Today’s multi-media environment features an abundance of documentary programming easily accessible through a variety of means, including broadcast television, cable, satellite, DVD, online streaming, and video-on-demand. To use a more-encompassing definition of the term, this documentary programming includes docusoaps, gamedocs, and other forms of reality shows; nature shows; investigative and other news reports; how-to or DIY programs; and social issue explorations.

Nanook of the North showed in theaters during the early 1920s. It drew so much attention that its director, Robert Flaherty, got a deal with an emerging film studio to make “another Nanook.”

This convenient access to documentary is a more recent development in terms of documentary distribution. Unlike Hollywood studio-backed fiction films, documentary films never gained uncomplicated access to theaters and theatrical audiences. Robert Flaherty’s classic Nanook of the North got shown in some theaters through distribution by Pathé Exchange and garnered enough critical attention to get Flaherty an offer to make another similar documentary, but few, if any, other documentary makers at the time saw a similar level of success. Movie theaters offered one exhibition outlet for documentary film, other outlets included (and still include) museums, art houses, festivals, educational settings, book stores, and other community spaces.

The then-new medium of television brought a new outlet for documentary media. In the early days of broadcast television, particularly the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Big Three networks showed some documentaries, including such canonical works as Harvest of Shame (CBS, 1960) and Hunger in America (CBS, 1968). This period for early broadcast television documentary remained brief, and entertainment programming dominated their schedules. Documentary did find an outlet with the newly launched Public Broadcasting Service in the early 1970s, and the service remained the key broadcast home for documentary into the 1970s and 1980s, when the growth of cable programming really took off. Basic cable channels built their program line-ups around documentary media, and pay cable channels, particularly HBO with its documentary division, integrated documentaries into their schedules as part of their prestige programming.

Today’s media convergence environment brings programming into a whole new environment full of options for audiences to access documentaries and other content. Along with broadcast, cable, theaters, and DVDs, audiences use Web sites such as Hulu, Netflix, and SnagFilms. Instead of limiting access to one or two media, some outlets maximize the multimedia options. PBS, for example, sometimes uses a combination of broadcast, online streaming, and an iPad application, along with a DVD purchase option.

A significant portion of this documentary programming available through these multimedia means are recent productions. These productions are usually among the more popular ones that gained attention through festivals such as HotDocs or Sundance, which resulted in them getting picked up by more mainstream distributors.

But what about consistent online access to older programming? Frequently, older, fiction-based programming is more readily available for online access than documentary programming. For example, the classic Star Trek series, I Love Lucy, Perry Mason, and Dynasty are available for viewing online through CBS. For another set of examples, Hulu offers The Donna Reed Show, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, and even 170 episodes of Green Acres.

John Huston’s Let There Be Light (1946) was shelved by the Army for 40 years before audiences were allowed to see it. Now that the piece is in the public domain, it is available for download through archive.org and for viewing on other sites.

Older documentary programming proves a little more elusive. Some older titles are available through Hulu and Snagfilms, but the term “older” here still refers to many titles within the last 30 years or so. Some titles appear on YouTube, but the question remains of their potential copyright violation. One resource for some older documentaries is archive.org, which brings together titles from the Prelinger Archives, the National Archives and Records Administration, and other diverse sources. Finding some documentary classics there takes a little digging, but the online archive does include John Huston’s Report from the Aleutians (1943), The Battle of San Pietro (1945), and Let There Be Light (1946), just to name three.

Several issues might influence the availability of older documentaries online. One issue relates to public domain and copyright. Public domain titles face no restrictions in terms of making them available online, at least outside the labor to convert the titles to digital form and to upload them somewhere. Let There Be Light, for example, belongs to the public domain. Copyright creates complications, as corporations have found ways to extend copyright lengths again and again, thereby preventing titles from becoming part of the public domain and thus becoming more easily accessible. Disney’s White Wilderness (1958) offers a great example of early nature documentary and of excessive manipulation, as the makers staged the now-popular myth that lemmings commit mass suicide in order to create more interest. For now, White Wilderness remains available for online streaming through Amazon.com, but what happens when Disney pulls the online rental option?

