Sunday, January 19, 2014

Hoop Dreams :: Reflections on Dreams Deferred



I mean, I was three years old when the documentary Hoop Dreams was released to the Sundance Film Festival in 1994, so discussing this film within the context of its twenty-year anniversary might not make so much sense. I will, though, still attempt to honor the film and its unequivocal legacy because it is a film that delves deep into the fundamental cores of why we go to the movies. It is an episode where we can enter another world, another culture, and another state of mind. It is a time where we notice in this different world the similarities of the human condition and of human struggle we all share. What started as a film that would generally observe the streetball culture in Chicago becomes a film, essentially, about life. Hoop Dreams, by Steve James, Frederick Marx, and Peter Gilbert, is one of the most important documentary films ever made as well as one of the most important films ever made. I guess it goes without saying that this film is actually good (because important doesn't always mean good). What I want to explore is its idea of the evolution of a dream, or of a state of mind that is completely detached from the reality that the two main characters, William Gates and Arthur Agee, use as a formulation of their relationships to themselves and their families. In its epic length, the film shows us the ways in which the kids grow up and how this growth contributes to their understanding of their dreams they felt so passionate about in middle school. This understanding, in turn, contributes to the way in which the communicate their ideas and feelings to the people around them.

There are many powerful scenes that populate the film, some more subtler than others. An example of a subtle moment comes towards the end of the film, when Arthur makes his decision to go to Mineral Area Junior College. He sits on his couch, his mother on one side and his father on the other (after they have recently split...among other things). Both parents make it clear that it is up to him but his father lays it down that, if needed, they can financially support him. Both Arthur and his mother scoff at such a statement; at one point their power and gas were shut off and the mother on welfare so such a remark comes off almost as an insult. But what was felt even more was the direct fragmentation between mother and father, and the idea that Arthur is literally cast in the middle of this conflict, shown in the shot. The recruiter for the college sits there waiting for the answer. Eventually, with a very subdued tone, Arthur agrees to sign the letter of intent. The recruiter asks him if he is excited and with the same subdued voice he uneasily says yes. Is that what he really wanted? Or...was his subdued voice an actual reflection to his subdued persona?

These questions are what went through my mind as I watched this scene. Here is a moment that is generally a great thing (and it really is in this case) but it is coated with a tension that suffocates any sort of truthful feeling Arthur might be experiencing at that moment. Then, through these familial dynamics, a more crucial question rises: Whose dreams are being expressed here? Throughout the film, and obviously through the title itself, dreams are the focus in relation to the actions of these two boys-to-men but it does not just stop there. This film also observes the dreams of other families members and how that ultimately effects the two protagonists. Dreams can intertwine, can conflict, or dissolve not just within an individual but between individuals. Let's return to the aforementioned scene, Arthur's father had explained in detail that he is living his dream vicariously through his son. Combining his guilt he may feel for being a bad father (drug addiction and prison time), what we see is his emphasis of attempting to take substantial action in order to fulfill Arthur's dream or, more specifically, his dream within Arthur. His emphasis led him to make bold statements that seem highly improbably like financially supporting Arthur during college. Arthur's response to this event, and his muffled expression, is a common occurrence throughout the film after dropping out of St. Joe's prep school. Along with his restrained voice he always carried an uneasy smile, a big smile, but an uneasy one which the viewer always takes into account during these moments and wonders whether or not Arthur is making the right choice. Or maybe another way of looking at it is that is he making this choice as a direct result of his father's dreams or the fact that, to put it bluntly, he wants to get the hell out of there more than he wants to play basketball? Nonetheless, Arthur doesn't want to respond truthfully or emotionally when he is thrown into a situation like this, one that he had no control over. Maybe it is even the fact that he has lost trust in his father at that point.

Dreams collide and are obfuscated at this moment and what was once a clear goal is now obscured by experiences and relationships. But, as an evolution goes, the origin is simpler. The film starts out simply with William and Arthur stating that basketball is their lives and they want to make it to the NBA. Yet, throughout the film we encounter many individuals, with both good intentions and bad intentions, applying their dreams onto the two individuals, whether done knowingly or unknowingly. And what I mean by dreams in this context is that many of them construct a chronology (like the St. Joe's basketball coach and Arthur's father) of the boys as to where they will be at this time in the future. Others, and this is applied more to the mothers, essentially give some of their individuality up to share the dream of William and Arthur. William's mother tells the camera that after the failed attempt of Curtis (Will's brother) to go to the NBA, she placed all of her hope on William but her face is weathered in undeterred doubt. In regards to the mothers, whose exchange of their individuality leaves them almost at the mercy of their sons, it is heavily intriguing that both William and Arthur specifically want to better the lives of their mothers, calling attention to their desire to buy them a new house, away from this environment they grow tired of. Arthur goes as far as to explain this to the camera in front of his own father. Another question arises: Are these hoop dreams actually dreams manifested as a way to get out of their living condition? I recall the blues musicians living in the Mississippi delta in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. Many of the these musicians, though romanticized years later as men who sang about their struggling but 'simple' lives, wanted to make it big and get out of the violent and ferocious world of the south and head to New York City, Chicago, or Los Angeles.

