Friday, June 4, 2010

Dahn dah da-da-dah da-da-DAH-Dahn-Dahn


In 1976, a down-on-his-luck Sylvester Stallone used the last of his cash to go see a boxing match.  As he watched two pugilists pound each other to paste, he got an idea for a movie, wrote a script, made enough cash to hire a crew, and made Rocky for 1.1 Million dollars.  The movie went on to win 3 Oscars, gross over 225 Million in its first year, and reinvigorated boxing for a whole new generation of fans.

I have a really visceral reaction to this movie - I love watching it.  When I hear that opening theme and watch the word "ROCKY" scroll sideways across the screen, I get goosebumps.  When Mickey comes over to Rocky's apartment and breaks down, and when Rocky finally takes him in and accepts him as his trainer, my eyes well up.  When Rocky, beaten and bloody, staggers his way through a mob of reporters and fans crying out "Adrian" like a bleating calf, and when Adrian answers and runs to him, my heart beats right out of my chest.  It's just beautiful to me.

That pet store broad

And yet, as a modern educated liberal academic post-modern guy, it's the kind of thing that I should at some level find repellent. Cinematographically it has aged well - the blood looks real, the punches connect, the camera work is understated and powerful - and of course the easiest and most popular read is that of an underdog story (Rocky coming up from under), and liking underdog stories has been part of every American citizenship test since 1784.  But for all that, there are two points of politic that seem a little harder to swallow now, nearly 34 years later.

For one thing, there's the racism.  There's enough cushioning here that this might not be readily apparent - after all, Apollo Creed actually wins the fight, right?  Black guy wins - how is that racist? The answer being that while Apollo Creed wins the fight, Rocky wins the movie. The whole point of Rocky's journey is in going the distance.  He knows he can't beat Creed, so he commits to "go[ing] the distance."  He just has to keep up and he's won, and he does, and in the end we know that he has come out on top.  Creed is left squabbling with the referee over the match proper.  He's left with the scrap of victory that the white contender doesn't even want anymore.

I'm about to die! 
The whole Rocky franchise coincidentally features Rocky beating the crap out of black people (or, just as problematic in Rocky IV, going off and avenging his beloved Creed, succeeding where the black man failed).  Rocky is the "Great White Hope" - in a sport dominated by blacks and Latinos,white boxing fans had come to feel disenfranchised (why there should be so many white MMA fighters and so few white boxers is beyond me - why one combat sport or another? I have no idea.). To white America, boxing was another aspect of daily life being "taken over," and they pined for their white champion to show that they could compete too.

They can't, by the way - the last white heavyweight champion was Ingemarr Johansson in 1959.

And so the second kind of icky issue with Rocky:  he's completely artificial.  For all his gritty "realness," for his man-on-the-street minimalist identity, he's little more than a pipe dream. Rocky Balboa is modeled in part on Rocky Marciano, but the boxing world of Rocky Marciano doesn't exist anymore - you can't just drown your opponent in blood and crush him with your falling body.  Form and technique count for something.

Gonna fly now

But that same boxing world exists for Rocky.  Even by the liberal weight classing standards of the 1970's, there is NO way he and Creed would be put into a ring together.  In wide shots, it literally looks like Little Mack fighting Tyson.  Horribly outmatched, he swings and lasts, he bleeds and bruises, and the fight is not called.  He digs in and manages to give as good as he gets until the match is finally ended and he can enjoy the healing embrace of his Adrian, and this is significant too - Rocky is no braggart.  He's humble and hardworking, earnest and quiet - he is the exact opposite of the loud, black, boisterous then-heavyweight champion Muhammed Ali (upon whom Apollo Creed is in part modeled).

It's not coincidental to me that Rocky runs up the steps of the Philadelphia museum of Art, then.  He is a work of art himself.  A fantasy, a daydream.  It's very much fitting then that in Rocky III they erect a statue of him on the front steps - that is just what he is: an icon, an image, a metaphor so obvious that the cinematic entity that is the Rocky movie franchise must recognize it.  As this movie is a work of fiction, we should expect a character, yes, a fictive construct like any other movie character. But as a character, Rocky Balboa is also an avatar of unfulfilled wishes and unsatisfied dreams.  Since America could not actually make a white champion, they had to invent one.  Like Nietzche's Ubermensch (and in turn, Hitler's Aryan), he is a myth, an idea - the best and most famous boxer in the world, and he's not even real.

Hug it out, bitch

So how to reconcile the inspiring underdog story with the rather depressing race and identity politics?  Long story short, forget it.  You read it, you can't un-see it now.  That was kind of a dick move on my part, but then the movie series itself has to fight with this as well.  Rocky and Creed start as rivals and then become friends.  Creed dies in an extremely Uncle Tom-ish fashion (he is not himself a "Tom," but rather, he exists only to die and so move the white character's plots forward) and Rocky avenges him.  There's some back and forth there.

