Critique of Ken Burns' Jack Johnson Documentary

[Sidney Carton]

This is an article I came across recently.

Here is the relevant part of the article:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Punched Out and Down for the Count


A typical example would be Burns’ critically acclaimed documentary on heavyweight champion Jack Johnson, “Unforgivable Blackness,” which could be more fittingly titled “Unforgivable Lack of Familiarity with his Subject,” complete with conveniently omitted facts, wrong picture descriptions and a parade of “experts” with little or no background in the subject.

In an amusing display of utter cluelessness, Burns presents Johnson and a sparring partner in a reversed film clip with both fighters working away in “southpaw” stances, each with his right foot and right arm out in front, a laughable mistake obvious at a glance to anyone familiar with the most basic techniques of boxing.

Burns’ narration includes actor Samuel L. Jackson speaking as Johnson, reading from Johnson’s autobiography in a drawn out southern drawl with often excruciatingly lengthened vowels. Apparently ‘historian’ Burns couldn’t be bothered to find Johnson’s real voice, easily available in recordings (1914, 1929, 1944) where Johnson speaks in a strongly articulated, rather educated-sounding and decidedly non-Southern manner with traces of a New York-New Jersey accent, pronouncing the er sound as oi (“say a few woids,” “foity years ago”).

In a special feature, Burns’ expert Randy Roberts demonstrates Johnson’s supposed fighting stance, holding his chin up high with his entire throat and the point of his chin completely exposed, a position no competent boxer of any style would use. Keep your chin down, Randy.

Beating the racial drums, Burns goes into paroxysms over Johnson’s fight with former champion Jim Jeffries including the strange comment, “In the minds of most white Americans this boxing match would decide whose country America really was.” Those familiar with boxing know as a boxing match this bout had little significance, with a long retired, bloated Jeffries who hadn’t fought for six years, losing over 100 pounds in a short period of time and having no warm up fights to see if he could even beat a mediocre fighter. Yet it took Johnson in his prime 15 rounds to beat the shell of Jeffries.
Eager to present Johnson as a black mistreated by white society, Burns avoids the real story of Johnson as a fighter—that he disgraced himself and his heavyweight championship by refusing to fight his most dangerous challenger, fellow black fighter Sam Langford, rated by RING magazine founder Nat Fleischer as one of the 10 best heavyweights in history. Johnson blocked him from his chance at the title.

In a blatant falsehood ignoring Langford’s existence, expert Gerald Early smugly comments, “Johnson was on top of the world athletically after he beat Jim Jeffries. There was no one on the horizon.” Meanwhile, Langford rates only three sentences and not even a still photograph during the 3 hour and 25 minute “documentary.”

Laying his hard sell of Johnson on thick, Burns repeatedly runs films at the wrong speed in order to make other fighters look ridiculous. He conveniently omits anything which would make Johnson look bad, such as his loss to Marvin Hart which disqualified him from a chance at the title earlier in his career. In a childish attempt to denigrate a later champion, Joe Louis, Burns shows two very short clips, first of Louis getting hit with punches by a sparring partner followed by the last seconds of his only loss before winning the title, to Max Schmeling. Of course Burns’ transparent attempt to tear down Louis omits that Louis won 23 of 27 title fights by knockout, and knocked out Schmeling in the first round in their rematch.

Other Burns “experts” are the clownish Bert Sugar, making grotesque faces and stabbing at the camera with his cigar, and actor James Earl Jones, whose qualifications were that he played Johnson in a stage play. Stanley Crouch, Burns’ heavily criticized expert from his Jazz documentary, appears here as a boxing expert and sums up, explaining that the way Johnson wore his hat “was perfect” and that “Johnson is there with people like Lincoln, Thomas Edison, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong. These whole main guys. These guys whom you couldn’t figure out.”

This accumulation of errors, bias and twisting of facts does not end with its circulation to PBS viewers. PBS sells the video to schools, complete with a study course where Burns instructs that “Any serious study of American history engages the study of race and the monumental hypocrisy born at our founding.” Teachers are directed to have students write essays “to explore historical influence on American life, including race and racism.”


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the entire article this was taken from:

http://www.aim.org/special-report/ken-b ... ng-gasbag/

[Caractacus]

What I didnt like was,Samuel Jackson's supa-cool urban Jack Johnson accent
(Johnson actually sounded in life more like a higher pitched George Foreman)
and making Jim J. Jeffries voice over sound more like an uneducated semi-toothless backwards Hick accent
(Jeffries grew up in Los Angles California was well read and even had a year of buisness school before he turned pro)

[Caractacus]

BTW I always run the Johnson-Willard fight footage on that DVD on it at half speed on my DVD player which is closer
to what it looked like when the film was made and shown originally and it almost looks like a completly different fight in doing so
not ridiculous fast like old Keystone Cops movies.,Im sure they knew this and chose to show it playing fast to make the fight look stupid
and take away some of Willard's victory.

