Would Blue is the Warmest Colour have been as good if the actors had been less fetching? Credit: IMDB
Scarlett Johansson’s pert bum in bubble-gum pink underwear. This is the memorable opening shot of Lost in Translation. The audience is spectator of an intimate, unguarded moment in the life of Charlotte, who is on the cusp of her pupation into mature womanhood and self-discovery. The image is girly, yet brazenly sensual, with perhaps a suggestion of loneliness, of pent up longing, of being untouched.
If it weren’t for the fact that the director of the film was Sofia Coppola, a woman, this shot would unquestionably be taken as a vintage example of the dreaded ‘male gaze’, the bête noire of feminists, who might see it ravenously honing in on a female body in a ‘pervy’ manner, objectifying Johansson at will for male voyeurism and domination. Still, the ideologically blinkered would find a way of arguing that Coppola’s ‘internalised sexism’ caused her to pander to the hegemonic male gaze.
Laura Mulvey coined the phrase, in her 1975 essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”.She argued that cinema has been a medium for the dissemination of misogyny and patriarchal ideology, presenting women as passive erotic objects for the titillation of the actively-looking male heterosexual subject. Megan Fox bending over a motorcycle in very short denim shorts in Transformers 2, for example. For Mulvey, the male gaze is necessarily unethical because “all too often … female bodies are shown to be objects designed to please men and conform to mainstream ideals of femininity”.
Increasingly in film, any supposedly sexualised representations of the female body receive a backlash; every once in a while a male critic will be pilloried on social media for writing a horny review that objectifies a starlet in a ‘creepy’ fashion. We are in danger of erasing the erotic from film altogether.
These objections have a subtle but alarmingly puritanical edge to them, reminiscent of a religious hatred of the body and sexuality, their appropriation for pleasure and fun being seen as an offence to decency, as well as fundamentally immoral. This view has been especially repressive for women — it paternalistically claims to protect their modesty and dignity, from the diabolic world of sex, deemed antagonistic to their maidenly nature. But, as we know, lust doesn’t only belong to men.
With sexual liberalisation, women gaining more autonomy and social power, and the rise of sex-positive feminism, the “the female gaze” has arrived. Phoebe Waller-Bridge, for instance, has been credited with helping to assert female sexual agency in her comedy Fleabag,in which her character frequently and openly fantasises about men she fancies, sexually objectifying the male body, bracingly representing women as actively desiring sexual beings, instead of simplythe objects of male desire. Films such as Gone Girl and Portrait of a Lady on Firehave also been championed as an antidote to the exploitative male gaze by privileging female desire, the latter pushing men out of the frame altogether.
While this is a generally positive development, a simplistic dichotomy is often constructed between the female gaze and the (straight) male gaze, which according to critic Christina Newland, “has no radical mileage”. The female gaze is portrayed as edenic and spiritually dignified, in contrast to the demonic and depraved nature of the male gaze. “If male thirst simplifies women to bits of flesh, then female thirst tends to be all about fleshing out the person inside,” as one critic put it.
Feminist theorists assert that the male gaze is an instrument of women’s oppression. Of course, it canbe this. As we know, some men can be incredibly cruel when talking about women and their bodies, exploiting shame, anxiety over their appearance and the sexual double standard to humiliate them. Furthermore, the male gaze in specific contexts, where power relations are at play, can be a precursor for violence and abuse. Think of the sexist, piggish boss in 9 to 5, who takes pleasure in groping and sexually bullying his secretaries (who then proceed to get their revenge).
But the implication that the male gaze could only ever be brutish and oppressive is to have a truncated view of male desire. Women can’t be reduced to their bodies, but the vast majority of men don’t merely see women’s bodies as ‘pussy’ to be pounded or punching bags to be sparred with. It is something to be awed and respected as a source of erotic contemplation (just as the male body can be for women).
“The eternal feminine draws us on high”, wrote Goethe. The male gaze isn’t simply an expression of male sexual power over women. It is just as likely to be an expression of alienation, of vulnerability; a yearning for tenderness and a nervous assertion that beauty is good and to be preserved in the midst of an increasingly ugly and colourless world. It seems like the only people not permitted to soliloquise about the male gaze are men themselves.
Invocations of the male gaze have become like truncheons deployed to condemn sexual desire and expression. Is every portrayal of the sexualised human form really inherentlydegrading? It’s almost a secular way of condemning the sin of lust, where any image of the female form that could conceivably be attractive to men (which, let’s be real, is most of them) is pandering to the male gaze, therefore the production of that image is ‘objectification’, therefore it is immoral.
The lengthy and graphic sex scenes in Blue is The Warmest Colour between the two lesbian protagonists were excoriated for supposedly being “male gaze porn” disguised as art house cinema, because the camera focuses in on the bodies of these attractive actresses for minutes on end in a way that was apparently designed to please straight men.
What? Are we really going to define beauty according to a narrow ideological agenda, because it a priori might appeal to those whom it apparently isn’t supposed to appeal to. This reveals the major problem with the progressive-feminist critique of the male gaze: it hinges on something so fundamental to the nature of film itself: sex appeal.
The stars, Adèle Exarchopoulos and Léa Seydoux are obviously rather fetching. Their bodies, their faces were vital ingredients for the ravishing chemistry they were able to create on screen. So of course male viewers would be tantalised. Is that inherently a bad thing? While the “male gaze” jibe sounds enlightened and à la mode, it implicitly denies that the women (especially the lesbian ones) in the audience have a gaze of their own, or asserts that it has been colonised by the omnipotent male gaze.
