Arthurian Elements in Rocky IV

Student: Ronaldo Rodríguez

Year: 2008

Introduction to Arthurian Romance

In his chronicles, known as Historia Brittonum, Geoffrey of Monmouth gave birth to the Arthurian Story. Arthurian romance, thus, is the name given to the literary genre that exalts the figure of the courageous hero whose endeavors achieve impossible adventures. Its name derives from the figure of King Arthur, (conqueror of Britain during the c. 500 AD) upon whom Geoffrey bestows all the attributes that, with time, would become the essence of Arthurian legend. Based slenderly on historical facts, these medieval chronicles depict, as J. M. Dent has observed,

 “The mystery, prowess, love and enchantment, where valorous heroes achieve impossible adventures and messengers from fairyland appear easily and naturally on marvelous errands.” 

The Arthurian myth is a Christian one. Ultimately, the figure of the hero who brings salvation to all through personal sacrifice is that of Jesus Christ. As the Knigts of the Round Table, he serves someone whose power is higher than his. “I do nothing of myself,” records the gospel of John, “but as my father hath taught me [1]” He portraits all the attributes of perfection and he fights against evil and for the meek and lowly. 

The purposes of this brief introduction is just to account for the origin of a set of values and elements that, as stated above, became legend and were (and still are) taken by and reproduced in western literature and other artist expressions. As Norris J. Lacy has observed:

"The popular notion of Arthur appears to be limited, not surprisingly, to a few motifs and names, but there can be no doubt of the extent to which a legend born many centuries ago is profoundly embedded in modern culture at every level [2] " 

In an attempt to illustrate this phenomenon, this paper will deal with the presence of such elements and values in an American film of 1985, Rocky IV.

Rocky IV: a glimpse 

Rocky IV is fourth movie of the Rocky franchise. Rocky Balboa (played by Sylvester Stallone), who plans to retire from professional boxing, is challenged by an amateur boxer from the Soviet Union, named Ivan Drago (played by Dolph Lundgren), who has killed Rocky’s friend, Apollo Creed, during an exhibition match. After a personal struggle in which Rocky debates himself between the need to retire and the need to revenge his friend, he decides to accept the challenge. 

The bout is set on Christmas day in the Soviet Union. The American boxer, now coached by Creed former coach, Tony “Duke” Evers, travels to the USSR where is given a log cabin and where is jealously watched by KGB agents.

The day of the match, Rocky faces not only an almost undefeatable opponent but also a very hostile public. The very head of the Russian government is also present. However, and in spite of being pounded relentlessly, Rocky’s immovable determination allows him to endure to the last round and to defeat Drago by knock out. 

Right after the ordeal, Rocky, now with the whole arena shouting for him, pronounces an emotive talk were he says: "If I can change and you can change, everybody can change!" 

Three basic Arthurian elements

The spirit of Arthurian legend is the spirit of heroic resistance against desperate odds. Three basic elements can relatively easily be found in Arthurian films and books. Firstly, and idea which is not exclusively Arthurian, that is to say, a notion of good, represented by a system and a notion of that which is evil, whatsoever thing that system fights against or it is victim of attack from. Secondly, the presence of the knight as he who defends the system from the evil aspirations of its opponents showing unspeakable courage throughout the process. In order to be genuinely Arthurian, the knight has to go through sore affliction and he has to either defeat an opponent which is stronger than him or to give his life in the attempt. Because of its religious influence, the figure of the hero embeds Christ-like attributes of perfection such as loyalty, charity, personal sacrifice, wisdom and truthfulness among many others. 

Arthurian elements in the film

The notion of good and evil

The notion of good, in the case of the film Rocky IV, is represented by the American system (although its presence it is not explicit but only possible to elide through the presence of its antithesis, the USSR government). Such system includes the ideas of freedom, change and growth. Capitalism is also one of the main features of the American system.  In opposition and consequently playing the role of evil, the USSR’s system is portrayed as not human and hostile. The head of the Communist government on whom there is a close up on the scene of the last match, resembles the face of the former Russian Primer Minister Mikhail Gorvachev.

The knight

Rocky Balboa represents the knight for he fights against the American system’s main opponent, the communist Soviet Union. As a hero, Rocky Balboa portrays some Christ-like attributes. He is an outsider of Italian ancestors; he is meek and humble although by the time of his fight against the Russian boxer he has become a true celebrity. He is close to nature and this is shown when he trains in the cabin log of the country side using natural elements (a mountain to climb, wood to cut, etc.) The idea of overcoming insurmountable odds is constructed by means of the opponent. Drago’s highly advance training along with his faultless physical complexion and the sharp contrast with Rocky’s humble circumstances combine to create the feeling that he cannot be defeated. Even his last name, Drago, brings about the image of middle-ages evil creatures. 

