By Devon Birdsong | Pounding The Rock (PtR), 2026-06-14 19:30:18
我是罗杰·伊伯特 (Roger Ebert) 的忠实粉丝。我想，在某种程度上，我现在依然是。
每当我看一部我知道是在2013年4月之前制作的电影时，电影一结束，我就会迫不及待地去查阅他的影评，好奇我们的评价是否大致相同。
大约有四分之三的时候，我都会欣喜地发现，作为观众，我们有着相似的观影体验。
对我来说，这非同寻常。我其实并不在乎影评人。然而，这在很大程度上是因为当下评论界普遍存在的傲慢风气，而不是因为不同意见本身有什么问题。
没有哪个评论家能保证每一次评估都完全正确。我也非常喜欢已故的哈罗德·布鲁姆 (Harold Bloom) 的文学评论，我同意并非常享受其中大约60%的内容。
百分之六十的契合度在两个独立个体之间绝非小数。事实上，当考虑到性格、背景、教育和地域归属等因素时，能与任何人在这种程度上达成共识，都可以算是一个小小的奇迹了。
正如历史反复证明的那样，我们人类并不是一个容易达成共识的物种。
托马斯·莫尔 (Thomas More) 爵士深谙此道，因此他创造了“乌托邦 (Utopia)”这个词，作为一个巧妙的语言双关。希腊语前缀“Ou”和“Eu”在读音上如此相似，以至于大声念出来时几乎无法区分。
然而，它们对词义的影响却有着天壤之别：“Eutopos”意为“美好之地”，而“Outopos”则意为“不存在之地”。
这两个截然相反的含义都包含在同一个词中——这与“NBA总决赛”这个词颇有异曲同工之妙。
虽然现在评论界对莫尔的著作《乌托邦》(Utopia) 的看法基本一致，认为这部已有500年历史的文献本质上具有讽刺意味，但对于莫尔具体在讽刺什么，依然存在着巨大的分歧。
有人认为他的矛头指向的是君主制。另一些人则认为他针对的是天主教、基督教，甚至是整个宗教。
随着时间的推移，这个清单变得越来越长，其中包括（除其他外）新教改革、英国国教、柏拉图式人道主义、外交政策、殖民主义、政治、刑法典、唯物主义、资本主义、宗教不宽容，甚至还有他朋友的一本书（伊拉斯谟的《愚人颂》）。
而关于每一种解读和论点，最引人入胜的地方在于，它们以一种微妙的方式，更多地揭示了提出这些观点的人本身，而不是莫尔那些至今仍有些模糊的真实意图。
这与人们在体育迷的评论和意见中可能发现的启示并没有太大的不同。
在圣安东尼奥马刺队七次总决赛之旅中仅遭遇第二次系列赛失利之后，现在外界显然充斥着各种各样的声音。
针对米奇·约翰逊 (Mitch Johnson) 和达龙·福克斯 (De’Aaron Fox) 的口诛笔伐终于找到了宣泄的契机，纷纷抬头。就好像这些意见以前并不存在，只是在胜利的掩盖下，因为当时缺乏舆论市场而暂时被压制了下去一样。
情绪化的长篇大论层出不穷，要求交易或裁掉半数阵容，并解雇关键教练组成员。也有看似深思熟虑的分析，试图将失望的重担转移到更容易让人接受的事情上。
那些表达感激的言辞，掩盖了长期以来对球队实现最高目标能力缺乏信心的事实。而深沉的悲伤则表明，对更好结果的期盼，曾是支撑其他某种信念结构或基石的唯一支柱。
几乎每一个马刺球员都在承受着指责或赞美，而这些评价方式似乎表明了评价者对该球员有着非常特定或个人的偏见。
坦白说，这很正常。这很自然。这就是人性。
在单场比赛的过程中，更不用说在单个系列赛，乃至整个季后赛中，我都无法（也做不到）让自己免于在不同时刻产生这些情绪。我不得不承认这一点。
这就是我对评论家（以及记者）的核心意见所在。我不介意我们意见不合。我也不介意他们可能会犯错。
我最介意的是，有人拒绝承认自己的观点（以及由此产生的意见）可能会受到成千上万种不同偏见和既得利益的影响。
而且，他们甚至可能根本意识不到这一点。
公平地说，没有人能完全意识到自己所有的偏见。如果能做到这一点，那就不再是人类了。
但我对那些无法承认自己存在偏见的评论家，就像对那些无法承认自己有主队、从而可能影响其言论的体育记者一样，毫无敬意。
（看着记者和球迷在有尼克斯参与的总决赛中，极力维护迈克·布林 (Mike Breen) 作为解说员的公正性，真是让我气不打一处来）
我想这也是我如此喜爱伊伯特的一个重要原因。尽管他作为杰出影评人享有极高的社会声望，但他经常坦诚地面对自己持保留意见的本质。
在我看来，他的评估对多错少，但他也不介意重新审视和评估那些他知道自己看走眼的电影。
而在2002年，他对我最喜欢的电影——《毁灭之路》(Road To Perdition) 的评价就错了。
在将这部电影与科波拉标志性的《教父》(Godfather) 进行对比时，他将两者的区别比作“索福克勒斯与莎士比亚的区别”，并总结说他更喜欢莎士比亚，称《毁灭之路》是一部冰冷预设（尽管令人钦佩）的悲剧。
莎士比亚（以及整个西方戏剧）都受到索福克勒斯作品的启发和影响，这一事实不知为何被他忽略了。正如他自己所承认的那样，这似乎是因为他更倾向于追求一种更强烈的自由意志幻觉。
在那些不愿简单承认自己更喜欢莎士比亚的人身上，我也遇到过类似的观点。
这种观点认为，哈姆雷特意外地将心爱之人逼上绝路而不是送去修道院避难，或者李尔王未能认出那个拒绝奉承他的女儿的忠诚与爱，不知为何比奥菲斯回头寻找欧律狄刻，或者奥德修斯的爱犬阿耳戈斯在苦苦等待主人20年后，凭气味认出他并摇起尾巴，随后心脏衰竭而死，更加令人接受或动容。
