Soccer as Ritual, and Being on the Pitch with Zidane

By | January 9, 2018

The French anthropologist Christian Bromberger has studied and written about football games as a kind of ritual that provides an “inexhaustible terrain of interpretation” for those who participate and watch. In his French-language book “Le match de football,” he studied how crowds experienced and interpreted games in the European football heartlands of Marseille, Milan, and Naples. He condensed the theoretical conclusions he came to through this research in his 1995 article “Football as World-View and as Ritual.”

One of the more remarkable works that captures the form and content of this ritual is the 2006 film Zidane: A 21st-Century Portrait, by the film-makers and conceptual artists Douglas Gordon and Phillippe Parreno. On April 23, 2005, they installed seventeen cameras in the Santiago Bernabéu Stadium in Madrid to film a full game between Spanish Liga teams Real Madrid and Villarreal CF. But they focused the cameras not on the ball, but rather on one entrancing player, Zinedine Zidane, considered one of the greatest footballers in history.

Since it’s release, the film has garnered effusive praise from some quarters and sharp criticism from others. While it had a long run in theaters in France as well as being shown commercially in the U.K. and other European countries, in the U.S. it has only been shown in small art houses and film festivals.

The film’s directors, Douglas Gordon and Philippe Parreno, have a background on experimental contemporary art, including video installations, and the film is also clearly an experiment. (Whether it is a success of failure as such is the key question). Like many other experimental films, it presents its argument not so much through narrative or exposition but through form. It is, among other things, an attempt to represent sport in a way that is radically different from the kinds of portrayals were are used to, which either provide us a global picture of live game or else highlights that emphasize the climaxes of the game over the empty spaces in between. Of course, it is also a portrait of Zidane, and the reactions to the film also have much to do with the very different ways people see him as both a player and an icon.

Here are two interesting discussions of the film

Review in Stylus Magazine

Review at City of Sound

This week in the “Soccer Politics” class at Duke University, we are asking the students to post comments in response to this post that bring together their reading of the 1995 Bromberger article on “Football as World-View and as Ritual” with a viewing of Zidane: A 21st-Century Portrait. Specifically, we are asking them to find specific moments in the film that speak to or illustrate specific points made in Bromberger’s article about how a football match works, and we can see within it. In doing so, we ask them to share specific quotes from Bromberger along with specific moments in the film.

Students, please post your response in the comments section below by 5 p.m. on Wednesday January 17th. We also welcome other comments about the article and film!

Category: Fans Films Zidane

About Laurent Dubois

I am Professor of Romance Studies and History and the Director of the Forum for Scholars & Publics at Duke University. I founded the Soccer Politics blog in 2009 as part of a course on "World Cup and World Politics" taught at Duke University. I'm currently teaching the course under the title "Soccer Politics" here at Duke. My books include Soccer Empire: The World Cup and the Future of France (University of California Press, 2010) and The Language of the Game: How to Understand Soccer (Basic Books, 2018)

50 thoughts on “Soccer as Ritual, and Being on the Pitch with Zidane

  1. Rebecca Quinn

    At first reflections, I was disappointed with the style of the film. When the film was introduced by Professor Dubois in class, he highlighted that the player analysis would be interesting to avid soccer viewers as the game doesn’t follow the ball, and that clinical parts of the match take place outside of the immediate vicinity of the ball. As a professional soccer player, I was excited to watch the game focusing on a player. I often watch an entire game focusing only on Busquets, and what spaces he occupies on a pitch. This film gave a narrower perspective than I thought, largely focusing on Zidane’s body.
    With this, I got to appreciate the other aspects of football, outside of the play itself. One of the first parallels I drew between the Bromberger article and the film was the ritual space of the stadium. In all of the clips of Zidane, the fans are easily viewed in the background. The fans form neat rows behind the players in focus. Another clip from the film shows the alleyways and staircases of the stadium while the game is in the round of play. There is not one person left in the surrounding areas, away from the site of the pitch. As Bromberger states, “ At first sight, it’s a rather strange arrangement, deriving from a huge crowd of individuals shaped into a temporary unit” (299). In moving with the concept of football as a ritual, the field can be defined as the liminal space, a crucial part to most rituals, where there is ambiguity hangs in the result of both teams.
    It is also interesting to note how the crowd in the distance of the shot reacts to Zidane, and other players on the pitch. As Bromberger says, “strikers who are the most eager to propitiate to Gods” (309). As Zidane’s face is stoic after a completed pass or run up the pitch, the fans in the distance are hovering on his touch, and cheering loudly for his success or advance up the pitch. In rituals, humans often impersonate Gods during ceremonies, and in a similar fashion, the players on the pitch are revered as God-like in the ritual of the match.

    Reply
  2. Philemon Kiptoo

    When I first heard that we were going watch a film about Zinedine Zidane, one of the most elegant players of his generation, I quickly assumed it would be a thrilling film dominated by Zidane’s slick and creative moves on the ball. I have personally grown up admiring the Frenchman’s style of play, and I rank him among my list of the top ten most influential players to ever play soccer. I have mostly learned about him by watching YouTube videos that provided highlights of how great a player he was. (Because by the time I was old enough to understand how good he was, he had already retired from professional soccer)
    However, watching the film Zidane – A 21st Century Portrait somehow contradicted my expectations. During the approximately 90 minutes, the filmmakers chose to solely focus their cameras on Zidane, whether or not the Madrid favorite possessed the ball in the entire La liga match versus Villarreal FC in the 2004/2005 season. Contrary to the previous YouTube highlights I had watched where Zidane usually had the ball on his feet and was very mobile, this film is dominated by scenes where Zidane is simply walking and jogging around the pitch, and once in a while pointing into space to direct and organize his teammates. There is also the periodic rise and fall of the crowd’s roar, especially when Zidane is on the ball. After Madrid find themselves trailing behind by a goal conceded through a penalty, Zidane becomes more mobile, perhaps he felt the urgency to make things happen. The second half of the match also shows a more mobile Zidane, and probably the whole Madrid team in general. Zidane’s best moment of the match comes at around the 72nd minute when he skillfully outmaneuvers a number of opponent defenders to deliver a good cross into the box for Ronaldo to score Madrid’s first goal. A few minutes later, Salgado scores again for Madrid to complete their comeback.
    I personally found the film blunt, and a little boring to watch for the entire hour and half. I can’t imagine what it be would like if the cameras had been fixated on a less mobile playing role like goalkeeping. However, I think this film portrays a unique, and probably a more realistic representation of the game; a soccer match has 22 players and not all of them will be on the ball all the time.
    Reading Christian Bromberger’s Football as world-view and as ritual compared well to most of the observations made in the film. One of the points from the article that really resonated with me is the fact the merit alone is not enough to get one ahead, whether in life or in a mere soccer game. This is subtly portrayed in the first half of the match displayed in the film. Although the cameras only focus on Zidane, it’s hard not to notice the other big names in Madrid’s line up. This was a match that featured stars like Ronaldo, Raul, Beckham, R.Carlos and M.Owen. Indeed, this Madrid team was part of the famous Galacticos Era and comprised of the most talented players of the time. As such, we would expect them to be the ones leading at half-time if merit alone mattered. Instead, they had to score two goals in the second half to rescue a victory that almost slipped away.

    Reply
  3. Erik Reiss

    I could understand why “Zidane: A 21st-Century Portrait” might not be for everyone. For many, soccer already seems too slow and uneventful for their taste, and the movie seems to accentuate this preconceived notion of the game. However, as someone who used to play at a very competitive level, I thought the film delivers an extremely interesting perspective and demonstrates a very unique angle to a soccer match. Rather than focusing on the action and continually following the ball, “Zidane: A 21st-Century Portrait” puts the viewer in Zidane’s shoes and gives true insight into the movement, form, and expression of an actual match. Throughout the game, much of what we see is Zidane jogging around slowly, waiting, waiting, and waiting for his moment. He probably only touches the ball a handful of times, but when he does, we do not only sense his impact by the roaring crowd, but we witness it through his skill, flare, and ability to make big plays every chance he gets. This infrequent action in real-time makes us cherish and realize the importance of opportunities. Specifically, I thought of Bromberger’s words “among players, it is goalkeepers and strikers who are the most eager to propitiate the gods: they have to make instant decisions and their fortune hangs on a thread” (309). With such few opportunities to make an impact in a game, every chance counts, and every chance can determine a player’s fate. There are countless players wishing and hoping for their time, and the inability of a player to seize his few chances and make a meaningful contribution is highlighted by the “uncertainty and changing nature of [an] individual…symbolized by the recurrent rise and fall of the stars” (296) that Bromberger speaks of.

