I have got to say, finding any photos of Jerome Kaino changing shirts during a Rugby World Cup match is even harder to find than ones for Richie McCaw, but I think I have managed it:
After the end of the cup though, it seems many other All Blacks are getting in on the shirtless act. There is Victor Vito (who I also spotted at the gym tonight, though he was in his normal shirted form):
Verdict: Tracking down non-SBW shirt changing images from the Rugby World Cup 2011 is a job for someone with more time and patience than me. Many horse shoes out of good luck.
Far be it from me to argue with rugby legend Sean Fitzpatrick, but I have to say that I reckon he is a little behind the times with what makes Kiwis tick. Though perhaps it is because he is working for the NZ Herald and that paper may hold more traditionalist views. Because, over on Stuff:
Yup, Sonny Bill Williams, and how to look good shirtless, is THE most important lesson learned from the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Perserverance? Determination? Faith? No, sorry Mr Fitzpatrick. Rugby made us smarter because, as much as the much vaunted new super funky rugby jersey may have scored an epic fail on the durability, ease of application and even fit stakes, it resulted in this:
And of course, Richie also had a shirt replacement incident, but that doesn't even seem to register with Stuff's SBW-centric staffers:
So I really am sorry Sean, but your analysis of the game seems to come from way back in the mists of time from when the All Blacks last won the Rugby World Cup. We are living in the modern, professional game now, where personality (and physique) can trump those more quaint notions of what the game means to the country with a crunch from a well honed six pack.
Verdict: One week on, it seems what Stuff has taken from the Rugby World Cup 2011 does not have a whole lot to do with rugby, but does have a whole lot to do with Sonny. It makes me smile. 6 slabs out of 6.
I don’t know of anyone who has not enjoyed a game of Rugby over the past few weeks. The energy and enthusiasm, especially when supporting the “smaller” teams, has been infectious. And the games themselves have seemed a bit less burdened by the weight of the expectations of normal tours, their frequency and variety perhaps releasing the intense pressure of normal matches. The waves of tourists through the cities has also added a festival atmosphere to things, as city councils do their best to entertain them outside of the rugby venues, with flow on effects that locals can appreciate.
There is no doubting that the Rugby World Cup is news. There is a bit less justification for it being serious news. And oftentimes, because this is New Zealand, this is the only news.
Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with a national sport, and intense interest therein. For me though, as someone with more just a passing interest in the game, minimal interest in wall to wall coverage of what is fairly non news (as the only real rugby-related news happens on the field), and no interest in Rugby players selling me things, I am just about past the point where I can find good humour in the rugby frenzy.
Must the Kiwi media (and lay Kiwis too) be complete d!cks when describing (i.e., insulting) competitors from across the ditch? Does the desire of any team to win a game change so much that we require daily media conferences to confirm their enthusiasm? How many times can the media use Sonny Bill Williams’ image in stories barely even tangentially related to rugby, and is there some magic 6-digit number of times that they must refer to his physique?
It is great to see the players mingling with their fans despite the pressure they must be under, and it is sweet to hear of young ladies bringing their heroes presents (though I would have thought anyone at this stage would be wary of plates of food).
A lot of New Zealanders have invested a lot, emotionally, in this event. It’s a feel good story, a way to lose oneself, after so much awfulness – earthquakes, financial meltdowns, increasing costs – that, for the most part, people have been more or less helpless to prevent or to cure. From that perspective, this is a fantastic time that has lifted the spirit of a nation, even if just for a little while.
But, yeah, I am ready to move on myself. I suppose I should be thankful this feeling did not come earlier, when there were many more matches to be played. Last week, I was barely able to watch the Air New Zealand safety video without reaching for a barf bag (and that was before the plane even moved), but outside of that, I have had no signs of rugby overload until the last day or so.
So yes, it is nearly done. And I am much the happier for it. Win or lose.
Verdict: It's been fun, but its time to move on. But will we? 15 players out of 15.
A timely blog on being topless today. Why "timely"? More on that later.
First off, to answer a request from the last entry on the Def Leppard concert. Unfortunately, I did not take any photos from within the concert venue myself, so I have no photos of any of those who spent the evening sans shirt (Phil Collen, young lads around me, and not the attractive young lady who bared her all for all), and I don't think my companions took photos of anyone who was not up on stage (well, besides themselves).
