Requiem for a Dream

With the Oscars coming up and my inconditional devotion for good films, today I'll be talking about one of my favorite movies, which I also consider one of the best movies ever made.

We had a gathering at my home over the weekend and at one point we began playing the "guess the movie soundtrack" game, going over most of the classic tracks from Disney, to epics, to adventure and so on. At one point the song that was played was Requiem for a Dream by the Chronos Quartet, which was immediately guessed by one of the guests in less than a second. When Another of the my guests asked "how could it be guessed so quickly", I replied "wow, that's just too great of a movie. Have you seen it?", to which she said she hadn't; as it turned out, I lent her the DVD and invited her to enjoy the memorable film. And that's what I'll be talking about today in preparation for torrow's Oscars ceremony. For those of you who haven't seen it, I'll not be spoiling anything. For those who want me to spoil something, I'll talk a bit about it at the end of the entry.

Normally movie posters give you a hunch of what the movie is about before watching it.
I remember seeing this poster and I was never able to make what was Requiem about.
But I did felt it was... interesting...

Requiem is not just a good movie, or a great movie. It's a powerful movie. It starts out very simply and it even looks cheap at the beginning. It's obviously an independent film, but just a couple of minutes into the movie, you are treated to something quite rare, which is the split screen experience, that lasts only a few seconds but strikes a very solid and crude point right from the start, backed up by the perpetual soundtrack of the Kronos Quartet that last for the rest of the movie as no more tracks are in the film -except for the refrigerator dancing scene-, which is why the tunes of the movie stick in anyone's mind so easily.

The first thing I'll mention about Requiem is the acting.

Jared Leto deploys his massive talent in this film, which in time will be recognized as worthy as he deserves

A young Jared Leto, who had just came from finishing "Fight Club" shines as Harry the troubled son of Sara, who wishes for a better life and works hard -perhaps not in the most legal of ways- to achieve it and bring happyness for himself as well as his girlfriend Marion, played by Jennifer Connelly. Most people believe Jen's peak was her portrayal of John Nash's wife in "A beautiful mind", but I troughfully disagree; I've always believed that you are witnessing an Oscar worthy performance, when an actor becomes THE character, and that's whan Jen does becoming Marion: my jaw-dropping moment is the bath-tub scene.

Marion in her most human and intimate moment: the bath tub scene

Then you have Marlon Wayans, fresh from the teen comical "Scary Movie" series, where he plays a one-sided dimensional character; in Requiem, Marlon plays Harry's best friend Tyrone, who has sort of a similar background as Harry's but less dramatic and more tragic. By the time the film had ended I had to double check it was Marlon Wayans the guy playing Tyrone, because I just simply couldn't put together that it was the same guy who got stoned with the killer in Scary movie. Marlon has a nude scene, with a profound impact because it humanizes the character in a way the viewer simply doesn't expect it.

It's a pity how other directors haven't capitalized on the talent Marlon showed in Requiem

The show however belongs to Ellen Burstyn.

And trust me, it's not that Jen, Jared and Marlon do an average job, or an above average job. Their performances alone are Oscar nomination worthy... any of them by equal strength. But Ellen... she just takes the entire film to a whole new level. Her performance is right there with Marlon Brando's Vito Corleone, or F.Murray Abraham's Antonio Salieri. Her character Sara Goldfarb, Harry's mother, starts quite pathetically, even comical if you want, but after say 15 minutes, begins gaining strength and like a huge snowball falling from top of Mount Everest, she soon becomes a huge avalanche. Like I said before, the dancing refrigerator scene becomes the "before and after" moment of the film. After that scene, Ellen reaches acting levels never seen in cinema on a lead female performance. The monologue scene left me breathless: according to IMDb:

"During Ellen Burstyn's impassioned monologue about how it feels to be old, cinematographer Matthew Libatique accidentally let the camera drift off-target. When director Darren Aronofsky called "cut" and confronted him about it, he realized the reason Libatique had let the camera drift was because he had been crying during the take and fogged up the camera's eyepiece. This was the take used in the final print."

... and just when you think nothing can top that scene, she just keep raising the bar. I don't want to give any specifics cause I don't want to spoil anything, but there are so many details on the character that everytime I watch the film, I am able to discover something new I hadn't seen before.

Sara Goldfarb: one of the greatest characters in the history of cinema

Ellen was indeed nominated for the Oscars that year 2001, but she lost to the more Hollywood-esque oriented film and better marketed as well as campaigned, Julia Robert's Erin Brockovich. But believe me: there is a HUGE, MONUMENTAL difference of acting between Julia's Erin and Ellen's Sara. And not that Julia didn't do a good job. In fact, to make things easy to understand and bring an interesting performance I can compare Julia's Erin performance to Jennifer's Marion, with the slight difference that perhaps you can say Julia's Erin was more of a "lead character" than Jen's Marion. Still, I rank both performances quite even.