    However, aside from this, I think what stood out most from Bromberger’s “Football as a world-view and as a ritual” and was extremely apparent throughout the course of the match was the notion of “one person’s happiness is conditional on another’s misfortune.” Soccer “[embodies] a culture of Promethean success, as much as a Sisyphean philosophy of misfortune,” in which “failure and misfortune are only psychologically acceptable if they can be explained away in terms of a third party’s action” (299). This very quote is extremely evident when, early on in the game, the referee makes a terrible blunder and miscalls a penalty kick in favor of Villareal (31:30). Immediately after we hear the announcers saying “nada, nada” followed by Zidane looking the referee straight in the eye and telling him “you should be ashamed.” Soccer encompasses the inherent uncertainty of leaving particular decisions to the fate of external forces, highlighted by the “devastatingly powerful role of the referee” (297), and as a player, there is nothing you can do about it except pick your head up and keep playing. It’s unfortunate, but “the spectre of chance” and lucky calls wield tremendous influence over the outcome of a match. Further, with this we truly see the eb-and-flow and push-and-pull between one side’s happiness and the other’s misery. For every action in soccer, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Throughout the match, this was seen at every whistle, every foul, every card, and every goal. However, this truth was most evident through the goals. For each goal Real Madrid scored (54:05) (1:06:10), the home crowd erupted; on the other hand, on the one opportunity Villarreal put away (31:30), the crowd went silent. While one side cheers and roars, the other screams with anger and or whimpers with sorrow. It is not only the “law of football”, but it is also human nature: one person’s happiness yields another’s sadness.

    Reply
  4. Jake Seau

    I thought the film “Zidane – A 21st Century Portrait” was interesting but not the most entertaining of films. It definitely showed interesting aspects of the game that viewers may not see, for instance the in lag times between receiving and playing the ball, or the moments before a corner kick. Part of the strength of the film I thought was also it’s weakness. It gave personal insight into Zidane’s play style in all fashions, whether it is receiving a ball, giving it up, or dropping into position. Also, with so many cameras focused on him, it was interesting to see his footwork and touch on the ball that may be missed when viewing in a different way. It allowed the audience to appreciate the finer details within the game. Though these aspects of the film were intriguing, after a half way through the film it began to become redundant, losing my concentration and attention. I liked the changing of audio to that of background noises from streets and local games rather than the blaring noises of the stadium. I thought these changes in audio allowed for an even more personal aspect to the film with Zidane. Something that I appreciated towards the end of the film was the slight view of the crowd. At first I didn’t notice it, but after watching half of the film I began seeing how the crowd would react every time Zidane touched the ball.

    The Bloomberg article is a good reference to this because it spoke about how a prestigious soccer player like Zidane will be seen as a hero through the eyes of the crowd. The moment Zidane plays the ball or touches the ball, this crowd roars. This is a perfect example of what the article was speaking on. Zidane, a world class player, rose from the streets in a low-income household to become one of the most beloved players in history. This is the beauty of soccer and what Bloomberg speaks about. Players such as Zidane are not just athletes to these people, but rather they are the living proof that socio-economic status can change. In the Bloomberg article he talks about how people identify with players and this was shown in the film by the crowds reactions to Zidane. No matter how small of a play or touch on the ball, the crowd appreciated it and cheered for him. This identification with Zidane I found interesting in the article and further emphasized in the film.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      When I was reading your comments, Jake, I was reminded of the fact that Spike Lee was inspired by the Zidane film to make a similar one about Kobe Bryant, “Kobe – Doin’ Work” (which is here on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chi8zcJUib4). I do think one of the most interesting pieces of the Zidane film, and one several soccer players have told me they particularly enjoy, is seeing the intricacy of the footwork. I was also reminded of the fact that, at one point some NFL players had trained in part by practicing ballet, which might seem surprising at first but in fact makes a great deal of sense, since the intricacy of footwork in ballet has interesting parallels to that in certain moves in football. Spike Lee’s film feels and looks very different both because he is a different kind of director and because basketball itself is a very different kind of spectacle. (Also, not that it is Bromberger, not Bloomberg!).

      Reply
  5. Justin Sandler

    I think the article by Christian Bromberger does a tremendous job representing soccer as more than just a sport. I think some of its best parts is when it talks about comparing a soccer game to society as a whole and then how societies use soccer as a method of promoting a belief. Soccer is like society in that it is a meritocracy up until a point where luck and sadly a little bit of cheating a deceit take over. I think the metaphor of soccer representing democratic society is a very strong one. Also when certain societies use soccer to promote their agenda shows how in the wrong hands democracy can be tarnished when people use it for their own personal gain. Soccer is a game little kids play where they run around and kick a ball, yet it represents so much more and serves as representation of society as a whole.

    I think the idea behind the Zidane movie is a very interesting one, however I was not the biggest fan of the movie. By focusing on one specific player in an entire game you can see all of his actions, not just his highlights, which I like, however I believed the movie lacked action. I think this type of movie is only really enjoyed by a small and specific group of people. I think the idea was different, which makes it interesting however, it was not my forte.

    Reply
    1. Michael Olson

      Speaking of action, could you imagine if this game ended in a 0-0 tie? I don’t know if they decided to record multiple games, but if they only recorded this one, then they got pretty lucky! I mean this game had a penalty kick, red cards, and three goals in all. Not to mention that Zidane assisted on one goal and got a red card. That certainly doesn’t happen every game.

      Yet you’re right, the way the movie was filmed made it lack action at times. I’m still happy with the movie though. Just think about how boring it could have been.

      Reply
      1. Laurent Dubois Post author

        It’s true! The film-makers had actually put all their eggs in one basket — the expense of setting up the cameras in the stadium and complexities of getting permission to film meant that they really only had one take. It could easily have been a 0-0 game, and then they would have been stuck. Making art is often about taking risks! Luckily for them, they ended up with a bad refereeing call leading to a penalty, some great moments by Zidane on the ball (which, to be fair, was a pretty regular thing for him), and then that dramatic red card at the end.

        Reply
  6. Carolina Herrera

    Zidane: A 21st- Century Portrait provided me with a unique perspective of a soccer game, as the film focuses on Zidane and his relationship with the crowd with occasional wide-shot views of the field and stadium. The film provides a great example the arguments and ideas in Bromberger’s article “Football as World-View as a Ritual,” where he really breaks down the meaning and importance of soccer in societies and how a seemingly “simple” game arouses such passionate and intense emotions from both the soccer players and the crowd. Bromberger notes how soccer embodies the cardinal values that shape modern societies, which leads him to argue that “a football match is akin to a sacred ceremony”, as a soccer match is comprised of many rituals that give meaning to a game. He states that the soccer stadium has come to represent “the shrine of the industrial world” where not only is individual performance is valued, but also “team work, solidarity, division of labor and collective planning” (296) are essential in creating a successful team. This theme of the importance of an individual within a cohesive team is underscored by how Zidane is rarely shown in possession of the ball; however, when is passed the ball not only does the crowd go absolutely wild but he is able to calmly make effective choices and shots that affect the trajectory of the game. Additionally, Bromberger stresses the importance of viewing the stadium as a whole as he states that it is “not only as the site of a spectacle (the match), but also as a spectacle itself (the behavior of the crowd)” (300). In the film, the directors seem to stress the atmosphere as they mix up the angles giving the viewer a very zoomed in shot but also a zoomed out shot and a bird’s eye view of both the field and the stadium. Furthermore, both Zidane: A 21st- Century Portrait and the Bromberger article focus on the importance of the behavior of the crowd and the relationship between the site of the spectacle and the spectacle itself player. Bromberger comments on how a “football match produces that sense of communitas which seems to have been lost of undermined in every day life” (308), which is seen through the reactions of the fans throughout the course of the film. To the viewer, the fans produced a consistent stream of noise, which tended to fluctuate when the Ref made a bad call, a player got carded, when a goal was scored, and when Zidane had the ball. In the film, Zidane says that he can usually decide when he wants to hear the crowd and that as a player “you are never alone,” highlighting the unifying role of soccer.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      I like the way you highlight the camera angles used in the film, Carolina, in your comments. I do think part of the intention of the film-makers is to somehow try and capture the many perspectives from which such an event might be seen, including the vantage point of fans in different parts of the stadium, the commentators in the booths, and then the perspective from the pitch itself. You don’t see what Zidane sees — though you see what other players around Zidane might see of him — though through the words offered in the captions you do get a sense of Zidane’s interiority as a player as well, what he is feeling and thinking. So while the time of the film seems somewhat “flat” — as some others have noted in their comments — in any given moment there are lots of layers happening at once, layers that to me have emerged from watching the film multiple times. You can watch the film many different ways, notably — as you note — by mainly listening to the fluctuations of the sounds.

