Roger Ebert February 27, 1997 The heavyweight title
pablogeezer
Roger Ebert February 27, 1997 The heavyweight title fight between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman in Zaire on Oct. 30, 1974--”The Rumble in the Jungle”--is…
Roger Ebert
February 27, 1997
The heavyweight title fight between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman in Zaire on Oct. 30, 1974--”The Rumble in the Jungle”--is enshrined as one of the great sports events of the century. It was also a cultural and political happening.
Into the capital of Kinshasa flew planeloads of performers for an “African Woodstock,” TV crews, Howard Cosell at the head of an international contingent of sports journalists, celebrity fight groupies like Norman Mailer and George Plimpton, and of course the two principals: Ali, then still controversial because of his decision to be a conscientious objector, and Foreman, now huggable and lovable in TV commercials but then seen as fearsome and forbidding.
“I'm young, I'm handsome, I'm fast, I'm strong, and I can't be beat,” Ali told the press. They didn't believe him. Foreman had destroyed George Frazier, who had defeated Ali. Foreman was younger, bigger and stronger, with a punch so powerful, Mailer recalled, “that after he was finished with a heavy punching bag, it had a depression pounded into it.” Ali was 33 and thought to be over the hill. The odds were 7-1 against him.
The Zaire that they arrived in was a country much in need of foreign currency and image refurbishment. Under the leadership of Mobutu Sese Seko (“the archetype of a closet sadist,” said Mailer), the former Belgian Congo had became a paranoid police state; the new stadium built to showcase the fight was rumored to hold 1,000 political prisoners in cells in its catacombs.
Don King, then at the dawn of his career as a fight promoter, had sold Mobutu on the fight and raised $5 million for each fighter. The “African Woodstock,” featuring such stars as B.B. King, James Brown and Miriam Makeba, was supposed to pay for part of that. For Ali, the fight in Africa was payback time for the hammering he'd taken in the American press for his refusal to fight in Vietnam. For Foreman, it was more complicated. So great was the pro-Ali frenzy, Foreman observed, that when he got off the plane the crowds were surprised to find that he was also a black man. “Why do they hate me so much?” he wondered.
Leon Gast's “When We Were Kings,” which just received an Oscar nomination, is like a time capsule; the original footage has waited all these years to be assembled into a film because of legal and financial difficulties. It is a new documentary of a past event, recapturing the electricity generated by Muhammad Ali in his prime. Spike Lee, who with Mailer and Plimpton provides modern commentary on the 1974 footage, says young people today do not know how famous and important Ali was. He is right. “When I fly on an airplane,” Ali once told me, “I look out of the window and I think, I am the only person that *everyone* down there knows about.” It is not bragging if you are only telling the truth.
The original film apparently started as a concert documentary. Then the fight was delayed because of a cut to Foreman's eye. The concert went ahead as scheduled, and then the fighters, their entourages and the press settled down to wait for the main event. No one really thought Ali had a chance--perhaps not even Ali, who seems reflective and withdrawn in a few private moments, although in public he predicted victory.
How could he have a chance, really? Hadn't he lost his prime years as a fighter after he refused to fight in Vietnam? (“I ain't got no quarrel with the Viet Cong,” he explained.) Wasn't Foreman bigger, faster, stronger, younger? History records Ali's famous strategy, the “Rope-a-Dope” defense, in which he simply outwaited Foreman, absorbing incalculable punishment until, in the eighth round, Foreman was exhausted and Ali exploded with a series of rights to the head, finishing him.
Was this, however, really a strategy at all? “When We Were Kings” gives the impression that Ali got nowhere in the first round and adopted the Rope-a-Dope almost by default. Perhaps he knew, or hoped, that he was in better condition than Foreman, and could outlast him if he simply stayed on his feet. It is certain that hardly anyone in Zaire that night, not even his steadfast supporter Cosell, thought that Ali could win; the upset became an enduring part of his myth.
“When We Were Kings” captures Ali's public persona and private resolve. As heavyweight champion during the Vietnam War, he could easily have arrived at an accommodation with the military, touring bases in lieu of combat duty.