Would the lesbian sex have been more ‘authentic’ if the women were less attractive (according to so-called male standards)? Or would it have just been less erotic and sexy? Maybe the male and female gaze aren’t as different as we think they are — and that’s what really bothers critics.
When watching anything, desire, sensuality, eroticism and aesthetics are all an intrinsic part of our viewing experience. I felt this acutely when I watched The Time In Between (El Tiempo Entre Costuras), a Spanish Civil War espionage series, starring Adriana Ugarte (best known for being the blonde haired femme fatale protagonist in Pedro Almodovar’s Julieta) and Hannah New (fans of Maleficentwill recognise her as Queen Leila). The show is terrific and the actresses talented. But I would be lying if I said that my viewing experience wasn’t enhanced by the simple fact that both women are clearly gorgeous.
There is no explicit sex scene, and none of the actresses appear nude, but nonetheless, I “fell in lust” with them, in particular Adriana Ugarte with her dancing eyes and “awfully kissable mouth” to borrow from F. Scott Fitzgerald, along with her ability to grace the screen with a beauty and finesse reminiscent of Old Hollywood glamour. Maybe it was the haute couture 1930s costumes, or maybe it was my own ‘male gaze’, but I loved looking at her. Which brought to mind a truth about the viewing experience we’re sometimes too coy to acknowledge.
Actors are, among other things, their bodies and faces. Their good looks are a crucial part of their craft, as well as how they manipulate their bodies. It is no good deluding ourselves that this isn’t the case (and indeed that it shouldn’t be).
We go to the cinema to be moved and inspired. We trust that our physical and emotional responses — tears, anger, fright — are telling us something about what we are seeing on screen. Why not lust? Why not our hormones? Our libidos are as intrinsic to our humanity as our reason. The value of the Erotic thriller genre — from Body Double to The Handmaiden, films that use the erotic as a spectacle, partially designed to ravish your senses — would be diminished if this weren’t the case.
Our squeamishness in acknowledging that “eye candy” has a legitimate part to play in an art form as visual as cinema, originates from that residue of puritanism in our culture that views personal display and glamour as vain and immodest. It is part of the anti-body bias in Christianity which regards the flesh and all of its pleasures as intrinsically sinful and degrading, and which must therefore be repressed. Hence the notion that portrayals of sexuality in a public venue such as a cinema are just a little bit suspect.
But visual gratification is one of the reasons why we enjoy watching films. The bliss of watching wonderfully composed humans on screen acting out a story for our collective enjoyment is one of the foundational pleasures of film. We denigrate it at our own loss.
Ralph Leonard is a British-Nigerian writer on international politics, religion, culture and humanism.
buffsoldier_96 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI’m pretty sure the author will have had this article ready and waiting for Pele’s death. (I won’t use the modern idiom by writing “Pele’s passing” for obvious reasons!). It’s well-written, and ties in many of the political and wider social changes taking place around the time of the 1970 Final. I’d also add the 1970 General Election ( 3 days beforehand) and the announcement by the Beatles that they’d split up just a couple of months before that – the ending of several eras, in fact.
Wilson is right: it’s unfair to expect sporting greats to take a stand against political oppression. I’d go further and say i wish today’s sporting heroes would keep their opinions slightly more to themselves instead of using a natural talent for hitting or kicking a ball to try to influence political debate. They’re entitled to their opinions, but not undue influence, especially when they can only express such opinions in a fairly crass way.
Watching Pele’s movement and control of a spherical object transcends football, transcends sport. It’s human athleticism incarnate, and was simply a joy to watch.
I’m pretty sure the author will have had this article ready and waiting for Pele’s death. (I won’t use the modern idiom by writing “Pele’s passing” for obvious reasons!). It’s well-written, and ties in many of the political and wider social changes taking place around the time of the 1970 Final. I’d also add the 1970 General Election ( 3 days beforehand) and the announcement by the Beatles that they’d split up just a couple of months before that – the ending of several eras, in fact.
Wilson is right: it’s unfair to expect sporting greats to take a stand against political oppression. I’d go further and say i wish today’s sporting heroes would keep their opinions slightly more to themselves instead of using a natural talent for hitting or kicking a ball to try to influence political debate. They’re entitled to their opinions, but not undue influence, especially when they can only express such opinions in a fairly crass way.
Watching Pele’s movement and control of a spherical object transcends football, transcends sport. It’s human athleticism incarnate, and was simply a joy to watch.