悲剧就是悲剧。我们只能通过它对我们的打动程度来衡量它。
看着一个一生作恶的父亲竭尽全力阻止儿子重蹈覆辙的悲剧，绝不亚于一个黑手党父亲不得不向殡仪馆老板求助，以应对他在让对方欠下人情时无法预料的后果的悲剧。
看着雷·阿伦 (Ray Allen) 在拉里·奥布莱恩杯近在咫尺时亲手熄灭邓肯率领的马刺队的胜利火焰，其悲剧色彩与看着文班带领的这支年轻新军一次次葬送领先优势、明知结局却无能为力的悲剧是相通的。
这两者对我的伤害同样深重，只是方式完全不同。
一个是在胜利的边缘功败垂成，另一个则是从未真正接近过胜利。
这就是希腊悲剧的特点：你可以无休止地警告主角，却起不到任何实际效果。你可以给他们建议和指导，却只能眼睁睁地看着他们依然犯下错误。
就算你是代达罗斯·波波维奇 (Daedalus Popovich)（不用去查了，这绝对就是他的姓氏），古希腊神话中最伟大的发明家，你的儿子也依然会忘记或无视你的警告。
而且，同样悲惨的是，人们最终会忘记你的警告其实包含两个方面——既不要飞得太高，也不要飞得太低。他们会忘记你的故事实际上关于平衡（而非野心），而这恰恰是“伊卡文班 (Icawemby)”和那些年轻的马刺球员所缺乏的，也是让他们付出最惨痛代价的东西。
你以为提前知道结局就会少痛一些吗，伊伯特？得了吧。你是在和一个心甘情愿坐在那里、看着马刺和尼克斯在最后几秒互相犯规、任由自己的心被一次次撕碎的人说话，而他早在第四节过半时就知道这场比赛（以及这个系列赛）已经结束了！
难道你以为普罗米修斯承受的痛苦会少一些，仅仅因为他早就知道老鹰每天都会来啄食他的肝脏吗？！
但我现在却在这里，为一个快有四分之一世纪历史的影评抱怨个不停，只希望这种怨气能以某种方式阻止我去回想这个刚刚结束的赛季。
事实是，这确实起了一会儿作用。在宣泄怨恨的过程中，我几乎忘记了这一切的起因。愤怒是一种强效的麻醉剂。（一些研究甚至将其效果与可卡因相提并论）
我隐约觉得，人类的局限性才是莫尔《乌托邦》的主题——这种局限性如此深地植根于我们的痛苦和愤怒之中，以至于我们注定只能生活在“美好之地”与“不存在之地”之间的边缘地带。
马刺队正生活在这些边缘地带。他们的球迷也是如此。但这没关系，因为每个人都生活在这里。
尼克斯队夺冠后的世界，也不会比银黑军团夺冠更像乌托邦。
噢，他们可能会获得几天的喘息时间，但随后一切又将回到现实。然后，他们将继续去追寻那个不存在的地方。
这是一次高尚的追寻，而马刺队只是功亏一篑。
这是悲剧，是教训，也是生活。我已经迫不及待地期待下个赛季了。
毫无疑问，我已经准备好再次受伤了。
总结与启示
- 这真是一场不折不扣的肉搏战系列赛。没有哪场比赛的分差超过10分，其中有4场比赛的分差在4分或以内。在Twitter/X上，有人提出这是否是总决赛历史上竞争最激烈的五场系列赛，这是一个合理的问题，因为在我的记忆中，没有任何证据可以反驳这一断言。老实说，我非常震惊竟然没有一场比赛打进加时。虽然我知道这远非对失利最抚慰人心的评论，但这确实表明了马刺距离成功已经有多么接近。我们可以尽情谈论期望，但现实是这支球队以极其微弱的差距与胜利失之交臂，这意味着某些人极力鼓吹的彻底推倒重建并不一定必要。是的，马刺必须再增加一名得分手（投射型）。尼克斯的防守暴露了马刺在这一位置上的深度不足。同样暴露的还有前场深度的匮乏，在卢克·科内特 (Luke Kornet) 之外，球队几乎没有其他阵容选择。值得庆幸的是，马刺已经拥有修补这两个漏洞的资源。当然，也不要低估文班、斯蒂芬·卡斯尔 (Stephon Castle) 和迪伦·哈珀 (Dylan Harper) 这三位年轻新星进一步成长所带来的连锁反应。我预计马刺会审时度势并相应地增强球队实力，但我也认为他们的行动可能会比预期的更具紧迫感，因为合同续约已经迫在眉睫。这可能不像某些人希望的那样刺激或令人满意，但即使马刺只是在球迷的极端渴望与他们一贯缓慢的步伐之间折中，那也将是一个极其精彩的休赛期。
- 我不认为达龙·福克斯会被交易。然而，如果他真的被交易，我认为最有可能在接下来的9天左右发生，要么在选秀大会之前，要么在选秀大会期间。随着扬尼斯进入市场，以及现行CBA（劳资协议）对薪资空间操作的激励，必然会有很多球队出于各种原因寻求交易球员，而马刺正处于利用这一局面的有利位置。如果历史可以作为参考，选秀大会是马刺不排斥进行交易的窗口，所以请保持关注。另一方面，马刺也擅长将顺位靠后的选秀权转化为阵容中的黄金，所以如果他们选中了某个在选秀中顺位下滑的球员，也不要感到惊讶。无论如何，如果福克斯最终没有离队，我想你可以期待下赛季会有更多的三后卫阵容。在福克斯和卡斯尔合力投出25投4中的夜晚，哈珀简直是上天赐予的礼物，他已经成长到能够帮助球队稳住局面的地步。如果下赛季这些后卫每人每场比赛都能获得30分钟以上的出场时间，这将导致一些有趣的轮换调整和变化。所以，准备好迎接一些奇特的变化吧，因为马刺从未陷入过如此令人羡慕的甜蜜烦恼中，我不确定我们中是否有人能预测他们将如何平衡这一点。
