Carl Wayne Teacher Website

Carl Wayne

Saturday, July 31, 2010

FH District Home Page

FHH Home Page

Home

Golf

Schedule

Calendar

FAQ's

Resources

Contact Me

Discussion

Master Calendar

Grades

Student and Teacher Discussion Blog

Use this discussion blog to engage with your teachers and other students to discuss topics related to class. Posts will NOT display until approved by Teacher.

Select your Class First:

Sort new to oldSort old to new

Teacher Comments in Maroon

1. Max Baer's family was upset about the realeasing of Cinderella Man because the movie dipicts him as a heartless, ruthless man who doesn't care if he kills someone in the ring.Where as in real life, he was haunted by the fact he had killed the men. His family had a very good reason to be upset about this movie.

2. I personally think that it was wrong to change the character becauase everyone who watches the movie gets the idea that he was a bad guy, when in reality he was not. It was also wrong for them to make up facts just to make Baer seem like the villan. They had no right to discourage the family like that.

3.The main points of the article is that you can say anything about anyone after their dead and there is nothing the law can do about it. Once a person is dead they have no constitutional rights so anything can be said, even if it is not true. I completely disagree because if you can say anything about a person after they are dead, then it demoralizes the significant past they created. changing Max Baer's character just because he had passed away was completely unethical because now the youth that watch this movie get the wrong impression of him.

Posted by: Maddi Cordia | 1/29/2010 11:10:00 PM

Paragraph 1:
Members of Max Baer's family have criticized the portrayal of Max Baer in this film for not being accurate. What major issues do they have with the film?

One of the issues Baer's family has with the movie is that the movie portrays him as a coldblooded killer, even jokin about it. In actuality though Baer only killed on person, Campbell and sent money to his widow. His family even claim he had nightmares about the fight for the rest of his life.

Paragraph 2:
How do you feel about the way the filmmakers changed the character? Is this ethical? Why or why not?

I personally do not like the way they falsely portrayed Baer, but I can understand why they did it. They wanted viewers to sympathize with Braddock and dramatize the major fight in the movie, but I believe they should have chosen a better way to accomplish this.

Paragraph 3:
What are the main points of the Jonathan Turley Washington Post article "Give the Dead Their Due"? Do you agree or disagree?

The main points made in the article are about the rights given for anybody to defame dead people. If they wanted to make big bucks over a false accusations of the person they could.. I personally think that People should not be able to use that law to the extent they do, since that can breed false stereotypes of that person.

Posted by: alex ayres | 1/29/2010 10:43:00 PM

1. Max Baer’s family members criticize the portrayal of Max in the film, Cinderella Man, because he is regarded as cold-hearted, when, in a reality, he was a nice person. The movie also shows that Baer killed two men, when he actually on killed one, and was rather upset after doing so.

2. The film makers had every right to alter characteristics of a character. Although this is not what I agree with, the reality is that, in order to sell a movie, there needs to be a certain degree of drama...”Good Guy vs. Bad Guy”, ya know? It helps in appealing to all audiences, and also supports the overall them of the movie.

3. The main point of his article is that once someone dies, people have the right to say whatever they want about that deceased person. I completely agree with this statement. Americans are too caught up in remaining “politically correct”. An opinion is an opinion, and it’s good to hear opinions from all people. At the end of the day, the person is dead, and their deeds will speak for themselves.

