» Leonardo DiCaprio proves to be the saving grace in an otherwise rather forgettable film. photo: Frontroomcinema.com

Looking back to films like ‘Mystic River’ and ‘Million Dollar Baby’, I think I can be forgiven for thinking that Eastwood’s handling of J. Edgar wouldn’t disappoint, but to cut a long story (and film) short, it did.

The film centres on J. Edgar Hoover and the events that led up to the establishment of the FBI and his position as its main director from 1935 until his death in 1972. Considering the controversy of the FBI, the strange and disturbing rumours of Hoover’s private life, as well as the sheer mass of major events that occurred between the 30’s and 70’s, the film is nothing but dull. Perhaps due to the onset of Dementia, Eastwood decided to set his directorial hands to the retelling of Hoover’s homoerotic relationship with his pal, lackey and right hand man Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer).

This left me deflated, as I had expected the film to be a tense period drama addressing issues such as anti-American activities and the civil rights movement, but instead I got to witness Brokeback Mountain, with suits instead of boots and spurs and an office instead of a mountain. Despite this, it must be said that as usual DiCaprio’s performance was a saving grace, taking the portrayal of a bona fide historical patriot in his stride. Hammer’s performance as the young Tolson also pleased, but when it came to Tolson the geriatric his acting seemed only to accentuate the questionable prosthetics.

The overall look of the piece was an optical delight, the lighting, sets and costumes matching the decades harmoniously, helped by the colour schemes. What ruined J. Edgar for me was its lack of cohesion and focus. The constant flashbacks made me paranoid that I had entirely misunderstood the film and that it was actually about a top secret time machine that the FBI had created. At times it felt as if Eastwood had trouble finding the main driving force behind Dustin Lance Black’s script, opting to create a new genre of homoerotic-period-historical drama-crime fighting-buddy movie that, surprise surprise, did not work

For budding historians and those with an interest in the FBI, or those of you who are just keen to see DiCaprio in a dress (it does happen), then the film is probably worth a watch. However, for those expecting a bit of tension and some good old fashioned anti-Communist American propaganda, then this is not the film for you. I tried to come up with an F.B.I related pun, but you can just make your own to pass the time in the cinema, then it won’t feel like a complete waste of an Orange Wednesday code.

» Manu Tuilagi in action at the 2011 Rugby World Cup photo: olcoge, Flickr

What is the state of the England side as they head towards an epic fixture against Scotland at Murrayfield?

This time a year ago, there was a hushed sense of expectation surrounding the Red Rose of English rugby. Unlike their round-balled counterparts, supporters of the England rugby side have never been quick to become overly expectant, but after a comprehensive 35-18 victory over the attacking juggernauts of Australia in the previous autumn and the increasingly exciting prospects of the likes of Chris Ashton and Ben Youngs terrorising opposing defences, supporters up and down the country began to experience a sense of confidence that had been unheard of in the shadow of a Six Nations Championship since their last Grand Slam victory in 2003 (and we all knew what happened later on in that year.)

Twelve months on, and any English confidence has flown out of the window faster than a Maori dwarf being used for lineout practice by Dylan Hartley. England endured a torrid World Cup campaign, never moving out of a rusty second gear and recreating none of the exciting brand of rugby that had flowed so effortlessly against the Wallabies at Twickenham in November 2010 and then again four months later, at the Millennium Stadium against the Welsh.

A dire first half showing against France in the quarter final (with ‘Les Bleus’ going in 16-0 up at half time) saw England leave the competition with much less of a splash than that caused by Manu Tuilagi’s ‘running bomb’ technique days later, but the psychological damage had already been dealt to some of the players after rumours of abusive behaviour to receptionists, drunken flirtations by a certain member of the Royal family and injuries caused through bungee jumping exploits. These unprofessional actions greatly ‘dwarfed’ any respect for the England set-up, and it came as no surprise to those in the game when manager Martin Johnson stepped down in November of last year, ending a relatively average reign at the top; mercifully, the decision came early enough to avoid any real tarnishing of Johnno’s legendary status in the English game.

Other problems in the England camp have been well documented since, but I feel that it is futile to linger on problems that have been and gone, and so instead let us look forward to one of the most intriguing portions of English rugby history in recent times.

When Stuart Lancaster was handed the job as interim England head coach, it appeared at first glance that he had been given a poisoned chalice, bringing with it squad difficulties and an instant need for success that could not possibly be achieved. However, he has viewed it very differently, and his approach to the England setup has been both refreshing and encouraging.