      Reply
  7. Faris

    “Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait” provides us with a vastly different approach to the football experience. Instead of focusing on what makes football a beautiful spectacle: the artistic method in which teams move around the ball to score masterpieces, we instead focus on an individual: Zinedine Zidane. In all honesty, I did not enjoy watching this film. Though it was interesting to see a match from the perspective of a single player (even though he is one of my all-time favorites), spending a full 90 minutes zoomed in on him was somewhat boring. Perhaps this was due to how little interaction Zidane had with the ball throughout the game. Although he did end up assisting Ronaldo’s goal and had the small skirmish at the 90th minute, he only had an occasional touch of the ball; most of his time was spent focused on the play, but not involved in it.

    Having said that, Bromberger’s article, Football as world-view and as ritual, easily exemplifies certain interesting aspects of the film. What stood out most to me was his argument that football is a celebration of merit as opposed to inherent social status: “[F]ootball, like other sports, metaphorically magnifies achievement against what one started with.” Zidane, like most celebrated football players, was not born into a rich family of high social stature. Rather, he was born into a family of Algerian immigrants. His father was a nightwatchman and his mother a housewife. Yet, it is clear from the film that the crowd erupts with cheers almost every time Zidane touches the ball. His pure skill and determination, both on and off the ball, earned him his high praise, not the status he acquired from birth.

    Perhaps another interesting aspect of the film is the feeling evoked by the fans themselves. Even though the focus of the movie was almost entirely on Zidane, it is hard not to notice just how involved the fans are in the experience. Although quite boring for long periods of time, this movie does succeed in creating an immersive football experience, most significantly through the effect of sound. Each tactical Zidane touch results in an amazing roar from the crowd, which prompts us to ask why fans have that much energy for relatively uninteresting parts of the game. Bromberger addresses this by arguing that “[d]uring a match, the biased behaviour of the crowd is certainly a noisy affirmation of a specific identity, but it is also a condition of taking part in the excitement. There is nothing less satisfying than a match where there is nothing at stake, at which one cannot feel involved as an actor in the scene, and at which the transition from ’them’ to ’us’ is not made.” So, Bromberger makes it clear that even though we as fans aren’t directly playing on the pitch, the beauty of football lies in its immersive nature.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      I like the way you emphasize Bromberger’s emphasis on the “immersive” nature of the experience of watching a match, Faris. I think that is partly what the film-makers were somehow trying to capture, and those who praise the film point to the way it invites you to get immersed in the game in a different way that you might otherwise. As Bromberger hints, that immersion is based on feeling like something is “at stake” in the game, and that is part of the paradox of football. After all, in a purely objective sense, there really is absolutely nothing at stake in a game. Nothing really changes, materially, as a result of the game — except to the extent that people infuse it with meaning. And part of the meaning is our connection to particular personal narratives. This movie was, I think, particularly powerful for the many in France and elsewhere who idolized Zidane in the 1990s and early 2000s, seeing him as not just a brilliant footballer but also a national icon. And the story of his rise from humble roots, the child of Algerian immigrants, to easily the most beloved of French citizens — at a moment when Far Right parties were actively promoting anti-immigrant measures often specifically targeting North Africans — was part of the magic that surrounded him.

      Reply
  8. Michael Olson

    After watching Zinedine Zidane run (but mostly walk) around a soccer field for 90 minutes straight, I think I’ve seen too much. With seventeen cameras focused on one person, there’s no way to hide. What did that mean for me, as a viewer of Zidane – A 21st Century Portrait? Well first of all, I picked up on all of his nervous habits. The way he kicks his toes into the ground just to pass the time, at least that’s what it seemed like. He would run his hands all over his head before big set plays too. These are just the main ones, but putting all of his nervous habits aside, I developed a love-hate relationship with Zidane throughout the course of the match. I rooted against him, cheered for him, was disappointed with him, and amazed by him. I found myself yelling at him, “Why aren’t you trying! Play the game!” On the flip side, when he hit that cross to tie the game, I thought to myself, “Wow, he can play.” I was on a rollercoaster ride of emotions watching this film despite it being a fairly standard soccer game until the end.

    Through reflecting on Bromberger’s work in Football as world-view and as ritual, I think I know why Zidane left me emotionally confused. Bromberger concluded that “if football uncovers the meanderings of our made-to-measure fate, it equally brings us face to face with other essential truths, which everyday life conceals or renders imperceptible. It tells us loud and clear that in a world where material and symbolic goods are in finite supply, one person’s happiness is conditional on another’s misfortune.” Happiness and misfortune have a give and take relationship. It’s like a law in Physics. For every force, there must be an equal and opposite force associated with it. For every moment of happiness in soccer, there’s a moment of misfortune and sadness for the other side.

    In the Real Madrid vs. Villarreal CF contest, Real Madrid was the favorite to win. The playing field was already lopsided with happiness for Real Madrid and worry for Villarreal. Real Madrid’s happiness corresponded to Zidane’s lazy play. He was a non-factor in the beginning of the game. Jogging around every so often, hardly making an effort. However, Villarreal struck first. This surge of happiness for Villarreal’s squad and their fans corresponded to mounting disappoint for Real Madrid. Zidane, who was pretty ashamed with the referee’s call that led to the goal, had an inverse relationship with disappointment and effort. When he was disappointed, he tried harder. And, I found it to be fairly clear that for the rest of the game, Zidane was a different player. He took over the game. He put the ball on a platter for Ronaldo to tie the game. And, eventually Real Madrid took the lead.

    It’s just funny how Zidane’s play shows exactly what Bromberger’s saying when you look at it holistically. Soccer’s a game of pushing and pulling. When your team’s doing well and is happy, the other team is disappointed and trying harder to catch up to you. I’m convinced Zidane didn’t truly run until Real Madrid was down 1-0, but that’s soccer (and Bromberger claims that it’s life too). You can’t have two happy teams both caring the same amount. One’s going to try harder than the other and one’s going to finish happier than the other.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      I like your honest description of your reaction to the film, Michael — as I mentioned in class, this a polarizing film! — and think that part of the intent of the film-makers may actually have precisely been to deconstruct the more glossy or romantic image we often get of athletes. One of the clearest things that comes through in this movie is that Zidane is at work. He may be surrounded by tens of thousands of fans, his every move being watched, but this is his job, something he does for a salary, day in and day out. And, as with all jobs, there are aspects of it that are tedious and repetitive, nothing special, and ideally aspects of it that are more inspiring.

      Reply
      1. Michael Olson

        There’s definitely something to be said about the fact that playing soccer is his job that I hadn’t thought about. Interestingly, I’ve talked about this in another class that I’m taking, anthropology of sports. When games (and less specifically, play) turn into a job, it changes how the participants treat it. Aspects of games are overshadowed by aspects of a real job. Like you’ve said, it can become tedious, but there are still bright spots too. I wonder if Zidane viewed soccer more as a job or as play. (For example, I bet Zlatan Ibrahimovic thinks of soccer as a job, but I think Ronaldinho viewed soccer more as play. Who knows?)

        Reply
  9. Nathaniel Cooney

    Watching Zidane: A 21st-Century Portrait gave me a perspective that I have been contemplating for a long time. Specifically, criticism of Paul Pogba (I am a United fan) has frequently made me wish I could watch a game from solely his vantage point, to truly see whether he is as great as I believe he is. Instead of getting an insight into Pogba, I was able to focus on Zidane. This perspective was fascinating, and one of the most intriguing things for me was how calm Zidane was throughout the game. Even after a questionable penalty was called against Real Madrid, he remained unfazed and focused. For a player that is frequently discussed as one of the greatest of all time, it was also noticeable how little he had the ball at his feet, but was still able to affect the game. Zidane’s brilliant assist came after seemingly having little influence on the game from our perspective, but it was hard to tell due to the limited viewpoint.

