Is it a mockumentary if it isn’t mocking anything? This is the question I started to ask myself while trying to classify Director Robert Kolodny’s unconventional biopic (and feature film debut) of the great (perhaps the greatest) featherweight boxer Guglielmo Papaleo, better known as Willie Pep. Most of the time when a film or show is shot as a faux documentary, it’s typically a comedy like The Office, or, on occasion, a horror/sci-fi film like District 9. I racked my brain, asked my editor, and searched the internet for a straight drama or biopic that took the same approach as Koldony. While I found some titles here and there that might qualify, they are so unknown to me (and I’m guessing most others) that I essentially came up empty.
At first, I was disarmed by the approach and worried that the film would lack narrative flow, but once I settled in, I quickly understood why The Featherweight received a 5-minute standing ovation at last year’s Venice Film Festival: it’s a knockout. And yeah, that description may be a little too cute, but it’s also fitting for an uncompromising film that is willing to challenge the viewer while delivering the goods.
When we meet Pep (a tremendous James Madio), it’s 1964, he’s 42 years old and considering a sure-to-be ill-advised comeback attempt. Aside from the fact that Pep is middle-aged and six years into retirement, which brings him no pleasure, he is a boxer who has fought an astounding 230 times over his professional career. Just to give you an example of how remarkable that number is, Muhammad Ali, a very active fighter (outside of the three years he was exiled from the sport for refusing to enter the draft during the Vietnam War), only fought sixty-one professional fights until he hung up his gloves for good. Pep’s final total of 229 wins (out of 241 fights) is still the most by any boxer whose career started after 1940. The damage that his body and mind must have taken by the time he first quit boxing at the age of thirty-six is nearly impossible to comprehend.
So why would Pep, on the edge of going gray, even consider returning to the ring? Kolodny’s film posits two reasons. The first one is the most obvious, and sadly, a common story for most boxers, no matter how successful they were: money. At one point in the film, Pep states, “I made 1.2 million dollars as a boxer. I spent 1.3.” Pep is on his fourth marriage to a hopeful starlet (very well played by Ruby Wolf), and her unlikely prospects of becoming a famous actress are far more optimistic than the survival of their union. Pep laments mid-film, that his three previous wives married him for his name. “I kept the name, they kept the money,” he says. Pep is also saddled with a junkie son (played unflinchingly by Keir Gilchrist), who seemingly hates everything but smack.
No sport prepares you less for a post-athletic life than boxing. Most fighters come from bleak conditions, often lack education beyond high school, and then spend their entire careers getting hit in the face. As you might guess, a life lived as such is not good for the brain and seldom leads to a fruitful post-boxing career as anything other than maybe a commentator or a trainer–as long as your marbles stay in the bag. There’s a painfully honest depiction of Pep interviewing for a job as a hotel manager, and even with a sympathetic hiring manager sitting across the desk from him, the only position he has to offer Pep requires him to move out of his Hartford, Connecticut home and would pay him a salary that Pep considers an insult.
But there’s a second reason why Pep is looking to shake off six years of ring rust and risk his health by getting back into the ring…he wants to. For far too many athletes–even those in less demanding sports–you only matter to others while you can perform, which also often means you only matter to yourself while you can perform. Pep is no different. He wants to matter. In a film that is shot in a very “you are there” fashion, the screenplay (by Steve Loff) works in some crushing lines. Perhaps none more so than “How you know you’re a fighter? First, you lose your legs, then you lose your money, then you lose your friends.”
Pep is down to two friends: his old trainer Bill Gore (a pitch-perfect Stephen Lang) and his long-suffering manager Bob Kaplan (Ron Livingston, whose recognizable presence is one of the few reminders you are watching a movie). Both take pity on him. Gore half-heartedly works with Pep to get him ring-ready but makes him prove himself in a sparring session that reaches a humiliating conclusion. Kaplan books nostalgia engagements with Pep’s greatest ring adversary Sandy Sadler (The Wire’s Lawrence Gilliard Jr. in quietly wrenching and effective form), and sells off Pep’s prized possessions to “fans” who want a piece of Pep they don’t deserve.
There’s only one place Pep feels relevant. The place that causes him the most physical pain but the least amount of heartache is the “squared circle” as it is known if you’re a boxing devotee. And despite his age, diminished skill set, and the pounding he is sure to be given by his opponent, Pep does return to the ring. It’s cliché for boxing films to end with a big fight, but that’s not exactly what The Featherweight does. The Featherweight ends with a small fight. There is no world title at stake. The crowd is sizable enough, but nowhere near the draw of Pep’s salad days. Pep is in his element though, and that is more important than anything else to him.
The film tells two tales of addiction: that of Pep’s son, and that of Pep’s reason for being. To fight. I don’t think it’s an accident that the song playing over the closing credits is an acoustic version of Lou Reed’s Heroin.
