Valery's Ankle Essay

Lauren Glass
November 5, 2007
The Art of Valery’s Ankle
Hockey is often seen as a symbol of Canadian culture. The sport has transformed into one of Canada’s most popular past times. Although hockey requires much athletic skill, the escalating violence in the sport tends to overshadow the importance of talent and the game itself. Canada’s love of hockey overlooks and often sanctions the increasing brutality that is associated with the sport. Using this as a basis for an experimental essay film, Brett Kashmere created Valery’s Ankle. The thirty-one minute documentation of Bobby Clarke's deliberate attack on Valery Kharlamov's ankle during the 1972 Summit Series and subsequent violent incidents combines stills, previously recorded clips, music and a background narrative, by Kashmere himself, to create a basis for discussion. Because his composition was not made for popular release, Kashmere employed copyrighted works in order to generate his piece of art. Brett Kashmere questions many commonly accepted customs and socially acceptable ideals through his illustration of the danger of hockey violence, both to the players and to the art of hockey itself. Valery’s Ankle has artistically crossed, political and social boundaries enamoring both those who admirer and those who oppose the sport.
Although aggressive behavior has always been part of the sport, hockey violence has escalated to a hazardous level. This became extremely evident during the 1972 Summit Series when, in an act of desperation, Bobby Clarke, following orders from assistant coach John Ferguson, intentionally broke Valery Kharlamov's ankle (Houston). Without their star player, the Soviet Union was unable to beat Canada in the eighth and final game of the series. The 1972 Summit Series “was to be the only time in sporting history that a team - an entire nation, so boldly laid their hearts on the line; so positive that they were going to win without a doubt. To sum it up in just three words, it was, in fact, The Cold War” (Yee). Canadian victory was widely celebrated by both Canadians and Americans as it was also seen as a victory for “capitalism against communism” (Gross). In 1972, children stayed home from school and adults called into work sick in order to be able to watch the games (Yee). This win continues to be celebrated as it is often dubbed as one of Canada’s proudest moments. Spectatorship of ESPN Classic Canada increased by fourteen times when the channel replayed the series in 2002 (Houston). Even now, Clarke’s slash pails in comparison to Canada’s victory. Similar to the vast reactions to the film, there are many different interpretations of hockey violence and its affect on society in general. While many people believe it is a crucial aspect of the sport, numerous others agree that excessive violence in hockey is unnecessary, “Some people think violence occurs because hockey is an intense emotional game, but now is the time when the inaccuracy of such explanations is most clear” (Moore). Hockey is an intense sport and this intensity is frequently seen as an excuse for malice. Just as malevolent hits are illegal outside of the game of hockey, they must be stopped on the ice. The “goon tactics” (Moore) exploited during hockey matches subtracts from the sheer dexterity that is necessary to play the complicated sport and the utter brilliance of the sport itself.
Viewers of Valery’s Ankle respond differently to the film and to its questions. Some of the audience members cringe at the site of these horrendous attacks, while others marvel at the brutal nature of the sport. To Kashmere, celebration of the 1972 victory and succeeding celebrations of hockey violence should raise questions about the morality behind this violence and what it says about society in general:
Hopefully the film also provides an occasion for others to also ask questions about masculinity and success, corporate culture, organized sports, the politics of identity and nationality, nation-building etc. If anything, I think the film says: Wait a minute, something is wrong, we need to look at this problem critically and creatively (Kashmere).
Just as the 1972 Summit Series has been seen as a metaphor for the Cold War, Kashmere uses hockey as a metaphor for common social acceptances in Valery’s Ankle. Women’s hockey is not as physical as men’s hockey. It is also not nearly as popular and there are no professional women’s hockey leagues. Men have been stereotyped as being the more intimidating of the two sexes and often are taught to express their masculinity through bullying behavior. Corporate culture awards this ruthless “do anything to win” attitude and rarely calls it into question. Little boys admire their hockey heroes and often aspire to mature and be just like them. Being rewarded with large sums of money and fame only ensues that more young children will desire the notorious reputation, good and bad, associated with becoming a bully like figure.
