Instant Gratificaton Theater: Documentaries Part 1

Over the next few...uh, whatevers, Instant Gratification Theater will  cover some documentaries I streamed in recent weeks.

Kareem: Minority of One (HBO Now): Remember when HBO Sports was the standard bearer in quality sports documentaries? It's sad the network basically ceded the position to ESPN (and now even Showtime and Epix are cranking them out more often), but maybe this incisive piece is a sign that HBO is still in the game.

This profile of basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar uses extensive archival footage and new interviews with Jabbar himself (and many others) to create a surprisingly emotional portrait of a man who had a reputation as being detached if not aloof during his career. The Hall of Famer really comes off as a complex individual but certainly human and likable, and by the end you are gratified to get the feeling he has come to terms with basketball and with himself and is in a good place in life.

The main flaw is that the movie pretty much skips over his entire post-NBA career, which is a compelling portion of the man's life. He has become a prominent author, social commentator, and historian. "Minority of One" focuses on his basketball life, for sure, but even some more talk about his unsuccessful attempts to get head coaching gigs would have been interesting.

Fortunately the documentary does touch on his acting career, including his all-time great performance as Roger Murdock in "Airplane." And I think the movie explains how the hell he wound up fighting Bruce Lee in "Game of Death," but to be honest, I still don't quite understand how that came together.

"Kareem: Minority of One" is a strong comeback effort from HBO and a valuable chronicle of the most underappreciated greats in sports history. Plus it gives Pat O'Brien another chance to remind everyone that he partied with all the cool kids in 1980s Los Angeles.

Vault of Coolness: Not just ESPN, but SPORTS, period, was different back then

From the Wednesday, January 5, 1983 L.A. edition of "TV Guide":

6:00 pm  (9)  NBA BASKETBALL

The Los Angeles Lakers at the Philadelphia 76ers, aired on a 90-minute tape delay. (2 hrs., 30 min.)

The Lakers are the home team. The Lakers rule at this time. And as good as they are, the Sixers are even better. In fact, these two teams went on to play in the Finals several months later, with Philly sweeping. The point is this a marquee match-up...and Channel 9 isn't showing it live.

Granted, 4:30pm is an awkward time to start a sporting event for those like me in the Eastern time zone, but it's not like that doesn't happen all the time out in Cali. Maybe Channel 9 had something important on at 4:30, like another live event or maybe even another sports contest?

Well, there is some basketball going on, like Dwayne dribbling that ball over the credits in...

4:30 (9) WHAT'S HAPPENING

And then there's some more basketball, only of the fictional variety:

5:00 (9) WHITE SHADOW

I understand why non-fans think sports has a disproportionate impact on television, but, jeez, I don't want to go back to 1983, when an NBA Finals preview airs in a home market on a 90-minute tape delay.

Why I'm rooting against UConn

Tonight, the University of Connecticut women's basketball team will go for and in all likelihood obtain its 89th consecutive win, a remarkable feat in and of itself, and also a milestone that will exceed by one game the men's basketball record of UCLA.

If they win, good for them. But I hope they don't, and I feel that way because of their loutish head coach, Geno Auriemma.

Yesterday morning, I was flipping for NFL highlights while getting my little girl ready for school. Some UConn hoops highlights came on. I don't follow the sport, but I figured it would be good for my daughter, who gets plenty of secondhand sports through me, to see some females playing organized sports. So I left it on "SportsCenter" and pointed it out to her.

Suddenly the highlights stopped, and we saw Auriemma at his post-game rant of a press conference. He gave a nonsensical acidic speech about how the media doesn't want to see women break a male record, and how nobody would care if they were "just" topping the girls' mark. He continued on in this vein, using the words "hell," "pissed," and "bastards" in the span of about 45 seconds, and making me sorry I stopped on women's basketball highlights.

First of all, Coach, nobody cares about you "breaking a man's record." They are two different sports. It's a tremendous accomplishment, and everyone knows your team is dominant. In fact, you're so dominant, you probably prevent many people from even bothering to watch women's college hoops.

But you are not "breaking" any UCLA record. I never celebrated Sadahuru Oh as the all-time home run king, certainly not of the baseball I knew and followed. He was the Japanese home run champ, not the champ of MLB, and nobody compares records of the two. Men's college basketball and women's college basketball are essentially two different sports, and no bitter chauvinists are gonna cry in their Schlitzes because, "First Bobby Riggs, now UCLA--is nothing sacred?"

And if a few media types are rooting against you, so what? Really, you came off looking like a real ass, and you embarrassed me because I exposed my little girl to inappropriate language at 7:00 in the morning. You're a terrible ambassador for the game you represent, and though I admire the talent of your players, I will root against you, and not because of UCLA's record.

Brooks on Books: "Tip-Off" by Filip Bondy

"Tip-Off: How the 1984 NBA Draft Changed Basketball Forever" is a solid book for basketball fans. "New York Daily News" writer Filip Bondy provides an entertaining overview of the seminal draft and its participants. He's less successful at establishing how it "changed basketball forever," leaving most of that for the ending, but, hey, the draft brought the league Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, and John Stockton, so that's pretty much a 'nuff said right there as far as the lasting impact goes.

