I never wanted access in the first place

bushaccess.gif

Mind you, I’m not bothered in the slightest that I can’t access Bush’s website, I’ve never until tonight tried to access it before and I suspect I never will again (but being the good reporter I am, I have just viewed the site via proxy). Why the Bush camp decided to ban overseas visitors from accessing the site I don’t know (could be protection against spammers, a chintzy way to save on bandwidth charges) but I can’t help feel that someone needs to tell those yahoos “Don’t flatter yourself.”

The rest of the world, which if it could would surely kick Dubya’s ass back to Crawford, can hardly be trying to beat down down the door to this poor excuse for propaganda, so really this only hurts Americans abroad. But then again, if you are so misguided as to believe you can find anything truly informative in Bush’s site, or for that matter, John Kerry’s or Ralph Nader’s, then perhaps you deserve to have your access blocked. Seek alternative sources folks!

(Via the BBC)

Feigning on the pitch, far off Broadway

Italy's Francesco Totti getting sent off during World Cup 2002

It’s things like this that bring home just how hard it is for me to get into that “world’s sport” football, or as we call it back home (and in Japan), soccer: England captain David Beckham has admitted that he got a penalty on purpose so that he would miss his next game, a World Cup qualifier with Azerbaijan. Beckham, who knew he was going to miss the game anyway on account of a rib injury (and little matter, as Azerbaijan hardly posed a threat to England, though I did find myself hoping for an upset just to throw a spanner in the works), rather than having the threat of a one-game suspension in a tougher World Cup qualifiying contest hanging over his head, basically got the suspension “out of the way” with his deliberate penalty (he already was sitting on one yellow card and two yellows result in a one-game suspension).

I suppose we should at least commend Sir Beckham for coming forward with his admission, and to be fair he does seem to be taking a bit of heat for it, notably from England football hero Geoff Hurst, who went so far as to imply that Beckham should be stripped of his captaincy. But what got me was a poll on BBC’s web site that showed that out of 80,598 respondents (at time of writing), a full 61% of them thought that Beckham’s sin was admitting to the intentional foul. Indeed, only 18% of respondents actually think that getting deliberately booked was wrong (21% said Beckham did nothing wrong at all).

Granted, as the BBC elegantly but cryptically disclaims, “Results are indicative and may not reflect public opinion,” and no one would try to claim the poll was scientific, but what I’m wondering is if the poll indicates that England fans desperately want their team to win any way they can, or if this kind of foul play is treated as an accepted part of the game, sort of an open secret that Beckham foolishly blew further open.

You see, if there’s one thing about the sport that bugs me to no end, and that really makes it difficult for me to fully enjoy, it’s all the diving, you know the feigning of penalties and the laughable sight of grown athletes pretending to writhe in pain after suffering the equivalent of a grade-school wedgie. (Okay, so the fact that sponsors’ logos are ten times bigger than team logos on uniforms, and the loosy-goosy way of time keeping, also bug the hell out of me, but that I can accept as part of the sport’s makeup, just like how the varying ballpark dimensions in American baseball seem part of the character of the game).

Now I can hardly be accused of subscribing to the “real men don’t eat quiche” school of thought (hell, I’m practically a vegetarian and you know what they say about vegetarians), but seeing superstar athletes crying wolf or pounding the ground in agony after getting their pinkie toe stepped on — followed by the obligatory stretcher trip to the sidelines and the inevitable sprint back to the playing pitch two seconds later — my latent American machismo can’t help but kick into overdrive and I start to wonder if those are real men out there or drama queens gone missing from a Shakespeare production.

(In fairness, American football, the sport that shares a name with Association football but little else — no doubt to the rueful consternation of most fans of the latter — is not immune to diving, with punters being the usual culprit, trying to draw “roughing” penalties. I hope the irony of players called punters — incidentally only one of two positions in American football that actually put foot to ball — being inveterate divers is not lost on my British readers. Anyway, I’ve always hated punters, divers all of them, and wusses who can’t tackle either.)

It’s not like I don’t want to enjoy football/soccer. Growing up in seemingly the only part of the world that doesn’t take it seriously I always felt I was missing something. And while as a teen we had the North American Soccer League, and I guess I can claim some smidgen of football/soccer “cred” for having seen the great Pele play live when I was 11 (for the New York Cosmos, at Aloha Stadium in Hawaii), it seemed pretty clear that that wasn’t what all the fuss was about. But now that I get my fair share of access to world football, the game is on the whole more frustrating than thrilling, and indeed I can’t take it seriously. Not in the same way that I can’t take the WWF seriously, mind you, just that I will never be able to get past the feigning and flopping or accept it as “part of the game.”

Thinking on the 2002 World Cup, which was played (or co-played) in Japan, and which I watched nightly, the moment I still remember above all others, the moment that gave me the biggest thrill, was seeing Italian captain Francesco Totti — poster boy for whiny prima donna football players everywhere — sent off for diving against South Korea (later it was determined that there was contact in the play in question though I still contend Totti flopped). Rather a waste of fan support I know, but such is my disappointment with the sport that I end up decrying or praising referree calls rather than getting upset about the blown goal opportunities or cheering the spectacular goal. Try as I might, rather than viewing these shenanigans — oh, let’s just call a spade a spade, this cheating — as a distraction like I do similar antics in say, NBA basketball, I see them not as part of the game, but as the game.