With the Six Nations in mind, Lancaster made the bold choice of dropping long-standing stalwarts such as Mike Tindall, Nick Easter and Mike Cueto in favour of youthful talent in the form of Owen Farrell, Lee Dickson and Joe Marler, amongst others, who have all been performing consistently well in the Premiership and Europe for well over a season now. A major criticism of Johnson’s stint as head coach of the national side was his sentimental view towards players such as Johnny Wilkinson, Lewis Moody and HRH Mr Tindall, all who played a major role during that famous night in Sydney nine years ago. Johnno’s decision to continually select players like these largely stifled the opportunities of promising youngsters coming through the ranks; Manu Tuilagi apart, there was very little risk-taking in his selection for the World Cup squad.

Lancaster, on the other hand, has completely overhauled the hierarchy of the England squad in the run-up to a tough Six Nations campaign and given the responsibility to those who may well be wearing the white jersey in two World Cups time. Realising the immediate need for change, he even relocated the squad to a base in Leeds to focus on their rugby as opposed to the plush Pennyhill Park Hotel and Spa.

So, how do England look as we head towards a tough Calcutta Cup encounter at Murrayfield on 4th February? Well, this is a difficult question to answer as we have had no chance to see how this new look squad will gel, and injuries to Toby Flood and Manu Tuilagi in the backline has left voids in two of England’s strongest positions. This unfortunate predicament may actually be a blessing in disguise for Lancaster however, giving him the opportunity to blood the youngsters early and see how it works, most notably messrs Farrell and Brad Barritt, whose partnership at Saracens has blossomed into one of the tightest in the English game. Charlie Hodgson may well start at fly-half against Scotland to ensure a calm, experienced head to control the play, allowing Farrell a birth at centre. Meanwhile, Ben Foden has competition in the full-back position from Mike Brown; both are electric counter-attackers and I expect both to cause problems for any defence in the competition. That, of course, is without mentioning Chris Ashton, whose sour relationship with his club Northampton will hopefully have little effect on his performances in the Six Nations- he is undoubtedly one of the best finishers in the game, and Charlie Sharples will offer pace on the opposite wing. If this exciting new backline is to cause problems and function as fluidly as hoped, it will almost certainly rely on a return to form of Leicester Tigers’ charismatic scrumhalf, Ben Youngs.

Youngs’ early showings in an England jersey were more than encouraging, including a sensational solo try in Australia and against the same opposition at Twickenham later in the year. However, his form has dipped of late, and many Tigers fans have criticized his petulant attitude in recent matches in the Heineken Cup; whilst scrumhalves are often joked about as the players with the shortest of fuses (in a metaphorical sense!), this is not an aspect that an international player of Youngs ability should boast. When on form, he can unlock any defence, and with the likes of Farrell and Barritt outside him (added to Flood and Tuilagi when they are fit again), the other defences in the Six Nations will be quaking in their boots. However, his temper arguably cost England a foothold in their Grand Slam decider against Ireland last March, and repeat performances of that calibre will not ensure he retains the number 9 shirt for long. The little dynamo, and son of former England international Nick Youngs, may well be the key to the outcome in this experimental championship, but if he fails to impress, Lee Dickson and Joe Simpson provide very able alternatives.

There has been much said about the prospects of Lancaster’s new look backline, as I have already alluded to, yet it is in the pack that England will look to dominate against their opponents in the coming weeks as they have done in championships gone by. The relative international nous of Dan Cole in the front row will hopefully see a strong partnership form between him and Quins’ Joe Marler, a great scrummager and strong runner. In the second row, injuries to Courtney Lawes and Louis Deacon will leave England with just two out-and-out locks to pick from, but Tom Palmer played well in the World Cup and Tom Croft as ever will be an imperious force in the lineout.

As for the back row, Chris Robshaw has been handed the captain’s armband for the Murrayfield match on 4th February, and he epitomises what Lancaster wants from his new England side: professionalism and passion, something the head coach believes the Harlequins flanker has in abundance. He is joined by the likes of Phil Dowson from Northampton and Ben Morgan of Llanelli Scarlets, both part of the uncapped brigade.

For Stuart Lancaster, who informed the media this week that he would be applying for the England job proper in the future, the Murrayfield match is a huge one, if not in terms of result then certainly in terms of performance. His bold selection policy has given English supporters a glimpse of his playing philosophy, so a performance similar to that of England in the World Cup, with a flat backline and sluggish, ill-disciplined forward play, would be perceived as a backward step for the team. Alternatively, a dynamic display by all involved (reminiscent of Harlequins, the best English team by far this season at this point) would be massively refreshing, and to many could be more important than actually securing a victory. After all, Lancaster has shown that England have the talent for future success by selecting them now, so let us give them a run in the team and see if they can develop into the world beaters that they have the potential to be, without following in the dull footsteps of England sides gone by (see the past two World Cup campaigns for further details).

