No Crossover: The Trial of Allen Iverson (2010)

Director/Screenwriter: Steve James

By Marilyn Ferdinand

As a person who lived through the melee of the 1994 O. J. Simpson murder trial, I knew I had never seen anything like it—particularly the way blacks and whites lined up on either side of the guilty/not guilty divide—and thought that certainly there never was or would be a trial like it again.

I was wrong.

Just a year before this trial of the century, a less sensational, but no less divisive trial took place in the historic community of Hampton, Virginia. The phenomenally gifted star of the Bethel High School basketball team and future NBA great Allen Iverson and three other boys (Michael Simmons, Samuel Wynn, and Melvin Stephens) were arrested for throwing punches and chairs in a Hampton bowling alley that injured three whites, including a pregnant woman. Stephens severed his trial from the other three defendants and ended up walking with a misdemeanor conviction. Simmons, Wynn, and Iverson took a bench trial presided over by a “hanging” judge and were convicted of three counts of “maiming by mob”—a felony crime put in place to allow lynch mobs to be prosecuted—and sentenced to 15 years in prison. The town of Hampton was instantly split in two. A concerted effort by a citizens group called S.W.I.S. (the initials of the four defendants) and the fortuitous ability of Virginia’s first black governor to grant clemency because he was retiring and unconcerned about facing voters the next year enabled the three boys to win their freedom after serving about four months.

Steve James, one of the world’s most gifted documentarians, hails from Hampton, and like everyone else on “The Peninsula” on which Hampton rests, was well aware of Allen Iverson. James’ father Bill, though an alumnus of Hampton High, was a huge fan of Iverson’s. After James moved to Chicago, his father used to send him clippings from the local papers about Iverson’s accomplishments on the gridiron and the basketball court—and of course, stories about the trial. When ESPN approached James to take part in its “30 for 30” documentary series, he chose to return to Hampton to try to make sense out of what happened there in 1993.

As a Hampton insider and a natural storyteller with complete command of the cinematic form, James gives viewers the lay of the land quickly and indelibly. We feast on footage of Iverson, just barely brushing past 6 feet tall, running like liquid mercury down the football field and hanging off hoop rims after authoritative slam dunk after slam dunk. We see him sink 30-foot jump shots and celebrate his touchdowns with fancy endzone moves. We also hear about his temper, his cockiness, his fatherless home, his drug-addicted mother, the neighborhood black men who stepped in to try to keep him on the straight and narrow. And we see a narrow footpath to the shore of Chesapeake Bay as James reminds us that Hampton, the oldest, continuous, English-speaking settlement in North America, also was one of the earliest centers for the slave trade. Thus, tidily, we are prepared for a discussion of race.

And, indeed, race may have caused the brawl at the bowling alley. Most of the witnesses and the defendants contend that some white bowlers had bandied about the “n” word to incite a fight. A fragment of video footage of the brawl was taken, and the chairs flying from black hands onto white bodies looks pretty savage. Iverson supposedly had been led out of the bowling alley, away from the fight, to protect his future as a top recruit for elite college athletic programs.

Jim Spencer, a Hampton Daily Press columnist and reporter in 1993, did not think Iverson was the kind of person to walk out on a fight. He ran a blunt opinion piece at the time that said Iverson and the others needed to be accountable for their actions, denying race had anything to do with the arrests. Nonetheless, no whites were arrested and considerations about the possible verbal incitements dismissed as a “sticks and stones” situation.

James had trouble getting people—including his own mother—to agree to be interviewed for the film. Iverson did not cooperate, but James skillfully blends interviews of him while he was in a minimum-security farm-prison and other archival footage, for example, holding one of his Crossover camps in Hampton (following criticism that he had avoided coming there), talking about his devoted white tutor who used to cry when he would show up at her home late for a lesson, and graduating from high school months after his classmates had already matriculated. It is through all his triumphs and trials that we get the complicated picture that is Allen Iverson.

James also talks to some of the S.W.I.S. members, who called the incident the most blatant example of racism they had ever seen in the Virginia judicial system. There is some intimation that prosecutor Colleen Killilea had political aspirations, and indeed, she is now a judge who refused to be interviewed. Regardless of whether one feels the boys deserved some kind of punishment for their part in the brawl, one has to conclude that 15-year sentences for first-time offenders who were not unequivocally tied to the crime (Killilea told Sports Illustrated at the time, “While we couldn’t link specific people to specific acts, each defendant was responsible for what occurred,” which put the maiming by mob charge into play) was a miscarriage of justice. James says that Iverson’s fame undoubtedly worked against him at trial, but for him in winning release. Amusingly, right after James shows a scene of jubilation about Iverson’s release, he cuts to Michael Simmons remembering his reaction with a laugh: “What about me?”