How Ellen was snubbed by the Academy that year is beyond me. I guess Hollywood has always had a thing against independent films, and while Julia's Erin was a good choice, it was also a better fit to the cliché of award winning performances based on real life stories (IE: Colin Firth's King Speech, Geoffrey Rush's Shine, Martin Landau's Ed Wood, and so on). In fact, now that I think about it, I think I can dare to say that Ellen being snubbed that year is the greatest blunder in the history of Oscars. Anyway, let's move on...

That's just brilliant directing right there

Darren Aronofsky's direction is exactly what is expected from a director. He brings the film together and produces a massive piece of art. Kind of like how Apocalypse does in the post-credits scene of X-Men Days of future past, it gives the impression that Darren simply raised his hands and brought the pieces together perfectly. IMDb summarizes the plof of Requiem as:

The drug-induced utopias of four Coney Island people are shattered when their addicitons become stronger.

Which I could hardly summarize in a better way. My point is, not any director is able to make a film that narrates the story of four separate people, with such a unique balance, allowing them to interact with each other equally and go uphill and downhill, such synchonization and degree of precision.

Then you have details like the supporting/minor characters. Like I said before, this in an independent film, shot on a $ 4 million budget. It seems to me that Darren squeezed the best out of every penny to deliver the result he produced. The minor characters, who in any other film seem (or are) unimportant, in Requiem are as crucial and as important as the major characters. Well, obviously not THAT much, but my point is that they leave a strong impression in your mind, just as the lead characters do, and that is not something that happens on other films. Like for instance, how much do you remember of the guy who introduced Strider/Aragorn to Frodo in "Lord of the Rings"? Or how much do you remember the door bell in "There's something about Mary", or "the guys playing cards in Titanic". You pretty much get the point.

He only has like ten lines and five minutes of on-screen time, but man each word and each second is gold

Keith David, who has been known for providing memorable minor supporting appearances in films (General Kinsey in "Armageddon", Childs in "The Thing", King in "Platoon", Louis Fedders in "Men at Work"), delivers what I think is his best memorable minor appearance. Well, it's kind of hard to top Childs and Louis Fedders, but by playing Big Tim and "Requiem", he brings his a whole new meaning to the word "chauvinist". The scene in which Marion calls him and he answers the phone just by laughing "Heh-heh-heh"... is the epytome of Big Tim. Trust me, when you watch that scene you will either burst to death from laughing or throw a hammer at your TV set. Sara's friends are equally powerful, although in their own particular way inside the story and plot that has to do with Sara. I love the "if this is red, then what's orange" exchange.

Then you have a guy like Stanley B. Herman, who plays Uncle Hank, AKA the "Ass-to-Ass Guy". You probably haven't heard of Stanley B. Herman before, and trust me you'll probably never hear from him ever again. He's just in the film for what ... I think five seconds maybe ? Ten secs top ? However, his appearence is so memorable, that his character has even created a cult-following trend. There is a blog that became a trend (which I'll post at the end with all the rest of the spoiling parts) dedicated just to him, in which the author ponders "I'm not sure how he got cast to be the Ass-to-Ass Guy, but from what I can tell it was the role he was born to play". The author goes on to state "Not since Boba Fett in the original Star Wars trilogy has a character so intrigued the masses with a bare minimum of screen time". I myself could have not said it better.

Stanley B. Herman, in the role he was born to play: Uncle Hank

And of course everyone else in the film is as close as memorable: the deaf mob-boss, the police officer at the coffee shop, Arnold, the cops at the prison... even Dylan Baker makes a five second memorable appearance as well.

Combine all of this with the looping and haunting Kronos Quartet score, and the result is that Requiem for a dream leaves a mark in your brain so strong, it would take two ammesia attacks for it to start dissappearing.

Imagine if you will a mental beating the kind of ancient Roman's did on their slaves, relentlessly and endlessly until forcing their submission. That is exactly what this movie does to you. I have yet to meet someone who has been able to stand Requem without giving a minimal sign of grief. Requiem is the epitome of independent filmmaking: daring, crude, merciless, realistic and just when you think it will cut you a break, it keeps on pounding your mind non-stop. If you expect this film to take a pause and go easy on you for a minute or two, then you guessed wrong because it simply won't. It will go hard and harder and harder and just when you thought it cannot go any further, it will... until it breaks you down.

Part of the 15-round heavyweight fight with no stops between each round.

Watching Requiem is like being repeatedly punched in the back of the head by Mike Tyson. It's difficult to know what to say about Requiem. I first saw it in the cinema when it was released and I have never seen an audience react to a film like this one. The climactic sequence, where the protagonists are effectively destroyed by their addictions, seemed to trigger a bout of heavy breathing in the audience. As it was ending I heard a few people crying. My friend and I didn't say a single word to each other on the way home.

