2012 Olympics (spoilers for tape-delayed events)

[JewelSong]

Well, yov...you either get British humor or you don't.

[Elentári]

I do agree that the "NHS" segment didn't come across particularly well. I think that the link between Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital and children's literature (J M Barrie giving the rights to Peter Pan to the hospital in 1929) could perhaps have been made clearer to a worldwide audience, and used a few more recognizable literary characters, but it was clever, off-beat and fun!

[JewelSong]

it was clever, off-beat and fun!

The entire thing was! The was a wonderful article in the NYTimes about it today. (I think you have to subscribe to read it, so I copied and pasted the whole article.)

A Five-Ring Opening Circus, Weirdly and Unabashedly British
By SARAH LYALL

LONDON — With its hilariously quirky Olympic opening ceremony, a wild jumble of the celebratory and the fanciful; the conventional and the eccentric; and the frankly off-the-wall, Britain presented itself to the world Friday night as something it has often struggled to express even to itself: a nation secure in its own post-empire identity, whatever that actually is.

The noisy, busy, witty, dizzying production somehow managed to feature a flock of sheep (plus a busy sheepdog), the Sex Pistols, Lord Voldemort, the engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel, a suggestion that the Olympic rings were forged by British foundries during the Industrial Revolution, the seminal Partridge Family reference from “Four Weddings and a Funeral,” a group of people dressed like so many members of Sgt. Pepper’s band, some rustic hovels tended by rustic peasants, “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” and, in a paean to the National Health Service, a zany bunch of dancing nurses and bouncing sick children on huge hospital beds.

It was neither a nostalgic sweep through the past nor a bold vision of a brave new future. Rather, it was a sometimes slightly insane portrait of a country that has changed almost beyond measure since the last time it hosted the Games, in the grim postwar summer of 1948.

Britain was so poor then that it housed its athletes in old army barracks, made them bring their own towels and erected no buildings for the Games. The Olympics cost less than £750,000, turned a small profit and made the nation proud that it had managed to rise to the occasion in the face of such adversity.

There was that same sense of relief intermingled with self-satisfaction this time. But such was the grandeur of 2012, even in these tough economic times, that 80,000 people sat comfortably in a new Olympic Stadium, having traveled by sleek new bullet trains and special V.I.P. road lanes to a new park that has completely transformed once-derelict east London.

A little rain fell, but it hardly mattered. Queen Elizabeth II was there, after co-starring with a tuxedoed Daniel Craig, also known as James Bond, in a witty video in which she appears to parachute from a helicopter (in fact, she entered the park the usual way). Looking mystified at times — the ceremony was pitched to a generation different from hers — she presided over a bevy of lesser royals and Prime Minister David Cameron.

The first lady, Michelle Obama, was in the audience to cheer on the United States athletes, who, it must be said, did a lot of cheering for themselves anyway during the athletes’ procession. And Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, was there, too, although he was practically Public Enemy No. 1 around here after he appeared to question the British capacity for enthusiasm, something only Britons are allowed to do.

One of the biggest secrets of the night — who would light the Olympic caldron — was revealed at the end of the 3-hour-45-minute show, when seven teenage athletes took over from the British rower Steve Redgrave, who carried the torch into the stadium. The ceremony, conceived and directed by the filmmaker Danny Boyle, was two years in the making. As is the case almost every Olympics, much of the speculation around it centered on how Britain could possibly surpass the previous summer host, China. In 2008, Beijing used its awe-inspiring opening extravaganza to proclaim in no uncertain terms that it was here, it was rich, and the world better get used to it.

But outdoing anyone else, particularly the new superpower China, was not the point for a country that can never hope to re-create the glory days of its empire. Mr. Cameron, the prime minister, said this week that London’s are “not a state-run Games — it is a people-run Games,” and Boris Johnson, the London mayor, noted sharply that Britain was not planning to “spend our defense budget” on “pyrotechnics” but would take pride in being “understated but confident.”

