Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait (2006)

Just what I expected

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Fantastic!

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

While on paper the idea behind Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait might sound off the wall; 'out there' or quite intriguing, the film is actually a bit of dud. I use the term 'film' very loosely, Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait is more of a 'piece', an experiment as filed by Frenchman Philippe Parreno and Scotsman Douglas Gordon who visit the Bernabéu Stadium in Madrid, home of Real Madrid, and shoot French born of Algerian descent footballer Zinedine Zidane for ninety minutes – the length of a standard league football match. The film is made up of about three perspectives, each one being cut to when the editors obviously assume you've had enough of one or the other. One perspective is the bog standard camera mounted on the gantry as seen through television; another is a ground level camera focusing on Zidane in close up-ish format with the third being from a third person perspective, watching the match on an actual television monitor, pixels 'n' all.Do you remember, or have you even heard of, a function called 'Player Cam'? It's a gimmick BskyB used to run, or perhaps still do, on their Sky Sports coverage that enables the viewer to switch to a certain channel and watch a designated player for as long as the directors choose as a certain camera stays on him. For a lot of people, this will be nothing new or particularly interesting. To be blunt, the experiment doesn't work here. The title of the piece is Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait with 'portrait' being the important word. The makers are trying to create some sort of work of art, some sort of painting or sculpture of a person (Zidane) that they clearly admire and feel should be captured in an artistic manner. It doesn't work through the medium of cinema, and this is the evidence it doesn't.When you go to a gallery, you don't have something like Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey playing, on mute, on a screen in the corner for people to observe for as long as they wish amidst all the other works of art, so why contaminate things that belong in a gallery with things that belong on a cinema screen? Principally, what's wrong is that the two directors can pick and choose which match or performance out of Zidane they actually want to deliver to us. If Zidane had been substituted after fifty minutes in this match or had been seriously injured after ten and brought off, we'd never have even seen THIS particular match/performance/result of the experiment and they would've had to have tried again some other time. Thus, it renders a lot of the 'deeper thinking' ideas displayed in the film a little silly because 'this day' could have been any day. This creates a problem and exposes a flaw in the experiment, the subject of the work of art is free-thinking and unaware of the artist thus every time the artist will attempt to 'capture' the subject, a different result will be the result of the attempt.In simpler terms, when Monet painted 'The Water Lilies' or Da Vinci captured the smiling woman that is the 'Mona Lisa', they had a subject or physical shape that was either set in stone and was always going to look exactly the way it is, it just needed an artist to implant their own style on it, OR they were able to direct a live subject and position the subject as well as capture specific emotions from them in the manner they desired. With footballers, the theory fails. You can never capture a true representation of a footballer because they'll always perform differently in different matches. An example might be German goalkeeper Jens Lehmann.Two matches could be used to 'capture' Lehmann: the 2006 Champions League final in which Lehmann starts the game before committing a foul and is consequently sent off after 18 minutes after much controversy. Then there's the Germany - San Marino match in which he stood in goal and did very, very little for 90 minutes as his team up the other end smack thirteen past a hapless opponent. If you were making Lehmann: A 21st Century Portrait, which do you select to 'capture' the player? Does it even matter? We don't need post-Warhol artists (not filmmakers) to display the 'quality' of certain players in this manner because the exercise is futile and will never capture a 'true' portrait.For all the talk via some subtitles within the piece about thinking outside the boundaries and of the 'bigger picture', there is really very little going. When the directors assume us to be getting a little tired of certain shots or subjects, they'll cut to blinding floodlights as they zone down onto us and at one point, the camera takes an odd detour up some stairs to an upper tier to capture the match from another level. But these are cutaways, distractions from the gimmick that is Zidane himself, captured in all his glory as a supposed artist himself. Additioanlly, the directors get the dramatic finale to the match they probably craved. But where does it all go? Could you feasible make 'Beckham: A 21st Century Portrait'? (who was actually playing in this match) or 'Ronaldo: A 21st Century Portrait'? Or maybe you could mix it up and follow a referee for the duration of a match. Where would it all end and how long would it be until everyone realises what a daft exercise it really is? Not long at all.

I must admit I liked the concept. I would have preferred it had he not known he was being filmed at the time but thats not important. Here we got a film documentation "art piece" portraying the football star of choice in a completely new way. The cameras shoot him and only him most of the time in close up throughout the entire duration of the film and only on rare occasion and with good reason does it choose not to on interval. Here we follow, at times surprisingly poetically his heart throughout the 2005 game of France vs Brazil, not that we actually see the game as much as Zidane's contribution, at times useful, other times vacant. I like how the director plays with sounds and effects in a manner that effects our emotions and expectations. However I do believe that this film could have been done equally effective on a lower budget. Well three cheers to Douglas Gordan.

