Championships Are Forever -- With Much Love to Arsenal

“𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘵𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘣, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳, 𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦; 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨.” - 𝘋𝘦𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘴 𝘉𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘬𝘢𝘮𝘱.

The pinnacle for a sports fan is when their favorite team wins a championship. In most sports for most teams they are extremely rare. I was in my fifties before I experienced the San Francisco Giants being World Series winners. I have never seen  the University of California football team win a conference championship and they’ve never come close to a national title.

A few days ago Arsenal Football Club of the English Premier League won their first league championship in twenty-two years. It came after three successive years of finishing second. 

I fell in love with Arsenal on May 2, 1971. I was an excellent "soccer" player in those days. I’d been good at a lot of sports, but in this one I excelled. It’s a heady feeling being superior to most everyone you face in a sport (and yes, it very much went to my head, humility was a stranger to me as a young man). But I had no team and no hero. There was "soccer" in the U.S. but just as it is today it was of inferior quality. It was hard to get excited about the Bay Area’s entry in what was then the North American Soccer League — the Oakland Clippers. They were made up primarily of players from Yugoslavia. No disrespect to that former nation, but it was hard to relate to them. If they had players from a variety of countries maybe with an emphasis on Brits, it would have been a different story. Also the stadium wasn’t exactly packed. In fact it was mostly empty and had all the atmosphere of a picnic. 

But on that fateful Saturday, Wide World of Sports was showing the FA Cup final from London. Arsenal was playing Liverpool. It was an extremely rare to see soccer on TV, especially from Europe. It was decades before the World Cup was televised here.

Though I don’t recall for certain, at the outset I was likely rooting for Liverpool  because that was where The Beatles were from. The game went to extra time and a chap named Charlie George scored a beautiful goal to put Arsenal ahead, 2-1. His celebration culminated with him laying on the ground with his arms spread. Charlie had long flowing locks, eschewed shin guards and his socks were rolled down. He looked like a rock star. I had a hero and a team. As the next match I played in began I tossed my shin guards aside and rolled down my socks.

Two years later I was standing in the terraces of the North Bank section of Highbury cheering Charlie George and The Arsenal on as they thrashed Manchester United, 3-0. It was (and remains) one of the great days of my life. I’ve been a Gooner ever since. The atmosphere in the stadium was unlike anything I'd experienced and at that point in my life I'd already been to a lot of different kinds of sports event courtesy of my father. Fans were not merely cheering, they were chanting and singing -- constantly. These supporters weren't just rooting  for their team, they loved them.

For much of my life it wasn’t easy being an Arsenal supporter. This had nothing to do with how good or bad the team was and everything to do with living in a different continent. I was left looking up scores in the paper the day after matches. It was hard to feel a connection. Thankfully in the late '90s, games from England began to be televised in the States and we got the internet in our house. I could not only watch matches, I could read about them, watch videos and connect with other fans — many in England — via forums. One such person who became a cyber friend. I finally met him in person earlier this month in Copenhagen where — fittingly enough — we watched an Arsenal match in an Arsenal-dedicated pub.

In 2006 I made a pilgrimage to London to see Arsenal in their last season at historic Highbury Park. The Gunners were 2-1 winners over Liverpool. In 2008 I saw them in their new stadium, The Emirates and again in 2017 (both victories). In 2017 I went on a stadium tour led by Charlie George -- I met my hero! I’ve been to matches the last four years (one draw and three wins) including three weeks ago, on the 55th anniversary of Charlie George’s goal. The Gunners won, three-nil. I always get choked up when before the match the fans sing part of Louis Dunford's song Angel, specifically the part known as North London Forever.

Charlie George's iconic celebration

Today every match is available on U.S. television for a modest fee added to the cable bill. (Remarkably not all matches can be seen in England. I find that bizarre.) I also listen to an Arsenal-dedicated podcast (appropriately called the Arsecast) follow the team and individual players on Instagram, follow other Arsenal lovers on Bluesky, read about the team on various sites and watch videos related to the club.