- 我之前谈过朱利安·尚帕尼 (Julian Champagnie) 可能会在休赛期获得续约，我认为这完全不会让人感到为难，但阵容中有两份有趣的合同——德文·瓦塞尔 (Devin Vassell) 和凯尔登·约翰逊 (Keldon Johnson)，这可能会决定他们在未来几个赛季与球队的去留。值得注意的是，凯尔登的合同将在下赛季结束后到期，这让我想知道在获得最佳第六人奖项后，马刺会如何处理他的合同。由于卡斯尔、哈珀和文班的合同未来都可能带来巨大的薪资压力（更不用说福克斯了），我们极有可能在未来一两年内不得不与德文或凯尔登（甚至两人）告别。这真的让我希望马刺能把下个赛季变成一次复仇之旅，让这两个在无缘争冠的岁月里默默耕耘、毫无怨言的球员，能够尝到夺冠的滋味。
- 在进入系列赛之前，我曾担心圣安东尼奥在篮板和三分球方面的相对劣势，事实证明，这确实足以致命，但实际差距并没有我预期的那么大（尼克斯场均比马刺多出大约1个篮板和1个三分球）。我没有预料到的是，马刺在罚球线上的挣扎如此严重，以至于最终葬送了整个系列赛。昨晚他们的罚球命中率仅为63%，在此过程中错失了7个非常关键的分数。这是他们在总决赛中罚球命中率在70%或以下的两场比赛之一。我很想看看他们下赛季的罚球表现会如何。我知道如果是我，出于极度的愤怒，我会整天、每天都去练罚球。事实证明，你永远无法逃脱基本功的羁绊。这确实是整个系列赛的缩影。
今日谢幕曲——今晚的主题歌：
In a Big Country —— Big Country 乐队
由生成式 AI 翻译，译文内容可能不准确或不完整，以原文为准。
点击查看原文：What we learned from the Spurs gut-wrenching, soul-crushing, series-ending Game 5 loss the Knicks
What we learned from the Spurs gut-wrenching, soul-crushing, series-ending Game 5 loss the Knicks
I was a big fan of Roger Ebert. I suppose, in a way, I still am.
Any time I watch a film that I know was made prior to April of 2013, I scramble to look it up after the movie is over, curious to see if our assessments are in the same ballpark.
About three-quarters of the time, I’m delighted to find that we shared a similar experience as viewers.
This is, for me, a big deal. I do not care for critics. However, this is largely due to the prevailing nature of critical disposition, rather than an issue with dissenting opinions themselves.
There is no critic who gets every assessment right. I was also very fond of the literary criticism of the late Harold Bloom, and I agreed with/fully enjoyed about 60% of it.
Sixty percent is no small amount of agreement between two human beings. In fact, when one considers factors such as personality, background, education, and regional affiliation, it might be considered some degree of minor miracle to agree with anyone to that extent.
We are not, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, an agreeable species.
Sir Thomas More understood this when he coined the word ‘Utopia’ as a clever linguistic pun. The Greek prefixes of ‘Ou’ and ‘Eu’ are so similar in phonetic pronunciation that they are more-or-less indistinguishable when the word is spoken aloud.
The difference in their effect on the meaning of the word is, however, substantial, with ‘Eutopos’ translating to ‘the good place’ and ‘Outopos’ translating to ‘no place’.