In sum, regardless of whether or not the subject matter itself shocks you, this movie will put the viewer through the proverbial wringer. Give it a chance, and you will connect with the characters and then witness their destruction (spiritual and otherwise). It is a punishing but unforgettable experience. I'm not sure whether I'd necessarily recommend it or not; it all depends on your personal tolerance level with regard to an unflinching portrayal of human nature and behavior at their most extreme and, ultimately, tragic. For my part, while I think it's very hard to watch this film very often, I'm sure glad I have it on my shelf.

and now... if you read from this point and on... I will share some of the most key insights of the film.

If you haven't seen it, please stop reading, go watch it and come back after you have finished.

In the end, Requiem is not just a movie about drug addiction.
It's a movie about emotions, about hope, about looking up and forward, about dreams, about struggle, about a reason to wake up every day in the morning.

SPOILERS BEGIN HERE - Stop reading if you haven't watch the film.

Ellen Burstyn's monologue:

Blog about Uncle Hank:

http://thebeerbarrel.net/threads/stanley-herman-the-ass-to-ass-guy.2640/

Samsung-vs-Apple

Is this going to be another Samsung S5 vs iPhone 6 thread ? Yes and I'll do my best !

Is Samsung Galaxy becoming the new iPhone, or is iPhone becoming a new Samsung Galaxy?

Yesterday I was having dinner with a few friends, one of them works at Samsung, and after a few hours of discussion over sports, world news and old-fashion TV shows, the unavoidable topic of which phone is better came up. I particularly enjoy these discussions because it helps me to glance marketing in its full extent, from consumer behavior, to branding loyalty, to satisfaction, and so on. It also takes me back to the time when we were kids and compared our toys, only that now we're grown ups and have, well, let's just say that our toys have grown with us ; )


So what I'm going to do next is bring back some of the most heated showdowns I recall, and yes, at the end I'll give you my opinion on the current subject of Samsung vs Apple

Sega Genesis vs SNES

Man those were the days....

If you are a Gen X or a Millenial, you're probably showing a smile on your face, just as your blood pressure starts to rise, as your memory sends you back 20 years ago to the time you could kill, just for the sake of being loyal to either Nintendo or Sega, in one of the most fierce and greatest console wars of all time. You should also like (or hate with your guts), what I'll be stating in the upcoming lines : )

As always, the first thing I'll do is put everything into perspective here and that includes mentioning something that 90 % of the people who get (or got) into this debate, normally forget, which is the following: before all the Super Nintendo vs Genesis hype and eventual war, there was in fact another previous console wars held on the 8-bit real, between the Nintendo (NES) and the Sega Master System. The thing is that it was a one-sided war, as the NES sold more than 110 million units, compared to 14.8 million Master Systems sold. I was lucky enough to actually play on a Master System. I remember the game was Double Dragon (which had already been released on the NES), and I remember thinking something along the lines of "this isn't so bad... it's just that the NES is better. Way better". So how did the console wars exploded between the Genesis and the SNES ?

Being oversold by Nintendo, Sega decided to release a leaping-new-technology console which was the Genesis, which offered 16-bit technology... double to the NES's 8-bit. There is no question the Genesis was a superior console than the NES, graphically, on audio, and even on technical CPU details. Nintendo's market share however was so big, they could afford to take more than two years to launch a console to rival the Genesis. So when the new 16-bit Super Nintendo came out, the Genesis had already a lot of miles on the market and a decent market share, as well as the percepcion of being "more powerful" in the gamer's mind. Don't quote me on this, but I'm willing to say that the phrase "console wars" was born at this time.

You see, when Super Nintendo came out, Genesis had already sold over 20 million units, so it was up to the SNES to either catch-up or surpass the sucess seen by Sega taking advantage of the less capable NES. That's when the daily fights at recess time in schools escalated:

-Why would you buy a Super Nintendo? Genesis is faster
-Why would you buy a Genesis? Super Nintendo es newer
-Why don't you sell your Genesis and buy a new Super Nintendo?
-Why don't you go @#~€!!!! ??

(and then the punching and kicking began)

Now that that time has passed, we can be objective and go with the facts:

1. Sega had a terrific marketing campaign

The ads for the Genesis were just plain awesome. Two things stood in the minds of SNES fans forever:

BLAST PROCESSING

and Genesis does what NINTENDON'T

Great marketing campaign.
Eventually it became that "SNES does what Genesiscan't" 

Those are two of the most inventive and brilliant slogans ever created. You see, technically speaking Super Nintendo was superior than the Genesis: it had more RAM memory, a larger color palette, more audio channels, a control pad which was way more comfortable than Genesis's, but... the CPU wasn't as fast as the Genesis. In fact, the SNES CPU was only half speed fast of Genesis's CPU. So I guess Sega marketers instead of telling consumers that Genesis had a faster CPU (which was the only technical advantage it had against the SNS), they went with some resonating commercials that stated GENESIS HAS BLAST PROCESSING ! I remember seeing that on TV and I was like "wow, that's cool. It sucks that SNES doesn't have BLAST PROCESSING". Of course, I didn't know what it was, but the commercial made it clear that the video games on Genesis were faster than those on the SNES.