    The atmosphere of the game felt very comparable to the “Football as ritual,” section of Christian Bromberger’s, “Football as world-view and as ritual.” The first characteristic that Bromberger equates to a similarity between a religious ritual and soccer is a, “particular spatial configuration” (306). The Santiago Bernabéu certainly fulfilled the idea of a sacred ground. The camera angles of the film showed the glistening grass and the bright lights that the player experienced, and this perspective truly felt like a sacred experience. It was about as close to the iconic childhood dream of being a professional soccer player as I have seen. The other characteristic that was really highlighted by the movie was the, “distribution of roles” (307). From the players perspective, following Zidane around the pitch made his role clear; he was there to dictate attacks and ideally create chances, but he was clearly not asked to defend. This role is one that I was more familiar with, but the movie also explored the role of the fans. From Zidane’s perspective, the fans seemed almost like a constant buzz, but only at key periods in the match did their volume rise to the point of it potentially affecting the players. Zidane references this within in his quotations during the movie, when he states he can hear, “someone shifting in their chair…” This statement contradicts the feelings of many fans that they can affect the outcome of the game, which is another topic Bromberger explores. I agree with Bromberger that for fans it is important to have a sense that what we do affects the results of games. For example, I never wear my red Luke Shaw kit when United plays away in the league, due to a series of draws from last season when I was wearing it. Deep down I know that what I wear will have no effect on the results, but pretending it will gives me a deeper connection to the match as I watch it.

    Zidane: A 21st-Century Portrait was a really different soccer experience that connected with many of Bromberger’s points. For me, football is definitely a ritual and I think Bromberger categorizes this connection well. Watching Zidane move around the pitch from the perspective of the film felt almost sacred, and while Real Madrid may be one of the biggest names in soccer, I have no doubt that the feeling would be consistent at other stadiums throughout the world.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      Your emphasis on the question of the “spatial configuration” of the stadium — and the relationship to other kinds of religious or ritual spaces is really key, Nathaniel. As I mentioned in my response to Noor’s post, I find this question of the comparison between a football match and religious ritual both intriguing but also complex. That a game is a ritual is clear, I think, and that forms of “communion” take place there also undeniable. But is there a theology related to the ritual? If so, how does the way that it is articulated and felt compare to that one might experience in a religous context? Part of the question, of course, is what types of religious experiences we might compare football to, since there is a huge spectrum of those themselves. As you and several other students have mentioned, the whole question of what sound people make in a stadium is a fascinating one too. The film-makers, I think, partly are seeking to isolate the sound so that we can pay attention to it. Interestingly, though, when I saw the film with a film studies professor years ago, I remember he thought the film didn’t go far enough — for him, they shouldn’t have included any music or words from Zidane, only the sounds from the stadium itself.

      Reply
      1. Nathaniel Cooney

        I actually think I agree with the film-makers professor that you watched the movie with Professor Dubois. The words and music managed to introduce breaks in the experience that felt unnecessary to me. The interruptions may have bothered me because I also believe that soccer is ritual so I wanted it to be as free flowing as possible. By potentially moving Zidane’s quotes to the end of the movie, the focus really would be entirely on the sounds of the crowd, Zidane’s movements, and his experience. However, for the casual observer I’m sure those breaks were needed to make the movie more enjoyable, so it would be a tradeoff.

        Reply
        1. Laurent Dubois Post author

          As I mentioned in my reply to Jake Seau, Spike Lee was inspired by the Zidane film to do his own movie on Kobe Bryant: “Kobe – Doin’ Work” (which is here on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chi8zcJUib4). It’s interesting to contrast the way he uses sound. I think version with no music or commentary would in a way have been more powerful, but also probably more alienating to many viewers. Interestingly, this seems to have been the approach taken in a little-known precedent to the Zidane film, from 1970, in which George Best was filmed for an entire match. In this one, I don’t think there is anything at all but the sound of the crowd — which also may explain why it remains a very obscure film! You can read about it (& see a brief clip) here. It was called “Football Like Never Before.” https://www.balls.ie/football/zidane-21st-century-portrait-similiar-long-forgotten-film-george-best-350845

          Reply
  10. Jan Maceczek

    Zidane: A 21st-Century Portrait provides a vastly unique representation of soccer by breaking down the game to its most fundamental aspect—the individual player. Through deep and immersive focus on Zidane, directors Douglas Gordon and Philippe Parreno capture Zidane’s character, and reflect on the aspects that make him one of the most talented and appreciated players in history. After watching the film, I proceeded to watch the highlights of the game to better understand the contrast between the film and the bigger picture. From this traditional speculator perspective, I found it to be easier to understand Zidane’s talent and his instrumental role on the pitch, because the commentators and match highlights greatly focused on him. In the film, we see the more complete picture of the role an individual has on the pitch.

    As mentioned in other posts, Zidane is rarely shown with possession of the ball, and even alongside other players. However, when he does get possession, it is converted into something with far greater impact. Even though he did not score in the game, the match highlights still were directed towards Zidane for this very same reason. In this sense, it is evident that individual possession time plays a smaller role than could be expected. Rather the impact of the possession allows for the creativity that holds to be synonymous with soccer.

    As a reflective piece on Zidane, I found the red card that he received in the last few minutes to be strikingly parallel to the red card he received in what was to be his last match. In both the last moments of this match and his career, Zidane was sent off by what is typically considered to be a shameful fashion. Instead, the nature of both incidents deems respect from his fans and more sympathy from speculators. Both cards are untouchably hold to be controversial. The red card Zidane received in the World Cup final holds to be an inseparable piece of his story as a player. In all, this documentary masterfully allowed viewers to reflect on the sport of soccer and Zidane as a player, and furthered my appreciation of both.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      I’m glad you brought up that parallel between the red card in the movie and the red card in the final of the World Cup of 2006. (I am a bit obsessed with Zidane, and specifically with the head-butt, which was at the center of my 2010 book Soccer Empire: The World Cup and the Future of France; https://books.google.com/books/about/Soccer_Empire.html?id=0tyBmBcbZIMC). There is something eerie about the fact that this Zidane film, released in 2005, played all late fall and early spring in French movie theatres — it was quite popular, and in regular theatres throughout the country for many months — and then the same scenario played out in the final game of the 2006 World Cup. But you are also right that, in both cases, the reaction of the crowd and teammates was far different than the moralizing tone that many took. In fact, the headbutt was celebrated by many in France as a kind of expression of Zidane’s true heroism and humanity.

      Reply
  11. Luke Berndt

    Growing up as an avid American football fan had an affect on how I viewed both the film and the reading. Bromberger’s description of soccer as a big “element of masculine culture” resonates with my view of sports in the United States. Zidane and other top talents are a figurehead not just for the club that they play for, but also for their country. The fact that people love these games is more than just a love of the game being played, but garners a sense of national and hometown pride. However, it is easy to question why Zidane, as a Frenchman, is willing to put his heart and body on the line for a Spanish club. I would liken this a college football player playing in the NFL in a different city from their college or hometown. Bromberger describes soccer as a “simple celebration of merit” and I think that this can apply regardless of where and who a player is playing for. Additionally, the values of teamwork and solidarity are something that can still be revered regardless of the team one is playing for.

    With Zidane I was impressed by his stoic attitude throughout most of the game. His movements both on and off the ball were very calculated and you can really see how intentional he is in preserving his energy to play for a full 90 minutes. What was most recognizable for me was the juxtaposition of effort and effortlessness. It is easy to see in the sometimes pained look in his face and the constant dripping of sweat that Zidane is giving the game everything that he can, yet still some difficult plays that he makes seem to be done with incredible ease. There was one particular through ball that Zidane played with the outside of his foot that went past multiple defenders and lead his teammate perfectly. Additionally, the camera work in the film allowed this play to be seen at an incredible angle, which showed the difficulty of the play.