Both of those meanings are contained within the same word — not unlike the phrase ‘NBA Finals’.
And while critical opinion of More’s book Utopia is now largely united in agreement that his now-500-year-old text is satirical in nature, there’s still a lot of disagreement about what More was satirizing in particular.
Some believe that his target was the monarchy. Others are of the opinion that he was targeting Catholicism, Christianity, or even religion as a whole.
Time goes on, and the list grows longer to include (among others) The Protestant Reformation, The Church of England, Platonic Humanism, Foreign Policy, Colonialism, Politics, Penal Codes, Materialism, Capitalism, Religious Intolerance, and even one of his friend’s books (Erasmus’s ‘In Praise of Folly’).
And the fascinating thing about each suggestion and argument is that they have this subtle way of telling you more about the individuals who proposed them than about More’s actual intentions, which remain somewhat nebulous.
It’s not terribly dissimilar from the revelations a person might encounter in the critiques and opinions of the fans of a sports team.
And there are certainly a lot of opinions floating around out there right now, in the wake of what is only San Antonio’s 2nd series loss in seven attempts.
Tirades about Mitch Johnson and De’Aaron Fox that have been waiting until the opportune time to rear their heads, as if they weren’t preexisting opinions that were occasionally held back in the wake of victory, for lack of receptivity at the time.
Hair-trigger monologues demanding the trades and/or releases of half the roster and the firing of critical staff. Thoughtful analysis shifting the weight of disappointment to something more palatable.
Exercises in gratitude that belie a long-standing lack of faith in the team’s ability to accomplish the loftiest of goals. Deep reservoirs of sadness that suggest that hope for a better outcome was holding together the structure or foundation of something else.
Almost every Spur receiving blame or adulation in a way that seems indicative of a very particular or personal preoccupation with the player.
