The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion
The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion |
| Posted: 25 Jan 2013 04:46 PM PST JAN 26 – Just how good is Andy Murray? It's a question that has long been debated, without a firm conclusion being reached. For a few years, it appeared that the Scotsman might have been destined to follow the same path as Tim Henman: clearly by far the best British tennis player, but not quite good enough to be classed amongst the world's elite. Murray's task in breaking into that elusive world class bracket was made much more difficult by the unfortunate presence of three of the greatest players the game has ever seen: Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic. Although Murray has always been good – very good indeed – he always fell short at the final hurdle, unable to haul himself up to match the astonishing standards set by the Holy Trinity in the tournaments that mattered the most. After all, Murray won his first tournament on the senior tour way back in 2006 – so he has been around for a long time. He then reached his first Grand Slam final in 2008, losing to Federer in three sets in the US Open. Further final disappointments followed in 2010, 2011 and 2012, and none of those matches were even close. When it came to the crunch, Murray was nowhere near the level of the three giants above him. With Djokovic hitting new heights and Federer enjoying a glorious resurgence, many people were wondering whether Murray would forever be forced to endure a frustrating career as the nearly man, the best player never to win a Grand Slam. But in the last six months, Murray has turned that perception on his head and demonstrated that he will be capable of going toe to toe with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic for many years to come. Forget the Holy Trinity – soon we might have to start talking about the Fab Four. Murray finally ended his long wait for a major in September by claiming the last Grand Slam of 2012, the US Open, defeating Djokovic in a five-set thriller. That was just after he'd won Olympic gold – not a Grand Slam, but a tournament of almost equal stature nevertheless. And in the last couple of weeks he's been at it again, charging his way to the semi-final of the Australian Open without breaking sweat. Throughout those early rounds, he looked a class apart from his opposition – none of whom were slouches – as he raced through game after game, match after match without dropping a single set along the way. Yesterday presented an entirely different challenge as Murray took on Federer for a place in the final. A year ago, it would have been the end of the line for Murray. As TV commentator Frew McMillan put it during yesterday's match: "Federer used to bully Murray in these Grand Slam tournaments." Not anymore. In fact, during the first set the roles had been reversed and Murray was doing the bullying, exerting relentless pressure on the Swiss legend's serve and refusing to give away any easy points. Murray ended up winning the first set 6-4, but in reality it was nowhere near as close as that. Federer raised his game in the second set to take it on a tiebreak. That would have killed Murray in the past, but he's made of tougher stuff now. Both players were performing at, or near, their peak, but Murray was ultimately good enough to prevail after five sets. It was a mammoth effort between two equals and, whatever happens in Sunday's final against Djokovic, it's pretty clear that Murray is now right up there with the best. So what has happened in the last year? What has allowed Murray to join the elite, rather than forever be stationed just below them? I believe it's all mental. He has always had the full range of shots and he's always possessed astonishing athleticism, allowing himself to retrieve even the most hopeless of lost causes. But now Murray has added a mental maturity and durability to his game that has allowed him to regard Federer as an equal rather than an unconquerable giant. In the past, when things went wrong on the court – as they're bound to during any tough match – it affected him. His shoulders would droop and he'd start muttering darkly to himself, throwing his racquet around and generally wearing the demeanour of a man who thought the whole world was against him. That kind of attitude usually becomes self-fulfilling: if you think circumstances are conspiring against you, they will; if you think the other guy's getting all the luck, he will. Focussing on the things you can't control is a sure way of losing your rhythm, getting yourself out of 'the zone' that sportsmen seek to find. A lack of mental toughness, mental consistency, was always Murray's chief defect. Remember, though, that he was a young man – only 21 years old when he reached his first Grand Slam final. A little youthful petulance can be perfectly excused, but now the on-court tantrums have become pleasingly rare and a new-found genuine inner belief is palpable. Some of the credit must go to Murray's new coach, Ivan Lendl, whose time at the Scotsman's side has coincided almost exactly with the improvement to his game. But more than Lendl's influence, the chief cause for Murray's ascent is probably nothing more complicated than the simple natural process of maturing. Murray has grown from a boy into a man, and he's now dining at the game's top table. He should stay there for many years to come. * This is the personal opinion of the columnist. |
