MovieChat Forums > Hoosiers (1987) Discussion > Not to start a ruckus....

Not to start a ruckus....

posted 18 years ago by mgiannin-1
121 replies | jump to latest

But:

How is this considered the consensus "Greatest Sports Movie of All Time"?

Am I missing something? Somebody explain how this steaming pile of half-baked sentimentality and amorpheus, quasi-formed characters (Hackman and Hopper excluded) is considered the gold standard by which all other sports movies are judged.

I thought it was contrived, sloppy, disjointed and self congratulatory.

here are just a few reasons why:

1. The character of Jimmy Chitwood, one of the movie's catalysts, has zero development. He's introduced as a shadowy figure, but then nothing is revealed about him over the course of the entire movie. I didn’t care about him for a split second. Its also next to impossible not to take his silence for arrogance, a suspicion which is corroborated in the final moments of the film. Nonetheless, i'm pretty sure we're supposed to root for this guy. Its confusing.

2. Dennis Hopper's performance, while brilliant and moving, is all schmaltz at the end of the day. Furthermore, as one of the only three dimensional characters in the film besides Gene Hackman (one of the great American film actors of all time who could spin gold out of crap) there is real opportunity for redemption here. But he starts a *beep* inspiringly pulls himself up by his bootstraps in the second third of the movie, goes back to being a *beep* and is forgotten about. Its awful.

3. The team's "win streak" comes entirely too quickly and without provocation. It seems way, WAY too easy. One minute they suck and the next they're in the state semifinals. How is this accomplished? Are we to believe that the ragtag group of misfits all of a sudden drink the Kool-Aid, buy into Coach's philosophy and become unbeatable? Unlikely. Which brings me to my next point:

4. Coach Dale is a TERRIBLE COACH. He is, however, a fine father figure and amateur psychologist. When it comes to building self-esteem and character steeped in fine, Anglo centric, Midwestern values, he's all over it. But in the real world, these qualities do not translate into basketball wins. Particularly if your team sucks to begin with.

5. In what is supposed to be a love letter to basketball, the first and only appearance of black people comes at the end of the movie, when they are trotted out as the shadowy, faceless, semi-impenetrable antagonist/opponent in "the big game". They skulk around mysteriously like they're athletes from another planet, striking anxiety into the hearts of our dear white heroes. Its actually one of the more baldly racist moments I’ve ever seen in a modern film. If black players had been featured as opponents throughout the film, that'd be one thing. But the fact that the Hickory Huskers do not face a SINGLE BLACK PLAYER until the final championship game, only to then face a team which is ENTIRELY COMPRISED OF BLACK PLAYERS, revealed to the viewer directly following Dennis Hopper delivery of the first and only line in the movie which directly antagonizes a basketball opponent to the actor playing his son-- "Son, kick their butts".... is pretty unbelievable. This movie is racist hogwash.

6. At the very end of the movie with eighteen seconds left in the game, Coach Dale draws up a play, telling his players that everyone is expecting Jimmy to take the last shot, so they're gonna use him as a decoy and have one of the other players take the last shot. Dismay fills the player's faces as Jimmy steps forward and confidently states "I’ll make it". What sort of message does this send? 1. Its okay to blatantly question your coach's wisdom with eighteen seconds remaining in a winner-take-all game. 2. If you're the star player on your team, you are entitled to EVERY shot at glory available to you. 3. If you AREN'T the star player on your team, don't even think about taking the big shot. You aren't good enough and you'll probably just *beep* it up. Let the alpha dog save the day and try not to get in the way. This moment was PARTICULARLY shocking to me, as I assumed when viewing that last scene that Jimmy would resign himself smartly and dutifully to being a decoy and that another player would make the big shot, thus teaching the valuable lessons of humility and teamsmanship. But no. Jimmy, who I still didn’t give a *beep* about, makes the shot, thus vanquishing the black players back from whence they came (its never really determined.) Incidentally, the "decoy" play that Coach Dale draws up is precisely the play that won the 1997 Chicago Bulls the NBA Title. The defense was gonna be all over Jordan, so in the interest of winning, he deferred to his less heralded teammate Steve Kerr, and they won.