I turned 13 in 1970 and was a football fanatic who was allowed to watch as many of the games as I could by indulgent parents – although my younger brothers were not so lucky. Everything he says about the luminosity of that tournament, the sun, sky, the iridescence of the pitches, the slight delay on the commentary and the occasional jerks in the pictures is correct – and adds to its charm and what now feels an other worldly time. That Brazil side were wonderful, certainly in midfield and attack – although the goalkeeper, Felix, I think, was a bit lairy – and the verve, elan and sheer joy they evoked with their performances still lingers in the memory. They also had powers of recovery, going behind in games (including the final) to win. The politics of the era were becoming apparant, even to a slightly aware North London grammar school boy who was hoping for wider horizons than the opportunities then available , but that World Cup, the sheer, dazzling glory and beauty of it, allowed us all to bask in a summer of pleasure and enjoyment of what probably cemented Brazil’s reputation as the inventors of the ”Jogo Bonito”. The Seventies were, as Wilson says, a decade where systematised football became the paradigm, but even now when we look back at the old footage, the dreadful pitches, the exuberance and spontaneity of crowds, the way the game was played, the savage tackling and the way players more or less used to get on with it, that too looks like another world. I have been a Spurs supporter pretty much all my life but if I returned to London (I have lived in Australia for 35 years) I am not sure I would want to pay the prices charged by Premier League clubs nowadays in the current corporatised game. Maybe I would go and watch the first club I ever saw play live – Hendon, an amateur powerhouse of the 1960s – where my dad took me when I was still at primary school!
Hendon, amateur powerhouse indeed. My first job in the 1970s was working with Peter Anderson, student accountant by day and dazzling winger for Hendon and Barnet by night. I also grew up watching the sublime Jimmy Greaves, who wouldn’t get a game today because he refused to tackle, much less do a ‘high press’.
I’d argue that the crass commercialism introduced in the 70s (Blatter has a lot to answer for besides corruption) led to the stifling tactical constraints on the modern game. With the huge sums of money at stake, it became more important for the sponsors and the clubs not to lose than to try and win. It amazes me that people accept to pay the ridiculous prices they do today to watch largely turgid exercises in passing the ball backwards and sideways.
At least we occasionally have the spectacle of a genius like Messi or Zidane transcending the current dross to take us back for a while to that golden age.
Don Review’s Leeds United? Bertie Mee’s
Arsenal. Thuggish centre backs etc. However nostalgic we might be, footballers along with all other sportsmen, tennis players above all, are much, much fitter and on the whole more talented than those of the 70s. Could an effective drunkard such as George Best last any time at all in.the modern game. (He might do, he’d simply have to sober up or leave the game). They practice more, they don’t go down the pub before and after matches etc. Tactical nous and the design and rules of the game itself often results in ‘boring’ draws. (I don’t believe basketball has a problem with low scores)
However, there are exceptions: the last World Cup Final was as exciting as any in history!
Don Review’s Leeds United? Bertie Mee’s
Arsenal. Thuggish centre backs etc. However nostalgic we might be, footballers along with all other sportsmen, tennis players above all, are much, much fitter and on the whole more talented than those of the 70s. Could an effective drunkard such as George Best last any time at all in.the modern game. (He might do, he’d simply have to sober up or leave the game). They practice more, they don’t go down the pub before and after matches etc. Tactical nous and the design and rules of the game itself often results in ‘boring’ draws. (I don’t believe basketball has a problem with low scores)
However, there are exceptions: the last World Cup Final was as exciting as any in history!
Hendon, amateur powerhouse indeed. My first job in the 1970s was working with Peter Anderson, student accountant by day and dazzling winger for Hendon and Barnet by night. I also grew up watching the sublime Jimmy Greaves, who wouldn’t get a game today because he refused to tackle, much less do a ‘high press’.
I’d argue that the crass commercialism introduced in the 70s (Blatter has a lot to answer for besides corruption) led to the stifling tactical constraints on the modern game. With the huge sums of money at stake, it became more important for the sponsors and the clubs not to lose than to try and win. It amazes me that people accept to pay the ridiculous prices they do today to watch largely turgid exercises in passing the ball backwards and sideways.
At least we occasionally have the spectacle of a genius like Messi or Zidane transcending the current dross to take us back for a while to that golden age.
I turned 13 in 1970 and was a football fanatic who was allowed to watch as many of the games as I could by indulgent parents – although my younger brothers were not so lucky. Everything he says about the luminosity of that tournament, the sun, sky, the iridescence of the pitches, the slight delay on the commentary and the occasional jerks in the pictures is correct – and adds to its charm and what now feels an other worldly time. That Brazil side were wonderful, certainly in midfield and attack – although the goalkeeper, Felix, I think, was a bit lairy – and the verve, elan and sheer joy they evoked with their performances still lingers in the memory. They also had powers of recovery, going behind in games (including the final) to win. The politics of the era were becoming apparant, even to a slightly aware North London grammar school boy who was hoping for wider horizons than the opportunities then available , but that World Cup, the sheer, dazzling glory and beauty of it, allowed us all to bask in a summer of pleasure and enjoyment of what probably cemented Brazil’s reputation as the inventors of the ”Jogo Bonito”. The Seventies were, as Wilson says, a decade where systematised football became the paradigm, but even now when we look back at the old footage, the dreadful pitches, the exuberance and spontaneity of crowds, the way the game was played, the savage tackling and the way players more or less used to get on with it, that too looks like another world. I have been a Spurs supporter pretty much all my life but if I returned to London (I have lived in Australia for 35 years) I am not sure I would want to pay the prices charged by Premier League clubs nowadays in the current corporatised game. Maybe I would go and watch the first club I ever saw play live – Hendon, an amateur powerhouse of the 1960s – where my dad took me when I was still at primary school!
