Olympic Fever
Wasn't sure it was actually going to happen this time around, but I did finally manage to get excited about the Olympics.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm always CURIOUS about the Olympics. With our communications technology at this level it seems the world is always getting smaller, our differences less apparent. When so many of the world's nations converge on one spot to square off against each other in physical challenges it now seems like an episode of Star Trek, our ethnic and national differences exaggerated for allegory.
This year there's the extra, added sensational interest of the games being held in a nation with a brutal totalitarian regime - a communist nation that's become a capitalist powerhouse.
They put on a hell of an opening ceremony...
2008 Beijing Olympic Opening Ceremony - Funny video clips are a click away
...but they had to know they were doomed going into that basketball game.
I have been a bit frustrated with the coverage of the games in this respect -- the NBC Olympic website is not so easy to navigate, footage of the games is being tightly controlled, tape-delayed and you have to jump through a bunch of hoops (What's the name of your cable provider? What kind of cable do you have? What's your local NBC affiliate?) just to see highlights.
But what I've caught at home (women's gymnastics, that great U.S. swim team win over the trash-talking French) has been worth catching on TV.
Who else is catching the fever?
Comments (1)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
What was Chuck Klosterman's line about the Olympics? Something about how one of the problems he has with the Olympics is that they give people the opportunity to care about something without thinking about why they're supposed to care about it? I keep thinking of that. I don't know if I necessarily agree -- the Olympics are a showcase for feats of physicality of which I and most of the rest of us are entirely incapable and which are thus pretty astounding. But a lot of the events seem fairly obscure -- is that the right word? Here's an analogy (and of course I'd go here, as a professional music writer): Appreciating a lot of Olympic events seem to be much like appreciating a record for songcraft or musical technique -- craft is great, breathtaking at times, but I'm probably not gonna listen to a record 400 times for its exquisite form, and neither will most people. Perhaps I'm at a loss because I'm not a sports person, but look: I watched the '08 Super Bowl, and it was transcendent. It was greater than the sum of its sometimes very strange component parts. That game was like Led Zeppelin, and much of the Olympics is like Steve Reich or The Mahavishnu Orchestra. Dig?
But yeah, we pay attention to the Olympics (even if a lot of us forget the games shortly afterwards) because these are people doing amazing things with their bodies we can't do. Or maybe audiences are just riding the thrill of watching representatives of their own nations rack up medals. That's the meta-game. I think that's what Klosterman's getting at. Why do we pay attention? Do we care about what the athletes are doing, or are we just tallying wins?
Posted on August 11, 2008 10:56 PM