| Posted: 25 Jan 2013 02:32 PM PST Jan 26 – Obviously I'm not a Hollywood director nor am I someone who's "made it" in Hollywood, so you can take everything I'm about to write here with a pinch of salt. But, being a movie geek as big as I am, I'd like to think that I'm observant and alert enough to notice a few patterns or two on how things work over there. And since I'm one of those people who are completely enamored with the "auteur theory" (in short, we put the highest value in the director, for he is the one whose vision we finally see on screen), I've always paid attention to directors more than actors or producers. With the regrettable exception of quite a majority of the film directors in Malaysia, most directors in other parts of the world will usually turn out to be people who care for the craft and art of making films, even successful Hollywood directors. Most of them will have watched (and loved) more than just Hollywood movies, and know quite a bit about film history. So even if their films turn out to be no different from the works of Hollywood hacks, it's more as a result of having not quite enough talent rather than a lack of passion for cinema. There are many paths to take if you're a film director (aside from raking in the big bucks making dumbed-down films for the local market, that is), from consistently churning out B-movies to establishing yourself in the arthouse filmmaking scene (especially in Europe) and making a living out of it from the countless funds and co-production opportunities available there right to the very top of big time Hollywood filmmaking. As much as any film snob would turn their noses at the supposed corruption of the art of film in Hollywood, I don't think many would resist the town's charms should money be made available by the Hollywood money men for them to make a film. Deep down, everyone would love to make a film in Hollywood, I'm pretty sure of that. The only important question is whether the film will be any good and whether their artistic vision will not be corrupted. Going to movie screenings at the local cinemas, as per my usual routine, I began to notice an interesting pattern emerging with the release or upcoming release of 3 films this and next month – of non-American directors (two of them from Korea) making their Hollywood debuts, and having already seen two of these and very much sure of the unmistakable talent of the third director whose film is yet to be released, and making films that stay true to their artistic vision and are not crap. Their names – Kim Jee-Woon ("I Saw The Devil", "The Good The Bad The Weird", and recently released "The Last Stand" starring Arnold Schwarzenegger), Tommy Wirkola (who made the Nazi zombie movie "Dead Snow", and who just released "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters") and Park Chan-Wook ( "Old Boy" and the whole "Vengeance" trilogy, and who's coming out with "Stoker" starring Nicole Kidman in February). Critically acclaimed Asian directors have tried making their Hollywood debuts before, but I think it's safe to say that most of them failed miserably, both in terms of quality and box-office. Palme D'Or winner Chen Kaige ("Farewell My Concubine") ended up making the terrible erotic thriller "Killing Me Softly" as his Hollywood debut. Even a respected action director like John Woo only got it right on his second try with Broken Arrow, having made the hilariously bad "Hard Target", starring Jean Claude Van Damme. Andrew Lau, having gained fame with "Infernal Affairs", ended up making the so-so "The Flock". And the list goes on. There's something about the committee filmmaking approach in Hollywood that often doesn't sit well with directors with strong vision, especially when English is not that director's first language. But as I'm sure I've mentioned before in one of my columns, there are many way for you to get yourself noticed internationally. Winning awards at international film festivals will of course get you noticed, but even festival favourites like Theo Angelopoulos and Raul Ruiz didn't manage to do so well with their American debuts. Another way to get noticed is to make genre films, just like Kim, Wirkola and Park did. Of these 3, only Park could be considered a festival favourite, and even then Old Boy, the film that made his name was an astonishingly well made revenge movie and not your typical festival film. The reason why genre films can get you noticed by the Hollywood money men is simply because there's a proven market for genre films. Horror, spaghetti westerns, revenge movies and the lot, all of them have a proven cult audience. And when there's a proven market, the financial risks will seem lower, and more people will be brave enough to take a chance on you. Kim was handpicked by Schwarzenegger to direct the movie because of the films he's directed and Wirkola surely got Will Ferrell and Adam McKay excited to executive produce his movie because of his zombie comedy "Dead Snow" (as one-note as it was, it still got tongues wagging in fanboy circles). And I'm sure Timo Vuorensola, director of the quite lame (but cool in concept) "Iron Sky" is fielding offers from Hollywood now. I've been harping on the lack of Malaysian genre movies before so again, I implore all you Malaysian filmmakers out there – please make a cool Malaysian genre movie, send it to Fantastic Fest or Toronto International Film Festival's "Midnight Madness" section, and see interest in it build up. Who knows, you might even get to make the next Schwarzenegger movie because of it! * This is the personal opinion of the columnist. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan