De adioses y silencios.

José de Sousa Saramago, mejor conocido como José Saramago, murió hoy despues de una convalescencia que lo había tenido enfermo por mucho tiempo. Recuerdo el primer libro que leí de él: Ensayo sobre la ceguera. Despues de leer aquel libro, leí muchos más. Lo empecé a leer en el verano del 2000, cuando mi madre me vino a visitar despues de que me mudara a los Estados Unidos. Ese libro viajaba en sus maletas, y me lo regaló. Me acuerdo del absoluto silencio de alguna que otra tarde veraniega de la sala de mi tía Lucero en miami cuando lo empecé a leer, y recuerdo el frío invierno del 2000-2001 en NY cuando lo terminé.

Le debo mucho a Saramago en mi vida literaria. El, más que cualquier otro autor, hizo que yo me enamorara de las palabras, de su poder, y de sus falencias. El hizo que me enamorara de novelar fantasias y realidades por igual. De leer y escribir. Que son parte de la misma cosa.

Su último libro, Caín, mucho más corto de a lo que nos tiene acostumbrado, parecía esconder un secreto. Parecían sus últimas palabras. Recuerdo comentarselo a algunos de mis amigos. Sí, no es dificultad alguna augurar que un libro es último, cuando el escritor tiene 87 años. Pero en el caso de Saramago, algo me decía que estaba dejando un último testamento (ya escribiré sobre esto en otra entrada).

¡Saramago! Adios. Buen viaje, si es que hay alguno. Ahora perteneces al reino de los silencios. De las ausencias. Ahora hablarás más que nunca. Y yo seguiré (re)leyendo.

ND/NF: La Pivellina: A story of compassion

This was probably the sweetest movie out of the festival. I didn't watch all the movies in the New Directors/New Films Festival of 2010, but I can probably say that this movie is in fact the sweetest of them all. I said it twice because I want you to notice.

It is the simplest out of all of the movies that I watched, and it plays out in a documentary fashion, which is in fact, the background that Tizza Covi and Rainer Frimmel bring to the table (In fact, this movie has become much more interesting after watching it and doing a bit of research, and it has to do with this very point). It has a very simple narrative structure that follows the life of an older couple that have a very modest (if not poor and decrepit) ambulant circus which they set up in parks, and parking lots alike, hoping for anyone to come and watch and give them some money. They live in tents and trailer homes with their goats and other animals that are part of the show. The story starts when Patty, the female of the couple, is walking her dog in the park, and finds a toddler girl, probably 2 or 3 years old, left alone in her swing. In the girl's jacket pocket, Patty finds a simple note that just says to take care of her, that she will be back soon for her. So Patty, not knowing what to do, decides to take the girl in, and assumes the copy is from her mother. Tairo, her husband, is not very happy with the situation, and urges Patty to call the cops. Tairo is worried that if the cops are to find out they are keeping a young girl that is not theirs, they will be accused of kidnapping, and because of their particular situation, or "otherness", the cops will not be sympathetic to their cause. I don't think cops are sympathetic to circus gypsies that keep little girls that don't belong to them. But if it were that simple. Patty does not want to call the cops because she hopes that her mother will come back, and she does not want the little girl to be taken away from the little mother, even if in fact, she doesn't know who this person is.

The movie plays out in poor neighborhoods of what appears to be Rome, and it is the simple story of Patty, Tairo and the young teenager (probably 13 or 14) Walter who falls in love in a fraternal fashion with the toddler, and is happy to take care of her, feed her, and keep her close to him to have the girl have a good time. All that Patty, Tairo and Walter are trying to do is to have Asia, the little girl, have a good time, and not be afraid that her mother is not around. Patty hopes that the mother will show at one point or another and claim the girl back. This finally becomes an ambiguous feeling as Patty starts feeling attached to Asia, her delicate smile, and her beautiful presence. Asia is indeed beautiful. I imagine it would be hard to capture the charisma of a three year old in film, and try to make it look as if it is not a film, as if it is in fact reality. Or maybe it's very easy. Maybe toddlers in movies, like Asia, don't know exactly what's going on, and just manage to have absolute fun. But Asia's happiness and sadness are both captured in this film which makes it absolutely beautiful, and devastating at times.

Walter is, by far, the strongest character in the film. He has a mix of naivete, good manners and boyish attitude that cannot but be absolutely natural. He gives a tremendous "performance" and by his young age and devoted care to Asia wins the audience easily. Nothing is more charming than a young boy taking care of a toddler. It's probably an old and stupid stereotype. I accept it. But boys are roudy, and careless and immature. And this boy is that, sure. Plays soccer, has a girlfriend and is mean to her, but also lives by himself in a trailer, cooks his own meals, and manages to care for this little girl in his innocent ways.

This is a poor, circus, gypsy, filthy, and ignorant family that lives in the outskirts of society. Struggling for money, with not even a "proper" home to live in, but they have something that is much more meaningful than any capitalistic consummer gain, whether it is money, a home, good clothes, a good education, a proper bath and a good family, they have compassion, for a stranger like Asia.

What seems very interesting about this film after having watched it, and after having done some research is that this is not the first film that features Patty, Walter and Tairo. The directing couple Covi and Frimmel had already featured these three characters in a DOCUMENTARY called "Babooska" in 2005. Babooska, if I don't remember incorrectly, is a minor character in this movie ("La pivellina"), I believe it is Walter's grandmother that appears from time to time, or maybe, does not appear, and she's just merely mentioned. "Babooska" was a documentary depicting the life of this circus act, and of all of the different aspects of Babooska's life and the lives of those that were close to her.

I don't think "La pivellina" is also a documentary. I believe it is a work of fiction, because of some of its narrative techniques. However, the fact that Patty, Walter and Tairo stop being real people, to play themselves as characters in this new movie is very interesting. I did not want to anticipate a post that I was planning later on where I was going to pull together all of these film reviews that I am doing, but I seem to be needing to give a little heads up by saying something here. This is a tremendous play on the idea of the "other". Patty, Walter and Tairo who function as "others" for society (because of the fact that they do not belong to the consumer-based capitalistic normative), take on the role of a person who is not really an "other" but an integral part of modern society (and probably some ancient societies as well), the "actor" in order to play that role of "otherness" that they originally represented. It's almost as if they stepped out of their own reality in order to see it clearly. And the audience now sees that we are all "others" that don't belong, or partially belong, but at the same time that we are not "others" because perhaps we are all capable of what this family was capable of, even if we don't practice it as much as we should, even when we forget day to day about how easy it is and how helpful it can be to "others". That thing that we are capable of doing is to have compassion for others. Strangers, foreigners, or friends. It's all the same thing anyway.

ND/NF: I am love: An affair with Tilda Swinton

Tilda Swinton gives an spectacular performance in this Italian film by the young director Luca Guadagnino. Her Italian is probably not the best, but since she's playing a russian immigrant who married into the family of a textile factory empire, it's probably not very important in any case. This film, as all the others I watched in the 2010 version of ND/NF was a film that had me pondering over it for many an hour (partly the reason why I have not posted about them until now, two months after the festival). I am Love is an outdated sort of film. It's a story of love, deceit, desire and lust. And there are plenty of those. In Hollywood and outside. But perhaps it is much more than that. There are lots of things happening in the background, things that are said, and in my opinion, others equally interesting that are left unsaid.

The Recchi family is all you would expect of an upper class Milano family to be, and to look like. They have an air of entitlement, but they are respectful, mindful of their wealth, sophisticated, chic, and absolutely beautiful. The third generation, Edoardo, Elisabetta and Gianluca, are three young angels. They are stunning and very nice to look at. But they have their share of problems. The story of "Io sono l'amore" revolves around Emma (Tilda Swinton) and the infatuation that she starts developing over one of her son's Edoardo's friends, Antonio, who is an adept chef. Food takes in important role in the movie (Is that supposed to be very italian?, I don't know what to think...). There's cooking food, and enjoying food, and eating it, possibly, becomes a metaphor for consumming the phallus and for knowing that which is not oneself, for bridging boundaries, but it also has a taste of hedonism.

