The Harder They Fall: "How much would you take?"

Mark Robson's The Harder They Fall, shifts the perception of the traditional boxing film from the boxer to the shady promotional organization standing behind him. Treading off the beaten path, it is at the same time very similar to it's contemporaries, yet also uniquely different. By having our protagonist be a sports writer, we can see the inner workings of the organizations our boxers have been contending with in other films, from an insider's point of view. In addition to this deviation, the film has the fixing of boxing matches work in the boxers favor, creating an interesting illusion of success and merit built on a foundation of corruption and trickery.

The relationship between Eddie and Toro builds as the film develops, with the characters growing on each other. Originally, as mentioned many times throughout the film, Eddie is only "in it for the money".  But as he has to trample his own morals and ethics in order to build up Toro into a champion, as well as witnessing first-hand the exploitative nature of the fight game on it's boxers, he takes Toro's side, and helps send him back home to Argentina. A fresh take on the traditional narrative, all the elements are still there. The typical corruption surrounding the sport is able to be isolated from Toro himself, thanks to his back story as an Argentinian immigrant who is still learning English. This alternate take on the corruption surrounding the industry leads to the film having even stronger socialist undertones than even the more heavy-handed boxing films. The story of a hard-working, if a little naive immigrant from humble origins, having his physical labor exploited by corrupt bourgeois capitalists while he receives a minuscule fraction of the fruits of his labor practically reeks of socialism even if I hadn't steered the discussion in that direction.

This clip, one of the most intense scenes from the whole movie, captures the behind the scenes technically-not-illegal exploitation that the movie is criticizing. Just as in On the Waterfront, the "gang" of people supposedly working in the best interest of Toro are actually splitting up his earnings so much, he ends up earning almost nothing.Eddie's response to th group of scammers: "he didn't have five guys in the ring with him", perfectly captures the conflicts outside the ring, that this film seems to be exploring. The argument for socialism often includes a criticism of the capitalist economic system, and it's seemingly parasitic, useless workforce of non-producers. The ideal is to unshackle the workers of the world from this wasteful system, and more equitably distribute that which they produced. Real life examples may have not turned out as perfectly as the theorists proposed, but that is a level of foresight to great to expect out of anyone, let alone filmmakers.

In the end, our noble boxer makes it home a success, and our fallen protagonist redeems himself by giving Toro his earnings rather than letting him return empty handed. Toro's success is tainted however, by the fact that the odds were stacked in his favor, a subtle but important lesson from the film. What may appear to be success, often comes at the expense of other's. What appears to you as the fruits of your labor and natural talent, may be the results of strings pulled by others on your behalf, but that does not make the crooked playing field you are on correct. Eddie also has a "happy" ending, in the optimistic fashion of these early films, he gives up his earnings from his shady enterprise to Toro, and after receiving threats from his previously friendly coworkers, is emboldened to write an expose. Having shaken off his sinful work, Eddie takes on an endeavor to return ethics to the fight game, likely making himself rich in the process as well.

Feature Post: "What is a boxing film anyway?"

 Boxing films goes as far back as some of the first films. They are inherently dramatic, have a built-in central conflict, follow an intensely popular, yet controversial subject matter that is easy to pick up for newcomers, the sport of boxing was made for film, as some film critics have noted. From this substantial source material, filmmakers have shaped their own visions, and told surprisingly similar, yet very different stories. The underlying narrative has also changed over time, as societal attitudes shifted, and new topics entered into the cultural spotlight.

The early era of the boxing film, when camera's filmed in black in white, kicked off the trend of boxing films that focused on the struggles of the lower class. America, which had experienced a surge of socialism prior to World War II, had the Great Depression fresh in it's mind. Hollywood was under scrutiny by the federal government to prevent socialist, "anti-American" films from being produced. It goes without saying that directors did not take too kindly to this federal oversight, but it did leave an impact on the films, while still present, the socialist undertones of the film had to be subdued to make it past the HUAC.