That the Olympics come at a time of deep economic malaise, with Britain teetering on the edge of a double-dip recession, the government cutting billions of dollars from public spending, and Europe lurching from crisis to crisis, made the scene a bit surreal, even defiant in the face of so much adversity.

The crowd in the stadium sat in a bubble of excitement. In the wider park, volunteers have been behaving with an enthusiasm that seems bewilderingly un-British. But out in the rest of the country, critics have been questioning the expense, the ubiquitously heavy-handed security apparatus, and the rampant commercialism of the Games.

In The Guardian, the columnist Marina Hyde said government officials appeared to be rashly depending on the Olympics, which cost an estimated £9.3 billion (or $14.6 billion), to save the country’s struggling economy virtually single-handedly.

Referring to a British track-and-field star, Ms. Hyde wrote that according to the government’s thinking, “Jessica Ennis winning gold is no longer merely a sporting aspiration but something that would cause a massive and immediate recalibration of the balance of payments.”

The final cost, or benefit, of the Games will never really be known. But for now, the fact that things went smoothly on Friday was in itself a minor cause for celebration.

Mr. Boyle said he did not want to seem extravagant, particularly in a time of economic trouble, as he was given the daunting task of trying to find a way for Britain to account for itself in this difficult moment in its long history. The country has always eagerly celebrated its past: its military victories, its kings and queens, its glorious cultural and intellectual achievements. But it has a harder time celebrating its present.

A quixotic exercise in self-branding, during which the then-Labour government thought to unite the country by coming up with what it called a British “statement of values,” devolved into near-farce a few years ago when the public greeted it with ridicule rather than enthusiasm. The Times of London mischievously sponsored a motto-writing contest; the winner was “No Motto Please, We’re British.”

The ceremony seemed to reflect that view, too, suggesting that the thing that is most British about the British is their anarchic spirit and their ability to laugh at themselves. It is hard to imagine, for instance, the Chinese including, as the British did, a clip of the comic actor Rowan Atkinson inserted into the opening scene from “Chariots of Fire,” shoving the other runners out of the way (and ending with a rude noise paying tribute to British lavatorial humor).

The ceremony, too, reflected the deeply left-leaning sensibilities of Mr. Boyle. It pointedly included trade union members among a parade of people celebrating political agitators from the past, a parade that also included suffragists, Afro-Caribbean immigrants who fought for minority rights, and the Jarrow hunger marchers, who protested against unemployment in 1936.

It would not be lost on Mr. Boyle that unions have suffered in Britain in recent years, particularly at the hands of the Conservative Party, led by Mr. Cameron. But he devised the ceremony, he said, with no political interference.

That proved highly irritating to at least one politician, Aiden Burley, a Conservative member of Parliament, who denounced on Twitter what he referred to as the ceremony’s “leftie multicultural” content.

“The most leftie opening ceremony I have ever seen — more than Beijing, the capital of a communist state!” he posted grumpily.

Who knows how the country will feel when the Olympics are over? But when the British athletes entered the stadium at the end of the procession of countries, they did so to a recording of David Bowie, a quintessential British oddity and supreme self-reinventor. “We can be heroes,” the song goes, “just for one day.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/sport ... ntity.html

[nerdanel]

Over the past few hours, I've been trying to think how to react to what just happened in the men's 400 IM. (What follows is a mildly anti-Phelpsian rant, stream-of-consciousness.)

I respect Michael Phelps (who doesn't?), but I'm not really a fan of his, for a number of reasons. In any event, I was ambivalent about his deciding to stick it out for one more Olympics after Beijing. There was never any way he was going to be able to top the incredible combination of years of nonstop (literally!) hard work, talent, and heartstopping luck that aligned perfectly in 2008. His London showing was always going to be subpar by comparison. If he had it in him to hone in on a few events, set even more stellar goals, and hunker down and work on those goals for four years, that'd have been one thing. But he quite understandably did not. (The same thing happened to 2008 gymnastics gold medalists Nastia Liukin and Shawn Johnson, who took too long off, timed their comebacks poorly, and were left off the Olympic team.) So he fooled around for a couple of years after Beijing, then freaked out when Ryan Lochte consistently trounced him at Worlds, including last year.

