FACEOFF: Mike Tyson discusses his demons in Tyson.
INFO
TYSON
*1/2
DIRECTED BY James Toback
STARS Mike Tyson
As far as documentaries go, Tyson is a crock. Director James Toback is an acknowledged friend of former boxing great Mike Tyson, so for 90 minutes, he turns on his camera and allows the man to speak at length about his troubled life, both in and out of the ring. There are no other participants, no other voices to support or oppose whatever Tyson says -- even Toback himself refuses to ask any pressing questions.
So when Tyson claims that he was innocent of the rape charge that sent him to jail, well, he must be telling the truth. When he states that first wife Robin Givens said false things about his mental condition during a Barbara Walters interview, we should take him at his word (even though the footage itself reveals that Givens was probably accurate). And when he claims that his first manager/mentor Cus D'Amato was the only person who cared for him -- though Cuz myopically only turned him into a fighting machine, not into a man able to function in society -- we're expected to accept that at face value.
Sorry, but no. If there's one thing that this film makes crystal clear, it's that, after all these decades, the ex-pugilist has barely developed as a human being. Tyson discusses how his jail stint turned him into a more spiritual person, but next we see vintage footage of him going psychotic on a reporter. He accuses promoter Don King of being the type of man who would "sell his own mother for a dollar" (a funny line), but he reveals himself to be equally beholden to high finance (when discussing an out-of-court settlement, he cluelessly notes, "It wasn't much money -- 20, 30 million"). This documentary would matter more if Tyson came clean about his past or showed any genuine remorse for his choices, but instead, it merely functions as a disingenuous attempt to make him palatable to the mainstream (see also his role in The Hangover).
Realizing the limitations of both his subject and the material which he provides, Toback tries to jazz his film up with split images, overlapping dialogue and other tricks of the trade. But this grasping approach only serves to make a slender film even more insignificant. Certainly, Mike Tyson has a place in the annals of boxing, but in terms of cinema, his picture is no Raging Bull. It's more like Raging Bullshit.
COMMENTS
RE: Tyson: Thug life
Posted by sherrm on 10.01.09 @ 05:28 AM
Gbub123's analysis is spot on. The reviewer and Jac1966 are simply out to lunch. Watch the film and judge Tyson's account for yourself. Study the man and his delivery. I believe Tyson's words show a man far more self-aware than the pious reviewer who clearly lives in the same glass house as the reporter who yelled 'put him in a straight jacket'.
RE: Tyson: Thug life
Posted by jac1966 on 09.06.09 @ 05:07 PM
gbub123 has a real soft spot for Tyson. I think he needs to watch "Beyond The Glory". It was a documentary done by FOX that gives you a lot of information that Toback and Tyson conveniantly omit. For example. When Cus D'Amato started working with Tyson he convinced The Principle of Tyson's school not to make public the 20 or incidents in which Mike crossed the line with girls in that school. Cus simply told the school that Mike was going to be famous someday so he got away with it. Mike also crossed the line with with his training partners 11 year old daughter one day. That trainer subsequently put a gun to Mike's head and told him if he ever harmed his daughter or anybody in his family he would kill him. Then he shot the gun to the ceiling to prove to him how serious he was. He was no longer Mike's trainer after that day but they show him early in Taback's documentary. Those are just a couple examples.
I do empathize with Mike regarding his rape conviction. Even though I do beleive Mike did rape her he should not have been convicted on simply her word. You need more evidence than that.
RE: Tyson: Thug life
Posted by gbub123 on 09.02.09 @ 08:06 AM
This review is a CROCK!
Your review lacks any credibility which is evidenced by your flawed interpretation of the function and purpose of the film, omission/misrepresentation of Tyson's actual claims, as well as your assumptions regarding the guilt/innocence of Tyson's alleged crimes.
The aim of the film, as explicitly stated by Toback, was meant to be more of a self portrait of the life and experiences of Mike Tyson as seen by himself rather than being a formulaic film bound by the documentary style seeking the "truth" or an apology. Toback deliberately approached the project without strict boundaries and instead relied on Tyson's self-evaluation of his life to present his "Greek-Tragedy." (Hence Toback does not interfere and Tyson's voice is the only one you hear.) The way in which Toback invoked Tyson's stream-of-consciousness and self-analysis was not by asking targeted questions trying to illicit specific responses. Rather Toback would ask vague questions such as, "What are your earliest memories?"
Also, I am not stating that Tyson is innocent of his conviction, but you cannot say with 100% certainty that a conviction means commitment of a crime. A conviction just means that a jury had believed him to be guilty of the "alleged" crime. And you cannot deny the existence of false imprisonments in this nations history. It all comes down to a he said, she said battle, and in this case, Tyson was an easier target to vilify. Also what aspect of the Walters interview shows that Givens was "probably accurate?" If it was Tyson keeping mum of the accusations, Tyson explained that he kept quiet because a violent uproar is exactly what the media, Givens, Walters wanted.
Please, if you wouldn't mind clarifying what you exactly meant by "human being?" Is it not too much to ask if an individual may have had a much different lifestyle and upbringing as yourself? Were you not aware that he was from a broken home, not even knowing whether the man he called "father" was his actual father or not? Were you blind to the fact that he was headed down a path of crime and violence ever since a young age, but became overwhelmingly rich and a world-celebrity boxer by the tender age of 20 making hundreds of millions of dollars?
Your reference to Tyson's claim of spirituality after imprisonment and violent rant against a reporter is taken entirely out of context, and omits Tyson's words in regards to those events. Tyson did claim to have converted to Islam, however he qualifies himself by stating that his beliefs were very extreme at the time. He directly stated that his mindset was as if anyone who is not with him was against him. This notion of the world around Tyson was further fueled by the constant state of paranoia and madness perpetuated by his time in solitary confinement. He states that although contradictory at face value, his "insanity was his sanity." Tyson's tirade against the reporter who lashed out by saying he(Tyson) belongs in a straight jacket was ignited by his distrust of the world, and deep insecurities of embarrassment which stemmed from childhood.
Your interpretation of Toback's use of "split-images, overlapping dialogue, and other tricks of the trade" is quite childish and ludicrous. I am quite shocked that you would actually interpret those devices as being a last ditch effort to provide depth to a film. The filming took 5 days, and editing took one year to complete. I doubt such a long time would be spent to aesthetically amplify a films effect. Rather, the "tricks of the trade" were used as a means to reveal the fragmented and disparate voices that exists within the mind of Tyson. This is what Toback and Tyson refer to when speaking of madness: the existence of multiple voices in ones own thoughts. Tyson revealed that his time in solitary confinement is what pushed himself to such a state.
I am repulsed by your close-minded interpretation of the film. Tyson does not deny he is free of guilt, remorse, and mistakes. He openly admits he caused his own downfall. He says that if there is anyone to blame, it is himself. It is clear that your conception of Tyson as an evil man who, according to your review, is an undeveloped human being has blinded you while writing this article.