I’m obsessed.

Indeed my obsession with the team has become so all encompassing that I only closely follow two other teams: Cal 's football and Cal women’s basketball teams. I barely pay attention to other sports and watch none. 

So you can imagine my reaction on Tuesday when second place Manchester City dropped points at Bournemouth thus clinching the title for my beloved Arsenal: I was happy. I’m still happy. I’ll remain happy for a long time. 

Interestingly I did very little jumping up and down with joy. I only barely shed tears. I’ve felt more of a contentment, a deep satisfaction, a relief and immersion in a warm glow.

Once you’ve won a championship either as a player, coach, parent or fan (and I’ve experienced it as all four) it’s yours forever. It can’t be taken away. If you lose all your games the next season you still were title holders the year before. It’s permanent. Wins and losses are that way. You suffer a painful loss to a rival and it’s there forever and winning ten in a row against that team will not wipe away that loss. You do your best to forget those defeats while  holding those wins and championships close to your heart. 

The team you love becomes part of your identity. That’s why it can sting when someone says that they hate the team you love, they are saying that there’s part of you that they despise. It feels personal.

Some people don’t like sports. I can appreciate that. They’re saving themselves a lot of time, frustration and anxiety. But for me the positives of loving a team far outweigh the negatives. There are few joys to match that provided by sports. Also there’s the love. To really care about a team is to love them. And goodness we need all the love in our lives that we can possible get. You're  part of a community. I feel that every time I go to a match. Everyone there is like an old friend. 

I'm proud to love Arsenal. They've always been known for their multicultural fan base, for their early embrace of Black players, their early support for the LGBTQ fan base. And now they're champions of England. In my heart they always have been and always will be champions.

What Took Me So Long? I Finally Get Around to Watching Mad Men -- and I Loved it

Jon Hamm as Don Draper

Well…that was interesting. I spent just over three months with Mad Men. Immersed in it. Binging all seven seasons and ninety-two episodes. Novelistic. One of the great TV shows of all time. People were variously fascinating, odious and pitiable. I was often unsure of whether I should cheer them on or revile them. I did both.

Mad Men was fascinating on many levels particularly in its depiction of how people delude themselves, lie to themselves and put up false fronts for others. Most of the time people were calculated in what they said or did or if not they were drunk and totally reckless. Everyone was self-interested and loyalty could be bought and sold. I think it's a real reflection on business environments and the difficulty a lot of people have living in their own skin and more than that, understanding and appreciating others.

People were verbally vicious in a way that I sometimes felt was unrealistic. Alliances were formed but soon dissipated. Friends became enemies and vice versa. People wanted money, power, respect and sometimes just to be acknowledged and maybe loved a little bit. Relationships were mostly transactional. Even marriages. Trust was nigh on impossible.

Who can relax into life in such circumstances? No wonder everyone drank constantly. They needed to self-medicate or turn into nervous wrecks. Some did both.

At the center was Don Draper (Jon Hamm). Outwardly the uber handsome, cool, creative superstar of advertising. But as is the case with human beings he was a complex character which means he had a past that formed and deformed him — boy did he. It can be maddeningly difficult to know one’s self, when you steal someone’s identity that equation is many times squared. How could others really know him if he didn’t know himself? Understand him? The impossible dream. It was no wonder he bounced from one relationship to the next. How could he find love and contentment when he couldn’t find it in himself? Sex was often another way to avoid introspection. When you’re intimate with another person, surely everything is okay. But then you get out of bed.

Draper was at the center of the story episode after episode so we had to root for him. This became easier as we saw his vulnerabilities. It’s hard to hate a person when you know so much about them. And we got to know Draper — one of the richest characters television dramas has ever produced. We also got what we most want out of characters — change. How does this character grow throughout the series? How do they respond to events around them, particularly the ones over which they have no control?