And so I have scoured the internet and found an approximation - and, besides the fact she wore a lot less make up (not that I really paid too much attention to her face), I reckon she looked a lot like this:
However, there is other shirtless news that needs to be addressed (and this is the "timeliness" bit, before the NZ v Australia match, which has yet to be played as I write this).
While I didn't see the game myself, there is some photographic proof out on the Interweb confirming this story, though not on any of the major local news sites as slideshows:
And from the looks of it, he also required assistance to put on his figure-hugging replacement "jersey":
McCaw has a huge number of fans out there, and indeed is considered one of the game's sexiest men, but it seems that, for some reason, his physique is not deemed as worthy of attention as other members of his team. Was this a sign of respect? Was this a decision made my the All Blacks? Or is Adidas getting a bit worried that all their shirts do seem to disintegrate when worn for anything sporty?
Whatever the reason, it will be interesting to see what hype surrounds the members of the team in the next 10 days, as the Rugby World Cup comes to an end. A new hero has arisen in the commanding presence of Piri Weepu, so perhaps he will be given the faulty (well, easily torn) shirt in the days to come.
Verdict: I always find it fascinating when people doing roughly the same thing are treated differently, and in particular how things are playing out and being hyped up during the Rugby World Cup. And full credit to the young lady at the Def Leppard concert. An appreciative smile out of a seedy leer.
The All Blacks may have started the whole "dance and intimidate" thing on the rugby pitch, but these days, other Pacific Island nations have their own versions, some of them a bit more motional than the traditional All Black one. This may be why the New Zealand team now has the new throat-slitting version, as the spectacle stakes continue to escalate and where only the most active pre-game warm up can survive (well, probably not). Perhaps the American team will adopt a whole Bring It On cheerleader style routine before their matches to join in the not-game fun, though I doubt those kind of antics will really throw the opposition off much - not that a haka probably does that either; and at least a haka doesn't completely exhaust the players beforehand.
But the Americans don't really need their own pre-match signature dance. Because, in the international war song sweepstakes, the American Eagles have one of the most inspirational threats around.
Sure, if you sing it slowly, degenerate it into a warble-strewn ego-driven travesty, or leave it to someone like Roseanne Barr to interpret in their own style, the Star Spangled Banner can end up sounding like a funeral dirge or something that one invites the throwing of tomatoes. But done well, with hand on heart flag waving (a difficult manoeuvre to be sure, but years of Twister practice can help) and a small pin attached to one's lapel, there is nothing quite like it. It's a call to arms, a call to war, to defend and to attack. And it does get the blood flowing.
But (and I must admit to a lot of personal prejudice in this case), more rousing than the American national anthem, drowning out the haka of nations with the brute force of voices raised in song, a motionless emotional invitation to quake, you can't really go past the French national anthem, La Mareillaise.
Of course, in a multi-lingual sense, haka make a lot more impact in that they get the message across without the need to understand what anyone is actually saying. Yelling (or singing) at people really loudly is pretty standard in any culture, especially for anyone who has ever gone out on a Friday or Saturday night, so a loud song that is belted out by anything less than a choir is something that, by itself, most people can just ignore. However, slapping thighs, poking out tongues, fist pumps and punches - these grab the attention no matter how few people are involved, and, en masse, it is definitely a sight to behold.
So, in the absence of a national anthem designed to intimidate all opposition (calling upon a deity to intervene in defence of a country is not a great rallying cry for resistance and/or conquest), its great to think that New Zealand (and other nations) have haka that can bring a fire to the belly that respectful singing of God Defend New Zealand cannot.
Of course, not all calls to arms need to last minutes or involve coordinated movement. The Australians may like to advance fairly, but there is nothing quite like a few short and sharp rounds of "Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! Oi! Oi! Oi!" to get them motivated.
Verdict: It may all be a game, but national pride is a serious business. Whether it is overused or underaggressive or not always treated with the respect it deserves, the haka is (or are?) a way to show opponents that Kiwis mean business. But lets not forget that other countries let their anthems do the talking, or intimidating, and have been doing so for centuries. In the end, a song and/or a dance won't win the war, but it will make a pretty interesting spectacle. 4 cups* for all the anthems and haka at the Rugby World Cup out of 5.
