andrea riseborough

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/film-and-tv/features/andrea-riseborough-no-virgin-780949.html

Student competition, shrt 3 minute film

Student film for Donal Macintyre, should be around 3 minutes get actors story board etc from UEL. Link below:

 http://macintyre.com/content/view/653/113/

content:

“Student Film Competition

Student Film CompetitionIn order to develop new talent we are creating a new short film competition. The rules are simple. All films should be under 3 minutes long. Applicants should be students. There will be a top prize of £1000 and a nine other prizes the details of which are to announced later. A jury  selected by Donal MacIntyre will adjudicate. There will be an additional prize for the best film dealing with issues of old age and disability. Winners will be announced on June 1st 2008. Please post video on Youtube  http://www.youtube.com/group/studentcompetition Entry is free. For competition updates please log on to www.Macintrye.com. A full note on the technical rules will be posted later. Please put your contact details with your description of the film when you place it on the youtube site.If you need any clarification please email me on donalreporter@gmail,com“

Dare Films: google map

cw1 media law

Cw1 media law A legal report on three separate stories/articles, that can be construed as potentially libellous, from “The Observer”. One of the greatest dangers of writing or publishing an article or story, is the risk of libel action because of the law of defamation. The law of defamation was developed to protect the individual’s reputation from an attack in a publication or statement, which conjures up negative estimations of the individual’s character, of right thinking members of society. The law of defamation however can be defended against by a publication or persons with the power of freedom of speech, which indicates the freedom to expose misconduct and therefore damage a reputation. The courts or a mediatory body, when considering the Defamation Act 1996, must therefore determine the balance between defamation and freedom of speech. In relation to the dangers of defamation faced by journalists, I will attempt to produce a legal report based on three separate stories or articles that is, or appears to be defamatory. I will attempt to explain in each case why the material may be construed as defamatory as defined by the law, and outline the defences available to the publisher should libel action under the Defamation Act 1996 be implemented. The first story I managed to identify, as being potentially defamatory was a story featured in The Observer’s Sport’s section of its paper on the 23^rd of September 2007 (see extract 1). To establish whether the article is defamatory we must first establish to whom it sets out to defame. The first indication of this is in the title of the story: “Turncoat Terry”, which indicates the individual in question; John Terry as having deferred to an opposite faction. Ursula Smart commented on this criterion by saying, “The words complained of must be interpreted in their context and the plaintiff is not allowed to select passages that are prima facie libellous if the passage taken as a whole is not defamatory” (Smart, U. 2006 p. 167). Therefore in order to continue reading the article as defamatory towards John Terry, the main body of the article must support the view of the headline of the said piece. Making it clear that the relationship between player and manager was not an amicable one cannot be seen as defamatory as it is intently based upon a foundation of hearsay and speculation. What makes this story to be construed as defamatory occurs after the headline, in the third paragraph in (a) “Mourinho holds Terry responsible for charges levelled by Chelsea’s board of directors that he had lost the support of his playing staff after Tuesday’s Champion’s league draw with Rosenborg…” (Castles 23^rd Sept 2007) It then continues to the fourth paragraph (b) when it says that “a dressing room source” claimed that Terry declined to take part in a pre match warm up but when finally persuaded to, arrived late. The fifth paragraph (c) claims that when criticised for his defending at half time by Mourinho, Terry refused to respond or accept responsibility. Finally in the 7^th paragraph (d), Castles states that Chelsea’s chief executive Peter Kenyon “was made aware of the dispute” who then provided this information in a board meeting “as evidence that the manager had lost the trust of key players”, and soon after Mourinho was dismissed. I shall illustrate why these four points labelled (a) to (d) can be considered defamatory as defined by the law. Points labelled (a) to (d) chronicle a series of events involving Terry and Mourinho that emphasise tension and disagreements between the two. The final point: (d), in the context of the other points, justifies the story as defamatory, for it indirectly concludes that conflict between manager and player, resulted in Mourinho’s dismissal as a result of this conflict, and John Terry being held responsible. This may constitute John Terry’s name to be tarnished amongst supporters of the club as the article clearly indicates Terry undermining the boss. As a defence, the Observer could use freedom of speech or expression, supported by the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives the journalist and publisher the right to communicate information and the right to comment. The defendant’s case would be that, information of Mourinho’s departure should be made accessible to the public, especially those who support and pay money to watch Chelsea football club. The second story of my legal report where I will assess how it may be construed as defamatory is the article “Indian Slave children making low-cost clothes destined for Gap” by Dan McDougall in “The Observer” (extract 2). The alleged defamatory statements occur in the first, second and fifth paragraphs, where as part of an investigation conducted by the “The Observer’” McDougal states that child workers (some as young as 10) were found working in textile factories to make clothes destined for ‘Gap’. He goes on to claim that the child workers were subjected to threats and beatings, and were working in “filthy working conditions”. This can be considered as defamatory as defined by the law, as it can damage the reputation of the company of Gap, by professing they use child labour to produce garments for sale. This will consequently cause potential customers to shun the store due to ethical reasons and therefore the store will lose business and its status. In this circumstance the defences available to the publisher if a libel case for defamation was brought against them would be whether they could prove the allegations were true. If so they would have a substantial case or defence. Mc Nae declared that a claimant “does not have to prove that a statement is false. If a statement is defamatory, the court assumes it is false. If the statement is in fact true and the journalist can prove it is true he has a defence” (McNae 2005, p 213). In this instance it would probably determined whether the would-be defamatory statements are true because McDougal’s article states that it is based upon an Observer investigation.  The final article of my legal report that can be construed as defamatory was the article “Accusations fly as pro-life groups clash” (Doward, J 28^th Otober 2007). The article comments on an anti- abortion group called ‘Life League’ and James Dowson, the groups founder and public face; and the defamatory statements are aimed at both parties. Doward claims that Dowson had published the home addresses of abortion clinic staff. It insinuates that Dowson lied about being a protestant minister and living in Scotland. It also raises concerns about what the ‘Life League’ does with donations from the public with Doward saying: “The Life league’s website pledges to spend donations ‘wisely’, but tracing where the money goes is difficult”. As defined by the law these statements are defamatory for it puts James Dowson and the Life League in a bad light. It transpires to Dowson and Life League as untrustworthy; lying about his personal life, and being secretive about donated money, and shows Dowson as using underhand tactics.