And then of course, the NINTENDON'T quote... which to this day still cranks me up.

2. The Super Nintendo was superior

I think I've stated this clearly in the previous point, but just to be a bit more specific on what I mean when saying "was superior", the SNES could do things the Genesis simply couldn't (not at least with the help of add-ons). Some of the games have exceptions to the rule, but overall the SNES had better graphics, sound and playability capabilities. It was a smart thing from Nintendo to release an eight-button controller, against Sega's four-button controller. It was simply impossible to play games like Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter on a Genesis controller.

3. The Super Nintendo game library was way WAY superior

Both consoles had their decent and fair amount of games. Some good, some bad. They also had those "VIP games" and those "exclusive games", as well as those "should be tossed in a garbage disposal and burned for eternity games". However, for every GREAT Genesis game, the SNES had three. I believe this was the crucial difference that decided the winner of the console wars.

Even if you call a tie between Mario (Super Mario World) and Sonic (which ever version you want), the SNES had:

-Chrono Trigger
-Final Fantasy III
-Super Metroid
-Super Megaman 7
-Super Castlevania IV
-F-Zero
-Super Mario Kart
-Turtles in Time

and if that's not enough....

Zelda: A link to the past

I could go on, but I have to close this section and move on to the next topic. So I'll state the fact that between these two giants, the better console came out winner, not only because it was better, but also because it had better stakeholders.

SNES eventually outsold the Genesis, selling over 60 million units against Sega's 40 million. Remarkable considering -like I said- it came out two years after the Genesis had already been in the market.

Coca Cola vs Pepsi

You can't write an article about product wars, without mentioning the cola wars. That's like writing a physics history book and not include Newton.

For this case I will take reference on the 1985 infamous "New Coke" event that almost brought down the nearly hundred year established Coca Cola empire. If you haven't heard of "New Coke", chances are you probably missed on of the greatest executive management blunders of all time.

During the early 80s, the Coca Cola Company felt threatened by the so called "Pepsi Challenges" done years earlier by rival company Pepsi, which were a series of trials and blind-tests done that discovered that consumers overall preferred the Pepsi flavor over Coke's. The decision made by the Coca Cola Company was that they had to change their cola formula in order to taste more similar to what the consumer wanted. Hence New Coke was born, an entirely new product to replace the almost 100 year-old formula that had built and developed the business to its monumental shape.

Meet one of the greatest corporate blunders of all time

New Coke was released during mid 1983 and although initial reaction was positive in the first days, the overwhelming amount of hundreds of thousands of calls, letters, threats and other factors denouncing how Coca Cola had sold out its brand and beliefs for another product that wasn't Coca Cola. The pressure became so high, that top executives had to concede and re-launch the original Coca Cola and began recalling and halting production of New Coke. I was a little kid when this came out, but I do remember the flavor of tasting New Coke, and I'll never forget the feeling and thinking after the sip went through my mouth: "wow, this tastest good, but you know what?....it's not Coca Cola"

Coca Cola's top executives admitted to underestimating their marketing, their brand, their consumer's loyalty and in a few words, the name Coca Cola. They learned that sometimes consumers like your brand more than they like your product. As soon as the original Coca Cola was re-launched, sales increased as never seen before and Coca Cola once again, only that this time by accident, landed another blowing punch to Pepsi, in the eternal Cola Wars.

I consider myself a neutal guy when it comes to foods and drinks. I like my products to be good, able to satisfy me and rewarding. I won't say which one I prefer between Coca Cola or Pepsi, but I will say this: while I don't mind trying one or the other, I DO have a defitive preferece of one over the other everytime I am presented with the opportunity of picking just one.

Messi vs Cristiano Ronaldo

You'll probably thinking how dare I, using Messi and CR7 in a blog of product comparison. While I'll say I do have this rivalty reserved for a future sports article I'm planning to post in the upcoming day, I have to take a few key elements of it in order to base my point around the topic my original topic.

The reason I bring them into the discussion is because I like how their different styles which contrast on a weekly basis since 2005, reward us football fans on how effective they can be in their own ways: on one corner we have Ronaldo the CR7 machine and in the other one we have Messi the atomic flea

Messi was brought to the senior Barcelona team by coach Frank Rikjaard in 2005 who made a huge bet on lining a young 16 year old who barely topped 1.70 m (5'5). Messi got the chance, took it, seized it and haven't looked back since. Today he sits with three champions league tournaments and more than 350 goals scored in his career. His dribbing ability as well as being able to keep the ball near his feet while moving pass defenders make him virtually unstoppable on the field.