James’ skilled editing provides many such laughs and evenhandedly juxtaposes the outrage of black Peninsula residents with the law-and-order uprightness of its white population. He also makes it clear that black residents who had moved on up in the world were also against Iverson and his codefendents. James shoots scenes of the well-to-do blacks watering their lawns in fashionable neighborhoods, though the suggestion of one interviewee that they simply didn’t want to lose ground in the racial divide seems a little too simple. It was, as another interviewee put it, an issue of class more than race.

James went in search of his roots in such a way as to find out more about a community he only half knew. When asked about race relations today, one of the S.W.I.S. members said it’s a tiny bit better. A middle-aged black man says it’s like watching a duck. You see the duck glide smoothly on top of the water, but you never see its legs paddling furiously underneath. James ends this superb film with a group of geese moving across a pond in Hampton.

  • Greg F spoke:
    8th/04/2010 to 3:51 pm

    It’s playing at the AFI here in Silver Spring but I may have to watch it on ESPN because of college tours with the oldest and money issues at present thanks to the college tours. Also we’re saving our movie money for the Fellini movies this month at the AFI. All that aside, I remember this only as a blip on the radar at the time (and I live in the area). Maybe it was just in Virginia that it was sensational and its controversy didn’t cross the Potomac, I don’t know, but I definitely look forward to seeing it.

    Having not seen it yet I’m wondering why Iverson didn’t submit to be interviewed for it. Surely he must know, or had someone tell him about, Steve James reputation and that he would almost assuredly be presented in a positive light. It seems an odd decision to make.

  • Marilyn spoke:
    8th/04/2010 to 4:07 pm

    Steve James has been traveling with the film, and he’s well worth meeting and listening to, but I don’t think TV viewing will hurt this film at all.

    As for why Iverson didn’t agree to talk, I think this was a very painful incident for him that he doesn’t want to relive. He’s had a lot of troubles over the years. His return to Hampton with his camp was reluctant and only after a fair amount of criticism. A lot of people didn’t want to talk, not wanting to stir the waters. After reading some comments on the Daily Press website about the film, it appears that there are still a lot of people who think Iverson is a thug who should still be in prison. This community is still divided.

    And frankly, he could not be guaranteed a positive portrayal and he didn’t get one. He got a human portrayal, warts and all. That’s what James does; he films humans.

  • Sam Juliano spoke:
    9th/04/2010 to 4:16 pm

    There is little that could serve as a more fascinating subject for a documentary, and you really peel away the gauze on this critically lauded work, which I do look forward to seeing soon. The community aspect, where there is a sharp division among racial lines reminds me of the scenario that unfolded in Joe Berlinger’s BROTHERS KEEPER, where a small rural community split on whether or not a mentally limited hillbilly killed his brother out of mercy for his worsening health.

  • Marilyn spoke:
    9th/04/2010 to 10:39 pm

    I’m not familiar with that film, Sam, but I enjoy when entire communities are brought to life. In this case, the fragile veneer of equality is something that nobody seemed all that willing to break through to be part of this film. The underlying tension must be difficult to live with.

  • Joe C. spoke:
    10th/04/2010 to 2:07 am

    The more I let this film settle the more I think I like it. Especially after reading your write up.

    Don’t you think that the film was a bit scattered overall? I couldn’t tell if it was supposed to be a portrait of Iverson, Hampton, the racial divide or the judicial system. Then again, all of these things are related. I suppose that’s the point.

    I wanted to love this film, but I came out of it underwhelmed. Maybe with a bit more time and a second viewing I’ll feel differently….

  • Marilyn spoke:
    10th/04/2010 to 7:42 am

    Joe – It’s a problem when a documentary can’t offer an interview with one of its title characters. Look at the train wreck that was Kurt and Courtney and Roger and Me, which was only rescued by turning the camera on Flint, Michigan. James had the same problem here, but he is so much better a filmmaker than Broomfield and Moore that he actually created something richer than a portrait of Iverson. Being from Hampton, no doubt, helped him a lot in getting under the skin of the community, and he used the archival footage of Iverson about as well as anyone could.

  • Lee spoke:
    13th/04/2010 to 12:06 pm

    I saw this amazing documentary at “First Tuesdays with the Midwest Independent Film Festival” in Chicago recently. Steve James was in attendance for a post-screening Q&A. I found the film to be very thought-provoking!

  • Marilyn spoke:
    13th/04/2010 to 12:18 pm

    That’s where I saw it, too, Lee. It was a terrific experience, wasn’t it!

Leave your comment

(*)mandatory fields.

What others say about us

"You put a lot of love into your blog." – Roger Ebert, Roger Ebert's Journal
"Marilyn and Roderick … always raising the tone." – Farran Smith Nehme, The Self-Styled Siren
"Honestly, you both have made me aware of films I've never seen, from every era. Mega enriching." – Donna Hill, Strictly Vintage Hollywood

Subscribe to Ferdy on Films

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts


Chicago Resources

Collected Writings

General Film Resources