In today’s entry I am going to briefly talk about three of the first relevant characters that belong in Venezuela’s history: Guaicaipuro, Francisco Fajardo and Diego de Losada.
Guaicaipuro was an indian Chief of the Caracas and Los Teques tribes, who led the resistance against Spanish colonization in the Valley of Caracas, commanding other Chiefs such as Naiguata, Chacao, Guaicamacuto and his own son Baruta.
Guaicaipuro was the first Chief that attacked the Spaniards who mined gold mines in the territory of what today is Los Teques, and afterwards led another attack where he killed the Province Governor’s (Juan Rodriguez Suarez) sons. These victories made him rise to become the leader of all tribes that lived in Caracas and Los Teques, which resulted in the Spaniards abstaining from settling in the area for over five years.
Next we have Francisco Fajardo, who was a Spanish explorer who led several expeditions that attempted to settle in the Valley of Caracas between 1555 and 1562.
Fajardo was one of the first colonizer who was a “mestizo”, meaning he was the son of a white Spanish man and a waikeri indian woman. Fajardo used this to his advantage to blend in the local tribes of the Valley. Eventually, in 1564 he was defeated by Guaicaipuro and had to retreat to Cumana city, where he was arrested and executed by Alonso Cobos for unknown reasons.
Caracas’ main highway, which covers and connects the entire city, is named after Francisco Fajardo.
Finally, we have Spaniard conqueror Diego de Losada, who founded Santiago de Leon de Caracas in 1567.
Worried by the constant attacks of Guaicaipuro, Losada ordered his men to capture and/or kill Guaicaipuro, a feat they achieved in 1568. This allowed the spaniards to stay in a permanent settlement in the valley Caracas and Los Teques.
Caracas -Venezuela’s current capital city- would not become the capital for many years. However, eventually it would be come the center of attention and most important place in the country.
Despite Spain being the first ones to establish themselves in Nueva Cadiz, Santa Cruz, Coro and Cumana, it was Germany the first country to establish a structured government colony in Venezuela.
They called the land Kleine-Venedig (Little Venice), after being obtained from the King of Spain Charles I, who gave colonial rights to the Wesler family from Germany. The Weslers governed the region from 1528 to 1546, and their main interest was to find the legendary city “El Dorado”. They sent several expeditions to find it, the first one being led by Ambrosius Ehunger, who founded of Maracaibo in 1529, followed by Georg von Sprayer and Phillip von Hutten. Kleine-Venedig was also the largest German colony during the colonization of America.
After years of absence of the German governors (due to them being away from the city, searching for El Dorado), Spain took action through newly appointed governor Juan De Carvajal to recover the colony, by ordering the aprehension and eventual execution of all the Germans.
In 1507, the German cartographist Martin Waldseemüller drew the first world map that featured the new lands discovered by Columbus, Ojeda, Vespucci and the subsequent expeditions that followed.
Waldseemüller named the new continent as “America”, after Amerigo Vespucci, using a latin variation of his name in female gender, reasoning that the existing continents Asia and Europa (Europe), had female genders. The name “America” is written on the map over the land that today is known as “South America”, and the map is titled as: Universalis cosmographia secundum Ptholomaei traditionem et Americi Vespuci aliorumque lustrationes (Universal Cosmography according Ptholomei’s tradition and the discoveries of Amerigo Vespucci and others).
The first two cities founded in Venezuela were Nueva Cadiz (1500) and Santa Cruz (1502). Nueva Cadiz was a settlement founded in the island of Cubagua for the new population seeking pearl oyster beds. Santa Cruz was founded by Alonso de Ojeda in the Goajira peninsula, and it was the first city founded on main land.
Both cities were short lived. Due to internal disputes, indian attacks, and poor weather, Santa Cruz was abandoned just three months after it was founded. Nueva Cadiz saw a few years of prosperity, but after depletion of the pearl ouster beds and devastating seaquake in 1541, the city was finally abandoned.
In my following entry, I will give a quick glimpse of the first European organized government settlement in Venezuela, which contrary to what many believe, was not from Spain.
Today’s post will go over the subject of the origin of Venezuela’s name.