And honestly, this is fine. This is natural. This is human.
I do not (and cannot) exempt myself from feeling any-and-all of these things at different times in the course of a single game, much less a single series, or, for that matter, postseason. I cannot help but admit that.
Which is the crux of my issue with critics (and journalists). I don’t mind if we disagree. I don’t mind that they might be wrong.
What I mind, most of all, is a refusal to admit that one’s viewpoint (and therefore, opinion) might be subject to any one of a million different prejudices and points of vested interest.
And moreover, that one might not even be able to see it.
And to be fair, no one is perfectly aware of all of their partialities. To be so would involve being something other than human.
But I have no more respect for the critic who cannot admit to bias than I do for the sports journalist unable to admit that they have a favorite team that might color some of their discourse.
(Watching journalists and fans defending Mike Breen’s impartiality as a commentator in a championship final featuring the Knicks infuriated me to no end)
And I think that’s a big part of why I had such a fondness for Ebert, who, despite his social prominence as a preeminent film critic, was frequently honest about the nature of his reservations.
He was, in my opinion, much more often right than wrong in his evaluations, but he was also not above revisiting and reassessing films that he knew he had been wrong about.
And in 2002, he was wrong about my favorite film of all time, ‘Road To Perdition’.
Contrasting the film with Coppola’s iconic Godfather, he compares the difference between them to “the difference between Sophocles and Shakespeare”, summarizing that he prefers Shakespeare, calling Perdition a coldly preordained (though admirable) tragedy.
That Shakespeare (and the whole of Western drama) was inspired and influenced by the works of Sophocles is an observation that somehow escapes him. By his own admission, it appeared to be the result of his preference for a stronger illusion of free will.
And this is an opinion I’ve encountered in those unwilling to simply admit that they prefer Shakespeare.
This idea that Hamlet accidentally driving his beloved to suicide rather than the safety of a nunnery, or Lear failing to recognize the faithfulness and love of a daughter who refuses to flatter him is somehow more palatable or moving than Orpheus looking back for Eurydice, or Odysseus’s dog Argos recognizing him by scent and wagging his tail before his heart gives out, after 20 years spent waiting for his master.
Tragedy is tragedy. We can only measure it by how it moves us.
The tragedy of watching a father who has lived his life in villainy do everything he can to prevent his son from meeting the same fate is no less than the tragedy of a mafioso father having to call in a favor with an undertaker for an outcome he couldn’t foresee when he indebted him.
The tragedy of watching Ray Allen snuff out the victory of Duncan’s Spurs in sight of the Larry O’Brien is inseparable from the tragedy of watching Wemby’s team of young upstarts give up lead after lead and knowing what the outcome will most likely be.
Both of them wounded me equally, just in completely different ways.
One was on the cusp of victory. The other never truly looked close.
And that’s the thing about Greek tragedy: you can warn the protagonist endlessly and have no real effect. You can give them the advice and guidance and watch them make the mistake anyway.
It doesn’t matter if you’re Daedalus Popovich (no need to check, that was totally his last name), the greatest mythical inventor of Greek antiquity — your son is still going to forget/ignore your warning.
And, almost as tragically, eventually people are going to forget that your warning was twofold — to neither fly too high, nor too low. They’re going to forget that your story was actually about balance (not ambition), the very thing Icawemby and those young Spurs were lacking, and that cost them the most.
You think that knowing the ending makes it hurt less, Ebert? Please. You’re talking to someone who willingly sat there getting his heart repeatedly ripped out as the Spurs and Knicks traded fouls in the closing seconds of a game (and series) that he had known was over halfway through the quarter!
Did you somehow imagine that Prometheus experienced less pain because he already knew that the eagle was coming to rip out and devour his liver each day?!
But here I am, bellyaching about a review that is almost a quarter of a century old, in the hopes that the animus will somehow keep me from thinking about how the season just ended.
And the thing is, it was kind of working there for a minute. In nursing my grudge, I had almost forgotten what this whole thing was about. Anger is a potent narcotic. (Some studies have compared its effect to that of cocaine)
I have this sneaking suspicion that human fallibility was the subject of Thomas More’s Utopia — the fallibility so deeply rooted in our pain and anger that we are doomed to live in the borderlands between the good place and no place.
The Spurs are living in those borderlands. So are their fans. But that’s okay, because that’s where everyone lives.
