The Rocky Fallacy
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to The Rawness RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Last year, I went to see Rocky Balboa in the theaters. I’ve always loved Rocky movies, especially the first one, and I thought it was a great ending to the franchise. But as I sat there in the theater, it reminded me of how different it is to watch a Rocky movie with a crowd as opposed to watching it at home on TV. The energy from a Rocky crowd is both intense and infectious, almost like watching a real sporting event.
Stallone is very underrated as a writer and an actor. His ability to suck in a crowd emotionally and make them root for his character is incredible. You really get sucked into the movie and forget its fiction for a while. You really want all those assholes that put Rocky down and constantly ridicule him or try to crush his dreams to get their well-deserved comeuppance. You see Rocky struggling uphill against impossible odds and being shitted on by arrogant, petty jerks every step of the way and it reminds you of all the dreams you had or currently had that people shitted on. You see those arrogant assholes on the screen and get reminded of all those real-life pricks from your own experiences that just player hated from the sidelines of life and got great enjoyment watching your struggles and failures and twisted the knife and rubbed it in whenever they could.
But I started to wonder: does anyone watch Rocky and sympathize with the pricks? Same with those 80s movies where some obnoxious athlete bully, yuppie or preppy is ridiculing the underdog hero and trying to crush his dreams…does anyone watch those movies and identify with or even root for those guys over the underdog hero? Did anybody in the theater cheer when Johnny swept the leg in Karate Kid?
These types of bullies, peanut gallery picks and dream crushers must exist in some shape or form in the real world, or else these movies wouldn’t be so powerful in evoking emotion and recognition from us. And these movies are so popular and widely seen that it’s highly doubtful that jerks just avoid those movies, they have to be in the theater crowd or among the ones watching at home. Yet no one who watches these movies seems to ever think of themselves as the prick or bully. They all see themselves in the protaganist hero role, and that’s who they end up identifying with.
These movies appeal to our basic narcissism. We get to watch these movies and imagine ourselves as the hard-working dreamer. We get to imagine ourselves as the type of good, positive people who would chase a dream like Rocky against all odds, or at least be supportive of a Rocky and be on his side as he chases his dreams. But we conveniently forget all the times in real life that we were the criticizing, smug assholes, all the times we helped crush dreams. Those moments don’t support our positive fantasy image of ourselves, so we don’t pay much attention to those and play them down. We can go to a Rocky movie and think of Rocky as representing “us” and the sneering, condescending dream-crushing bad guys as representing “them,” but we can go to a restaurant that same night and crack jokes about the waiter and scoff at how stupid he is to actually think he’s going to make it as an actor along with the millions of other dreamers in town and ever be more than just a glorified grunt. The irony of these moments eludes us. A lot of times, the arrogant jerk is you.
See, the Rocky fallacy is simply this: it’s easy to root for an underdog when you already know beforehand that he’s going to win. This doesn’t make you a good person. It doesn’t give you moral superiority. It doesn’t mean you have faith in people (faith is belief in something, even when you have no proof or guarantees that your belief is warranted or will be rewarded). It doesn’t make you Rocky. It just makes you like the typical person. Those pompous jerk characters in the Rocky movie? They don’t know they’re in an inspirational feel-good movie called Rocky and that Rocky is the star of the whole thing. If they did they’d support Rocky from the very beginning just like the audience does.
When you watch The Pursuit of Happyness, it’s easy to have that sense of moral superiority by siding with Will Smith’s character…because you already know his risks are going to pay off. You feel good at the end because you feel your faith was rewarded and in some ways you feel your own urges to dream have somehow been validated, but truth be told you knew your belief in the character was going to be rewarded before even watching the movie. But in real life, you and your friends would probably badmouth and look down on someone in that situation at the bottom of his rope hoping against all odds to conquer the world of stocks.
Think about all those people who supported the Rocky character when watching the movies. How many of them scoffed at Stallone the actor when he had a string of flops and it seemed his career was washed up? How many of them laughed at him when he announced he was making a Rocky sequel, just like people laughed at Rocky when he tried to enter the big time after an unremarkable career as a washed up local boxer? That’s because unlike with the Rocky character, we had no guarantee Stallone would succeed in his comeback, and being supportive is always harder without guarantees.
