Carl Wayne    Bookmark and Share Saturday, May 19, 2012  
FH District Home Page
FHH Home Page
Home
Golf
Schedule
Calendar
FAQ's
Resources
Contact Me
Discussion
Search
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: 
  Worship Teacher Comments are in Maroon

 
*snap snap* HEY! here's my paragraphs 4 u!

numero uno(3)!!
Maxie's family doesn't like the portrayal of him in the Cinderella Man because it makes him seem like a bad person. They say Maxie was a good, kind-hearted person that cared about people. Maxie didn't mean to kill Campbell and regreted it the rest of his life.

numero dos(1)!!
I felt that it wasn't right. It's like yellow journalism and they want people to ilke Braddock more. It isn't fair because he has no chance to get fans or support.

numero tres(2)!!
The main points of this article are that its rude to defame people and that there no laws protecting dead people. I don't think there should be laws, but I think its rude that people make up stuff about dead people. It's inconsiderate and shows that they are so insecure they have to make fun of dead people to feel better about themselves. I think laws are too strict and police can't easily find out if someone is making up rumors about dead people.

PS: AMY SAYS HI!!
Posted by: ortballs | 1/28/2012 12:50:00 AM

 
During Cinderella Man Max Baer is portrayed as a “loathsome, womanizing thug”, but some would disagree with this such as Baer’s family, their side is going to be represented in this paragraph. Since the first time we see him in the movie Max is shown to be a killer who doesn’t respect his opponents even going so far as to make rude comments to James Braddock’s wife. This is contradicted by the Baer family who tell how Max was crushed and even had nightmares after the fatal blow that ended Frankie Campbell’s life. This is further disproved when Baer gave his earnings from an exhibition match to the widow. These reasons are why the Baer family had issues with the film Cinderella Man.

Cinderella Man was a great movie, but to make it so dramatic the writers had to change the facts, some of which are viewed as unethical. From the start James Braddock is displayed as the stereotypical father who shows anger at the loss of his kids, but in actuality he broke down emotionally in front of his wife. Continuing with the wife, Mae is portrayed as a wife who refused to even listen to James’ fights. This is also untrue because Mae would actually listen to his fights on the radio that they owned. Finally, the last notable inaccuracy and possibly the greatest is the movies portrayal of Max Baer as a ruthless disrespectful killer. As I have highlighted in my previous article this is grossly inaccurate and even damning to Max Baer’s identity. That is how the writers of Cinderella Man used dramatic license to make a more vivid story.

In the compelling article Give the Dead Their Due author Jonathan Turley points out how the law does not protect dead figures from being defamed because of the “rule that you cannot defame the dead”. This is a terrible tragedy in which reputations are tarnished and cannot be defended. Some notable figures whose fame has been hurt are: Elvis Presley, Queen Victoria, Abraham Lincoln, and Winston Churchill. Some of these people helped save the free world and they are left by the wayside to make a good movie. These reasons are why lawmakers should follow by Jonathan Turley’s example and prevent the defamation of dead men and women.
Posted by: Ryan Thompson | 1/27/2012 11:59:00 PM

 
I feel that it wasn't right to portray Max Baer in the way that the filmmakers did. They acted as if Max Baer was a "killer", while he really wasn't that way. In fact Max Baer was very traumatized by the event of killing Frankie Campbell, but the film shows differently. In the film, they show him almost gloating about killing Campbell, but Baer had never done so. Although Baer apparently did have "saucy outbursts” and “loose talk” I don't believe he was as mean as the filmmakers showed him to be. In conclusion I don't feel it was right for the filmmakers to portray Max Baer in the way they did.
Posted by: Gina Venetis | 1/27/2012 11:30:00 PM

 
Max Baer's family thought of Max's portrayal as being completely inaccurate in "Cinderella Man"; they saw their family member as being a kind and dear man, with a few weaknesses. One of the largest arguments is his tendency to "flaunt" his feat of killing a man during a boxing match; Baer's family describes Baer as being extremely remorseful and regretful of his actions, unlike the movie. Also, in the movie Baer was a womanizer; in reality he had a problem with saying no to a woman, but he never was rude or arrogant. Baer was not a piece of trash, like in movie; his family described him as a nut with a great heart.
I don’t believe it is ethical to have changed Baer to the person we saw in “Cinderella Man”, I believe it made a better movie; although, it wasn’t right to trash someone’s image. A movie makes changes no matter what, small or large they have to, but it isn’t right to change a character as drastically as they had in the movie. Baer was a good man, and in the movie he was seen as barbaric, or cheap; Ron Howard saw his character and tried to make it a “Good vs. Evil” story. Howard succeeded in this, at the cost of a man’s reputation.
“Give the Dead Their Due” describes a common and unjust act committed often in Hollywood, changing the facts about a person’s life, in order to make it more appealing. The article also describes how states don’t acknowledge the writer’s crime; they simply leave the person to fend for their reputation after their own death. In movies and in novels, historical events and historical figures are given fake pasts and untrue personalities, in order for the person viewing this to be more entertained. It isn’t right to let a good person’s reputation go down the toilet, just so people living can make money off of it.
Posted by: Blake Henson | 1/27/2012 11:26:00 PM

 
Paragraph 1: In this article Max Baer’s family states they are not happy with the portrayal of Max in the movie. They believe Max to be very different person. One of the things that upset the family was how Max always had lady friends. They clearly stated that they did know he had a weakness for ladies but that was okay. Another thing they found wrong with the movie was that he was very rude, cold hearted, and sly. With this the family strongly disagree with. The family knew and believe that even though Baer was a little scatter brained and weird, he was a good man at heart.
Paragraph 2: From a film makers point of view I understand what they did. It makes sense to them because changing character to fit the movie makes their film better. Then again you can also see why the relatives of these actual characters become upset. They don’t like the fact that they change the way other people see their passed on relatives. It makes sense either way. From a movie makers point of view I would say it’s fine but from the families I would be somewhat upset. All in all I would have to say it’s okay, because technically no ones getting their feelings hurt since they have passed on, but it truly depends on what their changing.
Paragraph 3: In Jonathan Turley’s article his main point is that when a person passes on you are legally allowed to say anything you want about them. For example when directors make movies they can change historic figures or event to suit their needs. This then creates these wrongful beliefs of viewers. He also clearly states that people can do nothing to prevent their deceased relatives from being wrongly accused. In a long shot he says you can accuse or assume things about people who have passed. I strongly disagree with this because it is very dishonorable to the people who have passed and to their families.
Posted by: Emma Mueller 4th hour | 1/27/2012 11:25:00 PM

 
The Baer’s criticize Cinderella Man for saying that Max Baer was a crazy showboat and a womanizing thug. During the movie Max Baer brags about killing Campbell. This is wrong because when Max Baer killed Frankie Campbell he did not brag and it haunted him. Max Baer’s career almost ended.

