Perfect, but you skipped over my absolute favorite moment of the film. Adrian sneaks into the ring and, before they kiss, he asks, “Where’s your hat?!” Through swollen mostly closed eyes, rendered near useless from having GONE THE DISTANCE with Creed, he still sees her and notices that her hat has fallen off.
Your recapitulation of this film made me cry as it delivered and amplified its original impact on me. Thank you for bringing it back into my attention. I was 15 years old when it was released and it injected the spirit of my youth with rocket fuel. I happened to visit Philly just a few months later as a young actor in my first touring experience. Me and a few cast mates ran up those steps to throw our fists in the air. You capture how Rocky isn't really a story at all. It's the root of us laid real and bare and raw. Truly extraordinary.
For me the greatest moment in the movie is Talia Shire burning the screen off of the wall with her “I’m not a loser!” speech. He can’t talk, but she can talk for him; for all of us, and it’s magnificent.
“He doesn’t need to win. He just needs to go the distance.” Years ago I ran the Peachtree Atlanta Roadrace. Toward the end the “Rocky” theme came blaring out an apartment window to inspire us toward the finish line. I’ve never forgotten that moment and that movie still inspires. Thank you for your review and yes, Sylvester Stallone was perfect for the role in “Rocky.” The image of him standing and punching iconic.
Thanks for this essay - your writing illuminates what's most important and appealing about that classic movie. I think that it says something positive about the moviegoers of the time that audiences embraced Rocky despite the fact that he's the opposite of glib or glamorous. We can barely understand what Rocky's saying most of the time, his love interest isn't at all glamorous, Pauly struggles to express his emotions like an adult, Mickey is kind of pathetic, but we root for them all anyway.
I always loved that Rocky's victory was in fighting the fight and going the distance. He loses to Apollo, but no one really cares about that. All kinds of credit goes to audiences for embracing him (and to the one judge whose card gave Rocky the split decision).
I thought of this character as a family member - Apollo's brother or maybe a cousin who still felt empowered to tell him the truth and give him a warning not to overlook Rocky. A true groupie would have just mocked Rocky and told Apollo that he was the greatest and that nothing could threaten him.
Well written and gets to the heart of why Rocky is so unique. It was an indie film before that was an aesthetic. I do wonder how you would account for the fact that this story itself was only legible because its plot lifted from the Ali/Wepner fight. There was already a form for Stallone to point to. If the movie was only about him fighting some regional champ just so he could get enough money to buy a house for Adrian and him, it wouldn't have been made.
Naturally. I just think that this one very important thing—the fact that Stallone lifted plot from a real event and used the real fighters names to promote the movie (enough for Wepner to win a lawsuit)—undermines your thesis about the film being illegible as a whole. It was about an illegible person played by an illegible actor, sure, but it was framed by a legible, highly public event audiences surely knew of—getting Joe Frazier, Ali's rival, to be in the movie couldn't have signaled it more.
Not really. The event that Apollo thinks of in the film, inspired by the Joe Frazier thing, is perfectly legible by design in the Rocky script. A legible element does not make Stallone or Rocky legible. The tension between the two, actually, is what makes the film meaningful and powerful.
I don't know what you mean by the event Apollo talks about, but it seems you're moving the goalposts a bit. No, one legible or illegible element doesn't make a film be fully either way. Many overly legible, focus grouped media products fail because they are cynically trying to cater to expectations. But essay indicates you were arguing otherwise. And though I agree with the idea you intimate now, I don't recall your thesis being something like "Rocky's relative illegibility within a readymade context is what makes this film particularly resonant."
I'm saying that you said Stallone didn't have structure to build on. You write: "It’s important to note that he isn’t doing what Lucas did. He’s not studying the circle graph and retroactively reconstructing something legible and abstract."
I'm saying the Wepner fight held the abstract dynamic Stallone studied, which he knew would make his story successful. He was not unlike Lucas completely. Stallone's story wasn't married to a readymade legible structure to the degree that the Hero's Journey would make it, but it resonated with a sort of strain of the monomyth anyway: an underdog success against overwhelming odds. Sort of like a ragtag group of rebels (Mick=Obi-Wan) succeeding vs the machine of the Death Star and Vader.
