By Jason Bellamy
From 1983 to 1991, no college football program was as dominant as the one at the University of Miami. Over nine seasons, the Hurricanes won four national titles—including two perfect seasons—and they were this close to two others. And yet what defined those Miami teams, even then, wasn’t all the winning so much as they way the Hurricanes won—with speed, intensity, relentlessness, intimidation and unrestrained swagger (read: showboating). It’s fitting then that Billy Corben’s documentary about the de facto "Team of the 80s" doesn’t just remember its subject but also resembles it. The U, the seventh entry in ESPN Films’ “30 for 30” series, is confident, unrelenting, overpowering and fast, fast, fast. How fast? The U was three quarters of the way through before I realized that it was going to wind up being twice the length of the other “30 for 30” films thus far.
Given that Corben’s documentary has more time in which to tell its story, it’s no surprise that The U is the most comprehensive film in the series. What is a surprise is that The U is so compelling despite resorting to the sports documentary equivalent of Student Body Right and Student Body Left. Corben’s film is little more than 101 minutes of archival sports highlights paired with recent talking-head interviews. There’s nothing fancy about its approach. But as so often happens on the playing field, speed wins the day. The U is as incessant as a no-huddle offense. One interview leads to the next, leads to the next, leads to the next. Boom, boom, boom. Most of the interview subjects are former Hurricanes players whose anecdotes and reminiscences flow together like song lyrics—without punctuation and as if they know the words by heart. The U isn’t notably cinematic, but it’s a triumph of film editing.
To read the rest of the review at The Cooler, click here.
Posts
3 comments:
I posted something similar on your site, but I thought "The U" was tremendously entertaining, though I would have liked a bit of perspective from the 'Canes opponents. From their own POV, they come across as mildly naughty rapscallions -- and that's enjoyable but a little facile.
Still, some priceless scenes. Luther Campbell mistaking "castrated" for "castigated." (It's belly-laugh hilarious in the context of the sentence.) That wide-receiver who blames everyone else -- including the architect of the stadium -- for his tunnel-running antics. The 'Fatigue Bowl' debacle. And, of course, the extremely discomfiting moment when the Cotton Bowl folks hand bales of cotton to a team comprised almost entirely of African-Americans.
You're right in that "The U" moves like gangbusters. The two hours go whirling by.
I was disappointed that Corben left out the point where the antics & thuggery overtook the football in the end of the Erickson era...when they were winning less and acting out more, the brawl in Boulder with Colorado, etc. They treated the Cotton Bowl as UM's biggest transgression, which wasn't the case, and acted like the Luther Campbell pay for play situation was a big inside joke. Michael Irvin got it right when he said "Wasn't no media conspiracy, we were some bad boys"...the rest of the doc seems to try to disagree with that.
If Corben would have covered the end of the 'Canes dynasty, it would have made for a more compelling, balanced, informative documentary, rather than what we ended up with, which is a puff piece.
I found it relatively entertaining though...it was just lacking.
Full disclosure: I'm a Nebraska Cornhusker fan.
Good observations. A few thoughts ...
Craig: You might agree, but just in case: I think the receiver blaming everyone but himself was all tongue in cheek.
Beav: Good points. I addressed your first complaint somewhat in my review. Could the film be harsher? Sure. Is it a puff piece? Well, I don't know. It's a pretty critical puff piece if it's a puff piece. I can't imagine any other university being examined this way and calling it a puff piece. So to some degree that reveals how much we've been taught to think of that team as evil and how much that team has embraced its bad-boy image, turning criticism into praise.
That brings me to Irvin: I'm not sure there's another person on the planet who more consistently says whatever he thinks sounds cool at the time. In other words, I think if you asked him an accusatory question about Miami, he'd get defensive. Instead, in this case, he laughs and says "we were bad boys." Whatever. I found myself editing out all of Irvin's statements.
As for Luther Campbell ...
I mentioned this over on my blog, but that portion where he admits by denying that he gave money to students was one of my favorite moments. And, relatively speaking, actually I do think it was a joke. In this specific incident it's like getting up in arms over the $500 burglary of Burger King when the white collar guys on Wall Street walk away with millions. Sadly, this stuff goes on everywhere and to a much greater scale.
Is it wrong? Sure. It's in violation of NCAA rules. But as much as anything, I think it's a case of the perceived villains drawing the headlines because of their identity. Miami had a hand in building its own reputation. But I have little doubt that, to spin an expression, they were sometimes penalized on and off the field for Playing While Black.
Again, the film could easily have examined all the ways Miami tainted sports and broke rules. But we know that story. This looks like the team I remember but in their own words. Familiar but fresh.
Also, full disclosure: I had several interactions with Alonzo Highsmith in his career as an NFL scout. Wonderful guy. Which doesn't mean he always was.
Post a Comment