Cristiano Ronaldo was also a prodigy, acquired by Sir Alex Ferguson in Manchester United in 2004. Contrary to Messi, Cristiano is tall, strong, and a superb athlete with an extraordinary work ethics, including a Ryan Giggs recognition of how able he is of doing over 1,000 abs on regular team training. Cristiano holds two champions league tournaments (one with Manchester United, one with Real Madrid) and more than 350 goals in his career. Cristiano dribbles, powers through and crushes his way through defenses like a hot knife through butter.

Pick whoever you want for now... I'd say it is us fans who have become winners 

So is one better than the other one ? The answer to that question won't come in this entry : ) The point I'll state a point that over the years they have proven to set the bar of comparison in the football world. Every football player wants to be just as good as CR7 or Messi, and if possible, better. The year of their respective teams is measured on how well did they perform. More importantly for us fans: every year, Messi wants to top Cristiano Ronaldo, and Cristiano Ronaldo wants to top Messi. Even though they have never publicly stated this (or even privately), their actions demonstrate that they are under constant competition and working to outdo the other one. If one scores a hat-trick, then the other score a hat-trick. If one scored a curved free-kick, then the other one scores a bullet free-kick. In other words, they push each other to be the best, while being best among the rest.

VHS vs Betamax

Some millenials won't have any recollection of putting a huge rectangle black tape inside an even larger cassette player that made like 82 different noises just to load the tape, took like 50 seconds to start playing the movie, took another 50 seconds to stop and rewind, and the another 50 seconds to resume playing. I guess that's why DVD manufacturers make us now sit through all those trailers.

A lot have been said about the so called "videotape format war", held between Sony's Betamax and JVC's VHS:

-The Betamax was superior
-The VHS could record longer
-The Betamax could record with better quality
-The VHS was faster

I (well, my parents) was fortunate enough to own both recorders and I distinctively remember the VHS being annoying. It was just too big of a tape. The tapes couldn't fit anywhere, while the Betamax tapes could easily be stored vertically or horizontally. I will say though that by the time I began toying with both Beta and VHS, the recording time issue had been a thing of the past.

You see, when Sony launched the Betamax, the recording time of the tape was just one hour, which was absurd considering the average movie playtime is two hours. The VHS offered time to spare, giving consumers three hours of recording tape. But like I said, when I was getting around them, this was a thing of the past. My first VHS tape could record up to 6 hours on EP mode, and the Betamax could go up to 4 1/2 hours on Beta III.

Thing is, the VHS's EP mode was just terrible. The video was blurry and the sound unhearable. Just until a couple of years ago I got rid of my last EP VHS tapes, after converting/digitalized them to DVDs, and I remember doing the conversion process while watching the recording and thinking "oh my, I can't believe I used to think this was a state-of-the-art recording". The Beta III 750 tapes offered 4 hours and 30 minutes of good quality; of course, non comparable to DVD, but in essence, way better than the VHS; even better than the 2 hour SP VHS high quality mode.

Pundits still argue today about reasons why did VHS came up as winner when Betamax was the better product. The most accepted answer, like I said before, was the fact that Sony took too long to provide tapes with recording duration longer than an hour, and by the time they did it, VHS had already too much market share.

I do have to say, that I don't remember people disagreeing on the fact that Beta was better, while agreeing that VHS was annoying. I guess it's interesting to see that this war was won because of a "second-best" choice. It's like consumers said "well, it's absurd to buy a Betamax, since it can't do what I want it to do, so I guess I'll have to buy VHS".

time for the showdown... Samsung S vs iPhone

I'll be honest: I consider the iPhone the greatest invention of the 00s.

When Steve gave the conference to announce the so called "phone-internet communicator-music player", I payed little to no attention to it. I could buy into the features of it and its functionality, but it was at the time where Apple was still turning around and wasn't the solid $700 Billion valued company it is today. In essence, I was a bit skeptic and I thought "I have to see it to believe it". A few months later I was able to hold an iPhone.

When Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone, he didn't just launch a product.
He launched a new culture, a new religion, an entire new way of living

To sum up the previous cases I went through we have:

• Super Nintendo beats the Genesis, because it IS a better product
• Coca Cola beats Pepsi, because it IS a better brand, despite consumers preferring Pepsi in blind-tests
• Cristiano Ronaldo or Messi, IS the better player because of how he works within his team.
• VHS beat Betamax, because it was the product that did what consumers NEEDED and WANTED.

