|
| |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
|||||||||||
The Fish Gets Dismal Dunking By Frank Deford Issue date: November 26, 1976
In film, as Flip Wilson (who makes a brief and useless appearance here) might say, what you see is what you get. And what you see in Fish smells. I cry for the honorable municipality of Pittsburgh, the noble city of champions, that its good name should be so violated. For Pittsburgh fans I would suggest that the Coca-Cola commercial starring Mean Joe Greene and the little boy has more good acting and action in 30 seconds than does this entire woebegone aural-exploitation flick. If you must know, this Fish tale is about a basketball team, the Pittsburgh Pythons, that gets taken over by the water boy (the young actor is James Bond III) and an astrologist played by Stockard Channing on the cusp of her acting nadir. Because the Pythons' star (Julius Erving) is a Pisces -- that is, born under the sign of the fish -- they decide to acquire a whole team of Pisceans. This might have made for a funny one-joke TV skit, but unfortunately Fish goes on for another hour or more with no jokes. Occasionally, in order to avoid a sissy G rating, somebody says an unnecessary dirty word, and the audience titters childishly. But is it fair for me to be so critical? I'm a Sagittarian with my Toyota ascending into the second house of Fresno, which means that at this time I am especially tasteful and intelligent.
I don't know why, but in Hollywood if a white athlete is called for, an actor is invariably cast and taught how to play, while if a black athlete is needed, a black athlete is cast and taught how to act. Is this racist? Box office? Foolish? A union rule? Are black actors presumed to be a bad athletes? Are white athletes bad actors? Never mind, it is of no consequence here; Fish is a bi-racial disaster. Or, as you no doubt will see it in your daily newspaper ads: "Bi-racial disaster!" Deford, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED. One more thing, in the art-follows-life department. As I dutifully fought to keep my eyes open, I began to take notes on the interminable game sequences. Now keep in mind that these were selected by show bizians intent on providing the most entertaining footage for a broad audience. Well, almost all of the baskets were dunks -- maybe 90% -- and most of the remaining 10% were Meadowlark scoring with the old Globe tricks. Furthermore, a whole playground scene, whose only possible purpose was to exhibit Dr. J's elegance and style at basketball, did little more than show him dunking time after time. Nothing else ... Is this really the popular perception of basketball? The thought has nagged at me before this, but it really came home in the darkened theater. So long as the basket is 10 feet high and the players can spring 12 feet, you cannot legislate against the dunk. Ah yes, and if you give sticks to young men skating about at 30 mph, it is only natural that they will club one another. A dunk in basketball, like a punch in hockey, is the same sort of thing: it is strength and intimidation, not skill or grace. A lot of the people in the theater where I saw Fish loved the dunks, as they loved the disco, as they no doubt would be entertained by the hockey thugs. Disco is obviously a fad, and I doubt that dunk ball can survive for long, either. Fish shows that, like punching people on ice skates, no matter how proficient you are at it, the dunk becomes horribly monotonous after a while. Or, as you might read: "Horribly monotonous!" Deford, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED. Issue date: November 26, 1976
|
|
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||