“Mazy dribblers” are almost a thing of the past. Messi still gets away with because of his status in the game, and the rarity of dribbling nowadays means what he does stands out all the more. But what he does was once a common feature of the game. Nowadays, hardly anybody goes on a mazy run and takes on the opposition, man to man, ball at feet. They’d be too afraid of what the coach would say to them after the game, for being so “selfish”. Instead, it’s pass early, retain possession, tika-taka, cross from the wing etc. Of course, it is a team sport, but I remember the glorious selfishness of Best and the magical madness of Maradona, and the conjuring tricks of Zidane and Cruyff, and feel a sense of loss that something anarchic and individualistic has been taken out of the game.
Crossing is the biggest victim of the body-building culture of football these days. I genuinely believe that too much muscle bulk makes skilful play more and more impossible. Crossing a ball is not hard, because I could do it as a bumbling amateur 35-40 years ago. But there is hardly anyone in the EPL, paid £50-250k a week, who can cross a ball to a) pass the first defender; b) offer a central striker the chance to head for goal; and c) not have the cross bounce the far side of the penalty area, somewhere in the stands etc.
Not certainly in that way. It’s just that the number of brilliants does not increase in proportion to the volume of excavated rock. Magicians like Pele, Maradona, Cruyff, Zidane and, of course, Messi have been and will remain a rarity. And this is good…
Crossing is the biggest victim of the body-building culture of football these days. I genuinely believe that too much muscle bulk makes skilful play more and more impossible. Crossing a ball is not hard, because I could do it as a bumbling amateur 35-40 years ago. But there is hardly anyone in the EPL, paid £50-250k a week, who can cross a ball to a) pass the first defender; b) offer a central striker the chance to head for goal; and c) not have the cross bounce the far side of the penalty area, somewhere in the stands etc.
Not certainly in that way. It’s just that the number of brilliants does not increase in proportion to the volume of excavated rock. Magicians like Pele, Maradona, Cruyff, Zidane and, of course, Messi have been and will remain a rarity. And this is good…
“Mazy dribblers” are almost a thing of the past. Messi still gets away with because of his status in the game, and the rarity of dribbling nowadays means what he does stands out all the more. But what he does was once a common feature of the game. Nowadays, hardly anybody goes on a mazy run and takes on the opposition, man to man, ball at feet. They’d be too afraid of what the coach would say to them after the game, for being so “selfish”. Instead, it’s pass early, retain possession, tika-taka, cross from the wing etc. Of course, it is a team sport, but I remember the glorious selfishness of Best and the magical madness of Maradona, and the conjuring tricks of Zidane and Cruyff, and feel a sense of loss that something anarchic and individualistic has been taken out of the game.
Guardian journalist writing here: “perhaps unreasonable” to expect Pele to speak out against military dictatorship in Brazil.
2022: mandatory for professional footballers to indulge in gesture politics (usually at no cost to themselves). Criticism of anyone not actively supporting the range of “official beliefs” is expected.
Fascinating that people (doubtless most Guardian journalists amongst them) can support both these views at the same time whilst being unaware of any contradictions.
Personally, I don’t buy into the role model stuff or insistence that footballers have any more responsibility than anyone else to take a stand on political issues. That’s a personal choice – as are their own political beliefs.
Absolutely. The idea of footballers as “role models” is just ridiculous. I support a team in League Two of the EFL, and even there, some people regard bang-average journeymen footballers as someone to have their kids look up to. It’s embarrassing.
I would also take issue with the assumption that shooting left-wing students is necessarily a bad thing.
Absolutely. The idea of footballers as “role models” is just ridiculous. I support a team in League Two of the EFL, and even there, some people regard bang-average journeymen footballers as someone to have their kids look up to. It’s embarrassing.
I would also take issue with the assumption that shooting left-wing students is necessarily a bad thing.
Guardian journalist writing here: “perhaps unreasonable” to expect Pele to speak out against military dictatorship in Brazil.
2022: mandatory for professional footballers to indulge in gesture politics (usually at no cost to themselves). Criticism of anyone not actively supporting the range of “official beliefs” is expected.
Fascinating that people (doubtless most Guardian journalists amongst them) can support both these views at the same time whilst being unaware of any contradictions.
Personally, I don’t buy into the role model stuff or insistence that footballers have any more responsibility than anyone else to take a stand on political issues. That’s a personal choice – as are their own political beliefs.
Why is it that when a leftist columnist writes about anything, the first thing mentioned is the politics of the host country, especially negative if it is right wing and a total whitewash if it is from the left. In a bit of psychological dive, I detect the same biases regarding the right wing crass commercialization of sport vs. the beautiful game of the barrio where art and beauty emanate.
Did every successful player in the world overcome immense poverty to reach the heights of skill and wealth that footballers have? Says something about capitalism, doesn’t it?
I’m glad Pele was able to capitalize on his skill, more power to Messi, Ibrahimović, Cristiano, and the rest of the millionaires created in the modern game of Futbol.
But, where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
«Why is it that when a leftist columnist writes about anything, the first thing mentioned is the politics»
Seems I know the answer. It’s because they are politically and sexually obsessed at the same time and put their political views into any sphere just like they put their penises into any hole
Ah, the intellectual heights that you conservatives reach! The beauty of your prose, the elegance of your exposition!
It wasn’t always like this. But sadly it is like this today. Leftists just stopped thinking around 1968 and all they do is regurgitate hate. It’s very sad.
It wasn’t always like this. But sadly it is like this today. Leftists just stopped thinking around 1968 and all they do is regurgitate hate. It’s very sad.