This Six Nations Championship thus has the potential to be a turning point in English rugby, and could see the Red Rose beging to truly blossom for the first time in a decade. It takes much longer than six weeks to create a world class rugby outfit (just ask any New Zealander, who had to wait 24 years between World Cup victories), and it would naïve of fans to expect miracles to occur overnight, but Lancaster has at his disposal the foundations of a side that could be nurtured into something reminiscent of the class of 2003.

All that being said, there is no reason why England cannot retain their Six Nations crown, and a win at the weekend in the Calcutta Cup match against a Scotland side looking for revenge after being dumped out of the World Cup by England in the group stages will certainly go along way to adding the ingredient of confidence to a recipe that currently boasts plenty of talent, potential and self-belief. Needless to say, by the end of the 80 minutes at Murrayfield amidst the vitriolic atmosphere that is synonymous with this fixture, England fans will have a decent idea as to whether the glory days of English rugby will be returning any time soon.

» Djokovic serves at the Australian Open photo: Brett Marlow, Flickr

Victoria Azarenka and Novak Djokovic should be proud of themselves after clinching the female and male singles titles at the Australian Open 2012. Both players will see their burgeoning bank accounts bloated even further to the tune of $2,300,000, yet one of the two cruised through three-set encounters against traduced opposition, including a horribly one-sided 6-3 6-0 victory in the final. The other battled through two extraordinary five-set matches, both variably described as “the best Grand Slam match in history”. How can they be receiving equal reward?

This article is not to denigrate female tennis players, or indeed to diminish the achievement of Azarenka, but to look at the bare facts. Djokovic’s semi-final match against our very own Andy Murray was a coruscating display of stamina, determination and unbelievable technical prowess, while his victory over Rafael Nadal was somehow played at an even better level.

Winning those two games of tennis took the 24-year-old Serbian 10 hours and 43 minutes, a truly monumental effort in any sport: he may not be a particularly revered national figure, but Piers Morgan emphatically struck the point home when he commented upon the irony of footballers “complaining after two 90-minute games a week”. Djokovic is currently the figurehead of his sport, ahead of two players who have been described in some quarters as the greatest of all time – Roger Federer and Nadal himself – not to forget Murray, whose undoubted class will surely bring him a Grand Slam soon.

Azarenka, meanwhile, obviously deserved her triumph in the context of the opposition put before her; her gutsy performance against Kim Clijsters in the semi-final deserves particular credit. However, she is undoubtedly competing in a significantly weaker field – that the world no.3 and former Grand Slam winner, Maria Sharapova, can be so ruthlessly dispatched in 88 minutes (as opposed to Djokovic’s 373) indicates a significant issue with the depth and consistency of women’s tennis. The demise of Serena and Venus Williams could be seen in a positive light, as it precipitates a perpetual challenge for the world no.1 spot. This regal position should be fought for tooth-and-nail, and should represent the pinnacle of one’s sporting career.

Instead, without the Williams sisters to unequivocally set a benchmark, the previous incumbent Caroline Wozniacki managed to spend 67 weeks at the top without winning a Grand Slam, while Azarenka is rewarded for her first major triumph. Federer has won 16 Grand Slams and is ranked no.3 because of the titanic struggle between himself, Nadal and Djokovic in arguably the greatest era of all time in men’s tennis. The disparity between these facts makes a mockery of the concept that female and male tennis is at anywhere near an equal level.

The counter-argument, of course, is that female players should not be punished for their lesser physical durability. However, this is to eschew the point that our capitalist society rewards productivity, and hence the requisite earth-shattering investment of effort from players such as Djokovic and Nadal should be appropriately rewarded. Should we pay part-time plumbers as much as politicians because it’s not their fault that their grasp of rhetoric and an ability to promulgate social progression is inferior?

Why aren’t amateur footballers paid as much as Premier League footballers? After all, they aren’t to blame for the gulf in quality, their intrinsic command of technical ability, height and pace is. The arguments would run and run without an acknowledgment of the centrality of productivity and effort, and the social phenomenon that is sexism should not impede clarity of view on the disparity between the states of female and male tennis.

Of course, tennis players as motivated to ascend to the top of their field as Djokovic and Azarenka are not motivated by pecuniary rewards, but by the unquenchable ambition to be the best they can be. Misty-eyed Serbians, recalling the man who stood tall as a national icon in an era of strife and discord, won’t reminisce about the pay cheque Djokovic received, but about how he slumped to the ground after finally killing off Nadal a couple of days after suppressing the seemingly irrepressible in Murray.