The basic formula for one of these early boxing films is to have some good-old-boy with a lot of talent from a lower-class neighborhood bump into some people, make some connections and BOOM! boxing career. Heavily based on the classical hero's journey, there is still a lot of room for creativity, particularly in this new medium of film. These films explored and critiqued the virtues and vices of the boxing world, and by extension, the world as a whole through the use of a few central conflicts that Leger Grindon outlines in his synthetical essay Body and Soul. The economic aspect of these early films is arguably a uniquely American perspective(or at least it was at the time). The concept of the American dream having shaped life for so many for so long, the films end up conveying to audiences that success is a juggling act of industrious, cold-blooded Capitalism™with a traditionalist respect for your origins, a socialist care for the working class, and a strong moral compass. A diverse blend of starkly different cultural attitudes, molded by the American experience to eventually become the American Dream. These early films also took advantage of the new medium they had, to shift a little bit of the focus away from the fight, and onto the "audience" itself. Like a mirror, the camera reflects back onto the audience, asking you to reconsider your approach to boxing, the depiction of which seemingly getter more and more brutal and primitive as the years go by. This focus of the genre becomes more important as the years go by, as socialism loses favor in America, and domestic issues start becoming more and more important.

As the years went on, the genre focused itself less on the general economic issues of society, like poverty and greed, and more on the domestic issues. On the Waterfront, technically a film about a boxer, has a central conflict revolving around a fraudulent union. This films portrayal of an oppressed group of people reclaiming control of their livelihood from a powerful corrupted elite still carries with it the original formula of the boxing movie. On the other end, Raging Bull, considered a quintessential boxing film, focuses more on the effects boxing and hyper-masculine, hyper-competitive attitudes have on boxers. Granted, you can still connect Raging Bull to a criticism of capitalism and western society in general by drawing the connection through boxing as a metaphor for capitalism, but the lines are getting less obvious, more subtle. What is being brought into the spotlight is LaMota's treatment of his wife and family. While scoundrels and womanizers are nothing new to the genre, in Raging Bull, these issues take a central role in the film. Women are now fully fleshed out characters, rather than pitiable damsels. On the Waterfront in particular uses it's female lead as a source on conscience and as a moral standard for it's protagonist to meet.

As the genre further, a split became apparent in the genre. Film became an ever more ubiquitous form of entertainment, and filmmakers had to make judgment calls, deciding between money-making mass appeal, or possibly unpopular films with the content they want to discuss. This is perfectly clear in two boxing films only 4 years apart, Rocky and Fat City. They still share a common boxing genre heritage, and both address the economic struggles of the "boxing class", but in Rocky, it's only the setting. With or without the poverty, Rocky is still the awkward, aimless, but dedicated goof-ball we know. Rocky considers poverty a temporary state, something that can be worked, or fought out of. This contrasts heavily with Fat City, where poverty hangs on the city like a plague. The people are dirty, depressed, all but hopeless. They stumble around and do the bare minimum, sometimes putting in some effort, but in the end slumping back right where they started. Definitely not an inspirational zero-to-hero story.

Refined over the decades, boxing films take many forms, but from the things they all have in common we can piece together the over-arching narrative thread tying them all together.

Fat City: "stay and talk awhile"

John Huston's Fat City explores the lives of a few down on their luck characters, in a dying and decrepit town. Taking a major deviation from the typical boxing narrative, the film stands in stark contrast to Rocky, which came out not long after. Fat City is the brutally honest depiction of the boxing world from the perspective of two struggling boxers, one reaching the end of his career, and another spiraling down the same drain.Understanding the meaning of the title makes understanding the film a bit easier, Fat City is the sarcastic name of a hypothetical city where those who have "made it" go. A bit of black(literally) humor to help people go through depressing time, Fat City is a metaphor for the hopes and aspirations that they have all but given up on.

 There is no glory in Fat City, no inspirational training montage, no world champion fight, nothing but a depressing scuffle between two no-name nobodies. The world is full of characters who's lives just make you want to turn away and forget about them. Oma in particular, is quite pitiable at first, but ends up growing to annoy the audience just as much as she does Tully. From the annoyingly irrational Oma, to the trapped Ernie, the film is essentially a example book of the various land-mines
we try to avoid throughout our lives. A graveyard for destroyed ambitions.