Although he was called a coward and a draft dodger, surely it took more courage to follow the path he chose. And yet it is remarkable how ebullient, how joyful, he remained even after the price he paid; how he is willing to be a clown and a poet as well as a fighter and an activist.
Seeing the film today inspires poignant feelings; we contrast younger Ali with the ailing and aging legend, and reflect that this fight must have contributed to the damage that slowed him down. It is also fascinating to contrast the young Foreman with today's much-loved figure; he, too, has grown and mellowed. When the movie was made all of those developments were still ahead; there is a palpable tension, as the two men step into the ring, that is not lessened because we know the outcome.
Read full review
★ 9 / 10
A great documentary about an epic battle
AlsExGal
If such an event as the Foreman/Ali fight occurred today, this film would probably not be such a big deal. That is because we would have pretty much round the…
If such an event as the Foreman/Ali fight occurred today, this film would probably not be such a big deal. That is because we would have pretty much round the clock cable coverage of the event courtesy ESPN. However, given that this fight occurred in 1974, this is the closest thing you are going to get to the kind of coverage you would see if that event was held today. In spite of the reversal of fortune that this fight gave to both Foreman and Ali's careers, this film really does not focus on either one of these individual fighters that much. Instead, it gives you a real feel for the excitement surrounding the fight overall, with significant commentary by George Plimpton and Norman Mailer, who were both there to cover the event.
Of course there are segments on Foreman and Ali, and at the end, after the segment on the fight itself, there is basically a tribute to Ali both through his words and then through a series of still shots showing highlights of his life and career. However, I also learned quite a bit about Don King, the guy who made the fight happen, and how this event helped him "break out of the pack" when it came to managing fights and fighters. However, there is no romanticizing of the man. They mention both his strong points - his incredible intellect and that he always seemed to have a quotation from Shakespeare for ever occasion - and his weaknesses, mainly that he was "amoral in his handling of the individual fighters' careers". These are the film's words, not mine. Interviews and footage of the fighters and their staff preparing both physically and mentally for the big "rumble in the jungle" are skillfully interspersed with footage of the sportswriters of the 70's marking up copy and working old-fashioned teletypes back in the age before computers were common, along with film of the inhabitants of Zaire going about their daily life often balancing huge baskets on their heads, and also shots of the live entertainment going on including some great footage of B.B. King and James Brown. Also included is a little bit of explanation as to why the people of Zaire found Ali so endearing versus George Foreman. They said they found Ali to come across as "a real person". Apparently the fact that Foreman was so monosyllabic most of the time did not help his image overseas.
The footage of the fight itself is very good considering it was shot in 1974. Mailer and Plimpton do a great job of explaining everything that is going on at each phase of the fight, including trying to get inside Ali's head as to what he might have been thinking as he employed first one strategy and then another against his mountain of an opponent.
The film does mention that losing to Ali threw Foreman into a two year depression, and when he emerged he reinvented himself to the point that, as Norman Mailer says in the film, "you would be hard pressed to find someone more affable than George Foreman is today." The postscript on Ali is interesting too. Mailer mentions that after this fight, Ali went on to fight 22 times, and all of these additional fights ruined his health. Mailer mentions that it is often said that you wind up destroying the thing you love, but in Ali's case it was the thing he loved that ultimately destroyed him, or at least his physical health.
This is a very good and complete portrait of a unique sports event and the very interesting people involved. You don't have to be a boxing fan to enjoy it. If you enjoy a good tale about the triumph of an underdog, the intersection of two very different cultures, and anecdotes about some of the more interesting sports figures of the 20th century, you'll like this film. I highly recommend it.
Read full review
100%
TOMATOMETER
· 50 reviews
94%
AUDIENCE
· 5K ratings
7.9/10
19.3K
•••
Since there is no response notification on this site it is evident that these bigot boys are constantly browsing YTS in anticipation of someone responding to their racist narratives so they can start a flame war. Tragic really.