In terms of "human beings that are likely to be born", I'd really put Leonardo da Vinci on top. If you want to really go back in time, probably Homer (if he existed) and Aristotle should be considered as well. Immanuel Kant is a good example, too. In the arts, what about Van Gogh? And Giotto? In sport, it has to be Pelé more than any other. In addition to having such a great footballing technique, he was exceptionally fast, strong, durable, could jump like a cat and was not frightened by big stages. If he'd been born in 1990, he could now probably rival any Olympic athlete.
Yes, absolutely, but in the sense of being iconic and influential. I wouldn't say they are important in the sense that they "improve" the condition of humanity or make us understand / feel things we didn't know before.
On both counts, except for the "thinker" part, I'd take Muhammed Ali over a French niche director as Godard. Of course, the cultural hegemony of the Anglosphere has a lot to do with it (andsoforth, andsoforth) and helps to make a figure as Jordan or Ali possible. If Godard had pursued the path of Spielberg, would he have been as successful or revered? On both counts ("contributor to humanity") I'd take Spielberg with his activity for the war veterans, holocaust survivors etcetera over Godard as well. Even more so, his legacy on the screen is omnipresent. If you watch 'Fury', there are absolutely traces of 'Saving Private Ryan' visible. That style was actually made by a Polish camera man, but the weight of a Spielberg makes it a lasting impression (on the public and the business). Do you get what I mean? That's also contribution to "humanity" (for the masses). As for "phenomenon" (title of the thread) this is what the dictionary says: Freedictionary: 1. An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses. 2. pl. phe·nom·e·nons a. An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel. b. A remarkable or outstanding person; a paragon. Merriam-Webster: 1. something (such as an interesting fact or event) that can be observed and studied and that typically is unusual or difficult to understand or explain fully Oxford Dictionary: 1. A fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question ================================================================================ Pelé arguably counts as one ("only player in history to surpass the boundaries of logic"), and Thomas Edison's his hand across fields and generations, but a case can be made for Ali too. See this excellent introduction by Michael Parkinson in 1971. If (mostly) true and accurate, it ticks the boxes and requirements for the phenomenon tag. Also for the "humanity" (the human condition) side of life, for the human populace as a whole (rather than a specific niche); Godard wasn't a politician or military general with actual power either. All he had was 'soft power'. edit: Yes, if true and fully accurate, and many would agree with it, that is the definition of a "phenomenon". It certainly is the impression that 'Pelé Eterno' wants to convey. Not without merit.
Annie Hall won the Oscar for best picture and is ranked as the 4th best comedy of all-time on the AFI (American Film Institute) list; Stardust Memories was nominated for a Writers Guild of America award for Best Comedy written directly for screen; Vicky Cristina Barcelona won the Oscar for Best Actress in a Supporting Role (including Bardem also getting nominated) and won the Golden Globe for Best Musical or Comedy; Midnight in Paris won the Golden Globe for Best Screenplay and received rave reviews all around; etc. But hey, you literally can't think of a single movie of his that you like, which proves what exactly? That you, Pipiolo, and Puskas 1988, somehow have better taste and knowledge than the actual experts (and non-experts) who understandably regard Woody Allen as an extremely influential legend? In any case, it's not so much a case of me thinking he's hilarious, my more important point was that comedy by and large has become essentially what Woody Allen arguably started doing sooner than anybody else -- I think that's a massive achievement that one could argue in favor of, once hindsight/time provides the proper perspective for it.
Nothing. Just had an unparalleled technique, produce a great number of works, and also worked on (and produced) a bunch of huge pieces. He was a sculptor and not primarily a painter. I am not religious at all, but walking into the Sistine chapel simply gives you the shivers. Also, a fact not many people know is that Da Vinci is not a great artist by any means. (when talking about the visual arts). He didnt produce nearly enough work to even be in the discussion. But he was a true renaissance man. I would personally rather be remembered for being great at one thing than good at a bunch of things.
I was literally the one who said he would give his vote to Allen, and that finds Allen's jokes incredibly witty. I've seen pretty much all of Allen's movies, and I love them. What is your problem exactly?
You repped the post where Woody Allen was depicted as a hack. Perhaps you did it sarcastically or just by mistake, I don't know, but you and Pipiolo repped said post... And, in light of said fact, do you not think that my response does make enough sense? In any case: I have no problem. I just read a post where Allen was essentially defined as a hack, and I saw that Pipiolo and yourself repped said post. You first gave a very concise and vague praise of Allen (which I interpreted as possibly sarcastic). And right after that, you repped a post where Allen was depicted as something of a hack. And so, my impression was that your concise praise of Allen had been sarcastic, and that you having repped a statement where Allen was depicted as a hack, confirmed that your praise had been sarcastic. Overall, it's just difficult to interpret what is or isn't your actual opinion; I mean, if I said that "I love Spielberg" but then I immediately also repped (seemingly in agreement with) the following statement: "I don't get why people like Spielberg. Honestly, I can't mention a single film of his that I like..." Would you then consider me a Spielberg fan or a Spielberg detractor? NOTE: I have only watched about 3 or 4 of his films, but honestly that was more-than-enough for me to see how massive an artist he was. Which movies of him would you recommend? Which ones would you say are his Top 7 films? Or even better, how would you rate, from top to bottom, all the films that you've watched of him? I don't want to turn this into a Woody Allen thread, but I'd appreciate if you could offer your insight into those questions, just the one time.
I repped that post because it was a funny / nice reply to what I said, he disagreed with me but was humorous in his reply. Then I replied to him saying that I like Allen's jokes. It's there. My favourite Allen movies are the two classics Annie Hall and Manhattan, Love and Death, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Crimes and Midemeanors, and the more recent Whatever Works.
Not everyone perceives humorous responses the way you do, and particularly so when I know the poster to be quite serious and straight-to-the-point. It isn't there imo. But whatever. The above insight is appreciated, though.
There was in 2004 a fleeting comparison made between him and Zidane at the time by Patrick Barclay. I'm not an art specialist but personally I've always been most impressed by Vermeer (of the well-known Dutch painters). What others said felt as kinda true: that he was technically ahead of his time. In comparison to his contemporaries and the painters of 100 and 200 years earlier. If I see Van Gogh or his contemporaries as Jan Steen, then you might like the composition, color use and such, but I didn't see 'wow' technique. Of course, Van Gogh is likely the more influential one (Vermeer was for 150 years a 'forgotten' great, then literally rediscovered in Prussia), and his paintings rank together with Picasso and Warhol among the most expensive in the world (for 13-14 years it held the world record). What is sort of "phenomenal" that he died poor but that merely 10-20 years later he was cited/acknowledged as the chief inspirator of other greats (including Picasso per his biographer), as well as his life story. But as a relative fool I appreciated the masterful technique of Vermeer more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings Just as with film directors (Godard vs Spielberg from the dominant Anglosphere) it's also a matter of taste and opportunities I'm inclined to think; many have observed that e.g. Rembrandt his fame was because the majority of his paintings ended up abroad. If 90% of his paintings had stayed in his home country or Flanders, then most likely it wouldn't have achieved the selling power it has now... The foremost expert on him said literally that objectively the fame and ringing sound of the name was created in France and then spread around the world, not in Holland. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...sos-painting-skills-are-better-than-Van-Goghs Anyway, it seems that my call of ranking Picasso ahead of Michelangelo as a "phenomenon" (per Oxford and Cambridge dictionary) was most likely a correct one... As Jaweirdo said, his place cannot be in doubt.
Fascinating ... what made me smile is that EMI refused to let ' Here comes the sun' be included on the voyager's playlist because of copyright issues ! Were they worried that aliens would steal the song or listen to it without a license ? Lol.. That is a good question for this thread though - what songs would you play to alien life forms ( if they exist) to showcase earths history and culture ? .. what art would we send etc etc ...
Yes, I thought it's worth linking to as it sort of relates to the "biggest phenomenon" question. The choices they made when they sent excellence to the outer space. It's a slightly different question that will lead to different choices, but somehow related. Also thought it is funny they opted for a George Harrison song (with a tiny bit from Martin), instead of the usual duo. It depends a bit on what message you want to convey but I'm thinking of something like Beethoven's 5th Symphony. Pelé at his vintage World Cup matches - the World Cup competition - as well of course... In terms of film not something like Star Wars (LOL) but a collage of De Niro during his prime, in his now classic characters (Corleone, Bickle, LaMotta). Especially 1973 to 1980. The 'New Hollywood' cinema is still relevant today, while the 40s and 50s films are more of a distant memory if I'm not mistaken.