* minus one, as I have yet to hear the Aussie chant.
It has been an unbelievably long time coming, and my cupboards are now overflowing with Powerade, Rexona Antipersperant, Up and Go and Daikin heatpumps - well, they would be if I didn't more or less record everything and just skip through the ads. I have tickets for a grand total of none of the games, though I may watch one or two somewhere along the line. I do drink a heck of a lot of Coca Cola though.
All the jingoistic playing on patriotism around the Rugby World Cup 2011 has made me feel rather anti, so on my crusade, I decided to look through the supporters jerseys that the various supermarkets had stocked to find a cocky French top. After the first supermarket failed to have one, I thought perhaps it had sold out. By about the third unsuccessful attempt, I was suspecting conspiracy. Now, I reckon it is one. Unless the French team is just ridiculously popular, which may be the case.
I have never really considered buying an All Black one, though it pays to look like a player to wear them these days:
So far, everything seems to be running as expected:
This event will run at a loss, and the New Zealand taxpayer will pick up the bill. The size of the loss will be unknown until the loss is all lost, but it may be exponentially more than the first dart that hit the cost board indicated, if not logarithmically.
The major sponsors have proved to be complete draculian (saw that on a blog once, and thought it was such an apt term) d!cks, adidas foremost amongst them for the whole rugby jersey debacle (though apparently it hasn't stop people buying the jersey, just other labelled items) The completely-unfunny-even-in-the-abstract Telecom celibacy campaign met a premature death, and now, as reported by other bloggers, unsanctioned sponsorship is being surgically removed from strategic points.
Sonny Bill Williams has shown that his loyalty is to his family and their well being, meaning it is to his wallet and his fighting and what he wants to do, meaning it is not to New Zealand rugby. Who would have guessed that donning the All Black jersey and playing in a World Cup was just a stepping stone to other things? Well, EVERYBODY! Well, obviously not everybody, judging by the fan reaction. But honestly...
The only real unknown is who will win the actual competition. A few game-losing jitters over the last few weeks on the part of the All Blacks has caused a bit of concern, but they are still the odds-on favourites.
For my part... well, truth be told, part of me wants to say I don't want them to win (go France!), part of me want them to be victorious, while over those parts is a layer of not really caring. I may have to go into all those conflicted opinions in a later blog, once the competition is underway.
But I do have to ask: is Rugby going to be the winner on the day? With all the shinanegans and goings on, the overwhelming advertising and the distancing of the team from the people, is Rugby actually going to be better viewed than it was beforehand? I suppose that will depend on who wins or not.
Verdict: It's almost here, which means the anticipation is almost over, and soon, so will all the hype. Blessings all around, no matter what you think of the rugby. 8 days out of a week and a bit to go.
Sometimes, I wonder if writers are aware of the reality of NZ Rugby.
Take this article on the re-signing of super-All Black, Richie McCaw, following hard on the heels of the reporting of Daniel Carter’s decision to stay in New Zealand, also with the Canterbury Crusaders (though by his own admission, Carter spends a lot of his time in Auckland).
First off, let me just say I have nothing against the deal made with either McCaw or Carter, or Sonny Bill Williams for that matter. That’s what employees and employers do – the employees demand what they want and it’s up to the employer to determine if that is what they are willing to pay.
What gets my goat is the praise heaped upon these people for accepting vast sums of money and conditions that they decided had to be worked into their agreements. Sure, the players have decided to stay in New Zealand, and their decision to do so may not have been done on the lawns of Parliament, but lets get real here: these people got what they wanted and are getting handsomely paid. Could they have earned more overseas? Probably – and, for Carter at least, the promise of “sabbatical” time in his four-year contract means he still can go abroad and demand quite a bit for the experience.
Of course, the money these men get from the NZRFU is just one source of income: Carter has quite a few highly visible endorsement earners with other companies (I would love to see the advertisement, “Dan Carter would choose Nikon cameras, even if he had to pay for them”, though I have my doubts that this would ever happen); Williams has a sideline in pugilism which I am sure is well remunerated; and McCaw shows up in fliers I find in my letterbox every so often advertising very solid and reliable and trustworthy things that I am sure he is meant to embody. All of these endorsements would (I imagine) be reconsidered if these people were not playing in New Zealand, as their “patriotic” currency would be somewhat diluted by them working and playing abroad long term.