link to big dada

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,2198877,00.html

the observer and defamation

the Observer’s potentially libelous articles:

Indian ’slave’ children making low-cost clothing destined for Gap

Apology to John Terry over “turn coat terry” article by Duncan Castles.

x2

media guardian

Media law cw1-Question:Explain the significance a UK court ruling in one case concerning media law that has occured in the last 12 months. What are the implications of the ruling for relevant sections of the media regarding media practices or ‘media freedom’? You should use at least FOUR seperate sources for your report. You must include relevant references to at least two of the ‘key texts’ (see reading and resources)Shevchenko: Mirror to pay out (http://media.guardian.co.uk/medialaw/story/0,,2071574,00.html)
Chris Tryhorn
Thursday May 3, 2007
MediaGuardian.co.uk The Daily Mirror today agreed to pay the Chelsea footballer Andriy Shevchenko substantial libel damages over claims he acted as a “snitch” for club owner Roman Abramovich. Shevchenko’s solicitor, John Kelly, told the high court in London that the allegations, made in four articles earlier this year, had damaged his reputation, distressed him and his family and embarrassed him at Chelsea. The Mirror’s owner, Mirror Group Newspapers, accepted the allegations were untrue, apologised and agreed to pay substantial undisclosed damages as well as Shevchenko’s costs. The newspaper’s counsel, Jude Bunting, said the allegations were without foundation and ought never to have been published. Shevchenko was not present at today’s court hearing. The Mirror’s first article, entitled “Shev’s A Snitch” and published on January 16, claimed that Shevchenko’s team mates believed he was reporting on Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho to Abramovich, the club’s billionaire Russian owner. Despite a legal complaint that the article was untrue, the Mirror followed up with a story alleging that Shevchenko had asked Abramovich to replace Mourinho with AC Milan’s coach, Carlo Ancelotti. After a further complaint, the newspaper went on to claim that Shevchenko was a “dressing room spy” for Abramovich, who bought Chelsea four years ago. Mr Kelly said Shevchenko gave press interviews denying the newspaper’s allegations, and received public support from team-mates such as Frank Lampard and Didier Drogba. The Daily Mirror then printed an apology, on February 9, accepting the allegations were untrue and apologising for any distress caused. But on March 9, in an article headlined “Sheva: Yes, it’s true I’ve complained about Chelsea manager”, the paper claimed that Shevchenko had said in an interview on German TV that he had played for better coaches than Mr Mourinho and would have been happy to have left Chelsea at the start of the year. Mr Kelly said no such interview had taken place and that quotes attributed to Shevchenko by the Mirror were false. The Mirror apologised after admitting he had not given the interview.McLagan wins Reynolds appeal (http://media.guardian.co.uk/medialaw/story/0,,2188797,00.html)Author#Chris Tryhorn
Date#Thursday October 11, 2007
MediaGuardian.co.uk Investigative journalism was given a major boost today after the author of a book about police corruption won a libel victory at the court of appeal. The court found in favour of Graeme McLagan, whose book Bent Coppers was previously judged to have defamed a former Flying Squad officer, Michael Charman. Today the court of appeal unanimously overturned a high court ruling from last year, deciding that McLagan had acted responsibly when writing and researching the book. The court upheld the so-called “Reynolds defence” of qualified privilege, under which journalists can claim the right to publish material in the public interest even if they cannot prove its accuracy or it turns out to be untrue. McLagan’s victory follows a similar ruling by the House of Lords in October last year in favour of the Wall Street Journal Europe, after the paper had been sued by a Saudi billionaire businessman, Mohammed Jameel. Caroline Kean, a partner at solicitors Wiggin, which represented McLagan and his publisher, Orion, hailed the judgment as “a breath of fresh air”. “For too long newspapers and book publishers have been deterred from publishing serious investigative journalism by the threat of incredibly complex and expensive libel proceedings if they made the slightest error,” Ms Kean said. “This decision of the court of appeal has put the role of the investigative journalist back in centre stage.” McLagan, who worked as the BBC’s expert on police corruption for more than 20 years, said today’s ruling was “a victory for solid, responsible investigative journalism”. “Exposing police corruption is obviously in the public interest, as was recognised by the trial judge, the appeal court and even by Michael Charman’s own defence team.” McLagan claimed the Police Federation would incur costs of between £1m and £2m as a result of the judgment. Peter Roche, Orion’s chief executive, said it was the first time the Reynolds defence had been applied to a book. “This judgment will enable serious investigative works covering matters of public concern to be published in future and increase the freedom of debate in the UK,” Mr Roche said. During a one-week trial in June last year, lawyers for Mr Charman argued that authors of factual books should have a higher “duty of care” to verify information than journalists working for daily newspapers. Mr Justice Gray ruled against McLagan in July 2006, rejecting his use of the Reynolds defence. The qualified privilege defence takes its name from a case brought by former Irish prime minister Albert Reynolds against the Sunday Times. Its scope has been tested in a series of recent rulings, including the MP George Galloway’s legal victory over the Daily Telegraph in December 2004, and the Jameel case against the Wall Street Journal Europe. (http://media.guardian.co.uk/medialaw/story/0,,2171009,00.html)Publish and be damned… then jailed

Unless it is in the public interest, procuring an individual’s ‘personal data’ is illegal, but will the threat of a prison sentence stifle investigative journalism?

