Field Theory by Hadyn Green

I like a good sports film. And while I can hear your eyeballs rolling there have been some great ones over the years. It's a fairly simple equation and a very easy genre to set up a protagonist with a hurdle to overcome.

The classics like The Bad News Bears, Paper Lion, Bull Durham, Rudy, The Karate Kid, Remember the Titans, have that wonderful narrative of the loser made good or a sense of the theatrical wonder of a live sporting event or the interaction between the athlete and the sport.

But generally the protagonist (the team) has to overcome the hurdle (winning games) despite their flaw (not being very good, being a very heterogeneous group, external issues such as money) to beat the antagonist (the best and most arrogant team in the league).

It's a formula that has worked in thousands of sports films. And with it, sports films can be used to address a number of social issues.

In this fashion racial harmony (or rather the lack thereof) is a fairly obvious topic for a sports film to use. Remember the Titans did a rather good job with the true story of a local town dealing with integration in American high schools in the 1960s. But it works because, like many sports films, what makes the team members different is the hurdle for the team to overcome to defeat the antagonist (the best team in the league, and the league itself, who were all whites). In Invictus the conflict between blacks and whites is the antagonist. And that's where the problem starts.

Just like a war on Terror, a rugby game against Racial Tension doesn't really work. For a start I doubt Racial Tension would be able to decide on a uniform colour.

So we get to the final match and the big bad All Blacks are finally seen. This is what stands between South Africa and their realised dream of a rainbow nation: a team of racially diverse players who are renowned as one of the greatest teams of all time. So how do you make them the bad guys? Apparently you don't. In fact you don't even mention them until very late in the film and then you just set them up as unbeatable unless you, I dunno, do "something" to Jonah Lomu.

Both Lomu and the haka are let downs, despite being foreshadowed to death. And Andrew Mehrtens is portrayed as a wee fella with a bowl cut… oh wait that was accurate.

So maybe I had it wrong, maybe Invictus isn't a sports film. Maybe it's a film with sport in it? In which case it's just a string of (not very) inspirational speeches.

This para contains spoilers, scroll past it to avoid them. If you were wondering the film does seem to allude to that rumour. In one scene Mandela converses with his officials about coming up with a way to for them to beat the All Blacks off the field and put them off their game. And in another scene, before the final match, Pienaar tells his wife that he's not nervous because the game is "already taken care of". Conspiracy theorists, go nuts.

Also not a sports film is Whip It. Whip It is a coming of age film with sport as a vehicle. Which is fine. Except that I saw the film with the Wellington Richter City roller girls and there was much derision afterwards of the skill of certain actors and depictions of the sport. I was also able to look down at Jimmy Fallon's portrayal of the MC.

Both films suffer from the fact that at the end you find yourself not really rooting for the underdog protagonist's team. Or rather, not really hating the final opposition. Even as an All Black fan I should've been happy for South Africa to win the cup, because it's a movie and I should be cheering for the protagonist. But I wasn't.

In fact I came out thinking it would've been a better ending if the All Blacks won. Which is also what I thought back in 1995.

My enduring image of the night is tiny-framed Neko Case with her tangled red hair, almost on tip-toes to reach the microphone and those Iron Maiden sneakers. And the pure, crisp notes that rang out of her throat that were as perfect as the studio recordings.

I had been waiting for this concert since 2007 when I missed her in London by three days. So I had to be a geek and stake out an early spot at the front of the stage. But how often does this happen? Neko Case is one of my top five favourite artists and I was standing no more than a metre from her in the SanFran Bath House.

All gigs should be like this. When AC/DC announced their $160 concert tickets there was some discussion about who you'd pay that much to see. All I could think was, I'd love to see a artist play a small intimate venue. Somewhere you can see the fingerwork on the banjo, where you can hear the off microphone banter, where you can see the Iron Maiden sneakers stamping on the footpedal.

-----

Also the nights of Wellington are heating up, and it's not just the change in the weather. Local gumshoe Sam Spillane has been hired by a mysterious woman called Betty Black to find the person who really killed her partner and Sam's former nemesis Charlie Bennet.

