essay 3

Richard Dojan

04 November, 2007

Valery's Ankle and Canadian Self Image

"Valery's Ankle" is an essay film about how the Canadian self image, one of peaceful and clean people, is in stark contrast with the way that they play and watch their national sport, hockey. It is a 33 minute film using using mainly archived footage of hockey violence, but there are also some recreations of some of the violence in the old footage. Any essay film is very closely related to a documentary, however it differs from a documentary in a few, but large ways. The main difference between the two is that a documentary is supposed to be non-biased while a film essay is more like a written essay in which the author tries to argue his thesis about the topic on which he is filming. There are other smaller differences, but this is the main difference as films such as these do not try to keep the illusion that they are doing nothing but providing information as a documentary would. Brett Kashmere the narrator and writer of the film was born in the Canadian plains and played hockey himself for over a decade. After a many years of not paying to close attention to hockey he decided to create a film about the 1972 Summit Series between Canada and the U.S.S.R. specificly in game six where Canadian player Bobby Clarke intentionally slashed the ankle of the star Russian player Valery Kharlimov. This incident is what many people believe allowed the Canadians to win the next 3 games and win the Summit Series. The goal scored in the closing seconds of the final game that sealed the Canadian victory is one of the most remembered moments in Canadian history, but the slash which is what caused that to happen has been blocked out by what Kashmere calls "Cultural Amnesia." Hockey is of course a violent sport with all of the protection, speed, allowance of body contact and the fact that the hockey stick itself is a weapon, but Kashmere believes that many Canadians players take this violence to far. Even though hockey is a violent sport played by a people who pride themselves on their peacefulness and civility, but instead of taking those properties onto the ice it seems as if Canadians players let out a dark side of them once the game starts.
The film opens with a speech made by Bobby Clarke a few years after the incident in the 1972 summit series, between Canada and the USSR, in which he intentionally broke the ankle of the star Russian player Valrey Kharlimov. During the speech he mentions how he became a hockey player and how he believes in hard work and thats how he got to where he is now. Soon after it shows the infamous and intentional two handed slash to Valery Kharlimov's ankle under orders of the Canadian assistant coach John Ferguson. Throughout the rest of the film there are numerous pieces of archived footage and stills that show savage attacks and fights committed throughout the history by Canadian players. Initialy the film was supposed to be about nothing but the slash of Kharlimov's ankle, but during the making of this film Todd Bertuzzi sucker punched a rookie player injuring his neck as he hit the ice. With this incident many sports television stations began showing hundreds of other violent acts committed during hockey games and this led Kashmere to expand his original idea for the movie. Now he shifted his focus to more the amount of violence committed by Canadians and how the general public permitted this as well as the way the executives at the National Hockey League (NHL) used this violence to promote hockey to usually non-hockey areas such as Los Angeles or Tampa Bay. The majority of the film is about this and how it is in contradiction to what is the Canadian identity which is that of a peaceful and civil people. Kashmere argues that this violence is not needed to make it successful as womens hockey is popular and there is no tolerance for fighting or body contact. Kashmere does not try to force his opinion upon the viewer, even though he does give it, however he does provide the viewers with something to think about and discuss with the other people who watched the film.
Having grown up in rural Canada and having played hockey for over 10 years has given him an understanding of how the game is looked at by Canadians, and how it affects their lives. Even at an early age Kashmere saw violence linked to hockey. Back when he played and also now when he watches younger people play he sees the parents being violent, getting in fights with other parents or even the officials. All this violence that a child sees gives them a sense that this kind of behaviour is fine and become permissive about it or may even act upon their own violent tendencies on the ice. While there were violent and even deadly acts committed since hockeys inception Kashmere thinks that there was an influx of violence because of how the NHL markets hockey to certain parts of the country. "In order to sell the game in certain non-traditional hockey markets—like California, like Nashville, Tennessee, or Carolina—they underline the rough aspects to attract fans that otherwise have no relationship to a game played on ice." (Stylus) Kashmere explains that hockey does not need violence to be an entertaining sport. He gives womens hockey as an example explaining that there is no body contact allowed and there is a strict ban on fighting and womens hockey is still popular. Kashmere also points out that fighting is not allowed in any other sport, but they are still more popular than hockey. Hockey is the only major sport that allows brawling to occur, even fighting sports such as boxing have rules and they must wear gloves so that they can not cause as much damage to the other person. At one point during the film there is a sequence of intense, violent scenes which Kashmere hoped would be the equivalent of getting punched yourself. “Such images are indeed able to usurp reality because first of all a photograph is not only an image (as a painting is an image), an interpretation of the real; it is also a trace, something directly stenciled off the real, like a footprint," (Sontag 350).
According to Kashmere and most other Canadians they would say that they are a non-violent peaceful people, but there is a darker side that many people do not realize or choose not to. In his essay film Kashmere explains Canadians as a whole can usually be described as culturally diverse, civil, kind and tolerant. Once Canadians take to the ice however it seems as if all of that politeness is defenestrated. While Canadians are not the only players that are being violent it is the dual fact that many of the more infamous attacks on other players are preformed by Canadians and because the Canadians are seen as extremely polite people off of the ice. One of the more recent and brutal attacks committed by a Canadian was by Todd Bertuzzi. Bertuzzi approached a rookie, who had checked him earlier, from behind and punched him in the back of the head causing the rookie to fall to the ground and injured his neck. Kashmere brings up this idea of "Cultural Amnesia" which is when an entire community of people selectively forget about something that is unpleasant for them to think about such as the slash on Valery's ankle.
The violence that is in modern hockey is not something new; even since the early 1900's there have been numerous horrible attacks and even deaths on the ice. in 1904 alone there were 4 deaths caused by either fighting or violent stick work. when hockey was first made an official sport in the late 19th century there were only seven rules and these were rather rudimentary ones. because of the lack of rules it is believed that physical intimidation was prevalent and fighting was a large part of this. eventually the fighters on a team came to be known as enforcers and their role would be to protect their teammates who were better at puck handling from the other teams enforcers. As this continued to happen players developed an unwritten code on fighting. most fighting today is consensual and is usually between two enforcers only rarely are there spontaneous fights. one of the main reasons proponents for fighting give is the fact that without the enforcers there will be an increase in other no legal and often more dangerous attacks. opponents however say that in women and European leagues where fighting is punished severely there is not the hazardous stick play that players are worried about.
“I am not a preacher of non-violence. But violence belongs in war, not in sports. As do most Canadians, I like tough, physical hockey and played it. As do most Canadians, I don't like the cheap illicit stuff - the knees, the checks from behind, the charging, the goon tactics when a team is down.” (Moore). This echos the thoughts of many fans of not only hockey but any sport that has physical contact. A majority of sports fan think that violence in sports is healthy and keeps the players honest and it also provides some entertainment. without violence in sports there would be no football or rugby which are two of the worlds most popular sports.
Violence in hockey is a part of the game because of the speed, padding, allowance of body contact and the fact that hockey sticks could be used a weapons, but there are limitations as to what a player can and cannot do. Todd Bertuzzi, Bobby Clarke and countless other Canadians have committed extremely violent and illegal attacks on other players either to gain an advantage in a game or for pay back and this is in direct contradiction of a Canadian self image of peacefulness.
 

