The daughter and grandsons of the man who inspired “Marty Supreme” have expressed deep outrage over a production they claim was made without their involvement, consent, or compensation. They allege that the studio deliberately avoided the family to evade responsibility, all while utilizing Reisman’s life milestones and a close physical resemblance to the athlete. The family is now calling for Hollywood to correct the record regarding a movie they believe misrepresents his legacy for financial gain.
A Legacy at Odds with Hollywood Fiction
The Reisman family is particularly distressed by the film’s choice to paint a world-class athlete as a “lowlife.” According to his daughter Debbie, the cinematic version of her father is a far cry from the man she knew growing up. “My father wasn’t like that. He made me feel so special when I was growing up. I want people to know that,” she told the Daily Mail. The family believes the studio intentionally bypassed them to avoid creative oversight, with grandson Josh suggesting that “maybe there were some things they were going to portray we wouldn’t have approved.”
The discrepancy between the film and reality extends to Reisman’s personal relationships and character. His grandson Roger, a former teacher, notes that the movie’s depiction of affairs has no basis in their family history. “His relationship with my mother and grandmother was not depicted accurately,” Roger explains, adding that “there was no liaison with a movie star in any family stories.” Instead of the “selfish” and “mean-spirited” figure seen on screen, Roger recalls a man with a “brilliant sense of humour” and a “deep sense of justice.”
Perhaps the most visceral pain stems from specific scenes of physical degradation that the family finds inexcusable. Josh highlighted a scene involving a financier and a table tennis paddle as a point of peak “humiliation,” noting that “to spank him with a paddle, an instrument that took him around the world and changed his entire life” was “unbelievable.” Debbie shared this sentiment of disgust, simply stating, “That was awful. That was humiliating.” For the people who loved him most, the film feels less like a tribute and more like a betrayal of a man who “would have been mortified” by such a portrayal.
Ultimately, the Reismans are calling for a shift in how Hollywood handles the lives of real people. They argue that the filmmakers “profited while externalising harm” and “invoked Marty’s name without attribution or compensation.” As Debbie left the theater in tears, her primary fear remained that the public would accept this “lowlife” caricature as the truth. Now, the family wants future productions to work with relatives and properly credit their sources, instead of hiding behind disclaimers to reshape who a person truly was.