If there is one thing that I believe the iPhone has done, hold on to and be true to, is its size. I don't know if it's my hands, my face, or the distance between my ears and my mouth, but somehow I feel the iPhone has the right size for a cell phone. Not long, not short, not wide, not narrow, not thick nor thin, just... perfect. It perfectly fits in your hand, as well as in any of your pants pockets, car door hand held, hiking koala, passport holder... it just fits anywhere perfectly. Clearly, Apple has been playing the Coca Cola card here on the subject of the phone's dimensions. The Samsung S phone series, has been spending a lot of years trying to find its own identity. One phone is small, then the next gen is big, then the next one is smaller and so on. The S3 was particularly huge in my opinion, as well as the S4. Recently, the S5 has nailed the size that adjusts best to what a phone must be.

Samsung has learned by making mistakes, trial and error and by listening to their consumers.
It has been a long way, but they are learning and learning fast.

Regarding the OS Software, one can state preferences of how fast, slick, nice or catchy your phone's OS is. One thing for sure is that they are years ahead anything that came and went before them. Personally, I think it's a matter of preference and to fall under the OS wars stating that one is superior to the other, when in reality, they are both pushing each other to be the best, while being better than the rest.

The one aspect that I think decides the outcome of this battle, is the evolutionary one. Darwin said it best in the late 1800s, when one must develop stronger characteristics in order to survive among the fittest. That's where I think Samsung S has the edge over the iPhone. Over the last seven years, we saw the emergence of the iPhone as a superior unique and outstanding product. As Steve Jobs said it, it's not just a phone, an internet communicator or an mp3 player. It's all of that combined and more. iPhone did a great job differenciating itself from the rest, even when competitors began showing up grabbing some of their market share. This includes Samsung, whose S and S2 phones were clearly one level below the iPhone. Then came in the S3 and things started to change.

While the S3 looked more like a machine rather than a phone, it was the first real threat to the iPhone when we talked about capabilities, features and overall performance. The first thing I thought when I saw it was: "wow, this is awesome but it's like a brick block. It's large, heavy and kind of uncomfortable". Apparently Samsung thought the same thing. More handy products followed like the Mini and the S4, until the present S5 we have today.

This feels like Game of Thrones !
Kind of like trial by combat 

So where are we at?

Like Coca Cola and Pepsi, against Samsung, Apple continues to be the better brand -quite confirmed by their $700 Billion evaluation-. But how can you value the iPhone brand vs the Samsung S brand? Personally I'd say the S brand is on par here.

Like the Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi comparison, each phone with their own style, works within you, responding their features to what is demanded and expected from them.

Like the VHS and Beta, the iPhone may be a slicker product and it may have been living from the glory of its first years, but right now I believe it is Samsung S who does exactly what consumers want and need.

Because of all these factors, I have to conclude that just like the SNES and Genesis, there may not be a perfect product, but the overall combination of brand, features, capabilities, expectation and performance, as well as ability to do what the consumer wants, the Samsung S5 is clearly the better product.

: )

Winning the Superbowl vs almost winning

There are times in our lives, when life teaches you lessons in very peculiar ways. Sometimes in school, sometimes at work, and sometimes watching a sports game... sometimes an insignificant one, and sometimes at Superbowl XLIX.

What happened last Sunday?

As most of you may know by now, the New England Patriots defeated the Seattle Seahawks after clinching a dramatic 1-yard intercepction of what was meant to be the game-winning touchdown for Seattle, instead turning into the most questioned play of the season, and perhaps, of the past ten years in the NFL. For those of you who didn't watch the game, I'll make a quick summary:

• Seattle was down 24-28, with 26 seconds left on the clock.
• Seattle was one yard away from scoring a touchdown that would have put them ahead 30-28 (31-28 after free kick)
• Seattle had Marshawn Lynch -the best running back of the league- ready to receive the ball and make his way though New England's defense and reach the scoring line. This is the play that most Seattle fans and NFL pundits would have chosen.
• The play that was called by Seattle's coach Pete Carroll, was to have Russell Wilson throw/pass to attempt scoring a touchdown.
• The pass was intercepted by New England's Malcolm Butler.
• New England held the ball for the remainder 26 seconds and won the Superbowl.
• Almost instantly after the game ended, thousands of tweets and social media messages erupted heavily criticizing Pete Carroll's play choice of passing and not running with Lynch.

The result: instead of being hailed as a hero, today Pete Carroll's coaching skills are the most questioned in all the NFL.

How does this fit in business and management?

The beauty of watching sports on TV is that as a manager, director, executive, or MBA student, you are handed with a unique opportunity of analyzing the weigh of the decisions being made, as if you were studying a case-study or preparing a business strategy for your company. And sometimes in a business, as in sports, you are faced with life-defying decisions to make.

