Shots In The Dark: Zidane = Brad Pitt?

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Zidane = Brad Pitt?

Did the Italian player Materazzi call Zidane's sister a whore, and/or did he call Zidane a terrorist, thus prompting the headbutt felt round the world?

(Materazzi has denied this, but tellingly, he has not volunteered what he did say.)

More to the point, do you care?

I've been struck by some of the posters below who argue, essentially, so what if Materazzi did say those things? It's just soccer. Calling an Algerian who's appeared in anti-racism campaigns in France a "terrorist," that's just part of the game. The real crime was Zidane's, for committing such an ugly foul.

But I'm not so sure. Does responsibility lie with the person who lost his temper...or the person who deliberately provoked that loss of temper? This is not such an easily answered question.

We don't have all the information yet, but it certainly sounds like Materazzi was doing everything he could to infuriate Zidane, from physical fouls to truly ugly verbal harassment. I'm sure he didn't expect to provoke a headbutt...but he certainly was trying to cause Zidane to foul him. From Materazzi's point of view, the greater the loss of control, the better.

It all reminds me of the climactic scene in David Fincher's dark and disturbing film, Seven. Kevin Spacey plays a twisted serial killer who wants to be killed by a hot-headed cop, played by Brad Pitt. (It's the grand finale to a sick scheme, the seventh of seven murders that Spacey has meticulously planned.) And so he manipulates Pitt in a vile way, using his understanding of Pitt's psychology, manipulating the policeman, pushing his buttons...until Pitt snaps, producing exactly the result that Spacey was seeking.

The film suggests that, even though Pitt's action (like Zidane's) can not be justified or condoned, it is understandable...and that the ultimate responsibility lies with Kevin Spacey, the man who deliberately sparked this loss of control. Spacey may be dead, but that's what he wanted; Brad Pitt is the real victim.

Materazzi may have been headbutted, but that's what he wanted. Zidane—goaded, insulted, harassed, until the better angels of his nature gave way— is the real victim here. He deserves, not our outrage, but our sympathy.

¶ 8:50 AM

Comments:

Furthermore, I think this is perhaps indicative of a current of arab/muslim racism in all of us, sometimes so deeply ingrained that its hard to identify unless comparisons are made.

So for example, had Zidane be some jewish player with parents who suffered in holocaust, and this italian slimeball said something like "dirty kike, your whore mother got what she deserved" or something, one can imagine the total outrage at this, completely overshadowing the jewish players physical response.

And yet here, everyone seems to making it such a minor tussle. Shameful.

# posted by Anonymous : 9:43 AM

Ridiculous.

# posted by Anonymous : 9:44 AM

As a Jew myself, I really don't think so. It's more that we just only have the information on what Zidane did as of yet, although some press conference is bound to happen about this.

# posted by Anonymous : 9:46 AM

Trying to goad the audience, Rich? Nice try, but I'm not buying.

# posted by Anonymous : 9:56 AM

Not at all—just trying to broaden the debate.

# posted by richard : 9:58 AM

This is horse doody. A house of cards built upon sheer speculation and fantasy. These are highly paid professionals who are about as sportsmanlike as my elbow. Zidane is marketed as a shy, likable man from humble beginnings who has helped the cause of multiculturalism in sport. Fine. But this shy guy steps on and head butts people when he feels like it. So I guess he's shy and vicious at the same time. I.e., we're not talking about the man, we're talking about an image based upon insufficient data.

The issue isn't who is the "victim" or who we should "sympathize" with; the issue is who harmed and who hurt their team. There is no question on that one. Do we like Materrazi and feel sorry for Zidane? For my money, that's the obsessed fan equivalent of anthropomorphizing your pet. The Italian guy said something nasty with the underhanded intent of goading Zidane into a foul. (According to this blog, that is a national trait.) Zidane, the hot-headed Algerian (whose sister may be a whore and who may indeed be a terrorist, for all we know), responded as he did. Italy won. France lost. What would the World Cup be without some controversy? Just enjoy it and stop the moralizing.

# posted by Anonymous : 10:13 AM

Moralizing? I think not. These are the kinds of questions that make sports so interesting. There are some serious issues involved in that headbutt... I loved the World Cup and enjoyed the game, but see no harm in probing a little deeper.

# posted by richard : 10:17 AM

Can't we recognize the subtleties of the situation without making one athlete out to be a "victim"? I think its an exaggeration to use that term for someone who lost his temper at a soccer game.

# posted by Anonymous : 11:24 AM

The world according to Rich:

Giambi--Hero
Zidane--Victim
Ortiz--Cheater

# posted by Anonymous : 12:00 PM

And re the ending of Seven: The killer is killed for Envy. But Brad Pitt would never be found guilty of first-degree murder for his realization of Rage, but rather second-degree due to the obvious heat-of-passion circumstances. So, no seventh victim/example (unless 20 years in prison counts). And if he had a good lawyer, I'd say he's off completely with a temporary insanity defense. So the killer's plan would have fallen short. Take that, Kevin Spacey's character!

# posted by Anonymous : 12:36 PM

Comparing sports events to literary events is a dangerous business -- and very bad sports writing. While an epigraphic quotation here and there may be fine (a la someone's comment that the Italian played Iago to Zidane's Othello), extended use of a literary scenario to explicate something that happened on the field threatens to obscure rather than enlighten. Sure, the Italian goaded Zizou into a penalty, like Kevin Spacey goaded Brad Pitt into shooting him. But what light does this shed? The analogy doesn't work, because the Italian's action (whatever words were said) doesn't compare to Spacey's; nor does Zidane's retaliation compare to Pitt's. Most importantly, the comparison doesn't elicit some truth in the situation that was not already apparent on its face. In short, this violates the spirit of EB White's rule that you don't use ten dollar words when you have a perfectly serviceable nickel word ready to hand. The debate here is about what constitutes sportsmanship. Bringing in Hollywood movies adds a layer of false sophistication that smacks of freshman dorm room philosophizing.

# posted by Anonymous : 1:39 PM

Or perhaps a little blog comment fun? The above comments smacks of the low-rent academic ramblings of a professor without an audience. Maybe you should look elsewhere for deep, penetrating analysis of SPORTS--being the lofty subject that it is. Maybe the philosophers at ESPN are what you seek?

# posted by Anonymous : 4:48 PM

And you, my last poster friend, are obviously a professor WITH an audience. That being the case, you are free to engage in high rent blabber about which you know nothing. I'll be glad to stick to ESPN -- and I'll have you know the College of Technical Studies of East St. Louis is giving my CV a thorough going-over at this very moment.

# posted by Anonymous : 6:58 PM

About Me