Yes, this family is the epitome of hedonism. They are the burgeoisie. Rich, powerful, sophisticated, the makers of culture. They are the embodiment of what society should be like. Families should be patriarchal, the power passed down from grandfather to fathers and sons (and this actually happens in the movie, when, grandpapa Recchi gives his son Tancredi and Edoardo ownership and control over the family business to continue on the dynasty, with the appropriate speech, of course), women should be pieces of furniture, adequately smart, of course, and beautiful, but they operate in the pheriphery of business, and they don't quite care much for it. Not that I care about business either. But if my family seems to be doing quite well in this whole textile company things, whether man or woman, I'd care to at least make sure that it continues, I suppose.

The only remark where one sees that women actually care to even comment on the business is when, after the company is passed down to Tancredi and Edoardo, Tancredi and his other son Gianluca decide that the company should not longer exist as tradition has perhaps set way and are trying to sell off the company so that it will become some sort of financial conglomerate and make the Recchis richer than ever. The person overseeing the process is a British Sikh, played by Waris Alhuwalia (who I have not seen playing main roles, but seems to me a very decent actor), and I point this out because I think it is very important for the movie that it is a British Sikh, and not anyone else who is assisting them in this financial move. The remark, to go back to the original point here, is made by Elisabetta who after hearing from worried Edoardo about what Tancredi and Gianluca are doing, just says "Well, we'll be even richer than before." Not without its mark of sarcasm. Edoardo loves his company, the legacy which was placed under his care, loves a particular way of life. One of the scenes features him, walking with his wife, around the company that he loves so much, mingling with workers somewhat, but at one point says something just fantastic, "Oh my grandfather used to eat in the cafeteria, with the workers, to make them feel as if he belonged with them." Right. He didn't. It was a charade. Like this whole movie seems. A charade of wealth, of money, of power. A charade about to be broken, dismantled, and a way of life to be exposed.

Two of the instances of the destruction of the burgeoisie way of life, of the idyll depicted in the movie, were already mentioned (Emma's infatuation with Edoardo's friend, and the selling of the textile company). One of the other moments where the perfect, idyllic, adorable milano family breaks apart is when Elisabetta confesses to her mother that she's gay, and is in love with another woman. Emma ends up cheating on her husband, and the infatuation with Antonio leads to a secret relationship between the two. Antonio does not want Edoardo, who has just financed Antonio's new restaurant in the outskirts of Milan, to know about his affair with Emma, and Emma, of course, does not want anyone in her family to know about Antonio.

Something very important to point out, and perhaps the foreshadowing moment for the emplotment of the movie happens when grandpapa Recchi is about to give the speech where he will pass down the company's control to Edoardo and Tancredi. It is the grandfather's birthday and Elisabetta, who had promised some of her artwork as a gift, gives her grandfather a photograph she has taken. Her grandfather does not seem very pleased, and asked her why she didn't paint a picture, and ends up dismissing the photograph and thanking Elisabetta and telling her that she still owes him a painting. Old art against new art.

The climax of the movie develops when Antonio prepares an important dinner at the Recchi Mansion for the Recchi family and Mr. Kubelkian (Ahluwalia), and Antonio makes the family a soup (again, food is very important!) that he has learned to make from Emma, revealing to Edoardo (the only one who catches on) his relationship with Edoardo's mother. Edoardo realizes instantly, looks at his mother and walks away from the table, shocked. Emma runs after him, and tries to speak to him. Edoardo is furious, disappointed, confused. They are speaking right outside the house, near a fountain pool, and in a freak accident, when Edoardo pulls away from his mother, he trips and falls hitting his head on the pool. Edoardo dies in the hospital, leaving behind a pregnant wife. It is not clear what is going on, or why Edoardo reacted exactly the way he did, but there had been a sexual tension built up between the two friends (Edoardo and Antonio), especially in Edoardo's looks toward Antonio, and although it is left unsaid, one can imagine that Edoardo was in love with Antonio. His resilience to let go of the past, let of go of his family's business legacy, becomes his resilience to accept himself, to accept the love that he clearly had for Antonio (Antonio probably loved him too...when Edoardo was getting married, Antonio didn't look too happy).

Perhaps the movie is some sort of analogy for Italian society. Not sure. A society that in the hands of Prime Minister Berlusconi (and AC Milan's owner) has been notorious for its nonacceptance of others, such as foreigners, and for its extreme right wing conservatism. It's perhaps too much to conclude, as my knowledge of Italian politics and culture is very limited. But as an outsider, this is my small commentary.