Posted by: Rebecca Currie | 1/29/2010 4:31:00 PM

1. Max Baer’s family had many issues with the way he was portrayed in the 2005 movie “Cinderella Man”. The main issue is how the movie does not show his true person, it gives the wrong impression and imitates a false image of how he handled the death he caused. The movie shows Max Baer as a “cultivating a scandalous image while he dated movie stars”. But in reality Baer was a man a great morals, who “had a Livermore park and a Sacramento charity named in his honor”. He also contributed to helping Campbell’s widow after he accidently caused his death. Campbell’s death was the biggest mistake of Baer’s life; he claims it gave him nightmares for years to come. The movie labeled Max Baer as an inconsiderate, insensitive fool but he was really just “bizarre guy a wonderful guy with kind heart a great sense of humor”, and that was what his family was most upset about.
2. I think the way the movie portrayed Max Baer was completely unethical and unnecessary. Not only does the movie alter Max Baer as a person, but it changes his history as well. In the movie Baer was claimed to have killed two men instead of just one. This added false anxiety to Braddock’s wife in the movie; without the second death on Baer’s record, she might have acted differently. But adding a second killing makes Baer seem even worse and less human in a way. I believe it is very wrong to change a person’s actions and personality; it’s like stealing his identity. They took how he was and altered him completely to fit the plot of the story; when in reality they should have changed the movie to fight his character.
3. In the article “Give the Dead Their Due” the topic is discussed of how if a person has passed on, it is legal to say whatever you please. It is said to be legal because "The dead have no rights and can suffer no wrongs." In other words, you're fair game as soon as you die -- even if writers say viciously untrue things about you and your life."I disagree with this strongly for many reasons. First off, it defaces the person, it steals their identity and allows anyone to twist and turn it any way they want. So no matter how honorable or powerful a person may have been, as soon as they die, they become whatever someone imagines them to be. Another problem with this is somewhat like a chain reaction. A writer comes along and changes the life of a deceased person, but then another writer comes along and changes the very changed life of the same person. If this is legal, that means anyone can do it. What I’m saying is, how do we know the truth about anyone now-a-days after they’ve been dead for various years?

Posted by: Mo Olenski | 1/28/2010 10:28:00 PM

Paragraph 1.) Max Baer was like everyone else in America during the great depression. He was struggling with money. The one way he could get a lot of money was if he became very popular as a boxer. When he acted like a mean, aggressive person, it helped him get more money from when he killed a man in the boxing rink. He was actually a loving family man, but to help his family survive, he had to portray a scumbag. I think the director of Cinderella Man was more concerned with making the movie have more suspense and be a popular hit, than to get Max’s real side on tape.

Paragraph 2.) I personally do not like the way Max Baer’s character was like in Cinderella Man. I think the film makers should have showed his kind, humorous side. I also think they should have introduced his family and have had them explain why Max kept up the tough guy act. It is not ethnical because the movie is a true story and the film makers had no right to change the facts that have already happened. If they thought if they changed the facts to get a better movie review, they were wrong and had no right to do that.

Paragraph 3.) The main points in Jonathan Turly Washington’s post are that even that even though famous people have passed away, you can’t try and start rumors or other false facts about them. Just because they are not here to deny it, you should not star things like that. I disagree with the article because the people that stated false accusations about famous people that have died have no proof. If they have no proof, they have no right to state that about someone.

Posted by: Abby Dairaghi | 1/28/2010 9:31:00 PM

1) The major problems that Max Baer’s family have with his portrayal in Cinderella Man are mainly to do with the way he is shown as an iniquitous and cold-hearted man. In the movie it shows him bragging about killing Campbell in the ring, when in actuality Max later wrote, ”I've made a lot of mistakes...But that is the one I wish I could take back. I'll regret it as long I live.” In reality Max Baer was a “bizarre guy a wonderful guy with kind heart a great sense of humor” (Max Baer Jr.).

2) I feel that the filmmakers had the creative right to change Max Baer’s character for the purpose of this movie because the movie is shown from Jim Braddock’s point of view. To Jim, Max must have seemed like a ruthless man, but I strongly disagree with the way the filmmakers changed facts. Saying that Max told Mae Braddock that he was going to kill her husband and then sleep with her is completely made up and therefore unnecessary for the film.

3) The main points of the Jonathan Turley Washington Post article "Give the Dead Their Due" are that even though a person is not here to defend themselves does not mean the everybody has the right to drag their name through the mud. I disagree with the article because these things are just wild accusations that have no proof, and in addition, the people are dead and as Sir James Stephen put it, “The dead have no rights and can suffer no wrongs." If someone really wants to claim that Elvis Presley was a pedophile it does not mean that everybody is going to believe it, so it does not matter that much.

Posted by: Heather Gerard 7th Hour | 1/28/2010 7:01:00 PM

Members of Max Baer's family have criticized the portrayal of Max Baer in this film for not being accurate. What major issues do they have with the film?

Baer's family criticized the movie "Cinderella Man" for not making Max Baer (James Braddock), the most realistic they could of made him. The movie was more fiction than Baer's family wished it would of been. It made his seem like a heartless person, when really he was a loving and caring man. They made him seem way worse than he actually was. Max was more complex than the movie showed, and that left his family upset. So overall Max's family did not like the way the movie showed him as himself.

How do you feel about the way the filmmakers changed the character? Is this ethical? Why or why not?