Heroin, be the death of me
Heroin, it’s my wife and it’s my life
Because a mainline to my vein
Leads to a center in my head
And then I’m better off than dead
Boxing is Willie Pep’s heroin.
I would be terribly remiss if I didn’t speak more about James Madio’s performance as Pep. Madio shot this film while he was approaching fifty. Over a thirty-three-year career, Madio has garnered seventy-two credits. He’s one of those actors you know you’ve seen in something, but you may not be sure what. Actors can go their whole lives without scoring a role like this one. Madio waited nearly half a century. But when the opportunity finally came to his door he answered the bell. And as you see Madio as Pep, late in the film, smiling through a bloody mouthguard, the film serves both as a cautionary tale of a man who couldn’t stop, and a triumph for an actor who didn’t quit.
Kolodny’s unconventional approach to storytelling and Madio’s Oscar-worthy lead performance have made a film that transcends at least two genres: the boxing film and the faux documentary. In doing so, they have combined to create one of the year’s best films.
The Featherweight will be released in theaters in New York and Connecticut on September 20th and Los Angeles on September 27th
Nothing is nobody's heroin.
Heroin is heroin and it's the worst thing that can happen to a person.
Nobody is a person. Boxing is not a person. Are you this unfamiliar with metaphor?
not sure what you mean, I’m just responding to the headline, which I think is irresponsible. It reminded me of when people would say things like “Buffy the Vampire is my crack”
Like, honey, have you ever done crack?
Your ability to take this so literally is both impressive and boring. The connection by the filmmakers was intentional. Go yell at them on instagram.
I don’t understand what you are getting at.
Are you saying the filmmakers wrote the headline to your review?
If someone in a movie wants to compare some activity or practice to heroin, well, that’s not a good idea. Even with a song lyric from someone who knew heroin. Because, you know, no song lyric can properly describe what heroin feels like from the point of view of the person who has taken it. The song merely describes how heroin can take over one’s life, much as any activity could. But giving up boxing or any other activity is not like giving up heroin. Or living life as a recovered heroin addict. To live every day in constant fear that something will happen that will cause you to return to that drug, to ruin your life and your family and your hopes and your dreams all over again. Because you relapse, just once, just for a moment, everything you worked for is gone. In an instant. And you can’t get it back. And you know that’s what your life will be like forever because you just can’t shake that feeling, that knowledge of that extreme pleasure that heroin will give you. Nope. Nothing. Until one day you die. As many do.
I really don't want to get involved in this. But I really don't want it to go on much longer either.
Rufus, way up top of this fuss, I see you've said:
I think I might phrase the metaphor differently.
Rather than "effectiveness," I would substitute "impact" — or even more graphically, a "gut punch" or "body blow."
As in, the film delivers a crushing emotional gut punch similar to the crushing physical impact of heroin.
Though obviously not with equal lethal severity.
The boxer's son is destroying his body and his life with his heroin addiction. Seems the filmmakers chose Lou Reed's song to emphasize that metaphor. In a movie about a man who risks destroying his body and his life with his addiction to boxing.
We all agree that almost nothing is as tragic as the psychological grip of heroin addiction.
But can it not be a valid narrative comparison on a poetic level?
Lou Reed thought so. The filmmakers thought so.
David thinks so, too.
You don't agree, and that's okay!
You've both made your point and both stated your case.
Neither one of you is gonna change your mind, and there's no reason either of you need to.
I'm sorry the headline bothers you, my friend, but I'm glad you and David talked it through.
This looks like a terrific movie, and David has written a terrific review. As he always does.
Can we at least agree about that, and let this topic drop?
The way I should have put it to Rufus is “I see your point, but my headline (which is explained in the review) follows the logic of the filmmaker. I questioned the title too and wondered if it was too provocative. The director himself reached out to me and thanked for “getting it.” His point being my read was the correct one, at least from his perspective. I’ll go with that. To Rufus, I’m sorry it got contentious, I had received multiple notes of appreciation from people involved in the film who thought I connected with it in the way they intended. I wa overly defensive towards you because I saw your comment after. For that I apologize.
Oh, I’ve made my point. Let me be clear though, I’ve never done heroin, but I know many people who were/are addicts. Whenever one sees such a comparison, I think it trivializes what the heroin addict has to face. And on the flip side, I think people with no drug experience can reinforce their belief that heroin addiction is readily treatable and see a heroin addict as a weak person when in fact recovering heroin addicts are the strongest people I know.
Bless them.
I understand.
(upvote for your heartfelt phrasing)
And by the way, the film chose the song for a reason. The reason I stated. Take it up with them. They rather liked the review.
I have no problem with the review, just the headline.
Maybe seeing the film offers a different perspective on the headline, but coming in to it cold. It compares the film's effectiveness to heroin's effectiveness. There can be no comparison, therefore there should be no comparison.
If you actually read the review you know that…NM. Like I said, go yell at the filmmakers on instagram.