What was the definition of a fanatic? Someone that doesn’t shut up and doesn’t change the subject
Ah, the intellectual heights that you conservatives reach! The beauty of your prose, the elegance of your exposition!
What was the definition of a fanatic? Someone that doesn’t shut up and doesn’t change the subject
Why is it that when a rightist BTL commentator writes about anything, the first thing mentioned is the politics of the author, especially negative if it is left wing and a total whitewash if it is from the right.
There you go, I’ve corrected that for you!
«Why is it that when a leftist columnist writes about anything, the first thing mentioned is the politics»
Seems I know the answer. It’s because they are politically and sexually obsessed at the same time and put their political views into any sphere just like they put their penises into any hole
Why is it that when a rightist BTL commentator writes about anything, the first thing mentioned is the politics of the author, especially negative if it is left wing and a total whitewash if it is from the right.
There you go, I’ve corrected that for you!
Why is it that when a leftist columnist writes about anything, the first thing mentioned is the politics of the host country, especially negative if it is right wing and a total whitewash if it is from the left. In a bit of psychological dive, I detect the same biases regarding the right wing crass commercialization of sport vs. the beautiful game of the barrio where art and beauty emanate.
Did every successful player in the world overcome immense poverty to reach the heights of skill and wealth that footballers have? Says something about capitalism, doesn’t it?
I’m glad Pele was able to capitalize on his skill, more power to Messi, Ibrahimović, Cristiano, and the rest of the millionaires created in the modern game of Futbol.
But, where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
I know not relevant to Pele, but I would argue the beautiful game and “Jogo Bonito” (sure I spelt that wrong, too lazy to check) died not in 1970 but in 1982, with the defeat of that Brazilian midfield.
You get it Samir. The author doesn’t.
I think you should ask yourself why football is only about attacking and not a competition between attack and defence. The Brazil team in 1982 couldn’t defend to save its life against Italy so why should they be handed the world cup just because they were great attackers?
You miss the point. It’s nothing to do with being handed the World Cup. Brazil didn’t change the way that they approached World Cups forever, because of their victory in 1970. They changed it forever, because an equally gifted team lost in 1982. That’s why Samir said it was the end of ‘O Jogo Bonito’. Since 1982, Brazil have gone out to win the tournament and not to play the most beautiful football.
They were close if memory serves me right Italy were benefited by the referee. They did have an horrible goalkeeper
Not so much about the ref really, Rossi getting into form at just the right time, calamitous errors by Junior and Cerezo that led to two Italian goals, a poor centre forward by their standards..and Italy weren’t really a bad team themselves overall.
Still, sometimes you don’t need to be a winner to be remembered. As with Holland 74 and Hungary 54.
If both Brazil and France has gone through to the final in 82, would have been some game. If…
Not so much about the ref really, Rossi getting into form at just the right time, calamitous errors by Junior and Cerezo that led to two Italian goals, a poor centre forward by their standards..and Italy weren’t really a bad team themselves overall.
Still, sometimes you don’t need to be a winner to be remembered. As with Holland 74 and Hungary 54.
If both Brazil and France has gone through to the final in 82, would have been some game. If…
You miss the point. It’s nothing to do with being handed the World Cup. Brazil didn’t change the way that they approached World Cups forever, because of their victory in 1970. They changed it forever, because an equally gifted team lost in 1982. That’s why Samir said it was the end of ‘O Jogo Bonito’. Since 1982, Brazil have gone out to win the tournament and not to play the most beautiful football.
They were close if memory serves me right Italy were benefited by the referee. They did have an horrible goalkeeper
You get it Samir. The author doesn’t.
I think you should ask yourself why football is only about attacking and not a competition between attack and defence. The Brazil team in 1982 couldn’t defend to save its life against Italy so why should they be handed the world cup just because they were great attackers?
I know not relevant to Pele, but I would argue the beautiful game and “Jogo Bonito” (sure I spelt that wrong, too lazy to check) died not in 1970 but in 1982, with the defeat of that Brazilian midfield.
Yet another article that doesn’t deliver what promises in the title. I thought I was going to read about the fundamental way football changed with introduction of “the systems “. How it became more European. How the differences between Latin America and Europe became less sharp. I thought I was going to read about Cruyff and Beckenbauer. I thought I was going to read about how dull 90 and 94 were. I thought I was going to read about the quixotistic pursuits of Tele Santana in 82 and 86 (the best national team I ever saw playing, Brazil with Falcao, Sócrates, Juniors and Zico). But no, all I got was a tirade about how Pelé sold out. What a waste of time.
I agree with you on this – a great man has died, he was a miracle on the pitch, almost like ballet.
When Maradona died last year, there were nothing but accolades about how the kid from the bário became one of the greatest of all time.
But with Pelé – THE greatest of all time, we get this drivel about how he “sold” viagra etc (anyone but me remember Michael Jordan’s underwear advertisements?).
A great man, a hero of Brazil (like Babe Ruth in the US), passes on and we are told how he helped to ruin football – May he rest in peace!
(full disclosure/ I’m a Yank from Chicago who has lived in Brazil for 5 years and become an obsessed “soccer” fan).
Currently there is a disconnect between the Brazilian team and half of the Brazilian public because of many of the footballers’ open support for the racist Bolsonaro. Pele himself gave Bolsonaro a signed shirt.