The most commonly accepted theory of how Venezuela got its name, is that Alonso de Ojeda named the land after Amerigo Vespucci’s comment during a voyage made along the new land’s coast. Historians are almost certain that Vespucci made four trips to the new continent. In one of the two trips of which there is almost complete certainty that happened (the second one led by Ojeda, the other one being the third), Vespucci commented to Ojeda that the stilt houses the indians built on top of pillars in Lake Maracaibo reminded him of Venice, which led Ojeda -Captain and Leader of the expedition- to name the country with an italianized variation “Venezziola”, roughly meaning “little Venice”. The houses Ojeda and Vespucci saw are known as “Palafitos”.
A second theory states that Ojeda named the country after encountering a small local indian tribe who named themselves “Veneciuela”. The third and least accepted theory is that the name came from a variation of the city “Valencia”.
During the years I lived in Venezuela, I would say that 99% of the population accepted the theory of the houses on the lake theory. There were dozens of references and stories about it in the Venezuelan culture, including many songs that were titled “Pequeña Venecia” (Little Venice).
In my next entry, I will discuss the arrival process of the European conquerors and how they set their new ventures in this new territory that would be now known as “Venezuela”.
The other day at work I was having a conversation with a coworker about one of those sensible topics we are working on to become a better society.
A few months ago, I was working in a project with a fellow Project Manager from a foreign country. We had several meetings and conference calls, and I was amazed on how poorly he treated the people who were under his title, regardless if the person worked for his, mine or anyone else’s company.
I shared this with a friend over a few drinks one night, and my friend -who used to work for someone of the same nationality of the PM- said to me: -“Oh yes, that’s the way they are. They are very into hierarchy. They behave one way if you have a title that’s under theirs, and they behave in a completely different way if they are under you. It’s just the way they are. They respect hierarchy and that’s the way it works for them.” A similar example was brought to my attention when a friend who lived in a certain country where the people are very into punctuality, told me: “It’s part of their culture. It’s the way they are.”
All of this makes me wonder: in this new era of globalization and equality -something I’m all in favor of- where do we stand when it comes to qualities like this that appear to be intrinsic to a group of people who share a particular behavior in common?
Am I wrong in saying that people from country “X” are nut about punctuality? Am I offending anyone if I say it is common for a certain nationality to thrive for respect and hierarchy? I would like to say no, because otherwise, why would we have all the articles:
That brings me to my next question: is it fair to associate a group people with a certain behavior in common, regardless if it is positive or negative?
The prologue of my book -written by my best friend Dr. Lorne Lopez-, states that my book is uses “the old-school free speech some of us today long for”. As an analysis of a society done by a foreigner, something that I wanted to clear up from the very beginning of my book, is the resource of generalization and how I wanted to avoid it as most as I could. In the end, I will generalize just like when my friend would say “oh yes, people from that country are very into hierarchy”, or like when my other friend would say: “people from that country are very into punctuality”. This is because when I see certain patterns recurrently occur in a group of people who have something in common, I cannot help but to state that maybe there is a chance that someone who belongs to that group, will also have the same characteristics.
In my book, I will state that Venezuela’s society was filled with flaws and cracks that contributed to initiate the debacle of the country that has led to its current collapsed state. The thing is that, society is not an omnipresent, omnipotent invisible entity being that surrounds us and which we can’t interact with.
Society is made by people, and in Venezuela’s case, people with a lot of similar characteristics in common.
A common trend seen on non-fiction books is for authors to normally include one or two famous phrases at the start of their books. My reading of this is that firstly, the author intends to pay tribute and honor the person who pronounced the phrase, and secondly to use the phrase as a foundation for the manuscript that will follow.
When the time came for me to decide which phrase I would include in my book, I contemplated several options within the hundreds of works and famous moments that have ocurred throughout mankind’s history, and that could have a direct relation with the content of my book and the message I intend to send with it. Among the many options I had, there is one I would like to share with you, as everytime I think about it, it brings me a motivating and inspiring sensation that not many modern-day cliche phrases can bring, especially when considering setting a new goal or a new objective, regardless of its difficulty and challenge. It is an interesting contrast against the current trend of motivational hope and dream seeker phrases one can find anywhere nowadays, versus the simple fact of accepting the reality in which you are living. The considered goal set can be anything: graduating from high-school or college, reach a summit in hiking, getting that dream job you’ve always wanted, marrying the person you love, or becoming one of the best tennis players of all time.
