ESPN Debuts 30 for 30 With Mixed Results
ESPN, Hockey, Movies, NHL, Oh Canada! October 7th. 2009, 3:45pm
ESPN debuted its 30 for 30 documentaries project with Peter Berg’s Kings Ransom, the story of the Wayne Gretzky trade. I’m a history nut. I love documentaries. This project excited me. I wasn’t overwhelmed by this first effort, nor was I underwhelmed. I was…whelmed. I found it a bit nebulous.
Berg uses persistent urban imagery – highways, skylines, stadiums – but very little that read as distinctly Los Angeles or Edmonton. For me, it muddled the two cities rather than dichotomizing them.
The introduction was crucial for this story. I found it flimsy. I got that Wayne was a great hockey player and Canadians felt attached to him. I didn’t get why. Maybe that was obvious for everyone over 30, but I only remember him as a King. His Edmonton days are like some out of control party I wasn’t invited to. I would have liked that fleshed out more.
Berg weaves the personal narratives of those involved to the tell the story of the trade with archival noise, but without context. Gretzky, Bruce McNall and Peter Poklington tell their sides, but there’s little synthesis or direct chronological framework.
The most intriguing part of the film was Gretzky, even though the staged shots of him in the iceless hockey arena were more stilted than enlightening. There are these staccato glimpses into his humanity; the tears at his press conference, the artificiality and cameras at the wedding he planned, this bizarre, nervous facial expression he has every time he gets on the ice. After equivocation, he says, “I was mad they were trying to trade me, so I left.” He was fascinating.
The most problematic part of the film was the ending. The fallout makes the trade important. It’s covered in a few lines of perfunctory text, which change the face of the film entirely.
You find out Edmonton won another Stanley Cup in 1990 without Gretzky, so the outraged fans burning Peter Poklington effigies were mollified shortly after. You also find out that Kings’ owner Bruce McNall was convicted of massive fraud six years later and spent time in prison, so you don’t know how much of his story to believe.
The basis of a documentary is to explain what happened, why it happened and why it was important. Kings Ransom was artfully shot, but I don’t know that it did that for the Gretzky trade.
55 Responses to “ESPN Debuts 30 for 30 With Mixed Results”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.


October 7th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I enjoyed it. Im looking forward to the one about The U. good post Duffy
October 7th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
what about the ironic impact of his move to LA which led to popularizing the sport in the US, that in turn led to massive and quick expansion, that eventually played a big part in the league suffering?
October 7th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I can’t believe Gretzky was part of Fraggle Rock before he went to L.A.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
MLB
Phils 1, Rockies 0, Bottom 5th
/MLB
October 7th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
What about Walt Gretzky? you would think Wayne would have bought him a huge mansion up there in Canada
October 7th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I think for this documentary to have met all of Duffy’s wishes it would’ve had to have been at least another 30 minutes long, and ESPN only gave all these guys an hour and modest budgets to work with. The only thing I didn’t really like was Berg inserting himself into the movie and the whole “interview on the golf course” aspect. Had to have been a more dramatic way to stage that. The guy who did Tyson and Black & White would’ve been great for this.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
is there a site showing each of the 30 projects?
October 7th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I didn’t get to see it last night (for obvious reasons), but seeing as this is ESPN I’m sure I’ll get to about 50 times within this week
October 7th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
The idea of 30 for 30 is to get the inside story of the event that was not told at the time. I thought the documentary did a good job of telling that story. All the things that came afterward can be told elsewhere. I especially liked Gretzky’s tone of voice when Berg asked him how many cups he won with Edmonton, and then asked how many cups he won with LA. You could hear the bitterness…while he said he wouldn’t have traded his time in LA for anything, deep down, he would have traded that time for another cup, for sure.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I trust they spent at least 15 minutes on Dykstra buying Gretzky’s house.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I watched E-60 before this and Wright Thompson was doing a piece on noodling in Oklahoma.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
The problem is that Berg only had an hour. I’m not sure how he’s supposed to weave everything you want in there in that time frame. I think the basis of the story was the trade. How it got done, why it was done. The outlying factors weren’t part of it.