The Knicks aren’t going to find that championship any more utopic than the silver-and-black would have.
Oh, they might get a few more days of respite, but then it’s back to real life. Then they get to resume their pursuit of the place that cannot be.
It’s a noble pursuit, and the Spurs came up just short.
It’s a tragedy. It’s a moral lesson. It’s life. And I can’t wait for next year.
No doubt about it. I am ready to get hurt again.
Takeways
- What an absolute rock-fight of a series. Not a single game was decided by more than 10 points. 4 games were decided by 4 points or less. On Twitter/X the question was posed as to whether this was the most competitive 5-game series in Finals history, and it’s a fair question because nothing in my memory stirs to contradict the assertion that it was. I’m honestly shocked that we didn’t have a single contest go to overtime. And while I understand that it’s far from the most soothing commentary on the loss, it really is an indicator of how close the Spurs already are. We can talk about expectations all we want, but the reality is that this team missed by a painfully small margin, and that means that the wholesale changes that some are stumping for aren’t necessarily needed. Yes, the Spurs have got to add one more scorer (of the shooting variety). The lack of depth in that department was exposed by the Knicks’ defense. As was the lack of depth in the front-court, where there was really no lineup option outside of Luke Kornet. Thankfully, the Spurs already have the resources to patch both of those holes. And of course, don’t discount the rippling effect of further growth from the young trio of Wemby, Castle, and Harper. I expect the Spurs to pick their spots and strengthen the team accordingly, but I also think they may move with more urgency than expected, with contract extensions on the very near horizon. It’s not as sexy or as satisfying as some might like, but even if the Spurs were to split the difference between the extremity of fan desires and their typically slow-moving pace, that would be one hell of an off-season.
- I don’t think De’Aaron Fox is going to get traded. However, if he were, I think you’d be most likely to see it happen in the next 9 days or so, either prior to or during the draft. With Giannis on the market and the current CBA incentivizing cap gymnastics, there are bound to be a lot of teams looking to move players for a variety of reasons, and the Spurs are in a good place to capitalize on that. If history is any indicator, the draft is an opening the Spurs are not uncomfortable making moves within, so keep your eyes peeled. On the other hand, the Spurs also have a knack for turning later picks into roster gold, so don’t be shocked if they hit on someone taking a draft tumble instead. In any case, if Fox doesn’t end up on the move, I think you can expect more three-guard lineups next season. On a night where Fox and Castle combined to go 4-25, Harper was a godsend and is already at the point that he can keep the team afloat. If each of those guards gets 30+ minutes per game next year, it’s going to lead to some interesting rotational quirks and changes. So, get ready for some weirdness, because the Spurs have never really been in such an enviable pickle, and I’m not sure any of us can predict how they’re going to balance it out.
- I’ve talked about the likely Champagnie extension coming in the off-season, and I don’t think that’ll be painful at all, but there are two interesting contracts on the roster in Devin Vassell and Keldon Johnson that may make or break their time with the team in the coming seasons. It’s worth noting that Keldon’s is the one expiring after next season, and it makes me wonder how the Spurs will play that after his 6th Man of the Year award. With Castle, Harper, and Wemby’s contracts all likely to come with some serious sticker shock (not to mention Fox’s), it’s very likely that we’ll be saying goodbye to one (or both) of Devin and Keldon in the next year or two. It really makes me hope that the Spurs will turn next season into a revenge tour so that those two can taste championship victory after so many uncomplaining years toiling in non-contention.
- Coming into the series, I was concerned about San Antonio’s relative weaknesses in rebounding and three-point shooting, which turned out to be just enough to be fatal, but was actually not as considerable a difference as I had anticipated (the Knicks averaged about 1 rebound and 1 three-pointer per game more than the Spurs). What I didn’t anticipate was the Spurs struggling at the free-throw line so significantly that it ultimately cost them the series. They shot 63% from the free-throw line last night, missing out on 7 very crucial points in the process. It was one of two Finals games in which they shot 70% or worse from the line. I’m curious to see what their free-throw shooting ends up being like next season. I know I’d be shooting them all day, every day, out of sheer fury. Turns out you can’t escape the trappings of the fundamentals. Story of the series, really.
Playing You Out – The Theme Song of the Evening:
In a Big Country by Big Country
By Devon Birdsong, via Pounding The Rock