    From the reading and the film, I was surprised by how much Zidane was able to block out the fans throughout the game, yet was still able to pick up on the smallest things. His ability to hear the whispers of fans and ticks of their watches, yet still be able to block out reactions to plays was impressive, especially with how much the fans have invested in the game. The fact that he only becomes conscious of peoples reactions when things are going poorly also speaks to the fans’ ability to have a big impact on a game and swing the momentum to the home team.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      You bring up an interesting question, Luke, about precisely what a player stands for in different contexts. Zidane here is playing for Real Madrid, a club with a particularly interesting and very political history in Spain (you can read about it here in a great set of pages done by students in the class in 2009 about “El Clasico as Spanish History”: https://sites.duke.edu/wcwp/research-projects/spain/). But soccer players of course move from club to club, and become their own kind of icons. When they play for their nations, they can become national heroes (as Zidane did in France in 1998 when he scored two goals in the World Cup final), but sometimes their background (as in the case of Zidane’s Algerian parentage) can also raise bigger questions about national identity. And there are increasingly numbers of players with multiple nationalities, whose decision about what country to play for may be political, or just professional. What exactly does a player represent in the modern world?

      Reply
      1. Fiammetta Di Lorenzo

        Bromberger’s argument about soccer as intrinsically connected with democratic ideals is a powerful one. As many have remarked, a player can become a world star regardless of his* initial economic status or his place of origin, only thanks to his merit. In this sense also soccer, along with football and basketball, would embody the belief at the core of the American dream. Can this be one of the reasons of the growing attention to soccer here in the USA? Another point strikes me in Luke’s reflection and in Professor Dubois’s reply: the one about the link between a player and a community which is not grounded on traditional ties (blood and soil, to put it shortly). To me, this possibility of building new strong commonalities enacted by soccer is one of the most fascinating aspects of this sport, and I think it is part of the lore of contradictions embedded in this contemporary (kind of) rite stressed by Bromberger.
        (Thinking about the chemistry between players and supporters, I found interesting the reactions of PSG’s supporters booing Neymar for snubbing Cavani:
        https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jan/18/neymar-psg-dijon-edinson-cavani-penalty)

        *Unfortunately, I think this still applies only to men.

        Reply
        1. Laurent Dubois Post author

          That is really interesting on PSG fans! The sense of morality and ethics articulated by fans is always fascinating to me. And you are right that this largely only applies to men — the stories we’ll read in Gwendolyn Oxenham’s book about women’s soccer players throughout the world highlight that, and she raises interesting questions about whether and how that might ultimately change.

          Reply
  12. Noor Tasnim

    In “Football as world-view and as ritual,” Christian Bromberger explores the anthropological meaning behind football. He explains how the sport “[embodies] the cardinal values that shape modern societies,” providing examples of gameplay and culture behind football teams in Italy and France. Although this article was published in 1995, the core values of modern society found in football still prevail.

    The 2006 film, “Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait” focuses on Zinedine Zidane during a 2005 match between his club, Real Madrid, and Villareal CF. Although the camera is continuously fixated on him, it is not difficult to observe aspects of the atmosphere that relate football to religious ritual during this match.

    As Bromberger notes, religious rituals often involve symbolic figures. Yes, Zidane is a football legend. Note how the photo of the aftermath of the car bomb in Najaf, Iraq in the film shows an individual wearing a Zidane jersey. However, there a handful of legends on the pitch during the match that were also symbolic figures in football throughout the world, including Ronaldo (not Cristiano), Roberto Carlos, David Beckham, Raúl, and Diego Forlán, all of whom were worshiped as legends of the game. Any football fan would have at least recognized one of these names in 2006.

    Bromberger also mentions how there are “rhythmic affinities” in football. Viewers of the film should notice the crowd’s reaction to specific moments of the match. The crowd shouts whenever a Real Madrid player is fouled, they stay relatively quiet when Villareal scores, they cheer loudly when Real Madrid scores its second goal, securing the win. You can even see them stand and cheer when a substitute is made during the match. These customs are still common in modern football, and show why teams typically perform better in their home stadium as opposed to their opponents’ stadium. The adrenaline and support received from the spectators can motivate players if the players choose to pay attention to them during the match.

    Most importantly, Bromberger highlights how a “communion of minds” is created “during the match.” Societal hierarchies that exist outside of the stadium practically disappear once you are inside. People from all over the world come together to support their respective clubs. Indeed, players also come from different backgrounds to achieve the same goal – win the match for their respective club. Zidane, Beckham, and Ronaldo played for French, England, and Brazil, respectively, but played together for Real Madrid. You can watch the spectators stand and raise their Real Madrid scarves in unison. Likewise, you can see the Real Madrid players support each other during various moments of the game, most notably near the end of the film when a player gets fouled and Zidane gets into a physical altercation with one of the Villareal players, only to have his teammates pull him away.

    All things considered, what we see in the film is what Bromberger would call a “religious ceremony.” To this day, people from various backgrounds come together on a weekly basis to appreciate the sport of football and worship their idols. The religion continues to spread as more and more individuals begin to convert.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      Very interesting comments, Noor! I like how you emphasize the aspects that Bromberger notes as having religious aspects — the “communion of minds” & particularly the “rhythmic affinities.” For me, the Zidane film really captures that well because of the way that you can focus on the changes in the sound of the crowd in a way that is difficult when you are watching a game on television with the commentary. It feels more like what it’s like to be in a stadium, where the sound is part of a ballet of emotions, and there’s a powerful synergy — as in a religious ritual — between what you are feeling and sensing and what you sense of those surrounding you.

      At the same time, pushing the discussion a bit further, it’s interesting to think about the ways in which football is different from religious rituals as well. We can think perhaps of other similar mass experiences — concerts, perhaps, or protests — that might be better comparisons? Or is sport in fact closer to religion than to other cultural forms?

      Reply
  13. Lucas Carter

    Christian Bromberger’s article “Football as World-View and as Ritual” illustrates how to many, football is not simply a game but a way to express the importance of both self and community. The article highlights how a seemingly futile game isn’t necessarily just about the score or the outcome, but rather about the beauty of the game and the story that each match tells. The 2006 film “Zidane” also stands to reinforce the idea that the individual story and movements of each player are what make the game beautiful, more than the score or the standings or even the champion. The section entitled “Football as Deep Play” in Bromberger’s article accentuates that football can have meaning in much the same way that the film Zidane set out to prove. That is, that following one specific player and observing how they interact with not just the other players but also the crowd allows one to really get a grasp on the sport. Both Bromgberger and “Zidane” do an amazing job of illustrating that the beauty of soccer lies not in the score, but in the individual movements of each player or fan.

    Reply
  14. David Duquette

    Upon watching the film, “Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait,” I was struck, like many others, by the lack of time Zidane spent on the ball. When thinking Zidane’s storied playing days, I remember his powering runs up the field, his majestic roulette turns to evade defenders, and of course the magical goals that he so often orchestrated. This film, though, forces you to look at the mental side of his game. Over the course of 90 minutes Zidane is acutely aware of everything that is occurring in the Santiago Bernabeu, whether it’s the movement of the ball and players or the stirring of the supporters in the stands, and he reacts accordingly. This awareness seems to enable him to create the moments of brilliance that the supporters anticipated with his every touch of the ball. This excitement that surrounds creative midfielders like Zidane sincerely captures the hearts of supporters, even if the creative efforts prove unfruitful. This stands in stark contrast to strikers and goalkeepers who seem to regularly be the subject of controversy.

    I think that Bromberger makes an intriguing rationale for this contrast in his article, “Football as World-View and Ritual.” In describing the religious nature of football, Bromberger explains, “Among players, it is goalkeepers and strikers who are the most eager to propitiate the gods: they have to make instant decisions and their fortune hangs by a thread. For them, the line is a narrow one between making a name for themselves, or being considered a nobody,” (309). This quote is of course not meant to diminish the accomplishments or ability of players at each of these positions, but it does show how their successes seem to be based more in happenstance and less in sheer brilliant ability. Whereas midfielders, wingers, and defenders think constantly about how to best unlock a defense or stifle an attack, the strikers and keepers just have to be in the right place and the right time and react almost unconsciously to succeed. Without as much control over the game, their successes are minimized and their failures are amplified. This notion seems to be evidenced by how supporters distribute both their affection and frustrations. Creators, like Zidane or Andrea Pirlo, despite the unquantifiable nature of their ability are able to win widespread adoration, while strikers, like Karim Benzema or Olivier Giroud, find it hard to win support despite consistent production. For football supporters, in many ways the creative moments of genius in the game are more important than the statistical outcomes.