In 2018, Toni Nadal -Rafael Nadal’s uncle and trainer- gave a TEDx talk, in which he shared an interesting anecdote that happened between him and Rafael during his early years as a professional tennis player. The story went that Toni and Rafael were preparing the strategy for the upcoming championship match of Montecarlo’s Master Series, which Nadal would be playing against some “random no-good swiss guy”, sarcastically referring to then #1 ranked tennis player in the world, Roger Federer. During the conversation, Rafa asked his uncle about what he thought of what his chances were of winning, to which Toni replied:
“Your chances aren’t good: Federer’s forehand is way better than yours, his backhand is better than yours, his volley is way too good and better than yours, and his serve, well, let’s just say…” and at that point Rafa interrupted him and said: “Whoa, whoa, nice kind of encouragement you are giving me to go outside and play against him…”
Without hesitation, Toni told his nephew: “Well, I can lie to you if you want, no problem. However, in a few minutes, Federer won’t lie to you at all. It’s better for you to face facts and know what you are up against with. That being said, let’s find solutions to the issue at hand”.
Toni resumed his presentation in the TEDx talk: “That has been the way I have understood how training works: accept your reality, which is something that seems to be a very complicated thing to do nowadays. It seems to me that we always have to give positive motivational messages to our people. It seems like we have to constantly tell them that they are the best and they are the greatest at what they do. I think that if you think of yourself as not good enough, and you know exactly the reality of where you stand, that becomees the first step, the starting point to reach our goals”.
It is in this matter where most people and especially venezuelans who dealt (or still deal) with the crisis of their country, have a very hard time accepting something as simple as the truth and the reality of facts.
I have always been someone who thinks like Toni Nadal does: accepting reality helps you know where you stand, where you are, determine what can you do with the resources that you have, determine where do you want to go, what errors and mistakes you made that you must fix, what could have been done in a different and more efficient way, how close you are from your goal, how is your overall plan working and how well are you following the correct strategy to achieve your goal.
In my book I will share and the main causes that produced the collapse of Venezuela, and of course I will analyze them extensively and in a very detailed way; one of them while not being specifically listed or identified, is undoubtly an integral part of the overall message my book brings to the reader, which is the meaninig of accepting your reality. Many of the issues, setbacks and problems that happened in Venezuela, happened because the people involved with them did not face their reality, did not accept it and even if they did, they were unable to find solutions to the issue at hand. Instead, they shielded themselves behind excuses they created, that prevented them from reaching a solution.
In the TEDx Talk, Toni Nadal didn’t mention the year where the anecdote between him and Rafa had ocurred, so I will make a daring attempt of speculating it may have been 2006, because that was the first time Federer and Nadal faced each other in a final championship match in Montecarlo. The result of the match was a convincing victory by Nadal, who defeated Federer in four sets 6-2/6-7(2)/6-3/7-6(5), despite having an inferior forehand, backhand, volley and a serve that was nowhere near his rival’s. What caused that result? Several reasons, I’m quite sure; but I’m also sure that one of the most important ones was the fact that Nadal was able to accept his reality and he was able to find solutions to the issue at hand based on the reality he was. Nadal didn’t find or made up excuses.
This brings me to the closure of this entry, which is what I believe will most likely be the hardest task for my readers, not so much for a non-venezuelan, but for the venezuelan average reader: accept reality. Accept that many things in their country were wrong, despite that when seen from the surface, everything seemed like it was going on great. Accept that when faced with issues, problems and challenges like the ones I discuss in my book, regardless of how good or bad the situation was, venezuelans failed to find a solution. More importantly: accept that everything I state in my book about the failure of their society, is true.
I have nothing against dreaming, believing in something and sharing hope when working to reach a goal and wishing to achieve it; I have nothing against positive motivational cliche phrases like the ones I see every day in social media, because I believe that when properly used and managed effecively, they can bring a fundamental value to the equation of reaching a goal. However, I also believe that every now and then, it’s good for all of us to have a dose of facing reality and put your feet on the ground, in order to come up with a strategy that will allow you to make those dreams come true.