[Kalan]

Those familiar with boxing know as a boxing match this bout had little significance, with a long retired, bloated Jeffries who hadn’t fought for six years, losing over 100 pounds in a short period of time and having no warm up fights to see if he could even beat a mediocre fighter. Yet it took Johnson in his prime 15 rounds to beat the shell of Jeffries. Eager to present Johnson as a black mistreated by white society, Burns avoids the real story of Johnson as a fighter—that he disgraced himself and his heavyweight championship by refusing to fight his most dangerous challenger, fellow black fighter Sam Langford, rated by RING magazine founder Nat Fleischer as one of the 10 best heavyweights in history. Johnson blocked him from his chance at the title.

He conveniently omits anything which would make Johnson look bad, such as his loss to Marvin Hart which disqualified him from a chance at the title earlier in his career. In a childish attempt to denigrate a later champion, Joe Louis, Burns shows two very short clips, first of Louis getting hit with punches by a sparring partner followed by the last seconds of his only loss before winning the title, to Max Schmeling. Of course Burns’ transparent attempt to tear down Louis omits that Louis won 23 of 27 title fights by knockout, and knocked out Schmeling in the first round in their rematch.

I agree that the documentary was very poorly done and historically inaccurate in many ways... However it wasn't a bloated Jim Jeffries who fought Johnson... Jeffries trained for many months and did several exhibition bouts in preparation for Johnson. He was in rock-hard physical condition, which he always was.. Jeffries was a great fighter.. He went into every boxing match of his career with the utmost determination to win.. He obviously wasn't the Jeffries of his heyday.. but he was still a formidable opponent and felt absolutely that he would win.. The fight not insignificant as you suggest.. It was front page newspaper stuff for months.. Racism was a frequent theme in the articles, particularly those by Jack London, who goaded Jeffries into coming back and reclaiming the Heavyweight Championship for the white race.. "Jeff, it's up to you."

Many newspaper headlines didn't use Jack Johnson's name in their headlines.. some simply stated "THE BLACK WINS" to show you how racist American society was in Jack Johnson's day.. Johnson was forced to flee the country when he was still champion -- because of the prospect of being thrown into prison for having white women as wives and companions.. After several years in exile, Johnson cut a deal with American prosecutors that allowed him back into the country for a reduced prison sentence... Part of the deal was losing the Heavyweight Championship to a white man, Jess Willard.

Joe Louis was knocked out by Max Schmeling in a fight that was supposed to be a title eliminator.. But Schmeling was a German and was refused his legitimate title shot at Jimmy Braddock.. Schmeling was shut out of major fights for 2 years and had trouble getting fights.. Louis got many fights and got the next Title Shot at Braddock who hadn't fought in over 2 years.. After Louis smashed a rusty Braddock he fought several challengers and the rematch with Schmeling was finally set up.. Schmeling was very inactive and had nothing for the rematch.. He took a brutal kidney shot (illegal) and was wiped out quickly.. Schmeling didn't fight again for over a year, and had 1 fight in the next 9 years.

[Caractacus]

Jim J. Jeffries had later said it was trying to get back into shape after he originally retired and let himself go to seed
(and had to lose almost 100 pounds of blubber)
that took it out of him before he even got into the ring with Johnson.
Jeffries also had the squirts and insomnia the night before the fight)

[Sidney Carton]

He obviously wasn't the Jeffries of his heyday.

You got that right.

[Sidney Carton]

Those familiar .................etc.

I DID NOT write that.

I copied and pasted an article written by someone else.

[Sidney Carton]

The fight not insignificant as you suggest.. It was front page newspaper stuff for months.. Racism was a frequent theme in the articles, particularly those by Jack London, who goaded Jeffries into coming back and reclaiming the Heavyweight Championship for the white race.. "Jeff, it's up to you."

Many newspaper headlines didn't use Jack Johnson's name in their headlines.. some simply stated "THE BLACK WINS" to show you how racist American society was in Jack Johnson's day.. Johnson was forced to flee the country when he was still champion -- because of the prospect of being thrown into prison for having white women as wives and companions.. After several years in exile, Johnson cut a deal with American prosecutors that allowed him back into the country for a reduced prison sentence... Part of the deal was losing the Heavyweight Championship to a white man, Jess Willard.

