The MoFo Movie Club Discussion: Tyson

Tools    





As usual folks this is a spoiler free zone so feel free to chime in whatever your thoughts may be.

Tyson (James Toback - 2008)





I'm torn here. I watched "Iron" Mike Tyson's rise and fall live on my television for many years. He was the most explosive and devastating fighter I have ever seen, and before Ruffy takes this thread over telling me about all of the other supposedly "best evers" let me just say that I think Tyson in his prime (at about 20 years young) would have beat them all. Badly. He was that good. To me. Of course that is what debates are all about so let it begin anew eh Ruffster?

Now, on to the movie. I liked a lot of it. I was somewhat surprised by how well spoken Mike was. I found it somewhat disarming in a way. I went into this thing not really knowing anything about it. I had no idea that this was basically him talking for almost 90 minutes.

I really thought it was pretty interesting that he basically told us his whole formula for his success just a few minutes into the film when he said that he had a breathing problem, always has apparently and he also really didn't like to fight which is why he tried so hard to end his fights quickly. Something that he was quite successful at I might add. He didn't touch on this but I will. Of his first 28 fights he won 26 of them by knockout. 16 of those were in the first round. He was also the only man to ever unify all three of the titles and carry all three belts at the same time. Impressive in any fashion.

Obviously if this doc were just about his life in the ring it would be fairly uninteresting because what everyone really wants to know is: "Just how f*cking crazy is this guy anyway?"

I found that answer to be basically that he isn't any more crazier than most of the rest of us. Or perhaps, (as the cynic inside me pops in here) the majority of this soft spoken narrative is all an act. It's certainly feasible. He said several times all throughout how comfortable having money made him feel so its likely that this is in fact just another grab for some cash. If so, though, I would argue that he probably would have sold more DVD's if he spent most of his time ranting like the lunatic a lot of folks think he is. Maybe, maybe not.

Anyway, what did you think of him? Did you believe his sincerity? I admit, I did. Maybe that makes me a sucker. I don't know. I still want to believe that he didn't rape that woman that sent him to prison too and effectively ended a career that really, was barely just getting going. But, it's too late for all of that and his life has gone on and I think I believe him when he says all he really cares about now is his children. Do you?

I found several other things interesting but I'm not trying to write a novel here so I'll just go ahead and throw this open and chime in later.

DING!!! DING!!!
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



The People's Republic of Clogher
I haven't had the chance to watch Tyson again but will jot down a few things before I finally get round to it.

As a documentary feature it was pretty standard fare - One talking head and tons of archive footage. I don't think that it needed to be any more stylish or 'clever' but do think it would have benefited by someone who would give an alternative view.

It's all very well marketing something as "Tyson - In his own words" and it's commendable that he is blunt and honest about his failings but you just get the feeling that you're eavesdropping on a 90 minute therapy session with a crooked analyst.

I'm a boxing fan, and have been ever since I got bought those Muhammad Ali and Leon Spinks action figures as a kid in the 70s, so this might colour my views. Or it might not.

I think that the era Tyson briefly dominated is one of the most fascinating in boxing history, especially from a heavyweight perspective. They're not called 'the Lost Generation' for nothing, after all - almost every fighter who held the belt(s) during that period had a deep personal flaw which prevented them truly realising their talent:

Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon, Tyrell Biggs, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Dokes, Trevor Berbick, John Tate, Mike Weaver, Tyson himself and probably a few more made up this group.

With the exception of Iron Mike they'd win a belt then either forget to train, go on a coke binge, lose all their money, get banged up etc. Basically, the Lost Generation would do anything and everything to prevent themselves hanging on to the Heavyweight title for more than a few fights yet they were all extremely talented boxers, any one of whom would probably clean up the entire, dire division of today. If only they had been without their demons.

Don King gets a lot of flack (which would need to be discussed on a whole different forum) but I remember a quote from either a fighter or trainer (can't remember if it was in Tyson or somewhere else) which basically said - Don King may have been a lot of things but he didn't physically stop his boxers from training and didn't make them hoover up coke like it was going out of fashion.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that Tyson's legacy has taken a hit in recent years with people denouncing the guys he beat on the way to the top as a bunch of drugged-up has-beens. Well ... in the main they were, but not all the time and they still possessed enough raw skill to hand it to anyone on the night.

