Question: What happens when you put 1.8 million 'prawns' in a slum?

Answer: You get a brilliant film called District 9!!!

Just returned from the midnight screening of District 9 and I am very very impressed. Hollywood should take note on how to make a smart yet enjoyable movie. I hope this film does well than certain other Hollywood trash that has made oodles of cash this summer.

Will write more about the film in coming days but for now only one complaint about the movie's usage of subtitles. Whenever the black characters in District 9 speak perfectly audible english, their words are subtitled. Yet when the white characters speak English in a South African accent, then no subtitles. Although I have a feeling that this decision might be made by someone other than the director as I have seen similar usage in quite a few documentaries where there are subtitles when the non-white characters speak English.

Public Enemies

A Michael Mann film is always an event to look forward to but I was more keen to see how the Sony F23 HD camera would be used to depict a 1930’s gangster film, a genre that does not offer too much in the way of story variance. The story of Public Enemies is mostly atypical of the genre -- gangsters rob banks and split the loot to spend the cash on women and drinks while the cops hire their best to hunt the outlaws down. A love interest and strong opposing characters complete the story. But still, within a confined template there are plenty of moments where time stops and one can enjoy the scene for what it is. There is one amazing scene where the wanted criminal John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) audaciously walks into the police station department that is planning his arrest. The bright sunlight shines on his face which bears a confident smirk and he causally lowers his sunglasses to examine the evidence gathered against him and even has a word with a few policemen who are listening to the baseball game on the radio. The natural sunlight and pacing of the scene may be at odds with the rest of the film’s dark look but this scene highlights Dillinger’s confident personality and need for fame, be it from the police or even the media, as some other scenes attest with close-up of his eyes.

Overall, Mann’s style and usage of the camera prevents the film from being another run of the mill Hollywood gangster flick. There are some moments where the film is alive as the rich images flood the screen (example: in some scenes, the gunfire literally sets the screen on fire). The close-ups combined with the speed of the camera give a documentary feel and one forgets that Public Enemies is a 1933 period film.

In previous Mann films such as Miami Vice, Collateral and The Insider, there were plenty of ‘cool’ scenes with either a bluish or greenish tint. In Public Enemies there isn’t any such bluish tinting but instead natural sunlight or minimal lighting is used to light up most scenes. The police station scene would qualify as the patent Mann cool scene in Public Enemies. Plus, Diana Krall’s beautiful voice lends a jazzy touch to the film.

---

Next up: I am curious to see how the Red Digital Camera’s usage would make District 9 different from other alien films.

Drafting a journey in pictures...

Graphic novels are certainly being used in brilliant and fascinating ways nowadays. Case in point, The Photographer. This is an interesting mix of real photos (black and white with one color picture), comic-book art and excerpts from a diary to convey the true story of Didier Lefevre who traveled to Afghanistan in 1986 to follow Doctors Without Borders. Didier's photos are rich and beautiful. And reading his travelogue/non-fiction work in the form of a graphic novel complete with his photos makes for a very rewarding experience.

note: one of the best pictures in the collection (page 74) is not available on the website and features Didier capturing a raft just leaving shore with two passengers and a donkey as passengers.

To Show or not to Show, that is the film festival question.

A screening of the film The 10 Conditions of Love ran into some problems at the Melbourne film festival: Chinese government officials had demanded that Australia "immediately correct its wrongdoings" by canceling the screening and Ms. Kadeer’s visa. When those requests were ignored, the Chinese government threatened on Friday to sever Melbourne’s sister-city ties with the Chinese city of Tianjin. Seven Chinese-language films from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan were withdrawn, their directors saying the festival had become too politicized. But that was not all. Zhou Yu, a 24-year-old computer programmer from Nanjing, said he hacked into the festival’s Web site and defaced it with a Chinese flag to defend his country’s honor. "The government’s protests were useless," he said by e-mail. "It’s patriotic to use my own skills as a common citizen to fight back." Mr. Zhou said that while he had not seen "The 10 Conditions of Love," he believed the film was factually inaccurate. “This movie distorts history, confuses and poisons people’s minds and impacts national unity,” he said. His actions have drawn widespread praise from many Chinese, although there seems to be little room for divergent views on the matter. On Kaixin, a popular social-networking Web site here, a recent poll asked visitors to weigh in on Mr. Zhou’s actions but gave only two choices: "support" and "super support." Now, this guy had not seen the film but he felt justified in hacking into the festival site. And others who hacked into the site prevented access to all the other films showing at the festival. Clearly, none of those people have any idea into how much work goes into setting up a film festival. Reading this brought back some memories: 

