Hoosiers

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

Amy & Paul double team 1986’s Gene Hackman basketball drama Hoosiers! They praise the film for capturing the realism of small town life, dissect what makes films based on true stories successful, and ask whether Hackman is actually a good coach. Plus: How does Jerry Goldsmith’s Oscar nominated score hold up?

This is the first episode of our Underdogs series; next week’s film is Brian’s Song! Learn more about the show at unspooledpod.com, follow us on Twitter @unspooled and Instagram @unspooledpod, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and Spotify. You can also listen to our Stitcher Premium game show Screen Test right now at https://www.stitcher.com/show/unspooled-screen-test, and apply to be a contestant at unspooledpod@gmail.com! Photo credit: Kim Troxall

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

I also vote to keep this off the rocket ship, but I did get a bit exasperated at some of Amy's criticisms in this one. I think one of the strengths of the film is that it doesn't try to hold your hand and walk you through everything, like a lot of inspirational sports movies do. Many of the questions raised in this episode can be answered via context clues:

1. When Hackman brings Hopper on to the coaching staff he says he can't get drunk while on the job. The scene where he's dunking his head and getting him to dry out is taking place after the game, off the court. So he hasn't technically broken the rule, but Hackman is upset that he's coming so close to doing it. When Hopper does show up drunk on the court that is his last appearance with the team.

2. It's not too hard to put 2 and 2 together that Jimmy wanted to play for Norman because Norman is the only person in the town who wants him to play but doesn't pressure him to play (just look at how the other dads crowd their way into practice all the time). It's not true that Norman has no conversations with Jimmy before Jimmy changes his mind; the scene of him shooting buckets on the dirt court happens before that. It's pretty clear that Norman's no-nonsense style appealed to him.

3. Norman's history as a coach with violent tendencies is dealt with quietly throughout the film: he starts out as a guy who wants to maintain dictatorial control over the team and gradually begins to trust his players, which makes his coaching better. The key turning point in the movie is when he sends the injured player back into a playoff game, then the camera lingers on the back of his head as he changes his mind and calls time out to take that player out. Eventually this means Ollie is forced to play, which means he was risking losing the game in making that decision, but he put the player's welfare first.

The racial criticisms are fair, though I don't find this aspect "horrible" so much as a sin of omission common to a 25 year old movie. The romantic subplot with Barbara Hershey doesn't work at all and is totally unnecessary. The basic character is fine: a teacher who thinks basketball is frivolous and challenges Dale about it, while also trying to keep one of his players from joining up. But at no point do I buy that they're in love.

Ultimately the reason I vote against Hoosiers is that I don't think it's bringing much more to the table as a corny "underdog sports movie" that Rocky doesn't already do, and Rocky is also clearly the more influential and iconic movie (it's pretty much a franchise at this point). I do still enjoy the movie though.

[AlmostAGhost 2718]

Yea, it's definitely enjoyable, but I don't think it has the quality necessary for the rocket. I found the team to be a faceless, personality-less team. It would've been a lot more fun if the team was real characters too! I'm not even sure I was rooting for them, to be honest. Also why was everyone in the town so mean? Not just like 'roll their eyes behind the new guy's back' but flat-up rude and awful. There is some subtle stuff as Sycasey mentioned, but I really can't put this up as one the 'best' sports movies. 

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

I also think Amy's criticisms of Shooter's arc are a bit unfair to people who are going through addiction recovery. He was starting to improve through his work with the team, but then he had a bad relapse. That happens all the time; recovery is not a straight line, and I like that the movie is honest about that. He also checks himself into rehab after and Norman visits him, so the film shows that no one is giving up on his recovery.