What's very interesting about this movie is that the relationship with those "others", with that "difference" that ultimately breaks down the Recchi dynasty is not absolutely clear. In one instance, Edoardo's resilience for the financial move (now, you see my point about the British Sikh?) seems to be honorable, Elisabetta's fear of not being accepted by her father and family is expected, and Edoardo's love for Antonio is not even mentioned. So it is not clear if the movie wants to sponsor an acceptance of that which is not tradition, of that which is an "other", of that which is "difference" in the world, or if in fact, is advocating against it. At the end, the movie seems a big parody. A parody of a perfect 20th century rich, traditional, powerful italian family. But it's the 21st century and it's not clear if the movie has a particular stance. And that's what makes the movie fantastic. It keeps its ambiguity and by doing that, shows the difficulty about a postmodern, globalizing, capitalistic, gender and sexually mixed world. There are no clear answers, and the power of tradition is awfully strong.

Emma, after Edoardo's funeral and her confession of her love for Antonio, takes off for her house, packs up (with the help of her loving maid, who cries as she helps her pack) some of her belongings and runs away with all of her family in the living room watching as she goes. She embraces Elisabetta for a last time, who is happy to see her leave, finally free from the Recchis, from herself.

ND/NF Films: Dogtooth

This is one of the quirkiest films I have ever watched in my life. But it is also one of the most suggestive films as well. It is a story about a family that is absolutely controlled by the patriarch of the family. The film combines dark humor with a strange perversity that makes it very odd to watch. The family is composed of five family members. Two young girls and a young guy probably in their mid-twenties, the mother and father. The father works in a factory near their place of residence, and the mother and children remain in their home all the time. They are kept inside by a preposterous lie created by the father and mother that makes them fear the outside. It is not clear what this lie is, but is a tantalizing lie that makes one of the girls fascinated with the idea about the outside.

There is no clear story line to the movie, it is just a jumble of different happenings surrounding, mainly, the life of the three "children". In this sense, it is very clear that the movie is allegorical, because it is more preoccupied with creating a scenario, than by telling a story. This is not necessary a negative aspect of the movie. I suppose the teleological characteristic that is inherent in movie-making would suppose that there should exist a distinct story line with a distinct purpose, but plenty of bad movies are made that have distinct story lines and distinct purposes. Pick any Hollywood film and it will most likely be a great example of this.

The main point of Dogtooth is control. How ares lives controlled? The patriarch manages to control the lives of his children (and his wife as well but in a different way) by creating a paradigm that they understand and makes sense to them. The idea behind this paradigm is to keep the "children" inside the house. The outside is a terrible world that they are not ready to manage or to deal with. The father does this by many different means. The most important mean that he uses to control their lives is language. He uses language in a variety of ways. For example, objects are called by different names so that a "chair" may be called the "sea" or a "sofa" might be called "salt". I still don't quite understand why there is a need to use "wrong" names for certain objects, but it is part of the father's plan to control every aspect of his children's lives. One of the telling scenes of this control comes when the father, after having dinner with his family, asks the children if they would like to hear their grandfather sing. Then, he puts an old LP of Frank Sinatra in English (I should mention now this is a Greek movie in Greek, watched by me in translation) and translates the song as saying something like "Family is very important, children should be respectful and follow their parents' orders" etc. I don't know what the song was that played in the movie, but I think it is clear that the lines were "accurately" translated by the father for the purpose of ideological brainwash.

However, like in all apparatuses of ideological control, and the dogmas that are transmitted by these paradigms, there are things that don't make sense, and that create differences that translate to injustices. The father brings in a woman that is a security guard at the factory where he works to sleep with his son. It is left partially unsaid, but it is clear that it is believed that the boy has some certain sexual impulses that must be satiated; an impulse that is not shared by his sisters (right...). The movie fails in one point here...there is a scene in the movie where the sisters seem to be encountering, dealing and acting on those sexual impulses, and in a moment where one of the sisters wants to "lick" her sister, the movie shies away from having them experiment sexually. The sister ends up licking her sister's leg or shoulder but not other interesting spots that may be more...impulsive. It is not that this would satisfy my impulses as a viewer (ahh, possibly), but it makes the sisters look naive, and kind of ends up reinforcing the boy/girl difference and hierarchy.