Both conventional and unconventional forms of art are frequently used as tools for expressing oneself and getting the community involved. Through artwork, artists are able to make statements, as well as ask questions. Different interpretations of a work of art allow the viewer to embark on a journey of conversation and thought. Valery’s Ankle is Brett Kashmere’s interpretation of what hockey violence articulates about present society. By imposing interesting questions onto his audience, Kashmere creates a community of conversation, "Art in the public interest is activist and communitarian in spirit; its modes of expression encompass a variety of traditional media, including painting and sculpture, as well as untraditional media" (Kwon, 105). As Kwon states in One Place After Another, art can take many forms. Kashmere’s brilliant use of media draws the viewer into the film. Valery’s Ankle is composed of montages of stills and previously recorded excerpts from larger pieces about hockey or from actual hockey games. Many of these montages contain clips of vicious hockey fights and malicious player on player assaults. The footage is real and is put together in order to expose the viewer to the violent aspect of the sport:
While a painting, even one that meets photographic standards of resemblance, is never more than a stating of interpretation, a photograph is never less than the registering of emanation (light waves reflected by objects)—a material vestige of its subject in a way that no painting can be (Sontag, 350).
Although Kashmere raises questions through his film layout and narrative, all of the images and video are real life footage. Kashmere does not modify the images in order to force his own interpretation onto the audience. A painting, as Sontag explains, is always subjective, but a photograph is a chronicle of the past. Kashmere expresses his own views towards hockey violence through his creation of the film. The audience is able to ponder his inquiries and produce their own conclusions about themes brought into question by his portrayal. To Sontag, photographs are true historical references. Because Kashmere was not present at many of the events documented in Valery’s Ankle, photography and previously recorded media played an imperative role in the construction of his film.
Underground artwork is often used to tell a story that the artist is unable to clearly tell in the public eye. Valery’s Ankle is Brett Kashmere’s expression of art. Although he hopes for a vast audience, he also understands and appreciates the fact that because of the copyrighted material used throughout the film that it could never be a wide released movie, “The best film essays challenge traditional modes of representation and narration, so they can be difficult for mainstream audiences” (Kashmere). If Valery’s Ankle were to be more commonly released, its individuality would be compromised. Kashmere would not have been able to use the copyrighted work without being granted permission. His own identity would be called into question, rather than society’s principles. Valery’s Ankle would fall victim to our culture’s fear of speaking the unspoken and defying social customs. The film’s unconventional nature has birthed a large underground following. Instead of succumbing to Hollywood’s glamour and egotistical nature, Kashmere has remained humble. He makes countless appearances, sells Valery’s Ankle for little more than production cost and is still astonished by the success of his film and all that it has accomplished (Kashmere).
Valery’s Ankle has succeeded in becoming a piece of dialogic art. Brett Kashmere utilized his talent to create a film that forces thought and conversation. This film has sparked countless conversations about hockey, violence, and society in general. By making its way to Universities, younger generations are beginning to contemplate the importance of Kashmere’s questions. If silenced, this violence and other negative aspects of society will intensify. Creating thought and dialogue is the first step towards change. In forcing people to become active in the thinking process, Brett Kashmere’s Valery’s Ankle transgresses aspects of popular film making social questioning and communal change an art form.

Works Consulted:
Kashmere, Brett. Email Interview. 3 November 2007.

Houston, William. “Hockey series brings dramatic increases for ESPN Canada”. The Globe and Mail. 20 September 2002. 28 October 2007. .
Gross, George. “The 1972 Summit Series hardly is mentioned in Toronto these days, but in Russia, they continue to salute the historic event.” The Toronto Sun. 26 August 2007. 28 October 2007 .
Moore, Mark. “Playoff violence bad tactic; This is the part of the season when hockey should be at its best, not a time for cheap hits, writes Mark Moore.” The Toronto Star. 23 April 2007. 29 October 2007
Yee, Krystal. “Discovering the 1972 Summit Series.” 1972 Series.com A September to remember. 2007. 3 November 2007 .
Miwon, Kwon. "From Site to Community in New Genre public Art: the Case of ‘Culture in Action’" One Place After Another. 2004. MIT Press. 105.

Sontag, Susan. "The Image-World". 1977. 352.