    To me, “Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait” displayed this phenomenon perfectly, as the crowd roared every time he touched the ball, even if he was in a position far from goal. The crowd believed that in any scenario, Zidane’s mind could conjure something magical. That Zidane was able to inspire such belief not from a quantitative perspective, but from simply watching him play is a testament to his supreme ability as a footballer and the unique way in which people watch and appreciate the sport.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      I like you how you capture what is “magical” about Zidane’s play here, David, and place it in a bigger context. I think you are right that the “creators,” often midfielders, gain a particular status among fans in part because they are the pivot around which so much of the game happens. If you watch carefully — and the film allows viewers to see this even more — the midfielder is the pivot, and the key is for them to be in the right place, to create openings and space for other players. The writer Aleksander Hemon has an essay entitled “If God Eixsted He’d Be a Solid Midfielder,” which sort of hints at this (https://granta.com/if-god-existed-hed-be-a-solid-midfielder/).

      I also like the way you identify what is important about the film, which is that it forces the viewer to kind of unlearn certain viewing habits and watch the game in a different way. There are a number of moments in the film where you can really see particular ways that Zidane plays as a “creator” of moments then carried out by other players — though, intriguingly, you don’t really get to see what happens when the ball moves elsewhere.

      Reply
  15. Vinay Kshirsagar

    A couple moments in “Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait” stand out to me as illustrative of Bromberger’s points. He writes that “the spectre of chance, which is rarely conceptualized as probability, and which emerges from a sense of destiny, hangs over these sporting encounters.” I find it so interesting that the makers of the film used a real soccer match, the result of which they could not have known anything about, to tell a story about Zidane. Most fictional sports movies have predictable endings; the protagonists always win in dramatic fashion. But real sports aren’t decided beforehand. That’s part of what makes it thrilling to watch, you can’t always predict what will happen. In this game Zidane does in fact play the hero, capping off an amazing run with a cross to assist Real Madrid’s first goal on their way to a comeback, which is certainly a testament to his skill and ability to massively affect soccer games. But that was not guaranteed, and in a way this film demonstrates how we as viewers and fans can overlay narratives of grand importance on what is just a game, and what is sometimes completely up to chance.

    Additionally, the fervor of the crowd, and the fight at the end of the game, exemplify Bromberger’s description of soccer as ritualized war. At multiple points, you can hear the sounds of gigantic drums compelling the Madrid players into battle against the Villareal team. This and the fight between Zidane and someone on the other team makes me feel that there is much more at stake than just 3 points. Zidane feels that his teammate has been wronged, and that is enough for him to take a swing at the Villareal player. Surely outside of the context of the soccer match Zidane has no real beef with the other guy, but between these two armies pitted against each other on the soccer pitch, there is an inherent hostility in that moment.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      You are right, Vinay, that perhaps the key to all this is the way we “overlay narratives of grand importance on what is just a game.” The film, I think, really captures that fact — the randomness of what happens on the pitch, the intricacy of it, the fact that it is on some level just a kind of work, as well as play — coupled with the incredible sonic and emotional intensity that surrounds it. And that also comes out in the conflict on the pitch, as you say, which is only meaningful because of all the implications a particular set of actions during the game can ultimately have. These moments do really highlight that this is about conflict, but also the ways in which a certain sense of morality infuses play as well.

      Reply
  16. Michael McAloon

    “Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait” provided a wildly new experience for me. I grew up playing soccer competitively and watching games any chance I could. I loved seeing players like Christiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi (I don’t really take a side in the whole “Messi v. Ronaldo” debate), Andrea Pirlo, Thierry Henry, Ronaldinho, and Wayne Rooney. The thing is, I never really watched those players. Instead, I just watched the matches they competed in, and I was lucky enough to see them get a few touches on the ball or an assist or goal here and there. Even when I went to games as a fan, to say that I watched a certain player was, in retrospect, quite untrue. This film gave me the opportunity to truly watch a player for the first time. I was amazed by the opportunity to analyze everything such a world-class player did on the pitch, from his movement off the ball, to his vision on it, to his facial expressions, to the way he gasped for breath after a long run. As a child, I always imagined what it would be like to be a professional and play in games in La Liga or the Premier League. I always thought that the sound of the fans would be everything, and I imagined how it would be to hear the fans cheering my name. In the movie, however, I was surprised when Zidane said that during a game you can “select what you want to hear…[like] someone shifting in their chair or someone whispering.” In many ways, a professional game is no different from boys playing in the street. The concept is still the same: a ball, a goal, a pitch, and a lot of creativity. It was amazing to me to see the game that is typically so lavishly presented on television broken down and to be given a more personal account of what goes on on the pitch. From this new perspective, I was able to ask a lot of important questions about the game and those who play it.

    One thing that really struck me after reading Bromberger’s article and watching the movie was the question of identity. In the article. Bromberger claims “football links to local values of identity,” and argues that the local team is “often perceived and conceived as an ideal reflection of the population for which it is the standard-bearer.” In order to advance its status as standard-bearer, the local club makes recruiting decisions that are informed by a “profound notion of local identity and citizenship.” For some clubs like Olympique de Marseille, according to Bromberger, this might lead to the recruitment of foreign stars in order to symbolize the diversity of the local community and the large number of immigrants who follow the club passionately. While watching the movie, I frequently found myself probing Zidane’s identity. Perhaps it was his reticent nature and stoic demeanor that first led me to ask questions, but perhaps it was something more. I was watching a French man, in many ways the standard-bearer of French soccer, play for a team in Madrid, Spain with the Siemens (a German conglomerate company headquartered in Berlin and Munich) logo across his chest. I saw him pass the ball to other players like David Beckham, one of the most iconic English footballers of all time, and Ronaldo, the enigmatic Brazilian. All the while, the raucous Madrid fans cheered every time Zidane touched the ball and came to life with his each and every movement with it. The apparent contradictions were somewhat absurd to me. Not trying to sound like an existentialist here, but it made me wonder why it all mattered to Zidane. What motivated him? Why did he play for Real? Was it money? Was it love for Madrid? As Bromberger might ponder, did he truly represent the values, culture, and demographics of the city and people of Madrid? Most importantly, I wondered about his loyalty to the fans who so wildly cheered him on. Did he play for them and for their city, or did he simply play for himself as part of a quest for glory on the European continent? Of course, I can’t answer these questions on my own. I simply present them and welcome anyone to respond to them. If football is truly a ritual, it is incredibly important to consider why the important actors take part in it.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      You raise lots of interesting points about Zidane, Michael. He’s always been a particularly laconic figure, interestingly, giving relatively few interviews, largely out of the spotlight. And people have often wondered about his views — on Algeria, Islam, French politics — given his prominence. He does seem to have developed a deep connection and loyalty to Real Madrid specifically over his career, and his move to coaching there has been really interesting. His son has also trained in the soccer academy there. So I do think professional club links can develop into deep connections at times, though often too players move quite easily from one to another. The way fans relate to players, and come to think of some as truly loyal to clubs and others as more “mercenary” is an interesting part of fandom.

      Reply
      1. Michael McAloon

        I completely agree with you. I think its important to realize that players can develop an attachment and loyalty to clubs regardless of their nationality. Your comment on how easily players move between clubs got me thinking a lot about the transfer system and its effect on the culture of soccer.

        Of course, the idea of transfers and buying and selling players is completely abnormal when compared to trades and free agency in major American sports. The implications of trades and transfers are largely the same, as they turn players into commodities and objects of a capitalist system. In the United States, however, it is much more rare to see a star player get traded. For example, the idea of LeBron James getting traded away from the Cleveland Cavilers (if he wasn’t the one making them do so) is utterly absurd. Instead, free agency–which is not so prominent in soccer–is often the major channel for star players to make moves. Under this setup, it seems players are much more free to make their own decisions and to set the terms and lengths of their contracts. As a result, it seems to me that in sports like basketball, players are generally accepted to be in a transient state with uncertain futures. Should they find themselves not enjoying their current situation, they could always sign with a new team once their contract is up. Transfers are unlike trades in the sense that players are dealt for money rather than other players. I personally think that this leads to a predominant notion of ownership in world football, as fans feel as if their teams literally own the players that play for them. Once a player is bought by a club–especially those players like Neymar who were purchased for massive transfer fees–the expectation is that they will stay for years to come and there is added pressure for the club’s investment to pay off. In this sense, I believe footballers are generally seen as less “free” than American sports stars, and that they are from the beginning more accountable to the fans and directors of the clubs that they join.