Your point? Pelé is racist-adjacent because he signed a shirt for the President of Brasil?! The time Brasileiro is to be condemned for political preferences (don’t tell me, you mean that Bolsonaro is “fascist”, racist, running dog capitalist?).
Half the country voted for Bolso and have for Lula – who was put in jail for 12 years (after appeals to the appellate and Supreme Court) but then, after the statute of limitations had run, came up with a new ruling to let him off on a technicality without disputing any facts of his taking “something of value” from the corrupt government he oversaw. In the 90’s, he inaugurated the Sao Paolo Forum with Fidel Castro for Latin American “socialism” , and now he promises to bust the recovering budget with “social Justice” spending!?, and you worry about signing a shirt.
Anyway, as I noted above, a great man has passed away, and his body is not cold in the grave before this article whines about changes to Association Football and Pelés part in it – unlike the praise that Maradona received after he passed last year. Talk about racist!
Right. Just call the guy you don’t support “racist”. That’s what political discourse is nowadays. D*mn lazy, but at least you don’t have to make a cogent argument.
Pele didn’t give a sh..t about politics.
Neymar supported Bolsonaro. Whatever you may think of him, and I think very little of the guy, he left the institutions untouched. We can’t say the same of some of Lula’s pals, namely Kirchner and Chavez. It pisses me off the double standard. Bolsonaro gets more international oprobion that the Venezuelan regime , one third of Venezuelans left the country! Or Cuba, in 2022 2% of Cubans fled the country. Castro was another great friend of Mr Lula that presided over the Mensalão , one of the biggest corruption scandals of the history of the Americas! Maybe there was good reasons to prefer Bolsonaro to Lula.
Is there a disconnect between the other half of the Brazilian public and any footballers who don’t support Bolsonsro?
Maybe the issue isn’t his “racism” but the fact that leftist leaders and voters stopped growing since the mental age of six.
Your point? Pelé is racist-adjacent because he signed a shirt for the President of Brasil?! The time Brasileiro is to be condemned for political preferences (don’t tell me, you mean that Bolsonaro is “fascist”, racist, running dog capitalist?).
Half the country voted for Bolso and have for Lula – who was put in jail for 12 years (after appeals to the appellate and Supreme Court) but then, after the statute of limitations had run, came up with a new ruling to let him off on a technicality without disputing any facts of his taking “something of value” from the corrupt government he oversaw. In the 90’s, he inaugurated the Sao Paolo Forum with Fidel Castro for Latin American “socialism” , and now he promises to bust the recovering budget with “social Justice” spending!?, and you worry about signing a shirt.
Anyway, as I noted above, a great man has passed away, and his body is not cold in the grave before this article whines about changes to Association Football and Pelés part in it – unlike the praise that Maradona received after he passed last year. Talk about racist!
Right. Just call the guy you don’t support “racist”. That’s what political discourse is nowadays. D*mn lazy, but at least you don’t have to make a cogent argument.
Pele didn’t give a sh..t about politics.
Neymar supported Bolsonaro. Whatever you may think of him, and I think very little of the guy, he left the institutions untouched. We can’t say the same of some of Lula’s pals, namely Kirchner and Chavez. It pisses me off the double standard. Bolsonaro gets more international oprobion that the Venezuelan regime , one third of Venezuelans left the country! Or Cuba, in 2022 2% of Cubans fled the country. Castro was another great friend of Mr Lula that presided over the Mensalão , one of the biggest corruption scandals of the history of the Americas! Maybe there was good reasons to prefer Bolsonaro to Lula.
Is there a disconnect between the other half of the Brazilian public and any footballers who don’t support Bolsonsro?
Maybe the issue isn’t his “racism” but the fact that leftist leaders and voters stopped growing since the mental age of six.
Currently there is a disconnect between the Brazilian team and half of the Brazilian public because of many of the footballers’ open support for the racist Bolsonaro. Pele himself gave Bolsonaro a signed shirt.
What a strange comment. Pele’s commercial activities are mentioned almost in passing as part of the change to football’s corporate world – hardly a ‘tirade’. You might have thought that it was going to be an article about how the game as played has changed, but it isn’t, so why whinge!
The title is “football died after Pelé”. I do think I was right in assuming it was about football or at the very least I expected a bit more about the scoundrels that took FIFA’s helm.
The title is “football died after Pelé”. I do think I was right in assuming it was about football or at the very least I expected a bit more about the scoundrels that took FIFA’s helm.
Absolutely agree..
That 82 team was sensational. But I think you can mount an argument that the 74 Dutch side, with Cruyff, Neeskens, Van Hanegam, Rensenbrink, Kiezer et al were equally good – perhaps in a more structured ”alternative” fashion. That they didn’t win in either 74 or 78 (even without Cruyff) remains a mystery to me
I agree with you on this – a great man has died, he was a miracle on the pitch, almost like ballet.
When Maradona died last year, there were nothing but accolades about how the kid from the bário became one of the greatest of all time.
But with Pelé – THE greatest of all time, we get this drivel about how he “sold” viagra etc (anyone but me remember Michael Jordan’s underwear advertisements?).
A great man, a hero of Brazil (like Babe Ruth in the US), passes on and we are told how he helped to ruin football – May he rest in peace!
(full disclosure/ I’m a Yank from Chicago who has lived in Brazil for 5 years and become an obsessed “soccer” fan).