Case I: Zidane vs Buffon

One of the most jaw-dropping moments I have had the fortune to witness, was the 2006 Football/Soccer World Cup finals. Early into the first half of the match between France and Italy, the french squad was awareded a penalty kick. Zinedine Zidane, France captain, best player of the world cup at that point -and arguably one of the best players of all time- calmly took the responsibility. On the other end defending for Italy was Gianluigi Buffon, who at the time was the best goal-keeper in the world.

As most of you who watched the match, what happened next was just shocking:

In amazing display that combined guts, balls, crazyness and cold blood, Zidane simply soft shot the ball, carefully placing it inside the goal line, as if he threw it using his mind. A mislead and confused Buffon, thought the ball hadn't gone in and struggled to grab it after throwing himself to the opposite direction of where the ball was shot, but the goal was as valid as a One Dollar Bill.

The perspective that we have to have here was that Zidane could have

Shot for power straight to the middle.
Aim for one of the lower corners
Aim for one of the mid corners
Aim for one of the higher corners
Shot high for power

...because 99,99 % of penalty kicks are taken like that. Instead, he went with the most improbable of the options, in the most important scenario possible, against the toughest goal-keeper he could have been facing.

If you read the comments below the video, I think they all fall short of the magnitude of what Zidane pulled. Some of the best ones are:

"Only Zidane can mislead the best goalkeeper to the wrong corner and then rape him with a soft shot on the bar and keep the audience, players and referee wondering what the hell just happened!"

"This is what proves that a human can have unbeliveable courage."

"I call it ...BALLS OF STEEL"

"WHAT A LEGEND. HE DID A PANENKA IN A FINAL THAT'S IS CLASS"

and my personal favorite:

"You must be crazy to do this, World cup Final, panenka, best goalie in the world at the time. People who are crazy enought to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."

Case II: Jordan vs Utah Jazz

When someone asks me who I think is the best basketball player of all time, I point them to this clip which I believe sums up the greatness of Michael Jordan in less than five minutes. The context:

• It's the 1998 NBA Finals and aims for a sixth championship. 
• Much speculation has been around about this being his final season.
• Chicago Bulls are up 3 games to 2 against the Jazz of Karl Malone and John Stockton, two of the best NBA players of all time.
• With 59.2 seconds left on the clock, the Jazz lead by 83 to 81.
• A foul is commited against the Bulls and Jordan takes both free throws to tie the game 83-83.

This is what followed:

In less than a minute, Jordan scored two free throws, stole the ball from one of the best players of all time, and threw two 2-pointers -including the game winning one-. It doesn't get more flawless than that.

Jordan could have decided to pass the ball to one of his teammates, take a 3-pointer, aim for overtime. Instead, and like Zidane, he took full responsibility and decided coldly and calmly.

Case III: Sampras vs Corretja 1996 US Open Quarterfinals

One of the most memorable tiebreakers ever played in tennis was the 5th set quarterfinal match between defending champion Pete Sampras and up and coming star spaniard Alex Corretja. It would have gone by as another tense tiebreak, if it hadn't been because of the background involved:

• Sampras had just lost his coach to cancer and had struggled through a very up and downish season. He had yet to win a grand slam tournament and the US Open was his last chance.
• If Sampras couldn't win this tournament, he would have been on a huge setback towards the grand slam record and more importantly, the #1 end year record.
• Sampras had just been diagnosed with a rare mediterranean decease which rendered his stamina and put his resistance to long matches in jeopardy.
• After battling Corretja for four hours, they got themselves into a 5th set tie breaker. Two points were played and Sampras began vomiting and looking very dizzy.
• With all at stake, things were looking dreadfully bad for Pistol Pete

But Pete had other plans...

As points began flying by, the stakes rose and Pete knew it. He began playing more aggressively but still it wasn't enough as he had no more energy left and had to go all-in.

Tied at seven points and facing a potential match-point after a long fault first serve, Sampras served an improbable second serve ace to take the lead and have a match-point. Corretja came on to serve and double-faulted himself out of the open, sending Pete on to the semi-finals and eventually the championship.


Case IV: Kirk Gibson's 1988 World Series game-winning Home Run

After a successful nine season career with the Detroit Tigers, Kirk Gibson arrived at the Los Angeles Dodgers early in 1988 and immediately became the team leader and motivator. He became a driving force around the team thoughout the struggling season, along with Dodger manager veteran Tom LaSorda. Unexpectedly and against all odds, somehow the LA team found themselves in the World Series, facing the heavily favorited Oakland Athletics. Unfortunately for the Dodgers, Gibson sustained critical injuries in the play-offs series aganst the Mets and was ruled out of the World Series at all. A major setback for a team when their leader cannot play.

Game #1 went on pretty much as expected, with Oakland taking a strong lead powered by one of their own stars slugger Jose Canseco, who hit a grand slam early in the game. Innings went by and the Dodgers were held back to a 4-3 score down to the ninth, when Oakland's manager -Tony LaRussa- brought closing pitcher Dennis Eckersley, the best of the league that year, who led the league with 45 saves and allowed only five home-runs during the season.