In 2007, the Vancouver Film Festival was programmed to show Hu Jie's film Though I am Gone?. I had initially seen an entry for the film on VIFF's website but when I clicked on the film title, there was no info. I figured it was a typo and there was no such film. My belief was confirmed a few days later when the film disappeared from the festival's website and was not mentioned in the program. But I later learned that the film was indeed shown. Since I had originally seen the film title on the website, I know that the festival made sure there was no trace of the film to be found anywhere later on. Self censorship or induced censorship? or both? 

Getting a film to show at any film festival is never easy. There are many many hours of negotiations and programming that goes into getting a film to show. And even after the film is confirmed, further problems can arise due to prints not arriving on time or technical problems with the projector. I have had to get on stage to explain the technical difficulties with a film and have also refunded money to frustrated audience members due to a faulty projector. Neither was a fun task. But why would hackers care for any of this? So easy to bring a festival website down and ruin hours of volunteer work that people have done? But hey, who watches movies at film festivals anyhow? :) Don't critics debate the merit of film festivals every year? So if the government didn't protest, maybe this film would have shown at the Melbourne festival and disappeared. But now, this is news. Sort of. The bottom line is every film festival is always criticized every year, sometimes for the film it books and sometimes for the film it does not book. But no one dares to shout at a multiplex for continuing to show cinematic trash week in, week out. Hmmm..

Solving problems, one bomb at a time

The Hurt Locker (2008, USA, Kathryn Bigelow): 9.5/10

Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker isn’t a war movie even though it is set in a war zone. It is a film about problem solving, with the problems being either diffusing bombs or taking out enemy snipers. In fact, the best moments of the film are when the soldiers are shown in the middle of their problem solving exercises which require zen like concentration. The soldiers don’t have any time for pondering about the meaning of life or questioning the war’s motives or even to pause and stare at death head on; the dangerous situations require them to tune everything else out and only focus on the ticking bomb or enemy in the line of sight.

One of the film's best sequences takes place during a long and patiently shot sniper scene in the desert. The sequence shows how even a soldier’s breathing or heart beat could make him miss a long range target. Plus, the camera angles brilliantly show the scene from the sniper’s perspective and at no point does the camera switch over to a close up of the target. This technique allows one to get a sense of the difficulty in adjusting for the depth and range of the target and the concentration required. Normally, other films handle similar sniper scenes by first showing the good guys aiming for the enemy and then immediately having the next shot show a close up of the enemy being shot. As a result, one never gets a sense of the target’s range.

The Hurt Locker does incorporate other aspects of the soldier’s lives complete with macho games and punk rock music, things one has come to expect from films set in war zones. Thankfully the film does not waste too much time on the soldier’s drinking and whoring aspects which are supposed to take the edge off from the death defying tasks at hand. Not every thread is tied up in The Hurt Locker and that allows one to get a sense of the confusion and hazy information that the soldiers have to deal with, especially when the soldiers can’t speak the local language. There are some clues which allow the audience to identify some of the men who are observing and planning further bombings but overall, the film is not concerned with a typical Hollywood style happy ending where the enemy is rounded up at the end.

Easily one of the best films of the year and if this film is not nominated for a best feature in the 10 available slots at next year’s Academy awards, then there is something seriously wrong. I really doubt there are 10 better American movies than The Hurt Locker which are yet to be released in the next 4-5 months.

Third time unlucky...

About 4 years ago, Imtiaz Ali’s Socha Na Tha was a breath of fresh air in the over recycled Bollywood love story arena. While Socha Na Tha was a love triangle, it really stood apart from other such films in two ways -- firstly, by exploring the friendship aspect that precedes some relationships and secondly by showcasing how Indian marriages are really a union of two families. In Socha Na Tha one guy’s indecision about a girl throws three families in disarray and stress. The dialogues and characters were wonderfully etched out and avoided the stereotypes that most Bollywood films resort to.

And then came along Jab We Met in 2007.