HBO’s fictionalization of the making of An American Family brought some attention to the PBS reality series. Pictured are James Gandolfini as Craig Gilbert, Diane Lane as Pat Loud, and Tim Robbins as Bill Loud.

Another issue might lie in the perceived lack of interest among audiences. While documentary carries with it some cultural significance, it sometimes also comes with an unfortunate reputation of being “boring.” Older documentaries in particular bear this misapplied stamp, often because of their overbearing voiceover narration and strong didactic overtones. But this supposed lack of interest might also be connected to a lack of awareness. Most of media content today features this year’s documentaries, with even last year’s titles quickly becoming part of the collective forgetting. Some moments do reignite some interest in historical documentary, such as HBO’s Cinema Verite, which is a fictionalization of the making of the PBS reality series An American Family, but remakes of fiction programming occur much more frequently that “fictionalizations” of documentary. Either way, though, media “history” remains entrenched firmly in the present while at the same time forgetting the past.

The third issue is money. Many online distribution systems rely on advertising, either banner or in video, to support themselves, while others rely on subscription or rental fees. The questions here center on if these older documentary titles would generate interest and draw in viewers.

The Topp Twins: Untouchable Girls received a warm welcome at its North American debut but otherwise struggled to get distribution there. How will online distribution affect access to these films a decade or more after their release?

All of these reasons come back to some underlying questions that offer no simple answers. One, as more people watch through multimedia devices and online streams, what happens to the selection? We have more options for accessing programming, but what kinds of programming are we getting access to? In ten years, Michael Moore’s films likely will still be available, but what about titles such as The Topp Twins: Untouchable Girls (2009) or Tongues Untied (1989)? From there, is there a way to curate and organize historical documentary online so that audiences have access to that history and so that it gets preserved as well?

Please feel free to comment.

Image Credits:
1.) White Wilderness
2.) Nanook of the North
3.) Let There Be Light
4.) HBO’s Cinema Verite
5.) The Topp Twins: Untouchable Girls

Extreme Makeover: Weight Loss Edition

With the rising temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, the U.S. broadcast television summer schedules shift even more to reality programming. Broadcast television stations offer a wide variety of reality shows, including The Bachelorette, The Voice, Master Chef, America’s Got Talent, and So You Think You Can Dance, among others. Of course, what would a summer schedule be without another reality show about weight loss?

While NBC programs its The Biggest Loser franchise during the fall and spring, ABC now airs Extreme Makeover: Weight Loss Edition on Monday nights. Instead of staging the weight loss experiences as a competition like The Biggest Loser does, Extreme Makeover: Weight Loss Edition compresses the experiences of one morbidly obese person who undergoes a year-long weight-loss program into an approximately 40-minute episode. While The Biggest Loser features well-known trainers Bob Harper and Jillian Michaels, Extreme Makeover: Weight Loss Edition brings forward Chris Powell, who claims he specializes in these types of transformations. Powell gained media attention in 2009 when he worked with David Smith to help Smith lose 400 pounds. Basic cable’s TLC aired their story in a documentary titled The 650 Pound Virgin. That documentary got Powell the invitation to work on the ABC series.

Each episode follows the same structure. The episode begins with the person chosen getting surprised by Powell, who serves as their coach and our host. After the shock, joy, and tears wear off, the chosen candidate and Powell head to the California Health & Longevity Institute for initial consultations. The candidate weighs in, receives some cooking and nutrition guidance, and gets challenged in some exercises meant to test his or her spirit and resolve. Upon returning home, the candidate enters his or her house to find an extensive set of workout equipment, with machines and weights. Distractions such as televisions and computers get removed, in some cases.

