Chicago Beatdown: Talking to ‘Hoop Dreams’ filmmakers Steve James and Peter Gilbert, 15 years later

Image via Wikipedia

15 years ago, a Chicago-shot, low-budget, three-hour documentary spanning several years in the lives of two inner city high school basketball players, came out to phenomenal critical accolades and was greeted with surprise financial success. Today “Hoop Dreams” stands as one of the highest-grossing documentaries ever made, and is certainly one of the medium’s most acclaimed.

It took nearly 30 years for the studio behind “Hoop Dreams,” Chicago’s Kartemquin Films, to become an overnight success story. Kartemquin hasn’t had a ‘Hoop Dreams’ breakthrough success, but the documentary collective remains devoted to crafting stirring social issue documentaries exploring everything from immigration to race relations to the death penalty. 

Tonight, the Gene Siskel Film Center hosts a 15th Anniversary “Hoop Dreams” celebration/fundraiser complete with discussion and clips of upcoming Kartemquin works. Kartemquin compatriots Steve James and Peter Gilbert, “Hoop Dreams’” director/co-producer/co-editor and producer/director of photography, respectively, talked to Chicago Beat about ‘Hoop Dreams’ surprise success, Kartemquin’s mission, and why ‘Hoop Dreams’ wouldn’t be as successful if it were released today.

Chicago Beat: When was the last time both of you saw ‘Hoop Dreams’?

Steve James: I feel like the last time we saw it was when we did the DVD for Criterion Collection, which was probably about four years ago.

Peter Gilbert: Yeah, when we really watched it all the way through.

CB: So what were your thoughts having seen the film four years ago and now that you’re reaching the 15-year mark? Any thoughts about the experience and how it’s shaped your filmmaking sensibilities?

SJ: What pleased me about seeing it was even though certain things have changed – the style of clothing, the way people wear their hair, and on the basketball court the shorts are way longer [now] than they were when we made the movie. So even though in some ways the film is clearly dated, it’s not in the ways that are most meaningful, at least to me. I think the fact that we focused the story more so on these kids and their families and their hopes and dreams and the hurdles that they face, and we attempted to do it in a pretty clear-eyed, non-polemical, very straight-forward way, I think it’s served the film well. In its viewpoint, it doesn’t feel dated, and the realities that I think it’s portraying and showing in the lives of these families, you could say that that’s a tragic truth, but those things are very much with us today. There’s still a lot of hope and dream being put into sports by kids in inner city families who feel it’s one of the few viable ways they can make it, and there’s plenty of poverty in our inner cities and in Chicago, and there’s plenty of violence. All those things are still very much with us that were with us15 years ago when we finished the film and 22 years ago when we started the film, and decades prior to that before we even thought to make the film.

PG: One thing that was sort of striking watching scenes the other night [at a “Hoop Dreams” retrospective] at Columbia College was how much the family part of that film is really the essence of that film, and how much people still want sort of the same things for their kids and the same outcome for their kids. In a strange way those people still want a sense of what that American Dream is, just to have their kids be better off than they were. And I think that’s still very true. It was interesting also watching it, I also couldn’t help thinking about what Steve was talking about, the violence that we still go through in our inner cities, and all those things that are still very prevalent in our world today. But also I couldn’t help thinking how Curtis Gates, William’s brother, was murdered, and Arthur’s father Bo was murdered. These are still issues that continue on and on and on as Steve said. It’s heartbreaking in one way to think about it like that.

But in a filmmaking sense, I felt good. As Steve said, maybe the clothing might be dated or those kinds of things, but I didn’t feel the filmmaking felt dated to me. I really did feel as though this incredible job that was done by Steve to put that film together and Frederick Marx in the editing really holds up. And if we made that film today and we made it with kids in new clothes and we did it exactly the same way, I think it would still hold up. So it’s funny because with myself, there are a couple of films that I worked on that I use as sort of benchmarks, where I hope people will relate to it in the same kind of emotional way. ‘Hoop Dreams’ is still one of those films for me. It never of course reaches that, but I hope people relate [to my films] in some way to the way they related to ‘Hoop Dreams.’