What a strange comment. Pele’s commercial activities are mentioned almost in passing as part of the change to football’s corporate world – hardly a ‘tirade’. You might have thought that it was going to be an article about how the game as played has changed, but it isn’t, so why whinge!
Absolutely agree..
That 82 team was sensational. But I think you can mount an argument that the 74 Dutch side, with Cruyff, Neeskens, Van Hanegam, Rensenbrink, Kiezer et al were equally good – perhaps in a more structured ”alternative” fashion. That they didn’t win in either 74 or 78 (even without Cruyff) remains a mystery to me
Yet another article that doesn’t deliver what promises in the title. I thought I was going to read about the fundamental way football changed with introduction of “the systems “. How it became more European. How the differences between Latin America and Europe became less sharp. I thought I was going to read about Cruyff and Beckenbauer. I thought I was going to read about how dull 90 and 94 were. I thought I was going to read about the quixotistic pursuits of Tele Santana in 82 and 86 (the best national team I ever saw playing, Brazil with Falcao, Sócrates, Juniors and Zico). But no, all I got was a tirade about how Pelé sold out. What a waste of time.
I notice no women have so far commented on this article, which goes some way to support my view that if truth be known few women give a toss about football and probably most team sports (any more than I do) ! They have more sense.
That makes it even more ludicrous and incongruous that the BBC take pains to have several female commentators for football and darts. Credit where it is due though, the women commentators put on a tremendous show of being interested in the proceedings!
I notice no women have so far commented on this article, which goes some way to support my view that if truth be known few women give a toss about football and probably most team sports (any more than I do) ! They have more sense.
That makes it even more ludicrous and incongruous that the BBC take pains to have several female commentators for football and darts. Credit where it is due though, the women commentators put on a tremendous show of being interested in the proceedings!
As an American, I have never really been into the sport. That being said, this was beautifully written.
Americans tend to feel they’re not getting their money’s worth unless there are lots and lots of scores. The thing about soccer is that you can have an absorbing 0-0 finish, and an exasperating 4-3 finish marred by errors.
The rest of the world has an instinctive feel for football, since we’ve all tried it – in the backyard, in the schoolyard, in the park etc.
And, having tried the skills yourself, it gives you an appreciation for 2 things – how simple a game soccer is (“jumpers for goalposts”, almost no kit needed), and how difficult it is to play well.
Without that practical immersion, you may never develop a love for the game.
Many years ago, I was at a corporate event, held in the Dallas Cowboy’s stadium. Tremendous stadium, retractable roof, air-conditioned etc. Obviously, those Y-shaped American football posts. 2 rock bands, lashings of free beer, burgers, and, best of all, a couple of thousand American footballs lying about, so that, instead of being shrived by PowerPoint, we all charged around and had football kicking competitions.
I was middle-aged, and only average at free kicks. But we were gods compared to the American guys. All the non-American blokes (Paddies, Brits, S Americans etc) could kick the ball over the bar from a reasonable distance. Not a single American there could kick snow off a rope. It was genuinely startling. The first American kicker in our informal group, a big fit young lad placed the ball, stepped a few paces back, ran up, swung his foot, and completely missed the ball, before almost falling on his arse! Many more sliced the ball completely sideways.
Initially, I thought they must surely be taking the p, or be drunk, for I had never seen such a woeful exhibition of kicking in all my life. It was pinch-yourself-in-disbelief bad. But on talking to them, I realised they were not drunk at all, and they weren’t messing about. They were trying their best. They just literally had never kicked a ball in their lives before.
People from the rest of the world play soccer, rugby, Aussie rules, Gaelic football etc, and all of these sports required you to be able to kick a ball. American football just has one guy dedicated to kicking, and the rest of them, professional “footballers” need never kick a ball in their lives.
Of course, by now bursting with smugness at being so easily able to school our US friends in the art of place kicking, later in the evening, the tables were turned on us when the competition turned to throwing the ball. We could fling the ball to an average level, not too long and not too accurately, but lots of the US guys could launch it like a rocket, high, dead straight, with pin-point accuracy, and for twice or three times the distance we could. Throwing a ball is part of US culture, and their facility with that skill was obvious – they were as excellent at throwing as they had been dire at kicking.
As things stand though, lack of widespread cultural familiarity with soccer means that, despite recent relatively good showings by the US women and men, soccer still looks set to be a minority sport in the US.
That’s why it’s so sick that the USA is trying to enforce cultural mores of the USA onto the global game. They seriously want quarters, not halves; they never stop calling squads ‘rosters’; they never stop calling dressing rooms ‘locker rooms’; they think they should own the top European clubs and try and force a closed-shop Superleague on the world.
They really do need to learn that they are 5% of the world’s population and a pretty barbarous 5% at that.
A Cuban immigrant to the USA explained to me that Americans can’t understand admiring a passage of play if it didn’t result in a goal. They expect a reward for each piece of good play. That’s why basketball is so popular.
That’s why it’s so sick that the USA is trying to enforce cultural mores of the USA onto the global game. They seriously want quarters, not halves; they never stop calling squads ‘rosters’; they never stop calling dressing rooms ‘locker rooms’; they think they should own the top European clubs and try and force a closed-shop Superleague on the world.
They really do need to learn that they are 5% of the world’s population and a pretty barbarous 5% at that.
