Photo credits: Warrick Page HBO
For television fans, there are fewer words scarier, or more frustrating, than that of “canceled.” The way we interact with TV shows is simply different from other forms of media. These stories are told incrementally, long-form and with great care and attention paid to the gradual unfolding of character arcs and plotlines. This is to say, in an admittedly over-simplified conclusion, that waiting is an inseparable part of the viewing experience. It just comes with the territory. Oftentimes, our patience is rewarded. Popular television shows are successful in cultivating large communities that enjoy experiencing the journey together, and are given enough time in development and promotion to ensure quality output and sustainable ratings. On the other hand, what happens when a show is cinematically excellent, but fails to reach its studio’s expectations? An unfortunate example of this scenario is one of my favorite new TV shows of the past few years, HBO’s “Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty.”
I’d certainly forgive you for not expecting a sports historical drama to have some of the most interesting cinematography, story-telling and casting choices in recent memory. Quite the contrary, “Winning Time” delivers one of the most artfully compelling experiences you’re liable to see on television. The show covers the tumultuous history of the Los Angeles Lakers NBA franchise during the early 1980s, a time when basketball was somewhat of an afterthought in the public consciousness. The larger-than-life personalities that defined this era of Lakers basketball are colorfully and excellently portrayed by a plethora of razor-sharp casting choices. John C. Reilly as Jerry Buss and Adrian Brody as Pat Riley are expectedly perfect, but a number of younger actors show off their immense talent as well. Quincy Isaiah as Magic Johnson, Solomon Hughes as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Hadley Robinson as Jeanie Buss all deliver inspired and lively performances that make me excited to see them take up roles in future shows and films.
These incredible roles are only further elevated by the way in which the show tells its story. “Winning Time” wears a heavy film grain, reminiscent of the era in which the show takes place. Aspect ratio and perspective are also played with in ways that elevate important or intense scenes. At times, it seems to answer the question, “What if Wes Anderson directed a documentary in 1981?” Building off of those experimental filmmaking methods, the show knows when to turn the seriousness on and off. Important or upsetting moments are characterized by close-up shots of subtle facial reactions or loud screaming matches, while more fun scenes are given life by ‘80s music and the sunny exteriors of Southern California. Characters can also break the fourth-wall at any moment, oftentimes speaking directly at the camera in the middle of a scene to provide context and clarity. The editing occasionally serves a similar function, as some more absurd scenes will pause and text will appear, stating something like, “Yes, this really happened.” “Winning Time” takes creative agency over real-life events that allows it to tell a historical drama story like few others. Given the nature of these narratives, though, it makes the recent news surrounding the show that much more disappointing.
Upon watching last week’s season two finale, I was surprised to see what amounted to a PowerPoint presentation at the end, telling the life stories of the real-life figures following the show’s 1984 conclusion. When I tried to find out why the episode ended like this, I was not happy with what I found. According to The Los Angeles Times, an HBO representative disclosed that “Winning Time” was being canceled, and season two would be its last. With the ongoing Screen Actors Guild strike, the star-powered cast was not able to promote the show, which is assumed to be a massive contributing factor to its 50% dip in ratings. It is a loss for everyone involved that such a creative and fun show has fallen victim to a studio system that continues to misconstrue ratings and alienate the creators who are the foundation of their industry.
Speaking again from a critical standpoint, this abrupt conclusion arguably impacts a show like “Winning Time” more than it would most others. It is quite clear that the intention from the beginning of the show was to tell the story of the Lakers from Jerry Buss’ purchase of the team up to Magic Johnson’s HIV diagnosis and subsequent retirement. Season two’s 1984 endpoint only covers a fraction of the Lakers’ exploits in the 1980s. Given that we know all the real-life stories that could have been told with the same wit and charm that is so characteristic of the show, it’s hard not to feel robbed of a series that could have been generationally great. The series ending on the Lakers’ 1984 Finals loss feels needlessly depressing, considering those Magic led teams would go on to win multiple titles.
Anyways, lamenting what is lost seems pessimistic, considering what “Winning Time” is, and will remain to be, is fantastic. If you’re looking for an immensely entertaining and creatively rich sports drama, I cannot recommend this show highly enough. Be aware, though, that Wikipedia will have to be your substitute for season three.
Carlo Constantine is a second-year Political Science major. CC1031591@wcupa.edu