So, and again, here’s hoping that these gushing media reports and rabid fans get real: Rugby Union in New Zealand is a money-making venture, and these players, while no doubt getting a lot of satisfaction in playing for New Zealand and for local clubs, are in no way staying here purely out of the goodness of their hearts. They are making sure they are getting the best deal that they possibly can, and all power to them – but let’s not paint them in martyrs’ colours, please.
Verdict: Good on the major All Blacks players for resigning to play in New Zealand for the next few years at least. But it would be disingenuous to pretend that these men get nothing for staying and playing in New Zealand: they are getting some pretty sweet deals, and have negotiated opportunities within their rugby agreements as well with other organisations to earn quite a bit more. Considering their calibre and class, they deserve their rewards – but New Zealanders should stop trying to fool themselves that rugby is still “grass roots” at heart. These men are professionals, being paid as such, and should be treated and seen as such too. 7 shots of reality out of 15.
--------------
As an aside, why I like Joan:
"Oprah Winfrey is so powerful that she had the Rapture postponed until after her final show airs." - Joan Rivers.
Over the weekend, I mastered the art of downloading photos from my phone.
Today, I snapped a few shots.
The first shows how completely I am not the demographic for anything on TVNZ channel ONE. I don't know if they could find a more repellant advertising campaign for me if the advertising company was deliberately targetting me with the express objective of making me not want to watch the shows.
The second was a prominent advertisement that somehow feels redundant given recent developments between National and the Maori Party.
The final that came out okay was the sight down the valley when I returned home. Awwww.
Verdict: It's really handy having a camera always on call, even if it is a small one and my shots do come out a little blurry. But I won't let that stop me! 3 megapixels out of 5.
I check the NZ Herald site fairly regularly. Sure, it’s a complete mess: articles all over the place with the photos and ads presenting a dizzying visual assault to the eyes. But the actual written words are interesting, even if I don’t agree with everything.
One recent editorial line struck my eye a while ago, but I didn’t really go into it in much depth then. It showed the blue colours of the paper extend beyond the style sheet to the mind of the editor as well.
Now, an editorial is allowed to be opinionated – it’s the whole point I suppose. I was interested in the conclusion though: Key presents powerful case for asset sales, a case that the editor sees as courageous and well directed at “sacred cows”.
Considering asset sales has been the clarion cry of Act and the Business Round table for… well, years, if not ever, I don’t really see it as a lone, rebellious voice in the wilderness this back patting seems to be. And the “powerful” case itself mainly stacks up to New Zealand’s economy floundering like so many others around the world and new schools, highways, hospitals and broadband need to be built – all very tangible and “worthy”, to be sure. The editorial does not comment about the extra cost associated with new operating theatres and more classrooms (not that I disagree with the idea of course; just pointing this out) nor that one of those other floundering economies, Ireland, was the Right’s pin-up poster boy a few years ago for what nations New Zealand’s size could and should be doing.
That is not to say this is not be a “bold and sensible” course, as the editorial concludes. However much I personally may disagree with the idea, I do not have a background in economics and have a fairly low opinion of the morality of the market so I tend to approach the topic with a big sense of scepticism.
But I would think that a “powerful case” would actually provide some kind of evidence for the conclusion reached, and would cover some of the more glaring issues that arise. “A case” can be completely powerful if you happen to agree with it: some religious Christians see the Bible as completely true and that it should be interpreted literally because the Bible says so. Again, that is not to say that the conclusion is wrong, just that it is not actual “proof”, nor that the argument is powerful to anyone other than believers.
There were quite a few comments on this editorial, unsurprisingly, and the majority of the ones I saw did not share the editor’s opinion. I suppose it is a good editorial in that it does get people thinking about what is important to them and the merits of various proposals. It is just a shame the paper did not choose to do its own analysis and present all sides of the argument itself, as surely any good journalistic medium should do.
Thank heaven I get Stratos in a few months’ time…
Verdict: Newspapers in NZ continue to underwhelm with their superficial approach. New Zealand may be a country where only the Rugby (and, in particular, the exploits of SBW) gets discussed in any length length whatsoever, but it would be nice to know there was a bit of depth somewhere out there too. 2 Pulitzer prizes out of 10.
