Boxed in, Ali Can't Sting
By H. Lavar Pope, with comment by Carolyn Stine
Boxed in, Ali Can't Sting
"You can order this fully poseable 12" Muhammad Ali action figure with removable white trunks & cloth robe at Hasbro Collectors.com. Click on the image...for a closer look."
(Advertisement for Starting Lineup Muhammad Ali)
Repackaging Ali
[1] Starting Lineup molded this Muhammad Ali action figure from visual images of Ali in his prime. Everything -- from his body shape to boxing trunks -- was analyzed, recreated, and repackaged by the company. Basically, Starting Lineup took the "real" Ali and made a physical three-dimensional image out of him. The final product is the smiling world champion in the picture above, but there are many limitations to the recreated toy. Where, in this action figure, is the rejected Ali who was outcast by American society and denied all fight privileges? Where is the militant black Muslim Ali? Where is the Ali who was pummeled by Larry Holmes? As one can see, there is a long list of problems and limits in recreating Ali as an action figure.
[2] In many ways, Michael Mann's film Ali attempts to do the same thing as the creators of the action figure pictured here. Mann looks at Muhammad Ali's life and tries to make him come alive through film. Ali's language, personality, and temperament were examined by the director and imitated by Will Smith. Historical events were also recreated, and my scene analysis is merely one example of this process. Obviously, this is a delicate and difficult task, and many reviewers argued that Michael Mann failed. One reviewer simply claimed: "[Mann] made a cool movie about a hot man" (Ansen 40). Nearly every popular review about Ali carries the same or a similar message.
[3] I agree with the reviewers: the central problem or issue in Ali is the portrayal of Cassius Clay/Cassius X/Muhammad Ali as a very soft, non-threatening, and almost perfect man. It is almost if Will Smith is wearing a halo throughout the movie and can do no wrong. But, by looking at film clips, newspaper articles, and other "real" historical sources, I found a very different man. There was an Ali that was feared by mainstream and white America; there was an Ali that said racially controversial -- and flat-out racist -- things. Mann steers away from these parts of Muhammad Ali and presents the viewer with a diplomatic figure. Mann also neglects Ali's flaws. Basically, Mann puts limits on what he will show of Ali, and by doing so, revises Ali's story into a fairytale-like drama and sells the viewer an action-figure version of a very complicated man. Here is a step-by-step analysis of how Mann repackaged and sold Muhammad Ali.
Step 1: Make a Milder Muhammad
[4] First, Michael Mann revises the character of Muhammad Ali. Mann's entire project is a clinic on how to make a rough history milder and more tolerable for present-day viewers. First, Mann tones down the central figure and makes him an enjoyable and favorable icon. In other words, Mann begins by softening Ali, and he does this in three ways: by toning down semi-controversial quotes, neglecting to include most of Ali's fully controversial verbal attacks, and by modifying the way Ali talks and moves.
[5] Mann deals with Muhammad Ali's controversial quotes in a very peculiar fashion. Even when Mann chooses to include a semi-controversial quote, he presents it poorly. Take, for example, one of Ali's most famous quotes against the American system. Both in real life and in the Mann film, Ali states: "No Vietcong ever called me nigger." This is such a popular quote that Mann had to include it in the film. It is done during a phone call scene (1:05:34). In the scene, Ali's lawyers and advisers sit in the calm hotel room and listen as Ali answers a reporter's phone call. They laugh as Ali spits out jokes over the phone, and, finally, the quote is uttered (1:06:20). It is in the form of a simple statement and sounds extremely weak and rehearsed. This quote is recreated so poorly that it loses its political and social importance.
[6] The second problem is that Mann excludes almost all of Ali's racially charged quotes and neglects Ali's quotes against mainstream America. There are some quotes that are absolutely required to understand Muhammad Ali, and most of them are neglected in this film. When We Were k
Kings is a great example of a film that presents Ali strictly through interview footage, and the film shows many quotes that Mann neglected or ignored. The opening lines of When We Were Kings is more powerful than the entire Mann film. Ali yells: "Yeah, I'm in Africa. Yeah, Africa's my home. Damn America and what America thinks. Yeah, I live in America, but Africa's the home of the black man. And I was a slave 400 years ago, and I'm going back home to fight among my brothers. Yeah." Ali is notably charged and angry when he says these words, and you can see the anger on his face. Where is this quote in Ali? It fits within Mann's timeline and would be a great addition to the thirty minutes Mann spends on the "Rumble in the Jungle," but Mann drops this quote. This quote still stings; it is still relevant and so powerful that it would still affect modern viewers. The above quote about the Vietcong is a bit different; the Vietnam War is over and largely condemned, and so it is a "safe" quote to use. This is the problem: Mann has constructed a safe Ali.
