It's been a bit over a week since the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics, and I haven't seen much on Maggie's about them. I really enjoy the Olympics. The Opening Ceremony is always great entertainment, and the events capture my attention. I've found myself watching handball, water polo, and even men's field hockey. I enjoy sports, and there's something about the Olympic Spirit that captures me. But there's always a portion which bothers me.
It used to be the overcommercialization which bugged me. I've grown used to this. I knew the 'amateur' status we used to try and pretend existed wouldn't last. It was clear that money would eventually be the driving force. In some ways, this has made the competition better. The athletes still play for pride, but now they can also get a payday. Nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand, the politicization, which was bad in Cold War years, has taken a subtle turn. There is still a semblance of competing ideologies. But there is also the use of spectacle to make some kind of statement, using the commercial aspect to push a separate agenda.
Danny Boyle, in my estimation, made a hash of the Opening Ceremony. Had he stuck to a few simple themes and played them out, it would've been richer and more compelling. Trying to pack in Shakespeare, the Industrial Revolution, an English countryside, the rich literary tradition, the NHS (huh?), and the music scene from 1960 to today was far too much for the time allotted. Little attention was paid to many bright lights of the UK’s past, too much attention paid to silly cultural and philosophical ephemera.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see Dickens, Tolkien or Roald Dahl references anywhere. How could the Industrial Revolution play out in the stadium without some reference to Dickens? Or a children's sequence without Willy Wonka or James and the Giant Peach? Instead, the children's and literary tableau played out as an homage to the NHS. Sure, the NHS is part of British history, but let's be honest - the political point was ridiculous. It wasn't necessary and it added to the massive confusion I was observing. As a spectacle, it was eye-catching. But it was a letdown.
Then there were the Olympic flagbearers. I can appreciate the accomplishments of some, not all, of these people, and certainly don’t understand why non-UK political figures were involved. Especially those with "really strong environmental credentials."
The torch lighting was, in some ways, a snub. Sports can be team oriented, so why can’t the lighting? From that perspective, it was an interesting twist. Roger Bannister still deserved something, some kind of hat tip. After all, he did something many people said couldn’t be done, though never with Olympic success. Neither the NHS or any of the flag bearers had Olympic success, but they still got a prime spotlight.
When the Olympics roll around, I prefer focus on the ability of the athlete to accomplish great feats. To be impressed with how people push themselves, and achieve great things, in both an individual and team setting. The Olympics are a voluntary collective event celebrating the best of humanity’s physical capabilities, highlighting human spirit and effort. Along those lines, I’m all for the interesting choice to make the torch lighting a collective venture. I understand, it focused on youth, on teamwork. The collective lighting of the torch seemed to me the pinnacle of a statement Danny Boyle was trying to make - that even though the Olympics are about individual and team achievement, it's the collective that matters above all else.
As a great sentiment, it came across as indoctrination.
On a side note, the effects were superb. Who didn’t like seeing the Queen ‘jump’ out of a helicopter with James Bond? The Queen is now officially a ‘Bond Girl’, and after all these years, she deserves it.
The Games themselves have been terrific and fun. Despite the nonsense in the Opening Ceremonies, I really have loved the competition. But even here, political agendas were still played out. Several athletes, to their credit, chose to compete under the IOC flag. Better to compete than not simply because national governance had gone awry.
On the other hand, families hold back information which may impact a competitor's performance? Is this what nations stress? Elevation of national performance over personal and family needs is not the stuff of Olympic pride. China claims it was the family's choice. Hard to believe, given the history of the Chinese government. Interesting this is the country some pundits feel we should emulate.
Finally, there was the lack of a tribute to 1972 and the Israeli team. Each Olympic has paid a small tribute to that tragedy, but on the 40th anniversary surely a few moments of silence would have been worth it to remember that politics shouldn't play a role in celebrations of human achievement.
It's difficult to set aside politics in international sport. Often teams and individuals play not just for themselves, but for the pride of their nation. Who can forget the glory of the 1980 US Hockey Team? But who can forget the insanity of the 1972 Soviet Basketball Team? Both events had political overtones. Only one was manipulated via a political process.
If 1972 taught us anything, it's that we should focus on the human spirit of achievement, rather than hoping to manipulate agendas. These athletes are here, achieving on an international stage, to show us that they engaged rigorous effort to reach a high level. I don't care if they had a state or corporate sponsor, those sponsors weren't on the field or in the pool. The athletes did it on their own and most did it for themselves. Let's celebrate those accomplishments.