CB: It’s interesting how you both mentioned how a lot of the themes in ‘Hoop Dreams’ are prevalent today. What’s interesting about Kartemquin is you guys take on very serious issues with many of your films – you’re very much about social issue documentaries. When you were making ‘Hoop Dreams,’ and after you saw the reception that it received, is it troubling to see these kinds of issues still happening, to see in some ways there may not be that progress that many would hope?

PG: I think actually this is a good time Steve to talk about what you’re working on, it immediately plays into that point very well.

SJ: It’s called ‘The Interrupters.’ It’s a film that we’re doing at Kartemquin, which is focusing on the violence interrupters who work for Ceasefire here in Chicago. These are guys who come from a very colorful and interesting backgrounds – many are former gangbangers or drug dealers or convicts – and they now try to use their street savvy and credibility and all those things they learned growing up in the streets to try and stop people from killing each other, to use their influence to try and intercede in a situation. So we’re doing a film that tries to understand urban violence in a larger sense, and they’re kind of our way in, they’re kind of the spine of the story. It was inspired by an article that was done by Alex Kotlowitz, the author of ‘There Are No Children Here’ among other books. Alex is a good friend, we both live in Oak Park, and so Alex is a producer and writer on this film.

But to the larger point which is I think yes if you look at the body of work over the years of Kartemquin, you see a whole host of what you call social issues that are being tackled and looked at. One of the things that we try to do, and I’m not just talking about me and Peter but the whole group of filmmakers who work through Kartemquin, is that we inevitably try to find ways to look at those kinds of social issues. What we’re trying to do is tell stories, and find stories, human stories, that really bring those things to light in a way that we hope makes the audience care more about what these people are going through and how it relates to those larger issues, and also do it in a way that’s complicated, that does not fix on easy answers and tries to say that these things are very simple, because we wouldn’t be so persistent if they were simple. And I think that also goes back to ‘Hoop Dreams’ in the sense that one of the strengths of the film is that it does not present the world in a black and white, good and evil way. You see what these families and these kids struggle through, you see the business of basketball, you see the ways in which they deal with these issues of race, you see all these social issues, but you also see that it’s complicated for them and for the people that are involved. There are a lot of times where good intentions go wrong or where their aspirations have a positive impact and a negative impact. I feel like any film that’s going to have a real shelf life has to sort of look at the world in a complicated way, at least any documentary, because that’s sort of the way the world is, it’s complicated. So if you don’t want to make a dated film, make sure you preserve a bit of that complexity.

PG: And I think to keep going on that, one of the things Kartemquin has done throughout the many films it’s made is that basically by telling sort of everyday people’s stories, it’s a way of looking at a much bigger issue. Through seeing the story of everyday folks, what it would be like to be in their shoes and to go through the things that they go through, I think one of the things it does is it opens up for people who aren’t in those shoes, to look and see how similar many of the things [explored in the films] are in their lives.

We live in a world full of pundits and people yelling and screaming at each other on television and all those kinds of things, and really if you see our films it’s the people talking for themselves, it’s not people telling you how to think as much as it is you being able to look at the complexity of the issues that the films are about and making choices as they go.

SJ: Which is not to say that the films don’t have a point of view.

PG: Absolutely.

SJ: Kartemquin is not a company and a place where people come without a point of view to express. The films have points of view. I like to think the films that get made at Kartemquin express points of view that are hard-earned and that which the filmmakers take into account the kind of larger realities and complexities, so the audience when they watch it, they may arrive at different conclusions then the filmmakers do about certain things that go on in that filmmakers’ film. But it will be informed by the fact that the filmmaker has not tried to ignore all those realities.

CB: So as a filmmaker do you feel rewarded when you’re making these films, do you feel that you are making a difference? Or is it sometimes frustrating, because some of those issues, like ones explored in ‘Hoop Dreams,’ are still going on today?

SJ: Well if there aren’t issues there’s nothing to make movies about, right? (Laughs). I don’t know. We’re not naïve to think that our documentaries or anybody’s documentaries are going to literally change the world. Maybe only Michael Moore thinks that that can happen, but if he does, he’s wrong too.

