Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

bkoganbing The one thing that did surprise me about this otherwise impressive documentary that Ken Burns put together about Jack Johnson was that he did not use some archival recordings of Jack Johnson and for that matter Jess Willard's voice. Both are available, in fact on one of my vinyl LPs I have them. In the case of Johnson, Samuel L. Jackson captured both his voice and inflections of attitude quite well.When Joe Louis became heavyweight champion it was as much a milestone for racial equality as Jackie Robinson integrating professional baseball. Louis was a man conscious of what this country was around him as was Robinson and sought to become a hero to all. When he knocked out Max Schmeling in that second fight he did just that.Jack Johnson was a man born in a much harder and crueler time when black Americans may have been freed from slavery, but not from the attitudes that engendered it. He was the best at his sport, he knew it and he made sure everyone else knew it. It was only in 1967 that miscegenation laws were finally done away with by the Supreme Court, but in the years Johnson was in his boxing prime they were enforced with a vengeance. It galled a large section of white America that saw him keep public company with white women and even more that he beat just about every challenger black and white thrown at him.Looking at the Johnson-Jeffries fight of 1910 to me it's almost unfathomable that people could have invested so much in Jeffries in their racist hopes. Jim Jeffries licked all before him when he retired in 1905 undefeated in the ring. Probably had he taken on Johnson and such other black contenders like Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette, and Sam McVey he might well have beaten them. But the Jeffries who had been out of the ring for almost six years was never going to take on Jack Johnson in his prime. If anyone bothered to filter through all the racial crap and examined the situation logically no one would have bet on Jeffries.James J. Corbett another former champion who Jeffries beat twice in comeback attempts and who worked to train Jeffries for the bout was accused of racism. Probably so, he like many tossed a lot of racial epithets to get Johnson to lose his cool in the ring, but Burns mentions that Tom Corbett, Jim's brother was the chief bookie for bets on the fight in Reno. There was barely any money bet on Johnson, so the Corbett family may have had racial sympathies with Jeffries, but they would have cleaned up on all the money bet on Jeffries with them.When Johnson did lose to Jess Willard in 105 degree heat in Havana in 1915, he was passed his prime also and the years of high living cost him, probably put him passed his prime a lot sooner than he would have gotten there. Still seven years is a long time to be a boxing champion in any division. I remember as a kid when film of the Willard-Johnson fight were discovered, having thought to have been lost for years, Jess Willard was still alive and somewhat vindicated that he in fact won a clear victory despite all the rumors that Johnson had thrown the fight. It was 26 rounds in that tropical heat and Willard just outlasted Johnson, the same Johnson outlasted an over the hill Jim Jeffries.Why the heavyweight division was so racially sacrosanct was still a mystery. Joe Gans and Lampblack Joe Walcott were lightweight and welterweight champions at the time Johnson was champion and while life was no bed of roses for either of them, they never encountered the animosity that Johnson faced. He did in fact not fight those boxers I mentioned before when he won his title. The white champions didn't fight for racial reasons, but Johnson wouldn't fight them because they wouldn't draw any kind of gate. Sad, but he was right on the economics.It was also mentioned that he wanted to fight Jack Dempsey in the Twenties. Quite frankly if he couldn't take Willard, he would have been slaughtered by Dempsey in his prime. But Dempsey also refused to fight a great black heavyweight named Harry Wills who was left begging for a title shot and Wills would have been a match. The first black on black heavyweight title fight was when Joe Louis fought John Henry Lewis for the title in the late Thirties.Jack Johnson was a man out of his time as much as Joe Louis was a man of his. When Muhammed Ali came to the fore a lot of boxing fans and historians were taking a second look at Johnson and giving him is long overdue due. A lot of people say he was the greatest heavyweight champion of all time and one can make a great case for it.Which is what Ken Burns did in this extraordinary documentary.