I decided not to include Toni’s phrase in my book for a bunch of reasons, the main one being that I had other candidates such as John Stuart Mill, Rene Descartes and Friedrich Nietzsche infront of him, and I thought it was improper to put Toni Nadal with them. I also thought the phrase served better the environment of a conference as the one he gave, more than a book. However I kept its lesson and the debate that one can initiate based on it: Accepting reality and finding solutions.
Sometimes there are no problems or excuses in life. Only solutions, but only if you want them…
As a first time author, for several weeks I thought about what to post on this site, and given that my first book will be released soon, I concluded that it would be a good idea to build up a thread of short posts that would help bring context of Venezuela’s history to a foreign reader unfamiliar with the country that is the main topic of case study of my book, the introductory manual of How to Destroy a Country.
Venezuela’s modern history begins in 1498 with Columbus’ third voyage. Six years before, the italian sailor had discovered America thinking it was the coastal indian islands of Asia, while seeking for more efficient trade routes to the east.
This event triggered the race to colonize the newfound lands, with Spain, Portugal, England, France and Netherlands being the primary colonizers seeking the vast resources of the new continent.
Today July 21st I am officially launching my marketing for the upcoming release of my first book, the Instruction Manual to learn How to Destroy a Country.
In the upcoming weeks I will be post updates related to the book launch, its cover, pre-order status, advanced reviews, a few excerpts, and of course the official launch date, as well as continue to write as I have been doing about current news, sports, movies and other themes. I will also share a few of my personal ideas related to the book and a couple of personal experiences which I consider should be fair for the reader to get to know me and learn a bit about me.
Twenty-five years ago and for the course of thirty days, the world witnessed magic in the basketball courts of Portland and Barcelona when the gods of the game graced together along a unique experience that most likely we will never be seen again, ever. A collection of eleven NBA players and one college player made up the Dream Team: The Best Team ever assembled
Today’s entry is a tribute to them and to that memorable ocassion. My intention is to share a bit of history and my take on the whole Dream Team subject before, during and after their Olympics venture.
The Best Team ever assembled
It all started in 1988 when the United States went back home from Korea’s Summer Olympics with an embarrassing Bronze Model. The International Basket Federation finally had enough of external pressures on globalizing the sport and gave in allowing professional players to play on international competitions -including the Olympics-. The NBA then, was asked to supply a list of players for the upcoming 1992 Barcelona Olympics. Initially the league was not too much into the idea, but eventually, NBA commisioner David Stern was convinced that the best players had to be selected in order to redeem the image of American Basketball as the world’s elite level nation. By May 1992, the squad was officially complete eleven NBA pros who were near or at their absolute peaks, plus one college player would make the trip to Barcelona in order to show the world who was the superpower of the world when it came to basketball.
Larry Bird
At 35 Larry Bird was the oldest of the team. He was also in his last season and he actually had announced that he would retire after playing in the Olympics. He had been plagued by back problems since the 1988-89 season, which he missed almost entirely, and was the only player that could be argued was way past his peak. Yet, any Larry Bird season past his prime, was still better than any season of any other NBA players. In his last season, 1991-92, he averaged 20.2 points, 9.6 rebounds, 6.8 steals and 0.9 steals. He also shot 47% on field goals, 41% on three-pointers and 93% from the free throw line.
As you can see, to say that Larry Bird did not deserve to be on the team, was as insulting as it could get. I will say though that, when looking at the numbers of that 1991-92 season, you can say it was his worst season by far. This is a man who in 1983-84 posted 24.2 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 6.6 assists, 1.8 steals and shot 49-25-89. In 1984-85, his stats were 28.7 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 6.6 assists, 1.6 steals and shot 52-43-89. In 1986-87, he posted 28.1 ppg, 9.2 rpg, 7.6 assists, 1.8 steals, and shot 53-40-91! So, you pretty much get the picture. Larry retired averaging 24.3 ppg, 10 rpg, 6.3 assists, 1.7 steals, 0.8 blocks, shooting 50-38-89. Simply put: insane numbers.