Candidates then proceed through a series of goals set every 90 days. In the first 90 days, the weight-loss goals set for the candidates prove a bit shocking, with some even set at 90 pounds. Powell works with them for these first three months, bringing some compassion and yet continues to push them as well. He attempts to remain cautiously optimistic about their potential and their progress, but he also reminds them that they need to stick to the plan and intervenes further when necessary.

The 180-day and 270-day marks include lower weight-loss goal amounts, and the 270-day mark also consists of a possible consultation for skin-removal surgery, if candidates prove eligible. The one-year mark becomes the big reveal with a crowd of family and friends witnessing the final weigh-in. In addition to the surgery, other incentives might be added at various markers, such as a trip to Greece for Rachel in the first episode and a new car for LaRhonda in the fifth episode.

This structure brings out the dramatic tensions within each episode. The underlying drama lies in the question of whether the person will fail or stumble along the way. Dramatic tensions occur among the people involved. Rachel, for example, struggles with her family complaining about the noisy workout equipment and remaining unsupportive of her dietary requirements. These tensions also occur within the individuals involved. Dana, a 45-year-old man from the third episode, reveals his past issues with abuse and the coping mechanism created by comfort foods.

The regular weigh-ins contribute to elevating the tensions, and the scales in particular become a source of drama. Most scales reveal the final number quickly and clearly. The numbers on the scales in this series jump up and down for several sequences before settling on the final number. Weigh-ins get accompanied with a tense music and interrupted with a commercial break. Rapid cuts between the person’s and Chris’s faces also add to this tension.

As much as these inflated tensions attempt to create drama, the show does offer some reality checks about trying to lose weight. For one, it shows that this kind of weight loss is possible without gastric bypass or other weight-loss surgeries. Second, in an advertising culture that highlights eating plans and workout videos promising rapid results, this show dedicates time to revealing some of the hard work that goes into taking pounds off. Dana at one point mentions working out 4-5 hours per day, while Rachel maintains a 1,500-calorie-per-day eating plan. Third, it further shows some of the everyday roadblocks that people might face, such as an unsympathetic family or the temptations of old habits. Fourth, it offers a glimpse (but only a glimpse) into the mental complexities that inform people’s eating habits and weight gains. Extreme Makeover: Weight Loss Edition puts across the message that what these people go through is a lot of hard work.

Overall, though, these transformations serve as part of the spectacle created for television. The show highlights the extremes in the weight and size. The initial weigh-ins place all the candidates on a freight scale on a loading dock instead of on a medical scale. The numbers of their initial weights run high, upwards of 300 and, in one case, even 600 pounds. Pictures of the candidates reveal their sizes as well, with the women wearing sports bras and the men appearing shirtless in pictures documenting their transformations along the way. These photos sometimes get edited into a montage showing their progress, and they get used as comparison points along the way. For some, these images might seem insensitive.

Overall, though, who benefits from Extreme Makeover: Weight Loss Edition and similar weight-loss focused reality shows? The participants of the show definitely do, at least in terms of shedding pounds and working toward better health. The trainers build multi-media franchises around their expertise and their celebrity through DVDs and Web sites, with Michaels at jillianmichaels.com, Harper at mytrainerbob.com, and Powell at reshapethenation.com.

The show is only in its first few broadcast episodes, and so far the companion ABC Web site remains thin on its show-related offerings, though heavy on advertisements. A quick poll asks, “What are you most looking forward to about the show?” The top answer from the options was “Getting inspired to change my life,” with 45 percent of the votes. For the everyday person trying to lose weight, though, this show presents an oversimplified picture. The show offers little to no sense of candidates trying to juggle work, family, friends, and other obligations. Any insight there frames these challenges as achievements along the way, such as LaRhonda’s graduation, or as distractions from the weight-loss efforts, such as with Dana’s singing. Not everyone has access to such equipment similar to what the candidates receive, and not everyone has 4-5 hours each day to dedicate to exercise (though the Web site tips suggest 4-6 hours per week). The show further glosses over the day-to-day decisions that inform a healthy lifestyle.