I originally passed up on the film figuring it to be another love story. But after constant urging by family and friends, I gave in and was rewarded with a wonderful film. Kareena Kapoor’s acting and the witty dialogues livened up the film and made Jab We Met one of the best Bollywood films of 2007.

I hardly watch a film more than once but I enjoyed both Socha Na Tha & Jab We Met so much that I have seen each film atleast 3-4 times. So my expectations were a bit raised about Imtiaz Ali’s third feature Love Aaj Kal.

Since I had delayed seeing his first two films by a few months, I decided to tackle Love Aaj Kal right on opening night (July 31) just in case the third feature was on par with his previous efforts.

Unfortunately, Love Aaj Kal was a painful experience to endure and turned out to be two wasted hours. The film is about a guy’s indecision (Jai played by Saif Ali Khan) about marrying a girl (Meera played by Deepika Padukone) but unlike in Socha Na Tha, the guy does not have a second girl to make things difficult but has his career and life standing in the way. The story has some merit but it is executed very poorly. A few moments in the film do give a glimpse on how this could have been a better work but everything is treated in the lazy manner that plagues most Bollywood films -- careers are treated as excuses to shoot scenes in scenic locales, pointless songs crop up for no reason, technically poor framed shots which focus on un-necessary details thereby distracting from the principle focal points, etc.

It is clear that Love Aaj Kal has a bigger budget than Imtiaz Ali’s two previous efforts which were shot entirely in India -- Love Aaj Kal ventures to London & San Francisco besides having some moments in Calcutta and Delhi. And it appears that the bigger budget has come with the usual bad trademarks of Bollywood films shot abroad. I can only hope that Imtiaz Ali sets his next film in India and focuses more on the screenplay rather than flashy locales.

5 years on...

pic: MikeHewitt/GettyImages, soccernet

If Kolo Toure is indeed on his way out from Arsenal, then that would mean that the last remaining starter of the "invincibles" team would be gone.

The 2003/04 Arsenal team: Lehmann, Lauren, Campbell, Keown, Toure, Cole, Cygan, Parlour, Edu, Vieira, Gilberto, Ljungberg, Pires, Henry, Bergkamp, Reyes, Kanu, Wiltord

Ofcourse, majority of the core 2003/04 team were dispatched in less than 3 years. In the 5 years since 2004, Arsenal have gone from being the best team in Europe to an average team in England. And after Gilberto and Lehmann left in the summer of 2008, Kolo became the sole surviving member from that great team (note: Clichy was a sub in the 03/04 season). Now, admittedly Kolo was not the same player as he once was but there was always the hope that if the going got tough, Kolo could have gathered the young guns around the fire and told them stories about the glory days.

On another note, I started this blog just over 5 years ago, just 5 days before Arsenal achieved history by going through their 38 game season unbeaten. How time flies....

Martel vs Alonso

The first leg: Los Muertos vs La ciénaga

I first read about a comparison between the two Argentine film-makers Lisandro Alonso and Lucrecia Martel in 2008 when their new works were doing the rounds in the film festival circuit. It seemed that some people preferred the style of one over the other. My only familiarity with either director was restricted to just one film, Alonso’s Los Muertos and Martel’s La ciénaga (The Swamp). One film is not enough to draw a conclusion. But if I had to give a view based on a solitary work, I would easily give the nod to Alonso. Los Muertos was poetry in motion. A beautiful film where the camera had full freedom to roam about and as a result, the audience could breathe and soak in the environment. Whereas, Martel’s The Swamp was cramped up in familial settings and only started to come to life near the end.

Second Leg: The Headless Woman vs Liverpool

So how would the second round fare? The first 10 minutes of Martel’s The Headless Woman are beautiful but that changes shortly because the main character Veronica is not meant to be adored. This is emphasized by Martel's decision to only focus the camera on Veronica’s face most of the time, even when other people are talking. At other times, the camera is focusing on her side profile or is just behind her shoulder giving us her line of sight. This is done on purpose to show that from Veronica's perspective the people around her not worthy of attention

This is a brilliant stroke from Martel as she wants the audience to experience the sense of dizziness and detachment that Veronica undergoes as a result of an accident early on the film. In addition, her film highlights the class difference in Argentine society as Veronica is well off and treats the constant supply of servants and caregivers around her without much thought. On occasions, the camera blurs out the view of these other characters trying to emphasize that these people are invisible to Veronica.