Larry being picked for the team was a no-brainer, despite everyone (including fans) knowing he would not see too much action because of his back injury. He was selected not only because of his numbers, but because of his legacy and the historic nature of the team. He was a six time NBA finalist, three time NBA Champion, three time MVP, and the best shooter of all time.
Larry and Magic revived the NBA in the 1980s and paved the way for Isiah, MJ, Barkley and many others
Magic Johnson
Along with Bird, Magic was the other veteran. Magic was still at his peak in 1991 -despite losing to Michael Jordan’s Chicago Bulls in the NBA Finals-, when an unfortunate news broke out for him. He had been diagnosed with HIV, which made him take the decision of retiring from the game. In that 1990-91 season, Magic averaged 19.4 ppg, 12.5 assists, 7 rebounds, 1.3 steals, and shot 48-32-91. He didn’t play in 1991-92 and almost everyone expected him to die of AIDS. He was still healthy and able and willing to compete and play, so he was chosen to serve as co-captain of the team alongside his rival and friend Larry Bird.
Like in Bird’s case, to claim that Magic was past his prime is ridiculous. Magic and Bird had always been in their primes, from the day they first set foot on the NBA, until their very last game. To pick Magic’s best season is an almost impossibe task, because Magic’s contribution to the game was beyond posting 20 ppg and 12 assists along with 8 rebounds and 1.8 steals per game. In Magic you had arguably the second best NBA player of all time. You had a player who could play any position comfortably. You had a player who was dangerous in offense and in defense in any position. You had a player who was the leader of the team. You had a player who was charismatic and who brought the positive momentum to your team.
Magic being picked cemented the historic nature of the Dream Team. With the second best player of all time, and the absolute best clutch shotmaker of all time, the only remaining element the team needed now, was the man that was positiong himself to become the absolute best player of all time.
Michael Jordan
Let me be crystal clear: in 1992, Michael Jordan was not the best NBA player of all time, yet. He was the best player of the league, and that was it. But before 1992, Jordan was first seen as the superlative talent who could score at will 35 points per game, who nobody could stop and who could play defense better than any one had ever played before. However, he had hit a brick wall against the Detroit Pistons, led by Isiah Thomas, who knew exactly what Jordan’s weakness was, which was, being selfish and not trusting his teammates.
Three times the Pistons beat Jordan’s Bulls and taught him important valuable lessons on what exactly was needed to become a winner in the NBA. The fourth time Jordan faced the Pistons, he was a more mature player and a more mature person. He took his 35 points per game signature and his skills with the ball, and took his game to a whole new level. A more cooperative Jordan, learned that basketball was a team game, and that despite him being the leader and absolute best individual player of the league, sometimes his teammates could also share some of his glory. In 1990-91, he swept the Pistons and went on to win his first NBA Championship, defeating Magic Johnson’s Lakers in five games. The following season, he would reach the finals once again and defeat the Clyde Drexler’s led Portland Trail Blazers.
Jordan gesturing after his famous six straight 3-pointer shooting vs Portland in the 1992 Finals
With two rings in his fingers, Jordan had tied Isiah Thomas, the other great player who had dominated the 80s, but was still behind Bird’s three, Magic’s five and Kareem’s six. Still, it was a no brainer to pick the best player in the league. The point that I’m trying to make is that just like I did with Bird and Magic, you have to put things in perspective when talking about the Dream Team, and Jordan’s case. In 1992, he wasn’t the best NBA player of all time. He was on his way, yes, but he wasn’t there yet.
Karl Malone and John Stockton
Like with Bird, Johnson and Jordan, it’s an understate ment to say that the pick and rollers were at their absolute peak when chosen for the dream team in 1992. With Magic retired and Isiah Thomas recovering from injuries sustained in the 1990-91 season, John Stockton had established himself as the best point guard in the NBA, averaging 14.5, 14.3 and 13.7 assists in the three seasons preceding the Olympics.