So in the end do viewers benefit from these shows? In general these shows do introduce a more complex set of messages about health and weight loss beyond the advertising-oriented ones. Some may find inspiration in the weight-loss stories, but by focusing on the extremes, do these shows muddle the messages for those seeking their own paths to a healthier lifestyle?

Image Credits:
1. Extreme Makeover: Weight Loss Edition
2. LaRhonda
3. Dana weigh-in.
4. Rachel weigh-in.
5. Alex diet training.

Please feel free to comment.

Intelligence is gendered masculine, and in popular thinking intelligent people often are male. Television representations of intelligence reinforce this gendering, and they reduce these intelligent characters to traits such as possessing multiple degrees, spouting obscure facts, pursuing scientific interests, announcing their intellect, highlighting their photographic memories, overusing logic, avoiding empathy, and overall acting socially awkward. Other characters affirm their intelligence through observations, admiration, and other comments. The CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory features both male and female characters who exhibit high intelligence and scientific accomplishment, which suggests the possibility for challenging these gendered constructions. Two minor characters — Dr. Beverly Hofstadter and Dr. Elizabeth Plimpton — demonstrate the extremes in these constructions, and their representations raise some further questions about gender, intelligence, and sexuality.

Created by Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady, The Big Bang Theory features four highly intelligent men whose interactions with each other, their friend Penny, and the real world make for the hilarious and awkward moments that drive the series. Dr. Sheldon Cooper, Howard Wolowitz, Dr. Rajesh Koothrappali, and Dr. Leonard Hofstadter all work at the California Institute of Technology, and they bond over traditionally masculine undertakings of comic books, superheroes, video games, science fiction shows, and science and technology experiments. While some parts of the show’s humor derive from these four’s interactions, other parts of the show’s humor come from their interactions with the world outside that circle. A few women become part of the regular cast, and many of them exhibit high intelligence and academic accomplishments, including Bernadette Rostenkowski, a Ph.D. in microbiology; Amy Farrah Fowler, a Ph.D. in neuroscience; and Rajesh’s sister Priya, a J.D. holder. The neighbor across the hall, Penny possesses a different set of smarts — street smarts about everyday people, alcohol, and popular culture.

Through their extremes, two minor characters raise questions about the intersections of gender, intelligence, and sexuality, and they provide a contrast to the other female characters on the show. The first is Dr. Beverly Hofstadter, Leonard’s mother, who appears in “The Maternal Capacitance” from season two and “The Maternal Congruence” from season three. Beverly holds degrees in psychiatry and neuroscience. She wears business suits in muted colors and glasses, and she wears her hair in a demure style. She makes analytical statements, exhibits emotional detachment, and shows sexual repression. She speaks in a clinical way. In “The Maternal Congruence,” for example, she casually tells Leonard about her carpal tunnel surgery, her divorcing Leonard’s father, and their dog dying, yet she fails to comprehend why Leonard gets so upset about these pieces of news. She says, “Excuse me, Leonard, I am the one getting a divorce, Mitzy [the dog] is the one who is dead, why are you the one making a fuss?” Her detachment from the emotions and from her son shows her inability to connect with others on those levels. Penny later asks her, “You’re not upset that your marriage is over?” Beverly replies, “Well, initially I felt something akin to grief and perhaps anger, but that’s the natural reaction of the limbic system to being betrayed by a loathsome son of a bitch.” Her connection of those emotions to the body’s processes again suggests critical distance. This response sets up her next bombshell: That she had not had “intercourse” with her husband for eight years. She further reveals that she and her husband had sex only for the purposes of procreation, and both of them wrote papers about the experience.

