Le Mans 1970-79 - Quentin Spurring

Just a note to recommend this book, which is subtitled "The Official History of the World's Greatest Motor Race".  Here is a photograph of me holding my copy:

Although there is lavish photographic content, this is not just a "coffee table" work. There is admirable concentration on the technical aspects of the racing.

The 1970s are often seen as something of a "lost" decade for Le Mans, and for sportscar racing in general, coming as they did between the classic Ford-Ferrari-Porsche era and the prosperity of Group C. However, as Quentin Spurring capably documents, there was plenty to enthuse about, and some of the most tense racing in the history of the event.

Rather than simply provide a basic review of each race, the author also separately examines the fortunes of various teams and classes at each race, putting developments into their historical context. The level of detail is impressive, and will add to the knowledge of any sportscar racing fan.

As the race organisers sought to respond to global economic conditions and motorsport politics, the regulations seemed to be in a constant state of flux at this time, but this is just adds to the fascination. Even when manufacturer interest fluctuated, the race always seemed to reinvent itself.

Le Mans 1970-79 is an excellent and enlightening read....

How Much Would F1 Miss Ferrari?

Well, it seems that the Ferrari President has made another one of his occasional pronouncements on the direction of the sport, with many interpreting his words as a threat to withdraw should changes not be made to the regulations.

Ferrari have hastily downplayed some of his remarks, but it seems sensible to assume that Luca di Montezemolo's words are another shot across the bows of the rule-makers and other stakeholders in Formula 1, seeking to nudge them further. in the direction of change.

Even if this is, as seems likely, just another bout of sabre-rattling, what would the repercussions be if Ferrari were indeed to drop out of F1 competition? 

My intial interest in racing was sparked by the exploits of Gilles Villeneuve in the early 1980s, and back then Ferrari were definitely special. The history, the absence of overt sponsorship on the cars and the scarlet colour scheme all contributed to this. However, there was also a sense that they were fallible, and human, and that the team was run at least partly on emotion. This all set them apart from the very businesslike and entrepreneurial British outfits.

At some point in the 1990s, Ferrari realised that they would have to change in order to remain competitive. It was at this point that much of the mystique began to fade, ironically as they entered probably the most successful phase in their history.  Many were also alienated by efforts to play on the team's importance and heritage in order to influence some events.

It would be foolish to deny that losing Ferrari would be a severe setback, but I would see such an event in somewhat different terms than if it had occurred in, say, the early 1990s.  Nowadays, I would regard it as the loss of a competitive, well-funded team, albeit one with a proud tradition. The balance has shifted in the ensuing two decades.

The attitude of younger F1 enthusiasts would also be interesting to gauge. Growing up with the Schumacher era at Maranello, do they see Ferrari as quite so indispensable, in sentimental, and even, commercial, terms?  Perhaps the Italian-based team mildly over-estimates its modern-day importance? The world has changed, and Ferrari with it....

Leicester City 0 Leeds United 1

After the recent trials and tribulations, this was a very welcome result for Leeds.

By all accounts, it was a tight, hard-fought match, and it is remarkable what a psychological effect winning such a contest can sometimes have on a team. Almost as importantly, there were no goalkeeping dramas!

The Championship league table is also looking a good deal healthier from a Leeds perspective this evening.  There is a renewed sense that we are looking upwards with a view to challenging the play-off places, rather than beginning to glance nervously over our shoulders.

Coming up next, Leeds have what on paper look like two less demanding fixtures, against Burnley and Barnsley, but we know from bitter experience that any hint of complacency in this division is swiftly punished. Rarely has the old adage "taking each game as it comes" seemed more appropriate.

The Third Man - movie review

I am currently on another of my periodic campaigns to watch some of those films which, for one reason or another, have passed me by over the years. Until yesterday, one such movie was The Third Man, the 1949 Carol Reed thriller, with a screenplay by Graham Greene. I wasn't previously aware that Greene's screenplay actually preceded the publication of his novella of the same name.