I feel that it wasn’t necessary for the film makers to change some of the characters in the film. It is unethical because Max Baer was actually a nice man who had no intention of killing anyone. They changed his story into a lie.

The main points are that you should not criticize or say a lie about a person when they are dead. I agree because when you change the way a person was it affects their family and how people view that person. Not many people will know that Max Baer was actually a good person because of this film.
Posted by: Casey D | 1/27/2012 11:15:00 PM

 
Paragraph 1: The major issues Max Baer’s family have for the film are for how Baer is portrayed. In reality, Baer was a good man. While the movie depicted Baer as a ruthless killing machine, he actually became extremely depressed after the Campbell fight and did whatever he could to help Mrs. Campbell. The movie demonized Baer in a way that was completely different than how acted in real life. That is why Baer’s family is disappointed with the film.

Paragraph 2: I feel that how the filmmakers changed the character of the characters in the film was justified. It was only done to make the movie’s message stronger. Considering this, I also believe it was an ethical decision as well. James Braddock was changed slightly to highlight the hardships of the Great Depression, and Mae Braddock was changed to put greater tension on each of Braddock’s fights.

Paragraph 3: The main points are that defaming the dead is legal when it shouldn’t be. I agree with this, as the family of the deceased person could be affected by it. For example, certain people protesting outside a dead soldier’s funeral service. The family of the dead soldier has to listen to how their loved one deserved his death. In conclusion, it is surprising a thing like that is legal, when it can cause people emotional harm.
Posted by: Brendan F. | 1/27/2012 11:05:00 PM

 
1.) In Cinderella Man, Max Bear was depicted as a cocky jerk that was into Hollywood stars a little too much. Once the film was seen my Bears family, they were in shock: the character in the movie was nothing like the man they loved. They had major issues with the fact that Bear was shown as a heartless and rude pig. His family stressed that he was a “party animal” in his time, but he was also warm and loving and a bit out there. But in no way, was Max Bear the monster that the director of the movie intended him to be.

2.) The way that the filmmakers changed Max Bear's character was strictly business, of all people Bear should know; he killed someone on business. The film needed a bad guy, and Bear was the closest they had in the story. The movie wouldn't be interesting if everyone was a good guy. After all, what is a movie with out a good death threat? A chick flick. And what girl likes boxing movies? It may not have been ethical, as it is disgracing Max Bear's name and he can't defend it. But that's show business.

3.) In Turley's article, his main point is, is it okay for the dead to be defamed and if should we stop it. Turley suggested that this has been going on for hundreds of years, once people are gone, conspiracy theories and so called facts come up out of the blue. Which is almost always the case. But, people should know their fact from fiction, and disregard any obscure information found after death. These type of lies are often made to evoke a reaction of some sort. Although it is unethical to speak badly about the dead, it is a bit much to pass a law about it. People should be mature and use their morals as a guide, especially when questioning someones character and ethics.
Posted by: Kirsten H. | 1/27/2012 10:23:00 PM

 
Max Baer's family has a lot of issues with his portrayal in the movie "Cinderella Man". The movie made him seem like a slob who wanted to kill people in the boxing ring and get with their women. Max's family had a lot of issues with this. His niece thought watched the movie and started bawling. She knew he was not that type of person, but everyone else who sees the movie is going to think otherwise. Max Baer Junior was raged because he claims that no one under the age of fifty is going to know who Max Baer really is. He claims that people are going to watch the movie and get the wrong impression of him. All in all, Max Baer's family did not like how the movie "Cinderella Man" portrayed him.
In my opinion, I don't think that the movie "Cinderella Man" should have changed Max's character like they did. Yes, it gave them a more intense story line to incorporate into the movie, but the movie would have been just as good if the film makers would have used Max's real personality. I don't think that changing Max's pesonality was ethical. It isn't against the law to put a different view on people, but it's wrong. People should have enough sincerity to understand that enhancing people's mistakes in life is not right, even if they are dead.
The main points in Jonathan Turley Washington's Post article "Give The Dead Their Due" is that making rumors about the dead is wrong and it can destroy historical figures. I agree with his main points in the article. If people die, there's no way of stopping what people say about them. It just turns into a "can you prove it?" war. Even though it's not against the law, it's still wrong. There's no need to go around destroying the reputations of the deceased and making up rumors that aren't even true. It's completely wrong.
Posted by: Hannah M. | 1/27/2012 10:21:00 PM

 
Paragraph 1: The portrayal of Max Baer in the movie Cinderella Man upset his family. They felt that the movie made him seem like "... a loathsome, womanizing thug...". His family also felt like it made him appear to be proud of killing a man in the ring, Campbell. They were very upset about how their beloved relative was portrayed in this movie. Max Baer's family loved and accepted Max and helped him get through a tough time when he killed Campbell.

Paragraph 2: The makers of the film should have went over their ideas with the Baer family before putting them into a movie. They also could have made a statement before that this movie may not have been accurate information. The filmmakers also could have told viewers where to find more accurate information on Max Baer. It is not right that this movie portrayed Baer as a bad man. It also tarnished Baer's reputation as a good boxer.