The movie is disturbing at times. All the women in the movie are victims of psychological and physical violence that is, if I may, absolutely disgusting at times to watch. The mother is seen suffering throughout the movie for the lie that she's imposing in her own children. Why does she continue with this? It is not really answered. In a scene when the father meets the security guard (that has been sleeping with the son) after she has possibly jeopardized the idyllic nature of 'home' by lending some Hollywood movies to one of the sisters, the father beats the woman with a VCR in her apartment. It is an extremely violent scene. People in the theater were laughing, as the woman was violently beaten. I won't try to distinguish myself from other viewers. I wanted to laugh too, I controlled myself and I didn't. But this was intended. My whole reaction was intended by the director. Or so I think. And this is where this movie is brilliant.

The movie is called 'Dogtooth' because "only when one of the dogteeth (canine teeth) is longer than the other, will they be allowed to go outside", or so goes a saying that the sisters and brother talk about. One of the sisters then takes a five- or ten-pound weight to her face, breaks her dogtooth, leaving blood and tooth pieces al over the sink and runs away: someone will always want to run away into the unknown.

The implications of this movie are very interesting to think about. Home, outside, outsiders, insiders, immigration, boundaries, borders, foreignness. All of these themes, and ideas, are in question here.

More pseudo film reviews to come from ND/NF....

See you soon in our Cafetin!

Tumblr!!! and Twitter!

So, I've just started another blog at Tumblr for random media or pieces of information that I find that I would like to post, and share with the world. That blog is called "De todo y el silencio" or "Of Everything and Silences". I have linked this Tumblr as an RSS feed to the Coffee on the upper right hand corner...where it says "Xfilosofo Tumblr"....enjoy!!!

Also, I've added the RSS for my twitter right above that...Enjoy that too!!!

My tweets...

ND/NF Festival

La versión 2010 del festival de New Directors/ New Films nos empieza a acompañar desde el día de hoy en NYC. Espero poder regalarles algunas criticas sobre algunas películas. Creo que será un festival muy interesante este año.

Algunas películas que se ven interesantes...pero no se olviden de mirar el website!

I Killed My Mother. Dir: Xavier Dolan

Dogtooth. Dir: Yorgos lanthimos

The Father of my Children. Dir: Mia Hansen-Love

Nos vemos pronto!

Felices Fiestas

He estado en hiato por razones varias. En enero se renueva la conversación sobre García Márquez y la contemporaneidad literaria latinoamericana, más entradas sobre eventos musicales en NYC, más entradas sobre fútbol, y mucho más.

Felices fiestas y Feliz año. ¡Que se nos viene el 2010!

Agro Ingreso Seguro y los pobres en Colombia

¿Por qué empezar esta entrada, este ensayo, este escrito con los zapatos de Van Gogh? Pues sí, obvio, porque los tengo en la cabeza. Los tengo metidos, y me estan carcomiendo un poquito el cerebro. Llevo mucho pensando en ellos. ¿Y que tienen que ver estos zapatos con el programa de Agro Ingreso Seguro en Colombia (AIS? Pues, ese ensayo de Derrida, que habla de la restitución. Porque de esto se trata todo esto, ¿A quién le pertenecen los zapatos? ¿de quién, fantasma no presente? ¿Será como nos dice Heidegger, de alguna campesina trabajadora? ¿O pertenecerán al mismo Van Gogh? Pues este es el asunto que nos lleva hoy por los caminos de las palabras. Esás preguntas son, de alguna manera, parecidas a las que hoy en día se hacen los Colombianos en relación con el AIS. ¿A quién le pertenecen esos subsidios? ¿A a oligarquía Colombiana, mejor preparada para la presentación de un proyecto feasible, concreto y que demuestre la puntuación necesaria para su aprobación? ¿o al campesino, solitario, que dedica sus días, al sol, con su haz y su brazo acanelado pero con el castigo moderno de su poca educación? ¿y que finalmente, le sirve más a Colombia?