This is the basis a trans-media story called The Case of the Midnight Note being run as a precursor to Webstock. The idea is that the story winds its way through Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and its own site to a dramatic conclusion at a fundraising party on the 28th. The idea is raise money to get folks to Webstock (in these harsh economic times)

Because we don't yet know how much will be raised on the night of the fundraiser, we cannot disclose the amount of money available for distribution nor can decisions be made about who should receive funding assistance.

After the fundraiser and once we know how much money we have to distribute, we will put out a call for nominations of people in need of partial funding to go toward a Webstock registration.

If you aren't following the Case of the Midnight Note yet, it's not too late. And of course you don't have to be on Twitter or Facebook to come along.

Wow. That Sam sure is a handsome man.

-----

We also drink a lot down this end of the North Island. It seems that every week there has been a Tweet-up (a gathering of folk organised via Twitter). So I was surprised to discover that Auckland tweeters were organising an UnTweet-up.

As far as I know, nobody has tried that in this neck of the woods, so maybe we're an untapped market.

-----

I would also be remiss if I didn't mention the Auckland roller derby Whip It exhibition bout on this Saturday. Tickets via Under the Radar or on the door.

In his Speaker column on Monday, Patrick Reynolds said:

And as a new world nation with lingering ideals of pioneering self-reliance we fancy the idea of building qua building. That is to say building as built, not thought. Built by proper men, the mythical ‘good bloke', a type who now really only exists in beer advertisements, who can do anything, but of course would do nothing smartarse, which is to say: nothing smart.

At the time I thought of leaving a comment, but as the conversation in the System was already taking a civilised look at architecture in New Zealand I thought I would leave my musings out of it. Because my first thought was: have you seen a beer ad recently?

The men of today's beer advertisements tend to be one of two types. The goofy loser who stumbles about with other, slightly cooler, guys who laugh at his antics and misfortunes and who gets given a yellow easy-drinking beer, as some kind of consolation after yet another idiotic act, after which they all scull*. The other is the be-suited executive of undefined role (but it's probably something cool like marketing or something with computers) working late after his liquid lunch with his mates, who goes out to a fashionable bar, drinks his green-bottled beer and scores some chick that is probably a secretary at this office and is totally hot.

There is also some crossover. Occasionally the good-looking executive will be goofy and his friends have a laugh at his expense before he drinks the beer.

In fact the only beer ads I can think of that have the mythical ‘good bloke' in them are the Speights ads. And even then the ‘good bloke' is some fuckwit farmer who is being a prick to the guys who have paid him money for a weekend away.

No, that's wrong, there's another big set of beer ads with that trope in it: the drink driving ones.

Beer has come a long way recently. The resurgence of craft brewing has lead to larger numbers of people who will actually enjoy drinking beer. And yet there is still a snobbishness associated with buying good beer. Heaven forbid that your beer should be allowed to have flavour. Over Christmas I was told not to bother trying to find a nice beer and just buy Monteiths, it'll be the same. So let me clear that up now. No it's not.

Which brings me to this picture on the front page of yesterday's Dominion Post. Prince William barbequing what looks like an entire lamb while John Key chugs back a Montieths Lager. Here is what I take from this image:

• William knows his way around a BBQ;
• John Key is correctly playing "second man" on the BBQ whose role is to keep "first man" supplied with beer, plates, knives and conversation; and
• The Government is too cheap to give Prince William decent beer. This is the equivalent of serving the Prince an alright, but far from the best, Sauvignon Blanc at a state dinner.

So why was Montieths served at what could be considered a state dinner at Premier House? Were there more beers on offer and Key just prefers Montieths? I had to know.

Beer writer Neil Miller finally had luck discovering the PM's favourite tipple when he stumbled on an article from Bristol. Seems John Key likes Bath Ales. In particular these ones: Gem (Extra Special Bitter), Wild Hare (blond ale), Dark Hare (stout), and Barnstormer (premium bitter).