Paragraph 3: The main point of this article is that people throughout time have tried and succeded in ruining the reputations of the deceased. It is a very wrong thing to do to these people and their families. It also states that there are no laws to protect the deceased from these reputation ruining people. These filmmakers don't realize that they are not only tarnishing that persons reputation but also the families of these people are dealing with consequences. It is also unfair to the deceased because they cannot defend themselves from false accusations.
Posted by: Becca Chase | 1/27/2012 9:57:00 PM

 
In the film “Cinderella Man,” the members of Max Baer’s family have a problem with the way that he is portrayed. The family argues that his character is shown as being rude and cold hearted in the movie but really he was a great guy. Max Baer is also shown as boasting about Frank Cambell’s death, where in real life he actually felt very bad about it.
I feel that the way that the filmmakers changed Max Baer is not fair. In the film Max Baer is shown as killing two people, when in real life he only killed one. Also the film makes viewers see Max Baer in a negative way when he really was not the person that they showed him as in the film.
In Jonathon Turley’s article he mentions many examples of when people that have deceased are portrayed doing things that they never did in their life. He goes on to tell how there is no law that protects the diseased so that friends and family cannot do anything about it. I agree that people should not be able to make up things about the deceased and ruin their reputation.
Posted by: Trevor Remund | 1/27/2012 9:44:00 PM

 
Paragraph one

Max Baer was portrayed as a huge jerk in the movie “Cinderella Man”. His family thought that it was not very accurate because it only showed a very short portion of his life, and he really wasn’t a pig, like they made him out to be in the movie. They had a problem with him having a lot of “lady friends” and said that he was more of an outgoing party person in his time period. His family said that even thought he was a little weird he had a good heart and good intentions. Max Baer later wrote "I've made a lot of mistakes," he wrote in 1951 after he settled in Sacramento. "But that is the one I wish I could take back. I'll regret it as long I live."

Paragraph two

I think that it was ok for the film makers to change parts of the movie. For instance when their children were born are important but not necessarily for the movie. I was upset that they changed how Braddock reacted when he found out that his children were gone. They shouldn’t have changed that, because I think that there is a big difference from being angry and being emotional upset. My opinion is that it really isn’t unethical to change little things that don’t make a huge difference in the movie, like when his kids were born.

Paragraph three

I don’t think you should, be able to say anything about dead people that I not factual, because it’s a respect thing. I agree that it’s up to writers and movie makers to tell the stories of the deseeded, but that doesn’t mean that they should change the truth. If you think about it would you want other people to think that you’re a jerk, even if you were the nicest person on earth? No, if you died you would want people to remember you for who you really are.
Posted by: olivia yuhas | 1/27/2012 9:34:00 PM

 
The major issue that Max Baer’s family has with the film is that Baer was portrayed as a ruthless human being. They are offended by the way that Hollywood degraded Baer into an uncaring person who would threaten to kill someone and then say that he would sleep with said person’s widow. The film also said that Baer killed two people in the ring, when in reality he only killed one. According to the family, Baer was also deeply sorry for this death and had a bad run in the ring afterward. The family said that Baer made no threats to kill Braddock or sleep with his wife. The entire family was very put out with the way that the writer’s of the film chose to display Baer just so the movie could have a very clear villain.

I feel that the way that the filmmakers changed the character of Max Baer is very unethical. They chose to change Baer so there could be a very clear cut bad guy in the film instead of the ambiguous enemy of the Great Depression. This was wrong. The writers have forever destroyed the image of Max Baer in the eyes of people who do not like to do much research after seeing a movie. And honestly, who does? Most people would walk away after seeing Cinderella Man thinking that Max Baer is a horrible person that you deserve to hate with all of your heart. In reality, he was just a fierce fighter that was a ladies man. This decision to alter Max Baer’s persona to better fit a story line is just plain wrong.

The main points of the Washington Post article “Give the Dead Their Due” are fairly straightforward. The author, Jonathan Turley, lists some examples of the ways that dead people have been wrongly accused or portrayed and the lack of legal options for the family. He then suggests a law to prevent this from continuing to happen. I agree with him. Sometimes filmmakers take the idea of creating a dramatic story too far. When they take a decent person and modify him or her to better fit the story line, they are changing the very way that history is written. In today’s society, most people, who have finished their required education, get their facts from sources that mainly originate in Hollywood. Some type of restraint should be put on writers so they families can at least have a chance of keeping the reputation of their deceased relative as it was at their demise.
Posted by: Becca R. | 1/27/2012 9:21:00 PM

 
Paragraph #1:

The family of Max Baer has had major issues with how he was portrayed in the film. For example, in the film Max was made into the bad guy. He was shown as being a coldhearted thug, which the Baer family says is not accurate at all. His family claimed that Max was much more complex than how he appeared in the movie. They said that Max was actually a good man, unlike in the film. The biggest issue they had with the film was how Max bragged about killing two people in the ring, when in reality he only killed one. His family described how he was haunted for the rest of his life after killing Frankie Campbell. They also said that he supported Campbell’s widowed wife after the fight. Members of Max Baer’s family were very unhappy with how he was portrayed in the film.

Paragraph #2:

I believe that the way the filmmakers changed the character of Max Baer is unethical. It is unfair to Max’s family and should not have been included in the film. The inaccuracy that I feel most strongly about is how in the movie they made it look like Max was proud that he had killed two boxers. In the movie, Max is shown bragging to Braddock about how he killed two men in the ring when he actually only killed one. Also, Max’s family talked about how Max actually was quite scarred by the fact that he had killed someone. They said he had nightmares about it and that it haunted him for the rest of his life. The filmmakers should not have portrayed Max’s character that way.

Paragraph #3:

In the article “Give the Dead Their Due”, Jonathan Turley argues that there should be laws to protect the defamation of the dead. He made points such as if there is a law preventing the defamation of the living then why isn’t there a law protecting the reputations of the dead? He also pointed out how many states have considered changing the law so it protects the dead, but none have done anything about it. Because of this, people can still say and publish whatever they want about someone once they have died. Jonathan believes that this is unfair to the families of the deceased because they are forced to live with whatever reputation is created by authors and scriptwriters. I agree with him because even if the person who is being insulted is already dead, it’s still wrong. It is unfair for this to continue because it greatly affects the lives of the families of the departed.
Posted by: Sadie A. | 1/27/2012 9:18:00 PM

 
1). Although Max Baer was a little on the edge, he was not as bad as the movie “Cinderella Man” portrays says Baer’s family. One of the big issues the family had with the movie was that the movie showed Baer as a womanizing lady’s man. The family says that he had a weakness for the ladies but not like that. The movie also portrayed Baer as a cocky buff guy who thought he was better than everyone, when really he wasn’t as bad. The family says that although Baer was not a Saint, he was not the man the movie Portrayed.
2). While I get why the filmmaker made Max Baer a mean ruthless person in the movie for entertainment I do not believe it was right to do so. The filmmaker had to make Baer like that so he would be a strong antagonist that would help fuel the story of the movie. But doing so and changing a man to seem like a ruthless jerk and a bully is unacceptable. You should not compromise a man’s character for a movie even if it means not fulfilling your movie to its full potential.
3). A question being constantly questioned: “Should we ban the criticizing of the dead”. The article read suggests that speaking bad about the dead only hurts their dead reputations and the families that follow them. The article suggests that most people who talk bad about the dead are usually horribly wrong about the people it is bad, usually being historically inaccurate. I agree with the article, some law must be made to at least make what people say about the dead true.
Posted by: Brendan P. | 1/27/2012 8:52:00 PM