kayaker36 Those looking for a sports documentary will be keenly disappointed. By relying on a ridiculously small number of commentators and sources, Ken Burns has put together a four hour indictment of white America for its past racism and intolerance. The sources not only are limited in number but only one of them--he late Burt Sugar--could claim real familiarity with boxing. And never was there anyone so in love with sound of his own voice. The man simply cannot shut up.The rest all are far-left hacks like Village Voice journalist Jack Newfield or like Stanley Crouch racial militants with nothing relevant to contribute but with a heavy political agenda leading to some very warped judgments about the era in which Jack Johnson lived and the man himself. While Jack Johnson was a great heavyweight, a real genius inside the ring, outside of it he was in no way the icon of racial struggle he is portrayed as here. Any comparisons to Muhammad Ali are far off base.Mike Tyson is the closest parallel with, below the waist, some Tiger Woods into the bargain, and while professional boxing recovered from Jack Johnson with great sportsmen like Gene Tunney and Joe Louis to later hold the title, Tyson has left such a bad smell that the prize ring probably will never recover its former luster.

Kakueke Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion, is usually seen as one of the greatest heavyweights of all time. Ken Burns' "Unforgivable Blackness" paints a picture of Johnson as a great defensive fighter, ranging from his roots in mainly all-black boxing to showing him demonstrating moves to a younger fighter when Johnson was well into middle age. Indeed, Johnson used his defensive skills to beat not only white boxers like ex-champion Jim Jeffries, in the 1910 racially charged championship bout in Las Vegas, but top black boxers like Joe Jeannete, Sam Langford, and Sam McVey. The pumped-up strong boys in today's diffuse heavyweight division look physically fearsome, but I believe Johnson's defensive skills would have made it difficult for anyone to beat him, including Mike Tyson in his prime.The portrayal of Johnson in the "Boxing's Best" series was excellent, but nearly three hours shorter than this 216-minute documentary. Some of the same footage and photos are in this video, but here we get more footage and far more of other stuff. Shown are footage of Johnson's fights with Jeffries, Tommy Burns (from whom he won the title), Fireman Jim Flynn, Stanley Ketchel, and Frank Moran, and other boxing clips of himself and others. The buildup, aftermath, and social meaning of the Jeffries fight are thorough and thoughtfully done.White champions since John L. Sullivan in the 1880s had refused to fight black challengers until Johnson defeated Burns. The subsequent efforts at finding a great white hope are shown (although one omission was no mention of the greatest white hope, Luther McCarty, who died during a match and thus never got to fight Johnson). For whites, regaining the championship was important. Another omission was not mentioning that Johnson lost to white boxer Marvin Hart, who then won the title after Jeffries retired (later, Johnson crushed Burns, who had beaten Hart). I am suspicious of some of the decisions given to white boxers over black boxers in those days. Or, was it a legitimate victory? How about a comment, Ken?What about Johnson the man? Jack Johnson was an individual to himself and to his own desires. He was not someone who, as the first black heavyweight champion, saw himself as a role model for his race and therefore, obliged to behave in a certain fashion, whether it be, say, more defiant than compliant with white standards. He liked to live the high life, dress well, eat well, drive fancy cars and race cars, perform on vaudeville, etc. Originally from Galveston Texas, he is also the Jack Johnson of Europe and Australia and Cuba and Mexico. He was always on the go, whether chasing Tommy Burns all over the earth to pressure him to fight him for the championship or running off to another country because of trumped-up charges of violation of the Mann Act. Much effort was made to produce expansive footage and photography: Ken Burns tried hard and succeeded.Johnson and white women would not be such a taboo item today, but would narrators concede in private (they do not in narration) that his being such a frequent consort of prostitutes can justifiably be seen as a negative trait anytime? For this and his individualism and flamboyancy, he was detested by whites and also some blacks.But Johnson did not care. The film briefly mentions some parallels with Muhammad Ali. However, while Ali could be angered, by political and social issues, and by black opponents calling him Cassius Clay, Johnson was just carefree. He laughed at racial abuse given him in the ring. Ironically, after having such a hard time getting a white champion to fight him, Johnson denied black fighters a chance to fight him because white challengers would result in bigger purses (and presented less risk). The commentators are writers like Gerald Early (who was also on Burns' "Baseball" and "Jazz" documentaries), Stanley Crouch, Jack Newfield, and George Plimpton; Johnson biographer Randy Roberts; boxing expert Bert Sugar; former light heavyweight champion Jose Torres; James Earl Jones (who played Johnson in "The Great White Hope"), and others. One thing that was better about "Unforgivable Blackness" than "Baseball" was that the celebrity non-baseball experts infused some nonsense into the latter (I enjoyed the baseball personalities); here, the commentators consistently add insights and are knowledgeable about boxing.

