The Supreme Court has been in the news a lot over the last few weeks for the rather large number of unexplained decisions they've handed down, in cases with far-reaching consequences from marriage equality to voter ID laws to abortion. Against this backdrop, I recently watched an HBO film that dramatized a significant Supreme Court case from four decades ago: Muhammad Ali's Greatest Fight.
Based on a book of the same title, the movie covers the 1971 case in which Ali sued to prevent his incarceration for refusing induction to fight in Vietnam. He claimed conscientious objector status on the basis of his Islamic beliefs, though his foreign religion seemed unlikely to earn him any sympathy among a court dominated by white Christian males.
It seemed to me that the movie also adapted in large measure material from Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong's book, The Brethren. (Though it may be that I've read that book and thus know its contents, while I've not read the Ali book.) Lots of little snippets of "daily Court life" and "Justice behavior" seemed to come from The Brethren, though it was often presented so briefly and casually that I found myself wondering if anyone who hadn't "done the homework" as I had would even understand what was breezing by.
The case itself feels almost similarly superficial in its presentation. Ali himself is not played by an actor in this film, the "character" appearing only in archival news footage. I imagine the filmmakers were trying to avoid a distracting impersonation -- either of the man himself, or of Will Smith's well-known take on him in a recent biopic. But by putting Ali at a remove like that, I feel the film abstracts him and his struggle. The eight men deciding his fate (Justice Thurgood Marshall recused himself from the case) seem like real people with real thoughts and motivations, but the man whose fate is being decided unfortunately does not. It's not so much "Muhammad Ali's Greatest Fight" as it is Justice Harlan's Clerk's Greatest Fight."
There are some interesting faces throughout the cast, including Danny Glover and Ed Begley Jr. But the two actors that really get enough material to work with are Frank Langella as Chief Justice Burger and Christopher Plummer as Justice Harlan. And both do good work. Langella perfectly captures the political paper- and agenda-pusher that nearly all sources agree Burger to have been, while Plummer gets to play the role of the more noble (on this occasion, at least) Justice who is actually swayed by the arguments presented to him. Neither is giving a career-defining performance, to be sure, but if you're going to watch this film, you'll be watching it to be entertained by them.
But overall, I regret to say you should probably not watch this film. It's a great bit of history to learn, but this movie isn't fully successful in making it live. I'd instead recommend The Brethren (as I did months ago). This movie gets a C-.
No comments:
Post a Comment