But I think when you make these kinds of films, you look for more modest ways to feel like you’re making a difference, that if people come out thinking about what that film had to say, if they come out thinking about inner city kids and their families, and connecting somehow with those families as a result of the film, then that’s a great thing. Is it going to translate into sweeping legislation that changes the plight of the poor? Probably not. But I just think you look to have an impact where you can and Kartemquin films have often over the years seen that the making of the film is part of the process and what happens to that film is also an important part of the process. So we’ve always been very focused on outreach and the ways in which films can get out there and be seen by the people that really need to see the film the most. On ‘Hoop Dreams,’ there was an 800 number set up where people could call and get blocks of tickets to take their sports team to the movie for free, and I think over 100,000 people saw the film that way. Did it change everybody’s life? No. But did it maybe get a bunch of kids and coaches thinking about what’s in that film? I’m sure it did.

PG: I mean we’ve just always been strong on outreach. Outreach is very important in the films, and the films live a long life because of that, because the issues don’t go away, they’re always relevant and there’s always different ways to be able to use the film and other films that we make, and I think that keeps the films vibrant and keeps the company vibrant also. And it’s also important because we are a not-for-profit company, and one of the things that we look at ourselves as a media organization. We work within a community, not just in Chicago, but in a larger sense. We want to be able to use our films to reach out wherever we can. A film that Steve and I recently worked on together, ‘At The Death House Door,’ beyond the television broadcast that it had and the festival circuit that it had, it’s had over 3,000 screenings also around the country for organizations, different groups that want to use it. So those are the kinds of things that make a documentary company stay relevant.

SJ: There are screenings going on for ‘At The Death House Door’ and we have no idea about them. They pop up on a Google Alert or something. ‘Oh that’s great, someone’s showing it out in Iowa, someone’s showing it in Nebraska.’ And there are films at Kartemquin like ‘In The Family,’ that’s a film that’s being used widely out there. There was a film made some years ago on autism called ‘Refrigerator Mothers’ that was a really moving and informative film about parents with autistic children, and that’s a film that got out and was seen and used widely. The films end up being used in social service settings by social service organizations and all kinds of groups. We’re not just trying to attract the general public or a festival crowd. We really do love it when these films get used by agencies and groups that are very focused on issues that the films raise.

CB: You have an incredible body of work and many great films that aren’t as well known as ‘Hoop Dreams’ is. So give me a sense from your perspective, did you anticipate ‘Hoop Dreams’ taking off as well as it did, and why do you think that was the case? It was a great film of course, but it was still three hours long and a documentary.

SJ: (Laughs). I think we were both pretty disappointed. We really expected much bigger things for the film. Wouldn’t you say that’s true Peter?

PG: As a matter of fact, I’m still very upset about it. (Laughs).

SJ: And it’s rubbing salt in the wounds that here we are 15 years later and you still want to talk about it. No, I mean, Peter and I used to joke that we were going to spend 7 years on this film and no one would see it. It would be on at 11 o’clock on your local PBS station, and it would be on and gone and that would be it.

PG: We weren’t even sure if the Chicago PBS station would carry it. Who knew? (Laughs).

SJ: Because you know, a three-hour documentary about kids and basketball, I mean we know it’s about more than that, but that’s sort of what it could be reduced to, there were so many ways in which what happened was so completely unexpected. We really had no great expectations. We just knew somewhere along the way while we were making it, we knew this felt like a very special experience to be having as filmmakers. But I remember many times thinking and talking with Peter and Frederick, ‘Will anybody else find this nearly as interesting as we do?’ We were basketball junkies and played basketball, so we of course were hook, line and sinker for this subject matter, but we weren’t sure that anybody else would agree, and certainly our early fundraising failures weren’t encouraging. So we never anticipated any of this.

I think we got lucky, and we also made our luck in terms of staying with this, and we were also just blessed with these incredible subjects and their families. I think every really successful documentary has to have a combination of all those things. You know, luck and pluck are essential, and being blessed with very interesting subjects.