To be quite honest, the audience probably ends up looking at the film much like Tully looks during his final fight, numb, confused, slightly depressed. The film is bleak and batters  it's audience with a message of hopelessness, decay, and stagnation. The setting alternates between grimy bars, gyms, apartments, and rings. Everyone's clothes are almost always dirty, hygiene out the window. The characters are depressing and half depressed themselves, plagued with criminal records, alcoholism, broken relationships, and probably mental disorders. The audience is, in essence, left to dig through a pile of garbage, to find the treasure in the trash. Not that the film is bad, mind you, but the subject matter might turn most off of watching the film.

I mean for Christ's sakes look at this guy, not exactly a high-roller. That's our protagonist, someone who likely would have deserved to be yelled at by the old lady in Rocky and called a bum, if that film weren't made after this one. Rocky and Tully do begin their films very similarly, aging nobody boxers who haven't gotten very far in life, but their characters take very different paths. Where Rocky is active and persistent, Tully is passive and lazy. Where Rocky is ambitious, Tully is OK with just getting by. The films portrayal of boxing is pretty negative, but here the critique is not really on boxing itself, it is split between an alternate depiction of the American society that's been praised for it's social mobility, while concealing a "forgotten" segment of the population that has been left in poverty, while also turning the mirror back on America and almost chastising it for it's lack of motivation to change itself.

The interactions between Tully and Ernie highlight one of the films central ideas. Almost a reflection of each other, Tully see his past, as well as his missed opportunities in Ernie, whereas Ernie sees a foreboding image of the future in Tully. Both of these characters show promise, and likely have what it takes to succeed, but they let their relationships hamper them. They don't face challenges, they avoid them, make excuses for themselves. Whenever they meet they always discuss their boxing careers or "what went wrong", whats coming up, and there is always something coming up. Because in the end, a crucial part of the Fat City meme, is that it is always slightly out of reach.

Creed: "Building a legacy"

Ryan Coogler's Creed takes on the task of shifting an iconic American franchise into the 21st century. The film touches on the typical subject matter of a boxing film, issues of class, poverty and wealth, struggle and success. But the films own legacy lends it the unique opportunity to present a story about aging, a passing of the torch, as well as a tonal shift from competition and conquest, to shared success.

Centering on the training of Adonis Creed by Rocky Balboa, the film carries a  message about identity. A key part of the movie revolves around whether or not Adonis should use his father's name during his fights, and whether or not the name, and the legacy that comes with it, belongs to him.Throughout the film, it is Adonis himself, and his fixation with his father's legacy, that holds him back the most. This is addressed briefly in the film, when Rocky has him "shadowbox" with his own reflection. The film reflects on the impact of identity on success, with perception, both self and public, having central role in the film. Ultimately, Adonis reaffirms his identity as a Creed, while forging his own legacy, as Rocky passes on to him his own.

As far as boxing films go, Adonis' character was refreshingly different. Unlike his famous predecessors, Adonis does not box out of necessity, but for more personal reasons. Adonis, before his boxing careers begins, had the strange circumstance of having a troubled early childhood, only to grow into a life of luxury and success. Adonis' early struggles, and later lifestyle are also attributable to his father's boxing career as well. His unique upbringing creates an incentive in Adonis to come to terms with, and learn more about, the man responsible for his challenges, and his later success. Adonis does this by taking up his fathers legacy of boxing, whilst simultaneously creating his own. 

The theme of struggle and hard work runs deep through the boxing genre, particularly in the Rocky franchise and it's famous training montages. While boxing is often portrayed as foolish within the genre, a savage, primitive sport that somehow flew under the radar and made it into our modern world. Out of place and anachronistic. Yet, within sports in general and boxing in particular there is a particular appeal, that's almost subconscious. An appeal to an inner desire to prove one's worth, to emphatically announce to the world, as Creed puts it that: "I'm not a mistake". In Adonis' case, there was a sense of unfulfillment looming over his life. There is something about success unearned that feels wrong, incomplete. Adonis takes up boxing in this context not only to come to terms with the legacy of his father, but to prove himself worthy of it.

 The final shot of the film takes inspiration from the famous stair scene from the original Rocky, but shifts the tone of the scene. Rather than the victorious, competitive vibe coming from it in the Rocky films, Creed blends nostalgia with pride to create a moment, that closes an open wound left in the Rocky franchise. A product of the racial tension in the mid-late 20th century, Creed shifts the narrative into the 21st century by ending the film with a peaceful, optimistic, almost reconciliatory tone. The film comes to terms with it's past much like Adonis does, seizes the present, and looks forward to a brighter future.