This movie defied every expectation I had for it, which is sad considering the fact that I rented it with nothing but lofty anticipation. In it's potential defense, however, I have a theory as to why it never really had a chance with me. The town of "Hickory" from which our heroes hail, is full of small-minded, myopic, reactionary *beep* Furthermore, the film never makes any move to apologize for these people or to take a stand against their sad, narrow worldview. Coach Dale, of course, does not exhibit these reprehensible qualities, but his players, down to a man, are all unwavering products of this environment. I don’t think the movie endorses the town's values, but it unapologetically asks us to root for them and to care about them, hayseeds and all. It assumes we will love the denizens of Hickory in spite of their small-town vices because they are plain-spoken. They are folksy. They're apple pies and model-Ts and dad with his pipe 'n slippers. Unfortunately, I do not find any of these qualities endearing. Indeed I find them obnoxious even when they are NOT paired with municipally forced homogeneity.

Now I’ve gotta spend 5.95 and rent "Rudy" to get this bad taste out of my mouth.

Now that is a movie.

[–] uno1072 18 years ago

its a good thing you can't go back in time and visit small town indiana in the 1950's because this movie faithfully showed that.

#1 Jimmy was just shy and had a rough life, the old coach was like a father to him and he never had much other family to speak of, he's afraid of getting to know people. also he may crawl into a shell because he is considered by the town as their savior who will give them a state championship.

#2 shooter turns around in the second third of the movie because someone finally gives him a new lease on life. before this everyone considered him th town drunk and thought he was good for nothing. coach gives him something to shoot for and he cleans himslef up. the pressuer gets to him and he relapses in the sectional finals but he isn't forgotten about. his son says he wants to win the championship game for him.

#3 sometimes a team just clicks and starts barreling through teams, i've seen it happen lots of times during sports

#4 the team didn't suck, we're told in the movie that they were 15-10 the previous year and lost only one player from that team

#5 it is very likely they wouldn't have seen a black player in their entire regular season. there just aren't that many blacks living in rural indiana then and even now to some extent.

#6 the entire team knew that jimmy had the best chance to make the shot to win the game. just watch how good he shoots in his yard when coch dale comes to talk to him.

[–] univarn 18 years ago

Much of what Uno said is correct (especially point 5 to your claim that this film is racist). Also this film in many respects laid the framework for many of the sports films to follow it.

[–] silver851 18 years ago

Given the time period of the film and the fact that this was small town indiana, you'd have to figure that the majority of the players and people would be racist. Then they finally bump into some minorities, who happen to be the antagonist basketball team they must beat. Because of this I never really cared for the characters and never got into the movie.

[–] hodie 15 years ago

<Given the time period of the film and the fact that this was small town indiana, you'd have to figure that the majority of the players and people would be racist. Then they finally bump into some minorities, who happen to be the antagonist basketball team they must beat.>

I assume by your post that you have no knowledge of rural Indiana in the 1950s.

What can POSSIBLY be your basis for saying the people in the farm towns were racist? Because they were all white?

Hickory wasn't a suburb of some big city that would attract new people to move there, black OR white.Before Coach Dale moved there I doubt they had seen a new face in years.

It was an isolated rural farm town that (we are told) didn't even appear on most state maps. They were lucky to even get enough boys to have a team in the first place!

They finally "bumped" into black kids because they were finally playing a city team for the first time - South Bend. Of *course* the cities would have had black kids as well as white ones.

Honour thy parents. They were hip to the groove too once you know.

