MovieChat Forums > Cinderella Man (2005) Discussion > Why Max Baer was portrayed this way

Why Max Baer was portrayed this way


I know a lot of people have a big gripe with the way Ron Howard portrayed Max Baer. In the movie Max Baer is a heartless killer. In real life he killed a man in the ring but was very remorseful.

Understandably, shedding a historical character in an inaccurate light certainly isn't a good thing to do. Howard had to do it this way. If he shows Baer as an overall nice guy, not out to actually harm Jimmy, then the conflict that Mae feels completely loses it's effectiveness. With Max going out and telling Mae that he was going to essentially kill her husband, it helped to add a new layer to the championship bout. That's just my two cents. Maybe you disagree, but I don't think the ultimate victory, for both Mae and Jimmy, would have been as good.

reply

The scene in the restaurant where he insults Braddocks wife was good, but the comments during the fight itself were overkill. And didn't they say he killed 2 men, not one? If that isn't so, that was totally unnecessary. If it happened once, then it was enough to know that he had that much strength in his punch. Boxers don't kill people on purpose do they? Isn't it just a result of throwing a hard punch to KO the guy? How do you measure how hard to hit? I can't remember, but if he told Mae he was going to "kill" her husband, that was totally unnecessary-she already had reason to be freaked out. And the actor that portrayed Max was awesome, totally intimidating-more dramatic tension. Jimmy was older and the underdog in the big leagues-even more tension. And we've been rooting for Jimmy all through the movie, we didn't need for Max to be a Jerk in order to want Jimmy to win. I read that he actually held up Jimmy's hand when he was announced the winner-that would have been awesome (a great moment in The Karate Kid.) And there is the family to consider after all, they could have toned it down as I pointed out (alas Howard didn't consult with me. :))

reply

Back then they thought that he had killed two people because one of the men he fought died a bit later in another fight from a pretty weak punch and they thought it was because Baer had "knocked his brain loose", but now we know that it was because of meningococcal. So that's why they said that he killed two people, when know we only say one :)

reply

It's true. It's an OVERKILL. However nothing out of the ordinary for Hollywood.

Typical Hollywood Overkill.

--------------------------------------------
I own you.

reply

The way Max Baer was written was great. He didn't want to kill somebody, he wanted an opponent who could fight back.

The acting was outstanding work by Craig Bierko. Max Baer was always human and credible. He was a guy who liked the high life and was fighting to keep it.

reply

i lke th way max baer was portrayed. no i do not know how he acted in real life nor do i care. i loved the movie and people will bitch bout anything.

reply

People have made way too much about this issue, in my opinion.

Yes, Baer was portrayed as much more a heartless, cold beast in the film than he was in real life... and I can understand why his family takes issue with it. But I don't understand why the moviegoing public would care.

Was it right for the filmmakers to do this? Maybe not. But consider these factors:

1) This movie is about James Braddock, not Max Baer. The filmmakers found ways to make Braddock's story more compelling because the entire success of the movie depended on it. Every movie needs an antagonist and a protagonist. Max needed to be the antagonist, plain and simple.

2) It's important to remember that Cinderella Man is "based on a true story." But what people sometimes forget is that never means the film is 100% accurate. Based on a true story means it's based in reality, but takes dramatic license. Anything more would be a documentary, not a dramatic film.

3) Of course, the filmmakers may be guilty of neglecting a man's reputation for the sake of entertainment... and that can be called unethical... but that's the way Hollywood operates. Nobody's ever charged Hollywood with taking good care of real people's reputations, and we all know they don't. This is one example.

4) Although Max Baer was negatively portrayed (to a degree) in Cinderella Man, his life and accomplishments did receive a large boost as a result of this film. Before this film, a lot of people (me included) had no idea who Max Baer was... and would never known if not for this movie. Now, we are aware of him... who he was and what he accomplished. And that's positive. We also know that the real Max Baer was not as heartless as he was portrayed in the movie. Thus, the net result projects Max Baer's legacy in the positive.

