

That's cool. Happy to flog anything, dead or alive, with you.

I'm in the ticklish position of saying I prefer the illusion of Tinkerbell and the ritual of clapping and that having her dragged out smoking and giving me the finger is unnerving.

In the end the truest show is the athletes, and I get two weeks of that, so all's well.

Haha, no, not so ticklish. Again I believe I understand you even if it doesn’t jive with my experience of this show.

Say, one of the movies I saw these days was Quills, about the Marquis de Sade. I picked it just because it starred Geoffrey Rush, whom I like. Other than his performance it was a pretty bad movie, an embarrassingly didactic hymn to free speech with de Sade cast as its martyr saint. The most annoying thing, though, was that the movie kept hammering down that everything is the opposite of what it seems. Sade hides a heart of gold and everyone who aspires to upstanding life is a closeted monster. Yawn.

What I’m saying is, subverting a cliché, an expectation, an ideology, or anything else takes more than putting it on its head. What you typically get that way is … a cliché with its feet kicking in the air, I suppose. If someone’s going to vomit on my shoes because ugly is beautiful and beautiful is ugly or maybe because other means of communication have been compromised, I may be tempted to head for the Pirates of the Caribbean 27, or better yet, have a nice stroll. If they try to get around the compromised places not forgetting to deliver art/entertainment that works, though, then I’m likely to enjoy it. There are times, too, when Tinkerbell, served straight, sits exactly right.

Enjoy the games.

 

[dldavito]

Confession

Many of these replies brought tears of laughter to my eyes. I confess that I love the Olympic Games and even the back stories.

One that brought a smile was when the IOC mistakenly displayed the South Korean flag during a game between Colombia and North Korea. The NoKo's got so mad that they launched a preemptive missile against London.
The missile fell harmlessly to sea 10 miles from the launch pad in Pyongyang.

 

[Recidiva]

Haha, no, not so ticklish. Again I believe I understand you even if it doesn’t jive with my experience of this show.

Say, one of the movies I saw these days was Quills, about the Marquis de Sade. I picked it just because it starred Geoffrey Rush, whom I like. Other than his performance it was a pretty bad movie, an embarrassingly didactic hymn to free speech with de Sade cast as its martyr saint. The most annoying thing, though, was that the movie kept hammering down that everything is the opposite of what it seems. Sade hides a heart of gold and everyone who aspires to upstanding life is a closeted monster. Yawn.

What I’m saying is, subverting a cliché, an expectation, an ideology, or anything else takes more than putting it on its head. What you typically get that way is … a cliché with its feet kicking in the air, I suppose. If someone’s going to vomit on my shoes because ugly is beautiful and beautiful is ugly or maybe because other means of communication have been compromised, I may be tempted to head for the Pirates of the Caribbean 27, or better yet, have a nice stroll. If they try to get around the compromised places not forgetting to deliver art/entertainment that works, though, then I’m likely to enjoy it. There are times, too, when Tinkerbell, served straight, sits exactly right.

Enjoy the games.

Right. Execution counts.

You see the seeds of subversion and find that refreshing, and I get that. I see good things, but also see going beyond budget as a means to create and into means to make more money. I'm generally offended by overt product placement unless Stephen Colbert does it, because he's funny enough that I don't really mind.

I don't like subversion for subversion's sake, because subversion is not always purposeful, but can be destructive of the current system without offering an alternative.

I appreciate youthful hope and energy, which is to me the spirit of the games. Watching the independent athletes dance, or watching someone on the stand getting medals and seeing how all their work resulted in the realization of a dream, that's what I'm watching. I don't watch professional sports and avoid them like the plague, but I always watch the Olympics.

The Olympics (for me) are about renewal and cooperation and setting aside differences in order to come together and celebrate the dreams of youth in a meritocracy. Yes, I see all the abuses and bad things...but I still...really believe that they are a positive thing and an opportunity to learn each other's stories.

I don't think Danny Boyle got that, and I don't think he provided something better than what has come before.

 

[Verdad]

Right. Execution counts.

