I thought Hoop Dreams was really inspiring when I saw it. But that was a while ago, and I playing basketball at the time. Like the characters, I wanted to be really good. But now that my interest in basketball as a profession has faded, I can see the film's problems. Hoop Dreams works to instill a limited sense of professionalism or extracurricular pursuit. I'm not entirely sure if the film includes any instance of the characters pursuing their academic responsibility, which is problematic because athletes must usually maintain a specific grade average. I agree with bell hooks. The film works to suggest and legitimize a specific skill set that a specific ethnic group should pursue. I imagine the target audience is incredibly diverse, but the workings of the film function as trappings specifically to ethnic/marginalized groups that are mostly "of color". It perpetuates stereotypical interests of African American males while gesturing at ideologies rooted in a colonial era. However, it's difficult to criticize the film for just this reason. I think a more viable critique would be of class, labor and "accessible identity" that function cyclically, maintaining and resisting these cultural notions. The film is not transgressive, but it is "spicy". While almost everyone can identify with some type of struggle or confrontation with adversity, the relationship between the narrative resonates differently and more concretely to an audience member who sees himself on the screen. It's difficult to argue about the film's transgressive or lack of transgressive intent from a truly "transgressive" stance. Both the film and its commentary must be compromised in order to make a point.