 
The major issue Max Baer's family had with the film is that he was portrayed as a man who was proud of killing a man in the ring and a womanizing menace. They say he was not like this at all. he was a good-hearted man who was not proud of what he did. He also stated, later in his life, that he had nightmares about what he did and he wishes he could take back what he did.
I don't like what they did to change the movie in some aspects. I think they way they portrayed Max Baer was unethical because they made him seem ruthless and mean when in actuality he was a fine man. The way they made the rest of the movie though was fairly ethical, other than some factual things that weren't applied, such as dates and minor details of characters. But those items are small details and honestly don't really matter.
The main point of the article is that when people die our society tends to tell lies about that person and that we shouldn't be allowed to do so. I completely agree with this. It is unfair to do this to people who have been deceased as it is shameful and disrespectful to the person and their family.
Posted by: Brianna J | 1/27/2012 8:48:00 PM

 
Max Baer's family had several issues with the film Cinderella Man in the way it portrayed Max Baer. First of all they didn't like the way the movie portrayed Max Baer's personality. The movie showed Max as a boastful womanizing thug, and this upset the family a great deal saying that was not their Maxie. They were also upset that the movie showed he boasted about the death of Campbell. The reality was that the death of Campbell haunted Baer for the rest of his life. They said Maxie was scoudrel but was a good man at heart even if he was a little odd.

I feel angry at how filmmakers portrayed Max Baer because spreading untrue "facts" about famous people is wrong. I don't think that the filmmakers should have twisted the personality of Baer in such a way that he appeared evil. This is not ethical but sadly it is practical in order to get good sales. It isn't ethical because it is lying and it causes sadness amoung the families of actors. I disagree with this form of media.

The main points of the Jonathan Turley Washington Post article "Give the Dead Their Due" are that while famous people cannot have false stories spread about them in the media while alive, they can be targeted. The article's point is while families may protest to their departed loved ones being slandered there is nothing in federal law to stop the media from saying what it wants. I disagree with how movies tend to portray these actors because it causes grief and is lying. In conclusion, despite the it being unethical the media will spread false facts about deceased famous people to get better views.
Posted by: Alex B | 1/27/2012 8:36:00 PM

 
1. Max Baer’s family thought that the movie “Cinderella Man” portrayed Max as a heartless killer. The true facts had been he had only killed one man in the ring, Frankie Campbell. And after that incident, Baer had gone into an “emotional tailspin” and couldn’t fight to his full extent do to his quilt. Also they felt he was demonized in the scene where he brags to Braddock’s wife about how he was to kill Jim then proceeded to tell her how he would then take advantage of her. Baer’s family claims this scene never happened, and they are backed up by the author of the book “Cinderella Man” as well. In all reality, Max had been terrorized by the death of his opponent and had had awful nightmares and many losses due to his quilt. He had also raised money for Campbell’s family. This side of him wasn’t shown at all in “Cinderella Man”. The family of Max Baer felt that he was wrongfully demonized and sculpted into a man he was not in the movie “Cinderella Man”, but due to his death before the movie the untrue scenes are protected by law.

2. I do not feel that the untrue portrayal of the characters in “Cinderella Man” was ethical because, though it does make a better story, I feel that the director is supposed to be telling us about the TRUE events instead of making up a story. It also does shame to the families of these two men especially. Max Baer was made the bad guy in the movie; the directors over exaggerated his bad traits way too much, and left out key emotional parts of his life that would make him less of a bad guy. They forgot to mention how Baer struggled very much after the death of his one and only opponents (though the movie states he killed two) death in the ring, and how he helped the fighter family after the fight. And they added scenes that never happened too make him seem more ruthless and heatless then he actually was, such as the scene where he is talking to Mae Braddock. Also Jim Braddock was made more emotionless in the movie to make him seem more of the stereo typical fighter rather than what he actually went through during this time when he was really very emotional. Mae Braddock was also stereotyped by the writers of “Cinderella Man” by being made into a wife like every other movie’s fighter wife. She was made to look like she didn’t support him fully though in reality she had been very active in his boxing and had been to many fights to support Jim. I feel this takes away from the movie. The TRUE REAL story of the fight could have been even better than the made up ones by the directors. This is why I feel the false portrayal of the characters in “Cinderella Man” were unethical.


3. The main points of Jonathan Turley’s article “Give The Dead Their Due” were to a) point out famous incorrect facts that were allowed to be made ‘fact’ due to the laws b) how these untrue stories affect the overall legacies of the dead and c) how these false allegations make the family of the deceased feel. Turley gives many examples including Elvis being called a pedophile, and the story of Max Baer’s false portrayal in the movie “Cinderella Man”. He continues to tell the audience of the laws that let these allegations be lawfully said. The law claims that after one is dead you may say anything about them, no matter if it’s true or false. Turley explains how these lies tarnish the reputations of the dead and how they overshadow the things that actually are true and worth knowing about the person. Using access to family memebers of some of the accused but dead people, Turley shows us how it is not only affecting how people see the ones who are being blamed for these lies but how it is affecting those who loved them. In Max Baer’s case, his son defended him in this article by telling the truth about how the death in the ring really affected his father and how he had tried to help the Campbell family as much as he could. I completely agree with Jonathan Turley on his article about how the deceased should not be made open to untrue claims just because they die. I think the dead should be protected as well as if they were alive to keep their legacies untarnished by lies.
Posted by: Taylor Wyatt | 1/27/2012 8:16:00 PM

