I know where you're coming from Evelyn re the narrative stuff but for me it was a confusing dog's breakfast of images.

It lacked power and broad TV appeal. Few in Asia or Africa would have had the foggiest idea what was happening. The use of video clips was something out of a second year RMIT media studies project.

Indeed, I thought the production so low that it completely blind-sided our athletes, who have been recovering ever since.

It did tell a story but it was a sad story of decline, lack of confidence and painted a picture of a nation slowing coming to terms with the idea that its best days are behind her.

Celebrating the NHS, is to champion citizens not freely supporting their fellow countrymen, but having their money forcifully taken from them and directed into pet projects that most people would never want to pay for in the first place....projects that have a higher cost but poorer health outcomes.

The ceremony's focus on multicultural Britain ahead of historical Britain is another sign that it has lost faith in itself and now awaits a radical cultural transformation, seeing Britain as a blank canvas that is destined to be painted with the cultures of the World while denying the founding culture any place at all.

You say that as if it is a bad thing, progressive pat.

>>It... painted a picture of a nation slowing coming to terms with the idea that its best days are behind her.<<

By "best days", you presumably refer to the time of the glorious British Empire that spanned the globe and coloured a whole lot of countries pink (at least, they were pink in the atlas they gave me at school).

In which case, you are absolutely correct. And I sincerely hope that the USA manages the process in an equally dignified and responsible manner, when it finally arrive at the reality that it is not the only country in the world, but just one of many.

Jingoism is a highly tainted and dangerous attribute in the twenty-first century. While it is not possible to turn back the clock, and undo the damage caused by the kind of global adventurism that ended with the bloodshed of India's 1947 partition, or with the "lines in the desert sands" that have caused so much pain in the Middle East, it is desirable that we don't continue making the same mistakes.

And anyway, you are reading far too much into a circus event.

Pat, the days of the British Raj and Colonialism are over, happy to say!

"The ceremony's focus on multicultural Britain ahead of historical Britain is another sign that it has lost faith in itself and now awaits a radical cultural transformation."

Too right, progressive pat… We wouldn't want anyone who forgets the storytelling of the past to have to relive it would we?

I failed to notice any Jutes or Angles, and if Frisians were remembered they were more likely to be cows than humans, also there was a distinct lack of Celts and Normans though I suppose some people in the opening ceremony were Saxons unless they favoured Caledonians amongst the performers which is unlikely because like the Taexail and the Venicones (and five other tribes) they were on the other side of the walls – both Antonine and Hadrian – speaking of which, what did Roman Britain ever do for us?

Plus I noticed the PC police ensured there was no mention of the Dane's in Britain and, given the opening ceremony's location was London, it's doubly ironic that 1688 was overlooked as if the Dutch never happened… typical.

At least there was no sign of Tom Jones or the Welsh.

Personally I'm more interested in whether the Queen was paid £1 as were all the 'headline' performers at the opening ceremony – and where did Daniel Craig disappear to?

With our doubt the worst of it's kind in many years.

It says a great deal about the funding of these things that such utter garbage could have been permitted. I think it is remarkable how many critics have been so kind. Says quite a bit about them too.

One of these days we will have to make these arty farty lot earn their living by selling tickets for their lousy work. It would be nice to see them work for a living, rather than vote for it.

Never mind, Hasbeen. I hear they're going to be holding an Olympics for Philistines - I take it you'll be representing Australia?

I must admit, I thought the opening ceremony was a serious yawn with occasional well done bits. The symbolism had resonance only for the Brits. I switched off half way.

My son turns eleven this year, so this is the first Olympics that he's really taken note of. He was keen to watch the opening ceremony as it happened, so he set the alarm and we got up to watch it. I'm reasonably knowledgeable on British history, so I was able to give a running commentary on the infolding of the story during the opening ceremony - and because of that we both enjoyed it.

As Pericles points out, it is a gargantuan circus, but watching my boy race to get his world flag book to identify the countries as they "marched" out, I have to admit that my cynicism took a back seat.

I only watched a few minutes every other hour or so & found it different to say the least. But it was also an indication that we're so addicted to artificiality of romp & pomp hence so many put-downs by many comments.
It shows that people have no imagination anymore. Most opening ceremonies have so over the top it belies sense in as to why they want the ceremonies out-do the actual sporting events. That australian girl who keeps crying about only getting Silver should be given Gold for crying.

Poirot, as I said in my thread on the subject, I loved the march of the athletes. If anything it was more inspiring than some others have been, perhaps due to the camera focusing more closely on some of the individuals.

However the "blockBuster" performance that preceded the march was really bad. Any production that has to have announcements declaring what you are seeing, & effectively what to think is not worth the trouble, & definitely not worth 40 million.

We are living in modern times. I wonder why the royal family has the privilege the society in the Olympics opening ceremony (e.g. royal family has a special room) that I don't have. How can I have the same privilege as they have? They are just ordinary people. I believe it is the feudal sytem of UK which made great britain lose its superpower position after 20th century. So I think with time goes on, it should be considered when to over turn the monarchy regime which inhibits the development of UK.

djl.

In modern times, the "monarchy" does provide a money-spinner for the Brits. Much of Britain's tourism is directed at their impressive aristocratic heritage. Look at the Queen's Jubilee - the plebs love it.

I note though that the opening ceremony was a celebration of the rise , through ingenuity and entrepreneurship, of the "middle-class" and the industrialisation of the Sceptred Isle - didn't see any celebration of the Aristocracy...

I believe it is the feudal sytem of UK which made great britain lose its superpower position after 20th century.
DJI,
I think it was this what changed everything just like in Australia.

The Labour Party is a centre-left political party in the United Kingdom, and one of the two main British political parties along with the Conservative Party. The Labour Party was founded in 1900 and overtook the Liberal Party in general elections during the early 1920s...