I'm not bashing people who take issue with the difference of Baer's on-screen representation. I'm just trying to put it in perspective, as how I see it, as to why too many people have pushed this issue way beyond where it should be.

reply

Good post.

reply

I wasn’t familiar with him either. When I heard the name my first thought was his son from The Beverly Hillbillies.

reply

As a boxing fan the inaccurate portrayal of Baer was just a massive distraction in the film.

Making him out to be some kind of simple boogeyman monster type character I felt was cheap. A very Hollywood thing to do, everything's black and white, good and evil.

I feel that rather than adding anything to the film it just served to simplify it. He could have had the whole killer thing playing on Mae's mind without making Max out to be some kind of c`unt.


*************************

reply

A very Hollywood thing to do, everything's black and white, good and evil.


Precisely. It's the old "good vs evil" saga. It helps audiences root for the main character but life is much more complex than that. Max was portrayed as a rude hooligan and James as a "Mother Theresa"-type saint. That makes for an easily-digestible story but not for a very thorough or challenging one.

reply

Anyone who feels Max Baer was portrayed unfairly should be glad that the movie didn't show the real way Baer killed Frankie Campbell in the ring.


"I told you it was off." The Jackal

reply

You people disgust me. All you want is your popcorn and your entertainment. You don't care if someone is portayed in a horrible manner which is completely the opposite to they're real personality.

reply

[deleted]

I doubt you have any more clue about Baer's real personality in 1935 than you do about spelling.


"I told you it was off." The Jackal

reply

Max Bauer payed for both fighters child support for years after the fights even though, one of them died during the next fight when they told him he really shouldn't fight again and the other who died during max's fight was just getting over a serious case of pneumonia and was probably told not to fight then either. There is no way either of them would have been cleared to fight today.


If you write on a board that you're gettin some I'm gonna assume you're lying or she's a fatty.

reply

Max Bauer


Really? You couldn't even get the boxer's name right?

Max Bauer payed for both fighters child support for years after the fights


Ernie Schaaf was unmarried and had no children. Baer fought one benefit match to raise money for Campbell's widow and son under circumstances that can be read about here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0352248/board/nest/92088149?d=179253329#17 9253329

one of them died during the next fight


Schaaf fought three times between the Baer and Carnera bouts.

the other who died during max's fight was just getting over a serious case of pneumonia and was probably told not to fight then either


Frankie Campbell was in peak physical condition for the Baer fight. It was Ernie Schaaf who had been recovering from influenza, not pneumonia.

There is no way either of them would have been cleared to fight today.




Again, it was only Schaaf who had been recovering from illness.



"I told you it was off." The Jackal

reply

It's pretty obvious you're not a boxing fan but rather a fan of this movie who doesn't want his little fantasy crushed. Max Baer was not perfect but he certainly wasn't the monster he was portrayed as.

reply

It's pretty obvious you're not a boxing fan . . . who doesn't want his little fantasy crushed.


Classic psychological projection.



"I told you it was off." The Jackal

reply

i just finished watching the film for the second time. i agree with the posts about the classic Hollywood films taking poetic license. there is no way Max could be hurt by the personality change since he died in his mid 40's from a massive heart attack. His son Max Jr. and his grandson's had some ugly comments for Ron Howard though. Incidently his son is the guy who played Jethro on the original "Beverly Hillbillies"....

reply

Just going by the movie; Max Baer is the reigning champion, he is heavily favored to win the fight, and the chicks just love him. Yet, absolutely noone cheers for him. He has no fans, and inspires noone. Everybody wants Braddock to win. The whole country needed Braddock to win. Max Baer must have been a bigger threat to the country than Adolph Hitler. If Braddock had lost the fight, it could have brought two more decades of depression.

It's one thing to use that kind of mellow drama when the US Olympic hockey team beat the Russians in Miracle, but I think it was a little extreme to apply it to a couple of boxers.