So, again, my position is that without this element of the Wepner/Ali fight to win over studios, the film probably wouldn't have been made or at least not been more than another B movie, and Stallone knew that. That makes the film less illegible than your thesis admits, even if the story is rooted in illegible people moving into legibility (so is Star Wars). I love the themes you mentioned, and think you're right in the sense that it's more illegible than most masterpieces, but I'm saying it wouldn't be the success it is without its key element of legibility, which, again, you are seemingly hinting at now, though your essay didn't (outright) say this.
Well, I did explicitly mention the legibility of Apollo's event idea (which you brought up was inspired by a real-life event) in the essay as being a microcosm of the broader context of Hollywood and as being a foil to the illegibility of Rocky and the larger part of the film. At any rate, I don't really believe in arguing about this sort of thing - I just want to be clear about what I said in the essay. You can think whatever you like.
I do appreciate the comment, though. Another thought: The monomyth was built on the backs of thousands of years of intuitive storytelling. There is no clean distinctions to be made here, only matters of degree.
I see what you mean now—I thought you were talking about some real event related to Joe Frazier that audiences would get (Ali's rivalry). But yes the event Apollo mentions is accounting for the illegibility of Rocky, sure. However, that's within the film, not outside it. Apollo doesn't say "Remember Ali/Wepner?" So I'm saying your thesis, which your title sums up, doesn't admit that outside of the film there was a recently successful structure Stallone already used that makes the story more specifically legible to Hollywood/audiences. That's why they didn't want to cast Stallone but still make the movie, right?
Anyway, look, I've been agreeing with you as a whole, I just thought you overlooked a key point that shows there is a more subtle dynamic going on here. If you don't want to engage any deeper, I get it. The essay is popping off enough without you needing my analysis.
Perfect, but you skipped over my absolute favorite moment of the film. Adrian sneaks into the ring and, before they kiss, he asks, “Where’s your hat?!” Through swollen mostly closed eyes, rendered near useless from having GONE THE DISTANCE with Creed, he still sees her and notices that her hat has fallen off.
Beautiful.
Your recapitulation of this film made me cry as it delivered and amplified its original impact on me. Thank you for bringing it back into my attention. I was 15 years old when it was released and it injected the spirit of my youth with rocket fuel. I happened to visit Philly just a few months later as a young actor in my first touring experience. Me and a few cast mates ran up those steps to throw our fists in the air. You capture how Rocky isn't really a story at all. It's the root of us laid real and bare and raw. Truly extraordinary.
So glad to hear this, Rick.
This may be the best essay about a movie I have ever read.
Bragging about this comment, thanks, ha.
RIGHT?! I'm in tears, this is brilliant!!
For me the greatest moment in the movie is Talia Shire burning the screen off of the wall with her “I’m not a loser!” speech. He can’t talk, but she can talk for him; for all of us, and it’s magnificent.
Tears
Stoked! Gonna fly now.
Trying hard now...
This whole embodiment thing is really vivid and real and you write about it better than anyone here, thanks for doing this
Thanks for the kind words - more to come.
“He doesn’t need to win. He just needs to go the distance.” Years ago I ran the Peachtree Atlanta Roadrace. Toward the end the “Rocky” theme came blaring out an apartment window to inspire us toward the finish line. I’ve never forgotten that moment and that movie still inspires. Thank you for your review and yes, Sylvester Stallone was perfect for the role in “Rocky.” The image of him standing and punching iconic.
Thanks for this essay - your writing illuminates what's most important and appealing about that classic movie. I think that it says something positive about the moviegoers of the time that audiences embraced Rocky despite the fact that he's the opposite of glib or glamorous. We can barely understand what Rocky's saying most of the time, his love interest isn't at all glamorous, Pauly struggles to express his emotions like an adult, Mickey is kind of pathetic, but we root for them all anyway.
I always loved that Rocky's victory was in fighting the fight and going the distance. He loses to Apollo, but no one really cares about that. All kinds of credit goes to audiences for embracing him (and to the one judge whose card gave Rocky the split decision).
I never saw that character as "Apollo's Groupie", he seemed to me to be an old neighborhood friend whose advice was no longer heeded.
I think that fits the definition of groupie
I thought of this character as a family member - Apollo's brother or maybe a cousin who still felt empowered to tell him the truth and give him a warning not to overlook Rocky. A true groupie would have just mocked Rocky and told Apollo that he was the greatest and that nothing could threaten him.