The film is set in post-World War Two Vienna, and centres on a trip to the city made by an American author, Holly Martins, played by Joseph Cotten. He is seeking to renew acquaintance with his friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles). Upon arriving in Vienna, Martins is informed of Lime's death. The remainder of the story addresses Martins' inquiries, revelations concerning Lime's involvement in racketeering, and the revelation that his death had been "faked", culminating in his actual demise in the exciting final scene in Vienna's subterranean sewers.

In the early scenes of the film, much effort is made to project the atmosphere of post-war Vienna. Cosmopolitan, edgy, uncertain, oppressive. The black and white helps to project the austere, gloomy times. One has to wonder if The Third Man would have had the same power if it had been produced in later years in colour. Very few of the scenes take place in daylight, adding to the ominous and insidious feel. Excellent use is also made of the architecture and landmarks of Vienna to generate powerful imagery and metaphors.

As we meet some of the characters, there is a growing sense of a people numbed by war and its aftermath, but still coping. Mistrust and fear seem to be the dominant emotions, with people constantly unsure whether they are being manipulated or exploited. Loyalties and personal morality are tested to their limits, as everyone concentrates on survival.

Probably the most memorable scene in the film is the one where Harry Lime reappears, having previously been presumed dead. The enigmatic expression on Orson Welles' face is the thing which makes it so potent. Welles has comparatively little screen-time, but his charisma dominates the closing stages of The Third Man.

When watching the movie, I pondered whether Harry Lime was a product of the times. He was unscrupulous and cynical, but at the same time insecure. All of these qualities are on display during the iconic scene on the Ferris wheel.

Mention should also be made of the performances of Alida Valli, Trevor Howard and Bernard Lee. Valli is particularly impressive as Anna Schimdt, the subject of much agonising by both Martins and Lime.

In the final analysis, I think that as well as being a superb film noir, The Third Man is all about loyalty and morality, and the examination of these things in extreme circumstances. I am very glad that I made the effort to watch it!

Retail Therapy?

Earlier this week I visited a large shopping centre, and although it was a far from pleasant experience in itself, it was instructive from one perspective at least.

Over the past eighteen months or so, I have become further and further removed from what is often termed "consumer culture". For possibly the first time since the process began I truly felt detached from this environment, and was able to observe it as an outsider.

As soon as I entered the shopping centre, I encountered an unfamiliar sensation, which I still find difficult to accurately put into words. It was not panic or claustrophobia, but more a feeling of "I don't belong here". Later, and after some thought, I interpreted it as a sign that I had perhaps completed a journey of sorts. This all dovetailed with an increased capacity to resist impulse purchases!

My mind has been much exercised with those forces which eat away at us, giving us the illusion of happiness and prosperity, but which have the effect of leading us further away from self-knowledge and mindfulness.

It is probably true to say that many people turn to consumerism as a means of insulating themselves from the realities of life. But does this just dodge the issue, and create a different kind of emptiness and alienation?  A touch of "retail therapy" now and then is relatively harmless, but for many it almost becomes the raison de etre.

All people are unique, find themselves in different scenarios and have differing tolerances. In my case, shallow acquistiveness simply occupied time and resources which could have been better employed rediscovering the important and wholesome things in life. I was not feeling fulfilled, but simply hollow.

There is no "on-off" switch which removes us from the materialistic to the cerebral or spiritual. For many people, the changes begin via signals and warnings conveyed by the body and mind. Even then, it can take courage and soul-searching for the transformation to be meaningful and sincere.

After this week's experience, I am confident that I have made the transition....

.

Leeds United 0 Blackpool 5

I must admit that after Leeds' recent slight wobble in League form, I was mildly apprehensive about tonight's match at Elland Road, but even I could not have envisaged how it would turn out.

Goalkeeping errors played their part, clearly, but this appears to be part of a wider crisis of confidence which is threatening to envelope the team, not too long after things seemed relatively optimistic.

Leeds now face tricky away fixtures at Leicester and Burnley in the next few weeks, and it is to be hoped that Simon Grayson is able to find a way to stop the rot before then. There is a real danger that the season could begin to stagnate for Leeds, or worse....

Queen - In Concert

During the latter portion of their career, Queen had a reputation as being one of the most exciting and accomplished live bands around. But to what extent what this true, and how did they develop and progress during that period? 