I spotted this poster in Wellington train station, and have subsequently seen it on Oriental Parade. And, on first inspection, it struck me.
Not in a physical way, but more in the subliminal message way. Or perhaps not so subliminal. Do you see what I saw? And no, there is no little picture of Waldo or Wally anywhere.
The thing that struck me about this was the jacket. Obviously, the cause is worthy and I am sure that donating would be wonderful. But that jacket. Why does it have to be a designer label?
Sure, adidas is not Christian LaCroix or something from one of the big designer houses. But what this advertisement said to me was that kids need their sports-sponsored jackets, and that is what this charity organisation will deliver them.
I suppose the real reason why a big adidas symbol is splashed all over this page is because the company, besides sponsoring well paid (perhaps mercenarily so) rugby players, also works with the underprivileged too. I assumed this display showed that addidas support the charity and merely ask that the children they help clothe be attired in apparel that shows from whom their wardrobe springs. The little people matter – in any way that helps sales, the cynic within me cynically smiles.
Of course, being the cynic that I am, the whole advertising-link annoys me almost as much as the thought of the charity spending donated money on “label first” clothing. Oxfam do a great line in “present” donations where contributors can pay for specific items, such as chickens, toilets, educational grants and the like, and I have occasionally contributed to some of these as “presents” for some friends as donations on their behalf. But I would never have any inclination be to buy an addidas jacket as one of those donations.
In the end, I found that the advertisement gave me all the wrong messages, foremost the one that, “We need money because we spend money on label clothing”. If adidas do indeed sponsor this charity, their message rings out, “We give these people money, but expect them to spend it on our label of jackets and other assorted sporting gear”.
Verdict: And so, all up, the advertisement served to convince me not to donate to that charity, and also to spread the word about how awful their advertising campaign appears to be. Like the more annoying and/or discordant advertisements out there, it definitely left an impression – just not the impression the advertisers probably intended. 1 powers of persuasion out of 5.
There is a big hole in my viewing schedule that came about when I lost access to Stratos Television, as it is not available on Freeview Terrestrial. The mix of news programmes from around the world, including the fascinating perspective of Al Jazeera International (the English version), was something I always appreciated, even when my preferred news source was The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Losing both last year was a big blow.
However, the powers that be at Triangle/Stratos headquarters have decided to expand their service beyond its current satellitic confines and, come March, I will once more be able to bask in its multi-ethic magnificence. Oh, joy!
2. Noticing new things
I never really looked at the msn.nz site before (as I normally get booted here after I got out of Hotmail), but this time I noticed the NZ Men option, with links to Babes Galleries, $ex and dating and NZ Men News. No option for NZ Women yet, though perhaps that is because women run the media industry so they don't need their own menu.
3. Wall to wall All Blacks
Okay, technically speaking, we got lots of this last year too. And, when I flew Air NZ earlier this year, I noticed that the "All Black All Men" kiss request has been removed from their still highly annoying safety video. But I had better view the whole "All Blacks All Advertising" thing positively, otherwise I will need to strangle people. Or else I will just have a blogb!tch.
4. It's an election year
Promises will be made, and will then, after the election, be broken. But at least we, the public, will be sucked up to for a few months before we get told to tighten our belts, stop complaining about the price of almost everything, and most definitely to stop being so damned lazy - unless you are a multimillionaire made rich on the back of thousands of small investors or government asset sales and then you can do pretty much anything you want as long as you leave your cars in the country.
On a more negative note, however, I did notice the following sign in Paraparaumu the other day:
Verdict: Not entirely sure why it is necessary to look forward to a New Year as it is just an arbitrary number used to tabulate man's perception of time, but it somehow feels like quite a nice thing to do. 2000 out of 2011.
Apart from one movie Judgement, this will be my final Blogspot for 2010.
Strange to think that yet another year has gone by, and already some of the events that defined 2010 seem, to my mind, to be ancient history. There were earthquakes, oil spills, Paul Henry, mining accidents with endings both happy and sad, visitations and departures. Closer to home, there were passings, new arrivals and multiple bumps signifying arrivals yet to come. Some things are under constant change while some other things always seem to be until they are no longer.