Yah everyone else just wanted a piece of the pie
WOW. With capital letters. This is the most stupendously amazing review I ever read. Of any thing.
That's huge, thank you!
Thanks for this. It’s a new perspective I hadn’t realised was there. (But should have! All the beats match up. I hate missing big obvious clues. 😅)
It was fun to find!
Well written and gets to the heart of why Rocky is so unique. It was an indie film before that was an aesthetic. I do wonder how you would account for the fact that this story itself was only legible because its plot lifted from the Ali/Wepner fight. There was already a form for Stallone to point to. If the movie was only about him fighting some regional champ just so he could get enough money to buy a house for Adrian and him, it wouldn't have been made.
You will find that there are many, many "without this one thing it wouldn't exist" instances for anything creative and complex like a movie.
Naturally. I just think that this one very important thing—the fact that Stallone lifted plot from a real event and used the real fighters names to promote the movie (enough for Wepner to win a lawsuit)—undermines your thesis about the film being illegible as a whole. It was about an illegible person played by an illegible actor, sure, but it was framed by a legible, highly public event audiences surely knew of—getting Joe Frazier, Ali's rival, to be in the movie couldn't have signaled it more.
Not really. The event that Apollo thinks of in the film, inspired by the Joe Frazier thing, is perfectly legible by design in the Rocky script. A legible element does not make Stallone or Rocky legible. The tension between the two, actually, is what makes the film meaningful and powerful.
I don't know what you mean by the event Apollo talks about, but it seems you're moving the goalposts a bit. No, one legible or illegible element doesn't make a film be fully either way. Many overly legible, focus grouped media products fail because they are cynically trying to cater to expectations. But essay indicates you were arguing otherwise. And though I agree with the idea you intimate now, I don't recall your thesis being something like "Rocky's relative illegibility within a readymade context is what makes this film particularly resonant."
I'm saying that you said Stallone didn't have structure to build on. You write: "It’s important to note that he isn’t doing what Lucas did. He’s not studying the circle graph and retroactively reconstructing something legible and abstract."
I'm saying the Wepner fight held the abstract dynamic Stallone studied, which he knew would make his story successful. He was not unlike Lucas completely. Stallone's story wasn't married to a readymade legible structure to the degree that the Hero's Journey would make it, but it resonated with a sort of strain of the monomyth anyway: an underdog success against overwhelming odds. Sort of like a ragtag group of rebels (Mick=Obi-Wan) succeeding vs the machine of the Death Star and Vader.
So, again, my position is that without this element of the Wepner/Ali fight to win over studios, the film probably wouldn't have been made or at least not been more than another B movie, and Stallone knew that. That makes the film less illegible than your thesis admits, even if the story is rooted in illegible people moving into legibility (so is Star Wars). I love the themes you mentioned, and think you're right in the sense that it's more illegible than most masterpieces, but I'm saying it wouldn't be the success it is without its key element of legibility, which, again, you are seemingly hinting at now, though your essay didn't (outright) say this.
Well, I did explicitly mention the legibility of Apollo's event idea (which you brought up was inspired by a real-life event) in the essay as being a microcosm of the broader context of Hollywood and as being a foil to the illegibility of Rocky and the larger part of the film. At any rate, I don't really believe in arguing about this sort of thing - I just want to be clear about what I said in the essay. You can think whatever you like.
I do appreciate the comment, though. Another thought: The monomyth was built on the backs of thousands of years of intuitive storytelling. There is no clean distinctions to be made here, only matters of degree.
I see what you mean now—I thought you were talking about some real event related to Joe Frazier that audiences would get (Ali's rivalry). But yes the event Apollo mentions is accounting for the illegibility of Rocky, sure. However, that's within the film, not outside it. Apollo doesn't say "Remember Ali/Wepner?" So I'm saying your thesis, which your title sums up, doesn't admit that outside of the film there was a recently successful structure Stallone already used that makes the story more specifically legible to Hollywood/audiences. That's why they didn't want to cast Stallone but still make the movie, right?
Anyway, look, I've been agreeing with you as a whole, I just thought you overlooked a key point that shows there is a more subtle dynamic going on here. If you don't want to engage any deeper, I get it. The essay is popping off enough without you needing my analysis.