        Reply
  17. Benjamin Gottschalk

    Christian Bomberger’s article on “Football as World-View and as Ritual” highlights aspects that are apparent on the soccer field (or football pitch) and reactions and observations that can be seen or viewed in the stands. As Bomberger notes, we the fans are not infatuated with the game at hand because we simply want to know the final score or outcome, but instead because “a profoundly significant game is being played out on the field, which intensifies and enacts the fundamental values of contemporary life.” With soccer, and in every meaningful match, players and fans experience raw emotions as players must adapt to the ever-changing direction of the ball in the same way they react to events in their daily lives. Moreover, soccer can provide fans and players with the opportunity to remove themselves from strife and struggle as they spend 90 minutes solely focus on an event that arouses the same sort of emotions that might otherwise encounter. A game of soccer “embodies the cardinal values that shape modern societies” while simultaneously representing the “uncertain fate of man.” Predicting a play or an event in a soccer match is no easy task, and the fact that soccer provides this uncertainty allows for the unskilled to relate to the whims and turn of events that can be seen on the pitch.

    As our eyes follow Zidane around the field in a match between Real Madrid and Villareal in April 2005, we observe how the match takes on this “uncertain fate.” In roughly the 30th minute, a controversial penalty is called on Real Madrid. What’s more important is that we don’t actually see the penalty, but we listen to the crowd react in shock, and Zidane react in a poker-faced dismay. Bomberger writes that, “There is always a tension created by the ever-present elements of suspicion and uncertainty.” The decisions that are made exclusively by the referee cannot be controlled by the players or the fans. While the crowd shares its discontent with the penalty decision, Zidane can only react with a wry smile, knowing full well that he cannot change the referee’s mind. The uncertainty that comes with the referee’s ability to have such a large say in the outcome of the game only adds intrigue, but also frustration. A roar and whistling rises from the stands as the fans express their displeasure, but the elder statesmen Zidane slowly approaches the referee, calmly questions the call, and moves along with the game. Bomberger questions, “What would be the point of a completely transparent society or world where everyone could have the guaranteed certainty of occupying the position they deserved.” With every call, one side’s supporters are almost required to disapprove, which only adds to the intrigue of the game. In this “transparent society” that Bomberger speaks, we wouldn’t be able to experience the pleasure of having a call go our team’s way and go through the tribulation of feeling slighted.

    While upon replay, the penalty call certainly seemed “suspicious,” Zidane and his teammates took little time moving on from the resulting goal and 1-0 deficit. To many fans, Zidane represented a calming and unwavering presence on the field. Going down in a goal in a game Real Madrid was surely expected to win did not phase Zidane. Every time Zidane touches the ball you can sense excitement and awe from the fans. The royalty of Real Madrid is ingrained in class, and the feeling that the team ought to win every game. Zidane’s desire and playmaking ability speaks directly to the fans’ desires. Bomberger highlights that “the style of the team [corresponds] to a stereotyped image, rooted in a tradition” – a style and image that Zidane seems to be the quintessential form of. So when Zidane makes his way up the field with Real Madrid still trailing 1-0, there is no greater sense of urgency. More simply, Zidane carries on his merry way almost knowing that order will be restored. He dips and dodges past defenders and loops a lefty cross to the back post for a teammate to head in. The crowd erupts, yet Zidane’s reaction is somewhat muted, knowing that the task at hand isn’t finished yet. It is not surprise that Real Madrid go on to win the game 2-1, but it is the pure joy and elation that the crowd expresses that we don’t necessary see, but hear. “Football mania and religious devotion share common ritualistic properties” and to see Zidane represent the culture of his team, and partake in the culture’s ritualistic properties allows us to see why even one game can show how special of a player he is and how worshipped he is by Real Madrid supporters.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      I really like how you weave the article and movie together here eloquently, Benjamin. I agree it captures something specifically about Zidane that made him such a great player (and I think also makes him a great coach), which is the way he diffuses a kind of ceremony and steadiness that calms both his team and fans. Interestingly, this is interwoven with moments where he loses it completely — like the one we see in the film, and the famous headbutt in the final of 2006 World Cup — which suggests in a way that his calm containment in a sense comes at a cost, a heavy burden to carry. On the French team, Zidane often played the role that someone often needs to on a football team, that is a person who contains panic, settles the game, and allows a team to respond as you point out he did versus Villareal. Even a simple gesture of his, done with confidence, helped both fans and players settle back in, and as you say enable the team to come back and win.

      Reply
  18. Alex Torres

    In Christian Bromberger’s 1995 article, “Football as World-View and Ritual,” under the section entitled “Football as deep play,” he remarks on the tradition of philosophy and sociology to “define their [sporting events] primary function as something which deflects attention away from essential matters, rather than expressing them” (294). After watching the film Zidane: A 21st-Century Portrait, I think that this explanation of football is quite true. The main focus, of course, is on Zidane, during a La Liga match between his Real Madrid side and Villareal CF on April 23rd, 2005. For most of the fans at the Santiago Bernabéu their center of attention is on the game of football on hand as they aren’t seeing anything else. However, just after the halftime whistle is blown, the film transitions from the scenes at the Bernabéu, after a disappointing first half by Real Madrid marked by a controversial penalty kick decision by the referee, to a video/photo montage. As a viewer I am able to see more than what those in attendance are, as the montage is accompanied by captions depicting other world events that happened on that Saturday, which for the most part are arguably more important than the game. For example, “hundreds of homes are destroyed in Serbia-Montenegro during the worst floods in forty years” and “car bomb in Najaf, Iraq kills 9 in wave of escalating attacks.” Bromberger goes on to say, in the same section, that for some, football “masks the tensions and conflicts of everyday life” (294), which certainly seems to be the case for those fans who are so caught up with the game that they quite possibly will never know of the catastrophes and even the good things that happened on that day. Despite all that occurs outside the realm of football, the film’s primary focus is Zidane and because all of the 17 cameras are pointed at him, there are times where we are left with a rather narrow view of the game, without the ball in sight, thus missing certain moments. I think this further illustrates the ability of football to “blur people’s perception” (294) as the viewer has to rely on other cues, namely sound from the crowd to decipher what is going on in certain parts which may not be exactly what happened. Even though they are quite different, the film and article complement each other nicely and offer a unique perspective of football: on the players and fans alike.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      This moment in the middle of the film, the half-time montage, to me is quite powerful, Alex, and I like the way you connect it Bromberger’s point. It is almost as if the film-makers themselves, even as they are engaged in an obsessively filming and cataloguing of the game, want to highlight the absurdity of what they are doing. Surely there are many more important things to be paying attention to than a soccer match, going on at that very moment, or any time a game is being played? What is interesting, though, too, is that Bromberger suggests that what makes a football match powerful is what people channel into it from their own experiences of the world, the ways in which injustice and luck and talent all seem to play out not exactly as a reflection of the world but as some kind of condensation of core aspects of human experience. Even in the montage, there is a strange combination of things being catalogued, some horrifying and violent, others more banal in a sense. I do think they are also trying to capture something broader that their film asks of us, which is why precisely we choose to look at certain things, and look away from others?

      Reply
      1. Alex Torres

        I agree completely with your point, it is interesting that they choose to highlight trivial things like “puppeteer brings Bob Marley to life in Ipanema beach puppet show” as well as the more important, drastic ones like “a specialist team is sent to rescue trapped workers after a mine explosion in Turkey.” Just like when we are choosing to watch a football match rather than the news, we also make a choice of what news to watch and that’s what the halftime montage also attempts to convey given the dichotomous nature of the events shown.