It was not a one man band. Draper was surrounded by a deep supporting cast. The most compelling was Peggy Olson (Elizabeth Moss). From something of an ingenue to a big wheel in a big company, she had an interesting ride and went through an array of changes. There were failed loves (what on Earth did she ever see in Duck? — Yuck!) And big wins and little losses. Her relationship with Draper was one of the best things to watch on the show. It was a good choice not to have them consummate it, that would have been too easy a move and not quite right for either character. As the show progressed Peggy was often angry, sometimes justifiably so and other times unnecessarily. Given the level of sexism she was dealing with, one has to give her a pass.

Joan Holloway (Christina Hendricks) was another female character whose story arc was highlighted. Unlike Peggy I never warmed to her. She was so often so cold and I never understood why she literally prostituted herself to gain an account for the firm. But even more than Peggy she had to navigate the roiling waters of sexism that could have drowned a lesser woman. (Imagine what it was like for “real” women in that time and before and even since. Infuriating.) Like a lot of the characters Joan could be heartless in her remarks to co-workers, often Peggy. I found this damn near unrealistic. People said things to each other — cruel, personal, insulting — that would leave deep long-lasting wounds. I realize the business world of the Sixties was different than what I’ve experienced but still remaining friends with someone who verbally eviscerates you seems a stretch. I was also bothered by just how much drinking Draper on others did. Not morally offended, but it seemed beyond the limits of what a human could endure and remain ambulatory.

Elizabeth Moss as Peggy Olson

A character who frequently made rude remarks was Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser). He was a perfectly hatable person who proved that you can be something of a dimwit and still succeed in the business world. The proper connections, the right background and particular kind of glibness can offset being a total jerk. He was a tough watch for me, but like so much of the show, an interesting one.

I much preferred Roger Sterling (John Slattery). He was a right bastard but a charming and witty one. He was a man who didn’t know what he wanted but had a lot of fun looking for it. His LSD trip episode was particularly enjoyable. Sterling represented a certain archetype. The man from money and the right school who comes to be defined by his money, power and hedonism. I think he admired, even loved Don Draper, but everyone else was window dressing — unless they were available young women.

There are many other characters that much more could be said about and therein lies one of the great strengths of the show. There were no stick figures. Everyone was fully drawn and fully believable to the point where they began to feel familiar.

One of the beauties of Mad Men was how it took it’s time. The pacing was always nearly perfect. Scenes were allowed to breath but they were never languid and always to a point. Writing and directing like that is a rare thing. In watching all ninety-two episodes I was rarely bored (a few story lines were less appealing than others). There were no wrong notes. Characters may have surprised you from time-to-time but they were always consistent with who they were.

It’s amazing that it took me over ten years from the end of the show’s run for me to start watching. I can’t explain it other than to say we often come to things when the time is right for us. It was my kind of show particularly because it was set in the Sixties a time I grew up in and have had an enduring fascination with.

We get heavy doses of sexism, homophobia and racism not to mention a dollop of classism. But we get the coincidental social and cultural changes of the time. People’s attitudes soften, hair grows longer, there is a begrudging acceptance of “others.” The period accuracy was particularly appealing to me.

How did I feel about the ending of the show? The same way I did about the beginning and most of the middle — spot on. They took some strange twists and turns to get there but wrapping it up with the iconic “Hilltop” Coke ad with the subtle suggestion that it was a Don Draper invention, hit the mark. Surely he went back to the ad game. He’d wandered, he’d wondered, he’d found a bit of himself, he’d experienced contentment and enlightenment. But for fulfillment, well that required him going back to work. Creative people have got to create. Otherwise, what else are they? I imagine it was a long time before he retired. I’d also guess that Peggy was working alongside him until he left and they still never slept together. After all, she’d finally found love and it had been right under her nose where only we in the audience could see it.

Where do I rank Mad Men among TV show?. You’ll soon find out. A future post will list my favorite TV dramas. Rest assured it will be near the top, which, considering some of the programs produced this century, is already high praise.