You should read more carefully.

Lots of errors in your statement above.

1-"The fight not insignificant as you suggest."

I did not write the article. You are confusing me with the author of the article I copied and pasted and posted here.

The article reads. "Those familiar with boxing know as a boxing match this bout had little significance."

That is true.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2--"it wasn't a bloated Jim Jeffries who fought Johnson."

If you bothered to read more carefully you would see that of course Jeffries was bloated before he lost the 100 pounds:

"with a long retired, bloated Jeffries who hadn’t fought for six years, losing over 100 pounds in a short period of time"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3--"Johnson was forced to flee the country when he was still champion -- because of the prospect of being thrown into prison for having white women as wives and companions."

That is a false statement. Johnson was charged with violating the Mann Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4--"After several years in exile, Johnson cut a deal with American prosecutors that allowed him back into the country for a reduced prison sentence... Part of the deal was losing the Heavyweight Championship to a white man, Jess Willard."

That is false.

Even Ken Burns wasn't that sloppy with words in his poorly done documentary.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

- I personally liked the film save for many of the flaws mentioned. Any doc is gonna be flawed to an extent, especially over a highly politicized figure like Johnson.

The long lost first cinematographic attempt at filming the first blockbuster in history, the Enoch Rector footage looks to have been found and recreated here Hollywood style as most movie people aspire to. Yeah, plenty creative liberties were taken, but someone associated with the production remembered this obscure title fight Feb of 1896 on a spit island in the middle of the Rio Grande accessed through fabled Judge Roy Bean's jurisdiction circa Langtry, Texas between Bob Fitzsimmons and Peter Maher after JJ Corbett forfeited his title in a hissyfit. It can be seen as a precursor to Burns' work and more entertaining. skip the ad after 5 sec.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ZBh-o9_TA

[davie]

I haven't seen the documentary.
I do however have the Geoffrey C Ward book of the same name.
Please tell me this documentary wasn't based on that book, I was fair looking forward to reading that, particularly seeing how it contrasted with the versions of Johnson I'd read about in 'the killings of Stanley Ketchel' and the Sam Langford biography 'boxing's greatest uncrowned champion'

[Caractacus]

I haven't seen the documentary.
I do however have the Geoffrey C Ward book of the same name.
Please tell me this documentary wasn't based on that book, I was fair looking forward to reading that, particularly seeing how it contrasted with the versions of Johnson I'd read about in 'the killings of Stanley Ketchel' and the Sam Langford biography 'boxing's greatest uncrowned champion'

Almost like two different projects but that shared the same title however..

[APerno]

The fight not insignificant as you suggest.. It was front page newspaper stuff for months.. Racism was a frequent theme in the articles, particularly those by Jack London, who goaded Jeffries into coming back and reclaiming the Heavyweight Championship for the white race.. "Jeff, it's up to you."

Many newspaper headlines didn't use Jack Johnson's name in their headlines.. some simply stated "THE BLACK WINS" to show you how racist American society was in Jack Johnson's day.. Johnson was forced to flee the country when he was still champion -- because of the prospect of being thrown into prison for having white women as wives and companions.. After several years in exile, Johnson cut a deal with American prosecutors that allowed him back into the country for a reduced prison sentence... Part of the deal was losing the Heavyweight Championship to a white man, Jess Willard.

You should read more carefully.

Lots of errors in your statement above.

1-"The fight not insignificant as you suggest."

I did not write the article. You are confusing me with the author of the article I copied and pasted and posted here.

The article reads. "Those familiar with boxing know as a boxing match this bout had little significance."

That is true.

It was an interesting article – thank you for the post.

I would like to take a moment and disagree with the article’s statement regarding the insignificance of the Jefferies fight. What the article states is true, (about why it was a forgone conclusion,) but I would argue that is twenty-twenty hindsight. When the fight happened it went off as a ‘big fight’ - with much anticipation and excitement, and with the outcome in doubt (in the public’s mind.)

Johnson-Jefferies was a ‘big fight,’ and disappointing outcomes don’t diminish their significance e.g. Tyson-Spinks was, is, a significant fight. We don't go back and call that fight insignificant because of the way it turned out.

I believe America at the time, ‘white’ America, was functioning in a serious state of denial regarding race; I believe ‘white’ America went into the fight truly believing in Johnson’s inferiority, and willingly foolishly embraced Jefferies’ past mystique as reality, thus there was great excitement and that is always significant to boxing.

We know ‘white’ America was shocked at the outcome; that they had a very difficult time accepting it, with the movie theater riots ending the interstate distribution of prize fight films for the next forty years.

