Ben Affleck Gambles With An Air Jordan Movie That’s Not About The Basketball Star

It took all of a few minutes after the “Air” trailer dropped for folks to begin casting doubt on the entire idea of it — with good reason. The movie revolves around Nike’s monumental 1984 signing of then-rookie Michael Jordan for the now-immortal Air Jordan sneakers.

And it’s told through the perspectives of the white guys behind the deal, directed by and starring Ben Affleck — a driving force behind modern cinema’s obsession with white, Boston-set narratives like “The Town,” “Good Will Hunting” and “Gone Baby Gone.”

The actor-filmmaker seldomly center characters of color in his movies. Yet he has chosen, by his own admission, to rest his and debut screenwriter Alex Convery’s latest work on fans’ adoration for Jordan, widely regarded as basketball’s G.O.A.T., who is Black.

Oh, and the actor who plays Jordan in “Air” is never actually seen in the film. Stay with me.

It’s a gamble. Not because Affleck isn’t a great director. In addition to the aforementioned acclaimed films, he also helmed 2012’s excellent drama “Argo,” for which he earned the Best Picture Oscar.

Rather, it’s because the legend of Jordan’s deal with Nike is also the legend of Black excellence dominating white American commerce in a way it never had before.

And that win is specific to Black people — particularly those who grew up with lesser means amid the rising crack epidemic in the ’80s who could only dream of brushing shoulders with the idols mentioned in Kurtis Blow’s song “Basketball,” much less of wearing their sneakers.

In “Air,” though, it’s a major victory for the marketing execs of the then-dwindling Nike brand, whose accomplishments and spitfire banter are thrillingly portrayed by Matt Damon and Jason Bateman, plus Affleck as Nike owner Phil Knight and Chris Messina as Jordan’s agent David Falk.

And those achievements are powered by the film’s ’80s rock and otherwise white-band-heavy soundtrack.

It’s, as they say, a choice. Centering white people in this kind of story while showing its Black emblem of success only from the shoulders down or from the back immediately begs the question of whose story this is to tell.

The short answer is: It’s complicated. If you think of “Air” as a movie about the first Black athlete — or athlete in general — to earn a share of the profit in an endorsement deal, then it deserves a storyteller who can compellingly explore both sports and racial context.

But if you think about “Air” as the film it actually is, then you might be able to appreciate it as the engaging pop culture retelling that it is (with some noteworthy revisions and omissions to be discussed in a bit).

Yes, it’s about white guys looking for a huge win through an industry dominated by incredibly talented Black players.

It’s also about that same white male-owned brand realizing — through the character of Jordan’s mother, who negotiated the contract (superbly played by Viola Davis) — that this win is not Nike’s alone. The brand can’t win without Jordan also winning. In other words, this will not be yet another example from that time (and still today) of a white organization exploiting Black talent.

“Air,” though, doesn’t really have the range to delve into that last point as directly as it should. Instead, it shows and implies, without actually saying it. That makes it a weaker film. But, as Affleck admits, he’s not the filmmaker to tell a more pointed story around the appropriation of Black culture by white people.

“That’s not my film to make,” the director told The Hollywood Reporter in a recent interview. “I’m telling a story that’s about a combination of things, and this is one aspect of it. I’m not going to omit it because to omit it would further compound the disrespect.”

Affleck seems to at least be cognizant of the issue of cultural appropriation in fashion and what Black talent has given to white America — and, more specifically, what Jordan means to Black America. The director even says at another point in his THR interview that he’s come to understand that “culture and style in America is 90 percent driven by Black culture.”

Thoughts like that make Affleck seem like he could, in fact, be a good director to helm a more robust story about this. It’s not just that he appears to have curiosity about and understanding of the issue. He’s also interested enough to align himself with Black talent like Davis, who can help inform the cultural subtext in a way he can’t.

Davis’ portrayal of Deloris Jordan seems designed to be in quiet conversation with Black audiences. As if to say, you don’t hear me saying it in this script, but you know what I’m saying here.

The same is true of Chris Tucker, who plays Nike exec Howard White, the type of fast talker who, in the movie, helps court Jordan’s parents as the only other Black face in the boardroom. This is all to say that there is some intention behind what Affleck and Convery deliver here, even if it falls just a bit short of a more provocative story.

There is also some purpose behind whose voices are included in this story and why — and whose are centered versus whose, in Jordan’s case, are entirely muted — to further drive home the point that this movie is about the people who made Jordan and not Jordan himself.

Damon’s Sonny Vaccaro is the main hero in the film, as evidenced by the many extreme close-ups of him and his inspirational speeches that are mostly about Jordan’s future legend status.

The echoes of fearlessness throughout “Air” also extend to Deloris and, as fondly detailed in the movie’s postscript, Marlon Wayans’ George Raveling, a former basketball star who helped inspire what would soon become Nike’s groundbreaking offer to Jordan.

There also seems to be some agenda in terms of what’s not in the movie, which also comes to mind when we talk about the potential story of “Air” as opposed to the actual story.

For instance, this 1986 New York Times article explores Jordan as a marketing juggernaut for both the NBA and Nike — and how that became a symbiotic relationship. As meaningful as Jordan’s success was to the Black community, the Times quotes him saying that he aspires to be seen as “neither black nor white.”

Maybe that’s indicative of Black stars in the ’80s, and still today, not wanting to feel limited on account of their race. Or maybe this has some other interpretation.

But it makes you wonder how “Air” could have explored that pricklier truth (perhaps through Deloris, to not disturb Jordan’s myth-like form here) as it makes sure to mention that part of Jordan’s Nike profits go to Black community organizations in his name.

That same Times article also makes a point of noting that the song playing in the Jordan video reel that Nike ultimately woos the star with is The Pointer Sisters’ “Jump.” It’s not the song we hear in “Air.”

Again, this goes back to what we talk about when we discuss cinematic agenda.

While “Air” isn’t necessarily hagiographical, every character in it comes out virtually unscathed. Perhaps because the film is not really about any of them, but rather about a feeling of winning, inspiring and giving hope. And you can apply that to any era or career.

Consider this framing all in the name of a thrilling cinematic experience that serves the main objective of every film: to tell a great story. And “Air” is a riotous, worthwhile and surprisingly heartfelt film that does just that.

It also happens to fit squarely inside Affleck’s wheelhouse, where he’s clearly most comfortable. Does that make it a less rewarding film? No, but it does give its audience a lot to chew on when we think about what we want from it and what we’re willing to research about it in our own time — and whether that’s enough for us to enjoy the movie.

What Affleck and Convery understand is that a film doesn’t have to be about the sport or the athlete to be good, or even to be considered a sports movie. The fact that they manage to create a gripping film about a story we already know speaks volumes about what they’ve accomplished.

At its core, “Air” has the same goal as most great sports films — to inspire. And of course, to entertain. This film does both.