Rise & Fall Of Jack Johnson

[Sundog]

This documentary premieres tonight on your local PBS station. Looks interesting.

[GregK]

yes, it does look interesting. If I didn't have to go to bed so early I would watch it.

[Soulstation1]

it airs in 20 minutes, i am gonna record it.

has the dvd of this already been released?????

i thought i saw something on this a month ago or so

also my computer has been hit or miss lately.

ss1

[connoisseur series500]

I just saw it. I found it very interesting. The story isn't new to me, but I did learn some new things. Burns had the usual crowd of Wynton Marsalis and Stanley Crouch and Gerald Early play prominent roles. I thought Wynton's music was awful. Crouch was his usual entertaining self. Half of what he said was funny and true, while the other half was pure shit.

You get the feeling that while White America hated Johnson, they also couldn't help but be charmed by him as well. You also wonder why, if the stakes were so great, why didn't they cheat during the fights in order to stop Johnson? Why didn't the beaten fighters just wrestle him to the canvas or something? I think it's because they knew (and could always have known) that their supremacy was based on very little. They feared that it would all come tumbling down, yet they did allow it in some unwilling but fatal way. Strange. Much was made of the riots after the Jeffries' fight, yet whites come out in throngs to greet the new champion in Chicago. At the same time, you have whites actively supporting and training Johnson. We saw his supporters patting him on the back and forming a protective ring around him after the fight.

No doubt about it, much of America hated him, but he had his supporters as well. Many of them were women as well! This angle (except for the women) is completely ignored in the film. We are getting only one side, even if it is the predominant side; and certainly the most provocative and interesting.

Edited January 18, 2005 by connoisseur series500

[connoisseur series500]

Interesting also that pugilism was not legal in the end of the 18th century. And the hue and cry to ban it at the beginning of the twentieth century was greater than it is today. Have we gone morally backwards in allowing it?

I think it is more of a sport today than it was back then. Boxing will always be seedy and faintly illegal in some way, but perhaps we have softened it up a bit today. There was the mob control in the 50s and then the defalcations of the big promoters like Don King and Bob Arum in the 90s. Fighters like Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson threatened to drag the sport to the fringe, while fighters like Muhammed Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson brought new meaning to the sport.

Certainly in Jack Johnson's day and earlier, fight spectators represented the more rowdy side of the public. I don't think boxing was yet fully accepted by the mainstream, though it was clearly heading towards acceptance. Jack Dempsey during the roaring 20s attracted Hollywood to the sport; and I think the fight game became more popular with the mainstream. By Joe Louis' day, boxing became very popular.

Edited January 18, 2005 by connoisseur series500

[Bright Moments]

i thought part 1 was very interesting and well done

(of course i muted the crouch parts )

[Christiern]

Interesting footage (again, too much train footage), but I think we could have done without Stanley's nonsense, ditto Early, who added nothing. It's a film about boxing, why couldn't Burns have stuck to people who are well-versed on that subject? I was expecting that Margo woman from the NY Times to pop in at any moment--well, he spared us that one.

The music, I agree, it was insignificant and, often, intrusive. It could have been done far more effectively with existing recordings, IMO.

After "Jazz," I cannot help but view any Burns film with caution--he uses film clips in a very deceptive manner, dictated more by the clip itself than by any relevance to the story.

[Dan Gould]

I'll be interested to learn more about the Jess Willard title defense in Havana. My understanding has been that Johnson wanted to see his dying mother and therefore agreed to throw the fight to Willard so he could return to the US without the title, where he'd be less threatening to the prevailing order of the day.

The evidence that the fight was thrown was pretty compelling to me: After being hit by a right cross, Johnson went down, but as he was counted out, he raised his arm to block the brutal Havana sun from his eyes, suggesting that he was in fact in full charge of his faculties and not knocked senseless.

My father has a boxing book I used to look through, I guess it was a biography of Johnson. What I remember most is, in the photo section, there's a shot of a scowling Johnson, in his 50s or 60s, about to fight a very young opponent, late teens or early 20s. The caption said that Johnson won the decision!

[Bright Moments]

here's a pic B-)

[Soulstation1]

i thought the part about the police stopping johnson's title fight in australia and the filming of the fight, because they didn't want to film a black man knocking out a white man for the title was interesting.

johnson had some big guns back in the day

isn't this out on dvd?

ss1

[skeith]

It's a film about boxing, why couldn't Burns have stuck to people who are well-versed on that subject?

Well not exactly Chris, it's about race ... which is what all the Ken Burns films are about. He has pretty much said that himself.

To be fair, he did have Burt Sugar who is an acknowledged member of the boxing cognoscenti.

Edited January 18, 2005 by skeith

[Alexander]

Too many boxing "experts" (and non-experts, as in the case of Crouch and Early) and not enough damn boxers! So far, there's only been one in the whole film!