El proyecto de AIS se fundó con la idea en mente de renovar, mejorar, tecnificar los modelos de producción agrícola en Colombia para desarrollar mecanismos de competividad que pudieran obtener el resultado de seguridad alimenticia para Colombia, y para sus vecinos. Dentro de esta idea, el proceso de subsidios se haría a aquellos individuos que pudieran demostrar que pueden crear un proyecto viable de mejora de producción, ya sea en tecnología o mecanismos, para cumplir con estos objetivos. Pueden leer este artículo para ver la idea que tiene Andrés Felipe Arías, Ex ministro de Agrícultura, apodado con mucho cariño de parte de sus disidentes como ‘Uribito’ no por su parecido físico sino por su similitud en materia política, del AIS, y de su razón conceptiva del proyecto.

Desafortunadamente, AIS a logrado que algunas familias adineradas de Colombia lograrán hacerse recipientes del subsidio, con nada módicas sumas de dinero para acaudalar impetuosamente sus largos bancos de dinero adquirido. Intempestivamente, la revista Cambio publicó este artículo que demostraba un inherente y sistémico sindrome de inequidad en la aprobación y debito de estos subsidios. La realidad es que díficilmente el pequeño agricultor puede llegar a demostrar el puntaje adecuado para ganarse el subisidio. Es cierto que no es imposible, pero por razones de tiempo, dinero, y difusión de la información, los pequeños agricultores y los campesinos son los menos beneficiados por este tipo de propuestas. Arías dice, como comenta este artículo, que el subsidio debe ayudar a ricos y pobres, pero la realidad muestra algo totalmente distinto, y Como nos dice este otro artículo, quedan muchas cosas que explicar. El mismo Arías nos dice que los subsidios a los ricos pueden ayudar a erradicar desigualdad. Esto lo pueden leer en este blog (Ahí pueden encontrar una discusión bastante interesante, y bastante informativa sobre el tema).

No alargo mucho esta entrada en mi blog, ya que puse muchos hipervínculos a artículos para que pudieramos leer, y pues con poco tiempo para esto, los dejo finalmente con el artículo de Rudolf Hommes, ex-ministro de Hacienda durante el gobierno de Cesar Gavíria. El problema es de restitución, y de cuales son las metas. El gobierno de Colombia quiere una mejor Colombia dándole más dinero, más derechos y mejor vida a los ricos, porque eso, al final del asunto, también va ayudar a los pobres, dicho en simples palabras. Creen que al enriquecerse ellos, y por lo tanto Colombia, en realidad se está enriqueciendo el país. Pero somos cada vez mas pobres, menos educados, mas hambrientos, y menos humanos. Los indígenas siguen siendo desplazados, las universidades públicas desposeídas, la salud es un negocio y no un derecho, y la vida un paradigma de sumas y restas. Para la mayoría de Colombianos es un paradigma de muchas restas, y pocas sumas. “En surcos de dolores el bien germina ya”, dice el himno. Surcos que solo los ricos van a poder labrar.

Y me pido la palabra...Honduras, Colombia y política externa de Estados Unidos

A través de mamaradio.blogspot.com, el blog de Mario Murillo, profesor de Hosftra University, encontré este artículo muy interesante sobre la aparente inefectividad de los Estados Unidos en la crisis política que esta viviendo Honduras. El golpe de estado propiciado por Micheletti en contra del presidente Zelaya, o destitución como algunos de mis amigos Hondureños prefieren, parece no haber recibido la reacción esperada de parte de Washington. Como le dije a algunos amigos cuando Obama fue seleccionado como el Premio Nobel de la Paz, los suecos saben jugar muy bien al ajedrez. Pues Obama también juega al ajedrez. En este caso, le sirve mucho no asociarse fuertemente con Zelaya, quien es un aliado de Chavéz en la región, y podría causar bastante de que hablar a la maquinaria republicana de extrema derecha en los Estados Unidos. Bueno, entonces c4 x b5. Alfil por peón.

Disfruten del artículo de Colombia Journal: http://colombiajournal.org/colombia317.htm

y de Mama radio, blog de Mario Murillo también: http://mamaradio.blogspot.com/

Análisis del partido Colombia vs. Chile: El tigre apagado y la desconexión Colombia.