Karl Malone was arguably one of the two best power forwards of the time -the other one being Charles Barkley-, and had been posting insane numbers such as averaging 28 ppg, 11.8 rebounds and 3.8 assists, while shooting over 55% from the field in 1991-92. Many cronists argue that to pick one you had to pick the other, but in all honestly, both John and Karl were picked because of both their on-court chemistry and also by their individual achievements.
Charles Barkley
One of the biggest debates of the 1990s was, who was the best power forward: Malone or Barkley? Pick your choice, but I would chose Barkley any day. While their numbers were pretty similar -Barkley doing 27.6 ppg, 12.2 rpg, 5.1 assists, shooting 55% from the field-, Sir Charles had always struck me as more of a leader and a hustler. Also, Charles was a better 2P shooter, averaging 63%, way above Malone’s 52%. The good news for the Dream Team is that there wasn’t any need to pick one of the two and leave the other one behind.
By 1992 Charles had been playing for eight seasons with the 76ers and was seen as one of the best players in the NBA without a ring. A lot of people -including myself- believed that if anyone could be able to stop Michael Jordan in the NBA Finals, it would be Charles. He was also the only true physical player chosen. No one else would even dare to hustle the way Charles did; not that it would be needed anyway, but still it was good to at least have the option there, had the ocassion presented itself.
Always a controversial figure, Barkley would become the Dream Team’s best ambassador and public speaker
In a nutshell, Barkley was a combination of many great players who would definitely not be chosen for the team. He had Dennis Rodman’s aggresive rebounder nature, Dominique Wilkins showmanship on offense, Kevin McHale’s defense and James Worthy’s effectiveness. Put all those talents in a blender, and add some extra something special, and you have Sir Charles Barkley.
Chris Mullin and Scottie Pippen
Before Reggie Miller and Ray Allen became the best shooters in the NBA, there was Chris Mullin. Chris was a quiet player, who led his numbers do the talking for him. He averaged three-pointing shooting of 37%, 32%, 37% and 45% in the seasons preceding the 1992 Olympics, along with 25 points per game, 5.9 rebounds and 2.1 steals, meaning not only he was a great shooter, but also a great defender. He also averaged over 54% from the field. In all honestly, only Barkley was able to top Chris’ shooting abilities.
Then we have Scottie, who in my opinion was chosen more because of his defensive skills than because of his offense. Scottie was at the time the most dangerous player in the defensive line of the entire NBA. He was also Jordan’s sidekick and to have MJ on the team without Scottie, would have been wrong. There has been a lot of controversy regarding Scottie and Isiah Thomas’ selection, with the former claiming he did not want Isiah on the team, and the latter claiming that Scottie had no right to say anything about Isiah’s selection on the team. Some fans even argue that Scottie should have been dropped in favor of Isiah. I myself being a Pistons fan, have to swallow my pride and admit that Scottie deserved to be in the team, and that Isiah not being chosen had nothing to do with him. I’ll get to that in a few parapraphs below.
David Robinson and Patrick Ewing
Another no brainer. David and Pat were the #3 and #2 best centers of the NBA in 1992 -the #1 being Hakeem Olajuwon-. Like it happened with Barkley and Malone, David and Pat’s numbers were both pretty similar and pretty insane. Also, they were the pillars and leaders of their respective teams, the San Antonio Spurs and the New York Knicks. Both of them averaged around 25 points per game, 12 rebounds, 3 blocks, and were as physically intimidating as you can get. Hakeem’s game was a level above theirs, but fortunately there was no need to worry about him.
The Final Choice: Clyde Drexler vs Isiah Thomas. And… Chris Laettner (doh…)
By 1992, the NBA history was like this: with the exception of one season, every single NBA Championship since 1980, had been won by Magic Johnson, or Larry Bird, or Isiah Thomas or Michael Jordan. Magic, Larry and Michael had been picked for the team, therefore it would only make so much sense to pick Isiah Thomas, who was arguably the second best point guard of all time, behind Magic Johnson.