PG: One of the things I remember was when we were at the Sundance Film Festival when it played there. And I remember walking down the street and hearing people talking about it, which was just crazy at the time. And I’ll never forget after the first screening that I saw was people coming up to us, it was sort of Hollywood people coming up to us going, ‘That’s really great, we can’t wait to remake it,’ kind of. I wasn’t so sure they loved the film as much as they loved the story. It did overcome that and it stayed in theaters so long and people related to it. And also the era was different in the sense at that time where two documentaries a year, three or four maybe, got theatrical releases, and word of mouth kept the film in the theater. Today I think the film would have opened and closed fairly quickly. We didn’t do too great our first week or so if I remember correctly.

SJ: Well we didn’t really do great until it didn’t get nominated [for the Best Documentary Oscar], and [because of public outcry] it took off. But yeah, it didn’t too great, and I think you’re right, it was in part because of the continuing publicity and attention it was getting that kept it in the theaters and it finally took off. And it didn’t take off in the way of a Michael Moore film taking off these days you have to remember. It’s funny because ‘Hoop Dreams’ and Michael Moore and a few other filmmakers’ successes around that time probably helped to open up the idea of documentaries as theatrical releases and being able to be commercial. But we now think we’ve kind of come through that, and it seems to me we’re now on the decline of that feeling on the part of distributors because a number of films have not been nearly as successful as people hoped, and there’s been a glut of documentaries released theatrically so it’s no longer special, and it is funny now because it’s almost like we’re back in some ways to a landscape that’s more similar to when ‘Hoop Dreams’ came out then the intervening years. And I think Peter’s right. If you went out there with a three-hour documentary, this film, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get strong critical attention in a positive way, but it would be very difficult, and I think there would be a lot of people saying, ‘Yeah, I love it, but can we cut an hour from it for a theatrical release.’ So that’s kind of sobering in a way.

CB: Is that difficult or upsetting as filmmakers where you have had that success with ‘Hoop Dreams,’ but you’re kind of back to what it was like pre-‘Hoop Dreams’ in terms of distribution, being able to stand out from the crowd, things of that nature?

PG: It is tough. I think you have to think about it also in the sense that you have newspapers that are cutting down on reviewers, not to say there aren’t bloggers and Internet reviewers. But basically the world is changing media wise. So one of the things that’s really hard for filmmakers now is if you make something that you’re proud of, it’s a real struggle now to figure out what’s the best way to get it out there, because you really have to take more alternative approaches to these things than the old standard of putting it in a movie theater, see what happens. And it’s also tough for the fact that if you take a look at the last one Steve and I had out, ‘At The Death House Door,’ which was on IFC, for that to be reviewed on television, and if you have only one television reviewer, think of all the things that they have to review before they get down to your film. They’ve got network stuff, they’ve got PBS, HBO, blah blah blah, and then eventually maybe they get down to your film. It’s a very difficult time in that regard of just making sure that there’s attention to the film. I wouldn’t say it’s depressing, but it’s a great time of change.

SJ: And I’d just say on a personal level for me, ‘Hoop Dreams’ made a career possible and Peter’s too. We’re among the blessed when it comes to being able to continue to make films that we want to make, and we both have kids in college and soon to be. So to be able to make a living doing what we do and make the films that we want to make is a truly fortunate situation. But on the other hand, ‘Hoop Dreams’ was one of those moments, where everything came together. It was sort of that lightning in the bottle moment or whatever. And we’ve gone on and made other films together and separately that we’re immensely proud of and feel like have shown our growth as filmmakers. Will we ever have anything that approaches a ‘Hoop Dreams’ again? Likely not. We keep hoping, but likely not. Those kinds of things just don’t happen, and I think they happen less frequently today in the glut of choices that are out there. There are just so many films and so many things for people to look at and divert themselves with that, other then for some huge blockbuster ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy or something, it gets harder and harder for a film to come out of nowhere and really capture the hearts of a lot of people.

PG: And I’d add any small narrative films to that as well. It’s tough. But I agree with Steve that it was lightning in a bottle and I’m very happy to be a part of that. But I have to say making the film was also lighting in a bottle. It was just an amazing experience to make the film with Steve and Frederick and to have that sense even after all the years going on to see it come to fruition was just an amazing ride to go through.