[–] silver851 15 years ago

You're right, I don't have any basis for my comments except for the fact that it was INDIANA IN THE 1950s. Do I really need more of a basis than that? I think it would be fair to assume that if you were white and living in the 1950s and NOT racist you were the exception, or living in San Francisco.
Minorities had ZERO status, were second class citizens, were in significantly lower numbers, and were saturated with negative stereo types. It seems only logical that whites, especially those living in rural areas, would be racist. I don't think the civil rights movement had even happened yet.

From an athletic team standpoint, you could be right. From what I've seen with some athletes, they tend to admire or respect their competition regardless of race. Larry Bird comes to mind.
And seeing that I made this post 3 years ago I probably wouldn't make it today. Alot of my friends love this movie, they just all happen to be white :) A good movie is a good movie.

[–] bullpen_1 12 years ago

//You're right, I don't have any basis for my comments except for the fact that it was INDIANA IN THE 1950s. Do I really need more of a basis than that?//

Yes, you certainly do. What an asinine assumption. Growing up in a rural, predominantly white area most certainly DOES NOT make you a racist. Talk about idiotic liberal claptrap. San Francisco?? Civil rights?? It was the churches and their congregations in the rural communities in the north that spoke out against racism and the scourge of slavery and provided safe passage to blacks trying to escape the south LONG before the so-called civil rights movement. THEY knew a thing about civil rights and still do.

You're right, no human being would stack books like this.

[–] r2626 17 years ago

Where is it racist? It follows the season of Milan, the real name of the team, pretty close. Milan defeated Crispus Attucks earlier in the tourney, that team had a player on it named Oscar Robertson.

Help stamp out and do away with redundancy

[–] jesse-176 18 years ago

"just watch how good he shoots in his yard when coch dale comes to talk to him."

I just finished watching this movie, and this scene in particular. Much has been made of how this scene was shot in 1 take. At first it looked like the ball was hanging on the rim too long, and I thought "the rim isn't firm - maybe that's why they went in". But that led me to the real issue (beauty of DVR) - if you watch it carefully, the ball isn't completely inflated! you notice how little it bounces after each shot, and how Hackman has trouble trying to start a dribble after it hits the ground. No offense to the fans of this movie, but most of us could heave a ball of rubber up there and make 10 in a row (counterpoint: even with the deflated ball, the fact that it was filmed in the first take and the shooter never played HS basketball IS somewhat impressive)

[–] Quentin36 9 years ago

How does making shoots with no rim...Swish... Get helped by a defeated ball?

[–] tigerlillybug 18 years ago

Ummmmm.........
I just wasted 5 minutes of my day reading your post. Teach me how to use those big words and maybe i can appear smart too on a internet message board.
Are you seriously trying to say that Rudy is a better picture than Hoosiers? Only a 12 year old would say that. Next your gonna tell me Remember the Titans should have won the Oscar for best picture.
Please dont post again.

[–] kodym 18 years ago

I think Hoosiers is a great film. One of the few great sport films that I have ever cried at. For Love of The Game was one (He pitched a perfect game) and Field of Dreams... Hoosiers is a classic

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JLargo 14 years ago

to the goof who started this board, let me guess....you never picked up a basketball in your life, let alone play any type of organized sports....maybe your fortay was water polo or frog gigging?,.....to knock one of the best sport films ever like you did, you must be really out there...

[–] klunder5 18 years ago

Why did they all of the sudden start winning??

Jimmy Chipwood joined the team, that's how

"In over 40 years of watching the best this state has to offer, i've never seen a better ballplayer then Jimmy Chipwood"

[–] r2626 17 years ago

Then you would know his real name is Bobby Plump.

Help stamp out and do away with redundancy

[–] yankee242B 18 years ago

I think it was pretty clear that they were in 1950's rural Indiana. They played relatively local teams until they reached the state final. As a sportswriter myself, I have seen teams that are built in rural Virginia face more urban squads. The racial make-up of each is quite different.

