Southpaw

In his screenwriting debut, Kurt Sutter knocks out originality in the first round. (Everything important is actually revealed in the opening credits, based on which it isn’t hard to figure out that Whitaker will play a more important role than Rachel McAdams, so you end up just waiting for him to appear on the scene and wondering whether he will actually play the role that logically suits him.) The initial plot twist, which is given away in the trailer, is followed by a textbook story of redemption and second chances. The protagonist must first sink to the bottom in order to get back on his feet, find his inner balance and take on the antagonist. Partial successes in the sports storyline are dampened by failures in the relationship storyline (the estranged daughter) so that the protagonist still has something to contend with and the viewer is still “hooked”. Southpaw is different from the first Rocky only in that the rise of the boxer, who doesn’t fight for the heart of his beloved, but for his daughter’s trust, begins after he goes from riches to rags. It is not clear whether Sutter, who comes from a poor family, intended to say that real boxers don’t fight for fame, but for the love of the sport. Billy obviously does not plan to find contentment in training boys from the poor side of town for the rest of his life. The film is equally uncritical with respect to the self-destructive nature of fighting sports (not only in comparison with Raging Bull and the recent Foxcatcher). Thanks to the journalistically intrusive camerawork and Jake Gyllenhaal’s naturalistic acting, the matches are unpleasantly violent, but they mainly result in catharsis rather than pain. Or once a fighter, always a fighter. I fully understand and recognise the existence of such self-actualising and self-affirming melodramas, especially when they aren’t offensively stupid and there isn’t much to fault them for with respect to craftsmanship and narrative, but I also wonder what good another variation on the same theme and the same formula is in the long-term perspective other than to garner Oscar nominations for a few actors. Particularly in the case of the aloof Whitaker, who is starting to play similar personifications of old age and wisdom as Clint Eastwood (whose Million Dollar Baby offers a much less gratuitous plot twist), it wouldn’t bother me if it went no further than a nomination. Gyllenhaal sometimes tries too hard for an award. Just like the Southpaw itself. 60% (22/07/2015)

Jake Gyllenhaal was the reason why I watched this movie, but I was a bit worried about the director. Antoine Fuqua makes technically sound movies. So, the action sequences usually work out well. But it’s worse when it comes to emotions, dialogues and all other scenes that contain no action. In other words, most of the movie. Antione fails terribly at that and I actually thought I wasn’t going to be able to finish the movie and that I was going to go to bed instead. I haven’t seen such a boring and worthless movie for a long time. There are plenty of boxing dramas and I think every single one of them was better than Southpaw. (15/09/2015)

I guess I haven't seen any boxing movies yet, but I was still able to guess which character would be in which type of shot TEN MINUTES IN ADVANCE! So, thanks a bunch, Kurt. It's more interesting to watch Fuqua being able to handle this assignment with alternating formal styles. The documentary "talking heads", zoomed in camera during big fights, changing the focus between multiple actors, the hand-held close-ups on faces and dark toning as the hero writhes at rock bottom, and then that quiet simple classic montage style of preparing for the climax. This actually subtly tells you what the film should have been about in the first place, because it seems to me that Hollywood is currently over-indulging in whiny whiny whiners, however much they're played by Oscar-chasing aces like Gyllenhaal. Which is actually kind of funny, because I think the little girl is outperforming everybody. (12/11/2015)

Why does everybody give Southpaw three stars? Because it’s fine in terms of craftsmanship, it has quite a few emotionally tense moments, the ring scenes are very naturalistic thanks to the contact camerawork, and the two outstanding actors, Jake Gyllenhaal and Forest Whitaker, wring their talents to the last drop of sweat and blood. But why only three stars? Because nothing happens that we wouldn’t have expected in advance today (the only seemingly surprising twist is revealed in the distributor's blurb). After all, "fine in terms of craftsmanship" today is any project with such budget and cast, and then if we were to put this film’s level of emotion on some imaginary ring facing Warrior, the mentally unstable champion Billy Hope, his cliché-ridden sporting and moral reboot, and the routine Uncle Fugua would all walk away ignominiously defeated by a painful knockout. Good ol’ three stars… ;) (16/09/2015)

Simply said, when the actor and director are on completely different level in terms of quality. While Gyllenhaal’s performance is brilliant and he is even "aiming for Oscar", Fuqua only makes just another everyday consumer version of the thousand-times-seen boxing B-movie melodrama, in which perhaps all genre clichés are present; just often in a non-functional style. It also strangely tends to fade away, because it starts with by far the best scene and then it only gets worse especially after falling to the bottom, when the true values are revealed and the after getting at its height again. It's kind of sad when the opening match has a driving force, energy and charge and the final one has nothing. It holds together only thanks to Gyllenhaal’s performance, but as I mentioned, his excellent performance seems almost inappropriate in this movie. (21/07/2015)