It would be difficult to choose from so much in our history... i'm not sure how aliens would relate to it all though ! ... Good point about Harrison - i wonder if it was Lennon and McCartney and not EMI that stopped the song from being included !.. ( personally i would have sent 'across the universe' which is perhaps my favourite beatles song and the title seems quite fitting )...
In a sense, that's true. I see what you mean, anyway. But from an artistic point of view, Godard is/was certainly much superior to Spielberg (he is usually considered one of the best directors of all time). Plus, in the 1960s Godard -albeit not for "the masses"- was not niche; on the contrary, he was arguably the most influential director of that generation (and the whole New Hollywood of the 1970s owes much to him and to the other members of the Nouvelle Vague). I see what you mean with regards to "contribution for the masses / the general public", but I meant specifically artistic advancement and expansion of knowledge. Alì is a really interesting case, and possibly the most revered sporting figure ever together with Pelé. I have the impression, however, that he is one of the greats of the century more because of what he represented and identified with than for what he was / did (aside from boxing, I mean).
Purely from a sporting sense (on the pitch, court, ring etc rather than off it), I'd say the ones I recognise as phenomena are Sugar Ray Robinson and Alfredo di Stefano (from the two sports I'm most familiar with) http://spielverlagerung.com/2014/07/10/in-depth-analysis-alfredo-di-stefano/ http://coxscorner.tripod.com/robinson.html
From a certain point of view, one might say that the two true geniuses of football were Franz Beckenbauer and Johan Cruijff: GOAT defender and forward, great innovators, very successful managers and extremely influential in the development of the sport. All-round geniuses, one might say.
Pelé and Cruijff were absolutely greater "phenomenons" per the meaning of the word than Di Stefano was. Aided by the lack of footage and the strength of the brands he's part of, people ascribe things to him that he wasn't. As a start: he had certainly a lot more goals than he created assists or final balls. Correct, and like so many other great stars, he arguably wasted his family too much. His son (Ali jr.) lives from food stamps. It is a tragic story. http://nypost.com/2014/01/26/muhammad-alis-son-shut-off-dad-living-in-poverty-in-chicago/ It's the same with many famous footballers to a greater or lesser extent.
No, but look at a site as IMDB, which attracts a more than averagely interested film public (not the real connoisseurs but the active users and voters are more than casually interested). "À bout de souffle" (1960) has 51000 votes, that assigned a grade to the film. Number two from his hand is 'Le mépris' (1963) with 19600 votes. A great deal of the 'Breathless' appeal is that it was the major and sudden breakthrough of Godard, and of the New Wave style. It would not be fair to take 'The Godfather' (1972) which has 1.135000 votes (22,3 x as many votes), but Fellini - who you also place in your top 5 - is at 77000 (1963) and 48300 (1960) with his first two films. Also a film as Dog Day Afternoon (1975) has 179300 votes. Kubrick his Dr. Strangelove (from 1964, nearly the same year) has been rated 336700 times. That illustrates essentially why I'd take Pelé or Muhammad Ali over Godard as a "phenomenon" or a significant artefact/example of "humanity" or the human condition, as you expressed it. It's not really fair but that's the way it is. An argument can be made that he was the first world class athlete to be an activist and artist as well. In a way he was the athlete as an artist c.q. entertainer.
I find Di Stefano more of a phenomenon i.e an extraordinary person (strictly sporting). Pele? No. Maybe in the Ali sense, transcending the sport. I can't begin to imagine Pele doing what Di Stefano did vs Frankfurt. Cruyff, maybe. IMO, Pele has been replicated (minus the longevity), whereas Di Stefano is near impossible to do so and in that sense I find him more "extraordinary" just as Ali-Sugar Ray Robinson.
