Skip to main content

Walking on Air …Jordans


Ben Affleck’s movie Air is a commercial. A commercial for Nike, for their Air Jordan line, and maybe most of all for Michael Jordan himself (it’s not his first feature-length ad). And yet it’s a terrifically well-written commercial -nicely performed too- and with a level of sharp directorial prowess that has been forgotten in the seven years since Affleck last stepped behind the camera. There’s a conversation to be had about a movie that is so tied in to corporate product, so built around the importance of a brand and its history, and whether such a thing constitutes a devaluing of the art to mere company propaganda. But the task of a movie like this in regards to all that baggage is to justify itself as a film worth making, a story worth telling anyway. And Air, primarily in its concerted elevation of boring subject matter, makes a pretty strong case for itself.
It helps that Air is written and cast in a way that makes its talk of branding and marketing accessible -not unlike movies like The Wolf of Wall Street and The Big Short, though without the necessity to explain things directly to the audience. In fact, writer Alex Convery adapts the language of corporate boardrooms naturally, infusing in nice touches of character that are richly delivered on. The principal figure is Sonny Vaccaro (Matt Damon), Nike’s basketball talent scout -a somewhat nebulously understood job that mostly consists of him going to campuses in the hopes of recruiting future basketball stars for promotional relationships. When it comes to footwear the endorsement of a major athlete means the world to a company, and Nike here in 1984 is struggling next to giants like Adidas and Converse (which Nike would eventually acquire in 2003). Vaccaro soon comes to an epiphany that they need to court rising talent Michael Jordan of the Chicago Bulls, convinced off of his highlight footage that he is a future sports mega-star -and further that they should design a line explicitly around Jordan’s brand identity. It’s an uphill battle for the underdog company that Jordan specifically dislikes, but Vaccaro is determined to see the deal reached.
The novelty of this movie showing a different side of the sports industry than is usual for film, the world of marketing, is a major point of interest here -regardless of how neutrally and uncritically it is examined. There’s curious insight into how that world operates, but more-so Convery relates a certain thrill in seeing a bunch of charismatic people who are very good at their jobs and working from a place of disadvantage to achieve a monumental goal. It may just be a cross-promotional shoe sponsorship, but the cast really sell the weight and the stakes of it, and it’s all almost purely bent off of Vaccaro’s vision. It’s one of those movies that can be pointed to as a metaphor for the filmmaking process, all these creative and talented people, from the director analogue Vaccaro to the producer in Affleck’s company CEO Phil Knight, a screenwriter in Matthew Maher’s Peter Moore, who designs the shoe itself –all of whom work together, even if sometimes with resistance or a clash of ideas and personalities, to produce a particular desired result.
What stands out are those personalities and how they gel together. Not a whole lot is actually put into the characters here; most of them are just playing variations on their standard screen identities. Jason Bateman is sarcastic and deadpan, Chris Tucker is frenetic and bombastic –speaking at a mile a minute, and Damon is in that standard likeable yet slightly wise-ass American everyman mode he’s been playing a lot through his middle-age. Even Affleck brings some of his own temperament out amidst Phil Knight’s fitness regimen and Zen pontificating. But Affleck understands that that is enough, especially in conjunction with Convery’s dialogue which is pitched so well to these actors. There are multiple telephone scenes between Damon and Chris Messina as Jordan’s agent David Falk that wouldn’t be nearly so entertaining if different actors were aggressively negotiating in their place. Viola Davis is of course a standout of the cast as Jordan’s mother Deloris, who becomes a primary broker between him and Nike. She was handpicked for the role by Jordan himself, one of the few notes of his direct involvement, and takes to the part exceptionally well. Additionally, Marlon Wayans is great in the small role of a coach who vouches for Jordan’s extraordinary talents, and Maher, solidly now one of the industry’s best character actors, steals each of his scenes.
Jordan himself is never seen, even when he is in the room with the other characters his face is conspicuously hidden, symbolically placing him on another plane above everyone else. It’s as though depicting him is some act of sacrilege –no actor can measure up. Especially in the final conference room scene it does feel that the movie is too much in reverence of Jordan. One of the bits that doesn’t work is a climactic speech Vaccaro gives to him about his destiny for greatness, juxtaposed against a montage of footage from throughout his subsequent career. It’s a sales pitch, but Affleck really does imbue it with a kind of religiosity: Jordan is basketball’s expectant saviour and Vaccaro a prophet. But, as a sales pitch, this strain of highfalutin analogue never feels ingenuous, the deifying of Jordan, one of the greatest athletes though he may be, comes across as so hyperbolic -especially for this moment in time. It both stretches the story’s otherwise modest believability and makes the film out to be ultimately this puff piece -as much as its makers may deny the scope of Jordan’s direct influence.
But where Jordan and his premature cult of personality are absent the movie is incredibly solid. Affleck’s direction doesn’t come with much flare, but he understands well where to employ a sharp series of rotating shots or jump cuts –even if he does overdue it a tad on close-ups. The soundtrack is full of time-appropriate early 80s hits functioning as the primary era signifier –albeit a bit arbitrarily so (I don’t know why they went with “Time After Time” to underscore a montage of anxiety). In some respects, the movie makes a lot of the easiest choices in it’s approach to the story it is telling. But it does so very skillfully. Though the price tag was higher and the production more slick, Air has that distinct flavour of the mid-budget adult drama that was once a major force in Hollywood and that many modern critics and movie fans have bemoaned the loss of in recent years. So maybe it just gets a pass for being refreshing. At the same time though there is something to be said for a movie that is, make no mistake, about a product placement deal, managing to be both authentically resonant and creatively captivating. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...