There is another scene, one far more potent and direct, that expresses a dream under fire. Arthur is playing basketball at a local playground; he hasn't seen his father for weeks but he randomly shows up, without a shirt and with a dazed smile on his face. After awkward exchanges between father and son, the father dawdles towards the corner of the street and the camera captures him purchasing drugs. Arthur watches in amazement. Here is a moment where the viewer feels as though they are intruding, a moment where the camera's presence contributes to a growing tension of what is being shot; the position of the filmmakers become part of the scene. What we also see is a dream being directly resisted; through the father's actions, realizations of inner-city life come into contact with the ideal dream of youth and if Arthur has any doubts that may or may not have crept into his mind over his four years of high school, moments like this lend a possibility of contribution to such doubt. Watching this scene, and seeing Arthur's facial expression, I think there was a similarity to feelings between him, the filmmakers, and the audience when we noticed his father walking by, a certain, if you will, "Holy shit," feeling that only simmered down when the scene ended, and this was one of the many moments where I said to myself how this could have all been possibly filmed.



The length of Hoop Dreams is always called into question, and it was the length that spawned the most criticism for the film when it was campaigning for the notorious Oscars of 1994. I personally feel that they are taking for granted an opportunity of understanding a culture that is not usually shown in theatres or on television, a culture not usually shown truthfully. And again, let us take a step back and return to the main point of my analysis. Here is a film that cares for its subjects and constructs a clear narrative of the evolution of a dream and how it is sometimes damaged, mismanaged, ignored, manipulated, or even fueled. One of the greatest moments this film has to offer is when Arthur's mother graduates as the top nursing assistant in her class. A dream accomplished for one, and it makes it easier for her to give up some of her own individuality to help Arthur achieve his goals. There's also a crucial piece of symbolism, manifested in the form of NBA legend and St. Joe's alum, Isiah Thomas. He appears in the first ten minutes of the film, the rest of the time, he appears on television screens and in glass cases next to trophies and acknowledgments. He wavers as a specter that seems to guide the two boys, especially William, whose interactions with the coach seem to be of direct influence of what happened with Isiah. The dream of Isiah, made into the dream of the St. Joe's coach, try to make its way into William's mind. As we watch the story unfold, of William's unlucky streak of devastating injuries and of Arthur's late rise to local stardom, here is a story that, as Roger Ebert said in his essay, "No screenwriter would dare to write this story." Nevertheless, this is a film about dreams, the different forms it can take within different people, and how they develop over time as reality weighs in and the passage of time is felt. This, and being a window into a place in America, my own country, where realities are far different from the realities me and many other people I know face. But, like I said in the beginning, despite these differences we are able to connect with the subjects through emotional familiarity. We cheer when Arthur carries his team to the State finals, we are saddened to see William miss his free throws because these shots are not just shots important to adding another game to the win column of the school's record. These shots mean so much more.


Looking back on it, the basketball games became almost less of a determinant of William and Arthur's choices of their future than what they experienced off the court. It is almost as if their hoop dreams never grow when playing basketball but grow (or shrivel up) when they are not playing basketball. Hoop Dreams will never lose its power, the story is so damn potent and the humans who occupy the story are as complex as we all are...because they are real. I know it will never lose any of its potency with me; there is a significant personal connection I have with this film. Besides the obvious socioeconomic difference I have in relation to William and Arthur, substituting 'Hoop' with 'Film' will encompass much of the same pressures I am dealing with. This is not an attempt for anyone to patronize me, but I wanted to make clear why this film speaks so clearly to me, and why, in contrast to those social and financial difference, I can relate to the two protagonists of the film. My passion for films started out as a dream and, to a very large extent, it is still a dream, a dream that is evolving as I engage myself in one experience after another. This film reveals the fragility of these dreams, and how much you have block from your mind in order to retain the grasp on the dream that you had when you first grabbed hold of it. And, like in the film, this evolution seems to take into effect more so when I'm not filming and when I am sitting here, writing this piece, reflecting on dreams deferred. There's a lot more I can say about that. Another time, maybe.



----------------------------------------------------------------------

I mentioned earlier that this film is a reason why going to the movies is so much fun, highlighting one of the reasons to be its enlightening insight into inner-city life in Chicago. Another reason is the formulation of such a story, meaning the act of filming these moments (some brutally intense), editing it for clarity, and presenting a story that seems like it was written for the screen but maintained its authentic approach. It blends editing styles similar to narrative fiction films with characteristics of the documentary form of cinema vertie. It continuously makes you wonder how this scene was filmed and what were the filmmakers thinking at this point. the acknowledgement of the filmmaker is always present, something documentaries are more clear about as opposed to fiction films. There is a lot that can be said with all of this yet that would require another essay of this length. There were many questions I raised throughout this piece, all of them without answers. How can I really answer them, honestly? I raise these questions in an attempt to approach these events in the film from many different perspectives, because I feel that is the only way to do so if one would like to understand as much as they can of what it going on, which includes how this film was made, which is chronicled in dramatic detail in this article.

No comments:

Post a Comment