I think this is why so many people hated Rocky V. It’s not the best in the franchise, that’s for sure. But when I saw it, I never thought it was as horrible as everyone claimed it was. It was as well-acted and well-written as any of the other installments. But now I realize why it received such backlash: because Rocky ended as a loser because he had no money or glory, despite winning the street fight. The faith the audience had was conditional: “we believe in you against all odds Rocky, and fuck any haters that say otherwise…unless you actually lose. Then we’ll turn on you too.”
Stallone made a fatal miscalculation with Rocky V: he overestimated the public and thought they “got” what he was trying to say all along. That the winning and the glory isn’t what matters, it’s never giving up the fight in the face of all adversity and being able to hold your head up at the end of the day knowing that you tried your hardest, regardless of the outcome. He had too much faith in his audience, not realizing that they never got that message. So he had to make a slight correction in Rocky Balboa and made Rocky a successful entrepreneur and gave him back some ring glory, and the fans all came back, once again buying into the myth that they were the kind of good guys that would never turn on someone for trying hard and ending up a loser.
Another great example of this is Eli Manning. Tons of people in New York made him a whipping boy for years. They laughed at how inferior he was to his brother Peyton. As he improved and stayed resolute and improved toward the end of the season, people gave a cautious optimism, but still scoffed at him to be safe. Even as the game progressed and he played almost flawlessly and the Giants were within striking distance to win the Superbowl, people I watched with kept saying “Oh man, he’s gonna choke. He’s a loser. Kiss this game goodbye. They’re gonna lose this, I know it was too good to be true.” And after that final play where Eli killed it and won the game, those people were jumping up and cheering the loudest. And I’ll never forget what one of those guys said: “WE WOOONNN!!!!! Whoooo!!!”
Think about that for a second. “They’re gonna lose.” “He’s a loser.” “He’s gonna choke.” But after he wins? “WE won!” Where was the “we” when the outcome was still in doubt? Why is it suddenly first person plural now? You can bet this guy is one of the people who watches Rocky and identifies with the underdog supporter and not the haters and jerks in the movie. And he’s wrong, because back in the real world if Eli starts off bad next season he’ll be the first badmouthing him again and calling his Superbowl win a fluke.
It takes a lot of character to support someone against all odds. It takes even more character to not be outcome-driven and still support them for trying hard even after they lose. Rocky movies provide us the risk-free comfort of fooling ourselves into believing we have that level of character and empathy and courage.
In reality though, that image of ourselves is often the most fictional part of the whole moviegoing experience.
(2 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
A-fucking-men.
Gosh, I cried throughout ‘Pursuit’. I identified with the hero not just the way I do Bruce Willis in Die-Hard or Frodo in LOTR, but in a real way. I’ve been in those situations. Sleeping in a subway. Unprepared for an interview or job. The embarrassment, anxiety, frustration and hurt.
And ur right. sympathy & empathy when you know the outcome is hollow.
I have a friend from boston who i argue with all the time about Sport-cheering. Perhaps because of the history of epic losing his outlook is different. He needs sure-things and can’t emotionally invest in doubt.
The joy, and for most people, is the victory through adversity. I love winning SuperBowl with less than the “best” QB or best team. I loved that my scrappy Knicks threw themselves in front of the unstoppaBULLS every year. We lost everytime, sure. But he never stopped trying and we took everything out of them in the process.
Even my Yankees had to overcome in-game and series deficits at the beginning of the dynasty.
What was so inspiring about these sports stories or movies like POH and Rocky is not just the victory despite the odds. Its the fact that it is the will of the underdog that does it. The “odds” represent all the external uncontrollable forces we all have in our lives. The “will” represents the chance that we can exert some form of resistance to those forces, and in some cases, overcome them.
This is why I think Batman is a much greater character than Superman. Superman was blessed with everything you could possibly need to succeed. Batman had to devote years of effort to acquire skills that he must constant practice to maintain. It’s a lifetime of super-human effort exercised by a simple human life.
Smash’s last blog post..The Soulless
and its funny. I do root for the bully in all but 3 of the Rockys.