Also: If I were Johnson, I would have ducked Langford too; there was nothing there for Johnson; a tough fight for far less money than what a white fighter brings to the table. Fighters go where the money is, and Johnson didn’t owe Langford anything; Langford is just one more fighter on a long list of fighters who got screwed, for whatever reasons; Johnson’s ‘crime’ has been committed by many champions.

[Sidney Carton]

Also: If I were Johnson, I would have ducked Langford too; there was nothing there for Johnson; a tough fight for far less money than what a white fighter brings to the table. Fighters go where the money is, and Johnson didn’t owe Langford anything; Langford is just one more fighter on a long list of fighters who got screwed, for whatever reasons; Johnson’s ‘crime’ has been committed by many champions.

The "They all do it" defense doesn't cut it here. Johnson fought black fighter Jim Johnson in Paris.

Johnson fought middleweight Stanley Ketchel, the shell of Jeffries, less than top level Jim Flynn.

Johnson cheapened and embarrassed himself as supposed heavyweight champion by hiding from Langford.

Some diehard Ken Burns fans here, I see.

[Sidney Carton]

I would like to take a moment and disagree with the article’s statement regarding the insignificance of the Jefferies fight. What the article states is true, (about why it was a forgone conclusion,) but I would argue that is twenty-twenty hindsight.

There was no "hindsight" when Joe Gans said Jeffries had no chance to win the 45 round bout because, "He had the cigarette habit for 6 years."

Billy Papke was thrown out of Jeffries training camp after seeing Jeffries train and telling newsmen that Jeffries looked terrible and had no chance to beat Johnson.

John L. Sullivan saw Jeffries train and said, "They never come back."

[Sidney Carton]

Tyson-Spinks was, is, a significant fight. We don't go back and call that fight insignificant because of the way it turned out.

Tyson-Spinks was a joke before it happened. Spinks was never a legitimate heavyweight.

Spinks had two bad knees and showed up for the farce with bandages on both knees.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dLwZ_2Sfv8Q/hqdefault.jpg

[HomicideHenry]

Unforgivable Blackness was one of those documentaries I had hoped would have told history and of done justice (by telling truths) of one of the most controversial figures of sport. Unfortunately, what I saw was a poetic love letter to lies, myths, legends, and a continuance of the notion that America is just as racist as it was during the time of Jim Crow. Ken Burns, really let me down entirely with the documentary. The only parts of it that I liked was near the end when Archie Moore recalled seeing Johnson when he was a young man, and witnessing Johnson slipping punches (though he had been retired for years) from one of the club's best boxers and the old ex champion saying: "What you just witnessed, is what they (the man) tried to put away." Other than that, the entire production was one falsehood after another and the continuing myth that he threw the fight to Willard.

[APerno]

Also: If I were Johnson, I would have ducked Langford too; there was nothing there for Johnson; a tough fight for far less money than what a white fighter brings to the table. Fighters go where the money is, and Johnson didn’t owe Langford anything; Langford is just one more fighter on a long list of fighters who got screwed, for whatever reasons; Johnson’s ‘crime’ has been committed by many champions.

The "They all do it" defense doesn't cut it here. Johnson fought black fighter Jim Johnson in Paris.

Johnson fought middleweight Stanley Ketchel, the shell of Jeffries, less than top level Jim Flynn.

Johnson cheapened and embarrassed himself as supposed heavyweight champion by hiding from Langford.

Some diehard Ken Burns fans here, I see.

I have not seen the documentary, and have no opinion about it or him, but I guess 'we have some die hard Ken Burns haters here' - what did i write that made you think I was saying anything about Ken Burns, maybe your bias made you see something that was not there?

What was it you said to Kalan, Oh yea, 'read closer'

But it does 'cut it here' because he was champ - and the champion makes the call, not you . . . and in regard to the other post - three opinions don't make a nation; the nation was excited; it was a 'big fight' - it was significant.

and finally all you said about the Tyson-Spinks fight (is correct and) makes my point for me; with all the complaints by the 'experts,' fans still flocked to see both fights anyway, they were excited - they were both 'still' significant to boxing. - anyway, since when does a hand full of negative opinions about a fight decide whether a fight is significant or not? If I give you 'four' opinions of people who anticipated a great fight, would I then be right?

[Sidney Carton]

what did i write that made you think I was saying anything about Ken Burns, maybe your bias made you see something that was not there?

Take a look at the title of the thread and the article posted. That might give you a hint.

If I give you 'four' opinions of people who anticipated a great fight, would I then be right?

Do you really not know who Joe Gans, Billy Papke and John L. Sullivan were?