Overall, The Headless Woman is a much more dynamic and large scale work than The Swamp.

Unfortunately, I can't reach a final decision in the Martel vs Alonso match-up because I am still waiting to see Alonso’s Liverpool. Although if his film is as good as Los Muertos, then for me, Alonso would easily be the winner.

Seeking happiness...

The miserable_man_with_a_troubled_life has certainly provided great fodder for cinema over the decades. Yet, most films don’t try to focus too much on the troubled man’s depressive tendencies for it might make for some strained viewing. Usually, directors add a comedic element or even infuse their work with a hopeful feeling to allow the audience to believe that a new dawn will start in the troubled man’s life.

Even though James Gray’s Two Lovers gives some hope that the troubled main character (Leonard played by Joaquin Phoenix) will finally find happiness, he certainly does not cut any corners in illustrating Leonard's inner struggles.

The film starts off on a low point in Leonard's life and very quickly we learn that his life has had many such low moments because of his parent’s constant worry.

His parents want him to be happy, just any parent would. So they try to fix him with up a girl.

As a result of such an arranged dinner meeting, Leonard meets Sandra (Vinessa Shaw), a sweet charming woman. Sandra is the warm hearted compassionate woman that a guy should marry. But the problem is most men think like Leonard and don’t instantly fall for the Sandra types in their life but instead chase the glittering Michelle lookalikes (played by Gwyneth Paltrow). The audience knows immediately which woman is right for Leonard and which isn’t. But we are given a front row seat to the inner turmoil and anguish that Leonard has to undergo before he can finally come to that decision on his own.


Two Lovers has the same dimly lit atmosphere that Gray’s first feature, Little Odessa, had. That grayish atmosphere works quite well here as it mirrors Leonard’s mood which isn’t too uplifting. One can sense the invisible cloud of misery that hangs over his head constantly, even when he puts on a smile. Joaquin Phoenix has done an amazing job in conveying the inner feelings of Leonard via his expressions -- his face speaks volumes and accordingly the film can afford moments of silence to allow those feelings to be sensed. The screenplay also includes many moments of intimate conversations rarely found amid the modern Hollywood noise. For example, the late night conversation Leonard has with Michelle (who is also his neighbour across the apartment complex) via his cell phone is truly refreshing and is light years away from feeling like scripted cinema.

Awards for everyone..

It was only a matter of time. For year's the Academy Awards had been falsely maintaining a perception that it gave awards to relevant films. But deep down, it truly longed to only award films will popular mass appeal; it longed to nominate films which made millions at the box-office. And with the recent decision that 10 films will be up for a best film nomination, the mask of deception can finally be ripped out. This decision will make sure that a popular film such as The Dark Knight will never be left out of the nominations in the future.

The big studios can point out to more people watching the award show when films such as Titanic and Lord of the Rings were nominated and won. Yah. Power to the people!

I can almost certainly bet that even with 10 slots, Wendy and Lucy, the best American film made in 2008, would never get nominated. Why? Because it ain't a big studio blockbuster.

The Academy Awards can now finally take its place alongside the Filmfare Awards in Bollywood as being completely meaningless. In fact, in the future the Academy Awards might go the full way of the Filmfare Awards and start creating new awards every year (best villain, best comedic role, best newcomer) to ensure every single big blockbuster film gets nominated and wins. Atleast the Filmfare Awards didn't disguise the fact that they gave awards to only popular films. This is why they created a category called "Critics award" for best film, best story and best acting, to differentiate the regular best film award which was only meant for the most popular film.

Is making millions every year not enough for the big studios? Apparently not. They need the extra gratification to their egos with an award in their hands. "Vanity is my favourite sin" -- who knew Al Pacino's dialogue from The Devil's Advocate was about the Hollywood studio heads?

Images...

Waltz with Bashir, directed by Ari Folman

Bright yellow. Blury, hazy memories yet sharp pictures...



Who pays the ultimate cost of war? Innocents, ofcourse!

Part of paying the cost involves the dreaded march. The cycle of death goes on...somewhere Shiva is dancing away and Kali is not too far behind. The cycle of Kalyug continues to spin along.



"Every bullet fired in war finds its mark..to a mother's heart.." -- tagline from Border (1997), a J.P Dutta film.