 
There were many good point made in the article. All of which I agree with 100 percent. One point Turley made was that many families of the deceased have very little power to protect the names of their dead ancestors. Many of these families are left to deal with the reputation that is given to their family members after the Hollywood film makers are done with them. And He thinks that it should not be this way simply because it just isn't right. Turley also makes it a point that the only reason people make so many false stories about the dead is because the dead cannot fight back and their families have very little power. And why is this? It's because there haven't been any laws passed in the states that prevents the defamation of the deceased, however the government will intervene if there is something that defamates a living breathing human being that can STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES and have others to back them up. The last statement Turley makes is in the closing of this article in which he says "We are all made poorer when good people are trashed after they can no longer defend themselves. With the end of the debate over the permanent repeal of the "death tax" perhaps it's time to start protecting more than just the assets of the deceased. Perhaps it's time to give the dead their due." Honestly I feel that this statement speaks for itself.
Posted by: Nolan L. | 1/27/2012 7:26:00 PM

 
The way the film makers changed the character was not right mainly because it was so far from the real way Max Baer acted. Though the family at times he acted like a "scoundrel" he was also a pretty god person. And knowing what I know it seems to me that the only reason that the film makers changed Max Baer attitude was to make the movie more interesting. Apparently back then it was all about good V.S bad which in my opinion just seems wrong.
Posted by: Nolan L. | 1/27/2012 6:48:00 PM

 
The major issues the family of Max Baer had with the movie were that it depicts him as a womanizing, rude, and a horrible person. His family says he was more of a scatterbrained kind of person. They also said he did not kill two people but one. This event haunted him forever. He had nightmares and he even donated lots of money to the fighter’s family. The family did admit “he was portrayed accurately for the time when the boxer was cultivating a scandalous image while he dated movie stars.” These were just some of the complaints his family had with the movie.
The next article showed all the inaccuracy of the film and the characters. Some changes were minor and harmless while others crossed the line. They make Max Baer sound like a mean, killer boxer. In reality he was not at all like this. He had a Livermore park and a Sacramento charity named in his honor. I do not think that a movie maker should do this. A filmmaker’s job when making this kind of movie is to accurately portray the events and people in it. Stretching the truth just to entertain the audience is not fair to those involved and their families.
In the last article Jonathan Turley’s main points are that once a famous person dies you can say whatever you want about them. The author thinks this is wrong and gives numerous examples to show how wrong it is. I agree fully with what the author says and I also don’t think it is morally right. People shouldn’t be able to do this ever to someone, living or dead. In the film “Cinderella Man” they make Max Baer sound awful. His family suffers from this and his memory is disgraced.
Posted by: Danny Junkel | 1/27/2012 6:32:00 PM

 
Max Baer was made to look like a savage in the movie. his family disagreed with the way Max was portrayed. They said he was extremely regretful for killing Campbell and had nightmares about it ever since. Also that he wasnt a jerk like they showed him in the movie.

I think that it was ok for the filmmakers to change Max in the story. But they should have let the family know ahead of time. So that the family knows that the filmmakers arnt getting false information. If Max Baer wasnt portrayed like he was it probably would have taken some edge off of the movie and wouldnt be as good. Because somebody had to be the villian in the movie

The main points of the article are that people are making up things after famous people have died to make them seem like bad people. Or are falsely porttrayed in films or books. I agree with him because it is wrong to try to make people look bad after they are dead
Posted by: Conner Szarwinski | 1/27/2012 4:54:00 PM

 
Paragraph 1: In the movie, Max Baer is portrayed as a womanizing boxer. In real-life, Max Baer was an odd-ball, but he was not as boastful. Also, the movie said Baer killed 2 people in the ring, when he only killed one. The biggest difference is that Baer felt awful about killing the other boxer, but in the movie he bragged about it, and almost used it as a threat. “Cinderella Man” did a great job recreating the Depression, just not Max Baer.

Paragraph 2: The filmmakers of “Cinderella Man” changed some of the people’s characters a bit. I feel that it was ethical because the changes were minor, and made the movie more interesting. The story would have been more boring, and the changes made the viewer more interested. The changes also developed the plot more, really turning this event into a movie.

Paragraph 3: The article, “Give the Dead Their Due”, is mostly about how people shouldn’t be allowed to talk bad about the dead. It also goes into the many cases where movies change how people were, and how people would sue the families of a dead person for something the person did in their life. I agree that the dead should be left alone because you can’t change the past, you can only work towards the future.
Posted by: Katey W. | 1/27/2012 4:32:00 PM

 
Max Baer’s family had major issues with the film Cinderella Man. They said the film portrayed him as a pompous pig to women. Also, the film said he killed two people in the ring and bragged about the death of Frankie Campbell in the ring. In reality, the family says that Max was good man and that he only killed one, not two people in the ring. The most disturbing scene in the movie to Max’s son, Max Baer Jr, was when Baer brags about the death of Campbell. His son states that the death of Campbell haunted his dad his entire life; he even gave his some of his winnings from boxing to help support Campbell’s family after his death.
I liked the way film makers changed the movie, but their decisions were not ethical. It was wrong to change a man’s personality to make him look cruel and evil, and not include that events were exaggerated at the end of the movie. Yet it they had portrayed the real Max Baer the movie wouldn’t be as great. People really want you to win when you’re fighting agonists a rude or bad person. It made the defeat of Max Baer more victorious for Braddock because no one wants to see two good people fighting each other. I support the choice to change the movie, but was it ethical? No.
The main point of Jonathan Turley’s article is to “Give the Dead Their Due”. When someone dies their reputations can be defaced and lies can be spread about them. When a family tries to get justice and clear their name, they can’t because what the person is doing isn’t illegal. The main point of the article is that defacing the deceased reputations isn’t right. All because they’re dead doesn’t mean that their life isn’t affect because those people have families that have to live with it. That states should get a law pass to make it illegal to do this. That is the main point of the article “Give the Dead Their Due”.
Posted by: Paris Carter | 1/27/2012 3:54:00 PM

 
Max Baer’s family had several problems with the way he was portrayed in the film “Cinderella Man”. One of the major issues they have with the film is the way Max brags about him killing Campbell in the ring. In reality, Max was haunted this fact for the rest of his life. Also, the film made Max look as if he was “cold-hearted”, and his family says he was a very kind, good man. Overall, the film only showed the bad things about Max Baer and according to his family, he was almost the complete opposite in real life.
I feel that the filmmakers made the right decision by changing Max Baer’s character because it adds extra confrontation to the movie. Even though Max really wasn’t a bad guy in reality, it is ethical for the filmmakers to change his character because it is only based on actual events. This decision would be different if it was a documentary, which calls for accurate information. Max is a character in a movie and is depicted as James’ enemy to make the movie more interesting.
Jonathan Turley Washington makes several strong arguments in the article “Give the Dead Their Due”. Most importantly, he believes that people’s reputations should be protected after they die. Also, it is unfair for false accusations to be said about people who can no longer defend themselves. I completely agree with these statements because in today’s society, media greatly effects the way people view others. When directors and writers inaccurately portray a famous celebrity, people will easily believe the lies. Like John Turley Washington, I believe a law should be passed to protect people after death.
Posted by: Erica D | 1/27/2012 3:38:00 PM

 


1. The major issues that Max Baer’s family had with the film were that it portrayed him as a hateful and womanizing man who was nothing like how he was in real life. His family members that saw the movie said that they wanted to cry because that was not what he was really like. Baer’s son said that although he was a little odd, he was not the rude cold hearted man that the movie made him out to be.

