Typically, a historical drama is a film that dramatizes significant historical events. War films are a common example of the historical drama, but they can also be about political conflicts, cultural revolutions or attempt to shine some light on a lesser-known story. A biopic is not dissimilar, but where a historical drama focuses on events, the biopic follows an individual. The two descriptions of form overlap very often. The Wolf of Wall Street, for example is primarily a biopic about Jordan Belfort, but equally important to the story are the events of the 1987 stock market crash, and in this way the film could be described as a historical drama.
Air also blurs the lines. It aims to tell the story of Nike’s unlikely shoe deal with Michael Jordan, and the revolutionary impact it had on the world of sports marketing, a defining moment in sporting history and in that sense, a historical drama. Yet the story is biographical in the way that it is told exclusively from the perspective of Sonny Vaccaro, with heavy focus on his relationship with Michael Jordan’s mother. They alone have faith in Jordan’s potential and the vision to change the landscape of marketing, and it is their story being told.
the writer has a responsibility to stay true to the events of history, therefore being informative as well as entertaining.
Both the biopic and the historical drama depict true events, and so the role of the writer is different to that of the fiction writer. The sole responsibility of drama is to be entertaining, but the historical drama is where fiction and documentary meet, meaning the writer has a responsibility to stay true to the events of history, therefore being informative as well as entertaining. With the historical drama, the story pre-exists the writing, so the art is in the depiction of events in a way that is respectful and true while still being engaging. The audience will often already know the ending as it is recorded in history, so plot becomes less relevant than the way the story is delivered. The question isn’t ‘where does the story go next?’ but rather ‘how do we best tell the story of this particular event?’ I’d be tempted to say that when writing a historical drama, the hard part is done for you. The story itself is already written. So, with that in mind, a boring historical drama becomes a particularly egregious thing.
It’s hard to pinpoint what makes Air so unengaging. The setting doesn’t help. The ‘boardroom drama’ is a modern term used to describe movies where guys in suits argue viciously, coffee mugs in hand, in an atmosphere of high tension where jobs and livelihoods on the line. It’s a subgenre I generally find quite depressing. The trope of the over dedicated worker experiencing trouble in his personal life due to obsessive commitment to ‘the job’ is overused and seems to encourage value in self-neglect. Although not explicitly a boardroom drama, most of the events in Air take place in an office at the Nike headquarters giving the film the same depressing undertone that I can’t escape when watching Suits or Succession. It’s another trip into a very corporate part of American society, but this time with a ninety’s makeover.
But the dismal office feeling isn’t the problem alone. In fact, the problem isn’t exclusively with the way the story is told at all. It’s the story itself. The dramatic high point in the movie is Vacarro’s pitch to the Jordan family during their visit to Nike. It’s the turning point before the act three resolution, the final push to secure the deal and take Nike from underdog to total dominance in the basketball world. The scene is appropriately captivating, but it stands out as one of the only scenes with any drama in at all. This is because the story is not inherently dramatic.
Why make a movie about this event? The ramifications of the Nike Jordan deal may be enormous for sports marketing and for the benefit of athletes, and shining some light on those integral to this development is commendable, but I’m not sure that’s what this movie is doing. Most of the information regarding how the events benefitted athletes only makes it into the film as on-screen text at the end. Far more emphasis is placed on the American values of entrepreneurship, individuality and ownership. Vacarro is the hero because, despite all the doubters, his predictions are true and his faith in Jordan is well placed. The commemoration is that Vacarro made an intelligent bet for Nike, and it paid off. For me, this serves as a reminder that the American dream only exists for the winners.
the motive behind this movie seems to the glorification of an already dominant sports brand and further immortalise Michael Jordan’s legend for the purpose of selling more shoes.
I don’t believe that the decision to make this movie was based on the idea that it would be genuinely entertaining or informative. It was always going to be hard to make this story entertaining, and not much effort was made to inform an audience either. Rather, the motive behind this movie seems to the glorification of an already dominant sports brand and further immortalise Michael Jordan’s legend for the purpose of selling more shoes.
The same week this movie was released, a pair of Jordan’s Air Jordan XIIIs sold for 2.2 million dollars. Nike’s stock surely went up.
Comments