From certain quarters, like my dad, I keep hearing this crackpot theory, positing that the New England Patriots are actually more fun to watch this year than last, because they don’t win all the time and thus the games are more suspenseful. Now, I’m happy for quarterback Matt Cassel, who in replacing the injured Tom Brady has exceeded all expectations, and I do like this year’s version of the New England Patriots. They’ve shown a certain amount of spunk, and I admire that. But, I’m sorry, this year’s team is not more fun than last year’s team.
Sure, the season has been a pleasant enough ride. My thinking is: If the Patriots make it into the playoffs, great. If they don’t, well, too bad, but life goes on. Which is part of the problem. Last year I really cared about the Patriots; each game felt important, because it felt like I was watching history get made. During their ridiculous win over the Baltimore Ravens — the game they shouldn’t have own, but somehow did — I felt like I was going to faint, and when they lost the Super Bowl I had difficulty breathing. I’m sorry, but I don’t really understand why this year’s 9-5 record is more exciting than the possibility of perfection. Personally, I like excellence, and grand stakes. Is this because of my interest in world domination, as one of my friends has suggested? Possibly. But I also find it difficult to understand this weird embrace of mediocrity. Does it extend to everything, or just the Patriots?
The Celtics are on a 16-game win streak, and I asked my dad whether he thought it would be more fun if they were playing .500 ball, and vying for a seventh or eighth seed in the playoffs. “Would they be more fun to watch if they were like the Raptors?” I asked. “Would they be more fun to watch if they were like the Nets?” “Ummm, I don’t know,” my dad said. “Remember just a few years ago when the Celtics were the second worst team in the league?” I asked. “Was that any fun?” Well, no, of course it wasn’t, but my dad likes to play devil’s advocate, and so he said, “I do miss those young players they traded away for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. I like watching a young team develop.” “You can watch that young team develop,” I said. “Go watch the Minnesota Timberwolves. Does that sound like fun?” Do you see what I’m getting at? Why would you choose the Matt Cassel Patriots over the Tom Brady Patriots? Really, I can’t understand it.
Double dancing
Except for a trip to the Saratoga Performing Arts Center a couple of years ago to see the New York City Ballet, I haven’t seen a dance performance since college. How weird it is, then, that in the past week I’ve seen not one, but two, dance performances.
On Sunday I went up to Skidmore to watch the Saratoga City Ballet’s production of the Nutcracker. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen the Nutcracker, and this seemed like a nostalgic, Christmas-y sort of thing to do. And I really did enjoy myself. I’d forgotten some of the basics of the Nutcracker plot, but they all came back to me during the ballet, and of course the music functioned as sort of a Pavlovian trigger, bringing back old Christmas memories. I’m not sure I need to see the Nutcracker every year, but it’s a good thing to do every once in awhile.
As most people who read this blog know, I have a difficult time passing up the opportunity to do something completely crazy, at least when it comes to the arts. Which is how I happened to find myself at the Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute on Tuesday, for a free performance of a new work, called “Fermata,” by the Australian contemporary dance company Balletlab.
“Fermata” is an unfinished work, still in the process of being created, and Phillip Adams, the artistic director of Balletlab, made it clear that he was interested in feedback. I knew going in that the piece would be about as far from the comforting rhythms of the Nutcracker as you could get, as “Fermata” seeks to depict what it’s like to be in a religious cult.
At first, “Fermata” annoyed me. The music was really loud and unpleasant, and the dancers mostly just ran around screaming. I didn’t feel all that engaged, and the work seemed to be straining for a certain self-conscious edginess that I always find sort of off-putting. But things got better during “Fermata’s” second and third segments. The dancers actually danced, and you could see that they were really good dancers. My irritation faded, and I became more engaged. Still, it’s tough to sum up my feelings for the piece. Parts of it irritated me, but other parts were interesting, even compelling, and I guess what I’d really like to do is see the finished version when it returns to EMPAC in 2010.
But in the meantime, I’d like to see some more dance. Something stranger than the Nutcracker, but less strange than Balletlab. Something in the middle, I guess you could say.
Meanwhile, here’s a link to the funniest thing I’ve read in weeks. At first, I thought it was a parody. But after further scrutiny, I’ve determined that the writer is dead serious. Which is maybe the funniest thing of all.