None those beers have tasting notes that sound anything like Monteiths Lager. The clue I think lies in Montieths own notes:

A full flavoured premium lager that has a clean, crisp taste with unique hop flavours. A blend of New Zealand grown hops of both local (Pacific Hallertau, Super Alpha) and European (Saaz, Styrian Goldings, Fuggles) heritage deliver a spicy, slightly fruity, late hop aroma character and refreshing bitterness to provide a clean finish on the palate.

Barley specially bred for the New Zealand climate has been malted and gently kilned. A cool fermentation of the barley and the yeast produces a smooth, full flavoured lager that is both easy drinking and nicely balanced.

Monteith's New Zealand Lager is brewed in New Zealand for the UK market. A quality premium beer, it delivers on the unique, clean crisp taste of New Zealand and crafted with the UK consumers' palate in mind.

Aha! Sucking up to the Prince we chose a beer that would suit his palate, instead of, I don't know, forcing him to do a keg stand with Waikato Draft or blowing his head off with an Epic Armageddon or something similar.

Now I think about it is a crisp lager even the correct match for barbequed lamb? I would've thought something slightly spicier would be in order.

And this may be the crux of it. We are still a nation that throws a barbeque where we agonise over which is the best Riesling or Pinot Gris to buy and then grab a cheap slab of piss for the beer drinkers. Of course we're usually eating sizzlers filled with "cheese" anyway.

At the time of writing I haven't heard back from the PM's office so I'm still guessing. So instead let me finish with my recipe for BBQ chicken:

Brown sugar – 3 tablespoons
Paprika – 1 ½ teaspoons
Salt – 1 teaspoon
Chili powder – 1 teaspoon
Vinegar – ¼ cup
Tomato Sauce (preferably thicker tomato "chutney" like Whitlocks) – ½ cup
Water – ¼ cup
Garlic – 2 cloves (crushed)

Obviously you can adjust spice levels to taste. I recommend marinating your chicken in most of it and then using the rest to brush on while cooking. Be prepared to clean the BBQ thoroughly afterwards because of that sugar.

And this does go quite nicely with a crisp lager.

*The phrase "scull a beer" has an interesting etymology. Scull is an Anglicised version of "skoal" which is in turn an Anglicization of "Skål" which means "the cup" in Scandinavia. We use scull, as in rowing, possibly due to the connections to sport and drinking culture.

If everyone would be so kind as to don their goggles we can get started. The year 2010 will be brought to you completely in three dimensions.

Late last year Sony announced that it would be filming particular matches of the FIFA World Cup in 3D. These live broadcasts would be available to view around the world (not New Zealand though).

A few weeks later in Dallas, the Cowboys would trial live 3D replays on the world's largest HD LCD screen that just happens to be in their new stadium. It failed spectacularly and was canned after six minutes. Fans booed as they had to keep changing between wearing glasses to see the 3D action on the screen and taking them off to watch the 3D action on the field.

Then: Avatar. I still haven't seen it. After having the screening sell out twice while we were queuing I went online and discovered that the cinema is ludicrously booked out (not quite literally) weeks. The Avasteria has meant that a lot more 3D films are in the pipeline and has vindicated a lot of executives who were gambling on the gimmick.

And it just took a week into 2010 at CES and the explosion of brand new 3D tech was visible without special glasses. Sony, Panasonic and LG all announced 3D HD television sets. Panasonic and Sony also announced 3D Blu-Ray players.

Panasonic trumped the announcements by showing off a 3D camcorder, looking like an armless version of Wall-E. Even Sony's 3D concert featuring a 3D Taylor Swift playing behind the real Taylor Swift couldn't beat that. Sorry Taylor, imma let you finish, but…

DirectTV, a cable provider in the States, has announced three 3D channels with content from CBS, Fox Sports and others. And of course ESPN announced it will launch its own 3D channel this year.

What this means is that we're going to see a lot more people wearing glasses, as only one company seems to be making glasses-free 3D TVs. No I don't how that works either.

But do we want to see sports in 3D? Will it actually make watching a game on TV feel more like you're at the stadium? Probably not, especially if your already there. Then again watching sport in HD was much better than I expected it to be.