I feel like they changed Max's character to try and benefit the movie. They knew what his life really was like but that obvisouly did not satisfy the writer. He mixed up his life in ways to make it more appealing to the people of this time period. People are recieving the wrong information on what Max Baer's life really was like, and that is no help when trying to watch a true story.

What are the main points of the Jonathan Turley Washington Post article "Give the Dead Their Due"? Do you agree or disagree?

The main points are that the dead are dead, and anything you say about them doesn't change the person they once were. Just because rumors are spread around about the deceased, doesn't make them anymore of a person they once were. You can say all you want about someone who died, but the simple fact is- they are gone, so it's nothing against them. So I disagree, because laws would of already been passed if everyone thought this was such a big problem.

Posted by: Anna Bocek | 1/27/2010 8:22:00 PM

#1.In the movie “Cinderella Man” component Max Baer was portrayed as a ruthless scumbag. Baer’s family was outraged when they saw this movie. From that point I could understand. What many of the family members struggled with was how they portrayed him as a pig, when in reality he was a kind and loving father. The family also admits to Baer being a scatterbrain but they said he had a good sense of humor. What the director of Cinderella Man failed to do was find out his side of the story. Mainly I think the reason Baer was portrayed so badly was because the director was viewing it from James Braddock’s view of things instead of Baers.

#2.I feel that the director had a right to change Max Bear’s character but I also feel that the director shouldn’t have portrayed Max so badly. I understand that the director was only trying to make the ending fight more intense by making Max look like a real bad guy, but I also think there is two sides two a story. I think its unethical because the director should have gone to the remaining family members of Bear and found out how Max really was. Though he did kill a person in the rink it does not make him a bad man. It just means he knows how to fight well. In the movie it kind of implies that Max doesn’t care about killing a man in the ring but his family said that it haunted him for years. I think that the director should have showed how Max really was instead of making up some stuff so he could sell his movie.

#3.The main points that Jonathan Turley is trying to make is that a person can make up any statement about a dead person and people can think its true. He talks about how directors and magazine editors have the right to make up false things about a dead person even if the accusations are so cruel. Jonathan also says that most people believe the stuff that is made up. I on the other hand have to disagree. I disagree because people aren’t that stupid, if one magazine makes a headline saying the “ Gorge Washington didn’t cute down a cherry tree” most people wont believe it until millions of newspapers and magazines print it out. I also think people don’t fall for some editors false accusations of a dead person because sometimes most people already made up their opinion towards that person. I also think that it honestly isn’t that big of a deal about what people say about the dead, even if that person has a family, that family shouldn’t care because they know the truth about that person and that’s all that matters. If talking badly about the dead were really that big of a problem then government probably wouldn’t let directors do it.

Posted by: chandler platt | 1/27/2010 5:23:00 PM

Paragraph 1: The family of Max Baer was upset when the movie Cinderella Man came out for good reason. Their main complaint was that the movie falsley portrayed the man. it changed him and made him look like he was a big brute who didn't care about anything. The movie also made it look like he bragged about his kill and in real life he regretted it deeply.

Paragraph 2: I don't like the way the movie changed the way Max Baer looked. If he really was a kind-hearted man, there is no harm in showing that in the movie. It is definitly not ethical because they are defacing a once fond memory of a good man.

Paragraph 3: The main point is that you should not be able to publish false things about people who have passed away. I agree because it is just like rechisling a gravestone. It is changing the legacy of the person.

Posted by: Logan Wittmaier | 1/27/2010 5:09:00 PM

Posted by: Logan Wittmaier | 1/27/2010 5:03:00 PM

1. max baer's family thought that they made baer seem like a horrible man who liked killing people in the ring and thought that it was okay. the film also made it seem like he was a "womanizing" man. baer's family said that he was actually a really nice guy. he may have been a bit odd, but he was not as vicious and evil as the max baer in the film. they were happy that the book the cinderella man portrayed max better

2. i think that the film makers changed the characters to make the movie more dramatic. they need to have a film with drama, love, and violence. and they could have done that if they kept the characters the same, but it wouldn't have been as good. i don't think its horrible that they changed them, but i don't think it's good either. the people's families who watched the movie may be very flattered the way they portrayed certain characters or they could be very offended. so i don't think that it is technically ethical, but i don't think it's anything to big that they were worried about.