These words only ring true when a bullet manages to kill a person because no matter who gets killed in a war, somewhere, someone will grieve that person's loss. But the presence of rapid fire guns in modern combat mean that bullets are fired aimlessly and wastefully. Such is the case in Waltz with Bashir where men spray bullets into thin air.

And as the bullets fire away from the automatic (or semi-automatic) weapons, shell casings are ejected out. But what happens to the shell casings that fall on the ground? Who cleans them up? Do they get re-cycled or are they dumped in the landfills? Besides piles of garbage, chemicals and bones, are shell casings tucked away in the ground around this planet?

And finally...


If soldiers can mentally distance themselves from bombings taking place a few hundred meters away, then what of people watching the war via tv sitting comfortably thousands of miles away? Can they ever truly understand?

And so it ends...

The prizes have been handed out and another Cannes Film Festival enters the history books. Even though I am not sure when I will get to see his latest film, I am glad to see Brillante Mendoza's name as winning director. I still think fondly of his two 2007 films Slingshot and Foster Child.

For the last week or so, most North American publications have been only talking about the "gore" and "blood" in the films at Cannes so it shouldn't be a surprize that talk is clearly apparent in Manohla Dargis' headline and article. The headline "Violence Reaps Rewards at Cannes Festival" and the comment "Despite the on-screen carnage that was amply rewarded by Ms. Huppert and her jury..." certainly seem to indicate disdain rather than report something as a matter of fact.

My problem with this view is that I have never seen the NY times have this headline:

Trash Reaps Rewards at American Box Office

If the paper were to have that headline every year, then I would be fine with the "violence" headline. Sure there have been times that A.O Scott has questioned the validity of critics to influence American Box Office revenues but it seems that a lot more is forgiven when considering big banner Hollywood trash films. But when it comes to Cannes, the swords really come out. I had expected to see negative comments about this year's Cannes even before the film lineups were announced but it is clear there won't be much good written about Cannes in this year's North American film magazines.

Will any film magazine bother to analyze the trend that why so many different directors narrowed in on such dark topics? Could it have anything to do with the bleak global situation caused by lies (from governments and corporations) and pure greed (bankers and the like)? On the other hand it appears to be so much easier to criticize Cannes and only praise darkness when shown via Hollywood's formats, be that of a bat, a serial killer or a greedy oil man.

---

[Update]:

I had no idea that Mendoza's Kinatay had generated such strong reactions. As per Roger Ebert:
"Here is a film that forces me to apologize to Vincent Gallo for calling "The Brown Bunny" the worst film in the history of the Cannes Film Festival.

Ouch!

And so it begins...

The Cannes Film Festival officially kicked off today and another year of debates and mud slinging can start. The festival started with an uplifting film but a few recent articles have talked about the gore that is doing to be dished out in the coming days. Robert Koehler and David Hudson talk about this aspect and it seems even the NY Times jumped on this. Although I have some other issues with the NY times piece.

The opening paragraph contains words that appear lazy and thrown around just for the sake of it:

Every year Cannes appears, alluring and forbidding, a haunted palace that knows better than to open wide its doors, become democratic or user-friendly — leave that to the North Americans.

So breaking things down...

alluring

Yes, beautiful things are often seductive and charming.

forbidding

well often beauty is forbidden or kept away from the masses. And likewise, the festival is only open for a select few. Nothing wrong with that.

a haunted palace that knows better than to open wide its doors

Huh? In terms of cinema, Cannes has had its door open wide for ages. So not sure what the complaint is about. And if it about the general public, yes the festival is restrictive, but that's how it is.

become democratic or user-friendly

No film festival is truly democratic! Every film festival consists of decisions executed by a few, often usually against the grain. The back room situations that exists in Toronto, Berlin, Rotterdam, Montreal and Sundance aren't very lovey-dovey either. In fact, no film festival would ever exist if each film was democratically selected.

And user-friendly? No film festival can ever be 100% user friendly. In fact, each user or audience member has to accommodate themselves to the festival's rhythm and only then can one have a true festival experience.

leave that to the North Americans

Honestly, what does North America have to do with Cannes? Moreover, this infers that North Americans and their festivals are open and democratic. Ha! In fact, at times one would be hard pressed to find international films playing in most locations across North America. If North Americans were so open, then wouldn't the powers that be pack their multiplexes with great cinema from around the world as opposed to shutting out the world's cinematic works? If America's Hollywood was so open, then why would it want to remake successful foreign films?