I’m damn glad I invested the time in Mad Men. (I’m also glad it’s over so I can catch up on other things, like reading.) It was deeply satisfying to plunge into story so rich in ideas. Mad Men took itself seriously and invested in characters and authenticity and all the small things that make a show special (set designs, period detail, wardrobe, the use of just the right music). 

I’m glad I got to know Don Draper — well, as best as one can.

Chat GPT Analyzes My Cinematic Tastes and Does a Very Good Job

His Girl Friday (1940) Hawks

Like many people I’m wary of ChatGPT and other forms of AI. But I do find it helpful in research and I’ve also had some interesting “conversations” with it. Yesterday I fed it my top 100 films and asked what these films taken together say about my tastes in film.*

It replied: “You’ve put together a serious cinephile list—and it’s unusually coherent. A lot of  ‘Top 100’ lists wander stylistically, but yours reveals several very clear preferences about storytelling, tone, and cinematic tradition.”

I took that as a compliment. But of course there was more: “You Strongly Prefer Director-Driven Cinema. This may be the single most obvious pattern.Many directors appear multiple times:

Ingmar Bergman – 6 films

Woody Allen – 5 films

Federico Fellini – 4 films

Alfred Hitchcock – 5 films

Scorsese – 4 films

Kubrick – 3 films

Coen Brothers – 3 films

Ford – 3 films

Tarantino – 3 films

Rossellini – 2

Chaplin – 2

De Sica – 2

Kaurismäki – 3

This tells me something important: You don’t think of movies as isolated works—you think in terms of a director’s worldview. That’s how critics and serious film lovers tend to watch films. You are basically practicing auteur cinema appreciation.”

Still spot on. What else? 

“You Value Moral and Existential Seriousness. Your list leans heavily toward films wrestling with: moral responsibility, guilt, faith, existential loneliness and historical trauma.

Examples:

Winter Light

The Seventh Seal

Persona

Through a Glass Darkly

Come and See

Au Revoir Les Enfants

Battle of Algiers

Taxi Driver

Raging Bull

A Woman Under the Influence

You clearly like films where characters face spiritual or ethical crises, not just plot problems. This aligns perfectly with your admiration for Bergman, Scorsese, and Dostoevskian themes.”

You’re nailing it. Tell me more.

“A surprising amount of your list has a bittersweet or mournful tone. Examples:

The Last Picture Show

Inside Llewyn Davis

Manhattan

Drive My Car

The Ice Storm

Picnic at Hanging Rock

Barry Lyndon

Umberto D

Bicycle Thieves

Local Hero

Even your comedies are melancholy comedies. This is extremely characteristic of people who love:

Bergman

Allen

Kaurismäki

Antonioni

You like films where life feels fragile, fleeting, and slightly sad.”

Couldn’t agree more. But do go on….

“You Love Classic Hollywood Craft. Despite loving art cinema, you deeply appreciate the golden age. Major presence of:

Hawks

Ford

Wilder

Capra

Hitchcock

Sturges

Cukor

Curtiz

And films like:

His Girl Friday

Casablanca

The Lady Eve

Holiday

The Big Sleep

This tells me something key: You’re not an elitist art-house viewer. You appreciate great storytelling regardless of era or prestige.”

Okay, let’s have the rest of it:

“You Favor Character Studies Over Plot Machines Notice what is largely absent:

superhero films

spectacle franchises

puzzle-box movies

action blockbusters

Instead you love films where the entire movie is about a person. Examples:

Raging Bull

Taxi Driver

Barry Lyndon

A Woman Under the Influence

Inside Llewyn Davis

Drive My Car

Umberto D

Persona

Your taste says:

Character psychology is more important than narrative mechanics.

You Love European Cinema A massive portion of your list is European. Especially:

Sweden

Bergman

Troell

Italy

Fellini

Rossellini

De Sica

France

Malle

Denis

Kassovitz

Finland

Kaurismäki

Poland

Polanski

Russia

Tarkovsky

Germany

Murnau

You gravitate toward philosophical cinema rather than purely narrative cinema.