The Creed-Balboa relationship is complex, but other black characters are either "helper figures" (Creed's trainer, Duke, joins Rocky's camp) or antagonists (Mason Dixon, George Washington Duke).  The only thing that ameliorates this rather glaring problem is the classic underdog story presented in the first film.  White or black, Rocky resonates, and the story itself would hold up well if the races were reversed, and furthermore, we can always be happy we're not watching Gladiator.

This move is TURRUBUHL

***When you buy off of Amazon through this site, I get money***

  

16 comments:

  1. Huh? So, you're trying to reconcile your gut feeling ("I love watching it") with your -- I dunno, what is it? -- your philosophical identity ("...modern educated liberal academic post-modern...")? I can't imagine you metaphorically wringing your hands over such a thing. From whence the impetus to write this essay? "I love Rocky, but I shouldn't because, in the post-modern worldview, he's racist and phony."
    ReplyDelete
  2. Basically yes - I was watching it for the umpteenth time and enjoying all the scenes I enjoy, when all this stuff sort of started creeping up on me. I felt the need to say something about the subtext because I can see critics with sharper teeth than me digging into this film, but I think that it still has a lot of good stuff going for it. To me it necessitates some complex criticism - how much can you apologize for? How much can you actually take away from it? I don't have a good cut-and-dried answer.

    There's a really excellent old essay written by Michael Gallantz that more-or-less says what I'm saying here in greater detail - unfortunately I only found it AFTER I wrote my spiel, otherwise I could have probably saved myself some time. Still, you can read my post in 3 minutes while Gallantz' essay will gobble up a bigger chunk of your lunch hour. Furthermore, Gallantz is only speaking to the first film - these themes are recurrent across all six.

    http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC18folder/RockyDialog.html
    ReplyDelete
  3. @D20: Not to speak for Vyeto since he has already done it quite capably for himself, but this is a problem easily generalized.

    There are tons of movies I loved growing up that I have since learned are problematic, and it's surprising to watch the movie again and be like, "Yep, this is not just intellectually disturbing this is actually upsetting me."

    Examples for me off the top of my head include Breakfast at Tiffany's with the horrendous Mickey Rooney character or oompa loompas in the book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Fair enough. I can get Mickey Rooney's character ("Ms. Go-Rightry!"). The oompa loompas? This seems a part of some greater white guilt thesis: OMFG! Dark skin and we relegated the character to something less than perfect?! Racist bastards!

    To what end all the hand-wringing? To nit-pick the enjoyment right out of our favorite movies? To learn from our "mistakes" and make "better" movies today? (Pffft...)
    ReplyDelete
  5. To what end all the hand-wringing?

    A bit of culture study, a bit of lit-crit, that sort of thing. It's not exactly a white guilt thesis, but it is an exposure of applied and assumed attitudes.

    For the oompa-loompas, one of the more queasy aspects involves their object status - Per Wonka's representation, they were rescued and put to good useful work - do we ever get a confirmation that the loompas (Who sing happy little songs as they wobble through their tasks) feel the same? Doesn't this sound vaguely like the so-called arguments that slavery actually improved the lot of the African?

    That's just one angle, and I'm not actually arguing it (I've done enough criticism for one day, thankyewverymuch), but this is essentially the point: ask questions, observe assumptions, deconstruct.

    Why pick a black guy for Creed? If you want a movie where whites are magically good boxers, why not just have an all-white cast in the first place? Why not have Rocky Balboa be black?

    As for a purpose in this kind of deconstruction - Theodor Adorno commented that poetry, after the holocaust, was "barbaric," and this comment has since come to represent the potential for wrongdoing that comes from assumption, aggrandizement, and myth. The extrapolated (and rather extreme) argument is that poetry caused the Holocaust, or rather, the rhetoric of racial superiority through the transmission of German ubermensch myths caused the Holocaust.

    With or without meaning to, art lends approval to its represented subject - I've honestly screwed around too much today to go any deeper into representation and identity, but to summarize: it's not about mistakes, it's about awareness - it's about understanding the roles represented by the characters and how the culture at large perceives those roles, right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle.
    ReplyDelete
  6. The point is, it's not just nit-picking hand-wringing, it's being honestly bothered by stuff you used to completely enjoy.

    And like, I'm not trying to sound like an asshole on the internet, but have you read CatCF lately? Because it's not just that they have dark skin and do manual labor, it's that Willy Wonka talks about how he's saving them from their horrible jungle and redeeming them through the hard physical labor they so love to do for free. How is that NOT a colonialist/slave trade fantasy?