You see the seeds of subversion and find that refreshing, and I get that. I see good things, but also see going beyond budget as a means to create and into means to make more money. I'm generally offended by overt product placement unless Stephen Colbert does it, because he's funny enough that I don't really mind.

I don't like subversion for subversion's sake, because subversion is not always purposeful, but can be destructive of the current system without offering an alternative.

I appreciate youthful hope and energy, which is to me the spirit of the games. Watching the independent athletes dance, or watching someone on the stand getting medals and seeing how all their work resulted in the realization of a dream, that's what I'm watching. I don't watch professional sports and avoid them like the plague, but I always watch the Olympics.

The Olympics (for me) are about renewal and cooperation and setting aside differences in order to come together and celebrate the dreams of youth in a meritocracy. Yes, I see all the abuses and bad things...but I still...really believe that they are a positive thing and an opportunity to learn each other's stories.

I don't think Danny Boyle got that, and I don't think he provided something better than what has come before.

Sorry I missed this.

Just briefly: I don’t disagree with you in anything other than the perception of Boyle’s show.

Yes, freshness is appreciated not merely in the sense of new thrills but in the sense of opening new possibilities. If now we have more cause than we’ve had before to speculate whether Brazil is going to define and present itself as a pure picture postcard or in some slightly different manner, that’s a new possibility, if only in the area of what to expect of this type of event.

As far as changing the world goes, I don't know if art is even supposed to provide answers and guidelines, but if it frames something so you see the cracks in the usual image of it, it’s usually credited with having done its job. (Again I don’t mean wanton iconoclasm, more like a delight in re-cognition.) The subversive suggestion in there may be to live with and around circumstances but not submerge yourself in them completely. That doesn’t point toward destruction but toward figuring out new spaces to inhabit once the limitations have been recognized. Quite in tune with the olympic spirit, I think.

But if on a visceral level I’d experienced the thing as lacking in fun, joy, hope, and youthful exuberance, of course I’d be no more sold on these putative benefits than you are.

 

[Recidiva]

Sorry I missed this.

Just briefly: I don’t disagree with you in anything other than the perception of Boyle’s show.

Yes, freshness is appreciated not merely in the sense of new thrills but in the sense of opening new possibilities. If now we have more cause than we’ve had before to speculate whether Brazil is going to define and present itself as a pure picture postcard or in some slightly different manner, that’s a new possibility, if only in the area of what to expect of this type of event.

As far as changing the world goes, I don't know if art is even supposed to provide answers and guidelines, but if it frames something so you see the cracks in the usual image of it, it’s usually credited with having done its job. (Again I don’t mean wanton iconoclasm, more like a delight in re-cognition.) The subversive suggestion in there may be to live with and around circumstances but not submerge yourself in them completely. That doesn’t point toward destruction but toward figuring out new spaces to inhabit once the limitations have been recognized. Quite in tune with the olympic spirit, I think.

But if on a visceral level I’d experienced the thing as lacking in fun, joy, hope, and youthful exuberance, of course I’d be no more sold on these putative benefits than you are.

Eddie Izzard put it well:

"And I grew up in the 70s, when there was a period of, you know, the – the careers advisor used to come to school and he used to get the kids together and say, “Look, I – I advise you to get a career, what can I say? That’s it.” And he took me aside – he said, “Whatcha you want to do, kid? Whatcha you want to do? Tell me, tell me your dreams!” “I want to a space astronaut, go to outer space, discover things that have never been discovered.” He said, “Look, you’re British, so scale it down a bit, all right?” “All right, I want to work in a shoe shop then! Discover shoes that no one’s ever discovered right in the back of the shop on the left.” And he said, “Look, you’re British, so scale it down a bit, all right?” “All right, I want to work in a sewer then. And discover sewage that no one’s ever discovered. And pile it on my head and the come to the surface and sell myself to an art gallery.”

And in comparison to American Culture:

"There was a spirit of ex-empire, that things can't be done. ln America, I felt there was
a spirit of "can be done". "Go, do it! What do you want to do?" "I want to put babies on spikes." "Go, then!" "Go, what a wonderful idea. It's the American Dream!"

Hi, I'm crazy Eddie. I put babies on spikes. Do you want a rack of babies? We've got babies on racks!