Tyson blew through them like a whirlwind.

This was aided by a combination of power, speed, naked aggression, being very difficult to hit. And gonorrhoea.

He was a maladjusted guy who happened to have a father figure in Cus D'Amato who he doted on and who doted on him. D'Amato died before Tyson lifted the Heavybelt belt but there was still enough influence there to keep him moving along the right track for a few years. I'm pretty sure that had the old trainer been there when Mike developed the first of his numerous personal problems things would have been different but, as it turned out, the next father figure in his life was Don King...

Enough of the boxing lesson - I'll talk about the film once I've seen it again.
__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan



I thought it was amazing , the question of whether he's being honest or not only adds to the appeal and power of the film itself. The editing of the archived footage was amazing , really top class stuff - very exciting.

It didn't linger on the same subjects too long , never became Tyson ranting about something - it always moving , Tyson doesn't just give his opinions , he tells his entire life story and he's a great storyteller - knowing just what details to give.
__________________



Registered User
I haven't had the chance to see Tyson but if it's half as good as you all say it is then i would love to see it.



Great review Powered, after seeing this last night I agree with most of your review except for this..

Anyway, what did you think of him? Did you believe his sincerity? I admit, I did. Maybe that makes me a sucker. I don't know. I still want to believe that he didn't rape that woman that sent him to prison too and effectively ended a career that really, was barely just getting going. But, it's too late for all of that and his life has gone on and I think I believe him when he says all he really cares about now is his children. Do you?
No I don't believe him, like you mentioned he'd do things for the money, I don't see how making a sympathetic documentary is any different. Hes an uneducated angry man who blames his actions on his 'hard life' and other people. If it wasn't for Cus D'Amato he would have most likely been just another violent hustler and never achieved anything. It is interesting to see and hear the story coming from him but I think it would have been more informative to hear the story from an unbiased viewpoint.
__________________






You guys ready to let the dogs out?
Hey guys, sorry I still haven't reviewed this, I've been really busy this last week or so, when i get a free hour I'll do a good full review of it.



Finally got my hands on a copy of Tyson and saw it over the weekend.

I understand why someone might be bothered by the fact that this isn't a terribly balanced portrait of the man, but I rather agree with what Roger Ebert said, which was basically that we've already heard the case against Mike Tyson, and this is pretty much the first time he's offered up his side of the story. From the ambush Robin Givens interview (which is, even if he was a terrible husband, a pretty messed up way to air your grievances) to the criticisms later in his career, he's never, forgive the phrasing, really hit back.

There's no doubt that he was a terrible person at times, but I'm pretty convinced that the circumstances were especially hazardous. He's still responsible for his actions, but I don't know how many of us would be well-behaved if we were on top of the world at 20 years of age, and came from such a rough-and-tumble upbringing. It doesn't excuse everything he did, but it certainly helps explain it.

Re: the rape case. I'm actually surprised that more hasn't been made of this. I won't pretend to know what really happened, but I will say that my first inclination might be to believe him, for one reason: he admitted to basically everything else. It seems a little odd that he would offer up such critical self-assessments, but stop short at the thing he's already been convicted of. This doesn't prove a thing, but it does make me wonder. I poked around a little to see what sort of evidence there was against him, but didn't see much in-depth analysis of the case and gave up quickly.

One thing I thought was interesting, and which my fiance mentioned, was that while his sentence structure was all out of whack, his vocabulary was pretty good. By and large the atypical words he used throughout the film were pretty much used correctly. He had moments of genuinely piercing insight, too. His analogy about boxers and birds, and how they can be in harmony right until the moment the food is scattered in front of them, was brilliantly apt. He's obviously got some bad, entrenched grammatical habits, but I think there's a fairly smart guy underneath all that.

Moving from the man to the film itself, I thought it was fairly well made. Wasn't nuts about the floating comic-book style panels (somebody must've been watching Ang Lee's Hulk). It was a little much at times, but the rest of the film was well edited. Tyson's commentary of each fight lined up with the action on-screen nicely, and I think the decision to exclude the other side of the conversation was a good one. This is his story in his own words, and it's surprisingly persuasive.