[Sidney Carton]

Unforgivable Blackness was one of those documentaries I had hoped would have told history and of done justice (by telling truths) of one of the most controversial figures of sport. Unfortunately, what I saw was a poetic love letter to lies, myths, legends, and a continuance of the notion that America is just as racist as it was during the time of Jim Crow. Ken Burns, really let me down entirely with the documentary. The only parts of it that I liked was near the end when Archie Moore recalled seeing Johnson when he was a young man, and witnessing Johnson slipping punches (though he had been retired for years) from one of the club's best boxers and the old ex champion saying: "What you just witnessed, is what they (the man) tried to put away." Other than that, the entire production was one falsehood after another and the continuing myth that he threw the fight to Willard.

That was writer Stanley Crouch--not Archie Moore.

Big difference.

[APerno]

what did i write that made you think I was saying anything about Ken Burns, maybe your bias made you see something that was not there?

Take a look at the title of the thread and the article posted. That might give you a hint.

If I give you 'four' opinions of people who anticipated a great fight, would I then be right?

Do you really not know who Joe Gans, Billy Papke and John L. Sullivan were?

Don't assume because of the subject title, read what I wrote.

Yes I have a pretty could idea who they were, but how does that relate, it is still just three opinions when thousands flocked to the fight; I repeat, you, them, don't get to make the call as to what is significant, the thousands of excited fans do!

BTW Mysterious Billy Smith would have kicked Joe Gans' butt, but Gans refused to cross the 'uncertainty line.'

[HomicideHenry]

Unforgivable Blackness was one of those documentaries I had hoped would have told history and of done justice (by telling truths) of one of the most controversial figures of sport. Unfortunately, what I saw was a poetic love letter to lies, myths, legends, and a continuance of the notion that America is just as racist as it was during the time of Jim Crow. Ken Burns, really let me down entirely with the documentary. The only parts of it that I liked was near the end when Archie Moore recalled seeing Johnson when he was a young man, and witnessing Johnson slipping punches (though he had been retired for years) from one of the club's best boxers and the old ex champion saying: "What you just witnessed, is what they (the man) tried to put away." Other than that, the entire production was one falsehood after another and the continuing myth that he threw the fight to Willard.

That was writer Stanley Crouch--not Archie Moore.

Big difference.

Coulda swore Archie was in the documentary and said that. If I'm wrong, though, I stand corrected.

[Sidney Carton]

BTW Mysterious Billy Smith would have kicked Joe Gans' butt, but Gans refused to cross the 'uncertainty line.'

That comment is definitely worthy of boxing "expert" Ken Burns

Welterweight Billy Smith's career was effectively over by 1900.

Joe Gans won the lightweight title in 1902.

I have never seen any mention of Gans and Billy Smith.

As a lightweight Gans fought a 20 round draw with Joe Walcott, Smith's conqueror.

As a lightweight Gans knocked out welterweight title claimant Mike Twin Sullivan TWICE.

Lightweight Gans fought approximately one third of his fights against fighters heavier than he was.

You made a very strange choice to pick Joe Gans, of all fighters, as a fighter who "refused to cross the 'uncertainty line.' "

[Sidney Carton]

Unforgivable Blackness was one of those documentaries I had hoped would have told history and of done justice (by telling truths) of one of the most controversial figures of sport. Unfortunately, what I saw was a poetic love letter to lies, myths, legends, and a continuance of the notion that America is just as racist as it was during the time of Jim Crow. Ken Burns, really let me down entirely with the documentary. The only parts of it that I liked was near the end when Archie Moore recalled seeing Johnson when he was a young man, and witnessing Johnson slipping punches (though he had been retired for years) from one of the club's best boxers and the old ex champion saying: "What you just witnessed, is what they (the man) tried to put away." Other than that, the entire production was one falsehood after another and the continuing myth that he threw the fight to Willard.

Sidney Carton wrote:
That was writer Stanley Crouch--not Archie Moore.
Big difference.

HomicideHenry wrote:Coulda swore Archie was in the documentary and said that. If I'm wrong, though, I stand corrected.

Sidney Carton wrote:
Everything else you wrote was very correct (in my opinion).

The Ken Burns "documentary" on Jack Johnson shows that documentary makers should not try to make "documentaries" on subjects they are totally ignorant of.

[Caractacus]

yeah check out the special feature where the producer was shocked to find about Jack Johnson's actual boxing style in pre-production
( he must have confused him with early Mike Tyson)

[Caractacus]

IMOP the HBO special on Joe Louis was just a bunch of anti-American commie crap pousing as a new documentery too.