After all of the irritating rhetoric about Phelps being "unbeatable," I actually am pleased to see that proven wrong (and relieved that this was accomplished without the US losing the gold medal, thanks to Lochte.) We Americans are sometimes accused of too much focus on individual hard work and dedication leading to individual returns, but this is exactly that tale. When Phelps trained like a machine, seven days a week, never taking the day off per week that is common among elite swimmers, he was temporarily "unbeatable." But he does not have some innate talent that prescribes first place results for him on which he can cruise without working. (Nor does swimming come down to having the "right," amazingly tall body; the bronze medalist in the 400 IM who finished ahead of Phelps was Kosuke Hagino, a Japanese man who stands 5'9 to Phelps' 6'4.) While Phelps was out playing, the three people who stood on the 400 IM medal podium were in the pool, working. And if the pool is not where he wanted to spend another four year chunk of time (again, understandably), it beats me why he didn't just retire cleanly after turning in the most amazing, golden Olympic performance of all time, in any event, period.

Phelps' teammate, Tyler Clary, got into media trouble earlier in the month for saying of the year he trained with Phelps at Michigan:

“I saw a real lack of preparation. Basically, he was a swimmer that didn’t want to be there. They can talk about all of these goals and plans and preparation they have. I saw it. I know. It’s different. And I saw somebody that has basically been asking to get beat for the longest time.”

I thought it was unfortunate that Clary got eaten alive by the media for giving his honest (and as it turns out, substantiated) opinion. (Of course, Clary had a certain bias on the question: he gave that infamous quote after he lost to Lochte and Phelps in the 400 IM at Trials. He had trained for years, planning to make the team in that event (and probably having relied on Phelps' statement that he'd never race it again after Beijing.) When Phelps changed his mind and entered the event at the Olympic Trials, Clary finished third, just off the team in that event. He subsequently qualified in two other individual events.)

[vison]

He might have been beaten anyway, no matter how hard he trained. He's older. Time passes. Things change.

[halplm]

The more I've thought about it, the more I think he knew he wasn't going to beat Lochte, and was just going into the race with the idea that his raw talent would win him a medal. And to be fair, he got 4th, so he's still pretty unbelievable in what is a crazy race.

I was glad Lochte ran away with the race. He deserves it. I hope he gets the credit, and the media doesn't ignore him to endlessly talk about Phelps's lack of a medal. Unfortunately that's unlikely. Maybe when Phelps wins a race they'll forget about this one. I think he's still going to dominate his 200 fly race.

But enough about swimming...

My favorite moments of the day were in the Men's Team Archery competition. It started with the US team having to come from behind to win their quarter-final match... just to face South Korea, the undisputed best team in the world, and 3 time defending gold medalists.

In a ver close match that no one seemed to gain a real lead, the US still had to come from behind with only 6 arrows left, and they pulled it off to make the Gold medal match in what is clearly an upset.

But that wasn't the end of the story. Italy, who had been defeated by South Korea in the Gold Medal match in 2008, and had two members of that team back here, had a longer road to get to the Gold medal match.

The Italian team seemed to have the upper hand most of the match with the US, but the US team pulled things together towards then end, and put the pressure on the Italian team in their final 3 arrows...

Is there anything more olympic than coming down to the last arrow in a team competition and needing a bullseye for the Gold medal? He got it, even it it was right on the line .

High drama for archery, and thoroughly enjoyable.

[River]

I noticed that while their men were playing Robin Hood the Italian women took home a gold, silver, and bronze today in fencing. I will now make a point of not offending Italians. I used to think I'd just get screamed at, but today I learned that the men will fill you with arrows and the women will poke you full of holes.

[Primula Baggins]

I added a note about spoilers to the thread title—people not watching through a BBC stream, for example, would not yet know about the swimming results because NBC is holding them for the prime time broadcast, which has just started here on the U.S. West Coast.

I think it makes sense to just warn rather than delaying discussion or making people use spoiler tags for just a matter of a few hours, less than a day. But I welcome discussion if people disagree.