3. he was trying to say that it is not right that after famous people die, any single person can just ruin their reputation. people are taking things they've seen in movies and thinking that is actually how the person was in real life. he thinks that there should be a law against all of it, so that people can't ruin a perfectly good person's reputation. many famous people's families have filed law suits and complaints against film directors and authors for portrayer their loved one wrong. i think i agree with him because it's not fair. people have no right to change history. they might as well say that the declaration of independence was just a joke and that no one was serious when they signed it. congress needs to make a law or something, because it's truly frustrating.

Posted by: Sami Holder Hour4 | 1/26/2010 10:02:00 PM

1. Max Baer’s family argues that Baer was not a monster in real life as he was portrayed in the movie. In Cinderella Man, Baer is portrayed as ruthless in the ring, and it states that he killed two men while boxing. In reality, Baer only killed one man. While this is still harsh, Baer’s family points out that the real Baer was forever haunted by the killing. He even had nightmares about it and described the event as a mistake that he always wishes he could take back. Also, Baer gave a considerable amount of money to the victim (Campbell’s) family. However, Baer boasts about the killing in the movie and seems proud of it. He goes around talking smack and is shown as cold-hearted and lethal in the ring. Baer’s family has a big issue with this because Baer in the movie does not accurately show the real Baer.

2. I think that the way the filmmakers changed the character is not ethical. I understand that the media in general tends to stretch the truth to get a good product, but I think it is wrong as it damages people’s reputation. This movie, in my opinion, would have still been a good movie even if Baer was portrayed closer to reality. No movie can ever capture someone’s exact personality, but the filmmakers could have made an effort to stick closer to the truth. For these reasons, it was unethical of the filmmakers to change Baer’s character.

3. The main point of “Give the Dead Their Due” is that there should be laws protecting the dead from libel. If a person is living, it is illegal to make false accusations against them. But as soon as that person dies, they become fair game. This article argues that libel protections against living people should extend to the dead. In the case of Baer, how he was evilly shown in the movie damages his reputation whether he is alive or dead. “Give the Dead Their Due” focuses on this argument.

Posted by: Marleigh A. | 1/26/2010 9:20:00 PM

PLEASE MAKE SURE TO POST IN YOUR APPROPRIATE HOUR AND IN ONE POST.

Posted by: Carl Wayne | 1/26/2010 7:19:00 PM

Paragraph 1, the family members of Max Baer; claim that the video represents him as a cruel person who has no remorse for the tragedy that occurred on that fateful night. While in reality he wasn’t the cold hearted jerk that the movie portrayed him to be. After the incident he agreed in front of a grand jury to quit boxing and return to his homeland and continue a life of a butcher.

Paragraph 2, I believe that the filmmakers ruined max Baer's reputation with people who weren’t of that time period. I don't believe that they should change the was a person acts in a historical movie just because they think it makes a better show. The filmmakers obviously had no respect for the family of Max Baer or the man himself.

Paragraph 3, His main point is that once someone dies you can say anything about that person whether it is true or not. The law that is instated says that "The dead have no rights and can suffer no wrongs." In other words, you're fair game as soon as you die -- even if writers say viciously untrue things about you and your life." This protects anyone who says anything about a person after they die. I believe that a law should be in place when someone dies protecting their identity to be protected. And if someone tarnishes their once golden heritage then the family should have full legal options against that person.

Posted by: Steven Smith | 1/26/2010 6:39:00 PM

The way the film makers changed James Braddock is not very noticable but it could have made the movie a little more truthful. I understand that it is hard to jam every little fact into a movie, but there is still stuff you can not miss, like having a kid in the movie when she wasnt even born yet. Half of the things that were changed or miss would not have changed the outline or how good the movie was.Overall, I think the way James Braddock was changed was not all that bad but I would have liked to see more fictional stuff.

Posted by: Seth Cooper | 1/26/2010 6:33:00 PM

#1 Members of Max Baer's family have criticized the portrayal of Max Baer in this film for not being accurate. What major issues do they have with the film?

The major issues Max Baer’s family has with his portrayal in the movie Cinderella Man, is how the movie describes Baer as a simple ruthless man. “There is no question Baer was a bit of a scoundrel but his family and historians said he was more complex than film director Ron Howard portrayed him”( Jim Herron Zamora). That is what really upsets the family. Bear’s family wished that Ron Howard would have given Baer more of a background so people would understand and sympathize, as to why he is that way. Also the Baer family was upset at the fact that Ron Howard makes Baer’s character seem nonchalant about killing Campbell. These are all of the major issues the family has with Max Bear’s portrayal in Cinderella Man.