But really, how can we separate the quality of the documentary from the fascination with the man? We're not really reviewing a movie here, when you get down to it. We're reviewing a man's entire tumultuous life as if it were a Greek tragedy, and it kinda is. I walked away from this movie with an idea as to why he might have done the things he'd done, and given how inexplicable they seemed before, that's no small feat.

, maybe
.



The People's Republic of Clogher
The rape case is probably gonna be pretty difficult to discuss because I don't think there's any way of approaching it without getting into more general "was she asking for it?" territory.

Certainly there were a number of commentators at the time saying words to the effect of - What did the beauty queen who knocked on the hotel room door of the notorious womaniser in the middle of the night think was going to transpire? A cup of tea and a chat?

Of course, the counterpoint to that is the "No means no" argument. Would saying no to a randy Iron Mike in his bedroom have carried any weight?

We weren't there and Tyson was convicted of rape - that's probably as much as I'm comfortable saying.

You're right, Chris, we're reviewing a man here and not a film. I've always agreed with what your fiancée said: That Tyson is a surprising eloquent speaker and has been since I first saw him interviewed (so therefore don't think that this is a change brought about by incarceration, increased introspection now that he has retired or whatever). The 'Baddest Man on the Planet' schtick was 50% showbusiness and in a sport as brutal as boxing you're gonna take whatever psychological advantage any pre-fight boasting will give you.

I first saw the real man that night when he was beaten by Buster Douglas, and I remember it well. Here was a man on his knees looking totally lost and alone and everything he said in the documentary backed that up.

I still would have preferred some sort of countering to his viewpoint, though. I dunno about you but I rarely have Roger Ebert sitting on the couch beside me - He made a real mess the last time.

Crumbs and cigarette butts everywhere.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
OK, I just finished Tyson. I'm not going to go into what I personally know (or think I know) of the guy based on having watched dozens of his bouts and following the news down through the years though. If I were going to try to try to find a hook to discuss the film, I'd start with his apparent relationships with women and what he sees them as, since I feel there's a connection between that and the way he comes across as a scared little boy at times in the film (at least when he isn't calling out some "white ******y bitch" to step into his world over his use of the word "straitjacket").



Tyson says that he always wanted a lot of women (and that they even had a magnetic attraction towards him although he could have gotten that backwards), but as a youngster he never really had any, even before he started boxing. He also says that his family and friends were all promiscuous, including his mother who wasn't really there for him. Then, after Tyson lets his guard down a little, he talks about meeting a beautiful woman and following her into the bathroom where "I performed fellatio on her". Is this another Tyson slip because he does seem prone to make these slips but how many are Tysonian and how many are Freudian? I mean, what kind of skullduggery is he using here, I ask you? Then, as Yoda mentions, he sits there quietly while his wife badmouths him in front of Barbara Wawa, but his story was that he was playing it cool even while he was basically being goaded into lashing out. When they show the beauty pageant contestant footage, we can all see Tyson rubbing up against her and calling her beautiful. That was undoubtedly used as circumstantial evidence in his rape trial.



The bottom line seems to be that Tyson wanted women but he just didn't know how to deal with them, unless they were prostitutes. However, I find it very interesting that he married a woman who stood by him during his rape trial and prison term and they had two children before they divorced due to Tyson's adulteries. All told, Tyson has seven children (although one died), so he may truly be mellowing out in his old age. However, watching him have a meltdown in the ring (Holyfield II) or looking like a confused, lost child in the ring seems to have as much to do with his missing a faithful companion as it does from missing his long-gone Father (Cus) and Mother figures. The problem for Tyson, whether by nurture or nature, seems to be that he cannot really trust anybody and he cannot be sexually monogamous, so I hope he's able to find peace with himself and his world. I probably have a bit more respect for the man after watching the film, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I like him any more than I did. As far as director James Toback goes, I think his best work is the script to Bugsy, but considering that Toback shot this film in five days and then took a year to edit it, I'll send him some respect too. My rating:
.

