Linking up

1) The half-time entertainment at the Super Bowl was Bruce Springsteen. Sitting at home, I could barely make out his lyrics and only a die-hard fan would guess what he was singing. I was marveling at the "fans" who were on the field at the "concert". Rick Reilly was one of the "fans" and he tells you that it wasn't sweet music to his ears!

Most answered an online ad from the halftime show's producers that read, in part: "We're looking for enthusiastic volunteers to be part of the on-field audience."

"YOU'LL BE 10 FEET FROM BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN! THE GAME'S GOING TO BE A BLOWOUT ANYWAY. WHAT'LL YOU MISS?"

What the 2,000 found out is: The "on-field audience" doesn't get "paid." They don't get a ticket to watch the game. They don't even get a T-shirt. They can't bring cameras or cell phones—unless they're a group leader. They'll be bussed in and bussed out. They will be on the field for 12 minutes and have to sign a release that they won't sue in case they're flattened by a forklift.

2) Harsha Bhogle is a member of the IPL in his role as a "consultant" for the Mumbai Indians. So, it is not surprising that he has been talking up the good points of the league, and he almost always makes relevant points. His latest column is no different and has some interesting takes on the whole phenomenon. It will still take a little more than that to get me to endorse the league - especially as it (through the BCCI) continues to treat the ICL like a pariah. (To his credit, Harsha has spoken up against the BCCI's attitude in the past.)

It baffles me that in some places the IPL is still being seen as a financial rather than as a cricketing phenomenon. As recent events in the world have taught us financial products with little to back them deliver a lot of promise, a lot of pain and eventually go bust. The IPL is about cricket and as it settles down and acquires a learning curve of its own, will reward cricketers who deliver returns on their investment. This is not a large moneypot into which you dip your hands and run away with the booty. This is serious stuff and some observers around the world are in denial about it. This is not a poor little rich kid seeking its place in the world by throwing money at anyone who knocks at its doors.

3) I had decided not to watch "The Reader" as I thought it was yet another movie about the holocaust. I am still not convinced I want to watch it, but Roger Ebert makes a long-winded but passionate argument for why the real theme of that movie is something totally different. I am intrigued enough to think about it, though.

I was watching Tony Scott on the Charlie Rose program, and he said, in connection with "The Reader," that he was getting tired of so many movies about the Holocaust. I didn't agree or disagree. What I thought was, "The Reader" isn't about the Holocaust. It's about not speaking when you know you should.
(...)
Is "The Reader" a "Holocaust movie?" No. In terms of its two central characters, it is a movie about lacking the courage to speak when we should. That's something I think we can all identify with.

We are all guilty of lacking the courage to speak when we should. I know I most definitely am.