However, for the nation of New Zealand, 2010 was just a prelude in some ways, as 2011 will - if the hype is to be believed - define us as the Rugby nation. Rexona, Addidas, Powerade, Air New Zealand and a whole host of other international mega-corporations are trading on the Kiwi-ness and patriotic pride of the upcoming tournament to flog their wares, knowing how there is a lot of national pride riding on the boys in black and a second, home soil Rugby World Cup victory.
I have commented (and judged of course) the inanity of the build up and the tie ins, but then, on the odd occasions when I set down my gavel, removed my robes and left the Judge's bench and head out from the cyberverse into what passes for reality, I realise that I am definitely in the minority with these critical views.
Rugby is the social glue, the secular religion that binds the majority of New Zealanders together. There are other threads, like the Anti-Nuclear Policy, pavlovae and jandals that tie those less sportively inclined to Godzone, but I don't think anyone can deny that there is nothing that rouses and binds and motivates Kiwis into a cohesive force like a major All Blacks sporting fixture.
So, from a social perspective, 2011 will be an interesting year to be a Kiwi. Of course, there is a huge amount riding on this from a monetary perspective, like the potential for increased tourism, the months-long planetary media coverage, and of course the associated world wide marketing opportunities. But what will also be on show, for both the international audience and for the population at home, will be a lot about what makes Kiwis tick, about what makes a New Zealander. Will we be gracious in victory, or stoic in defeat? Will we be welcoming to all comers, or unstoppingly patriotic? Will we get a public holiday should the All Blacks win the hallowed cup (please, please, please! we lose both Waitangi and ANZAC days as public holidays - again - in 2011!), or will we just rearrange the educational timetable of our "most valuable resource" children to make bus transit times a little easier for ticket holders? And what impact will the bigger, broader issues have on this nation when it will most likely be more focussed on what happens in one or two open air Rugby Cathedrals around the country?
Yes, 2011 will be very different in style and substance to 2010. And it isn't very far away now at all... Verdict: 2010 is coming to an end after what seems only a brief stay. But, without doubt, 2011 will be bigger and brighter, and decidedly rugby ball shaped. How to rate it though, seeing it has yet to occur? Let's go for a preliminary rating of 12 out of 15, and see how things go...
The offending (offensive?) scene has Richard Kahui declining the request of a male flight attendant, Will Coxhead, to supply him with a peck on the cheek. It's a scene made with good humour, with Kahui not too concerned with having a guy "hitting" on him (well, within the confines of the ad - perhaps this should come with a "do not try this at home" warnings), and Coxhead fine with having his request rebuffed by the All Black.
Three things stand out for me about this:
1) Given the obvious good humour between the two participants in the scene, would anyone really be offended by this? What is there really to be offended about? The fact it shows an All Black, stereotypically a man's man but in the most heterosexual way possible, being not only tolerant but respectful to a man who finds him attractive (one assumes)? The fact a gay man feels comfortable enough to make such a request of one of New Zealand's sporting heroes without the fear of any negative reprisals besides a "no"? While in general the advertisement may leave me writhing in pain due to its incredible tedium and obvious "marketing", even I have to admit it was all made in good fun.
2) I am not sure when the complaint was lodged, but surely such a decision comes a little bit late? Four months after this has been shown on hundreds of flights within the country and on YouTube throughout the world, I would have thought it would be a bit pointless for a bit of editing now.
3) Would the powers that be have allowed the scene to be shot with the All Black kissing the attendant, whether said hypothetical All Black be gay or not? The humour in the scene comes from the fact that such an act would seem to be unlikely, so as such, and while it does so with humour, the scene does not surprise and instead sticks with stereotype.
Verdict: The Air New Zealand safety advertisement maintains the manliness of the All Blacks through the lack of physical contact, while softening the image of the men in the black jerseys themselves through the light hearted spirit displayed by the two people involved. It's shame that those making the advertisement didn't have the courage to really push boundaries (though that might have damaged the brand), but it is worse that there are some people out there who see this scene as something discriminatory when, in reality, it is something that people on both sides of the puckered lip fence could really learn from: how to deal with an unwanted advance; and how to accept rejection without resorting to bunnycide. 2 steps back out of 3 steps forward.
Part (and I would imagine most) of the fun of watching Breakfast must have come from what shock jock Henry would actually say. Without his mouthy, unpredictable presence, there is less reason to tune in, as the bland and banal opinions and stories that normally fill the normal Breakfast show are no longer as interesting now there is not someone to offend guests or well known celebrities.