2. I have different feelings about the fact that they changed the character in the film. Im sure there were good reasons to do it, but on the other hand they shouldnt be able to just change someones whole personality to make a movie. I believe that it was not an ethical decision because people deserved to know how everything really was during the time period, and know peoples real personalities.

3. The main point of the article is to show that people often criticize and demolish the reputations of the people in our history that have died. I definitely disagree with the things that people say about the dead, and i think it it cruel and wrong to make up so many lies. If i was killed the last thing i would want it for people to start telling false stories about me, especially because I wouldnt be able to defend myself.
Posted by: Amy H | 1/27/2012 2:06:00 PM

 
Max Baers's family have criticized the portrayal of Max in Cinderella Man for not being accurate. Major issues they have with Ron Howard's film include Baer being seen as inappropriate outside of the rink, and boasting about killing boxer Frankie Campbell. Also in the movie, it is said that he killed two men, but that was all made up - he only actually killed one. Max's relatives are angry with that the film and say that max did not boast about his kill at all. In fact he had nightmares about that fight for a long period of time and even lost multiple fights after because he was afraid of going to far.

I feel the way the filmmakers changed the character was unethical. They made Max Baer look a lot worse than they should have. It was rude to his family and reputation. The famous boxers son Max Baer Jr. said that "all these people under age 50 are going to think my dad, Max Baer, is a total pig." I believe that statement is true because if I had seen the movie without having read these articles I would have thought that he was a pig as well.

The points I found in the Washington Post article by Jonathan Turley that were most important were that there needs to be a law to help peoples reputations to stay intact after they die, and writers and publishers should be more careful as to what they say about the deceased. I think that people such as writers should pay more attention to where they get their information and they shouldn't just infer what they think about someones life. It's true that "…without such protections, the dead are readily converted into madmen or murderers." Many people and families have been affected because there is no protection. I agree with the main points of the article.
Posted by: Jessica H | 1/27/2012 1:12:00 PM

 
The major issues Max Baer's family had with the film were that Baer was portrayed as a merciless fighter in the ring, and displayed inappropriate behavior outside the ring. Baer did however fight with viscous punches and blows, but managed to only kill one man in the ring, whereas Cinderella Man made it seem it had been two. In the film, he was shown as a polygamous, criminal type. In real life, though, Baer did have a way with words. But given the time period, his remarks were often considered "loose talk" and given the name of "saucy outbursts."

I believe the way the filmmakers changed the character of Max Baer was ethical, and for the good of the film. Yes, his family did not agree with the alterations, but for the sake of film making, certain changes must be made, regardless of how drastic or illegitimate they may be. To help the viewer better understand Jim Braddock's character and the mood of the entire film, such variations are acceptable. By portraying Baer as a more cruel, heartless fighter, the concept is easily grasped. Viewers are able to better feel what Braddock and his family must be going through, and the nerves of him and all his supporters, simply by increasing the tension in the movie by adding extra negativity, or 'bad vibes' to a character.

In Jonathan Turley's article "Give the Dead Their Due," many points were based of a rule first expressed in the Latin doctrine actio personalis moritur cum persona ("a personal right of action dies with the person"). Several points were made on defamation of ones character; whether it was okay to do so as long as the person was deceased, or if it was still considered a disgrace. Although the law fully supports those who do, most people are raised not to speak ill of the dead. However, publishers are protected by the age-old rule that you cannot defame the dead, which in today's world, means you can. For example, once Barack Obama has passed, one is allowed to say everything and anything about him. Regardless of how untrue or distasteful it may be. As a whole, I agree with what Turley is trying to express, that it is wrong to stain one's character after they have left the living.
Posted by: Monica Khatri | 1/27/2012 12:48:00 PM

 
Max Baer’s family was very outraged at the result of his character’s vibe in the 2005 blockbuster film “Cinderella Man”. Baer was shown as a ruthless, angered man who used all his power to win his fights, even if the end result was a fatality for the opponent. He talked trash to James Braddock’s wife, saying that he will kill her husband then sleep with Mrs. Braddock. Max’s family states that Baer was the complete opposite. One of Baer’s relatives says that he was genuinely happy for Braddock winning, since he had a family that he cared so much for. Max Baer Jr. states that his father was bizarre but a kind-hearted man; he had a sense of humor and a weakness for the ladies. Baer also had a charity in his honor based in Sacramento, California and gave money to Frankie Campbell’s wife, who witnessed her husband killed in the ring by Baer. Overall, Max Baer was posed as a cruel, rude man, who in actuality was a kind man with a beating heart.

I believe that the way the filmmakers in the movie “Cinderella Man” portrayed the character of Max Baer was unethical. The filmmakers created a character that was harsh to others and represented immense lack of sportsmanship. Yes, Baer enjoyed winning and trying his best in the ring, but he wasn’t an all-around put down. In reality, Baer was actually a caring man with a heart full of compassion, while in “Cinderella Man” he could careless. Max Baer’s family and the people who knew him personally we upset in the way that the filmmakers made his character be. People now know Baer as how he was in the movie instead of his reality.