threedy ARE SPOILERS POSSIBLE FOR HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARIES? IF SO, THERE MAY BE SOME HERE.This inaccurate, intellectually dishonest propaganda puff piece represents a new low for ultra-PCers Burns and Ward. They have done their mightiest to make a hero out of a self-indulgent thug, making a mockery out of historical reporting in the process.Jack Johnson was indeed a man of the future: he would fit right in with the egomaniacal, spoiled-rotten sports "heroes" that are so prevalent today. In a sense, he had great courage, demanding liberties and privileges that the society of his day (virulently racist, by today's standards) considered monumental affronts. But his brand of courage was more a form of supreme gall, borne by an overbearing sense of special entitlement. There can be little doubt his behavior promoted racism by appearing to confirm the worst fears whites held toward black men – that they were, at heart, irresponsible brutes with an insatiable lust for white women. Contrary to the subliminal thesis here, Johnson was anything but a social reformer blazing a trail to freedom.Other heroic qualities are magnified out of proportion here, with editorial sleights-of-hand. Johnson's quotes come almost entirely from a ghost-written autobiography, making him appear more articulate than he really was. The herculean physical courage attributed to him is not confirmed by the facts: His first three fights after winning the belt in 1908 (McLaglan, O'Brien, Ross) were six-round, no-decision exhibitions; the fourth (Kaufman) was a ten-rounder of the same variety. The fifth was supposed to be an exhibition, but middleweight Stanley Ketchel got too frisky, so Johnson sent him to the oral surgeon. The phony nature of these fights goes unnoticed by the documentary, except for the Ketchel episode.Thus, Johnson's first real title defense was the 1910 bout against Jeffries, who had not fought in six years. Johnson held the crown for five years after this, during which he made only four defenses. By contrast, the man he dethroned – Tommy Burns – had made 12 defenses in the previous two years. (Interestingly, Burns weighed only 168 for the Johnson fight, about 10% below his normal fighting weight.) The film apparently ignores only one of Johnson's fights as champion – a draw. That seems to be a telling omission. (Perhaps it was mentioned in passing ; I DID blink a couple of times.)In the end, Johnson was toppled by untalented strongman Jess Willard, and here Burns & Ward go unbelievably astray. They ascertain Willard was 27 at the time, "a full decade younger" than the champion. The challenger was actually 33, a fact Burns & Ward obliquely acknowledge earlier, if your arithmetic is better than theirs. They note at one place Willard began his boxing career the day after the Johnson-Jeffries fight (1910); a little later, they report Willard started boxing at 27. That would have made him 32 at Havana in 1915 – almost correct.Was Johnson unmercifully persecuted by the government, as Burns & Ward claim? Yes and no. While the Mann Act was not inspired by the practice of rich men traveling with their in-house concubines, Johnson was clearly guilty of violating it. His selective prosecution probably had some racial motivation, but Johnson's violations were so blatant and well-publicized, he might well have been prosecuted if he had been white.Ken Burns' Civil War series (1990) was criticized by the PC lobby for being insufficiently anti-Confederate and driven by a white southerner (Shelby Foote). Ever since, he has been an increasingly obsequious afro-centric. It is getting pretty tedious.