Jon Robins
Monday September 17, 2007
MediaGuardian.co.uk The evolution of a privacy law under the Human Rights Act (HRA) has grabbed the headlines because of its stellar cast, but it isn’t the only game in town. There are the echoes of HRA protection of family and private life in both the Ofcom and Press Complaints Commission (PCC) codes, but privacy is on the statute books elsewhere, too. JK Rowling’s recent tussle with the Sunday Express is a case in point. The author utilised the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) to argue that a photograph of herself, her husband and her child in the street, amounted to an unlawful and unfair use of her personal data. For Rowling, read any number of other litigants. The DPA could prove yet thornier for the media if the data protection commissioner, Richard Thomas, has his way. Thomas has proposed that anyone who might obtain, disclose or procure the disclosure of “personal data” without consent of the “data controller” under section 55 of the DPA should be sent to prison for up to two years, rather than face an unlimited fine. “It’s in no way proportionate as a penalty for somebody publishing private information,” insists Alastair Brett, legal manager at the Times. Nonetheless the Information Commissioner’s proposal has since been taken up by the Department for Constitutional Affairs (now Ministry of Justice) and is included in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. Next month it receives its second reading in the Commons. Thomas wants to close down what he sees as “a widespread and organised undercover market in confidential personal information”, one in which the media is heavily implicated. “Among the ultimate ‘buyers’ are many journalists looking for a story,” he says. His office backs up his contention with evidence of such information being supplied to 305 journalists. Brett argues that a two-year sentence is a draconian response to a problem that has seen 27 prosecutions in the last four years. Moreover, he argues that the threat of prison will have a “chilling effect” on free speech, not least among investigative journalists who are trusted by their confi dential sources to take a peek into brown paper envelopes. There is a defence if a journalist can prove that what he has done is justified as being in the public interest, but for Brett this has its inadequacies: “A journalist has to prove not that he believes what he has done is in the public interest but that it actually is in the public interest. “How can an investigative journalist know that until he has finished his investigation?” The DPA appears to be loaded against the media, so why didn’t it help JK Rowling? Caroline Kean, of Wiggin LLP, explains: “The data had been processed lawfully - that is, the taking of photographs - even though they weren’t consented to and had been taken covertly. “No deception had been practised and the taking of the photograph couldn’t be said to have been unfair.” Those seeking to be left alone by the media might also avail themselves of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, though this tackles a different kind of privacy. “Harassment relates to the right to be left alone,” explains Ruth Hoy of DLA Piper, “while the developing law of privacy relates to a person’s right not to have certain private information about them made public. “They are both rights that protect the individual and his private space, albeit separate and distinct rights.” Harassment is not defined and each case is decided on its own facts, but the media should beware: it has been established that newspaper articles can amount to course of conduct sufficient to contravene the Act - which creates both civil law remedies (an injunction and damages) as well as penalties under the criminal law. Can you stop the paparazzi?
Privacy laws may give Kate Middleton a cause of action but will they offer her any real protection?

Edgar Forbes
Wednesday January 10, 2007