#2 How do you feel about the way the filmmakers changed the character? Is this ethical? Why or why not?
I feel like the filmmakers had every right to change the character of Max Baer and that it is not a matter of ethics but a matter of selling a movie. Yes, Max Baer is portrayed as ruthless and heartless fighter. And some may say that the statement was incorrect, but Baer did kill a man in the ring. The man’s death was caused by Baer’s strong fighting style. The filmmakers where simply trying to make the audience root for Jim Braddock and make the last fight scene stronger and more powerful. To do that the filmmakers had to make Baer’s character more unlikeable, more of a bad guy. How different would the champion fight be if Braddock’s competitor was an easy going, just trying to make a living type of guy? So as you can see the filmmakers changing Bear’s character some is not unethical.

#3 What are the main points of the Jonathan Turley Washington Post article "Give the Dead Their Due"? Do you agree or disagree?
The main points that Jonathan Turley give is that any statement can be made about a dead person and it can be thought to be true. Turley first writes that “In other words, you're fair game as soon as you die -- even if writers say viciously untrue things about you and your life”. Turley also writes that with these statements and made up stories any wholesome person can be made into a madmen or murder. Even though Turley believes that, I disagree. People are not as naive as Turley portrays them to be, and I do not think that by having one writer say that Elvis killed ten people, will make people suddenly believe Elvis was a murderer. Also who cares if someone makes up something about a dead person as Sir James Stephen said “The dead have no rights and can suffer no wrongs." If the government really though it was a problem a law would have all ready been passed. So there is no need to make a big deal out of rumors about the dead.

Posted by: Tori P | 1/26/2010 6:26:00 PM

Members of Max Baer's family have alot of issues with the way that his character is portrayed in the movie. Their main problem is that they feel the movie only showed Max in a bad way and that he is not really a bad guy. The son of Max Baer says he now believes that everyone under 50 will think of his dad as a total pig. Two books have been written in the past year that now emphasize how Mr. Baer was a good man. THe Baer family just want people to know that Max Baer is a good man.

Posted by: Seth Cooper | 1/26/2010 6:19:00 PM

They criticized how Max Baer was portrayed in Cinderella Man. The movie portrayed him as a cold-blooded ogre. The Movie also says he killed two men while in reality he only killed one. The family was angered by this because he was really a kind hearted person, even though he was a party animal.
I feal that changing a charicter this drasticly is very unethical. In the Movie the Cinderella Man the director inacuratly portrays Max Baer as a Ruthless killer. Even though they are dead thier families and friends are still alive, and they hate seeing an inspiring person to them being dragged down by hollywood. Since they are dead thier reputation isnt effecting them at all but it makes it so people think of him differently.
Some main points of the third paragraph are: it is unjust to portray dead people unacurately, states have wanted to make laws against it but havent acted yet, there has been many court cases against this, and how Max Baer was a victim of this. I strongly agree with what they are saying because just bbecause they are dead doesnt mean we can make them a lesser person and destroy thier reputation.

Posted by: Lucas Wall | 1/25/2010 7:39:00 PM

Read the following three articles (one is from SF Chronicle and other is a blog entry). You can copy and paste these links on your browser or go to the resources section to find the direct links:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-08-25/bay-area/17385836_1_cinderella-man-frankie-campbell-boxing

***The SF Chronicle article is two pages long. Be sure to click the link to go to page 2 at the bottom after reading the initial page***

http://daflo05.umwblogs.org/cinderella-man-as-a-secondary-source/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/15/AR2006091500999_pf.html
Paragraph 1:
Members of Max Baer's family have criticized the portrayal of Max Baer in this film for not being accurate. What major issues do they have with the film?

Paragraph 2:
How do you feel about the way the filmmakers changed the character? Is this ethical? Why or why not?

Paragraph 3:
What are the main points of the Jonathan Turley Washington Post article "Give the Dead Their Due"? Do you agree or disagree?

Posted by: Carl Wayne | 1/25/2010 8:59:00 AM

Add your Post Here: Teacher and other students can respond.

Name:

Email Address (required; we keep it private):

Comments:

MyTeacherZone.com