Entering the Twilight Zone, with camera but on shaky ground

handstopcrop.jpg

So yesterday as I was emerging from the depths of Shinjuku station, I came up not to fresh air but the formulaic strains of some Japanese pop group and a bunch of craned-neck fans ooh-ing and ah-ing. Based on the audience being 99% female, perhaps it was one of Johnny’s boy bands performing (Johnny Kitagawa is basically the Japanese version of Lou Pearlman), as part of some Nescafe promotion (women were handing out canned coffee drinks). Anyway, a good photo op…or so I thought.

No more than 15 seconds after putting the camera around my neck, I was descended upon by a uniformed man who was clearly not a police officer, but some rent-a-cop for some security company I’ve already forgotten the name of. Putting up the universal (or is it only in Japan?) “X” sign formed by crossing his arms, he was telling me “No Photos”. I was about to point to a couple of women with their cell phone cum cameras in the air when I saw that another security guard was telling them to put away their phones. WTF?!

In ham-fisted Japanese I told the security guard that I wasn’t standing on private property (though it did occur to me that perhaps the land was owned by Japan Railway and that my argument was on shaky ground, pardon the pun) and after a minute or so of me asking him if he owned the land I was standing on, he relented with the arm gesture than means “I give up, you win.” Whether this was because he couldn’t be bothered with a pesky foreigner or because he realized it was he who was on shaky ground, sure enough after that I was left alone by the security force, though they continued to tell other folks to put away their cell phones or digicams (presumably the fact that I was shooting the audience and not the band was noted by the “authorities”).

Tired of the scene I noticed that a crowd was forming across the street in front of one of the department stores and went over there to check it out. The crowd of about 50 had divided themselves leaving an imaginary catwalk between them, leading from the department store door to the street. I presumed that someone famous must be inside and that the crowd was waiting for him or her to exit, and this was confirmed to me by one of the ladies in waiting (apparently a famous comedian was inside, though in the end he never materialized). She also didn’t hesistate to tell me “no photos,” which was said in a way that made it clear she was parroting what someone — no doubt with an authoritative air but lacking any actual authority — had told the crowd before I had arrived.

This was getting ridiculous, like I had just woke up in my very own Twilight Zone episode where talent handlers and their minions ruled the roost, where cameras had been banned unless they were attached to an arm adorned with a “Press” armband, and where I was the last person on this planet to get the message. So I got my cojones in a bunch and positioned myself right at the end of the damn walkway staking my ground — and given that it was the street I sure as hell hope it was public property — and waited for said talent to emerge (sadly as I pointed out, the talent must have been flown by helicopter to safety because he never did produce himself).

In reality I didn’t want another scene of some non-cop telling me I couldn’t take photos, but as I thought about it later it occurred to me that I was probably making a show of it more for the folks in the audience who had been told to put their camera-phones away, and who had obediently relented. I couldn’t get over the fact that they — like the young women cooing over the pop group across the street — had acquiesced so easily in the face of apparent authority.

The scenes taken together were in fact rather pathetic: legions of adoring fans, hoping to capture probably nothing more than a fuzzy, low-resolution, figment of reality snapshot to email to their friends (“Guess who I saw today….?”), getting their enthusiasm dampened by young men with ill-fitting blue shirts and police caps following orders that probably didn’t fit them either.

~

It may well have been Johnny’s that was behind this production, for his talent agency — the most sucessful talent agency in Japan — is notorious for guarding the public image of his various talents. Indeed, if you visit the company’s site you’ll be hard-pressed to find a single image of any of their talent (I didn’t), and they’ve been known to go after various sites using unauthorized images.

Whomever was behind the concert event yesterday, it’s been clear for a while that talent agencies and related entities have become more agressive in protecting their supposed (though not explicitly codified in Japanese law) rights to their own image. Hence this campaign sponsored by the Japan Association of Music Enterprises which was launched in 2002 and recently updated. I don’t have a translation of the text for the current ad, but the old ad — showing a woman covering her face — featured a tag line along the lines of “Freely using this face is forbidden by law.” with the remainder of the ad going something like:

Of course entertainers and famous people, but also everyone, has a right to their own likeness. Other people can’t use these likenesses without permission. The publication of these photos, or “idol collages” [putting a face from one person onto a body from another] and things like that, is forbidden by law.

No “law” was ever specifically referred to, and it still isn’t. While I’m sure that I’m missing the nuances on this explanatory page the gist goes something like: “Wouldn’t you feel violated if someone took your photo while you were having dinner or out for a walk with your lover? These photos which can cause emotional distress are a violation of your human right to privacy. Not only artists or entertainers are protected, but everyone has these rights. And you can imagine that if common folks feel violated, then artists or entertainers are doubly violated since their portraits have economic value.” All of it is couched in “violation of rights” language, rather than specific laws which are being broken. And all of it cleverly exploits the “human rights” of common folk to garner sympathy for the rights of entertainers to make money.

Now, I can sympathize with artists wanting to control how they’re represented, and how representations of themselves are sold and marketed, but this whole “my face is part of my economic property” seems to go just a bit too far. And to say that a public personality has such a “right to one’s own likeness” (shouzouken in Japanese) beyond the confines of the concert hall or soundstage, in other words, in public is just a bit overboard. Granted, what JAME is concerned about most are probably things like aicora (“idol collage,” eg. ai from the Japanese for “idol” and cora from “collage” — stick that into your J-E dictionaries!), which most right-thinking people would agree is not kosher, but to tell me that I can’t take a photo of a public celebrity coming out of a department store, or even publishing said photo, is well, Twilight Zone stuff.