MediaGuardian.co.uk The press celebrated Kate Middleton’s 25th birthday by treating her to an array of headlines and photographs cynically discussing whether she should have greater privacy protection. News International even took the seemingly altruistic step of announcing that it would not use any paparazzi pictures of Ms Middleton in any of its publications. While this may mean the Sun and News of the World default to their own snappers rather than pay over the odds for sneaky paparazzi shots, it won’t drive down demand for pictures of a person who is tipped to become a princess. While there may be an eerie similarity between the press harassment Ms Middleton is being subjected to and that which faced the young Princess Diana, the legal landscape relating to such harassment has seen a significant shift. Both refinements to the PCC code of practice and developments in the law have given greater emphasis to the need for privacy and recognition of its protection. Recent cases have made it clear that even though the public may be interested in someone as a celebrity (Naomi Campbell v Mirror) or royalty (Hannover v Germany), such interest does not of itself reduce the level of privacy protection that they should be reasonably and legally entitled to receive. The PCC code provides that it is unacceptable to photograph people in private places without their consent - this includes public places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The code also provides against “harassment or persistent pursuit”. In relation to such harassment it puts the onus on editors who must also ensure they do not use “non-compliant material” from other sources - such as freelance paparazzi. So it is perhaps with this in mind that News International has announced its own attempts at self-restraint. From a legal perspective, earlier incoherent and unsatisfactory attempts at formulating privacy protection through the use of confidentiality and common law constructs have been replaced by a tangible privacy tort. The European case of Hannover v Germany made it clear that where the public interest is not engaged through some specific activity (such as attending a public event or engagement or in Kate Middleton’s case, attending Prince William’s passing out parade at Sandhurst), then taking and publishing photographs of someone just because they are royalty, a celebrity or ‘of interest’ will amount to an invasion of privacy. In Campbell v Mirror, the House or Lords also made it clear that even celebrities who had lied about their drug addiction were still entitled to privacy protection. This shift towards greater privacy protection has been upheld in recent cases such as McKennitt v Ash and Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers (Charles’s journal case). The difficulty for Kate Middleton will lie in distinguishing between actual invasion of her privacy and the more generic harassment that may give rise to privacy breaches. If a paper published pictures of Middleton going about her ordinary or ‘private’ business then, in line with recent cases, this will give her a cause of action. The private nature of her activities will engage Article 8 of the European Convention and unless the press can demonstrate a real public interest element in their story and inclusion of the photograph then this is likely to outweigh the freedom of expression conferred under Article 10. Similarly, if a paper publishes a “non-compliant” picture it has obtained from a paparazzi or its own snapper then it will fall foul of the PCC code. This is all well and good but the real question is this: While the PCC code may deem “harassment” and “persistent pursuit” unacceptable and the law will provide a cause of action where privacy has been invaded, what can Ms Middleton actually do to prevent this happening? The answer is, very little. Here lies the flaw in the current system of privacy protection in the UK. It is largely retroactive. Harm has to have been done before a cause of action is engaged. Where the press publish photographs that breach her privacy then she can go to court but, by this stage, that which was private will have been made very public. She could apply to the court for an injunction preventing publication of pictures taken of her going about her private business but while she may be able to provide grounds for such an order it would be difficult to secure an open-ended one covering all media. Even if she were to secure protection against some or all of the UK press, this will do little to keep foreign paparazzi and publications at bay. Consumer demand will always ensure there is a price for her picture, the best she can hope for is to use the law to level the playing field on home ground. · Edgar Forbes is senior lecturer in Media Law at Bournemouth University