Despite these analytical statements, the emotional detachment, and the sexual repression, Beverly still “lets go” a bit. In “The Maternal Capacitance,” she finds herself comfortable with Sheldon to sing Journey’s “Any Way You Want It” along with a video game system. In “The Maternal Congruence” her inspiration for “letting go” is a more traditional one: alcohol. As Beverly learns the art of drinking shots from Penny, she maintains her critical distance but begins to desire sex. After her second shot, Beverly observes, “I am noticing an immediate lowering of my inhibitions. For example, I am seriously considering asking that busboy to ravish me in the alleyway while I eat cheesecake.” After she and Penny return to the apartment, Beverly also kisses Sheldon. These moments of “letting go” provide some humor in both episodes, but in the end Beverly returns to her previous self.

“The Plimpton Stimulation” introduces Dr. Elizabeth Plimpton, a cosmological physicist visiting from Princeton University. She has written two books and published several articles, and she is a leading expert in her field. Sheldon and Leonard admire her work, and Sheldon invites her to stay as a guest in their apartment.

Elizabeth appears almost the opposite of Beverly, particularly in terms of sexual repression. Instead of a business professional look, Elizabeth wears her long, red hair down, and she wears bright-colored clothing, with a yellow skirt and a red, magenta, black, and camel sweater. After Sheldon goes to bed, Elizabeth enters Leonard’s bedroom and tells him, “I wrote the section on the Wilson-Bappu Effect completely naked.” (Maybe science is an ecstatic experience.) She explains, “When we consider the brightness of pulsating variable stars, we start to see a possible explanation for some of the discrepancies found in Hubble’s constant” as she removes her bathrobe and reveals that she wears nothing underneath. She ultimately sleeps with Leonard.

In another scene Howard and later Leonard go to Raj’s apartment for their regularly scheduled Halo night. Elizabeth is there, and she sets up a role-playing situation for them: “You [Howard] are a deliveryman. You’ve brought soup but, uh-oh, Raj and I don’t have enough money to pay you. So we’ll have to come to some other kind of arrangement.” Elizabeth revises the scenario when Leonard arrives: “What’s going on is you and Howard are my moving men, and Raj is my new landlord. And I don’t have enough money to pay any of you.” Leonard and Howard step outside, and Raj locks them out, turns, and asks her, “So you say you can’t pay your rent?” Elizabeth places her fingers on her lips and shakes her head “no” while looking up at him in a seductive way.

On one level these women challenge the masculine nature of intelligence. Both Beverly and Elizabeth are accomplished science professionals. Both demonstrate some of the intelligent stereotypes, and both receive affirmation of their intelligence. But as much as these women possess high achievements in typically masculine fields, Elizabeth and Beverly represent opposites in sexuality. While Beverly represents the emotionally detached and sexually repressed scientist, Elizabeth represents a pleasure oriented, but even more sexually motivated, scientist. These two could be seen as paralleling the binary of virgins and whores that can define women’s representations in visual media, though a closer reading shows some nuances in sexual openness and age. While Elizabeth asserts her sexual availability, Beverly possesses the potential, particularly after drinking alcohol. While Beverly’s repression could be part of her middle age, Elizabeth’s openness could be considered part of the generational post-feminist reclamation of sexual identity as a form of empowerment. Ultimately, Beverly gets rejected by her husband for her sexual repression, but Elizabeth gains at least temporary acceptance from both Leonard and Raj.

So while these women can work and be accomplished in masculine fields, their sexuality becomes a representation of the extremes with no middle ground, which becomes fodder for the humor in these episodes. Comedy provides a release for cultural tensions, and The Big Bang Theory exploits these extremes of gender, intelligence, and sexuality through Elizabeth and Beverly. Few comedies, though, advocate for acceptance or understanding of these extremes. Instead, they show us these extremes in order to mock them, elicit some laughs, and reinforce gendered norms.

Image Credits:
1. The Big Bang Theory promo photo.
2. Still of the four in their Flash costumes.
3. Still 1 from “Maternal Capacitance.”
4. Still 2 from “Maternal Capacitance.”
5. Still from “The Plimpton Situation.”

