Two documentaries featuring the best ever athletes at their sport came out on ESPN.
Last Dance
The story of the rise of Michael Jordan and the stormy times with the six-time NBA champion Chicago Bulls. It was too long and with too much filler. It was also way too worshipful, but that's not surprising since it's motivator is Bill Simmons who is the author of the terrific Book of Basketball and almost certainly the biggest basketball fan in history.
There was a time when I was a basketball fan. I loved the NBA in the Bird/Magic era. I would often watch entire double-headers and I still hear the NBA on CBS jingle when I think of it. Of course, I followed the Pistons back-to-back championship teams who everyone else hated, and rightly so. They were truly thugs on the court, but they were our thugs. (That's lame at best and shameful at worst.)
Michael Jordan never interested me. I hated the fawning he got, no matter how much he deserved it. I hated the media saturation. Coming from this era of great competition between Magic and Bird followed by the home team championships we go into the era where it not only was just about one team, but about one person that caused me to sour on the NBA.
In any event, I learned a couple of things from this documentary. First, I never knew how much conflict there was on those Bulls teams, not just with Bulls management but also among the players themselves. The other thing I noticed was Michael Jordan's intelligence. He had much more shaded views of events than I would have imagined. He seems very self-aware and thoughtful about his actions during those times. The extent to which he is regretful about anything is never explored although it can be read between the lines in some cases. Still, there is no mention of gambling or the less laudable second comeback.
At ten hour-long episodes it would have benefitted from some more judicious editing. It could have been at least 30% shorter.
Lance
The Lance Armstrong documentary is more economical, covering two two-hour episodes. Now that all the lawsuits have been settled; Lance comes clean about his actions and feelings. It is anything but worshipful, and quite stark on that matter. At the outset the interviewer asks Lance if he is going to tell the truth, and Lance responds that he will tell "my truth". Well, then.
We all know the outlines of Lance's story. Highlighted here are many scenes from his youth, his pre-cancer youth. He was a real prick. Think of the kind of prickishness that many young people display and amplify it by his level of talent and there you go. I always knew he was a prick, I just didn't know how bad.
But the real meat here is following him deeper and deeper into his lie. More and more people have to be destroyed. In retrospect Lance regrets most of the harm he's caused. Most. There are some people he still feels are worthy of his wrath -- Floyd Landis in particular. He still feels victimized by inequities in how juiced cyclists are treated -- some are still loved, others trashed. And, of course, whatever his cycling legacy, there is no denying the good Livestrong foundation has done.
All said and done, these two documentaries (Lance being far superior) really haven't changed the way I think about their subjects. I disliked the fawning of Jordan when he was playing and I can't see anything in the fawning Last Dance to change my mind. I saw Lance Armstrong's downfall as a Greek tragedy of hubris and I see it even more so after Lance.
A more interesting question to me is, is it a good thing to be the best? It might seem that way, but as I look at these two documentaries, I see some terrible aspects to it. Jordan does a good job of keeping his family out of it so it's hard to tell about his relationships with them (I know his marriages have been stormy, but that's not unusual). With respect to his friends, you see people like Ahmad Rashard and a couple of others but what are those friendships actually like? What does it mean for them to be a friend Michael Jordan? Given the realities of the situation, the nature of the differences in their lives, are they really friends or orbiters. Another way of putting it is given Michael's stature and position in the world, is it possible to just be a friend of his or are there other constraints and requirements? Can you really see yourself as having an equitable relationship with Michael? I cannot say whether a "friendship" with Michael is rewarding in the way most friendships are. Nor can I speculate on whether being his son or daughter allows for the traditional family rewards. It may be better or worse, but I strongly suspect it's quite different.
I can pretty much guarantee that were costs to being Lance Armstrong's son. He tells the story of defending his father during his 'tween years -- and if you know 'tween boys, you know how brutal that would be -- only to have his father come out and admit the lies. Unlike the speculation with Jordan, Lance, and Lance, is upfront about the costs to the people around him. Even absent the "disgrace", it's clear the Lance's relationships are affected by his Lance-ness. One of the final quotes from a long time acquaintance is that he has been Lance's friend for decades and "I still don't know if I love him or hate him."
Michael is rich, of course. Lance was, but is less so now and doesn't seem to have strong prospects. Both experienced boundless glory. One is still famous, the other infamous. But what of the value of their lives.
Let's think 50-60 years out. They will be mostly forgotten as people, just the statistics and outlines of their stories will be left and known only to those who take an esoteric interest in their respective sports. As much as we elevate athletes, they are, in essence, entertainers; creators of ephemeral exhilaration. There is value in that, however fleeting. There is, of course, value in the charitable work they have both done. Michael, as Chairman of the Charlotte Hornets, keeps a large business running and makes payroll, which is an underrated source value.
At my age, I have come to the conclusion that the value of your life is in how much you've enhanced the lives of the people you care about and it would be easy to say that the added costs of your glory to those close to you are too high and swamp the benefits. But that would be to discount the value you have, or could have, provided to strangers. As I started this post I was assuming I would come to the conclusion that the personality types who have that level of competitive drive are ultimately toxic for those around them and so it would be more of a curse than anything else, but now I am not so sure. I think if you have that level of competitiveness in you and you do not have the gifts to achieve it, that might be another story. That strikes me as a recipe for sociopathology. If you do actually achieve that level of eliteness, it seems like the pluses you can offer to the world might -- might -- outweigh the struggles of those around you (and yourself).
Back to the documentaries, take Last Dance with a grain of salt. Lance is an all time great character study. Both are worth watching.
Addendum: Some have outright accused the Last Dance of being rife with lies. Maybe an entire shaker of salt is in order.