[Soul Stream]

I liked the story a lot. On the other hand I'm beginning to really tire of Burns' stock documentary format. Call it "style" if you want...I call it not trying anything new.

I mean, the voiceover anncr is the same, Crouch is on (hey, this isn't a jazz doc anymore right?). Wynton, well, I'm not against him doing music at all, seems the right time period for his skills, but all I kept hearing was the usual "spooky acoustic slide blues guitar" ambience that everything featuring a black subject gets framed it.

Anyway, the story is very interesting. But I get the feeling we are just wearing Ken Burns' glasses and looking at history, HIS history. Take away Jack Johnson and insert Louis Armstrong and the story is the same. He's beginning to look like a one trick pony.

[Christiern]

He is a one-trick pony, but it's working for him.

I still say that Crouch and Early were miscast, especially when there are so many people around who have deeper knowledge of the subject.

[connoisseur series500]

It's a film about boxing, why couldn't Burns have stuck to people who are well-versed on that subject?

Well not exactly Chris, it's about race ... which is what all the Ken Burns films are about. He has pretty much said that himself.

I guess I never thought that myself, but it sure makes sense. I've seen the Civil War series; the West; Jazz, and now Jack Johnson. I would have to say that the same themes and statements (and the same "experts" ) keep recurring.

The facts are skewered as well. We are led to believe, for example, that Tommy Burns expected to beat Johnson. The truth is that Burns figured he had no chance against the "Galveston Giant." However, he wanted to cash in on the fight before he went out and didn't want to lose the big payday, though he was told by many to avoid Johnson.

Although charismatic and charming outside the ring, Johnson often behaved crassly inside the ring. He would continually taunt his opponents, but would also carry them round after round in order to dish out more punishment. It is true also that Johnson had to take his share of abuse from cornermen and the crowd as well; nevertheless, it is doubtful that Tommy Burns deserved all the physical and verbal abuse that he received.

Burns' also glosses over Johnson's fight with Sam Langford, who was also a black fighter. We are led to believe that Johnson marched over all the other black contenders. At only 145 lbs, Langford put up a furious fight and lost a close decision. Johnson avoided him afterwards and refused to fight him again. Langford could have been Heavyweight champion during the reign of several heavyweight champions. It's criminal that he wasn't allowed a shot at the title. Johnson fought him on the way up.

He was built like a Greek god, and many experts considered him the greatest Heavyweight champion of all time. This was primarily due to his superb defensive skills. Few could touch him.

The series continues tonight, and I'm sure they will mention Johnson's relationship with Joe Louis. Johnson disliked Louis, and he was unhappy when Louis became the great champion that he was.

It was an ugly time in America with all the heavy racism and all. Johnson's greatness to me lay in his independence and willingness to act like a citizen with full rights. He had tremendous moral courage as well as physical courage.

I do complain that Burns' seems to focus only on the racism. We know that America was very racist, but there's a deeper side to it. For one thing, Johnson was able to flaunt around with his white women. He was, however, indicted for the Mann Act. He did push the envelope quite a bit!

[Soul Stream]

I just wonder how long Burns is going to use this same look, tone, music, voices...baseball, music, war, sport...it all looks the same. Kinda' boring.

[Randy Twizzle]

Burns is quite diabolical

[connoisseur series500]

Kinda' boring.

Oops, part II is coming on in 20 minutes. Gotta go watch it!!

[Cali]

You get the feeling that while White America hated Johnson, they also couldn't help but be charmed by him as well.  You also wonder why, if the stakes were so great, why didn't they cheat during the fights in order to stop Johnson?  Why didn't the beaten fighters just wrestle him to the canvas or something?  I think it's because they knew (and could always have known) that their supremacy was based on very little.  They feared that it would all come tumbling down, yet they did allow it in some unwilling but fatal way.  Strange.  Much was made of the riots after the Jeffries' fight, yet whites come out in throngs to greet the new champion in Chicago.  At the same time, you have whites actively supporting and training Johnson.  We saw his supporters patting him on the back and forming a protective ring around him after the fight. 

No doubt about it, much of America hated him, but he had his supporters as well.  Many of them were women as well!  This angle (except for the women) is completely ignored in the film.  We are getting only one side, even if it is the predominant side; and certainly the most provocative and interesting.

I don't get the point of this post.

I don't think "we are getting only one side" in this film. It was stated throughout that Johnson existed in an "integrated" society during his career. It was pointed out that a white, former opponent of Johnson (who had knocked Jack out in 3 rounds), later, taught him the finer points of boxing while they were in jail together. Several pictures of Johnson and his integrated entourage were shown. I've watched part 1 again to confirm my impressions.