notes from Mc Nae

Coursework 1: A researched based legal report (1000 words)Weighting: 20%Deadline: 1st November 2007You are required to answer one of the questions below1. Explain the significance a UK court ruling in one case concerning media law that has occured in the last 12 months. What are the implications of the ruling for relevant sections of the media regarding media practices or ‘media freedom’? You should use at least FOUR seperate sources for your report. You must include relevant references to at least two of the ‘key texts’ (see reading and resources)2. Take one or more issues of a single national newspaper published after August 2007. Identify three seperate stories/articles containing material that is, or appears to be defamatory. Explain in each case why the material may be considered defamatory as defined by the law. Then explain in each case what would be the most likely defences available to the publisher in case of of an action for defamation. In your answer as a whole you need to accurately explain at least two seperate defenses and explain why each would be an appopiate defense in regard to the material in your chosen stories. Finally, in each case, state whether you think the publisher faces any actual risk of action for defamation and briefly state the reasons fo your judgement.You should photocopy and attach the original newspape articles. You should avoid mere narrative description and ensue you explain the accurately and fully in each case. You must include relevant references to at least two of the ‘key texts’ (see reading and resources)You are required to submit a 1,00o word report. Your answer should be typed and containacurate references and a separate bibliography         Defamation: a brief introductionThe law exists to protect the reputation of the individual (both his moral reputation and professional) from unjustified attack. This attack can be dealt with in a civil or criminal matter. Defamation under Civil law is dealt with as a Tort, where financial damages can be awarded to the successful claimant.The principle is the same as that involved in an action for damages brought by someone who has been physically injured by the result of another mans act, whether by negligence or by premeditated actions.From Media solicitor’s .co.uk:  The law of defamation protects the reputation of individuals from any unjustified attack. It tries to balance the individual’s rights with freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. Therefore, the law provides not only ways for people to safeguard their reputation and win compensation, but also puts in place defences to allow  for defamatory statements being made for justifiable reasons.  Publications are often reluctant to pursue cases because they can be expensive and it can often be difficult to prove the truth of an article in court. Defamation v Freedom of speech: The law of defamation tries to strike a balance between the individual’s right to have his reputation protected and freedom of speech, which implies the freedom to expose wrong doing and thus to damage the reputation. Case study: Living MarxismNewspapers are often reluctant to fight defamation cases, because the outcomes of such cases are unpredictable, therefore a publication has to consider how much money is involved if it loses. A substantial award against a publication can cause great difficulty or even closure. In 2000 the magazine Living Marxism, went into liquidation and ceased publication after a jury awarded £375,000 in damages to two ITN television reporters, for an article in the magazine that accused them of sensationalising the image of a withered Muslim picture through barbed wire at a Serb run detention camp in Bosnia. Libel cases:The amount of damages awarded in a libel case in regards to defamation, is difficult to ascertain. It differs from a personal injury case; where the judge can decide the amount of money awarded to a successful claimant, by assessing the value of say a limb, an eye or even a life by the application of certain standards (e.g. a person’s age and earning capacity). Before a change in the law in 1990 the amount of damages in libel cases were determined by the jurors, now however The Court of Appeal can  substitute its own award when a jury award is said to be excessive or inadequate. 