My favorite is Rocky 3 and i’m with Clubber all the way. I think in some ways that was stallone’s biggest storytelling failure. why?
That was the one movie where Rocky didn’t start off as the underdog. You almost identify more with Clubber during the first third of the movie.
I suppose the middle third is suppose to villainize Clubber and degrade Rocky so much that the dynamic reverses, but I don’t think that happened. Atleast not enough. Your more satisfied with Rocky’s draw in the first two movies than you are with his outright victory in the third.
Entertainment-wise this movie is the best, mostly on the strength of T’s performance. But as far as allegorizing the dynamics of life that you are talking about…doesn’t happen.
Smash’s last blog post..The Soulless
Man, you hit this hard on calling people out.
The willingness to try and fight is more important that winning or defeat. I agree. I’m reminded of this passage from Hagakure concerning attempts at revenge….
“The way of revenge simply lies in forcing one’s way into a place and being cut down…… No matter if the enemy has thousands of men, there is a fulfillment in simply standing them off and being determined to cut them all down, starting from one end. YOu will finish with the greater part of it.
You win just for trying.
Also concerning Eli M… I don’t know why people slept on dude, I was like did you see the 4th quarter comebacks this guy had at ol Miss? E did it EVERY game like it was his job to bring them back. I saw him on sportcenter more times than any other college QB.
I’m really feeling this post cause I’m a Duke fan and people laughed at my team last year. I was like keep sleeping on Coach K like he wont re-up and come back to murder everybody….. people aren’t laughing anymore.
Smash - I haven’t seen most of the series in a long time except for the first Rocky and Rocky Balboa, so I’m going off of old memories that may be faulty. But I think I understand what Stallone was going for in Rocky 3. It’s flawed, but I do think I get it. Stallone was a guy who was kicked around by life a lot but had big dreams and never gave up on them. It’s pretty inspiring. For example when he sold the screenplay of Rocky, he sold it on the condition that he had to play the lead. If a studio wanted that script, they had to take him along with it. Very risky ploy for a guy that’s struggling. Most people would have just taken the money for the screenplay. But it was a risk that paid off and made him a star. The producers offered him $150,000 to let Ryan O’Neal play the part, big money in 1976. By comparison, he ended up earning only $23,000 for his work in Rocky.
He ends up getting an Academy Award for Best Picture and also earns two nominations for best screenplay and best actor. He becomes a huge star. And when you are poor and struggling for so long, I think suddenly making it rick can fuck with your head in so many unpredictable ways. Maybe he had guilt now that he made it, now that he was one of “them,” the rich, beautiful people, maybe he was wondering if he changed and forgot his roots, maybe he was afraid he lost his hunger. Maybe he felt like he lost a part of himself once he became successful that he never actually imagined he’d miss.
I think those were the issues he was grapping with in Rocky III. He didn’t want to write from the underdog standpoint anymore because that didn’t apply to him anymore. He had new issues, now that he was richer and successful, and he wanted to now work out those issues instead: is there inherent nobility in poverty? Is there inherent softness or evil in being rich? Can success make you lose your fire? Rocky already did the underdog thing and to go there again I think would have been lazy, so I think that’s why Stallone went the route he did.
So the issues he addresses…Is there an inherent nobility in poverty or being an underdog? No. Character gives you nobility, not just poverty. I think that’s why Clubber Lang was meant to show. There’s more to being Rocky than just being poor (a theme revisited with the Tommy Gunn character in Part V). Clubber Lang is Rocky minus the character. Does being rich inherently make you soft or evil? No. Once again, it comes down to character. Rocky’s problem is that he lost his fire, not that he became rich or successful. That’s why the song “Eye of the Tiger” is so important to the movie (a song written at the request of Stallone, not a premade song that was just bought for the movie).
I do think that by Part IV though, fun as that movie was, that was where Rocky really lost its way and got caught up in all the jingoistic and materialistic excesses of the 80s. I think that’s why Stallone went 180 degrees and stripped Rocky down financially for part V, much to the chagrin of the fans.