En primera instancia disculparme porque el análisis que presento solo tomará en cuenta el segundo tiempo del partido, y los comentarios que escuché del primero. Desafortunadamente, problemas técnicos con la señal me impidieron poder ver el partido completo. Pero creo que me pude hacer una buena idea del partido, aún solo viendo el segundo tiempo.

A decir verdad, partidos como este, selecciones como esta, fueron las que me quitaron las ganas de seguir viendo fútbol por alla en el 94', cuando clasificados al mundial realizado en Estados Unidos, como uno de los favoritos, entre las diez primeras selecciones del mundo, no demostramos absolutamente nada. Todo el trabajo que se hizo en las eliminatorias, para nada. Y al volver de la selección a Colombia, la muerte de Andrés Escobar me dejo totalmente desganado. Dejé de ver fútbol por doce largos años. Hasta que en el mundial del 2006, Ronaldinho, Messi, Podolski, Klose, y jugadores de ese calibre, me devolvieron las ganas de ver este, el deporte rey, que es un arte, a su manera. Pero ver a Colombia es undirse en la más nítida desesperación, es no saber, ni entender, más de fútbol, es ver otra cosa. Parece otro deporte. No ese que aprecio.

Comparto, de alguna manera, con G. Meluk, editor de deportes del tiempo, que Colombia sufre porque hay una sobreestimación de la calidad de sus jugadores. El dice que los jugadores Colombianos no son tan buenos, y punto. Yo diría que hay un gran potencial que no sea manejado bien, y que no se ha hecho relucir. Colombia, despues del sagaz y fortuito 5-0 de ese 5 de septiembre de 1993, siempre gana los partidos antes de jugarlos. Los jugadores no entregan su alma en la cancha. Bueno, no todos. El único que nos hubiera podido dar ese poquito más de ganas para ganar sería Vargas. Pero desafortunadamente, con Fabián alejado de las canchas por esa descarada lesión, Colombia sin él no tiene garra.

Bueno, dejemos ahi las cosas foráneas al análisis del partido. Primero, me voy a hechar flores. Les dije, Jackson, que llevaba, dos en dos partidos, no iba a marcar, a menos que marcara Falcao. Y Falcao, no se desperto. Sin Falcao despierto, el partido no se gano. Y además, como cosa rara, Lara utilizó a Falcao en una posición la cual no le pertenece, por lo menos en los últimos 20 o 30 minutos del segundo tiempo. Es decir, se dieron las dos cosas que yo me esperaba. Que Lara utiliza mal a Falcao, y que Falcao no mostrara garra.

Pero bien, analizemos la formación de Colombia. Ospina, Pablito, Yepes, Cristian, Zuñiga, Pabón, Aguilar, Guarín, Hernandez, Jackson y Falcao. El primer punto negativo es utilizar, para un partido tan importante, a Zapata en vez de Córdoba, y a Pabón en vez de reorganizar el medio campo con Marín por la izquierda. Era importante utilizar jugadores de no solo buena condición técnica, sino de experiencia en partidos que hay que definir. En esto fallo Lara.

No soy un fánatico de Hernandez, pero de los mejores partidos de la selección fue ese en que conectaron los dos Giovanis contra Ecuador (Es una lástima que por problemas físicos Moreno no pudo estar todo el partido), y Hernandez, aunque no necesariamente de mi parecer, es, hoy por hoy, uno de los jugadores más tecnicos, sino el más tecnico, sin contar a Riquelme, jugando en latinoamerica. Bueno, y en todo el continente americano. Pero eso sobra. Dicho eso, yo dejo a Hernandez, todo el partido, porque, como se dice a veces en el fútbol, es uno de esos jugadores, que puede no hacer nada en todo un partido, pero con un toque de genialidad, te lo arregla. Entonces, no dar la oportunidad de que Moreno y Hernandez se complementaran fue también un problema grave.

Hubo algunos errores defensivos al final del segundo tiempo en los dos últimos goles, y en eso, fue donde pesó el error de poner a Zapata. Porque Córdoba es considerado uno de los jugadores más rápidos del mundo, y tal vez hubiera hecho la diferencia. A Zapata, el mediocampo y los delanteros chilenos, se lo comieron vivo. Se regalaron mucho al ataque, con Zuñiga como volante casi, y con los otros defensas muy adelantados. Como dijeron del Atlético de Madrid actual, esto de la linea de defensa adelantada, es uno de los peores inventos en el fútbol. Pero en el caso de la selección, no había de otra, entonces, era mejor intentarse irse al todo por el todo.