However the magnitude of racial hatred that Johnson endured cannot be overstated. Lynchings of blacks occured not only after the Jeffries fight (actually white people rioted), but after every Johnson victory over a white opponent after he became champion. Sure he had his circle of supporters, but surely you don't believe that they were more than a small percentage of boxing fans. A black fan wouldn't dare attend a Jack Johnson championship fight. Why do you think there was a "white hope" fervor? White fans came out in droves to Johnson's fights in hopes of a white fighter dethroning him.

Jack Johnson was so despised by white America that it would be 22 years after he lost the championship that a black man would be allowed to fight for the heavyweight championship. And that was only after the boxing establishment was assured that Joe Louis "knew his place".

"Although charismatic and charming outside the ring, Johnson often behaved crassly inside the ring. He would continually taunt his opponents, but would also carry them round after round in order to dish out more punishment. It is true also that Johnson had to take his share of abuse from cornermen and the crowd as well; nevertheless, it is doubtful that Tommy Burns deserved all the physical and verbal abuse that he received."

Why wouldn't Johnson torture Burns who was incessantly calling him racial epithets before, during and after the fight? It is well documented that Johnson taunted the fans and his opponents because of the verbal abuse heaped on him during fights. What would you have had him do, show some brotherly love? He was a boxer for chissake. And he retaliated the best way he knew how.

If you are a boxing fan, which I assume you are, I'm sure you have seen photographs of Johnson fights where some ringsiders are sitting there with shotguns! In answer to your question about why didn't somebody do something to him, I believe they were too cowardly. And there is an account of an attempt to cheat Johnson. A fight was arranged with Stanley Ketchel, the middleweight champion. The promoter and both fighters secretly agreed that they would not seriously hurt each other and just go the distance. This was to appease the white Ketchel fans who fervently believed Ketchel was the best fighter in the world. Well, Ketchel double-crossed Johnson and knocked him down. Johnson immediately arose and destroyed Ketchel in a matter of seconds. In the film of that fight, Johnson is seen leaning on the ropes staring at an unconscious Ketchel, who is spread- eagle on the canvas, pulling Ketchels teeth out of his boxing glove.

Edited January 19, 2005 by Cali

[Soul Stream]

Kinda' boring.

Oops, part II is coming on in 20 minutes. Gotta go watch it!!

Well, it could be worse. Martin Scorsce(?) could make a doc. on Jack Johnson.

[Christiern]

Am I the only one who feels there is a glaring discrepancy between Johnson's articulate words (assuming that they are his) and the deliberately slurred, unschooled delivery? I can hear Burns say "Talk like a Negro." Ridiculous.

Also, what's up with Wynton's bad Dixieland music? These people haven't a clue when it comes to the music of that period.

Isn't it odd that there happened to be a photographer in the gym on the day Stanley's father went there? You know he saw those photos and made up that story!

Edited January 19, 2005 by Christiern

[Soul Stream]

Well, I do very much agree on your one point... I hate when they dumbed down Johnson's spoken delivery (oh, I thought all blacks talked like Uncle Remus). Like you said, it was obvious from his words that he was a very intelligent person.

[connoisseur series500]

Isn't it odd that there happened to be a photographer in the gym on the day Stanley's father went there? You know he saw those photos and made up that story!

The photographer was definitely not there, Chris.

According to Crouch's story, Johnson went into the ring with his suit on and the opposing boxer couldn't land a glove on him. The photo then shows Johnson standing over in avuncular fashion over the great boxer Henry Armstrong!

I can assure you that Armstrong would have laid many gloves on Johnson at that age! The photos were miscast. They were compiled from a different incident obviously.

[connoisseur series500]

The ugly side of racism really came out in the second part. Really ugly. Johnson definitely inflamed with his in-your-face lifestyle, but that was his genius.

Joe Louis was a great fighter but his life was incredibly dull when compared against Johnson. Like Ali, Johnson's influence went way beyond the sport. His social impact was probably greater than even Ali's.

What I love about Johnson was his fearless individualism. "Only in America!" Crouch would say. But I love the actor's (forget his name) beautiful summary:

"Jack Johnson wasn't a tragedy. America was a tragedy that it couldn't cope with him."

Even Crouch had a good statement amongst all the trash he was spouting: "He was one of those guys there's no recipe for."

"He was all about movement," said the black actor who portrayed him in the film. He moved in the ring, but also refused to be cornered or pinned down in life. Refused to be placed in a box. Always moving. He was a great artist.

To go along with Chris: man, that music sucked! The twangy guitar was too much; and Wynton's retro-jazz just didn't do anything for me. Even the blues tune seemed strangely out of place. Gerald Early added nothing as usual.

[connoisseur series500]

What I found interesting was the cold reception Johnson got while abroad. France welcomed American jazz artists, but Europe didn't want much from this crass and brilliant man. Did he piss so many people off with his antics?

It is also interesting to see the throngs of white people around him in the old photos. White guys will have their elbows on his shoulder and they're all grinning away. The guy was definitely popular. Who wouldn't be when you defy all the mores?