Resurrecting The Champ DVD Review

Films about sports figures, fictionalized ones, about real people in real lives rarely have a true emotional impact more than just sap and bittersweet. Resurrecting the Champ is not one that rises above the generalities of this type of film, but it is not merely a tear jerker for the sake of being so. A film that rises above mediocrity at points, but its hard not to feel its authenticity drip away. The film centers around the story by Erik Kerwin, a fictionalized version of the author of the real L.A. Times Magazine article on Bob Satterfield, the real life boxer who appeared to have been living on the street. Erik, of course, does everything he can to help his career, and wants so badly to publish this story that he forgoes many actual journalistic procedures. He loves his son, and wants so badly to be great in his eyes. His wife has separated from him, and he wants badly to be back into their lives fully, and also be a great writer, but as he says “a writer, like a boxer must stand alone.” In their battles, yes, but in their lives it seems as well, and he seems to not be able to understand that being a great writer many times also means being removed from other important things in life, like love or a family. This is something he should realize when, as he is covering a boxing event at the films outset, blood stains his notebook, a very nice touch. Erik meets The Champ, a homeless man claiming to be Bob Satterfield, and he immediately begins a friendship with the charming, lovely man who has had an undeservedly bad life. Here the film is at its strongest, a very well played, well acted drama between the two fictionalized versions of real people that is touching. Yet, it does become somewhat overtly manipulative in bringing the viewer into its charm, which I attribute, more to the setting than the acting or direction. It is put in the present day rather than ten years ago, which is strange, it is well enough within the time period, but it still seems odd, especially with the Showtime product placement when he is called to do boxing stories of the network after his story on “Satterfield” is published. It comes to pass that Thomas Kincaid, a boxer who once lost to Satterfield. has been impersonating Satterfield for years, at this point it seems as though the writer is punished for far more than is due, far more than the magazine, and far more than anyone and its dramatization is just as startling ,he is shown to have been knocked out as Satterfield had, elevated but brought down after his prime. But there are intellectual questions that come out a silver lining from this unfortunate turn of events. When the question arises if Satterfield is really alive or this man is a different person claiming to be Satterfield, it begins to get much more interesting, as “Bob” begins to ask him about what being alive really is, as defined by things in print. And Hartnett, prompted by Jackson reacts in his eyes, not his voice, and seems to ask a question to himself about his profession, and what his words really really mean. The film has real strengths in this story about journalism and identity, and the acting is quite marvelous, but there are flaws that build and build within this otherwise well formed story. For one, there seems to be an unrelenting cruelty against the old champ that is unrealistic, we don't need to see this in order for sympathy to be conveyed. He shown to be beat up by college students apparently with nothing better to do than beat up the old. This is sure to have happened, but it seems to have been thrust into the viewer’s face as a manipulation, and almost derails the entire presentation of the character of the Champ. It would have, if played by anyone else but Samuel L. Jackson. The way Josh Hartnett swoops in as the hero, seems as contrived as the original story the real writer published, romanticized to an inflated degree, and while this may be a true story this is a bit sensationalistic. It does somewhat reflect a sensibility of a story told that is romanticized, however. But since the film speaks of the dangers of romanticizing truth when it one’s sole responsibility is the truth, this is detraction. And. Despite the very good acting and its merits within creating the characters that in real life would cover sports stories, I still despise, and will forever despise the overt use of sports metaphors in conversation. There is a much better way of making these characters seem authentic. But there are wonderful elements that do give it still a glimmer of authenticity. The best is the interview with Jake La Motta, the only boxer left alive at the time that fought Satterfield, a scene that features the voice of the real Jake La Motta on the phone. There are also great flashback sequences involving Satterfield’s past. And Sam Jackson plays Satterfield honestly and almost with a genuine knowledge as though he has seen as much boxing as the character he is plays. Overall, it is a decent film that touches the heart in its reflection of a story that is, mostly true. There is a sappy edge to it, but it is charming to a degree. It’s only real fault is its misstep in creating a story slightly romanticized, while critiquing the romanticism of stories told by men to their sons about great figures. It is a misstep that makes it slightly hypocritical, and its saving graces, are that it is splendidly moving, thanks to individual performances, even from minor roles, like Alan Alda’s hardass editor, who acts like a father disappointed in his son when Erik falls prey to his romantic notions. If it succeeds at anything, it is creating father-son relationships and examining their complications, and this is not a dishonorable thing to do when making a movie about legends. The special features are very good, with commentary by director Rod Lurie, and interviews with the cast and crew that are minimal but decent, and some trailers. Decent special features that do add to the understanding of this film.