Yet equal pay in tennis should not be defended by repeated proclamations of sexual equality, or, worse still, the weary and unjustified cliché that “that’s just how it is”. Women’s tennis has the potential to be gripping and with quality seeping throughout the top 20, but in order to achieve parity with men’s tennis, it must first earn equal pay by ensuring the best players encounter gruelling, fascinating matches of extraordinary longevity and quality in order to inherit the chalice that Azarenka has reached. At the moment, they cannot justify this parity.

» England eventually lost the three-match series in the UAE photo: schmich, Flickr

England’s tour of the UAE got off to the worst possible start in the shape of a comprehensive 10-wicket defeat to Pakistan in the first test at Dubai. They were saved from the ignominy of a first innings defeat since January 2010, but only just; Pakistan required just 15 runs for victory in their second innings, a target that was predictably achieved without a hitch. That was one of precious few positives for England, who were embarking on their first test series since reaching the summit of the ICC Test Rankings in August.

Their recently-acquired No. 1 status meant that they were always going to be under an additional layer of scrutiny during this series, and their performance was not the resounding confirmation of their position that they would have hoped for. The batsmen in particular, with the exceptions of Matt Prior and Jonathan Trott, looked hopelessly out of their depth on a pitch which was by all accounts relatively benign.

The top six made a total of 143 runs between them with not a single half-century amongst them, and only Prior’s first innings 70* from No. 7 provided any significant resistance. Ian Bell, scorer of 950 test runs at an average of 118.75 in 2011, was out twice to Saeed Ajmal’s Doosra for scores of 0 and 4 whilst Alastair Cook, who was similarly impressive last year with 927 runs at 84.27, made only 3 and 5. Andrew Strauss and Kevin Pietersen, for so long the go-to men in England’s batting line-up, were also ineffective; the nature of Pietersen’s second innings dismissal, when he as lured into a basic hook trap by Umar Gul without troubling the scorers, was especially worrying. Eoin Morgan, still yet to make a convincing case for his long-term internment at six, played well for brief periods but ultimately failed to press on.

Despite the calamitous nature of England’s batting nothing should be taken away from Pakistan, who were deserved winners. In direct contrast to England the ‘hosts’ looked comfortable in the conditions of their home-from-home in the UAE. Simply put, they outplayed them. The visitors did not bowl badly, and plugged away consistently, but Pakistan batted patiently and sensibly which was all that was required following England’s first day capitulation.

Openers Mohammad Hafeez and Taufeeq Umar both made composed half-centuries, providing the kind of stability at the top of the order which Pakistan have so often lacked in recent years. Captain Misbah-ul-Haq, playing in his first test against England, made a similarly useful if unflashy 52, whilst wicket-keeper Adnan Akmal’s 61 included some audacious reverse-sweeps for good measure. Add to that a competent performance with the gloves and he already seems like a much better option behind the stumps than his older brother Kamran.

But it was with the ball that Pakistan really excelled. Man-of-the-match Ajmal took ten wickets in total, including a career best 7-55 in the first innings, and made England’s experienced batting line-up look like rookies with his subtle variations in pace and flight. In actual fact Ajmal did not turn the ball a great deal, and there was no sign of his new mystery delivery, the ‘teesra’, but he did not need to; England, perhaps more for mental than technical reasons, simply could not deal with him.

Not for the first time there were mutterings from some corners about the legitimacy of his action, but as long as he is cleared by the ICC to play he will be a handful for any team in the world. In England’s second innings, however, the damage was done not by a spinner but by the pace and swing of Umar Gul, who rolled over the top order to take 4-63 and prove that all is not lost in the fast-bowling department following the lengthy bans handed out to Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif for their roles in the spot-fixing controversy of 2010.

So where does this comprehensive defeat leave England? Questions about whether or not they deserve their place at the top of the test rankings are surely premature. Former Pakistan captain Javed Miandad on Friday implied that their position at No. 1 was largely down to having home advantage in their most recent tests. Not only does this comment seemingly ignore last year’s resounding Ashes win in Australia, a vital stepping-stone in England’s rise to the top, but it also makes too much of one bad performance.

Having said that, one of the marks of truly great sides is the way in which they respond to defeat, and England will have to issue an emphatic response when the second test starts on Wednesday. The batsmen in particular will have to rapidly overcome their apparent aversion to spin but they have all proved over the years that they are world-class test performers, with the exception of Morgan, and should be able to bounce back.

In any case potential replacements are not exactly crying out for inclusion. In the bowling department it is possible that Monty Panesar will be included as a second spinner, or that Steven Finn will come in for Chris Tremlett, but it is perhaps more likely that no changes will be made. After all, England may have just played a very poor test match but they can silence their doubters with a decent performance in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday.

(After the time of writing, Pakistan won the second test by 72 runs to lose the three-match series)