Please feel free to comment.

“It’s not TV. It’s HBO.” With that slogan, premium cable channel Home Box Office attempts to distinguish itself as better than other channels on television through its programming. With in-house and contracted productions, the documentary division covers a broad range of social, cultural, and political issues such as the Iraq War, the Katrina devastation, and Alzheimer’s disease. HBO’s sports division also creates its own programming, which includes Bryant Gumbel’s Real Sports, Joe Buck Live (“A New Sports Show with a Fresh New Spin”), and Got No Game with Paul Mercurio. The sports division, too, creates documentaries, including Reverse of the Curse of the Bambino and Assault in the Ring.

Dare to Dream: The Story of the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team (2005) is one of the sports division’s documentaries that addresses the often overlooked women’s sports, which still struggle for equal representation and still receive less media coverage than men’s sports. Dare to Dream explores the U.S. women’s national soccer team’s rise and struggle through five of its most visible players: Julie Foudy, Brandi Chastain, Kristine Lilly, Joy Fawcett, and Mia Hamm. The film raises a few personal issues that pertain to women specifically. For example, Fawcett wanted children, and after getting pregnant and later having her first baby, she wondered whether or not she could return to the team. The voiceover proclaims, “Remarkably enough, Joy’s career would include three such comebacks” – one for each child. Other struggles appear less gendered, such as battling with disease or losing a beloved family member. Michelle Akers suffered a condition called chronic fatigue syndrome, while Hamm lost her brother, Garrett, to a blood disease. In addition to individual struggles, Dare to Dream addresses some of the team’s challenges, including getting media coverage, better salaries, and more fans.

The primary trajectory of Dare to Dream focuses on the team’s toughest competitions, beginning with the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 1991 and continuing through to the Olympics in 2004. A dramatic arc emerges through the representations of sport competition, with the U.S. women’s national soccer team cast as heroes and with rival teams and bad calls cast as foes. Former ABC sportscaster Robin Roberts describes these players in that light: “You had the perfect cast. They were the girls next door. There was a freshness to them, a wholesomeness to them.”

In this sports narrative, winning becomes the goal, and protracting that win adds tension and builds emotion. Dare to Dream extends the final penalty kicks between the United States and China with kickers, goalies, and coaches interviews to build that excitement. After Chastain makes the final kick, the announcer yells, “GOAL!” and the music swells. Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post comments that in that moment, “Everybody forgot that they were chicks.”

As the film closes, the voiceover provides a tribute to these women and their accomplishments: “But one thing was certain: they had forged a new frontier on the soccer field and demonstrated to a nation of young women that anything was possible, if only they dared to dream it.” According to Dare to Dream, these five players overcame personal setbacks, professional challenges, and sports rivals. Their accomplishments supposedly even raised women athletes to equal levels with their male counterparts as Cat Reddick, a younger national team player adds, “Women are accepted as athletes as much as men are now.”

While Dare to Dream was released in 2005 and produced by the HBO sports division, Jenny Mackenzie’s Kick Like a Girl (2009) is an independent production shown under the HBO documentary division in May 2009. Kick Like a Girl focuses on girls’ soccer team The Mighty Cheetahs, which swept 18 games against the other girls’ teams in one season. In the second year, the team played girls’ teams a year older and again swept the season. The girls needed some competition, and their coach Mackenzie made a bold move: “I wanted them to experience winning as well as losing as well as tying, so I thought, ‘Well, why don’t we enter the boys division?’”

A majority of the film gets told through the words of Lizzie, Mackenzie’s daughter. Kick Like a Girl mentions briefly Lizzie’s personal struggle with juvenile diabetes, which she was diagnosed with at age 4. The management of the disease requires several “pokes” per day to measure blood sugar, as well as insulin injections before eating. Lizzie explains how her parents taught her that she can do anything she wants, with or without diabetes, thereby exerting her success over this personal setback.