Rocky: "just another bum from the neighborhood"

John G. Avilsden's Rocky is an iconic boxing film. An American classic. While they didn't reinvent the wheel when it comes to the typical boxer's story, Rocky still manages to contribute to the conversation that the boxing genre has opened.

The typical tale of a washed up underdog, Rocky follows the overarching narrative of a working class boxer, punching his way to success. He fits the mold cast by his predecessors. Where and why the film breaks this mold is where we can dig into the core of the film, and understand what sets it apart from other boxing films.

Context is crucial to understanding Rocky. Set during, and released during, the American Bicentennial, as well as the cold war, Rocky had a lot of pressure to be an All-American hero. Indeed, this aspect of Rocky is further explored in the sequels of the film, with the introduction of a Soviet boxer. It's no surprise then, that red, white and blue are a recurring motif throughout the film. Posters, shorts, lights, everything is red, white, and blue. The theme of American celebration runs strong through Rocky, but looking past the flashy, arranged event that is the main fight between Rocky and Apollo, we see a different side of America. We see the run down, but lively neighborhood's Rocky and friends live in, the store's they frequent, the gym's they train in. We see the inside of America's industrial backbone in the meat plant, and the luxurious home of Rocky Balboa. We are given a peak into a life that is peaceful and content, but often repetitive and slightly depressing. Rocky exposes the cracks in a society that was promised greatness, and delivered mediocrity.

You had the talent to become a good fighter, but instead of that, you become a leg-breaker to some cheap, second rate loan shark!

Rocky begins the film as the enforcer for a local loan shark. This unsavory occupation becomes a focal point for many of the films important conflicts. While being a "leg-breaker" is not usually considered an honorable profession, the film does not seem to be criticizing Rocky for his life choices, in fact it portrays Rocky as a sort of "righteous" debt-collector, who refuses to carry out needlessly cruel requests like breaking fingers and bones, or accept a victims clothes as compensation. Instead, when taken as a whole, the whole loan shark operation serves as a red flag for greater societal issues. A certain amount of poverty and desperation has to exist in a population before they start to turn to loan sharks for financial services. The overall sentiment of the film is expressed in the quote included above from Rocky's would-be trainer. Disappointment. He's not the only one who is disappointed, throughout the film, Rocky's friend Paulie constantly asks for help getting a job with the loan shark. Disillusioned with his job, his life, Paulie is willing to turn to less than legal means to achieve his goals. In the world of Rocky Balboa, the American Dream is not dead, but people are starting to get impatient.

"I can't haul meat no more"

This is perfectly exemplified in Paulie's confrontation with Rocky and Adrian. In his rage he rants about his frustration, with his job, with his family, with his marriage outlook. In this way, Paulie and Rocky are very similar characters, they both start the film "getting by", with Rocky responding to a criticism of his career by saying "it's a living". The film seems to be challenging Americans, like a mirror, it is reflected on us and shows us exactly what getting by and being complacent looks like.

"He doesn't know it's a damn show! He thinks it's a damn fight!"

That, is where Apollo Creed comes in. A man of spectacle, the spitting image of Muhammad Ali. Apollo is depicted as flashy, a showman.  Creed's role is two-fold, to serve both as an inspiration, and exciter, and also as a criticism of blind optimism and hubris. Creed reminds us of what America was supposed to be about, "do you believe America is the land of opportunity?". Creed is the American Dream incarnate, offering a shot at the world championship to some bum from Philadelphia. He reinvigorates the public, reminds to aim higher, to not be content. But Creed's optimism is two-sided. American to the point of satire, Creed can be seen as a criticism of the glorification of America on it's bicentennial, when we have previously observed the levels of poverty and mediocrity still present in the supposed "land of opportunity". Furthermore, Creed's optimism gets the better of him in the end.

Through Rocky, we see a third option. He rejects the complacency and laziness of Paulie(who undergoes a change in the end), and also the hubris of Apollo. Rocky reaffirms the American faith in hard work, and determination, epically summarized in a legendary montage. Rocky's goal isn't to win, but to prove to himself, and his family and community, that he can go the distance. That he's not "just another bum from the neighborhood". That in America, a nobody can be somebody, if they put in work. Do you believe America is the land of opportunity?