The NBA decided they would pick a college player as a nod to the previous selection system, so that meant that there would only be one spot left for an NBA pro, and it was either Clyde The Glide or Zeke. In the end Clyde was chosen over Isiah, in a decision that has generated controvery for years and will likely continue to do so until the end of time. My opinion on the case, is that Clyde deserved to be on the team. Clyde was arguably the second best shooting gard of the league next to MJ, with his talents spanning on both ends of the court. His numbers prove it just like they do with the other chosen players: 25 ppg, 6.6 rebounds, 6.7 assists, 1.8 steals, shooting 48-38-80. What were Zeke’s numbers by 1992? 19.2 ppg, 9.3 assists, 2 steals. Like I said, second best after Magic. At the time, fans complained that Zeke was dropped in favor of Clyde, but years later the truth went out and it was discovered that it was Michael, Magic and Larry -along with Karl, Chris and Scottie- who didn’t want Isiah on the team, due to his aggressive competitive nature shown in the many years he spent competing against them, that involved brawls, fights, broken noses and a team walk-off the court when facing defeat against MJ in the 1991 Conference Finals. Anyway, back to the Clyde issue against Isiah.
Thomas had also beat Drexler in the 1991 NBA Finals
In my opinion, the problem wasn’t Clyde being chosen over Isiah, it was Chris Laettner being picked over Isiah. Honestly, Laettner had no business to do on the Dream Team, other than to carry their bags and serve as their ring bearer. The nod to the “old college system” kind of back fired, because Laettner ended up turning into a big nothing in the NBA, whereas it was Shaquille O’Neal -the #2 college player who was considered along with Laettner- the one who really became the legend he was destined to be.
Because of the historic nature of the team and because who Isiah Thomas was and what he meant to the game, he should have been chosen over Laettner. I honestly have nothing against any of the other choices, and I believe there wasn’t a single choice that should have been dropped in favor of another player. The Dream Team should have featured zero college players and that was it, because of the simple reasoning that never again you would be able to gather a collection of such elite legendary players such as the ones that would represent the United States in the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona.
Shaq and Laettner in their college years
Regarding the controversy of picking Laettner of Shaq, I don’t make a big fuzz about it. In 1992, Chris was the most accomplished NCAA player and that was it. Sure you could make a case that some people saw and believed that Shaq was going to be a huge thing, but there wasn’t any insurance on that. I mean, how many times have you seen or heard of someone who is going to become the next big thing, and doesn’t. It was impossible to know where Shaq was headed. Yes, there were many hints, but objectively speaking by 1992, Laettner was more accomplished and had been successful than Shaq.
Final thoughts
The Dream Team went on to win all their matches -as expected- with a 44 point average difference over their rivals. There was no way to stop them or to even pose a threat to them. One thing most people don’t talk about, is how despite this outstanding success and pounding of the rest of the teams that faced them, is the fact that in my opinion the Dream Team never played at 100%.
Even the Gold Medal Match vs Croatia, was played at I would say 70%, or maybe 80% max of their strength. They were so honorable and so respectful that they considered it wasn’t even necessary to show the world their full power, which I believe had they done, they would have averaged a point difference of 60 points over their oppponents, including Croatia.
The 1992 Dream Team mission was successfully accomplished: to show the world that the United States was the superpower in basketball and that even in victory you can be graceful and a true ambassador of what sports is supposed to be: a fun competition that should always be a spectacle to enjoy, for the players and for the fans.
A few nights ago I was able to catch 12 Monkeys on the tube, which I hadn’t seen for quite some time and have always regarded it as a timeless classic in my all time great films list. It’s been 22 years since I first saw this film and I would say at least two since I last saw it. The recent viewing of this week made me realize that as time passes, 12 Monkeys keeps getting better and better. It made me elevate it to the status quo of masterpiece.
Like most masterpieces of cinema, 12 Monkeys has everything going on for it. So let’s go over the film’s elements one by one, beginning with the characters:
Bruce Willis is at his very best here. A lot of fans will argue that his best dramatic performance is on The Sixth Sense -and I can partially agree with that affirmation-, however I give a slight nod to James Cole in 12 Monkeys, because of his inner intensity that never drops, not even for a single second. Whether if it’s internal or external, Bruce is able to portray James’ never ending conflict within himself and the world that surrounds him -real or not-. One minute he’s an action hero, the next minute he’s a very fragile human being, the next minute he’s trying to make sense of a mind-boggling time-travel situation. His many facets in the film would even rival what many consider Bruce’s all-time best performance -John McClane in Die Hard-.