The Washington Post article, “Give the Dead Their Due”, has a lot of points that are important. I agree with what it says because people will then view the famous that are no longer alive differently than when they were here. After people die, some are known as legends and people who changed society. Sometimes, those heroes get an unneeded label that wasn’t who they were when they were alive. I believe it’s because people judged them when they were alive and kept a reputation that wasn’t what they were inside. It’s natural for humans to point out flaws in others who aren’t like them. For instance, in the case of Max Baer, he accidentally killed a man in the ring while fighting that left him scarred for the rest of his life. People believed, after he died that he was a cruel man who was known for beating till the death but was actually a down to earth man who cared. People do need to start recognizing the dead for who they were and respect that instead of changing history to make a quick buck.
Posted by: Emma W | 1/27/2012 12:04:00 PM

 
Max Baer, an angel or devil? Well, according to the Baer family, his was a great, but complex guy. On the other hand, in the movie Cinderella Man, Baer was presented as an arrogant, show off who uses women. Offended by this portrayal, the Baer family was very upset about the movie Cinderella Man. For example, Max Baer didn’t show boat his killing in the ring; he had nightmares for the rest of his life from the fight. Also, Max helped widowed Ms. Campbell by donating an exhibition match earnings to her. In addition, Baer was a hero to many of the Jewish while boxing a German fighter wearing the Star of David shortly after Hitler’s rise in Germany. That is why Max Baer is really a better person than most people think.
Are the characters in the movie Cinderella Man showed accurately? Well, the answer is no because there are many inaccuracies made in the movie. One of the inaccuracies was the personality of Max Baer. These inaccuracies only right for entertainment if acknowledged somewhere in ratings or the film. This is because information is not always exciting by itself. So movie producers like Ron Howard stretch the truth to make more money and a better movie. How would of plain information sound? Terrible right? That is why people add or change stories for an audience liking. In conclusion, it is okay to change the story and people to an extent.
Should the dead be able to stop people from defaming them? Or is it fair game once a person dies. Well, in The Washington Post article, Give the Dead Their Due, it decided if it was right to defame or not. In the article, it discuses the defaming of John Dillinger, William McMaster Murdoch, Max Baer, Gary Cooper, and William Wallace. In all cases of the discussed defaming, I agree with the article because many of the cases were either false and had no evidence of the given “fact”. Also, defaming a person is almost a cheap shot on the family who is already sad over the death. It is morally wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated by anyone. That is why I agree with the article.
Posted by: Andrew Frasca | 1/27/2012 12:04:00 PM

 
The major issues that the Max Baer family have with the film is that he never bragged about killing two men. In fact it was only one man and he was haunted by this event for the rest of his life his son said that he had nightmares about this event. He also never told Jim Braddock that he would kill him and then sleep with his wife Mae, this was all made up. Max feeling so bad about the killing raised money to give to the Campbell family. Max was never the same in the ring he was afraid to finish off anyone in fear of killing again. These are the main problems the Baer family had with the movie.

The way that I feel that Max Baer was portrayed in the film was horrible. The movie made him sound like a bad person who only wanted to kill people, and that’s not what he wanted to do at all. Max was a good person who had freak accident occurred when he was in the ring. I think that this in not ethical by any means. The word ethical means that the principles of conduct that are considered correct. What this really means is that that the behavior of someone is correct, and that is not how Max was portrayed in this film

One of the points that Jonathan makes is that film and story writer can write pretty much anything they want to when that person is dead because they can’t really do anything about it because they are dead. I would disagree with because then this gives that person and the family a bad name forever and they can’t change what they said even if it’s not true. Another important point that he makes is that most of these films, books, or newspapers say things that are untrue but make a good story. This makes people want to read or go see the movie to see what really happened and then the person who was falsely portrayed will have a bad reputation for ever.
Posted by: Josh Lonigro | 1/27/2012 11:41:00 AM

 
1. The portrayal of Max Bear in the film, Cinderella Man, caused quite a controversy with society and the Bear Family. The main problem was that in the movie, Bear is seen as a womanizing “pig” who delights in the attention he gets from killing his opponents. Even though he was said to be a party animal back in the day, the movie exaggerated on his outgoing personality and illustrated him as arrogant and dirty, and Max Bear’s reputation will suffer because of it.

2. I feel that although it sucks for the real Max Bear, it is ethical for filmmakers to portray him however they wish. If the film was a documentary, then I would say that it would not be fair because the goal of a documentary is to be accurate and unbiased. Because the goal of the film, Cinderella Man, is to be entertaining, the writers, directors, and producers have the artistic freedom to develop the character from their own point of view.

3. The main point of the article is how people can say whatever they want about someone when they are dead, no matter how malicious or rude. Some countries protect writers and filmmakers from exploiting the dead, but it doesn’t necessarily solve the issue. I believe that writers and filmmakers should have the artistic freedom to portray real life character in whatever way they wish, however, it is necessary for them to make sure the audience knows that it is not a valid portrayal. I believe that it is up to the viewer or reader to research the accurate characterization of the person being exploited.
Posted by: Lisa Caldwell | 1/27/2012 9:30:00 AM

 
Paragraph 1: In the film "Cinderella Man," Max Baer who was a famous boxer during the Great Depression, was potrayed as a mean and cruel man. He was seen as wanting to kill the main character in the movie "Cinderella Man," in the ring. When the film came out, Baer's family saw it and was not pleased. Baer was not the man potrayed in the film they claimed. The man in the movie was a womanizer, party animal, & cruel. Baer's son said it wasn't like that at all. His dad was scatterbrained and odd, but had a kind heart. His dad had felt horrible for the death of Frankie Campbell and it was a complete accident. His father had nightmares about what he had done. Baer even went to jail for a while for it. Although, the family did get some comfort with two books published that made a better reputation for Max Baer. They still are persistant that the man in the film was not the real Max Baer.

Paragraph 2: In the film "Cinderella Man," the filmmakers of the movie changed the character Max Baer around to make a more interesting movie. In real life, Baer was a nice guy with a kind heart. In the movie, he was protrayed as a cruel womanizer. Is this ethical? Is this right? No, not at all. It's realized that things are exaggerated to make a more interesting movie, but completely changing a person's identity into something horrible is to far. By doing this, it has put a bad reputation on his memory and on his family. Baer deserves to be remembered after he's gone as the man he was remembered by his loved ones. Baer was an amazing boxer who should be remembered as that, not as what was made of him in Hollywood.

Paragraph 3: In the article "Give the Dead Their Due" there are some very strong main points brought up. First, that you may say anything you want about the dead, good or bad. Then, how no one will take stand and doing something about it. If something is said about someone who is living, things can be done, but when something is said about someone passed away, there are no laws protecting them anymore. Max Baer in the movie "Cinderella Man" was potrayed as a cruel and heartless human being. Although, in real life, he had a big heart. Along with this, there are many more examples of repuations being ruined after death. Many people think something should be done about it, yet nothing is being done.I agree with this article because it shows what most people don't see; the truth.



