L'homme le plus aimé

Some have rightly criticized this movie as being a glossed-over, fictionalized, lower-budget presentation of Babe Ruth, while "The Pride of the Yankees" afforded teammate Gehrig a big-budget, A-list-cast project.

However, both were off the proverbial "mark." Gehrig was not quite the totally-affable individual Gary Cooper portrayed, and his mother not quite the "Aunt Bea" type shown.

Babe Ruth was a larger-than-life persona, bawdy, irreverent, and a national icon which, in more recent times, have only seen perhaps Muhammed Ali and Michael Jordan afforded anything close to the equal amount of acclaim. And one must always remember these two have had the benefit of television, including dozens of cable/satellite venues, and far greater electronic and print media than Ruth ever knew.

There is an interesting film clip I've seen many times. Ruth (who batted third) is rounding third base and going to home plate after hitting a home run, while Gehrig (waiting to bat fourth), has his back completely turned, ignoring him, much less shaking his hand. These two were not on speaking terms for significant amounts of time while teammates - far different from the tone of either of their biographies.

This is quite a fictionalized movie, however, few biopics of this era - sports or otherwise - weren't. But it should be noted that Ruth, now well past a half century since his tragic illness and death, and much further beyond his prime - still has led "Athlete of the Century" and similar lists, with only fore-mentioned Ali and Jordan (along with Jim Thorpe) as close contenders.

I, for one, would like to see a film which would present both Ruth and Gehrig, in a realistic style, made today. Dennis Quaid, after putting on a few pounds, and a little padding and makeup, could portray Ruth. He's left-handed, and can portray a baseball athlete (ala "The Rookie," playing a role of a character a decade younger than he), with Costner as Gehrig. Kevin also can handle a bat and ball (Gary Cooper, playing Gehrig, had the baseball talent of a 12-year-old, and the film had to be shown in-reverse to make him appear left-handed. While Costner is right-handed, his athleticism and better techniques today could overcome this).

They are a little longer-in-tooth now (who isn't?), but both are in excellent shape, look younger than they are, and modern techniques and makeup should be able to overcome any problems of their playing "younger."

Personally, I think a first-class film with two major stars, playing Ruth and Gehrig, in a story presenting the harder edges of their personalities, relationship, family lives, etc. - as well as all the positive aspects we've seen before - could be an amazing flick.

Finally, this film is a lot better now, not because its story or presentation have improved - but for its nostalgic view of 1940's film, and the baseball locations and scenes as they were then.

As has been noted already here, this film is worse than mediocre; it is ludicrous at best. Why the film was as badly scripted as it was is anybody's guess at this late date. Scenes which should have come across as poignant come across as corny. The Miller Huggins death scene is especially bad, where "Babe" is talking to him thinking he is still alive, and the nurse pulls the sheet over the face because he is already dead. The jump from his youth in the orphanage to major league baseball is disconcerting. William Bendix wasn't a great actor in the sense of a Bogart or Tracy. But, he wasn't that inept either. The production was rushed to completion before Ruth's death and one can only wonder what he must have thought of it, given the chain of contrivances. This film could have been honest and inspiring, instead it is fraudulent and vapid.

I've seen this movie many times, since I was a little boy. By the time I was a little older, I learned more about baseball and the Babe, and realized the movie was full of exaggerations and myths, but I didn't care. An 'innocent' movie that conveniently skips out on some of the more distasteful aspects of Ruth's life (drinking, carousing, womanizing), I think it works. It's so corny, that you've gotta love it. One of my favorite parts is when Claire yells at Babe to remember about Johnny lying sick in the hospital, who will obviously die if Babe doesn't smash a homer. Amazingly, Babe hears Claire above 50,000 other screaming fans, makes incredibly outrageous gestures pointing to the centerfield bleachers, and socks the homer with a dreadful swing that would make a 6 year old girl embarrassed. How can you not love it? When the group of kids sing 'hymns' (ie take me out to the ballgame) outside his hospital window? I absolutely love this film because I take it for what it is - a fun film that tries to serve as a tribute to one of the greatest players ever.

OK, so it wasn't a great movie by performance standards; maybe judged differently by baseball standards.

Ruth's prominent years came in the 1920's, right after the Black Sox scandal of 1919 (brought to light in 1920). It's widely accepted that he changed the game and probably saved it.

About 2 months before his death, Babe Ruth was given a "day" at Yankee Stadium. He could barely speak to the enormous crowd who had gathered to bid farewell to a man they loved. Maybe little kids didn't gather outside his hospital room to sing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame", but the prevailing feeling is that they could have.

More than an other American activity, baseball bonds generations. My dad and I spent hours watching and discussing the game; then my kids and I. Now my grandchildren and I do the same. The "Babe Ruth Story" might have been poorly scripted and acted, but it affected me emotionally when I was 10, and still does today.

The movie has many flaws, but still has lots of love to give.

In Claire Hodgeson Ruth's fascinating book, "The Babe and I," about her famous husband, she is openly critical of the biopic, "The Babe Ruth Story." The film, according The Babe's widow, was rushed into production and on to the public in mid-1948, while Babe was still alive, although he was less than three months from death. It's easier to exploit a live man's life than a dead one's, Mrs. Ruth suggests. That's a primary reason why the production and everything associated with it was hurried. In the book, she also stated that she would forgo all royalties from the film's showings...if it were to be permanently shelved. It wasn't...but should have been. In fact, it never should have been done, if speed, indeed, were the primary motivation.

Babe Ruth was the greatest American sports hero ever...including those who followed him during the second half of the twentieth century. Babe deserved a much grander---and accurate---portrayal than this '48 laugher.

There were only two positive elements to the story..and both involved casting. Claire Trevor as the Babe's second wife, Claire, and Charles Bickford as Brother Matthias, were excellent choices. But selecting comic William Bendix for the title role was more than a case of poor casting; it was one that completely undermined both the film and its title character.

Through Bendix's portrayal, audiences see the "Sultan of Swat" as a buffoonish character. Someone who belongs in a cartoon. Not that Bendix didn't try his best. But he was miserably mis-cast. Mrs. Ruth, in her book, stated that she would like to have seen Paul Douglas portray her husband. Not only was Douglas an excellent actor, she said, but he had been an athlete in his youth. He easily could have handled the baseball scenes.

The whole tone of "The Babe Ruth Ruth" story was embarrassingly melodramatic. Again, The Babe deserved much better.

Haste makes waste, the saying goes. It certainly is true here.