WARNING: DON'T READ THIS IF YOU DON'T WANT THE ENDING OF THE MOVIE CINDERELLA MAN GIVEN AWAY! The reason I'm mad at him is because of what I hear regarding his newest movie, "Cinderella Man", which I admittedly haven't seen yet. It's the true story of Jim Braddock, a down-and-out boxer during the Depression era who was routinely getting whipped by bums, who suddenly, shockingly, started putting together win after win and eventually captured the world heavyweight championship when he was a 10-1 underdog. He reigned for a couple years before finally being dispatched--in a gutty match where he gave his all--by the immortal Joe Louis. So what's my beef? From what I hear from reviews I've read, it's the very fictional portrayal of Max Baer, the man Braddock beat for the title. Baer was one of the most talented Jewish boxers in history, he had a tremendous punch. The movie allegedly makes him out to be some kind of heartless killer, a "Clubber Lang" to Braddock's "Rocky". But it's a lie! I used to box in college and am an amateur student of boxing history. Max Baer, like his also-famous son, who was "immortalized" as "Jethro" on the Beverly Hillbillies, was known as a clown, a really goofy, funny guy. He was not a heavy! In fact, to picture the true Max Baer, think Jethro Bodine with wavy hair but the same goofy style, and you've got it. He was something of a playboy and a true character, but with Samson strength. In fact, for those who know their Hebrew scritures, the Samson comparison is on point on more than one level. He also had guts; he started proclaiming his Jewish heritage at a time when to do so was to marginalize yourself severely. Most boxing historians believe he lost the title match to Braddock by clowning around and goofing off, to the profound shock of the crowd. Not befitting a title bout! I'm not claiming anti-Semitism, I don't think Ronny Howard's currently angling for the rights to the movie version of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", but I just get sick of this Hollywood mentality that must alter history in the interest of a tidier, black-and-white story. As I'm both a boxer and at least in some respects consider myself a Jew (Messianic, draw your own conclusions), it rankles me that this Hollywood revisionism has cast a fine Jewish boxer in such a negative light.
I know this is going to sound radical, but here me out. Perhaps, just perhaps--and I know this is a really minor point--you should actually see the movie you're criticizing! Crazy, I know.
The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice. Mark Twain A fair minded man, when reading history, is occupied almost entirely with refuting it. Voltaire Jack
I give Ron Howard credit for making movies that have substance minus the sex and sleeze so many other movies have. I haven't seen the movie either. I do know this. Nearly all boxing movies I have seen that were based on reality, had elements of creative license. The movie "Somebody Up There Likes Me," about Rocky Graziano had major elements of fiction as did "Raging Bull," about Jake LaMotta. The scenes were not all that accurate concerning his fights with Sugar Ray Robinson. The move "Against the Ropes," about boxing manager Jackie Kallen, contained elements of fiction as have nearly every movie about "The Greatest of all time," Muhammad Ali. But thank goodness for real live fights like the great Corrales-Castillo fight of a few week's ago and last night's great Ricky Hatton easily beatng Kosta Tszyu. Now if Arturo "Thunder" Gatti can just whip the devil out of Floyd Mayweather, Jr., later this month, I will be a happy man!
How very true. Remember how Ali dehumanized Frazier by calling him a gorilla, demeaning his ability to clearly and succinctly speak and pronounce words, and making fun of his looks?
Fair enough. But if the review I've read is anywhere near correct, then the movie is a blatant falsification of the facts. And a needless one. I doubt the commentator I read on Salon.com was lying. You could read it yourself, make your own judgment.