But watching sport is a little about atmosphere and a lot about detail. Watching sport on TV allows you to see repeated and precise replays so you can answer questions like "was the ball over the line?" etc. I feel that with 3D we'll be subjected to many more replays of stuff that will "look cool". And lot's more slow-mo.

Then again, I'm still incredibly jealous of those places that'll get to see the All Whites thumped in one extra dimension.

I was intending to write something about gay athletes for a long time but there never seemed to be a catalyst for it. Now Welsh rugby international Gareth Thomas has provided that.

Thomas admitted to living a lie for most of his life, including marrying his wife in 2002 (they split in 2006). Rugby players aren't poofs and all that I suppose. The story naturally says how accepting his fellow teammates are and how he's still good friends with his wife. It must help that he retired two years ago.

Still it seems that his teammates and coaches knew and supported him at the time. Though "support" seemed to also mean helping Thomas hide that he was gay to the rest of the world. There was talk amongst media at the 2007 World Cup that after the tournament one of the Welsh players would be "outed", a story that was quickly quashed.

Former NBA player John Amaechi, who came out in 2007 after he retired, rightfully says that the problem now becomes that Thomas is not seen as some great Welsh rugby hero, but as "that guy who was gay".

The sports world is obviously one of the toughest work environments for someone to be homosexual. For women the claims are of increased testosterone and cabals, for men it's increased femininity and weakness. Note the difference in these two articles: on the Daily Mail's sports page; on the Daily Mail's (sigh) Femail page. Same article, but the pictures on the sports page show Thomas as a blood-soaked, tackle-breaking, manly man.

There is still also the problem of homophobic sports-people and coaches. Stories of coaches setting players against teammates in general are sadly common (though hopefully declining), and knowing a kid is gay can be worse. So Thomas' revelation and the fact that his teammates knew before he went public, can only be a positive thing.

Oddly though I think that Thomas' case, a gay sportsman at international level in a physical sport like rugby, is a rare one. Is say this because of something I've actually been asked many times: which All Blacks were gay? To be honest it's normally in the form of a statement like "Player X was totally gay" or "I bet there were heaps of gay All Blacks". It's a bet I'm willing to take not because I think that a gay athlete could never be good enough for the All Blacks, but because the probability of such an event is quite low.

Consider the current squad. I've had some people tell me that anywhere from one in ten to one in four people are gay so at least one All Black must be. This works if the All Blacks are a demographically consistent subset of the population. They aren't. It also works if that ratio is correct. It isn't.

An estimate from a gay travel site suggests there are "100,622 gay and lesbian people between 16-64 years living in New Zealand" (with no reference). According to Sex in Australia: The Australian study of health and relationships, from the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (and filtered through Wikipedia):

The largest and most thorough survey in Australia to date was conducted by telephone interview with 19,307 respondents between the ages of 16 and 59 in 2001/2002. The study found that 97.4% of men identified as heterosexual, 1.6% as gay and 0.9% as bisexual. For women 97.7% identified as heterosexual, 0.8% as lesbian and 1.4% as bisexual. Nevertheless, 8.6% of men and 15.1% of women reported either feelings of attraction to the same gender or some sexual experience with the same gender. Half the men and two thirds of the women who had same-sex sexual experience regarded themselves as heterosexual rather than homosexual

So the number of bisexuals is, probably unsurprisingly, high, but the percentage of gay men is quite low. Note: I really wanted StatsNZ data here but they don't collect information on sexuality and have no plans to.

This means that the proportion of gay men who are also rugby players will be even smaller. The first capped All Black was in 1884, 125 years later and we've had caps for 1,100 All Blacks. At any given time the All Blacks account for much less than one percent of the population. So these are very small chances to start with.

And given the number of rugby players in the country compared to the number who are selected for the All Blacks, you can reduce the chances again. While Thomas is the case against this argument, I would say that any young gay man coming through the ranks of provincial and professional rugby to get to the All Blacks would have to get through some intense bigotry to get there and remain there.

Does this mean that Thomas being a gay rugby international is one in a billion? Possibly. If you look across sports as a whole, the number of athletes who are gay is probably representative of the general population and they aren't all clustered in one or two sports… unless those cabal rumours were true.