Now, what about some of Tyson's throwaway lines? He seemed to think that when he was Champion that $20 million dollars was chicken (or is that pigeon?) feed. I believe that Tyson and/or Toback have seen On the Waterfront one too many times in reference to the pigeons. He also says he's taken advantage of women, but not the one of which he was convicted. What does that mean, exactly? Those decrepit old white ladies out in front of the Beverly Hills Hotel thinking he was some sort of a black heathen for stomping Don King's guts is a pip too.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I thought it was quite ambitious and surprisingly well realised. Tyson managed to stay interesting all through his life story, at least until towards the end, when the self-serving lies started drowning the rest of the story. Toback's decision to support (visually) Tyson's lies huge (about his victim Desiree Washington) and small (about the reasons for his meltdown- read 'cowardly surrender disguised as meltdown'- in the Holyfield rematch) was a poor one. In fact, nothing Toback did with the footage really added much, but it rarely took much away. There were some strange omissions- hardly a word on Tyson's mother and not a thing on Teddy Atlas, Kevin Rooney, Blood Green? And there could and should have been more on Tyson's declining years.

Nothing much here that wasn't already well-worn (the two new bits for me were the, um, state of Tyson's health when he fought Berbick, and the so-apt-it-sounds-made-up stomping of Don King), so the movie isn't really staying with me. Above average doc.



The rape case is probably gonna be pretty difficult to discuss because I don't think there's any way of approaching it without getting into more general "was she asking for it?" territory.

Certainly there were a number of commentators at the time saying words to the effect of - What did the beauty queen who knocked on the hotel room door of the notorious womaniser in the middle of the night think was going to transpire? A cup of tea and a chat?

Of course, the counterpoint to that is the "No means no" argument. Would saying no to a randy Iron Mike in his bedroom have carried any weight?

We weren't there and Tyson was convicted of rape - that's probably as much as I'm comfortable saying.
I agree. And even after going through my "well, he admitted to everything else, why would he lie about that?" thing, I have to admit it's still different, and Tyson probably realizes that it's a whole different class of admission. It's one thing to say you were stupid or angry, because the implication is always that you're different not. Those kinds of things you can leave behind, and let them become the property of a different incarnation of yourself. But if you murder someone, you're always going to be a murderer, and if you rape someone, you'll always be a rapist.

And, of course, it's entirely possible that she was every bit the opportunist he says, and he still raped her. I have no trouble believing that everyone involved may have behaved poorly. But you are entirely correct in that we'll never really know. Definitely fascinating to see how firmly he denied it, though.

You're right, Chris, we're reviewing a man here and not a film. I've always agreed with what your fiancée said: That Tyson is a surprising eloquent speaker and has been since I first saw him interviewed (so therefore don't think that this is a change brought about by incarceration, increased introspection now that he has retired or whatever). The 'Baddest Man on the Planet' schtick was 50% showbusiness and in a sport as brutal as boxing you're gonna take whatever psychological advantage any pre-fight boasting will give you.
I think one of the (many) things that makes Tyson so interesting is that he'd occasionally do or say something that made you wonder if it was less theater with him than it was with others. When he's convicted of rape, or says he wants to eat someone's children, or gets a tattoo on his face, or threatens to beat the crap out of a journalist, or bites someone's ear off, it makes you wonder if he's really as ferocious as the fight promoters had been telling us all along. I don't think he was, but I think these occasional hints that he might be are one of the things that set him apart. As exasperated as fans of sports may get when they think something is fake, that's how strongly they'll respond when they have reason to believe what they're seeing is finally real, I think.

I still would have preferred some sort of countering to his viewpoint, though. I dunno about you but I rarely have Roger Ebert sitting on the couch beside me - He made a real mess the last time.

Crumbs and cigarette butts everywhere.
I'm of both minds, I guess. I wanted the other side, too, but I also can't deny that I'd spent the last decade hearing about how messed up he was, and generally accepting it without much questioning. I guess I do want to hear the other side, but I didn't want it in this particular film. Who's up for making, I dunno, Holyfield?