[River]

So, um, the results get posted in real time on sites like Yahoo and CNN...is anyone really working that hard to avoid knowing anything about the outcomes?

[nerdanel]

So, um, the results get posted in real time on sites like Yahoo and CNN...is anyone really working that hard to avoid knowing anything about the outcomes?

Agreed. It's impossible to keep from being "spoiled" if you don't watch until the tape-delayed version airs. I still haven't seen the 400 IM, for instance, or any of the other Day 1 swimming finals, because I had a commitment when it aired live (you can watch the NBC feed live, too, btw), and NBC has pigheadedly decided not to make the replay video available online until it airs. This is ridiculous behavior on NBC's part, especially since it touted that we'd all be able to watch online with confirmation of a cable subscription.
Can anyone tell me where I can watch this footage?

Anyway, while I've been patiently (make that angrily) waiting for the footage to show up, I more or less inadvertently stumbled into articles discussing all of the results that I cared about. It's impossible to avoid.

[River]

On another note, WTF did Lochte do to his teeth? He's got some sort of shiny crap all over them. Is he wearing braces or something?

[Primula Baggins]

It's easy to avoid results if you don't look at headline pages or sports pages online, or read Twitter. I know a lot of people who do this. I don't, because, for example, although I was "spoiled" for the Phelps results, there were a number of other exciting moments aired tonight that I knew nothing about. I don't have time right now to follow the Games that closely.

[Elentári]

Can anyone tell me where I can watch this footage?

It's currently still available on the BBC Olympics website (full race via the link to BBC Sport's Interactive Video Player.)

[halplm]

I don't know if any of you guys watch it, but is there anything crazier than Sabre Fencing?

[yovargas]

[halplm]

Where is nel? Women's gymnastics HUGE upset.

[JewelSong]

Just coming in here to say that I finally was able to watch the opening ceremony in its entirety via a download from bit-torrent. The BBC broadcast.

I thought it was fantastic. BBC did a great job of allowing you to feel like you were there, with sparse commentary and excellent camera and sound. Like the performance it was.

If you watched the NBC version, you didn't see the opening ceremony.

[Elentári]

If you watched the NBC version, you didn't see the opening ceremony.

If you watched the NBC version you also didn't see the tribute to the July 7th London bombings...

Akram Khan upset over NBC Olympic ceremony snub


Glad you enjoyed the BBC coverage, though, Jewel, and thanks for the NY Times article you posted earlier

[nerdanel]

On another note, WTF did Lochte do to his teeth? He's got some sort of shiny crap all over them. Is he wearing braces or something?

He wears what's apparently called a "diamond grill" on his teeth: http://larrybrownsports.com/olympics/ry ... oto/148345

I think it's incredibly tacky. FWIW, I'm not a fan of Lochte's either (same caveat: respect his hard work too, of course. And will be happy to see him trounce Phelps again in the 200 IM later in the week, because while I like neither of them all that much, Lochte is the one who has put in the work that the results should reward.)

To respond to vison's comments from yesterday, Phelps's lack of success has nothing to do with his slightly older body. For one thing, Lochte - who beat him solidly, by several seconds - is also 27 years old (and two inches shorter than Phelps, at 6'2.) For another, there have been too many elite swimmers who medal at the games well into their 30s. I think it's fairly solidly established at this point that 27 is not an excuse. See, e.g., Jason Lezak who in 2008, at 32, swam the gold medal-winning leg of the 4x100m men's freestyle relay in the fastest recorded split in history (well faster than any other time that he had personally swum when younger). Because Lezak's split was necessary to secure Phelps's eighth gold medal, that's one of the things that I was referring to re: Phelps's incredible 2008 luck.

[Primula Baggins]

The July 7th tribute section is available online, though the link I used has scrolled off my Twitter feed. I thought it was powerful—dancers moving to a heartbeat while a woman sang "Abide with Me." And it was visually as gorgeous as all the rest.

But it was a definite quiet spot in the ceremony, and I can see NBC thinking people in this country would be tuning away minute by minute. So we got a lame, shallow interview with Michael Phelps.