Just like every football fan, I have to say that Zinédine Zidane really was one of the best players of this and the last century. I would often watch a France game, purely because of Zidane and I wanted to see him do his magic. Even if the game wasn't very good and the team wasn't playing very well, Zidane would always show something special and amazing. His skill and touch was always amazing. Whenever he had the ball if was something special and you just knew something great could happen at any given moment. He doesn't look and move like a very technical player but he really was one of the most technical midfielder of the last few decades. He had a great and impressive but also very successful career, especially with his national team. Every world cup or European cup he participated in, he was one of the best players of the tournament and he won both the World- and European Cup with his country France. He played an important role in his country victories and eventual win of the tournaments, with his two goals in the 1998 finale against Brazil of course as his most memorable achievement. No way that a dumb head-but against Marco Materazzi in the 110th minute of the 2006 World Cup final against Italy, which also was his last game out of his career, should overshadow this great sportsman's career.But as much as I adore Zidane as a player he really isn't a charismatic person or player to watch. His face doesn't ever show any emotions, which sorts of makes you wonder why the film-makers he was such a good subject for this cinematic movie-making approach. After about 30 minutes you've already had it with watching this movie. Most of the time he doesn't even run, he just walks and stands because obviously he isn't on the ball all of the time. After a while the approach of the movie becomes a real bore to watch.It doesn't show anything of Zidane as a person and it also most certainly doesn't show anything of Zidane's qualities as a football player. Therefor what's the point of this 'documentary'? This movie only serves an artistic purpose. Although this also doesn't completely work out due to the subject Zidane. So it's a sort of vicious circle. The approach of the documentary doesn't really work out due to Zidane and Zidane isn't presented in his best or most insightful way due to the approach of the documentary. It doesn't do much credit to the exceptional great player Zidane was. On top of the, the approach from this documentary isn't even original. It was used before by German filmmaker Hellmuth Costard, for his documentary "Fußball wie noch nie", following Manchester United player George Best in real time, during a complete football match.What was highly annoying to me was that most of the sounds were obviously put at a later stage underneath the movie. Some, if not all, sounds were obviously fabricated and recorded in a studio, even Zidane's own breathing and on pitch talking. Unless you believe he was really wearing a microphone during the match...The chanting the running on the grass, the kicking of the ball, all off these sounds sound so completely fabricated. It's like listening to a radio play at times.Some of the trivial facts presented in this movie are really ridicules and don't serve a point at all, also not in the least because they have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the movie.If you want to see the qualities of a player you don't point several camera's just on his face. He should see a wider picture to get a clear view and understanding of his positioning, his passing, his control, his overview, knowing exactly the positions of your teammates and opponents, knowing when to give the right ball. After all, football is still a team sport, no matter how great as an individual you are. The game they follow him also isn't much special. It's just an average Primera Division game of Zidane's Real Madrid against Villareal, in which Zidane even gets send off with a red card before the end of the match. Also sorts of makes you wonder if the makers regret picking this one game to follow him.Has some artistic value but overall really doesn't do enough credit to Zizou.4/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

This film about the great footballer Zinedine Zidane is an absolute disappointment. Not so much total football as total rubbish.I expected a sort of documentary about Zidane, one of the greatest footballers ever. Perhaps a few interviews, a look at his background in Marseille, the Algerian ancestry. It could have made for a fascinating film, combining great football with a cultural look at modern France.Perhaps throw in a few shots of some of his greatest, most skillful moments from a few of his matches - the great artistry against Man Utd in the European Cup quarter final a few years ago.Instead, what do we get? A facile, banal 90 minutes of shots of Zidane as he runs around the pitch. There is lots of 'realist' sound recordings, boots on grass, breathing, etc. 90 minutes of utterly boring concentration on one man, Zidane, in one of his less effective performances. In fact, he had a bad match altogether. Who wants 90 minutes of that? You might as well have 90 minutes of Leonardo da Vinci cooking.The directors Douglas Gordon and Philippe Parreno obviously have no understanding of football programming at all. Ever wondered why football highlights programmes only show edited highlights of games? It's because about 95 per cent of almost any match is boring.The directors are rubbish at editing, pure and simple. In their pathetic, pompous interview in the Special Features section of the DVD, they are interviewed about their reasons for making the film and they respond as if they have produced a work of high art.It is high rubbish, that's all. A waste of money to rent and a total disappointment. I'd rather watch a film about the Bernabau stadium, to be honest.