By the by, that was the most interesting part of the film for me: the Holyfield stuff. I'd kinda heard a little about the head-butting thing, but the biting stuff had always been (for me) far and away the least explicable thing he'd never done. I can understand losing your temper, but I couldn't wrap my head around biting Holyfield twice. Now, I think I kind of can. It's still absurd and indefensible, but when Tyson finished, I found myself really wanting an explanation on the headbutting thing. I believe Tyson is being honest about how it affected him, and I think the video raises some questions about a) why it kept happening and b) why it was allowed to keep happening. He's still completely responsible for his reaction, but the whole thing did feel just a tad unfair, at least with this admittedly slanted account.



The People's Republic of Clogher

And, of course, it's entirely possible that she was every bit the opportunist he says, and he still raped her. I have no trouble believing that everyone involved may have behaved poorly. But you are entirely correct in that we'll never really know. Definitely fascinating to see how firmly he denied it, though.
I agree and, as you say, admitting to rape is a whole new ballgame.


I think one of the (many) things that makes Tyson so interesting is that he'd occasionally do or say something that made you wonder if it was less theater with him than it was with others. When he's convicted of rape, or says he wants to eat someone's children, or gets a tattoo on his face, or threatens to beat the crap out of a journalist, or bites someone's ear off, it makes you wonder if he's really as ferocious as the fight promoters had been telling us all along. I don't think he was, but I think these occasional hints that he might be are one of the things that set him apart. As exasperated as fans of sports may get when they think something is fake, that's how strongly they'll respond when they have reason to believe what they're seeing is finally real, I think.
I agree with this as well.

I should have explained it better when I said that I thought 50% of his schtick was showbusiness because I believe that 80%+ of other fighters' pre-fight publicity is purely to put bums (yep the word has a different meaning over here but I think it works both ways) on seats. It always makes me chuckle when I've followed a boxer from his early days and they suddenly turn into a trash-talking corner boy when faced with their first PPV fight.

I suppose it's the price we must pay when sporting contests become 'media events'.


I'm of both minds, I guess. I wanted the other side, too, but I also can't deny that I'd spent the last decade hearing about how messed up he was, and generally accepting it without much questioning. I guess I do want to hear the other side, but I didn't want it in this particular film. Who's up for making, I dunno, Holyfield?
Yep, a few of his contemporaries would have been nice. Berbick would have been interesting but he's no longer with us, as would Frank Bruno (no stranger to mental troubles himself sadly) who was generally considered the first pro to rock Tyson with a punch, although all that succeeded in doing was to make Iron Mike really mad.

By the by, that was the most interesting part of the film for me: the Holyfield stuff. I'd kinda heard a little about the head-butting thing, but the biting stuff had always been (for me) far and away the least explicable thing he'd never done. I can understand losing your temper, but I couldn't wrap my head around biting Holyfield twice. Now, I think I kind of can. It's still absurd and indefensible, but when Tyson finished, I found myself really wanting an explanation on the headbutting thing. I believe Tyson is being honest about how it affected him, and I think the video raises some questions about a) why it kept happening and b) why it was allowed to keep happening. He's still completely responsible for his reaction, but the whole thing did feel just a tad unfair, at least with this admittedly slanted account.
I think frustration - primal, Biblical frustration, played a big part in Tyson's mid-fight snack. If a fighter had led with his head a few years previously against the man he would have been met with a flurry of uppercuts and a trip to the local hospital but not any more. Not only was Tyson half the fighter he was but Holyfield (and Lennox Lewis) were more consistently talented then anyone he'd ever faced bar Larry Holmes, but these two guys were in their prime years. He's admitted to taking the Lewis fight purely for the money (which was where the baby-eating comments arose) and an admission like that kinda breaks my heart.

He was young enough to have regained his glory post-Buster Douglas but a combination of his aura of invincibility being shot and ... well ... what most of Tyson the movie deals with means that it was never gonna happen.

I'd have loved it if he had put at least his heart into the Lewis fight (which was embarrassingly one-sided) and left top level boxing maybe not with a win, because I think Lennox was the best Heavyweight of his generation, but with his head held high.

Someone like Bernard Hopkins is fighting at world championship level well into his 40s but I think this is because he still has the heart. Mike Tyson's heart is in pieces - One piece in Cus D'Amato's coffin; one piece in that Tokyo boxing ring; one piece in that hotel bedroom.