There is plenty of evidence around on which to base our judgements, in the form of concert footage and sound recordings, and recollections from those who were there in person. Some of my own opinions on this subject may not necessarily correspond with those of the majority of Queen fans!

From what I have seen, heard and read, Queen truly started to blossom as a live band around 1977. Prior to that, they appeared slightly hesitant and restrained. However, in '77 the band began to flourish, learning how to project themselves and their music, and how to develop a rapport with the audience. Anybody who has seen footage of the Earls Court concerts of this period will know what I mean. From then on, Queen seemed to possess a whole new aura of cohesion and dynamism.

This new focus and efficiency was honed in the "white heat" of the gruelling and challenging American tours of the time. As Queen's appeal broadened, they had to develop new skills in order to impress new, more discerning and demanding audiences. Much of the enhanced energy was refracted through the person of Freddie Mercury, whose powers of showmanship developed markedly around this time.

As the 1970s drew to a close, Queen continued to thrive, and it seemed like a good time to release a live album. Live Killers, recorded on the 1979 European tour and released later that year, is an adequate document, but perhaps does not fully capture the excitement of Queen's performances of that era.  Whilst there are some fine moments, the intensity and quality does seem a touch uneven, possibly reflecting the stage of the tour at which the recordings were made, and the effects of an arduous schedule.

When I first heard Live Killers, I was very enthusiastic, but as the years have passed, and as more concert material from the 1977-82 period has surfaced, its lustre has diminished.  The "acoustic" section of the album, and the performances of Now I'm Here and Keep Yourself Alive are superb, but in other parts the group sounds slightly listless, almost as if they were going through the motions.

My own view is that Queen peaked as a live act in 1981/82. It is true that the set list was less interesting and diverse than in previous years, but several strands came together to make the band a formidable force in the early 1980s. Freddie's voice had reached new heights of power, flexibility and versatility. Years of touring had schooled them in the art of performance and showmanship, instilling a tightness and vigour.  By now they were more acutely aware of what worked, and what didn't. The diverse musical influences of the band members also added to this appealing mixture.

Fortunately, there is plenty of visual and audio evidence of just how powerful Queen were live around that time. The footage from Montreal 1981 and Milton Keynes 1982, for example. The latter especially could be shown to aspiring bands as a tutorial on how to "work a crowd". I myself was fortunate enough to witness the 1982 version of Queen, at Elland Road in Leeds. As a youngster, I was absolutely transfixed.

Is it significant that as Queen's live shows reached new heights of excellence, their albums became less ambitious, and arguably less substantial?  Some of this may be coincidence, but the albums in the late 70s and early 80s had a more "stripped down" feel, and the songs being recorded were therefore easier to reproduce on stage than some of the elaborate earlier efforts. Also, the move towards a less complex sound may have enabled Queen to imbue their older songs with a new energy and immediacy in the concert setting. Another factor may have been that as Queen expended less time and emotional energy on the studio, more was left over to devote to honing their stagecraft...

Following the dizzy heights of the early 1980s, Queen's powers began to wane, the triumphant Live Aid appearance notwithstanding . Several things may have contributed to this. A fall-off in energy levels was perhaps inevitable. The band members became involved in side projects, and this may have prompted a reduction in focus. Indeed, it is known that there were major tensions within the group around 1984/85. Added to all this was a noticeable decline in Freddie's overall vocal powers on stage.

I know that many Queen fans assert that 1986 was the zenith of their touring career, but this is not something that I readily concur with. Admittedly, a lot of this comes down to personal taste.  However, I think that some people are swayed by sentiment in this case, and confuse what the tour represented with the substance of the performances. The venues were larger than any which Queen had previously played in Europe, but the recordings which I have heard reveal a slightly soulless sound, with some of the intimacy and technical punch of previous tours sacrificed for sheer spectacle and scale.  Having said all this, Queen's shows were still emotionally affecting, and the 1986 tour certainly scored high on the "goosebumps" scale!

It is fascinating to speculate how matters would have evolved later in the 1980s, but alas we will never know....

All fans will have their own views on when Queen were at their best as a live band.  My own ideal situation, for what it's worth, would have been the 1982 version of the band playing the 1977 set-list at Wembley Stadium.  That would have covered all the bases!