...Make A Service Announcement

In an effort to actually start producing more posts, more often, I'm going to write smaller and more personable notes before I publish my usual posts. This way, I'll be giving you guys (well, whomever reads this stuff) some insight into what has inspired me to write about this, why I'm writing about that and hopefully to get you guys to know what type of person I am, instead of just being some schmuck who writes blog posts on Movies, Games and Sport - and who probably uses a comma way too much, y'know?

...Discuss: 12 Years A Slave

A subject which is not often explored enough in film, especially considering it is relatively recent in the history of the world and our society, is the subject matter of slavery. Where we have been given a lot of different stories, from different perspectives of other major events and periods in the world's recent history - and in particular, wars - there has not been anywhere as near as many stories being told regarding slavery.

Possibly because in war films, the Americans, British and the rest of the Allies are seen as the 'good guys', going up against the evil of the Nazis or whomever they may be. It is an easier sell to the studios or investors in getting the film made as there is often spectacle, battles and there is a clear and archetypal hero. Whereas, in a film depicting slavery or the events around that time, there's going to be racism, torture and brutality; and well, that is not an easy sell - especially considering it is already a tough and possibly all too familiar subject matter for the audience. There is no mistake why not enough films explore the subject of slavery. It potentially won't be able to sell enough tickets and make a financial profit for those who finance the film - it just doesn't make business sense.

Steve McQueen (Left) having a chat with Chiwetal Ejiofor during filming
of 12 Years A Slave.

However, director Steve McQueen (no, not that one) has made a film that deals with this most harrowing of subjects and has created something that seems true to the time. He has instead told the story through the eyes of the world; refusing characters to be uncomplicated and refusing sentimentality to seep through. As a result, he has told the story of a free man that was captured and made to work as a slave on the plantations of the South of the United States and how this man used his wits and the hope of seeing his family again in his efforts to live.

12 Years A Slave - adapted from the true life story and book of the same name - tells this story and tells it as honestly, truthfully and, as a consequence, ruthlessly as a story about slavery should be told. No punches are pulled; no shade has been toned down. It is emotional, gut wrenching, hard hitting and powerful film-making, all at once.

The film's commercial success since its release has been helped enormously from the award season appreciation that it has received. In many respects, it is a film that succeeds or fails by the recognition it is awarded during this particular time of the year. Coupled with the fact that the film tells a true story, with astonishing performances throughout the cast and that it avoids any sense of sentimentality means that the film has been able to flourish.

But what of more stories being told on this subject? It is clear that not all would be a commercial or critical success; as is the case with any other genre of film. And there are different ways and perspectives that such a topic, like slavery, can be told. A year ago, Quentin Tarantino made Django Unchained, which was in reality an exploitation movie, more so than it was a movie about slavery. Incidentally, it also did very well for itself, landing Tarantino a best original screenplay award at the Oscars, along with numerous other nominations.

As for 12 Years A Slave, the story about a man trying to live and merely not survive, is a true marvel to behold. It should be in your consideration to see and judge for yourself.

...Flounder at Manchester United

For Manchester United and their new manager David Moyes, 2014 has begun pretty disastrously with two successive home defeats. These results are completely uncharacteristic of Man Utd as a club - especially if you take into account the last 23 years. However, when you consider factors such as the introduction of new management, coaching staff and set-up, it is plain to see that there are major changes occurring to a club - even one as astronomically big as the Red Devil's - that there would be a transition period where such inconsistencies in performance are to be expected on the field. Even more so after experiencing more than two decades of success with the same manager - the immortal Sir Alex Ferguson - and then leaving that behind for a new man who still has a lot to prove; along with the fact that he (Moyes) still has yet to win a major honour during his time as a football manager.

Therefore, giving Moyes a chance to settle into the role, to sign his own players and to stamp his own personality onto the team is of essence. But we know well enough that in football, sufficient time is often not provided for a manager to achieve success in the long term. This is because the people who run the clubs, whether it is the billionaire (or multi-millionaire) owners or the directors that represent the shareholders, often want instant success instead of planning for the long term success of a club. It could also be said that it is because of the times that we are in; football is a hugely lucrative business, now more so than ever so the stakes are higher than ever for the hierarchy at the clubs. So, next comes the question of whether what most clubs do - which is to sack their manager after a short period of bad results - is the right thing to do?

Sir Alex (left) with Moyes (right) (before Moyes became the Utd boss)

To answer this, all you have to look at is the success of two of the most successful managers in the Premier League over the last 20 years: Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger. Sir Alex, much like Moyes at the time of writing this, suffered an unsuccessful early spell at Manchester United; where the club were stuck in the middle of the table and even after an unsuccessful two and half years was not making any inroads into winning the Championship (or as it was then, the old division one title). The Board, and especially Sir Bobby Charlton - a club legend who had up until then been the last Manchester United captain to lift the English title in 1967 - was forthright in his support of Sir Alex. This unwavering backing resulted in a 26-and-a-half year reign that has brought 38 major trophies to the club; thus making Sir Alex the most successful British manager in history.


Arsene Wenger's success at Arsenal came a lot smoother than Ferguson's. It only took him 18 months to turn the Gunners into a title winning team, which meant that his job was never in jeopardy for the first 10 years of his tenure. However, in recent times he has had his critics and there were rumours, as recent as the summer of 2013, that his contract would not be renewed because no silverware had been won since their FA Cup triumph in 2005. To date, though, he has been at Arsenal for 17 years and has kept the club in a great financial position despite at times not having much funds to spend on world class players and has always qualified his team for the lucrative Champions League.

Arsenal boss Wenger: he has a problem zipping up
coats but he sure knows how to manage a team

So, what can be deduced from these two long serving managers is that success, no matter how relative that success is (whether financially or whether it results in silverware), is more likely to be achieved with managerial stability and structure. Though there are also many cases of clubs - most notably Chelsea - that chop and change managers ruthlessly and frequently to achieve success, but have the means to do so with an extremely wealthy owner, it can be very costly and not all clubs have the insurance of a multi-billionaire owner to do this.

Manchester United are not one of these clubs. Having been bought by the American based Glazer family, mostly on credit, and who now use the clubs incomings to pay off the huge debt that they saddled the club with (and taking there own cut, obviously!), chopping and changing the manager would not be feasible considering that Moyes was given a 6 year contract and that would need to be paid off if he were to be booted out of the hot seat.

What I am getting at is that David Moyes does need to be given the time necessary to turn things around, despite the fact that even the performances of the team have been way below par of what the standard has been in the last two decades. Maybe it is this that is making it harder to swallow; because if Man Utd were losing but still performing well and creating numerous, clear goalscoring chances in every match then there would be more to look positively towards. At present (and I mean the whole of this season to date) there has not been convincing performances that would show the experience and the command to navigate a season and to be in contention to win the league. Man Utd have already lost 5 home matches and only half the season has been played. It is easy for everyone to see that the intimidation and fear factor of playing the Old Trafford outfit has evaporated.

It will be interesting to see how the next season pans out and whether the theory of giving a manager sufficient time to bring success to a club actually plays out. After all, when Sir Alex entered the fray all those years ago, the game was different. There wasn't the same money, competition or any financially superior opposition to really challenge the might, history and tradition of Manchester United. Moyes is not so lucky any more, as there is now a handful of teams that are all contending for United's throne as English Premier League Champions.