Living in LA I thought Berg did a of job showing how hustle and bustle LA is and combined it with the aw shucks of Edmonton.
I thought the ending was rough and that Berg didn’t explain that his dad knew the whole time Wayne was getting traded. The best part of the doc to me was the middle with McNall, Pocklington, and Gretzky working out the details of the trade. I found it fascinating.
I thoroughly enjoyed it as a hockey fan and a documentary fan.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I hate Canada.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
So Duffy and I are both history nuts? French Revolution = greatest time to study.
/nerd’d
October 7th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
is there a site showing each of the 30 projects?
I believe it is
October 7th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
heck yeah. that’s why he went to st louis and new york. to have one last shot.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
30for30.espn.com
October 7th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Noodling is messed up, yo.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Oh for sure, and when he was talking about how as he left Edmonton he was peaking as a player and he felt that going to the Kings he had to “carry” the team which hurt his development. I don’t think these 30 for 30 films are supposed to be all-encompassing, they’re not feature-length documentaries.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
That was fantastic. Totally didn’t believe him when he said he had no regrets.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
The Berg-Simmons podcast was really good. I recommend anyone to listen to it after watching the Gretzky thing. Berg talks about a lot of this stuff.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
If I was Gretzky when he asked how many cups he won with LA, I would’ve said zero, then looked at Berg and asked, “So, what was making Aspen Extreme like?”
October 7th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Exactly. Simmons has mentioned this. It’s supposed to be something that no one has talked about. It’s not about Gretzky’s impact on the NHL after the trade or Edmontons 4 cups before. It’s about “The Trade”. And thats it. I’m really looking forward to the one about June 17th, 1994 and the Miami one
October 7th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
If I was Gretzky when he asked how many cups he won with LA, I would’ve said zero, then looked at Berg and asked, “So, what was making Aspen Extreme like?” bsanders
Winner!
October 7th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Good review, Ty. I agree with a lot of what you wrote here. I was really excited about this one, considering it was about hockey in the 80’s (the sport’s heyday, IMO) and perhaps the biggest trade ever at the time.
The thought of Gretzky being traded seemed incomprehensible at the time. Even now, people make the comparison when a trade rumor is proposed: “Hey, anything’s possible. Even Gretzky got traded”.
I thought the golf course conversations with Gretzky were a bit…self-indulgent. The pace of the documentary, as a whole, wasn’t very good.
On the plus side, I give them marks for not shying away from the “Janet Jones as Yoko Ono” angle.
Also, you forget how resplendent the mullets were in the 1980’s.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Peter Berg should never grow a beard.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
That was a HUGE trade at the time. This was not a mediocre WR being traded from the Browns to the Jets. This was the Babe Ruth of hockey being shown the door at the top of his game. This would be like Paul McCartney leaving the Beatles in 1968…to start Wings. Kind of a big deal.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
not being a movie guy, i had to look up who the hell this peter berg is (i guess i’m supposed to be impressed). i can honestly say the only work of his i’ve ever seen is friday night lights, which i’m not a fan of.
(for me, friday night lights is little more than a cheap soap opera with football as a back drop. click.)
October 7th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
and ever since then, everybody became tradeable in all sports.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
the tv show is, but not the movie, which he also directed and wrote the screenplay for.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I understand the doc was supposed to focus on the trade itself, but the trade was only fascinating because of the context.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Nice post Duffy. You’ve got a style that’s well-suited to reviews–film, restaurants, whatever. Good stuff.
The challenge for 30 for 30 will be maintaining momentum. If you believe what Simmons wrote in his intro to the series, they’re not ordered by importance or placed in any certain context. While it’s a nice idea artistically, I think it’s a mistake when it comes to attracting and retaining viewers. Each documentary would then really need to depend on people’s affinity for the particular topic or the director. I’ll be watching though.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
great article duffy. I didn’t watch it myself, but I like that you don’t dumb shit down.