Now then is the time for action. Rather than just sitting in sanctimonious judgement, I am actually going to be proactive. My suggestion: rebrand Breakfast and make it an extremist piece of early morning television. But who would be the ideal person(s) to host this show? There are so many to choose from.
First off, I would have to suggest Mr Anti-Asia himself, Winston Peters. He may think he has some political life left, but let’s keep him out of parliament (please) and put him somewhere we he can do far more damage: the televisual medium. Imagine him interviewing the Prime Minister: no chummy-chummy conversations there – it would be constant attack and grandstanding, and perhaps the PM would get a word in from time to time. Political commentary in general would take a huge leap… somewhere. And think of all the anti big business antics / scandals / innuendo with the resulting hype that would generate? Plus, consider the built in Grey Power viewing audience? What would there be to lose, besides TVNZ’s dignity?
Secondly, TVNZ could try Brian Tamaki as lead anchor. He has years of experience on screen, is masterly groomed, and he could bring along his own off-sider in the form of his wife. He would hit the ground running, and run the sinners to the ground. Again, he would come in with his own built-in following, and he would have no trouble with the more tawdry aspects of having to hawk junk, so that could come over from the extended infomercial that is Good Morning. There may be a few problems with him interviewing guests, as would they need to be told whether to call him “Mister”, “Pastor” or “Bishop” (the latter could get confusing and/or tricky should he be interviewing the Anglican or Catholic clergy) or perhaps just “Bri”, but just imagine what he would say around Chris Carter’s antics or how he could offend the Pope! And, should Pippa or his wife be unavailable, adding the recently half-outed Alison Mau to the presenting line up should add an air of tension that would make riveting television viewing.
Speaking of “the Chairman”, Mau is another option for the role, as she has been known to get up on her pedestal for a self serving rant or two. She is everywhere on One at the moment, and so would make the perfect accompaniment to yet another programme that I don’t watch but love to complain about.
Another option is to get back to New Zealand’s (mythological) “traditional grass roots hero”, as Andy Hayden is a sporting icon who has had a dabbling with media controversy recently. His mouth may be big, but so is the man himself, so where verbal sparring lets him down, I am sure Hayden could just smack a guest over. Who wouldn’t be entertained by him and Guyon Espiner coming to literal blows discussing politics? And of course the Rugby World Cup itself gives extra weight to Hayden’s claim, considering how all out TVNZ will go with the coverage and random connections to the sporting festivities, and it would give Hayden plenty of opportunity to share reminiscences of his sporting past, his opinions on the game, women, and anything else that may pop into his mind.
Following on from the “violence begets ratings” tack, there is of course prodigal son Tony Vietch out there, slowly being rehabilitated into media society. A spot chairing the Breakfast table would be a way for him to put his talents to good use… well, to use anyway. With years of history at TVNZ hosting several shows and hobnobbing with sporting legends, Vietch would bring a huge amount of experience to the role and connections that would serve Breakfast well, especially in the lead up to the Rugby World Cup. And, from memory, there are no stairs on set.
As a master of bright attire, and a man familiar with dancing on television, Rodney Hide could be another contender. A man of bubbly enthusiasm also renowned for the odd bout of foot in mouth disease, he may not have Henry’s media experience but he is a survivor (kind of) of the slings and arrows of the political arena, which should hold him in fairly good stead, and I am sure he would relish the chance to lay into politicians and bust their perks from the safety of the patented TVNZ Double Standards Interviewer’s Throne (The TVNZ D-SIT™). There would also be the extra tension around whether or not Hide will drop his Breakfast partner on their head.
The Mad Butcher would be an outside choice. Sure, sport would tend to be dominated by League news, but he has plenty of conviction and a quite distinct television personality. I am not altogether sure how well his kind of yelling at the camera would work with a co-host though, but we would always know which cuts of meat are on special.
For someone I would actually watch, you could not go past Georgina Beyer. Ex MP, ex Mayor, and ex a lot of other things too, she is an incredible speaker, passionate, intelligent and would come with a point of view that would be fascinating, shaped by her experiences and, I would imagine, would be the exact antithesis of Mr Henry. But, as I write this, I realise how unlikely it would be: while any interview with those of redder necks could turn into a battle of wills and wits (my money would be on Ms Beyer 9 times out of 10), the level of intellectual discourse might be a bit much for the early morning audience who might just prefer tits, arse and retarded jokes instead.