I beleive the movie even mentions that the "black" team as you like to refer to it, was a team from an inner-city-type area. That's why they were all/mostly black. They were also considered a powerhouse and that's why the Hickory team was considered underdogs. Nothing to do with racism, troll.

[–] baileyaya 18 years ago

I like this movie but I can see some of his points. At least he explained his reasons for his opinion. That's kind of rare.

[–] liscarkat (18886) a year ago

I went to high school in north Orange County, California (about twenty miles east of Los Angeles) in the late 1960s-early 1970s. Even at that time, we had no black students, and there were none on any of the other schools' teams our school ever played. It's perfectly plausible that the school in the movie would never have encountered black players, until that time when they finally did. And it certainly does not make them, or the film's makers, racists--at least not to anyone with a properly functioning brain.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kcspangle 18 years ago

The racist aspect your talking about is lacking in facts. In rual Indiana in the 1950s especially in the southern part of the state you would have seen all white team and if you look at the team in the final it was somewhat based on the Team that Milian beat in Semi-State Crispus Attacks that a couple of years later would be the first Indiana team to win State with an all black starting five, that included indiana legand Oscar Robertson

[–] rabcat_5 18 years ago

This movie is what it is. This movie was based on a true story and when you asked why this team just got hot all of a sudden 2 things come to mind. 1) Jimmie started to play, 2) teams do just get hot, and when this happens they make movies about it. I have watched this movie close to 15 times in the past 6 years or so, I am only 21, and I love the game of basketball, and all the struggle that is involved with it. This movie showed us the raw side of the game of basketball, before the 3 point line, before a jump shot was just a normal part of the game. These were the kids who paved the way for basketball turning into the fast, loud, and exciting game that it is today. You also have never been to a town with one main street, where every person in town is at the games, because you would understand that these players are a family before basketball even starts. As for the last shot of a game it was obvious that the film made it clear that they were upset when Jimmie was a decoy. Look at their faces, the rest of the team wasn’t buying it, and it put into the movie on purpose. Each team is different as is each coach. The very blunt and thick-skinned Coach Dale didn’t seem to be upset about Jimmie stepping up to the challenge, and if he would have missed I don’t think he would have been upset either. As a Health and Fitness teacher, and a coach, you have to listen to your players sometimes in order to understand what they are going through at the moment; you are not an all knowing dictator when it comes to performance of your players, there needs to be open communication going both ways.
I do however understand some of your points on the race issues. I felt maybe a scene or two getting to know and understand the other team in the finals wouldn't paint the bad guy image on that team like it did. Unfortunately we live in a society still that connects and ending of a movie like this to a struggle in this country. I don't feel the director's/writers intentions were to paint this kind of picture. I just felt that if we knew a little more about this team it wouldn't have seemed that way.

[–] mc101 18 years ago

Racist hogwash? This movie has so little to do with racism that one has to be witch hunting to find it. When I was a child we used to have a saying that one smells their own first. I think that's the case here.

This is a movie about second chances and hope against the odds. I'm not an avid sports fan, but I feel this is one of the more uplifting movies I've ever seen.

BTW, I believe you meant "amorphous", which means without form, not "amorpheus", which, were it actually a word, would most likely mean dreamless.

[–] mgiannin-1 18 years ago

The ol' "he who smelt it dealt it" principal?

Arrive at that conclusion via the scientific method, did we? Well, consider me wriggling in the crushing grip of reason.

Your contention is that this is a movie about stale platitudes? Half of all films made are about "second chances", and ALL of them (particularly sports movies) are about "hope against the odds". That’s called tension. If the audience were asked to root for the favorite, there wouldn’t be much of a story to tell.

The question is not what the film is about, but rather how it is told. I think that the writing and direction is ham-fisted, sloppy and overly sentimental. Its a trap that a lot of artistic personnel fall into when dealing with "uplifting" material-- and, of course, there’s a degree to which sentimentality is necessary (we wouldn’t go to sports movies otherwise.)

