Cinderella Man:
Some Reflections
by Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts
Copyright © 2005 by Mark D. Roberts
Note: You may download this resource at no cost, for personal use or for use in a Christian ministry, as long as you are
not publishing it for sale. All I ask is that you give credit where credit is due. For all other uses, please contact me at
mark@markdroberts.com . Thank you.
Table of Contents
Part 1
The Faces of Cinderella Man
Part 2
Cinderella Man and the Power of Truth
The Faces of Cinderella Man
Posted for Wednesday, June 8, 2005
I'm interrupting my series "No Holds Barred: Ruminations on Publishing and Prayer" to put up a
few comments on the film Cinderella Man. I'll get back to the series in a couple of days, I imagine.
My wife and I saw Cinderella Man last night. It was a compelling film. I spent at least half of the
movie's 144 minutes on the edge of my seat, largely because of the grueling fight sequences. These
were not gratuitous, but absolutely integral to the story which is, after all, about a professional boxer.
But the graphic nature of these scenes calls for a word of warning:
Parents: This film is rated PG-13 for "intense boxing
violence and some language." The boxing scenes are
truly intense, often painful to watch, and sometimes
bloody. I can't imagine too many 12 year olds (or
younger) who would be okay seeing this film.
Now, back to the movie . . .
What makes Cinderella Man such a great film? Certain
obvious characteristics come quickly to mind: a
"Cinderella" story this is truly inspiration; solid
screenwriting; tremendous performances by Russell
Crowe and Paul Giamatti; movie storytelling that captures
the desperate "feel" of the Depression; some of the most
realistic and exciting boxing scenes ever.
But I would add something else that makes Cinderella
Man such a fine movie: the faces. That's right, the faces.
In fact I'd almost be willing to argue that the faces make
this movie.
What do I mean? Well, most obviously there are the faces
of Russell Crowe, who plays Jim Braddock, the
"Cinderella Man." Crowe is an amazing actor. Even
though I've seen him as a dominant character in a number
of films (Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, Master and
Commander, The Insider), I still find myself watching Jim
Braddock, not Russell Crowe acting the part of Jim
Braddock. In Cinderella Man we see many different faces
of Russell Crowe/Jim Braddock: the face of athletic
intensity; the face of a man taking a terrible beating in the
ring; the face of a desperate, loving father, and many
more.
The face of Renée Zellweger also figures prominently in
Cinderella Man. She's got a trademarked pucker-pout
face, and she uses it generously in this movie. She also has
the "I'm pretty darn worried but I support you because
you're my husband" face down pat.
Many of the faces in Cinderella Man are nameless.
They're the faces of men caught in the web of the Great
Depression: faces of fathers who can't provide for their
children, of men who would love to work but can't find
anything, of men who are willing to be in order to feed
their families. These faces aren't merely the backdrop of
Cinderella Man. In many ways they are the real story in
which the fantastic tale of Jim Braddock is merely a
chapter.
Perhaps one of the most refreshing and expressive faces in
the film belongs to Paul Giamatti, who plays Jim
Braddock's manager, Joe Gould. Whether shouting
commands to Jim at ringside, or sharing in his
desperation, or exulting in his victories, Giamatti's face
expresses his soul. I'd say the chance to watch Giamatti in
this movie is worth the price of admission.
My favorite faces in this movie are the faces of a family
together, whether in desperation and fear, or in love and
joy. Of course, as a husband and father, I'm easily a sucker
for family scenes. But when they are well-drawn, as in
Cinderella Man, I'm unashamed of my sentimentality.
Part of what makes all of this work, I would contend, is
the fact that it's based on a true story. I want to reflect on
this a bit in my next post.
Home. Do you have a comment about this post? Either e-mail me or visit my guestbook. Thanks.
Cinderella Man and the Power of Truth
Posted for Thursday, June 9, 2005
The recent hit film Cinderella Man portrays a fictionalized account of what is basically a true story.
James J. Braddock was in fact a washed-up, down-on-his-luck boxer who was caught in the tailspin
of the Great Depression. And he did indeed end up fighting again, ultimately winning the
heavyweight championship, to the utter amazement of the boxing establishment. (For more info on
the real Braddock, check out the official website.)
The story of Braddock's astonishing comeback, told in Jeremy Schaap's recent book, is truly
compelling. It grabs the heart, not only as a sports redemption story, but also as a tale of national
inspiration. Braddock's comeback touched the heart of a country that was itself being battered by the
Depression. His victory over Max Baer for the title became, in the national psyche, a glorious
moment of hope.
The film, Cinderella Man, was truly gripping. And, not surprisingly, the ending provided a Rockylike high (well, Rocky II, III, IV, that is, since Rocky lost in the first film). As I enjoyed Braddock's
victory, I realized that if the story had not been true, if it had been simply a creation of some clever
writer, I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie nearly as much. Why? Because I would have felt jerked
around by the unrealistic sentimentality of the predictable happy ending.
Many films that depict historical events don't require truth to work. Titanic, for example, would have
been a cinematic masterpiece if the main storyline had been fictitious. And Saving Private Ryan,
though largely fictional after the opening scene, is not impoverished because the events depicted
didn't really happen. But certain films, especially when they tell the story of some very unlikely
overcoming of nearly insurmountable odds, rely upon their truthfulness for much of their power.
I know what I'm saying will bother some artistic purists, who would argue that any work of art,
whether a movie or anything else, should stand on its own artistic merits. "Art doesn't have to
represent reality," or so we are told. But I think some stories and movies work much better when the
essential events are as depicted. Seabiscuit would offer another salient and relevant example.
So, my simple
point is that
Cinderella Man is
a much more
powerful movie
because the story
it tells is basically
true.
Now this leads to
a very curious and
ironic true story.
When I was
watching
Cinderella Man, I
was bothered by
the familiarity of
the name "Max
Baer." I was sure I
knew this name,
and knew it rather
well, even though
I'm no fan of
boxing. When I
got home from the
film I sought to
solve the mystery.
Entering "Max
Baer" into Google,
my puzzle was
quickly solved. I
did indeed know
the name "Max
Baer," though
more accurately, I
was familiar with
The picture above shows Max Baer, Jr. (the one on the right), in a serious moment
Jethro moment. (For a bit of musical notalgia, click here [.mov 36k].) You can see
the Baer family resemblance if you compare this picture with the one below, which
shows Max Baer, Sr. in a boxing stance. Below this picture is a shot of Craig Bierko,
who played Baer Sr. in Cinderella Man. Not a bad resemblance, if you ask me.
"Max Baer, Jr."
Why? Because he
played Jethro
Bodine, the
unforgettable
character on the
television series
The Beverly
Hillbillies.
Now here's where
this bit of
historical irony
becomes even
more interesting.
In Cinderella
Man, Max Baer is
portrayed as a
vicious boxer and
inveterate
womanizer. The
womaninzing part
seems to have
been true of the
real Baer, but the
vicious part was
greatly overdone,
at least according
to Max Baer, Jr.
In a headline
that's worth
remembering, the
New York Daily
News reports,
"Jethro Says Opie
Distorts Baer
Facts." This
alludes to the fact
that Cinderella
Man was directed
by Ron Howard,
who played Opie
in the Andy
Griffith Show. At
any rate, Max Jr.
insists that the
portrayal of his
father as an
unrepentant
murderer in the
ring is wrong.
According to Max
Jr.: "My father
cried about what
happened to [Baer
ring victim]
Frankie Campbell.
He had
nightmares. He
helped put
Frankie's children
through college."
A spokesperson
for Ron Howard
defended the film
in this way: "The
script was written
from the point of
view of the
Braddock family.
To them, Max
Baer was a real
threat. Ron felt
that was how the
character needed
to be drafted." But
Max Jr. lamented,
"I have great
respect for Ronny
Howard. But he
never called me
for any factual
information about
my father. They
distorted his
character. They
didn't have to
make him an ogre
to make Jimmy
Braddock a hero."
Actually, I tend to
go with Jethro
over Opie this
time. The story
didn't need Max
Baer to be so
unpalatable. The
fact was that he
was an awesome
puncher who had
killed a man with
his powerful
swing. It seems
that, in reality,
Baer was so
troubled by what
had happened
that he lost
several succeeding
fights because he
didn't want to
pummel his
opponents as
hard. Moreover,
he gave a good
chunk of his
purses to the
family of his
deceased
opponent, Frankie
Campbell. (For
more on the real
Max Baer, Sr.,
check out the
website describing
his park in
Livermore,
California.)
So, given my belief that Cinderella Man is so successful, partly because the story is basically true,
does the exaggerated portrayal of Max Baer actually weaken the movie? It won't do this for the vast
majority of moviegoers, who will have no idea that Jethro is mad at Opie. But for those of us who
know the truth about Max Baer, I don't think Cinderella Man loses much of its glow. Why? Because
the remorseless quality of Max Baer's character doesn't contribute all that much to the film. I do
think, however, that if moviegoers believed that Max Baer had in fact been exceedingly contrite about
killing a man, this would have diminished the perceived threat to Braddock. So, to some extent I
think Ron Howard was right.
Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from all of this is that we must always be
careful about taking historical fiction as fully factual. It's just fine to see Cinderella Man, to
enjoy the film, and to go about your business thereafter. But if you believe that all of what you
saw in the movie was basically true, then you've got a problem. In the case of Cinderella Man,
the damage is minor. But when the subject matter has profound historical or contemporary
significance, then the risk of putting too much faith in a movie is more serious.
To this end, I am concerned about the Ron Howard film coming out a year from now (May 19,
2006). I'm talking about The Da Vinci Code, directed by Howard and starring Tom Hanks. I
expect that this film, though based on a fictional novel, will lead many uncritical moviegoers to
think that Jesus was in fact married to Mary Magdalene. Yet don't expect to see me on the
Christian picket lines when this film comes out. I see it as a fantastic opportunity to set the
record straight about Jesus. (I've done some writing on this topic already, which you can
access in my series "Was Jesus Married?", or in my book, Jesus Revealed.)