    If it doesn't bother you, fine, don't write about it on your blog, this isn't school no one will make you. But it makes sense to write about seeing things in a different light when you notice your opinions have changed.
    ReplyDelete
  7. How is that NOT a colonialist/slave trade fantasy?

    Oh, I don't know... Maybe the missing text that describes how the loompas were unhappy, mistreated, lynched, and actually SOLD into slavery.

    A fantastic chocolate factory operated by little fantastic "chocolate" men. Inappropriate?

    "If it doesn't bother you, fine, don't write about it on your blog..."

    No blog = No problems
    I'm just commenting on a friend's musings. (Jeez, Louise...)

    "...this is a problem easily generalized."

    "...this isn't school no one will make you."


    ...and thinly-veiled insults only hinder the potential to influence. School is so 6-years-ago... ; )
    ReplyDelete
  8. I really don't think the key component of slavery is that some received cash, I believe it's the involuntary work for no money that was the problem.

    I wasn't trying to insult you, veiled or no, but I really don't understand why it bothers you that other people notice these things. Neither Vyeto nor I said that you couldn't enjoy Rocky without thinking about these sort of things or that you're A Racist if you do, so I fail to see what's so threatening.
    ReplyDelete
  9. The posting suprised me a bit is all: It wasn't something I'd have expected out of Vyeto. I got to see a different facet of his mind. Over 16 years of friendship, it's always been neat to have the "Huh. I didn't know that about you," moments.

    The act of noticing itself doesn't bother me. Blog all you want. I just don't want Rocky to go the way of Bugs Bunny cartoons.
    ReplyDelete
  10. And to me, that's why it's important to recognize this sort of stuff. The meta-conflict around the Rocky franchise is very American - to throw these out or to neuter them (a la: Old BB cartoons lose airplay, new BB cartoons just suck) is to willfully omit an important part of American culture. In terms of parlance and appreciation, I think the movies can and should still be enjoyed - BUT, these movies reflect something about the culture that made them, and the reflection isn't pretty.

    This entire enterprise asks all kinds of questions, and not all of them have answers. How can I reconcile loving this movie with the racist undercurrents throughout the franchise? What if I refuse to just not watch the movie (which I do) and what if I don't feel the least bit bad about the heady little rush I get during the good parts (and I don't)?

    Meaning is difficult - the important thing for me is that I reject the implicit assumptions. To put this on an even nerdier note, I gave my current DM a real hard time at our last game because I (and Jon and Dave actually followed suit) rejected the idea that we should just go kill goblins because they were goblins. When NPC's started to say things like "They have no society" and "they're basically animals," we were quick to point out that all their tribes (societies) have names and hierarchies which these "animals" named with their language.

    Aaaand with this post, this thread becomes the single most discussed topic on SSS. FOR GREAT JUSTICE!!!
    ReplyDelete
  11. That's what happens when you spend time with your local feminazi bonerkiller. ;)
    ReplyDelete
  12. Seriously Vytau, how much research do you put into these things? This could be a chapter in a Chuck Klosterman book. Impressive.

    PS You better not have depleted your incisive movie critic energies for the month....
    ReplyDelete
  13. KB - these posts take anywhere from 1 to 3 hours depending on the preparation and editing. For this one, I had a 20 minute-ish brainstorm on Tuesday, put it aside, wrote the opening paragraph on Friday (all of 5 minutes) but I was really distracted and I'd started drinking, so that didn't work well...

    Anyhow,woke up on Friday, started at 9:30, wrote the text, spend a few minutes looking for pictures, and had this ready to go by 11, so this one probably took about 2 hours.

    By contrast, my Superman essay took foooooreeevvverrrrrr. I kept going back and forth on my interpretation and couldn't get my hands on it easily. Then again, it only took 45 minutes to scribble out the Mexican Immigration post, so sometimes I focus really well.

    And don't worry about me depleting my energies - I've got a Detroit-flavored flick picked out...unfortunately it's so awful that it may be a little hard to find a copy! In any case, that's on my plate for tomorrow.
    ReplyDelete
  14. You could have just told me that you are already that smart and I would have believed you.

    Anyway, I am very excited to reminisce about Detroit via a terrible movie. Also, I just reviewed "Miami Blues" which will post tomorrow so we can have a hometown theme going. Nice.
    ReplyDelete
  15. That sounds super awesome - unfortunately, my fears were confirmed: Family Video doesn't have it! It looks like Bryan (Kudrycki) has a copy, so I ought to be able to bust this thing out this week. Huzzah!
    ReplyDelete
  16. I'll be sure to thank Bryan.
    ReplyDelete