Possible questions for Music, sound..3500-4000 word essay

1. Boy bands/singers and the effect on the female sex: or and reverse the gender.
2. How black music has influenced white music and then back again.
3. Can music and politics co-exist together/ can they mix?
4. Nas said hip hop is dead. To what extent do you feel this statement to be true?
5. How far has rhythm and blues influenced rock and roll?
6. Why does new musical genres evolve in certain demographics? (eg. Madchester, detroit Motown, Mersey beat…)

Rock and roll wikipedia

Hip hop music wikipedia

Hip hop wikipedia

Madchester wikipedia

Rhythm and blues wikipedia

Blues wikipedia

Black Panther Video

Vice mag interview with Bobby Seale 

Zidane from the independent

ZZ: Magnifique Zidane is primed for a glorious swansong

France invest hope in the ancien régime and their playmaker’s enduring skills

By Nick Townsend, Chief Sports Writer

Published: 09 July 2006

 

 

Zidane prepares for the final against Itlay

Pele and Bobby Moore struck the original iconic pose of mutual admiration. This was rather different, after Portugal had been cast aside, not contemptuously, but with an hauteur that had eluded France early in their campaign. As the benches raged, in and around the tunnel area, after the final whistle at Munich’s Allianz Arena, there was a respectful, almost discreet, embrace and shirt swap between Zinedine Zidane and Luis Figo as another luminary departed this World Cup and possibly the international theatre, the French maestro having already seen off Brazil’s Ronaldo.

Now for what had been declared an implausible quest in Berlin tonight. Dare a vibrant Italy finally prod Zidane and awaken him from his dream?

“We don’t want to stop now,” Zizou had said after he and Thierry Henry had combined successfully against Brazil in the quarter-finals - astonishingly, the first time he had fashioned a goal for the Arsenal striker in 55 internationals together. “This is so beautiful we want it to carry on.” That was eight days ago. It has continued, an epic which is achieving almost biblical proportions. The Return of the Prodigious Son.

Zidane’s lesson to the misanthropists makes for extraordinary reading. He claimed he had been told by a presence in the middle of the night last year to reconsider his original decision to retire after France’s wretchedness in 2002 and 2004. Les Bleus Brothers - Zidane, Claude Make-lele and Lilian Thuram - had all retired. But after the playmaker returned last summer, Makelele succumbed, and then Thuram was selected against his will and reluctantly followed them.

The France coach, Raymond Domenech, believes in enriching his players culturally as well as tactically. He used to take his Under-21 players to museums and monuments, and had promised to do the same with his seniors in Germany. A month ago, Zidane was regarded as not much more than a fascinating artefact himself. Better to watch newsreel footage of France 98, in which he headed two goals against Brazil, and Euro 2000 than the real thing. Nothing too extravagant was expected of him, or a France squad who managed no fewer than five draws in their qualifying campaign, and whose pre-tournament “bonding session” in the Alps apparently ended with a row between the goalkeepers Fabien Barthez and Grégory Coupet.

France rejoiced at the trium-virate of the ancien régime - Zidane, recently turned 34, the same age as Thuram, and Make-lele, 33, and even Patrick Vieira was now 30 - but it was a reaction laced with scepticism. The hearts of the returnees were still strong. It was the legs that would fail them, it was said.

Two undistinguished exhibitions and a brace of cautions in two draws, against Switzerland and South Korea, deprived Zidane of participation in the Group G decider. It would be an ignominious conclusion if Les Bleus were eliminated, and, indeed, they were half an hour from that fate. The three-times World Player of the Year watched that match from the dressing room on his 34th birthday, ready to depart swiftly and quietly.

