superficial study of the title character

Rating: Null/10 (12 July 2002)

`Ali' runs an impressive 157 minutes  yet we don't feel as if we know much more about Muhammad Ali THE PERSON at the end of the film than we did at the beginning. Sure, we may know more facts and details about his life than we did before but not about what really makes him TICK.
Of course, any film that attempts to record the life of a man is, by necessity, going to have to pick and choose which of the many events of that life to leave in and which to throw out. Granted. But the cursory nature of the screenplay causes a serious problem for this film. The story picks up Ali's life in 1964, back when he was still known as Cassius Clay, de-throning Sonny Liston to become heavyweight-boxing champion of the world. The time in his life before this event is dealt with in elliptical fashion. We see virtually nothing about how he was raised, what his parents were like, what kind of values they instilled in him, what motivated him to become a boxer and, most importantly, what drew him so passionately to the creed espoused by the Nation of Islam. Without this crucial understanding of his formative years, the Ali we see in the film seems a very superficial version of the undoubtedly more complex real life figure. For all the screenplay's devotion to the minutiae of Ali's career as a boxer, his travels to Africa, his experiences with women, his world-famous bouts with Joe Frasier and George Foreman, the Ali of this film remains a frustrating enigma from first moment to last. Worse, he remains static as a character, never undergoing the kind of mental, emotional or psychological growth one would expect a biography to show us. Even his trademark egotism comes across as just a front for public consumption since he doesn't exhibit any undue arrogance in his dealings with those around him when he is out of the limelight. Perhaps that might be the point the film is trying to make, but if it is, it is never clearly or effectively exploited to any thematic or dramatic purpose.
That is not to say that the film does not provide some ancillary pleasures. Certainly, its strongest asset is its ability to recreate a fascinating time in world history. Since Ali's life seemed to touch on so many of the key events of that era  racism, Black Pride, the Vietnam War, the assassinations of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr.  his story actually becomes emblematic of the times in which he prospered. Director Michael Mann manages to capture the flavor of that moment in bold, telling strokes, in large crowd scenes and in glimpses of protest riots and the brutal slayings of unarmed men. Yet, when necessary, Mann proves himself the master of both understatement and subtlety, as in his almost indirect depiction of King's killing. In terms of their editing, the boxing scenes seem somehow less dynamic  and thereby perhaps a bit more realistic  than those in many other films on the subject.
Will Smith does an excellent job in bringing Ali to life, even if the script doesn't always provide him with the material he could have used to get at the core of the man's being. Jon Voight does an effective job under all the makeup impersonating the inimitable Howard Cosell, yet, here too, we are never really shown just how this obviously symbiotic relationship between the boxer and the sportscaster ever came to develop. It is crucial details like these which seem to be missing all throughout the movie. Thus, despite the wonderful time capsule aspect of the film, `Ali' emerges as a disappointingly superficial study of its subject.
For whatever reason, the lives of boxers remain prime grist for the moviemaking mill. In just the last few years alone, we have had films made about both `Hurricane' Carter and Muhammad Ali. My only question is this: can `The Mike Tyson Story' be far behind?