The film follows a similar arc as Dare to Dream by recounting each game in the nine-match season. At first, according to Lizzie, “We were a little nervous playing the boys but after a couple minutes it was just like the same old stuff.” Moving and still footage shows portions of each game as the onscreen scoreboards tick off each team’s goals. The Mighty Cheetahs started strong with winning three in a row before tying the fourth game. By the fifth game the competition gets more aggressive, and Lizzie comments, “There were more fouls on the field, but the ref didn’t seem to be calling them.” The team ended the season losing two more games and winning two more games. Lizzie explains, “We didn’t want the season to end because we were having so much fun.”

Either way, Kick Like a Girl follows similar themes in Dare to Dream. It draws on overcoming personal obstacles and on ignoring popular assumptions in order to succeed. It also follows the sports narrative of winning becoming the ultimate goal, but revising it to include the possibility of having fun while playing, too. Both films possess a very positive and encouraging message about the role of women and girls in soccer, even going so far to suggest that women and girls have attained equal status as men and boys on the soccer field.

Multiple issues get glossed over, however. Sports are a men’s domain, and “the sports / media complex is a hegemonic institution because it perpetuates ideology about the biology of women; what is socialized in U.S. culture is framed as natural”.1 While both films attempt to contradict these assumptions, they still follow the dominant narrative pattern in sports media. David Rowe notes, “The sports film has a tendency to traverse the boundaries of the real and the mythic”,2 by focusing on personal achievements within social and cultural systems and thereby not addressing the political implications. This process represents the real while at the same time reinforcing the mythic, such as through the accomplishments of both teams in face of the odds against them. Ian McDonald writes these sport documentaries “ultimately end with them reflecting rather than disrupting and challenging the dominant ideology of sport and the spirit of capitalism”.3 This reflecting becomes part of the reinforcement that sports mirror society.4

Both Dare to Dream and Kick Like a Girl provide a positive message but neither directly confront the underlying assumptions that inform the challenges they face. Fawcett’s pregnancies serve as a key example here, as they become the reasons for her setbacks at leaving and her triumphs at rejoining the team. While pregnancy brings its own challenges, it does not become a setback or an obstacle to women’s subsequent achievements. Dare to Dream implies otherwise.

While HBO has won numerous awards in its sports programming and its documentary programming, both of these films follow the dominant, apolitical approach to sports and documentary. This approach follows current trends in both theatrical and television documentary, with increasing focus on narrative and spectacle.5 Even when bringing in independent productions, HBO still chose a documentary that follows the dominant approach. As a result, HBO moves closer to basic television cable documentary programming and closer to being just television. It also makes no progress in challenging the lack of coverage about women and women’s issues and the hegemonic dominance of men in sports.

Heather McIntosh is a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Northern Illinois University, where she teaches courses in gender, documentary, television, and politics, among others. She recently defended her dissertation toward a Ph.D. in mass communications from the Pennsylvania State University.

Image Credits:
1. HBO’s Dare to Dream
2. Mia Hamm
3. Kick Like a Girl
4. The Mighty Cheetahs keep up with the boys’ teams

Please feel free to comment.

1. Hardin, Marie. “Stopped at the Gate: Women’s Sports, ‘Reader Interest,’ and Decision Making by Editors.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 82.1 (Spring 2005): 62.
2. Rowe, David. Sport, Culture, and the Media, 2nd ed. Berkshire, England: Open UP / McGraw-Hill, 2004. 200.
3. McDonald, Ian. “Situating the Sport Documentary.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues 31.3 (2007): 220.
4. Daniels, Dayna B. “You Throw Like a Girl: Sport and Misogny on the Silver Screen.” Film & History 35.1 (2005): 33.
5. Fürish, Elfriede. “Between Credibility and Commodification: Nonfiction Entertainment as Global Media Genre.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 6.2 (2003): 132.