You Appreciate Humor With Intelligence Your comedy choices are very telling:

Duck Soup

Sullivan’s Travels

The Lady Eve

My Man Godfrey

His Girl Friday

The Big Lebowski

Rushmore

These are fast, literate comedies. You prefer:

wit

irony

social observation

over broad humor.

You Are Comfortable With Slow Cinema Your list includes films that many viewers struggle with:

Stalker

L’Eclisse

Beau Travail

Drive My Car

Barry Lyndon

This means you value:

mood

visual language

pacing

You don’t need constant plot movement.

You Like Films About Artists or Storytellers Another subtle pattern. Examples:

8½

Inside Llewyn Davis

Manhattan

Sunset Boulevard

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

These are films about creative people trying to understand their lives.

Not surprising given you’re a novelist.

You Like Moral Ambiguity Many of your favorite films center on ethically compromised characters:

Goodfellas

Chinatown

Taxi Driver

Match Point

No Country for Old Men

Barry Lyndon

You seem drawn to stories where: The line between right and wrong becomes blurry.

That’s very consistent with the themes you’ve discussed in your own writing.

One Particularly Interesting Thing Your list balances three traditions beautifully:

1. Classic Hollywood craft
(Hawks, Ford, Wilder)

2. European philosophical cinema
(Bergman, Antonioni, Tarkovsky)

3. American New Hollywood
(Scorsese, Coppola, Ashby)

That combination is the core canon of serious film culture.

If I Had to Summarize Your Taste in One Sentence

You favor director-driven films that explore moral, psychological, and existential questions through strong characters, often with a tone of melancholy and intelligence.”

The discussion went on from there but I’ll add one more observation from my artificially intelligent friend: 

“One more thing I noticed that’s fascinating about your list:

Your #1 film — His Girl Friday — is tonally the opposite of almost everything else in your top ten. Yet it actually reveals something deep about your taste.

If you want, I can explain why that choice makes perfect sense psychologically with the rest of your list. It’s actually quite revealing.

Your choice of #1 — His Girl Friday initially looks like an outlier. Most of your top films are serious, contemplative, or tragic. Hawks’s film is the opposite: fast, funny, cynical, and light on the surface.

But when you look more carefully, it actually fits your taste perfectly.

Here’s why.

1. You Like Intelligence Above Everything

The defining trait of His Girl Friday is intelligence.

The dialogue moves faster than almost any film ever made. Characters succeed through:

wit

verbal dexterity

quick thinking

That same trait appears throughout your list:

Chinatown

The Big Lebowski

Annie Hall

Rushmore

Your films often feature sharp, observant protagonists navigating complicated worlds.

2. Cynicism Mixed With Humanity

His Girl Friday is deeply cynical about institutions:

politics

journalism

the justice system

That worldview runs all through your list:

Chinatown

Taxi Driver

No Country for Old Men

The Battle of Algiers

You clearly like films that say:

The world is flawed, but human beings still struggle within it.

3. Dialogue as Music

You respond strongly to language-driven cinema.

Many of your favorites are talk-heavy films:

My Dinner with Andre style filmmaking (even though it’s not on your list)

The Last Picture Show

Manhattan

Drive My Car

His Girl Friday is essentially pure dialogue cinema.

4. Moral Ambiguity

Walter Burns (Cary Grant) is charming—but ethically slippery.

That morally complicated protagonist appears constantly in your list:

Barry Lyndon

Match Point

Goodfellas

You seem fascinated by people who are brilliant but morally questionable.

5. It’s the Pure Joy Film on Your List

Almost all great cinephile lists contain one film chosen for sheer delight.

For you, that appears to be His Girl Friday.

Even viewers who love:

Bergman

Tarkovsky

Antonioni

often keep a few films around that simply make them happy every time.”

Thank you very much for your insights ChatGPT. You’ve affirmed a lot of what I thought of myself as a film lover and also given me insights into why I revere certain films, certain types of films and particular directors. Good chat!

*(Please note my comments in italics are for this blog post and were not included in the actual chat.)