The Fighter

At the time this film was released in 1952 I was a sophomore intercollegiate boxer (135 lbs, 6'2"). I saw the film twice in 1952. I had seen other boxing films but none as realistic as boxing by Richard Conte. He was an incredibly talented and under rated actor. In you love boxing see this film! Conte looks like and moves like a boxer. Considering Conte was 42 years old at the time this film was made he appears in remarkable physical condition. Not only is the boxing itself "real" but the ostensible purpose of the boxing matches make sense. Conte's people need guns and he boxes to get money for those guns. It is difficult to remember scenes of a film I saw 56 years ago. I do remember that Conte during the course of boxing matches appeared to be exhausted just would a real boxer after a match. Of course the weight class I boxed, and especially intercollegiate boxing, is never designed to injure/harm anyone. Real boxing is designed to injure/damage the opponent.

Plot-- A peasant rebel fighting against Mexico's government in the early 1900's is separated from the main force and seeks to rejoin them with the 1000 rifles they need. But the only way he can finance the rifles is by returning to the boxing ring.

Oddball movie adapted from a Jack London story. I expect London's version gels better than the film, though the latter does have its moments. Unfortunately, the boxing sequences are typical Hollywood hokum in which blockbuster punches never miss nor is defense ever practiced. I guess that's because missed round-houses and defensive jabbing lack drama while film is expensive. Nonetheless, photographer Howe (and perhaps uncredited Crosby) alternate camera angles in unusual and compelling fashion that keep the viewer interested.

Too bad, IMDb doesn't report where the Mexican scenes were filmed, because the grimy hovels and city streets look authentic as heck. I wish I could say the same for the clumsy exterior backdrops that mar some scenes, but at least they're not over-used. Still, there are several darn near sublime scenes. That's when the camera suddenly drops us behind the lovers sitting seaside. In contrast to the movie's high-key lighting, this is a poetic night world in which the lovers appear to contemplate a noirish eternity that stretches out before them. To me, these are the movie highlights.

As an old movie fan, I'd never heard of this 1952 indie entry. Moreover, I expect it got crushed by the same year's release of Marlon Brando's Viva Zapata. Then too, I expect political lefties like actor Cobb, writer Kandel, and director Kline were drawn to the politically charged material. Unfortunately, for them and maybe the film too, the McCarthy purges of Hollywood lefties was gaining momentum. So likely a cheap indie like this didn't get much distribution, nor do I recall it showing up on a late show in film-conscious LA.

That fine actor Conte manages in the lead role, while Cobb's out-sized presence fits that of a revolutionary leader. Nonetheless, the conflicting sides are made up of stereotypes, right down to the well-scrubbed peasant women and the cruel Federales. All in all, the 70-minutes has an interesting look to it. Yet the parts do shift back and forth erratically, failing ultimately to merge into anything memorable.

Richard Conte walks into the Maduro office just across the river from Mexico. He has been sent by the head of the guerillas, Lee J. Cobb. He has no proof, just his word; at first they think he may be a Diaz spy, so they set him to mopping the floor, and tell him he can't stay there at night, even though he says he has no money. He shows up the next day with twenty dollars, which he gives to the cause. Eventually Vanessa Brown gets his story from him. He is from a small village which the Federales have been taxing to death. Cobb showed up alone. They hid him, and the Federales killed everyone and burned the village. The money is from acting as a sparring partner at a local boxing gym.

Conte plays his role as angry as possible, with no words, just body language. Cobb plays his at his biggest, which is immense. Fortunately, Conte has a weapon on his side; the cameraman is James Wong Howe, and the boxing match at the end is as brutal as any put on the screen, long shots (using a body double for Conte, hunched over) and closeups of the two men's upper bodies, trading blows alternately. No one could shoot a fight in black and white like Howe.

It's from a Jack London story, "The Mexican." I probably read it almost fifty years ago, but have no memory of it. I expect I'll remember this movie.

All long this excellent little social drama, I thought of John Garfield in the main lead character. But don't misundertand me, Richard Conte is excellent though, I would say as powerful, impressive, I mean for this film. Not for the whole Garfield career; Garfield was greater than Conte. That said, I did not know this director Herbert Kline, whose career was really short. This explains that. The movie is unfortunately too much predictable. That's not my all time favourite in terms of social drama, I guess that one or two decades before, starring Henry Fonda or Richard Barthelmess, it would have been better. With also a William Wellman behind the camera. It would have been a topic for him.

As I watched "The Fighter", I enjoyed the movie very much. However, again and again, I kept asking myself "why did they change the original story so much?" as I watched. In a few cases, perhaps it made some sense...but often it just didn't...and I cannot understand why they didn't trust the original Jack London story ("The Mexican").

Richard Conte, of all people, stars as Felipe Rivera. Casting him and Lee J. Cobb as Durango just seemed weird. After all, they clearly were NOT Hispanic and had no trace of a Mexican accent. I am not saying this because I am Mr. Political Correctness...it's more that it really seemed unrealistic to have the pair playing Mexicans.

Rivera recently crossed the border from Mexico to El Paso, Texas. It turns out his village was wiped out by federal troops loyal to the dictator, Porfirio Diaz...President for Life in Mexico. Now he plans on working with other dissidents in Texas to help topple the regime. His greatest skill is his ability in the boxing ring and he boxes to fund the revolution.

As I mentioned above, a lot of details from the original story were changed...and in some case I had no idea why. For example, Rivera murders an evil General....but in the movie the victim is a Colonel and he's not killed by Rivera but shot by revolutionaries. Also, the reason for Rivera's village being wiped out was changed...perhaps because the production company thought it might seem 'left wing' to have them killed following a strike by employees. All I know is that I sure would have liked to have seen the original tale.

Now if you ignore the changes and weird casting, the film STILL is quite good....slightly better than the very low overall score listed for the movie on IMDB. Not great...but very good despite itself.

By the way, although it's not important, I noticed that when Rivera and the lady went to the shooting booth at the carnival, they never paid to play the game yet were given prizes after shooting. Not paying their dimes was an interesting tiny omission.