Los cambios que hubo, no me gustaron mucho. No hubiera sacado a Guarín, pero debo decir, que Marrugo, en contra de mis expectativas, fue el único que demostro garra. No Moreno, que es un jugador muy tecnico, y metió gol, pero tuvo mucho tiempo el balón en los pies, y el gol se lo encontro. O sea, que a ese gol no le doy tanto mérito. Y Rodallega. Rodallega, preciso lo de siempre. No jugó un buen partido. Corrió mal, recibió los balones mal, y uno de los pocos tiros que hizo, fue un gol de campo. Sí, un gol de campo, de esos de fútbol americano, que tienen que pasar bien arriba, entre esos dos palos de la T en ese deporte. ay Rodallega, te quieren tanto que por que juegas en el Wigan. Y que porque le metiste gol al Manchester. Pero para mi, todavia no has hecho mérito.

Colombia circulo bien el balón, pero no hizo lo que yo pensaba que iba a hacer tacticamente, que era circular el balón por el medio. Arriesgo más por los costados, y cuando Lara vió que no le dió resultado, sacó al mejor jugador que le puede entrar por el medio, Hernandez, para ver si podía seguir jugando por los costados. De verdad que Lara debe quedarse en la selección, porque él lee los partidos muy bien, dejenme decirles. Eso fue la falla de Colombia. No tocar el balón. Miren, esos que dicen, y dijeron, que el fútbol de Colombia tenía que ser más vertical. Tal vez tenían razón. Bueno, ahora el fútbol es más vertical en Colombia. Pero metemos menos goles. hmm, que raro eso. No se les olvide la Roja actual, y el fútbol culé. Ese fútbol es el colombia que conocemos. El del toque toque. No se les olvide.

Y finalmente, lo mas grave de Colombia, sigue siendo lo de siempre: los delanteros. Falcao, jugando por las bandas, como Messi, es fatal. Rodallega y Jackson recibiendo balones, haciendo de pivot, pero parecían rídiculos. La mayoría de balones que les llegaban, con ellos de espaldas al arco, terminaban en el pase atrás mandando un globito. Se les olvido hasta como hacer un pase atrás, dar la vuelta y correr en diagonal. Paupérrimo, esto. Sigue sin haber conexión entre los mediocampistas ofensivos, y los delanteros. Y Lara, hombre, por favor, a Falcao no lo pongas a correr, a hacer nada. Ponlo en el punto de penal, y dile, quedate aqui, cuando te llegue un balón, le pegas al arco. Punto. Eso es lo que hace él. Punto. Rodallega nada, y Jackson, Jackson lo rescato solo porque es su tercer partido con la selección. Y esperaban mucho de él. A este muchacho le falta, es bueno, y tiene garra, pero necesitaba más claridad de sus compañeros, para que se sintiera más comodo. Y bueno, por ahí Quintero hubiera podido hacer algo, con su regate, pero no estoy seguro. No ha demostrado tampoco mucho, pero creo que va a tener buena proyección, este muchacho.

Entonces, para la próxima, recuerden. Goles, Delanteros, regates, medio campos ofensivos. Conexión. Estas son las claves para ganar, en lo que refiere a la selección Colombia. La identidad del fútbol colombiano ha sido un fútbol de toque toque, y de buena conexión entre delanteros y mediocampistas. Y esta es la identidad que se debe reencontrar.

Mención de mérito a David Ospina, que camina por buenos pasos, y se convertira en uno de los mejores arqueros que Colombia ha tenido. Fue un excelente partido para él, y se consolidó para los procesos que se vienen. El será el arquero de Colombia en el futuro más próximo, hasta que aparezca algún jovencito más.

Está también la pregunta de si debe seguir Lara, pero será para otra ocasión. Pero si yo fuera Luis Suarez, no apoyaría tan ciegamente a Lara, a menos de que no quiera que me hechen el bulto a mi.