El gran combate de Muhammad Ali

This movie took me back to those years, now long gone, when the passions of the 1960's and early 70's were unleashed. Change was in the air and the forces of the status quo were pushing back. This movie is about the Supreme Court, liberal and some conservative, who divide over a pivotal issue: Muhammed Ali's right to refuse military service in the Vietnam War, when conscription was still the rule. I remember the Supreme Court becoming a lightning rod during the presidency of Richard Nixon, when two of his appointees were repudiated by the Senate. I also remember the lengthy hiatus of Muhammed Ali from the ring. This movie brings it all back and is enlivened by the newsreels of Muhammed Ali, a formidable figure in and out of the ring; President Richard Nixon, one of the most controversial presidents of all time; and the youth who were standing up to the established order. In the movie, the fight was on a court divided between the left and right, with a Chief Justice who wanted to avoid a difficult decision. The court appears to be made up of rather elderly men who are not inclined to take risks. I don't know how historically accurate this image is but the Supreme Court is shown as an old boys club, not a group of serious jurists who form a third branch of government. It was made up of all men with only one black, Thurgood Marshall. I found it hard to watch the depiction of Judge Hugo Black as someone seemingly in the throes of senility. I believe in his day he was a great Justice. Frank Langella plays a rather staid, unimaginative and out of touch Chief Justice named Warren Burger, the man who succeeded the great Earl Warren. Christopher Plummer plays Justice John Harlan, a southern conservative who has a passion for the law. He hires a young man who advises him to rule in favour of Ali and his conscientious objector status, following the precedent set in 1955 for the Jehovah's Witnesses. The movie makes the liberal wing look far more sympathetic than their conservative counterparts, who sense no need for the court to rule on the case. But the Justices were capable of following a leader like John Harlan, who showed leadership by ruling on the basis of legal precedent and breaking rank with his boss who wanted a Court that would follow his orders. British Director Stephen Frears shows the Supreme Court as a branch of government that was able to move out of its own comfort zone, deciding in accord with its conscience and legal precedent.

It should suffice to observe that Stephen Frears, the crew and cast took on a subject that no other film-maker chose to, and did so commendably. As Justice Harlan, Christopher Plummer also does a very commendable job. I also did not particularly find Mr. Plummer's early performances suitable for the screen, from 'Inside Daisy Clover' to 'Somewhere in Time'. Somehow, the hammiest roles early on were preferable (he does what the script demands as Commodus in 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' and his Atahualpa in 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' is actually much fun: "They EAT Him!"). As his art has matured ('Silent Partner'; 'Dolores Claiborne'; 'The Insider'; 'The Last Station'; 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo'), the more I have looked forward to his performances, as here. Still, while I understand the politics of casting better-known actors in leading roles, I regret that Harris Yulin, another great too long under-appreciated in movies who plays Justice Wm. O Douglas, was not cast as Justice Harlan. Mr. Yulin ('Clear and Present Danger'; 'Training Day'; 'Looking for Richard') will always bring to his characters, villains included, a delicate gravitas that does not belie the humanity of their circumstances: different surely, if not better or preferable to Mr. Plummer's characterization - but audiences would certainly have regarded it very well-tailored for him.

A worthy and earnest look at the Supreme Court decision on whether Ali's reasons in avoiding the draft were legally sound because of his religious beliefs.

The court did not want to create a precedent where everyone could claim to be a conscientious objector by claiming to be an islamic minister.

Director Stephen Frears wisely opts for archive footage of Ali to be used as the Supreme Court decides on the issue.

Set in the early 1970s, it is a time of great change in America. The judges in this drama talk about the thorny issue of abortion in Roe v Wade which is due to come up. They have to view pornography as that is another matter they need to ponder on.

Frank Langella plays Chief Justice Burger. A conservative appointee and a puppet of the Nixon presidency. They may be experienced lawyers but these people are political appointees. The judge who vacillates is Justice Harlan (Christopher Plummer) another conservative but more wily and nuanced. He senses that the times are changing and the Supreme Court might be in danger of being out of step.

The drama is framed by Frears through one of Harlan's clerks. Kevin Connolly (Benjamin Walker) who finds a precedent and brings it to Harlan's attention. Connolly is a plucky outsider in the Supreme Court where the other clerks are from top universities and do not want to make waves.

The surprise was Thurgood Marshall (Danny Glover) the Supreme Court's first black judge. He was against Ali because he viewed him as a segregationist.

It was a good drama but at times it felt flat footed. You sense why this was suited as a made for cable television production rather than as a cinema release. The fictional character of Connolly was just too determined like a good boy scout who believed in Ali's case. It was like those legal dramas, where the one person believes the accused is innocent and will bang heads to get others to their way of thinking.

One of the best thing that I found about Americans is that they are so cool about change (for the good). And this movie represented that though. Fabulous script and acting. Overall a good movie

While being an interesting look at a major event in American history, I thought the general mood of the film didn't really mesh with the subject matter.

The locker room bro moments of the clerks felt more like a distraction in my mind from what was really interesting. I understand that throughout the move there's an attempt to compare and contrast the generational differences between the justices and clerks, but really it came out more muddled than insightful. But hey, maybe that's just me.

I think a more interesting movie would have been a more focused study into the closed-off perspective of the justice's world. A closed-room style would have fitted well. The hippies lined up outside made to seem distant and strange, even to the blue justices.

The movie also seemed a little closed off and lacking much room for audience pondering. Mohammed Ali was valid for conscientious objector status. No question. This might have been the case, but I'd rather come to that conclusion myself.

Anyway, it was a fine TV movie. Definitely worth a watch.