But this film is a one big emotional *beep* with very little substance underneath. It banks on the fact that you're going to feel tenderly toward these small-town bumpkins and subsequently get on board with the cloying, saccharine schmaltz.

And that’s fine. I, however (as I said in my original post,) don’t feel sweetly toward the aforementioned "old folks at home", and, unfortunately, was left with what remains when you take away the misty-eyed, lump-in-your-throat manipulation, which is very little indeed.

"Hoosiers" is a steaming heap of bile.

And its plainly racist.

Nice of you to ding me for a stray spelling error, though. I suppose that’s how one becomes an intellectual giant like yourself.

[–] syoumans-1 18 years ago

Wow, I can't believe how ignorant you are.

To call the movie racist is alarmist BS. Milan played no teams with ANY black players throughout the regular season, sectionals, and regionals. It wasn't until they got to the semi-state and started playing larger, inner-city schools did they finally face diverse teams. Don't be an idiot. Go to some rural southern Indiana towns and tell me what you see.

You made some other poor points in your first message too. You asked how the team could get good all of sudden. Easy answer: Jimmy Chitwood joins up.

You asked why we should care about Jimmy Chitwood. Well, if you watched the movie and listened to Hackman's very first speech to the team, he emphasized "team, team, team." OK? We're not supposed to care a lot about any one individual player. We're supposed to love the TEAM.

The reason so many people love this movie is that they can relate with those people, those types of towns, teams, etc. In case you haven't noticed, there's A LOT of land between the east coast and the west coast and many people grew up in these situations.

And I love how you praise Rudy but criticize Hoosiers for being overly sentimental. Are you kidding me? "Rudy" took a situation that happens every year to almost every team (a walk-on who plays on the team and actually produces something positive on the field) and tried to portray it like some supernatural phenomenon. What a joke. That movie is awful. Lose all your fancy adjectives and gain some perspective.

The story on which Hoosiers was based truly WAS a miracle.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wildhart 18 years ago

Hoosiers = still racist

These are the pure and simple facts about the demographics of the state of Indiana in the 1950s... and 1960s... and in some cases, today.

Indiana is and has been a state with very distinctive rural/urban divisions. There are not that many large cities in the state, and during the time in question, very few blacks lived in the rural areas, especially the southern part. At the same time, very few rural people, especially in the urban absent southern part of the state even ventured far enough to go to "the city." Since Hoosiers was based on a real occurrence, a certain adherence to state demographics is integral to telling the story of that championship. Milan was a very small school in the middle of farm country, represented in this film by Hickory. In the 2000 census, Milan consisted of 1816 people, with 0.22% African Americans. That equals four people. At the time of the Milan state championship, Milan had a school population of 161. Muncie Central, the opponent, was an inner city school with a population of 2200. Muncie Central's school had more students than the entire population of Milan 50 years later. Like it or not, that's David vs. Goliath. (That is a size comparison, not a good guy/bad guy one.)

In the film, the team that Hickory faced in the state finals happened to be one of the South Bend schools (yes, the team was named), a racially diverse large city close to Chicago and in the complete opposite corner of the state. IHSAA teams play regular season games against neighboring area schools, which tend to be demographically similar. So yes, it's highly probable the real Milan team played few, if any, even racially mixed teams. It's an artifact of the population. The absence of black players during the regular season games is what the season was like in the 1950s. It wasn't a film making error or covert racism, it was a successful attempt to depict the vast real differences between rural and urban schools and athletics at the time. The real championship this film depicts had a tiny all white school playing a large inner city all black school. The tiny team won. How is that racist?

In case you overlooked it, the issue in the film about the differences between the games Hickory had previously played and the one they were about to play were not about black ballplayers. The issue was about the size of the fieldhouse, the number of observers, the presence of multitudes of press, and playing a physically bigger and more experienced team. Those issues were of some truth at the time of the Milan game as well.