Pelé is the phenomenon per the meaning of the dictionary because of his statistics, both individually and as a team. You can argue how much he was ahead of others, but it is "unusual", "significant" and "unaccountable" (or at least a part of it cannot be accounted for). Cruijff is a phenomenon because he is quite likely the autodidact (cf. Wenger, Marcotti and Forbes magazine), as well as a - if not the - true underdog footballer. In various capacities and transformations he remained relevant for 40-50 years, where teams and countries arguably felt it when they openly rejected his 'teachings' (for ex. Barcelona 1998-2003). As a true underdog he 'did' it by being productive and creative, not by showboating or schmoozing/politics. His name is directly tied to countless Ballon d'Or winners. I'd say it is in that order, because Pelé needs fewer sentences. This are also the two foremost footballers who stand out in social significance ("Pelé stopped wars" and New York Times wrote in 1975 that Cruijff did more for Catalonian spirit and wellbeing than 100 years of politicians). I don't think it is out of this world for Pelé and Cruijff to freewheel through the Frankfurt opposition. It is not outside of the unthinkable. Di Stefano his defensive work and positioning without ball at this match was 'sober' in nature. Sometimes some cover here and there, making himself available without ball, but not too spectacular. He wasn't tackling in his own penalty area for example. Nor was it needed. It was not too much different from how the matured Pelé could play within a (high class) collective. I don't say he'd literally copy it, but he would be able to do something with a comparable effect that is not too far off in giving support. Real Madrid was obviously much better than Eintracht Frankfurt; in resources and personnel. I take it with a big pinch of salt but Frankfurt had 0 players who once received votes for the Ballon d'Or in their career. Real Madrid had 6 players (with Canario and Dominguez not eligible). Also - and I take this with a huge pinch of salt as well - Eintracht Frankfurt had two players who had been given a honorable mention by the fellow countrymen of 'kicker'. It had none who were rated as 'international class' or 'world class', while of course Real Madrid had several of them. So, because of this massive 'team edge' and because (in this match at least) the bar for support wasn't set unusually high and/or deviant for a forward, I don't think it would be "impossible" or outside the normal boundaries to do so.
How are his statistics different to Di Stefano's and Messi's? Both individually and as a team (I assume you are talking about team titles). This is what I'm not talking about, I'm referring to them as phenomena based on what they did on the pitch, and regarding Ali/Robinson, in the ring. Outside the pitch is a whole different story, even more subjective. George Weah's social significance moves me more than Pele's and Cruyff's f.e. I'm really yet to see the evidence of this, whether in video or contemporary player quotes e.g. “The Argentine was the smartest player I ever saw. Pelé was perhaps the better instinctive player, but Di Stéfano came onto the pitch and the game had been largely played out in his head. “ – Bobby Charlton “Who is this man? He takes the ball from the goalkeeper; he tells the defenders what they have to do. Wherever he is on the field, he is in a position to get the ball. It is his influence on everything that he happens to see. I’ve never seen such a complete footballer. It was as if he had his own command center set up in the heart of the football game. He was as strong as he was subtle. The combination of his qualities was fascinating. “ – Bobby Charlton
Is it seriously hard to see how the naked, unaccounted statistics of Pelé are superior to the one of Di Stefano? Three World Cups, 2nd all-time World Cup topscorer at his retirement (behind Fontaine, who scored 4 goals in a 3rd place match that has been under much scrutiny), all-time Intercontinental Cup topscorer, incredible scoring ratio at the Copa Libertadores etcetera. Also how far he's ahead domestically (in goals, topscorers). http://www.rsssfbrasil.com/miscellaneous/artbrclubs.htm http://www.rsssfbrasil.com/miscellaneous/trivia.htm Statistically he's 3.7 standard deviations above the mean; higher than any other footballer pre Ronaldo and Messi. That is why I said: Pelé is the phenomenon per the meaning of the dictionary because of his statistics, both individually and as a team. You can argue how much he was ahead of others, but it is "unusual", "significant" and "unaccountable" (or at least a part of it cannot be accounted for). I was primarily talking about the significance, influence and importance on the pitch as well (also at moments of losses by the way). Hence the addition: "This are also the two foremost footballers who [...]" You (and me) was talking about the inability to produce a Frankfurt game in the way Di Stefano did. You and Bobby Charlton switch here to general observations about his game, and I'm pretty sure he didn't play like that in that specific Frankfurt match. He didn't "take the ball from the goalkeeper" (near or in his own penalty area) at any point in the game - see your own link as well. That was an important part of my two-way response, which increases the probability that Pelé can offer comparable support that is not miles off. As far as quotes about Pelé are concerned by contemporaries (about 'completeness'), I'll collect something the coming days.
How about 5 European Cups, all time top scorer at his retirement, 2nd all time Liga topscorer at retirement, most Clasico goals (pre-Messi), 8 Liga titles in his 11 seasons at Madrid etcetera. I'll wait. I agree that the Di Stefano quote is exagggerated but it points towards his influence all over the pitch while still being the main goal threat.