essay 3 outline

1st paragraph - introduction of Brett and the film.
Valrey's Ankle is an essay film about how the canadain self image, one of peaceful and clean 
people, is in stark contrast with the way that they play and watch their national sport, hockey.
2nd paragraph - summary of the film
the film opens with a speech made by Bobby Clarke a few years after the incident in the 1972 summit series, between Canada and the USSR, in which he intentionally broke the ankle of the star Russian player Valrey Kharlimov.
3rd paragraph - Brett's interpertation of hockey violence
Having grown up in rural Canada and having played hockey for over 10 years has given him an understanding of how the game is looked at by Canadains, and how it affects their lives.
"In order to sell the game in certain non-traditional hockey markets—like California, like Nashville, Tennessee, or Carolina—they underline the rough aspects to attract fans that otherwise have no relationship to a game played on ice."
4th paragraph - the canadian self image
According to Brett and most other Canadians they would say that they are a non-violent peaceful people, but there is a darker side that many people dont realize or choose not to.
5th paragraph - history of hockey violence
The violence that is in modern hockey is not something new; even since the early 1900's there have been numerous horrible attacks and even deaths on the ice.
6th paragraph - the role of violence in sports
“I am not a preacher of non-violence. But violence belongs in war, not in sports. As do most Canadians, I like tough, physical hockey and played it. As do most Canadians, I don't like the cheap illicit stuff - the knees, the checks from behind, the charging, the goon tactics when a team is down.”
7th paragraph - conclusion
Violence in hockey is a part of the game because of the speed, padding, allowance of body contact and the fact that hockey sticks could be used a weapons, but there are limitations as to what a player can and cannot do.


thesis 1: hockey is a violent sport played by a people who pride themselves on their peacefulness and civility, but insted of taking those properties onto the ice it seems as if canadains players let out a dark side of them once the game starts.

thesis 2: Todd Bertuzzi, Bobby Clarke and countless other canadians have commited extremely violent and illegal attacks on other players either to gain an advantage in a game or for payback and this is in direct contradiction of a canadian self image of peacefulness.

Jacob's lecture

"These artists, herself among them, eschew the constricting limitations not only of artistic conventions but of the traditional institutional spaces of their production, such as studios, museums and galleries. They choose the freedom of working in real places with real people addressing everyday issues.”Jacob spent most of her lecture talking about her time in South Carolina, running the public art pieces there. At the very beginning of the lecture however she 
did explain why museums were inadequate for doing some pieces because they were to small 
and because they thought of themselves as the only ones who had knowledge of what art was. 
By not having art exhibitions in a museum the artists were freed from the constraints of what 
is typically considered art and by the limited amount of space even inside of a warehouse. One 
example would be the painting of a house in camouflage patterns and colors. This would not 
have been possible in a museum setting because of the size of the project and also more 
conservative people did not want her to do the piece at also if she had to do it in a museum 
they would not have allowed it. The second part of the quote is not easily obtainable in a 
museum, but is much easier in public places where the people are. Another art piece in 
the lecture was the one door wide house. This was built in reference to the one room wide 
houses near where the art piece was built.  the same artist created a tiny park in an empty 
lot across the street from the house and put up a billboard that has a picture of children 
looking up at a real flag pole flying the artists interpretation of the American flag.