In 2019, Martin Scorcese did an interview with the New York Times in which he expanded upon his comments from earlier in the year about modern Marvel movies. He claimed that for him, Marvel movies could not be classed as ‘cinema’, as they do not have a focus on revelation and are not inherently about people relating to other people. They are more like theme parks, a promise of a simple entertainment experience, aesthetically pleasing, accessible and devoid of challenge. It is an opinion I don’t entirely agree or disagree with. I, like Scorcese, am not against the existence of franchises, and I am not incapable of enjoying a Marvel film. But I share in his concerns about the dominance of the big budget franchise in Hollywood now.
Creed 3 is the ninth instalment in the Rocky franchise. Michael B. Jordan is back as Adonis Creed, now the super successful heavy weight boxing champion. He is retired from boxing, focusing on his family and running his own gym. Then, a threat arrives in the form of Johnothan Majors playing Dime, a childhood mentor of Creed who was locked up on a gun charge, an incident that Creed was present for. Fresh out of prison, Dime is looking to get back into boxing despite his age, and claim the title he feels is rightfully his. His resentment of Creed has crystalised while in prison, as he feels robbed of the life that should have been his own. Sylvester Stallone as Rocky is conspicuously absent from the film, without explanation.
The focus of this film is Creed overcoming a kind of toxic masculinity. In facing Dime, he has to confront guilt and trauma from his past and open up to his wife about his emotions. This is a healthy and responsible focus for the writers to take, and it brings the franchise in line with contemporary social values nicely. The problem is that the message is somewhat undermined by the manifestation of this conflict within Creed being a boxing match where he beats Dime unconscious in front of half the world.
I’m not complaining about violence in a boxing movie. I’m complaining that they’re all the same. The structure for all three Creed’s, and for the Rocky’s that came before, are all largely identical. No matter the story they’re trying to tell or the commentary they’re trying to make, they’re always gearing up towards the fight at the end, and in that way they’re nothing more than dramatized boxing bouts. Southpaw, with Jake Gyllenhaal is another example. There’s the stasis, then the disruption with a threat, (a new opponent) then some time is spent on making you hate the other guy, then the training montage, then the climactic fight and ultimate victory of the hero. Creed 3 checks all the boxes, following the formula lazily. Any tension and action that could be exciting is removed by repetitive predictability.
I understand that a boxing movie, by it's very nature has to have a boxing match in there somewhere, but there is a way to do it well. The Fighter, with Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale stands out for me as a boxing movie that does not conform to the same tiresome structure. It’s a biopic, and thus tells the real story of people relating to other people, the struggles in the community of Lowell and an individuals escape through sport. Creed 3 had an enormous budget, and could have explored any number of fresh creative avenues. However, being a franchise, it is restricted to being formulaic and digestible.
That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
-Martin Scorsese
If this is state of cinema, what can we expect from the stories that being produced? How many original ideas with the potential to make a powerful impact are being smothered before they can even begin by the dominance of the big budget franchise? Any base entertainment value that I could have taken from Creed 3 is tainted by my frustration and concern for the wider industry, and the unique cinema experiences I could be having that are being eclipsed by another tiresome remake.
Comments