Posted by: Anna Donnelly | 1/26/2012 6:19:00 PM

 
Paragraph 1:
Max Baer's family had many issues with the movie "Cinderella Man". Family members felt that film makers portrayed Baer in a negative light, deflecting what he was to them: a loving and caring father, who was haunted by the fact that he killed a man. In the movie, Baer is seen as a womanizing thug that bragged about killing Frankie Campbell. And while family members say he was a bit of a party animal, they also say there was more to him than the film depicted. Baer's son, Max Baer Jr., says that, although he was a girl-crazy party animal, he was not the "the rude, cold-hearted ogre" that the movie made him out to be.

Paragraph 2:
The movie producers of “Cinderella Man” changed the character of Max Baer to make the movie more interesting. I believe that this is an ethical move on their part because although it may change the opinion on him for some, it is just a movie and they are just doing their job. A film maker’s job is to make the movie so that it sells, and that is what the film makers did in “Cinderella Man”.

Paragraph 3:
I believe that there should be a law against defacing the dead because when they are dead they cannot defend themselves, leaving the family do to that for them. When a person dies, they have no way to standup for themselves, so then the stress is put on the family. Also, certain lies can cause defacing of companies, if a leader if the company’s character was put into question.
Posted by: Emma F. | 1/26/2012 5:57:00 PM

 
First paragragh: The major issues that Max Baer's family had with the Cinderella Man movie were, that the film made him look like a womanizer, when he was not one. Also that he was not the rude cold-hearted person that they portrayed him to be in thr film. Another main problem was that, in the film they made it look like Baer was proud of killing Campbell in the fight, when in reality he was ashamed and so truly sorry for it.
Second Paragragh: I feel that the filmmakers changed the character Max Baer unethically. They made him look like a monster, when he felt bad for everything that happened with killing Campbell in the fight.They should have portrayed Max to be more caring in the film.
Third Paragragh: The main points of the article are basically that after the dead die, people think that they can say whatever they want and it doesn't matter. He disagrees with this, and thinks that just because somebody is dead doesn't mean that you can trash talk them. Ecspecially when you wouldn't say it to them when they were alive. I agree with his views, because it it unfair to talk badly on the dead when they cannot defend themselves. It is unfair and not right.
Posted by: JennaK | 1/25/2012 8:58:00 PM

 
Max Baer’s family members are upset that Max was portrayed in the film as somebody he was not and have major issues with how the film showed Baer. In the movie, Baer was portrayed as a “womanizing” who was hated by many people around him. The movie also claimed that Baer boasted about killing his opponent, Campbell, with his deadly punch. Baer’s family claims otherwise. They say that Baer was much more complex and there was more to him than just that. Baer’s son clarifies that his dad may have been a little “scatterbrained”, but deep down he had a kind heart. It was also said that Baer wasn’t such a “rude, cold-hearted ogre” as he was shown in the movie. Another issue that bothered the family of Max Baer was that only a short time period of Baer’s life was shown in the movie. The movie may have been portrayed Baer accurately at that time of his life, but the film failed to show Baer’s full story which leaves Baer looking like the rude, self-centered man in the film. It was also said that after Baer killed Campbell with his deadly right hook, he was deeply sorry and would do anything to take that moment of his life away. On the other hand, the film showed Baer embracing the fact that he killed his opponent which was an inaccurate description of the real Max Baer.
I do not agree with the way the filmmakers changed the character of Max Baer. Max Baer may have been considered a little strange or a little “saucy” with his word choice, but that does not give the filmmakers any right to transform his character into something that he was not. It is only giving false information to the audience and creating inaccuracy. Max Baer deserves respect just like any other man. He deserves to be portrayed just as he was in real life. I do understand that the film used this different portrayal of Baer to create more intensity, but I do not think the filmmakers had the right to make Max Baer into this evil man that he was not.
Jonathan Turley’s main point of his article was to inform people about the issue defamation of the dead. He goes on to talk about how the once people die, they are no longer protected and there are often many untrue things said about them. Turley believes this is wrong and he gave many examples of deceased famous people who were falsely accused and inaccurately described due to the fact that they are no longer protected once deceased. He believes that it is time to “give the dead their due.” I agree with the thoughts of Turley. The dead should still get the respect they deserve well after their time here on Earth is gone. If they earned their respect while living, it is wrong for it to be stripped when they are dead. I believe that a law should be made to ensure these people are not defamed and that they get the praise they deserve. Overall, I strongly agree with the points Jonathan Turley made.
Posted by: Kristen Hemmersmeier | 1/25/2012 8:36:00 PM

 
The major issues Max Baer’s family has with the movie “Cinderella Man” is the way this film describes Max. His family would agree that he was an odd man, but he was not as rude as the movie made him seem. In this movie it made Max Baer look like he was proud of killing his opponent in the ring, but in 1951 he said “I’ve made a lot of mistakes, but that is the one I wish I could take back. I’ll regret it as long as I live.” That quote shows how bad Mr. Baer must have felt about killing that man, but you would never know that from watching that movie.
The way the filmmakers created Max Baer’s character was wrong, and unethical. I understand they had to make him a “bad guy”, but they should not have gone as far as making it seem that he was proud of killing two men. That is unethical because that is not the real Max Baer many people say he was a very nice, and kind man. Also in the movie it says he killed two men in the ring, when in real life he only killed one. And after his fight with Braddock, Baer said how truly happy he was to see Braddock happy. This really shows the real Max Baer.
In the article “Give the Dead Their Due” it talks about the way movies and books often give the person who is watching or reading the wrong idea of many characters. All of these characters are dead, so they can’t prove they didn’t do the things people accuse them of. This just leaves their family with a bad name. Many families have tries to fight back, and stop people from saying things about their dead loved one. The problem is there is no law saying that you can’t say things that are not true about people who have passed away. I think people should keep trying to make a new law. This way everyone knows the real them, and not some story someone decided to make up about them.
Posted by: Amy m | 1/25/2012 6:44:00 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 | 1/24/2012 9:13:00 AM

 

Add your Post Here: Teacher and other students can respond.
Name:
 
 
Email Address (required; we keep it private):
  
 
Comments:
 
MyTeacherZone.com
 
curve