There are loads of great stories in sports; great comebacks, shock upsets, conflict, unity, obsession and intrigue – the schedules mean that we move on to the next one so quickly and it is good to have a series like this where there is room for reflection and documenting of these tales. Mostly that has been my experience with this series – that the subjects engage me. So, with so many great stories and this series trying to tell them, why does it spend an hour on story about a filmmaker making a film about himself trying to convince a very rich man to spend a chunk of his considerable wealth on a piece of paper so it can exist in his team's premises rather than another team's premises?
I'm simplifying the plot here but I'm not the only one – because the film does this too. The story opens with some detail behind the team and the man in question and it is during the introduction and titles that questions are asked about the nature of this loyalty etc and I assumed that the film would be taking this approach – using the central concept as a way of exploring bigger issues. In a way I was partly right because to a point the basketball rules are a MacGuffin to allow for the real story to occur; the story of Josh. This was his idea, his passion and he needs money to do it for himself so that he can make his dream into reality and boy does he let us know it. I honestly doubt that any other word was said in this film as often as the words "I", "Me", "Mine" and a few other similar words because this film is from Josh and about Josh – and sadly not even in a meaningful way. He doesn't use himself as a microcosm of a bigger story or as an illustration of something else, he simply tries to make this idea happen by asking a couple of rich people for money in very stiff interviews.
The film gives some information about the creator of basketball and Josh's team but it is very brief and focused on facts that will be known already if you know the subject well. This leaves us following Josh around for his couple of house calls, watching staged reaction shots (and if they are not staged then they are certainly very stiff). There is some drama in the actual auction at the end, but otherwise the film is very simple and really comes down to one guy telling Josh that he will pay for it as long as it doesn't go above a certain amount; nothing complex or odd – just a guy with money to spare, sparing it on a piece of sporting history. It isn't particularly good as a subject and it isn't helped by how often we have monologues and interviews with Josh (where the word "I" is the majority of what he says, since he is only ever talking about himself). Like I said, this wouldn't have mattered if he had used himself to do something of note but after 30 minutes it does start feeling like an ego trip for him – a feeling that only increases as Josh acts up in the background of someone else spending money or the scene where Josh presents the rules (which someone else bought with their money) to the University.
Ultimately this film is about a rich guy spending an obscene amount of money to buy some sporting memorabilia – that's the story here but it is framed as being fan-driven to make it more palatable. Shame then that the addition to Josh to this story of a rich man spending his money, doesn't actually make the film better – it simply makes it feel weird that he is so focused on even though all he had was an idea and a few begging meetings; and then you realize that he made this film about himself – then it just feels weirder again. It should have had a wider point and should have told more stories of interest, but instead we spend loads of time with Josh chasing money.
There are loads of great sporting stories in the world. I have no idea why this one got told as part of such a high-profile series.