_______________
A dope trailer is no place for a kitty.

reply

This is not a James Bond movie, where villain has to be cruel and undefeatable. Cinderella Man is about a man who became world champion during difficult times and against all odds, not about someone who went into the ring hoping not to be killed.




Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man..."

reply

I understand your point and agree with it to an extent but the movie wasn't just about James Braddock. It was also about his family too.

reply

Baer was portrayed in this manner because Ron Howard was lazy in his research and showed a lack of integrity in seeing that Baer was accurately represented. The Braddock story was a great one and no one needed to fudge things to make it seem so. Artificial villainy need not have been invented.

If Howard's story telling skills are that fragile then he should get another profession. If he is that lazy or wants to play games with history than at least give the characters phony names. Sure Hollywood often fools around with the truth, but that should not result in an actual person being smeared and maligned.

Baer was a fine fighter with perhaps the greatest right hand punch in history. He might have had an historic career as the heavyweight champ, but Max was more playboy that fighter and certainly no bully. Max's great fault as a fighter, and the basic reason he lost this bout, was his lack of dedication to training, and an ambition more toward acting than boxing.

In the recently released movie about Jackie Robinson, we again see this lack of integrity being displayed, as pertains to a pitcher being accused of deliberately trying to hit Jackie with a pitch. To be accused of racism, particularly in today's climate, is a powerful thing, and especially repugnant, when it does not happen to be true.

Fortunately the daughter of the man in question has come forward to dispute it with documentation and support of historians. But imagine if such a charge was not disputed. And even so, which do you think will gain the most notice, a successful movie, or a few newspaper articles depicting the truth.

reply

Yeah man it drives me crazy how hollywood thinks it has to alter stuff like that to make it more interesting-- the truth is nearly always way more entertaining and interesting than the manipulative *beep* they come up with. I like complex characters, and I like to think that real people being represented are getting a fair portrayal.

I enjoy dumb, fun movies as much as anyone (The Fast & The Furious is a favorite), but when I'm watching something "based on a true story" I want it as realistic as possible, with the characters as complex and human as they actually were. It's so much more enjoyable to feel conflicted about a character, to see both their faults and their virtues, and to have to think about their motivations and how you might have behaved in the same situations. *beep* these simplified, feel-good, good/evil cartoon movies that treat people like children on saturday morning.

reply

it drives me crazy how hollywood thinks it has to alter stuff like that to make it more interesting-- the truth is nearly always way more entertaining and interesting than the manipulative *beep* they come up with.


I'm so glad to hear someone else say this! I agree completely. As a history teacher, I love historical themes in movies, but I regularly groan and cringe at the errors or use of "poetic license." I understand that they have to do certain things to make a story fit into a 2-hour movie length, and there are certain things I don't mind them taking license with, but when they distort something like this, it just seems so unnecessary and over-the-top. There are other ways to make a story more dramatic, if it seems to lack drama (which this one doesn't).




reply

Hey folks,

I have enjoyed Ron Howard's work as an actor and as a director for many years, but I think Mdudnikov points out some significant criticisms of this film:

Baer was portrayed in this manner because Ron Howard was lazy in his research and showed a lack of integrity in seeing that Baer was accurately represented.


It is hard for me to think of Ron Howard as being lazy, but he certainly is responsible for portraying Baer in the manner he did. The original poster suggests this was done to make the story more dramatic. My problem with this idea is that an historical story should be kept historical. Again, Mdudnikov makes a very good point when he states:

The Braddock story was a great one and no one needed to fudge things to make it seem so. Artificial villainy need not have been invented.


How true. Braddock's story was truly a great story and did not need punching up by Howard or anyone else. Again, an historical story should be kept historically accurate. If a filmmaker does not want to tell an historical story accurately, then the filmmaker should tell a fictional story and not purport it to be an historical drama.

Portraying Baer as he was in this film was sad. It detracted from the truly good story of Braddock success. I really liked this film with the exception of Baer's portrayal. I think Howard has to take the hit for this dumb portrayal of Baer, and it is a shame that he already had a good story and a good film. There was no need to portray Baer as such.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile


reply