[7] The third way Mann tones down Ali is by relaxing him. The real Muhammad Ali was often wild and uncontrollable during press conferences and interviews. There are interviews in which Ali stands inches away from the camera and points into it in an alarming manner; there are interviews in which Ali rushes the camera and shouts his message into the device. Mann's Ali never does any of these things. One film reviewer says: "Ali is depicted as so lordly and wise...he becomes almost invisible, not to mention bloody dull" (Ellen). Mann shows a cool, calm, and collected Ali, and this image is very different from what one sees during the actual interviews or footage. There is, for example, one interview in which Ali attacks Howard Cosell for his quotes on the George Foreman fight (When We Were Kings 0:07:58). In this interview, Ali is so close to the camera, that the viewer cannot see his entire face. His finger points to the center of the camera, and he stares directly into the camera admonishing Cosell. This is an extremely frightening scene, and it is somehow neglected by the Mann film. Mann's Ali is a character who makes planned and calculated decisions and comments; the Ali I have seen in interviews and press conferences is a man who lives off passion, vigor, pure adrenaline, and operates on emotion.
Step 2: Cut off the Viewer's Point-of-View
[8] Ali is the hero in this film, and it is clear that Michael Mann wants us to side with the boxer. Yet, the way Mann goes about achieving his task is problematic. In making Ali our hero, he seems to protect him from all opposition. He does this in a few ways.
[9] Most importantly, our point-of-view in the entire film is one-sided and extremely limited. There is no outside perspective and no feasible way to judge Ali. My scene analysis briefly deals with this issue. Throughout the film, we follow Muhammad Ali through his daily activities and battles, and soon we begin to sympathize entirely with him. From the beginning of the film until the very end, there is not one scene or moment in which we leave Ali's side emotionally. We begin to breathe with Ali, and before the end of the movie, we run along with him in the Zaire scene shouting, "A-li Boo-maye" (1:50:14). Ali becomes our hero and looks infallible.
[10] In addition, there is nothing to challenge Ali in the film. There is no one in the film who questions or examines his decisions. One film reviewer notes: "Never for a moment...does the film question the sincerity of Ali's embrace of Islam. Rather, it is seen as one facet of the man's determination to do things on his own terms, to rebel, to not play by the white man's rules" (McCarthy 35). In 1964, the year Ali joined the Black Muslims, there were two popular responses from the American public. Some thought that Ali was playing another joke and would eventually part with the group ("Prizefighting with Mouth and Magic" 69). To them, Mann's portrayal of Ali's conversion would be too serious and too complete. Others simply rejected the newly crowned champion. Neither of these possible responses, both of which question the boxer's decision, are even mentioned in the film.
Step 3: Wash Ali's Life
[11] This other response from the public was more intense and very negative. By looking at historical texts of 1964, one can see this overwhelming negative response from the public. If Mann cares about historical accuracy in this film, he needs to at least acknowledge these opinions. In fact, I think it would have helped his purpose in making Ali a more believable and personable figure; if Mann showed the resistance Ali faced from mainstream America, Ali would seem like a stronger character. We at least need to see some outside opinions about the boxer. His opinions, ideas, and decisions were not perfect, but without any kind of alternative point-of-reference, the boxer becomes a perfect man.
[12] Even when Mann's Ali takes a morally questionable action, he is painted in a favorable light. For example, the fighter is intimate with three women in the film, but he still comes off as completely innocent and likable. Mann's Ali even seems justified when he cheats on his wife. Reviewer Barbara Ellen decides: "Even when Ali is depicted womanizing, gathering up multiple wives...it is handled with such ludicrous levels of reverence and respect that you'd never believe he actually got down and dirty at any point" (Ellen). Womanizing is one of the problems that Ali admits to having throughout his life, and yet it is portrayed in a positive light in this movie. Another reviewer argues that Mann's film "skips through Ali's flaws -- his womanizing, for example -- more than it shows them" (Mitchell E1).
[13] Mann could have displayed at least one of Ali's flaws in the film, and this display would have not detracted from the overall goal of the film. Mann could have, for instance, spent more time displaying the point-of-view of one of Ali's wives. Belinda, by far the strongest female figure in the film, has two intense verbal battles with Ali (1:55:29, 2:09:25), and both times she looks like she is betraying Ali. This use of limited point-of-view makes Ali extremely favorable, and, in the process, Mann has transformed Muhammad Ali from a man into an action figure.
Step 4: Shine and Repackage Ali's History
[14] Finally, Mann also puts a glossy finish on Ali's history. One reviewer sums up this phenomenon, and I quote at length: "Ali's celebrity has become so benignly universal, he's not even controversial anymore. Mann's film is perhaps the best illustration of this evolution. Mann seems to be looking through the wrong end of a telescope, taking the popular image of Ali today and projecting it backward in time to create, in many ways, [a] diminished Ali" (Goldberg 30). This is a complicated argument, but it is extremely powerful. To truly experience the power and impact of Muhammad Ali, Mann would have to present the viewer with an unedited Ali -- both the good and the bad -- and the social forces that Ali was working against and under. This film does not do any of this.
[15] In the documentary When We Were Kings, Ali is presented without a director's censorship. Many of the commentators mention that Ali could, oftentimes, be a very cruel individual. In this movie, we see no cruel parts of Ali. Goldberg says: "Mann has filed down all of Ali's razor-sharp edges to the bluntness of a boxing glove" (Goldberg 30). A lot of mild Ali quotes are in this movie, and Mann's Ali does show anger at times. The problem is that the anger is within politically safe and politically correct boundaries. Yet, Muhammad Ali did not operate within such boundaries. For example, Ali made no attempt to hide his belief in the separatist doctrine of the Nation of Islam. To one reporter, Ali expressed his view about blacks and whites engaging in romantic relationships. Ali once said: "A black man should be killed if he's messin' with a white woman." This is how strongly he felt about this separatist doctrine, but it is almost entirely neglected from the Mann film.
[16] Just like quotes and speeches, negative events involving Ali are portrayed poorly by Mann. For example, the press conference fight with Ernie Terrell (1:09:19) is a blatant misrepresentation of history. In the film, there's little more than a wrestling match. In real life, Terrell left the press conference with a damaged eye and eye socket. Did Ali damage Terrell's eye socket? The boxing commission fined him. Terrell claimed that Ali did it intentionally. This is a mystery involving Ali, and Mann should present it as such. Even if he wants to convey that Ali was justified in breaking Terrell's eye socket -- or simply did not do it -- there are much better ways of portraying this scene. Yet, individual scenes like this are relatively minor; the big problem is the entire film and the overall misrepresentation of history.
[17] With Ali, Mann neglects the social background with which Ali is confronted. There is one scene that shows anti-war resistance. Mann ignores that America is in a state of social strife and conflict and that Muhammad Ali is right in the middle of it all. More importantly, Mann neglects to show how viciously and beautifully Ali fought these forces. Michael Mann has boxed in Muhammad Ali, and, unfortunately, the children of future generations will not see him fly or sting by watching this film. They should rent When We Were Kings. (see comment by Carolyn Stine)
Comments
On the whole, I completely agreed with H. Lavar Pope’s analysis in his essay “Boxed In, Ali Can’t Sting.†Some of the predominant feelings that I came away from the film with were that of boredom, frustration, and dissatisfaction. I felt that Ali was such a controversial and larger-than-life character, and this is why I selected the work on this film in the first place, but in the movie he was portrayed as harmless, virtuous, and entirely inoffensive. I would have respected and enjoyed “Ali†so much more if a more realistic interpretation of this character had been made in this film, if, as H. Lavar Pope wrote, a closer look was taken at Ali’s affiliation with the Black Muslims and his intentions for that association, if his womanizing was examined more heavily, if his extremely controversial sound bites were even represented in the film. Ali seemed too glossy, too perfect, too inhuman for me to realistically be able to appreciate this performance, and it truly did feel like a performance to me, not an exploration of Ali’s true character. I believe that H. Lavar Pope did an excellent job of bringing in the Ali action figure comparison to elucidate the larger problem in the film of the softening of Ali’s character and the way in which he is made into this lofty, admirable persona who might as well be a mass-produced, crowd-pleasing action figure.
Ansen, David. "A Split Decision: Cool Film About a Hot Man." Newsweek 24 December 2001: 40.
Ellen, Barbara. "He Stings Like a Butterfly." The Times (London) 14 February 2002.
Goldberg, Jonah. "Ali!, Ali!" National Review 28 January 2002: 30.
McCarthy, Todd. "No Sweat on Mann-Made 'Ali." Variety 17 December 2001: 35-37.
Mitchell, Elvis. "Film Review; Master of the Boast, King of the Ring, Vision of the Future." New York Times 25 December 2001: E1.
"Prizefighting: With Mouth and Magic." Time 6 March 1964: 66.