        Reply
  19. Vidit Bhandarkar

    The 2006 film Zidane: A 21st-Century Portrait encapsulates, beautifully, the importance of teamwork in a game of football while also highlighting the individual brilliance of Zidane. Instead of focusing on the ball, the directors focus just on Zidane. Despite being arguably the most important player on the field and definitely the most influential one, it was interesting to see how little of the ball he saw. When you play a soccer game, since you are so engrossed in it, you don’t realize how much time you spend off the ball and even if you do, it doesn’t bother you. Additionally, watching a regular soccer game does not allow you to analyse how many times a particular player touches a ball (since the cameras are focused on the ball and not any one player). Hence, this movie was very humbling because it really emphasized that even the very best of players are only as good as their team. Christian Bromberger, in his article, also speaks about similar ideas. He says that “football values teamwork, solidarity, division of labor, and collective planning”.
    I would also like to point out that every time Zidane touched the ball, a little bit of magic was produced and the crowd roared in support. He did end up assisting a goal but other than that, his touches and passes were not necessarily productive (in a goal scoring sense). Despite this, he had the full support of the crowd. Moments like these reiterate the importance of the fans, and ‘ home advantage’ in a game of football, something Bromberger also talks about in detail. In my opinion fans can definitely win you games and this seemed to be the case in the Madrid Villareal game shown in the movie. Additionally, Zidane ended up getting sent off because of a red card. Normally, fans would boo their own players for this but instead Zidane got a standing ovation. This was a tribute to his popularity and his performance in this game itself. Zidane was an icon, a hero in the eyes of the Bernabeu faithful showing that in football, “status is not conferred at birth, but is won over the course of a lifetime”.
    Even though the movie was all about Zidane, I would like to talk about Villareal’s goal. It was against the run of play and it was a wrong penalty call. This is so common, especially today, and the referees bear the brunt of abuse from players (Zidane said to the ref: “you should be ashamed”). Bromberger talks about the importance of chance in a game of football and this Villareal goal is a great illustration of his point. “The spectre of chance… reminding us with brutal honesty that merit alone is not always enough to get ahead. Chance can change the trajectory of the ball against the run of play”. He also emphasizes the “devastatingly powerful role of the referee”.
    Finally, towards the end of his article, Bromberger compares a game of football to a ritual and backs his statement with 7 different reasons. He also attempts to explain it’s popularity as the world’s most viewed sport (“A planetary passion”) and after watching the movie, these points really stuck with me. Despite being a hard core Barcelona fan, I thoroughly enjoyed watching the movie and appreciating the brilliance of Zidane which stemmed from my love for the sport.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      I think that moment with the Villareal goal is really key, Vidit, and glad you called attention to it. It points to one of the key aspects of football that Bromberger highlights, which is that players and fans both have to deal with fairly frequent mistakes by referees which often have a very decisive impact on the game (as this call did). The fact that this is not an aberration, but a consistent feature of the sport, is to my mind one of the things that actually makes it so popular — feeling wronged by the referee is one of the most powerful, and oddly pleasurable, aspects of being a fan, and a key part of sustaining community among fans who share a common rage about certain calls. Your point about how powerfully the film highlights the importance of the team, precisely through the fact that what Zidane does is really just about facilitating other’s play, is also a really good one — even though you don’t see the team in the film, you understand that the individual only gains meaning through the collective.

      Reply
      1. Vidit Bhandarkar

        It is really interesting to think of referee mistakes as a consistent feature of the sport rather than an aberration, given that this was not part of the initial design of soccer. I have never really consciously thought about how being wronged by the referee is such a powerful uniting factor for the fans; however now that you have mentioned it, there have been countless wrong calls that I have discussed with friends for hours on end.
        It would be interesting to watch a similar film on Messi; I’m sure our perceptions on individual vs team importance would change!

        Reply
  20. Soravit Sophastienphong

    Bromberger’s article provides intriguing insight into the aspects of football that have allowed it to become as he calls it, a ’planetary passion’ (293). I was particularly interested in his articulation of football as a reflection of modern society, specifically with regard to achieving success, “Football, therefore, embodies an image of today’s world which is both consistent and contradictory. It celebrates individual and collective merit in the form of a competition which aims to reward the best, but it also underlines the role of luck and cheating in the achievement of success, both of which, in their own way, laugh in the face of merit” (297). I very much agree with Bromberger’s assertion that football is a game where both the individual and the collective are important to success, as we can see from some of the world’s top sides, which have spent hundreds of millions on the best players, yet are unable to play together well and achieve success. As for his point about the role of luck and cheating, the film clearly illustrates said injustice through the incorrect penalty call given by the referee, to which Zidane responds, “You should be ashamed” (32:20 – 32:53). I was also intrigued by Bromberger’s discussion of teams’ playing styles as symbolic of collective identities (303). He mentions Marseille as an example where both the city and the team resonate in their taste for panache. From the film, one could argue that each of Zidane’s precise and elegant touches on the ball is a reflection of France’s taste for the refined, confirmed by the crowd’s appreciative roar every time he touches the ball.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      Thank you for bringing up this question of playing styles, Soravit — something we’ll discuss throughout the semester. Fans do develop an idea about how they like their team to play, and become particularly attached to players who they feel connect to their particular city and its style and history. A few years ago a soccer player here at Duke, Andrew Wenger, took the class, and later was drafted to play for the Montreal Impact. He wrote a piece soon after starting there about the history of soccer in Montreal on the blog, and fans there really loved the fact that he clearly researched and felt a link to their particular history as a soccer city: You can see the post here) https://sites.duke.edu/wcwp/2012/07/10/from-montreal-with-love/ & the many comments from Montreal Impact fans below. He followed up with a post about what it meant to him to be playing in Montreal & talking about a particular fan group there: https://sites.duke.edu/wcwp/2012/07/16/la-garde/.

      Reply
  21. Nikhil Kaul

    I chose to read Bromberger’s article, “Football as world-view and as ritual” before watching the documentary because I wanted to be able to reflect on what I was watching in the context of the article rather than thinking of how I would’ve felt had I done the assignment the other way around. I think that before I speak about the connections between the two assignments, I’d like to briefly share my thoughts on the film.

    Overall, I have very mixed feelings about the film. I would say that it was unique in how it chose to approach the subject and there were many moments where it was gripping to see many of Zidane’s little quirks like dragging his foot on the pitch and seeing his facial expression after assisting an equalizer (it barely changed) and certain scenes which, set to the intense music, where Zidane would be dribbling many defenders would evoke a lot of emotion. However, at the same time, much of the film was just the same. Essentially the same scenes of Zidane just walking around off the ball, and while I understand this is a part of the film style, as an audience member, I found it very difficult to maintain focus through the entirety of the film.

    On to my thoughts on how it relates to Bromberger’s article.

    I think that a lot of what is shown in this film are simply portrayals of what Bromberger talks about in his article about how football reflects a lot of our values in society. By simply focusing on Zidane, many of his points were shown. In the article, Bromberger talks about how football allows people to go from nothing to almost godlike status through their abilities. This IS Zidane. Zidane came from a very lower-middle class family from a small village in Algeria that immigrated to France when he was a boy. 30 years later, the man was being considered one of the greatest to ever play the game and surrounded by thousands of fans. It also shows the referees power to do justice to those who do wrong, showing that no one is above the law when Zidane is sent off for fighting with a player on the opposing team at the end of the game.

    There were brief scenes in the film such as the scene showing all of the massive events in the world going on at the time and an image that really struck me was the image of the boy wearing a Zidane shirt in the middle of a terrorist attack in Iraq, thousands of miles away. This only further proves Bromberger’s idea of football as a ritual, where Zidane is an idol worshipped across the globe. I also found the scene showing the empty concession stands very interesting. This scene, contrasted with the jam-packed stadium only a few feet away, shows the power football has to grip audiences and forget about everything else, even necessities like food and drink, only further proving Bromberger’s point of football bordering on the status of religion.

    Reply
    1. Laurent Dubois Post author

      That moment where the camera goes to the hallways around the stadium is an important & powerful one, I agree Nikhul, in part just because it shows a key feature of a soccer game: basically no one leaves their seats while the game is underway, which is a contrast with other sports such as American football and especially baseball. And that moment of him dragging his foot on the pitch is one of my favorites; that the film-makers were able to capture that motion, and its sound, is remarkable I think and gives us a different way of thinking about what happens on a football pitch. On Zidane, it’s definitely true he came from a humble background, but he was actually born in Marseille not Algeria — his father and mother had emigrated before he was born and met in France. He crew up La Castellane, a housing project in the northern part of the city. His link to Algeria was always powerful, however.

      Reply
      1. Nikhil Kaul

        Yes, I think I never really realized that contrast that football had with most other sports about people leaving their seats. It really is fascinating. It really is quite unique how they picked up on that small tick of his and it makes me curious what other ticks other great footballers have. Sorry, I don’t know where I got my misinformation, maybe I was confused with just his strong ties to Algeria is all.

        Reply
        1. Laurent Dubois Post author

          Agreed — I think if film-makers did this with other players it would feel and look very different, actually, since each of them likely have their unique ways of moving on the pitch. A lot of people assume Zidane was born in Algeria, so it’s easy to hear that information out there — which itself is interesting since it highlights how the play of different origins and nationalities is part of what draw people to particular players, who can represent multiple things at once depending on who is watching and cheering them on.

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *