'ALI' is worth seeing despite flaws
By Monica Moorehead
The movie "Ali," starring Will Smith and directed by Michael
Mann, is a heroic effort to interpret the multifaceted persona
of Muhammad Ali. It is an epic film that is being embraced by
the African American masses, whose patronage was the main
reason that the film broke box office records for the biggest
opening ever of a film debuting on Dec. 25.
This reviewer had the great fortune of seeing the film in
Atlanta, a predominantly Black city. The audience in that
particular theater was 99 percent African American. It was
refreshing to see the positive reactions that the movie evoked,
especially when Ali took on the big business media by speaking
about the racist injustices within U.S. society.
It took Smith two years to prepare for the role as the
legendary boxer. Smith has some brilliant moments in the film,
especially during the dazzling boxing scenes. But it is an
almost insurmountable task for any actor, no matter how
talented, to completely capture the charisma and depth of the
real Muham mad Ali--especially at his peak.
The film focused on how Muhammad Ali was a product of a very
revolutionary period in the U.S. during the 1960s. An early
scene shows Ali as a young teenager reacting emotionally to
news of the racist lynching of 15-year-old Emmett Till in
Mississippi.
Unfortunately, the film fails to show that after Ali won the
gold medal at the 1960 Olympics in Rome, he reportedly threw
the medal in the Ohio River. Ali carried out this symbolic act
to show that despite a "hero's" welcome, he still had to endure
racist segregation in his hometown of Louisville, Ky.
The film spends a great deal of time exploring Ali's
relationship with the Nation of Islam and especially the bond
that flourished between Ali and Malcolm X.
Ali was very much affected by the split that occurred
between Malcolm X and NOI leader and founder Elijah Muhammad.
In fact, Malcolm X played an instrumental role in Ali's
decision to change his "slave" name from Cassius Clay to his
righteous name.
Hollywood has earned a well-deserved reputation for
consciously using ideological and class divisions within
national liberation struggles in order to pit one current
against another. This film is no exception. And it fails to
explain that Malcolm X was moving towards an anti-imperialist
position that ran counter to the NOI's narrow, patriarchal
political program.
Ali did break with Malcolm X, who tried to guide the
political development of the boxer. Ali later regretted this
decision following Malcolm X's assassination. The film alludes
to the U.S. government's role behind the assassination. It
shows white agents wiretapping his home and paying off his
killers.
Despite the split with Malcolm X, Ali continued to identify
with the most militant wing of the Black liberation movement.
This wing was first influenced by Malcolm X and later by the
Black Panthers and Black Power activists. Inside and outside
the boxing ring, Ali exemplified Black pride and resistance to
the racist status quo.
Once Ali won the heavyweight title, he became a hero for
other Black athletes who converted to Islam and changed their
names--most notably basketball great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
Standing up against Pentagon war
In one of its best aspects, the film shows how Muhammad Ali
refused to be drafted to go and fight in the Vietnam War in
1967. He told the world that he had no quarrel with the
Vietnamese people, who were fighting a heroic national
liberation struggle against U.S. imperialism. His famous words
were, "No Vietnamese person ever called me a n----r."
For his unwavering stance, Ali was found guilty of draft
resistance and sentenced to five years in prison and a $10,000
fine.
While Ali was legally appealing this unjust conviction, the
boxing association took away his license to fight in the United
States. The authorities also revoked his passport so that he
could not fight abroad. This was one of the great injustices,
among countless others, carried out by the U.S. government
against Ali.
For three years Ali was not allowed to make his livelihood
doing what he loved to do more than anything else. But that did
not stop him from traveling around the country to speak on many
college campuses about why he refused to fight in Vietnam and
why it is important to oppose racism.
Ali soon became a symbol for the U.S. anti-war movement. At
the same time, activists of all nationalities rallied to his
defense to demand that his boxing license be reinstated.
One of the most obvious flaws of this movie was its failure
to show the mass support for Ali's anti-war position. Mann
certainly had the opportunity to interject some historical
footage of the many demonstrations that took place in support
of Ali.
In fact, this mass support for Ali both here and abroad
played an instrumental role in the eventual U.S. Supreme Court
ruling that overturned the lower-court decision to revoke the
boxer's license.
The damage had already been done, however. Ali lost three of
the best years of a boxer's life. He was never the same after
that, although he did regain his heavyweight title in 1971 when
he defeated George Foreman in Kinshasa, Zaire. One of the
enduring moments of the film is the overwhelming, emotional
outpouring of solidarity the masses of that African country
displayed in welcoming Ali to their homeland for this historic
fight.
All around the world, and especially here in the United
States, Ali was deeply respected and revered by many for his
courage to stand up against the Pentagon military aggression
against the people of Vietnam.
For that reason, it is an outrage that Hollywood executives
today are appealing to Ali to appear in film clips supporting
the current U.S. war drive.
According to a front-page article in the Dec. 23 New York
Times, industry moguls have formed Hollywood 9/11, in their
words, "to explain America and its war to the Muslim
world."
The U.S. government has steadfastly refused to offer a
formal apology to Ali for the persecution it put him through
for his stand against the Vietnam War. Yet now the generals and
politicians and Hollywood executives would like to exploit his
earlier anti-war stance in order to give "credibility" and
justification to a war of aggression that can't be
justified.
Reprinted from the Jan. 17, 2002, issue of
Workers World newspaper
This article is copyright under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
HOME
:: U.S. NEWS ::
WORLD NEWS ::
EDITORIALS ::
SUBSCRIBE ::
DONATE
Email
this article
Printable
page