412 – whose tits are those? Gorilla Biscuits?
October 7th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Gorilla Biscuits? is that you Reali?
October 7th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
movie was ok.
about the only movies i watch any more are either sports or history related. since those types of subjects generally are lukewarm at best at the box office, not many get made.
so for my entertainment, i’m left with nfl network, mlb network, nhl network, nfl sunday ticket, mlb extra innings, nhl center ice and college football (with a little college basketball sprinkled in).
oh, i forgot, and beer. :^)
October 7th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Yeah…whatever the term was irish used in referring to one of the many big-breasted women photographed w/ T-Bone.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
@412
I think you meant Mothra Muffins.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Or maybe it was King Kong Scones
October 7th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
give me a good spy movie.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I don’t remember if he said Godzilla or Gorilla. I don’t care enough to look it up.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
true. History movies now tend to be filtered to fit the director’s view on what happened. Dramatic licensing is a bitch like that.
/damn you Oliver Stone
October 7th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Godzilla Biscuits dammit. My catch phrase was used on Around the Horn. How you like those apples?
October 7th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I didn’t know that, irish. Good work.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
LOL! true, but at they are entertaining in a twisted way.
i love “nixon.” great writing. it’s almost a comicbook movie but it’s still good. love the scene where nixon is meeting with the texas oil tycoons who are bitching about the “damned ragheads” (that’s a direct quote in the movie) and nixon goes off on george wallace and eugene mccarthy. LOL
gotta say though the movie adaptations of john grisham’s books are mostly well-done. not sure if that’s because the books are so well-written or not.
and yeah, some of those the directors have really twisted the storylines to set an agenda.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Irish, would you put that on your resume? I feel like that would be a nice conversation starter at a job interview, though slightly awkward if the interviewer was a woman.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
prob not broseph
October 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I like “Frost/Nixon”. I never sat through all of “Nixon”, although I hear it was pretty good. “JFK” was about as historically accurate as “Dick”.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
you think so? i was really disappointed with Runaway Jury. didn’t translate well on the big screen. should have kept it about big tobacco and not guns.
October 7th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Peter Berg directed Hancock. What a victory.
October 7th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I agree with Duffy on the over use of the city landscapes and lack of some background on what Gretsky meant to Canada..it was implied but it could have taken the place of some over dramatic cut shots
The golf course thing to me was not self indulgent for this reason, Berg knows Gretzky. If he had him sit and a chair and talk I don’t think you get the same honesty about things. He put him in a spot where he was most comfortable and probably a place both of them talk about stuff with no filter.
October 7th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Berg got too cute for my taste and the meaty stuff (the interviews with Poklington and McNall and Sather) felt short.
I’d have wanted to see how the NHL’s expansion followed. They also brush aside the rather interesting failure of Gretzky to win a Stanley Cup after leaving Edmonton.
BTW was the interview with Berg the reason why Gretzky left the Coyotes high and dry three weeks ago before quitting?
October 7th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
double wow – this post and
October 7th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
agreed. i was watching the movie and i’m like, “wait a minute: the book had nothing to do with guns.”
but the hollywood crowd smokes and they consider guns to be the evil of society. so…
October 7th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Berg uses persistent urban imagery – highways, skylines, stadiums – but very little that read as distinctly Los Angeles or Edmonton.
I guess the shot towards the end of the cows grazing with the skyline in the background looked too much like Chavez Ravine.
I couldn’t believe when Gretzky got traded. Imagine the Bulls trading Jordan in, say 1992 in the middle of his first “3-peat”. That’s about what it was like. Changed the game both good (more interest in US) and bad (subsequent overexpansion)
October 7th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
what moron wouldnt know who gretzky was and how great he was when he was traded? im glad they didnt waste 20 min covering that.