A Cuban immigrant to the USA explained to me that Americans can’t understand admiring a passage of play if it didn’t result in a goal. They expect a reward for each piece of good play. That’s why basketball is so popular.
Americans tend to feel they’re not getting their money’s worth unless there are lots and lots of scores. The thing about soccer is that you can have an absorbing 0-0 finish, and an exasperating 4-3 finish marred by errors.
The rest of the world has an instinctive feel for football, since we’ve all tried it – in the backyard, in the schoolyard, in the park etc.
And, having tried the skills yourself, it gives you an appreciation for 2 things – how simple a game soccer is (“jumpers for goalposts”, almost no kit needed), and how difficult it is to play well.
Without that practical immersion, you may never develop a love for the game.
Many years ago, I was at a corporate event, held in the Dallas Cowboy’s stadium. Tremendous stadium, retractable roof, air-conditioned etc. Obviously, those Y-shaped American football posts. 2 rock bands, lashings of free beer, burgers, and, best of all, a couple of thousand American footballs lying about, so that, instead of being shrived by PowerPoint, we all charged around and had football kicking competitions.
I was middle-aged, and only average at free kicks. But we were gods compared to the American guys. All the non-American blokes (Paddies, Brits, S Americans etc) could kick the ball over the bar from a reasonable distance. Not a single American there could kick snow off a rope. It was genuinely startling. The first American kicker in our informal group, a big fit young lad placed the ball, stepped a few paces back, ran up, swung his foot, and completely missed the ball, before almost falling on his arse! Many more sliced the ball completely sideways.
Initially, I thought they must surely be taking the p, or be drunk, for I had never seen such a woeful exhibition of kicking in all my life. It was pinch-yourself-in-disbelief bad. But on talking to them, I realised they were not drunk at all, and they weren’t messing about. They were trying their best. They just literally had never kicked a ball in their lives before.
People from the rest of the world play soccer, rugby, Aussie rules, Gaelic football etc, and all of these sports required you to be able to kick a ball. American football just has one guy dedicated to kicking, and the rest of them, professional “footballers” need never kick a ball in their lives.
Of course, by now bursting with smugness at being so easily able to school our US friends in the art of place kicking, later in the evening, the tables were turned on us when the competition turned to throwing the ball. We could fling the ball to an average level, not too long and not too accurately, but lots of the US guys could launch it like a rocket, high, dead straight, with pin-point accuracy, and for twice or three times the distance we could. Throwing a ball is part of US culture, and their facility with that skill was obvious – they were as excellent at throwing as they had been dire at kicking.
As things stand though, lack of widespread cultural familiarity with soccer means that, despite recent relatively good showings by the US women and men, soccer still looks set to be a minority sport in the US.
As an American, I have never really been into the sport. That being said, this was beautifully written.
An interesting article but a very stupid title. Football didn’t die after Pele, it just changed. Despite the corruption at FIFA and the state takeover of top European teams, the game as a spectacle at the top level is as good if not better than it was back in 1970.
However the World Cup is no longer the top level as regards quality, that accolade passed to the Champions League a few years ago. The group stages of that competition can be a drag, but once it gets to the knock-out matches, then that is the time to watch the best football in the world today.
An interesting article but a very stupid title. Football didn’t die after Pele, it just changed. Despite the corruption at FIFA and the state takeover of top European teams, the game as a spectacle at the top level is as good if not better than it was back in 1970.
However the World Cup is no longer the top level as regards quality, that accolade passed to the Champions League a few years ago. The group stages of that competition can be a drag, but once it gets to the knock-out matches, then that is the time to watch the best football in the world today.
In short, the grass was greener and the girls were sweeter
Written by a guy that was too young to have witnessed any of that.
Bro, I’m 69 and I’ve seen Pele and Maradona play, but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying Messi’s playing
By the way, Messi is the best dribbler I have ever seen.
Bro, I’m 69 and I’ve seen Pele and Maradona play, but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying Messi’s playing
By the way, Messi is the best dribbler I have ever seen.
Written by a guy that was too young to have witnessed any of that.
In short, the grass was greener and the girls were sweeter
Saldanha, the Brazilian coach for the 1970 World Cup, was crazy and was very likely not sacked because of his left wing politics. These are pure speculations by the author… The truth is, that he didn’t want Pele to play. Pele never cared about politics, but only about the “beautiful game”. Saldanha lied and claimed, Pele was nearly blind and therefore unable to play. This was a huge shock for Pele, as he was desperate to challenge himself at this time in his career, it was all personal for him this time (according to his interview) and not about his beloved Brasil.
Saldanha, the Brazilian coach for the 1970 World Cup, was crazy and was very likely not sacked because of his left wing politics. These are pure speculations by the author… The truth is, that he didn’t want Pele to play. Pele never cared about politics, but only about the “beautiful game”. Saldanha lied and claimed, Pele was nearly blind and therefore unable to play. This was a huge shock for Pele, as he was desperate to challenge himself at this time in his career, it was all personal for him this time (according to his interview) and not about his beloved Brasil.
Hey was not George Best the best ?
No. Next question.
You do have to show up every once in a while a actually play a couple of games. Maybe if he had played for England instead of NI…but he was a drunk, even at that time it was unsustainable.
No. Next question.
You do have to show up every once in a while a actually play a couple of games. Maybe if he had played for England instead of NI…but he was a drunk, even at that time it was unsustainable.
Hey was not George Best the best ?