T.’s last blog post..The Rocky Fallacy
VK said:
That’s just brilliant. I wish I had that quote before I wrote this post, I would have included it. Worst part is, I’ve owned the Hagakure for years and just haven’t cracked it open yet.
You are very right man. And let me say, as my baseball team that I love so much is the Royals, one of the shittest teams in baseball, you see alot of people with no hope. They aren’t really saying to themselves, “Boy, I sure hope my team wins, even though by all rights I have no logical basis to think they will, since they haven’t all season.”
No, they say, “Yeah, fuck the Royals, the damn losers. How about them Red Sox! They’re kinda like underdogs…to the Yankees…except they’ve won 2 world series in 3 years.”
What I’m trying to say here is most people don’t really wanna root for the underdog, because they hate losing so much. The real fan, the real pride, comes from sticking with your people even at their lowest. That’s where the real pride comes from. Not being shallow.
T: Lemme start by saying that I agree with everything you said. The story of Rocky always mirrored the story of Stallone even up to this last film. And I think you are right in your analysis of the point of Rocky 3.
So I guess my criticism is not about storytelling choice but the execution of it. If that’s the story he wanted to tell and if those are the emotions and concepts we’re supposed to get enlightened too, why didn’t we? He did it so well for the emotiona beats and ideas of the first two movies and even in the last one. But really, short of wanting the more “familiar” character to win-we’re given no genuine reason to want Clubber to lose!
I think part of the reason was that Clubbber wasn’t villainized enough. In fact, thru the first 2/3rds we’re really only given reason to like him. He was hungry. Talented. Had the best lines and was the victim of injustice with the subplot of Mickey staging “tomato-can-fights” for Rock
I suppose the death of mickey was supposed to do it for us. but it was a complete accident. All Clubber wanted was a fair shake and when he got it he performed admirably. Why should we have hated him in the first fight or even in the second? It was obvious that he was physically superior to Rock. You’re telling me he lost HIS “eye of the tiger” in the span of six months?
It didn’t make any sense. The feelings we felt were artificially manufactured through the use of a great song from Survivor. If not for that we wouldn’t have cared if he won the title back.
The irony is that 3 is my favorite. But the fact that it is because i completely identify with the “villain” from start to finish is a testament to the failure of his story-telling.
Smash’s last blog post..The Soulless
Mox - Thanks for the kind words. You know, your comment about Red Sox fans brings to mind another type of fan I can’t stand…the one who consistently roots for underdogs not because they really love the underdog but because they just hate the bigger guy, the winner. Like with the Yankees, there are some fans who are die-hard Yankees fans and some who hop onto the bandwagon because they just want to be associated with a winner. Then on the Sox side there are some die-hard Sox fans who hung in there for decades, which is admirable, but there are also the bandwagon jumpers who are only fans because they hate the Yankees and want to see them get a comeuppance, who I can’t stand. Because they are more about hating winners than rewarding effort, this type of fan will probably eventually turn on the Red Sox too and accuse them of getting too big for their britches if they start winning “too many” World Series in the next couple of years.
Smash - I’ll be honest, I haven’t seen part 3 in so long that I forget many of the plot details you bring up now. Like I totally can’t remember the tomato can fight or the circumstances around Mickey’s death. But based on your descriptions, you make a good case. I have to rewatch and get back to you.
T.’s last blog post..The Rocky Fallacy
Smash - Actually the more I think about your description of Rocky 3, it makes me think of similar flaws in Superman Returns. They made the husband Richard AKA Cyclops way more likable and heroic than Superman. You ended up rooting for him more, as his behavior and status made him more of an underdog. (That guy must be kicking himself for taking a reduced role in X-Men 3 in order to appear in that bloated turd of a flick)
totally. There was little to dislike about Scott Summers besides his recent career choices.
But you know what’s weird? I really enjoy that movie.
I can’t explain why but I enjoy it. Though as a character I can’t stand him, especially in comparison to Batman, I’ll sit an rewatch it from any point in the flick though. And I don’t have a yearn to rewatch batman.
I think it has something to do with the Superman Mythos. I think good superman stories can’t be about Superman fighting people. He’s super.
what’s interesting is the circumstances and people surrounding him. I think that movie did an adequate job with that. Almost as if Ang Lee directed it.
