Hoop Dreams

A part of this view­ing list: Criterion Collection Spine #289: Peter Gilbert’s, Steve James’s, and Frederick Marx’s Hoop Dreams.

hd1.jpg

I nev­er re­al­ly want­ed to watch this movie again. I saw it twice in col­lege dur­ing my History of Documentary Film class [along with Nanook of the North] and as it is near­ly 3 hours long, it is quite a time in­vest­ment. Hoop Dreams is a trou­bling film, both cin­e­mat­i­cal­ly and con­tex­tu­al­ly. These as­pects are, of course, in­ter-re­lat­ed, but I’m go­ing to at­tempt to deal with them as sep­a­rate­ly as I can.

First, cin­e­mat­i­cal­ly. As a doc­u­men­tary, Hoop Dreams pro­vides a lev­el of in­ti­ma­cy with its sub­jects that many oth­er docs at­tempt but ul­ti­mate­ly fail at. This gives the en­tire film an au­then­tic­i­ty that is per­haps a bit too strong, es­pe­cial­ly con­sid­er­ing the in­evitable ef­fects that the film­mak­ers had on their sub­jects’ lives. They have the role of par­tic­i­pant-ob­servers but it quite easy to see them ma­nip­u­late the ac­tion for their de­sired ends. This is most no­table with Arthur Agee, who is plied with ques­tions about Isiah Thomas on the way to a bas­ket­ball camp and then gets to play him one-on-one with his hero. This event was staged, but there is im­promp­tu ma­nip­u­la­tion as well; when, years lat­er, he is prompt­ed by the film­mak­ers to read a re­port on but­ter­flies that high­lights Arthur’s gram­mar-school lev­el ed­u­ca­tion and gen­er­al em­barass­ment and dis­re­gard for school.

In some sense every char­ac­ter in the film is an ac­tor; so-and-so as him- or her­self. At times they ham for the cam­era, and at oth­ers pre­tend as if it isn’t present. Perhaps the eas­i­est ex­am­ple to show the prevalance of this cliché in the film is when William’s team fails to go down-state his se­nior year. The film­mak­ers get right up in his face as he walks off, and the bare­ly re­strained frus­tra­tion and rage is ev­i­dent. This mo­ment does not fea­ture William Gates as him­self, but mere­ly William Gates, a young man who feels the pres­ence of the film­mak­ers as a tan­gi­ble re­minder of his failed promise. William is no longer the sub­ject of a film in this mo­ment, but a per­son again. Arthur has a sim­i­lar mo­ment, while play­ing one-on-one with his un­sta­ble fa­ther, when he states “This ain’t no con game any­more. I’m old­er now.”

The film­mak­ers ma­nip­u­late the au­di­ence as eas­i­ly as they do their sub­jects. The film is de­lib­er­ate­ly con­struct­ed so that we ex­pect William to be the high school star and go to the pros and Arthur to fail. This be­comes in­vert­ed fair­ly quick­ly as William is trou­bled by knee in­juries and Arthur emerges as the one with the abil­i­ty to lead his team down-state. Similarly, William’s child and girl­friend are in­tro­duced to us as a sur­prise, af­ter the baby has been born for sev­er­al months. The drug-ad­dic­tion of Arthur’s fa­ther is sim­i­lar­ly ab­sent, un­til it serves as a plot spark.

hd2.jpg

Contextually the film jux­ta­pos­es the mod­ern slave-mar­ket of bas­ket­ball re­cruit­ment with the hopes of two ghet­to kids for NBA star­dom. Rich white per­son af­ter rich white per­son sees a mon­ey-mak­er in William Gates, and tal­ent scouts read­i­ly ad­mit that they fo­cus on serv­ing “gourmet meat.” William is in­tel­li­gent enough to not ful­ly com­mit him­self to this sys­tem, to make an ef­fort at the ed­u­ca­tion­al op­por­tu­ni­ties of­fered to him, but his un­will­ing­ness to sac­ri­fice him­self on the hard­wood al­tar ul­ti­mate­ly earns him the scorn of his loath­some high school bas­ket­ball coach, a man so jad­ed that when his star ath­lete leaves his of­fice for the last time he shrugs “Another one leaves, an­oth­er one comes in, that’s the way it goes.”

Due to con­stant re­minders of The Institution of bas­ket­ball, there is lit­tle fo­cus on oth­er paths of op­por­tu­ni­ty for the­se kids. When Arthur Agee sur­pris­ing­ly gets a vis­it to a ju­nior col­lege, he has no idea what he wants to do with his life, he men­tions ac­count­ing, com­mu­ni­ca­tions and re­al es­tate, a dif­fer­ent an­swer for each time the ques­tion is asked. William, plagued by in­jury, seems to rec­og­nize that he needs an­oth­er path if his dream dies, but he is sur­round­ed by peo­ple who have pinned their dreams on his bas­ket­ball abil­i­ty and don’t want to hear about any­thing else.

In the end we’re left with a film that points out how fleet­ing the dream of bas­ket­ball glo­ry can be for ghet­to youth, but of­fers no oth­er al­ter­na­tives for the bet­ter­ment of the kids. Yes, bas­ket­ball has got­ten them in­to high­er ed­u­ca­tion, but with­out a safe­ty net bas­ket­ball could just as eas­i­ly kick them out of it again. Combined with the slick ma­nip­u­la­tion in the edit­ing suite, we’re left just as bereft as Arthur and William, un­sure, chimeric. Hoop Dreams, not re­al­i­ty.

hd3.jpg

Criterion Essay by John Edgar Wideman
Roger Ebert Review
• Hoop Dreams Scholarship Fund
Comprehensive Hoop Dreams site that may or may not be out­dat­ed.

3 thoughts on “Hoop Dreams

  1. I like Arthur. His part of the sto­ry keeps me amused be­cause he’s very fun­ny and he cracks me up! 🙂

Speak your piece