Eckersly quickly retired the first two Dodgers, taking the inning to two outs, bases empty, in what appeared to be a routine save for him. With Mike Davis coming at bat next, here's where things got strategic:

• Davis was a left-handed batter and Eckersley a right-handed pitcher, preferred not to face another southpaw. 
• Tom LaSorda sent Dave Anderson a right-handed batter on the waiting deck as next in-line batter -if Davis could get on base-. This was meant as a bluff. In reality, Gibson, who had been receiving treatment for his injuries in the clubhouse, had told LaSorda he was ready to pinch-hit if needed. 
• Eckersley and Oakland's catcher Ron Hassey saw Anderson on deck, and strategized to pitch Davis carefully, preferring to take their chances with Anderson.
• The at bat confrontation began and while Eckersley was trying to close the game on Davis, a visibly limping Gibson appeared at the Dodgers dugout, with commentators and fans wondering whether if he would get the chance instead of Anderson.
• Unable to get the third out, Eckersley walked Davis. 
• Anderson turned around and began walking back towads the dugout and out of nowhere, Gibson got up and started limp-walking towards the plate, while making a few warm-up swings on his way.

Now Eckersley had to face left-handed-injured Gibson...

After Gibson sent Eckersley's slider to the stands, TV commentator Vic Scully said it all, when after a long silence he finally uttered "in a year that has been so improbable... the impossible has happened".

Gibson never took another at bat in the series, but his feat was enough to inspire the Dodgers who went on to lesson Oakland and become World Champions by 4 games to 1.



So where does this all add up and what do Zidane, Jordan, Sampras and Gibson have to do with Pete Carroll?



The topic in hand is about how one key moment, one key decision, one key shot/swing/play, can have a significant result:

It can make of you either a great hero or can simply leave you oblivion.

This article by Benjamin Morris makes an outstanding analysis of the odds that played in factor in last Sunday's Carroll's decision, and essentially, it mathematically backs up Carroll's thought process of choosing Lynch as the second play, had the pass play hadn't worked out. It also makes a great point on how improbable was the Patriot interception of Russell Wilson's pass.

But what about the other cases?

Zidane went for the most improbable scenario, because he was facing the toughest of the opponents. I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that Zidane choose a Panenka, because Buffon never expected Zidane to do it. The bottom line is that nobody told Zidane to take the shot the way he did. He was entirely responsible whether if it went in or not.

Jordan had pretty much control of the last minute in that game six NBA Finals. He took both free throws, he took the field goal, he stole the ball from Malone, he scored the winning shot. This case is more interesting because it shows that after Jordan's last shot, Utah still had a shot at winning, took it, and failed. It makes one wonder: why did Jordan score and Utah missed? The bottom line again is: nobody told Jordan what to do.

Sampras had little to no chance of coming out of that game a winner, had he played conservative or short of what his talent could do. He went for his shots and took his chances every single time. Faced with a potential match-point on Corretja's serve, had he double-faulted that 7-7 point, instead he went for the big second serve ace. The bottom line again: no one told Sampras what to do. He did it all by himself.

Gibson's case has a bit more variables, first because it was LaSorda who made the decision of sending him at bat. The most important variable though is the fact that years later Gibson stated in an interview that back in 1988 while preparing for the World Series, Dodger scout Mel Didier provided a report assuring that Eckersly 99.99% of the time when faced on a 3-2 count against a left-handed hitter, would throw a slider, which is exactly what he did. Still, it might have been LaSorda who sent Gibson to bat, and it might have been Mel Didier the one who provided the crucial tip, but at the plate, there was only Kirk Gibson who went for the home run swing.

My point being made, is that while most of the blame is placed on Carroll or Seattle's offensive coach, two things must be taken in consideration:

First: whoever made the decision of playing a pass, knew he was faced with two scenarios. A daring glorified one, in which he would be hailed as the most daring person in the NFL this season, and a second one in which he would take the blame for losing the XLIX SuperBowl being just 1-yard away from victory, which is well... what eventually happened.

Second: it might had been a called play, but still, I believe the players on the field had the very last call of going with the running back play. It would have been mild, but one can only wonder if the team would have been more eager to go for the run, rather than to play the passing tactic which probably caught them off-guard, which is well... what eventually happened.

Third: by adding first + second, the conclusion is that in life (sports, professional, studies, management), you are faced with key moments that raise the question of "what are you made of?" and ask for you to deliver the best of what you have. A time when you have a 50-50 chance to rise up to the occasion and mark a memory in other's people's mind. Either that, or you can fail, and be left simply in oblivion.

Now... when the time comes for you, which one will you do?