But I also didn’t completely dislike the Hulk movie. I’m a big fan of the use of silence and space to tell a story. That’s why I love Miles Davis and why I also thought “Way of the Gun” was a brilliant movie.
you’ve just inspired my next post.
Smash’s last blog post..The Soulless
I hate Superman Returns. Overwrought angst, pretentious Christ metaphors, mopey emo googly eyes at a Lois Lane that looks like a 14 year old valley girl, a main character that looks like a manchild more than a man (seriously, he looks like Jason Schwarzmann, the guy from Rushmore, on creatine more than he looks like Superman), plot holes galore. A recycling of the Lex Luthor real estate plot from Superman I.
Not to mention general scumbag behavior by Superman and Lois. Lois sleeps with Richard so close to when she last slept with Superman that she can lie about the paternity? And obviously both with out condoms if either one can be the father. HO. Then she lets a decent guy think he’s the father of the child for years? Then Superman, after stalking her the whole movie like a creep, keeps the secret from Richard too? Richard is more heroic and decent than ANYBODY in this movie. I also found Batman Begins to be dull as hell too.
Gosh, you really got me talking about this. I have a wealth of opinion on this because I consider Rocky 3 one of my alltime favorite movies, if only for Mr.T’s soundbites.
But I’m sitting here thinking about what sly (who i agree is a pretty good screenwriter. “Rocky” was brilliant) could have done differently. Changing the third act fo the movie isn’t enough. The victory as told doesn’t work for the reasons outlined.
Having it end in a Rocky loss or draw, while more believable, had already been done twice.
Really the only thing to do is make Clubber less likable. Unfortunately for me I love the character as is, but for the purposes of Rocky’s story arc it would have to be done.
You know what? I’ll tell you EXACTLY what he should have done! (and i grant that this easier with the benefit of hindsight)
Rocky 2 should have been about Apollo’s story as well as Rocky’s!
The character beats for Rock in the second movie were fine, almost pitch perfect, but what about Apollo’s “lost eye”?
i’m thinking they could have transplanted Rocky’s story arc from “3″ onto Apollo in “2″
Same stories getting told, but across two characters in one movie as oppsed to one character in two. And isn’t that what life is? Isn’t the world at any given moment, THAT rich in story.
Being a sequel, the grander story would not have been out of step and the rematch would have been all the more epic after our investment in TWO noble characters. Rocky’s “one-second victory” would’ve properly reconciled BOTH plotlines.
They both would be “true champions”
This also would have left room for the 3rd movie to be the FINAL movie following a similar plot of “Balboa”.
eh. i’ve said enough about this.
Smash’s last blog post..The Soulless
yeah. you’re right about superman. I forgot about all the messiah-hooey!
I think alot of that is just built into the character but I suppose it didn’t have to be SO overdone.
As for Lois, She IS a skank! she always has been. She’s always smoked. Always been impulsive and she’s always been a “star-fucker”.
I mean, everyone knows Supes is an alien but she still wants to hit that? All the while being dismissive and condescending to “Clark”?
i wouldn’t put it past her to fuck some dude a month after Superman dipped. She was prolly mad he “hit it and quit it.”
What’s she gonna do? tell the boy scout? No way was she risking her silver medal when she had no reason to think Supes would return.
This is what women do! Didn’t we discuss this in a previous post?
Smash’s last blog post..The Soulless
I think I’m probably the only person alive who hasn’t seen a Rocky movie, but I can still appreciate your post!
And I never thought I’d say this, but after watching that video at the end there, I think I’m gonna have to declare Sly Stallone my new motivational speaker.
Smash - I don’t think the whole messiah stuff is built into the character, I think it’s a role pretentious overreaching writers try to shoehorn the character into. Superman, to me, as originally conceived, is the assimilated immigrant Jew that’s done good in America and supports FDR’s New Deal policies. That’s it. Because that’s what his creators were. Assimilated Jews. They weren;t interested in doing Christ-figures I’d say.
B-and-B - I changed the clip to a longer one. Watch it again, I think it’s even more powerful now.