Madeleine Stowe is a pleasent and wondeful surprise. While you shouldn’t compare her to Isabelle Adjani’s Queen Margot or Meryl Streep’s whatever movie Meryl Streep is in, her performance as Dr. Kathryn Railly is so natural, you basically forget you are even watching an actress playing someone and instead you take her for real on both her actions and her words. Bruce also accomplishes this fact, which is an incredibly tough feat to achieve on both your leads, who from the second act forward look like two random people who are stuck in an unbeliveable sequence of events that make them question their own existence.
However make no mistake: if both Bruce and Madeleine get lost within their characters, it is Brad Pitt the one who is completely impossible to recognize. This is Brad at his absolute peak right here -and yes, I mean he’s even better than Tyler Durden-. Brad’s screen time isn’t long, however he steals the show every time he shows up. He’s sort of a mixture between Heath Ledger’s Joker, Anthony Hopkins’s Dr. Lecter, and Benicio del Toro’s Fenster, in the sense that’s he’s crazy (Joker), he’s noticeable (Dr. Lecter), he’s not essential to the main plot of the film (Fenster) and he leaves a mark in your mind (all three). Seriously, ask yourself: how much would Jeffrey Goines’ absence would affect the film or the plot? Trust me, not that much. But, he’s an unvaluable asset, because of the one single action he does that has a direct consequence on the events of the film -which is lead his father to believe that he is the one planning to attempt to steal the virus-. And why was this action triggered? Because of his brief stint with Cole back in 1990. Those are the small details that made me elevate 12 Monkeys to the status of masterpiece. From there and on, Jeffrey is just a huge misdirection tool to distract the audience -and the protagonists- from what is really taking place.
The structure of the film has drawn comparison to La Jettée and to another masterpiece you may have heard called Vertigo (many consider it the greatest movie of all time). I honestly believe that if 12 Monkeys had a bit more marketing, its status would keep growing stronger and eventually it could be mentioned in the same sentence as 2001. Like Scotty in Vertigo, I like how Cole’s arc gradually goes from completely sane to completely insane, while Railly’s arc goes from being completely sane to completely insane in a totally different way. Cole starts as sane believing in everything he has been told for his mission, but eventually becomes insane because he starts questioning reality and even doubts his own existence is real, to the point he starts believing in Railly’s theory that he simply is just another crazy person living in the 1990s. On the other hand, Railly goes from being completely sane because she believes in everything she has studied as a scholar and a professional, to then becoming gradually insane because she starts believing in Cole’s story and everything that surrounds and represents him. This juxtaposition of arcs of the main two characters in fascinating.
Then you have the little details. There are many key scenes, like the World War I scene, the spider scene, and the Railly at the Police station after being rescued scene; however one of the most memorable scenes is the one when Kathryn and Cole rent a room at a hotel for hookers. After paying the teller, he picks up the phone to ask if the pimp has a “new girl who is sort of shy.” At first, it seems like this small piece of dialogue is a filler, but instead it is actually a setup for what follows next, which is Cole and Kathryn’s intimate conversation being interrupted by the pimp showing up to confront them, which serves as setup for Cole taking off his teeth in the bathtub, hence serving as setup for the pimp then crying for help after being attacked by a woman and a crazy dentist.
Finally of course -or last but not least- we have the plot. I like how the time travel concept -which had been done by The Terminator, Back to the Future and La Jette- was handled, in the sense that they never attempted to fix or change the past or present to keep the timeline of the future intact. Instead, the time travel was just a resource to help people from the future. Hence no matter what Cole did or resist to do, things would develop exactly as they were supposed to, regardless of how hard you tried to change it. So many memorable moments affirm this, especially in the third act. My favorite one is after the voice message left by Kathryn, how she joyfully approaches James to celebrate that they’re crazy, when in reality it’s one of the first things we as the audience hear at the beginning of the movie.
In all, 12 Monkeys is a collection of very well crafted scenes, supported by memorable performances by Willis, Stowe and Pitt, backed up by a superb direction by the master of illusion, Terry Giliam.