Verdict: I think I have this casting thing down pat and will be offering my observant eye to the makers ofthe Hobbit to find the perfect fit-for-role cast for whom expensive makeup would be kept to a minimum. TVNZ has the chance to really grasp New Zealand’s untapped Fox News market by rebranding Breakfast as the place for offensive opinion in New Zealand. TVNZ does not need to hide behind any “it’s what New Zealanders are privately thinking” nonsense, but rather embrace the concept of employing a controversial figure specifically to generate ratings, and to do so unapologetically. I probably wouldn’t watch the show any more than I do now, but at least TVNZ and those watching Breakfast can be honest about why they are watching and making the show. 7 “Fair and Balanced” Fox News Alerts out of 10.
There has been a change of Rugby Union’s pin up poster boy.
Have you noticed (and I think it would be hard not to) how many articles and advertisements feature Sonny Bill Williams (SBW) these days? Almost every day on Stuff or on the NZ Herald site, there is an article focussing on the league convert’s perspective on life with the All Blacks, one the other day drawing attention to how SBW is “forced” to “swat” over the All Blacks play book, a story revealing: a) that the All Blacks actually have set moves, b) that SBW can read, and c) that the editorial staff were so blinded by SBW’s photo they did not spell check the article (it was later changed to say “swot”, though perhaps the original "swat" was a reference to SBW’s "hulk smash" tendencies or boxing past) – pretty much all of which are fairly non-stories, though this was a headline item.
Now, what is it about SBW that makes him so special, and has knocked Daniel Carter (D-Car) from his underwear selling billboard? In one online story, D-Car took it upon himself to bear the burden for the failure of the All Blacks in Hong Kong, but the aforementioned SBW literary revelation was deemed the more newsworthy, not a call I would make myself.
He hasn’t done a huge amount of playing for the All Blacks (he has to read the rule book first, of course), but he has been taken on jaunts to Hong Kong and now to the UK, and of course has had the chance to change outfits and make employees swoon at Rebel Sports outlets, all for a fairly impressive sum, I am sure.
Articles have been written about his suitability (or otherwise) to wear the All Black jersey, and how even more spectators are now appearing at matches in which he can show his skills. I am sure his athleticism is superb, though I haven't really seen him play, but something tells me there is something to his appeal besides the way he handles a rugby ball.
Is he that good an athlete, though the fact a lot of the interest is only loosely based on his sporting prowess would seem to prove otherwise? Is it SBW’s novelty, as D-Car has been the All Black headliner and lead shirtless wonder for quite a few years now? Is it SBW’s bad boy image, with his tempestuous career earning oodles of cash in different codes and sporting arenas, while D-Car remains the clean cut kid as puritanically white as his Bendon boxers?
Perhaps it is the idea that SBW, with his fairly mercenary approach to sport (and why not? If people want him for vast amounts of money, or he can increase his brand by “slumming it” (pay wise) with the All Blacks for a year, then he is just playing the game and power to him) won’t really be around (the All Blacks or New Zealand) for very long and will head off for more lucrative fields once the World Cup is done next year, so he needs to be maximised now, whereas D-Car (should Nikon, god of photography, one of the many gods to whom D-Car is sworn, permit) will be with us for many moons to come (even if Missrability, occasional commenter, seems fairly indifferent to D-Car's fate) .
Again, as with most things that strike me, it is not necessarily SBW and D-Car who are the more interesting players in this particular match, but rather how these two talented, good looking young men are perceived by and the influence they have over New Zealanders – with the added interest factor of which of these two wields the greater factor, and why.
Verdict: SBW may be a short term thing, and by gum, people are going to make the most of him while they can. This means D-Car may fade from the spotlight for a little bit, but he has a wedding to plan (and get paid for by sponsors so it might actually end up with him making money on the marriage – just imagine him and his girlfriend taking their vows wearing only Bendon clothing…), so he may not mind. Either way, rugby is becoming even more prominent in New Zealand. What next: Richie McCaw’s spread in Cosmo? 12 degrees of Rugby fever out of 15 – and rising.