But France won 2-0 and Zidane was back for the second-round match, against Spain. “Au revoir,” the Spain followers goaded him at corners, for there is no absolute respect enjoyed or expected in world football until you are, metaphorically, enclosed securely as an exhibit in a glass cabinet. Yet, possessing the cold eye and deadly presence of a killer shark, his authority against Spain was total. He sensed blood, and he and his team-mates gorged themselves on the wounded flesh, scoring a splendid goal in added time in a 3-1 win that was the defining moment in France’s campaign.

“Watching Zizou play must make others feel they should stop,” his fellow midfielder Vieira reflected. “It also makes you wish he would carry on.”

Brazil felt the force as France drew renewed energy from that victory and Zizou continued in revivalist mode, one that had appeared unlikely indeed during the latter months of his career at Real Madrid, where he had cancelled the remaining year of his contract in April.

“Zidane was fantastic… he was everywhere, demanding the ball, controlling the play,” enthused Pele. “Coming to the World Cup, he knew every game could be his last, and he has given everything he has in fighting spirit, the spirit we never saw from Ronaldo or Ronaldinho.” The French Federation president, Jean-Pierre Escalettes, offered the ultimate accolade: “Zidane was the most Brazilian of all tonight.”

Thierry Henry was, typically, more analytical after his Zidane-created goal had denied Brazil an opportunity to claim a sixth World Cup. “People point to Zizou coming into the game more, but that’s because the team is playing better as a whole,” he said. “We are more compact as a unit, we can support Zizou more, and as a result he is able to express himself more on the ball and have more of an influence.”

France did not have to perform with distinction against Portugal, whom even Luiz Felipe Scolari failed to galvanise into a cohesive whole. Yet, in his way, Zidane still mesmerised and reflected a superiority which pervaded Domenech’s team. Their penalty may have been a dubious award, but Zidane, in an instant, demonstrated to England’s wretched spot-kickers how to outwit Ricardo. Never a doubt.

Arsenal’s manager, Arsène Wenger, a pundit for French TV, declared afterwards: “Everybody is so happy for him [Zidane], because after the Togo game voices were raised in France, asking whether he should still be in the team. Then he took us to the final, and maybe he has a chance to win a second World Cup. Technically, he is still so good.”

The France coach concurred. “He’s a magical player who makes the ball come alive and makes others play,” said Dome-nech, whose influence over les grandes bêtes of French football has more than once been called into question. “It’s precisely because he is retiring that Zidane is playing so well. He doesn’t have to calculate anything. He has played with freedom and expression because he knows every game could be his last.”

This evening, on which Zidane earns his 107th cap, will be the curtain call, come what may, of a career that begun for this son of Algerian immigrants in the tough La Castellane district in Marseilles. Will there be encores for the man, who apart from any other consideration, has helped to foster racial tolerance? One suspects that Italy’s coach, Marcello Lippi, the tournament’s best player, the defender Fabio Cannavaro, and characters such as Gennaro Gattuso will have something to say about that yet. As Wenger warns: “To win this game, we will need a big Thierry and a big Zidane.”

Who would deny that possibility in this of all cities? Life truly is a cabaret, old chum.

FROM A TO ZZ: ANATOMY OF A FRENCH ARISTOCRAT

Brain

France’s Zinedine Zidane exudes calm under the most intense pressure, which makes him an ideal penalty-taker. This sang-froid is allied to rapid analysis and spatial awareness, so that he is always on hand to receive the ball.

Eyes

With brooding brows giving him one of the most expressive faces in the game, Zidane also seems to have eyes in the back of his head. An uncanny anticipation of the positioning of team-mates and opponents buys him crucial milliseconds.

Balance

Despite a lumbering frame, Zidane glides across the turf. He has a full repertoire of tricks, yet they are so subtle compared to the efforts of others that it is as if they are not happening - flummoxing defences.

Heart

Zidane is sans pareil, the emblem of world football. He is the heartbeat of the France team, in terms of both passion and focus, and a standard-bearer of the disenfranchised ethnic communities in France’s banlieux.

Feet

Sitting behind the front line, he shoots with curl and pace from long range, making him a dead-ball specialist as well as supplementary striker. He picks out pinpoint passes with either foot and delivers them with perfect weight.