Two recent events make this 2007 book relevant to me now. One is the sad news of former Kentucky Wildcats great (and NBA not-so-great) Mel Turpin's recent suicide. The other, much happier event is NBA-TV's rebroadcast of the original USA Network telecast of the '84 draft.

Several things stand out when you watch the coverage today: David Stern's mustache, Lou Carnesecca's blend of bland content and colorful delivery as the analyst, and the lack of Jordan hype. It's possible some footage is missing from NBA-TV's version, and Jordan's presence in training for the Olympics team under Bob Knight meant he couldn't be in New York, but still, you kind of want to say, "This is gonna be the greatest player of all time, everybody!"

Bondy explains the circumstances that created the draft atmosphere and deconstructs the fateful choice of fragile Kentucky center Sam Bowie by Portland at number two over Jordan, who went to the Bulls at 3 (Olajuwon was an undisputed no-brainer for Houston with the top pick). Nowadays, it seems like a joke, but Bondy does a fine job of taking us into the thought process, showing why the Blazers believed that with a playmaker like Clyde Drexler already on board, a big man like Bowie was the better option. Even then, it was by no means a slam dunk decision, but, as Bondy shows, even the Bulls weren't always 100% set to take Jordan. Various scenarios could have changed the history of the league before or during the 1984 draft, including games won or lost (Bondy gives ample coverage to the perception that Houston tanked to get the #1 draft position) and trades made or not made.

The prose is not spectacular, but the structure is clear and well defined, making for a narrative that is easy to follow. Bondy focuses on the superstars I mentioned earlier, plus Jordan's college teammate Sam Perkins, giving mini-biographies of them up through their college years. He examines the decision-making process of the teams that took them, while also writing a good overview of league-wide trends and the draft as a whole.

"Tip-Off" is best suited for a more serious hoops fan who will appreciate the detail on the players, teams, and front office types involved in this story. Bondy's interviews with figures like Rod Thorn (who drafted Jordan) supplement contemporaneous material, and the author succeeds in offering modern-day perspective while also delivering the context of the 1984 mindset that could only have guessed at Jordan's staggering success or Bowie's relative failure. "Tip-Off" is an entertaining and informative look at a pivotal event in NBA history.

Brooks on Books: The Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons

I haven't watched a lot of NBA action the past few years, but I thought reading this book would rekindle my action in the league. Well, it did, but, as I told my friend, it got me interested not in the NBA of today, but rather the NBA of the eighties and nineties (or at least the Michael Jordan years). I loved this wide-ranging, over-the-top, idiosyncratic look at the Association from its beginnings to the present. I still don't care too much about the present, but, boy, reading Simmons rave about the Bird-Magic seasons of glory sure makes me want to relive some of that.

Let's get this out of the way now: You will NOT love this book if you hate Bill Simmons. The longtime web fixture and ESPN personality is a bit of a divisive presence online, and for better or worse, this book reflects all the B.S. you would expect/hope for/fear. This volume is huge, it's irreverent, and it's highly opinionated. It features tons of footnotes containing all sorts of extra asides and info--Simmons has a LOT to say about everything, not just basketball. It contains references to many of Simmons' obsessions, such as Vegas, porn, and 1980s movies. It is also extremely self-referential. You get the feeling the book would be about half as long if you deleted all the jokes about how long it is. If the guy rubs you the wrong way, steer clear.

For everyone else, though, there is much to enjoy. A more "mature" basketball book might not drop f-bombs, make multiple references to a story in Wilt Chamberlain's autobio about being serviced on a plane by a flight attendant, or refer to popular conspiracy theories as if they were given facts (like the NBA rigging the draft lottery so the Knicks could get Patrick Ewing). Such a book would not be near as fun, though.

And then there is all that content. Simmons discusses the history of the league, breaking it down into distinguishable eras; he ranks the best teams of all time, etc., covering everything he can about the NBA in doing so. It all builds up to his unveiling of a new concept for the Hall of Fame. I can't find anywhere near the passion he does for the Basketball Hall of Fame, and I don't even think too highly about his idea, but I don't care because it's really just a framework for him to provide an entertaining ranking of the best players of all time.

Say what you will about Simmons' ego or his pro-Celtics bias, but the guy watches a lot of hoops, and he did a ton of research for this, studying old game tapes and digging up print materials, so he at least tries to back up his assertions. I don't agree with all of his reasoning, and in fact two big things reduce his credibility: His account early in the book of fawning over Isiah Thomas in person after ripping him for years, plus a several-page argument Chuck Klosterman makes that really makes you doubt Simmons' choice of the #1 player ever--a choice which "The Book of Basketball" essentially makes 700 pages developing.

I look at it this way: Simmons is cool enough and secure enough to give Klosterman that platform. Agree with him or not, he's an effective writer, and even if his Simmonsisms really pile up in a book this length, I think it's awesome he delivered a book of this length. I found the 700 pages plus of NBA talk addictive and compelling, and I almost didn't want it to end. It's an excellent read even for a (mostly) lapsed pro hoops fan like myself.