You can like or dislike the film. That's fairly irrelevant to the fact that you are accusing it of racism that simply wasn't present. In the history of Indiana high school basketball, it's often been the case that integrated schools have played key games against non-integrated ones. Sometimes one team wins, sometimes it's the other. It's a matter of demographics, not of prejudice, and it's a poor excuse for practicing reverse racism to pan a film you didn't like. Of course there were liberties taken with the film, it was inspired by the Milan win, not the story itself.

But there are a lot of things that are true. That last minute play when Hickory wins? It was re-enacted from the real game finish. Jimmy gets the ball, just like in real life, Plump held the ball until the clock read six seconds, then faked left, dribbled right, beat Jimmy Barnes to the leap and sank a 14 foot jumpshot from just right of the free-throw line. The real event was also the reason that Indiana resisted changing to the ridiculous class basketball divisions until 1998. Bobby Plump commented once that had class basketball existed when Milan won in 1954, they would have been winning games by 60 points every time. The only thing that led to the demise of tournaments like the IHSAA of the 1950s was the consolidation and closing of smaller schools. THAT was a sad day in Indiana high school basketball history. Milan's win was the pinnacle.

One thing vampire children have to learn early on is don't run with a wooden stake

[–] nmmiller-1 18 years ago

To say that black people are a staple in basketball is pretty racist of you mgiannin-1. I graduated from high school in 2005 and I can probably count on one hand the number of times I played against a team with any black players on it. I grew up just outside of South Bend. Now wind that back 50 years and it'll make even more sense. The melodramatic slow-mo shots is just representative of most 1980's movies. You can't say that a movie is rediculous when the only reference to Indiana you have is "flyover country". You don't know the area or it's people and therefore you can't understand the characters in the movie.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mc101 18 years ago

Get bitten by a white Indiana basketball player once? You still haven't justified your racism claim, you simply restated it more bitterly.

BTW, it wasn't a stray spelling error, it was a conceptual error, but people like you don't have the integrity or the intellect to admit when you're wrong. You just try to belittle and intimidate those that challenge you by using words you hope they won't understand, (after all, you didn't).

It's my experience that people that hate everyone else's efforts have little to show for themselves. Guess it's easier to knock others down that it is to stand up for yourself.

And as far a being an intellectual giant, only by comparison to some.

[–] scobratec 18 years ago

Well said, mc101. This movie was great when I saw it in 1986 at the theater, and it was just as great when I watched it the other night. It would be a cold day in hell before you witness true sports enthusiasts from all walks of life that would utter the movie "Hoosiers" and the word "racism" in the same sentence. It simply is not any part of the movie, nor should it be derived from it.

[–] RickShaw2010 13 years ago

Looks like somebody got a thesaurus for their birthday.

What you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say. You are a troll who attempts to impress people with a few big words.

The art of communicating your ideas, is to do it in the most simplistic form possible...that is a great communicator. You, on the other hand, are a lonely person with few "equals".

[–] jaystarstar 13 years ago

One point:

In the early 1950s, unlike today, there was NO general consensus among fans, coaches, media or players, that blacks were automatically better basketball players than whites.

When Jackie Robinson came to the Dodgers in 1947, one of the arguments opponents used against the idea of blacks playing in the majors was that they were "simply not good enough."

Due to the overwhelmingly-white makeup of Indiana high schools at the time (with almost no integrated teams), very few black players had ever appeared on state finalist teams. That's why it was such a huge deal when Crispus Attucks won the state title the year after Milan.

Anyway, if you made a movie about HS basketball set in present day, and one team was predominantly black and the other team mostly white, it would be automatically assumed by everyone that the black team could run the white guys completely off the court.

In the early 1950s it would be assumed by many that the black team was lazy, undisciplined, selfish, uncoachable, etc etc. and the white team was hardworking, unselfish, fundamentally sound, and all that good stuff.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]