One of the things that Kartemquin helps with, and Steve has talked about this on other occasions, is this sense of community. It sure helps that we’re not making films alone in a vacuum, that we have a community of filmmakers that we get to make these films with, and a lot of people are at home making films with their own equipment, and it’s easy to do that now, but it sure is nice to have that community to go to. It’s a pretty remarkable place in that way, and that doesn’t change about Kartemquin. And so that process of filmmaking sort of stays alive, which is really nice, because it would be really tough to make films alone.

SJ: And ‘Hoop Dreams,’ we never would have gotten it done if we hadn’t gone to Kartemquin and they hadn’t taken it under their wing, because all those early years there was virtually no funding, so they helped to sustain the project in that regard. And as Peter is talking about, there’s a community of filmmakers there. Gordon Quinn, who was executive producer, has mentored both of us over the years in many ways in terms of filmmaking. For me, that really began with ‘Hoop Dreams,’ and all during that process making ‘Hoop Dreams’ where they would hire me to do these smaller projects, which was not only financially sustaining, but I learned a lot. There is this great way in which the organization is more than just rooms with edit suites and camera gear and a staff to support the project. It really is truly a filmmaking community. There’s probably no single better example of how that worked than ‘Hoop Dreams,’ but it goes on with every film before and since that’s come through there.

PG: That’s why we’re happy, that’s why we want to raise money for it, that’s why we want to keep the infrastructure alive. It’s been alive for 40 years, and we want to keep it vibrant. Now it’s pretty tough to write 10 pages on something and get money, you really have to show something, and we want to be able to get people out there and help people in the community make films.

CB: Steve, you mentioned ‘The Interrupters’ tying into the themes of ‘Hoop Dreams,’ but you also have your other upcoming film ‘No Crossover,’ which is also about high school basketball. So how do your new projects tie back to the lessons and themes from the ‘Hoop Dreams’ experience?

SJ: Well ‘No Crossover’ is an interesting project because ESPN developed this idea for this series to do 30 documentaries that span the last 30 years in sports, which is how long ESPN’s been around. When I got a chance to go talk to them about the series and some ideas, the very first idea that I had to do was to do the film that they said yes to, which became ‘No Crossover.’ I’m from Hampton, Virginia, which is the same hometown as Allen Iverson, the basketball player [at the center of the documentary]. At the time when he was in high school and involved in this racial bowling alley brawl that really divided my hometown was the time when we were in fact finishing up ‘Hoop Dreams.’ And I remember sitting in the editing suite at Kartemquin and thinking, ‘That is a hell of a story going on in my hometown right now. It would make a hell of a documentary,’ but also realizing that it wasn’t at all practical to consider given that we had our hands full. So it’s a film I really wanted to make when it happened 16 years ago, and I got a chance to do it now. And I think what it was about and the film is about is race, and it’s a story that happened 16 years ago but still has relevance today. In quote unquote post-racial America, there’s no question that we’re still struggling around these issues. And so I really feel like it’s a story that intersects with race and sports and class even, and it’s an opportunity to explore those issues in a different way then we did on ‘Hoop Dreams.’ But certainly the experience that we made on ‘Hoop Dreams’ informs this film, just like it informs every film that I’ve been involved with.

Steve James’ films ‘No Crossover: The Trial of Allen Iverson’ and ‘The Interrupters’ air next year on ESPN and PBS, respectively.

Peter Gilbert’s next film, ‘Burning Ice,’ about a collaborative exploration of climate change between scientists and artists in Greenland, airs on The Sundance Channel next year. He’s currently shooting a film called “Brother Number One” about the ongoing Khmer Rouge war tribunal trial in Cambodia and a family from New Zealand who lost a loved one during the genocide in 1979.

The “Hoop Dreams” 15th Anniversary Retrospective begins with a reception tonight at 6 p.m. at the Gene Siskel Film Center, 164 N. State Street. The presentation begins at 7:30 p.m. with another reception to follow. Tickets range from $75 for ages 25 and younger to $5,000 for eight tickets, recognition and a box set.