After a poorly prejudiced opening paragraph, I take further issue with these words:

Hired to rejuvenate Cannes, Mr. Frémaux does not have an easy time of it: with few American entries, and many old-timers with films ready to compete, the selection this year smacks of yet another family reunion — with a few surprises sprinkled in.

Let's see now..

with few American entries

Since when did Cannes have plenty of American entries? Indie American cinema targets the Sundance film festival while serious Hollywood films target TIFF and the fall line-up. Summer is saved for loud explosive Hollywood flicks. Unfortunately, in the last few years some of these loud movies made it to Cannes but thankfully that is not the case this time around.

and many old-timers with films ready to compete, the selection this year smacks of yet another family reunion — with a few surprises sprinkled in.

So, what's wrong with that? It is a fascinating prospect that this year some of the best names in the global film industry are going head to head against each other. On the other hand, did it occur to anyone that these director's works were worthy to be put there? Which films have been shut out from the competition so far? The only name that keeps coming up is Francis Ford Coppola. As per the NY Times piece,

This year, Francis Ford Coppola’s "Tetro" was rejected for competition at Cannes; rather than be relegated to Un Certain Regard, Mr. Coppola preferred to open the Fortnight.

Most people think that if something is not in the Competition, then it is an inferior film. But the truth is that some of the best artistic cinema can be found in Un Certain Regard. This difference between the artistic levels of films exists in other parts of the world as well. For example, excellent American films such Wendy and Lucy will never be nominated for the Academy Awards which appears to be reserved mostly for the big Hollywood films. So in a similar manner, the Un Certain Regard can be considered as an alternative category which may contain better quality works than the Competition. Ofcourse, the big difference is that the Competition gives out prizes which will certainly help boost a film's distribution chances.

I am sure more complaints will start filtering in as the festival goes on and I can already anticipate most film magazines and newspapers talk about how "substandard" Cannes was this year. Still, I look forward to seeing these films for myself to decide.

London out, Manchester and Barcelona in

Arsenal 1-3 Manchester United
Chelsea 1-1 Barcelona


Both London clubs exited the Champions League this week in different circumstances. Arsenal were lucky to have been only 1-0 down going into the second leg. But it seems lady luck decided to turn her back on Arsenal and within 11 minutes of the second game, Arsenal's season was over. Two goals by Man Utd in 3 minutes (8 & 11 min) ensured that the remaining 80 minutes of the game were rendered useless. Still, Man Utd got a third and Arsenal got a lucky penalty, via an incorrect decision, to atleast get on the score-sheet. Chelsea on the other hand were on their way to the final after a beautiful 9th minute strike by Essien. But as the game entered stoppage time Andrés Iniesta scored a beauty to take Barca into the final.


Unfortunately, all the talk surrounding the game was around the number of penalties that the referee didn't give Chelsea. Although, Barca were a bit unfortunate with their sending off as well.

Overall, both games featured quite a poor level of officiating. Both games had incorrect red cards handed out and in the Arsenal game, a non-existent penalty was given while in the Chelsea game, existent penalties were not given.

In the end, this season's two best European teams will meet in Rome for the Champions League final:

Barcelona vs Manchester United

Hopefully the final will be decided by good football and not by the ref's whistle!

---

note: all pics, ©Getty Images, from www.uefa.com

The Beautiful game, Barcelona style

Real Madrid 2 - 6 Barcelona


pic: ©Getty Images, www.soccernet.com

Vintage football! The El Clásico in La Liga was everything that it was billed to be. Even though Madrid took the lead, they were never close and if it weren't for the brilliance of their goal-keeping hero Iker Casillas, Barca could have had 3-4 goals more.

Xavi was the genius at the centre of Barca's creative moves with Henry and Messi providing the sublime gorgeous goals. On top of that, Barca's final goal came courtesy of Gerard Piqué who was solid at the back and provided perfect tackles to keep Robben and Madrid at bay.

pic: ©Getty Images, www.uefa.com

This is how football is meant to be played. Not the ugly disgusting thug like football that Chelsea played a few days ago. But Chelsea don't think about the quality of football and only care for lifeless trophies. So for the good of football, hopefully Barcelona can defeat the ugly negative anti-football of Chelsea on wednesday and advance to the final of the Champions league.