Rocky’s heroic nature is constructed from the very beginning of the movie. After, Apollo’s death, the American boxer faces the tension of retirement or going back to the square to revenge his friend’s death. Rocky’s wife, who strives to get his husband out of the ring from the very first part of the saga and seeing the danger that challenging the Russian means, decides to make whatever it takes to get Rocky out of professional boxing perpetually. It is in the context in which Rocky faces the question “What am I?” to acknowledge with resignation that he is a boxer and consequently he has to face fear and danger for his friend and for the sake of the United States of America

Weeks later, the day of the bout comes and Rocky is ready to fight the Russian. After a few rounds in which Rocky receives more punches that what any other human could possibly resist, he no only manages to endure but he also begins to hit back and even hurt Drago. The Russian’s bounds are seen by his couch and others assistants as something never seen before. In the end, and is spite of the fact that Drago controlled the whole match, Rocky will be stronger in the last round and will make the ordeal come true.

Conclusion

Arthuriana elements can be frequently found in artistic modern products. In the case of Rocky IV, the antagonistic notions of good and evil are represented by the American and Russian government respectively. Rocky Balboa, the movie’s main character, represents the knight who chooses defend the system by overcoming and insurmountable opponent. In the figure of the Rocky, the attributes of honour, sacrifice and perfection are portrayed in order to increase the legend of the typical Arthurian hero. 

[1] John 8:28

[2] Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Bibliography

Monmouth, Geoffrey: Geoffrey Monmouth’s Histories of the Kings of Britain

“The Holy Bible” Authorized King James Version. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day  Saints,  Salt Lake City, Utah, 1979

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur

Cross-gender Conversation Difficulties (by Ronaldo Rodríquez)

Breakdowns, an overall lack of understanding and other difficulties in communication have often characterized the relationship between men and women. From a socio-linguistic perspective, Debora Tannen (1990) has shed light on this issue by observing that: “the minor and major frustrations that women and men encounter when they talk to each other lie in the different ways they use language.” Such distinction in the use of language, in addition, is said to be one of the many behavioural patterns society constructs for and expects from individuals of the opposite sex (Trudgill, 1972). In the light of these considerations, it seems reasonable to assess that misinterpretations between males and females can be accounted for by analyzing the distinctive way in which they perceive and produce language and in the differential expectations they have when addressing each other.

Sociolinguists have been able to show that from adolescence to adulthood, females produce more standard language than males. Based on the fact that hedges, tag-questions, adjectives and rising tones on statements are more frequent in women’s talk, it has been suggested that females are more uncertain than men. Males, on the contrary, are found to speak with more assertiveness, to be more interruptive, to tell more jokes and to produce more succinct utterances. As regards politeness, courtesy subjuncts (Quirk, 1976) and other well-bred forms occur more regularly among women, whereas an extended use of expletives and other bad-mannered formulas can be more commonly found among men.

Examples of difficultness in cross-gender communication abound. For instance, it is told that one Sunday, Calvin Coolidge, onetime president of the United States of America, returned home from church. After being greeted by his wife, he was asked: “What did the Priest speak about?” “Sin,” he replied. “And what did he say about it?” she insisted. Cooling made a silent pause and answered: “He said he was against it.” It could be suggested that incidents such as this are good representatives of several daily cross-gender conversations at home. They do not only show that females are by and large more eager to talk at home but also illustrate the fact that both speakers have different assumptions and expectations when engaging in conversation. Tannen further explains that while women’s talk seeks to establish and strengthen interpersonal connections (or rapport) men speak to preserve independence, negotiate status and display knowledge and skill. These behavioural patters explain the reason why when “trouble,” for example, arises as a topic within a cross-gender conversation, males have the tendency to provide a straightforward solution. Such demeanour normally puzzles and frustrates women because they simply want to talk about the problem and to be understood. Phrases such as “I know how you feel,” “It’s just as once happened to me,” or “Tell more about it” are the ones females yearn for when talking. This contention is rooted in the fact that little girls grow up in a world of intimacy, a world in which being a friend means sharing feelings and exchanging secrets. Little boys, conversely, acquire language in the context of making their way in larger, more competitive and hierarchical groups.

Thus, understanding both the different ways in which males and females produce and receive language and the expectation gap between them can enlighten the issue of cross-gender conversation and the difficulties thereof. Scholarly endeavour has also shown that an extended use of adjectives, referring tones, tag-questions and ambiguous remarks distinguish woman’s talk from men’s. The latter, on the contrary, seem to be more easily inclined to use assertions, the language of humour and less polite statements. Particularly at home, males are more likely to produce more concise utterances. It is on the basis of these differences that the conclusion that men are more confident than women is drawn. As far as expectations are concerned, women seem to value connection and rapport over other pragmatic intentions, whereas males are more concerned with status, practical solutions and power. In conclusion, an overall consideration of the phenomenon above described can not only help members of both sexes to know how their conversations may be improved but also ease the burden of not being understood.

Literacy and Cognition (by Ronaldo Rodríguez)

The capacity to decode and encode symbols which is usually referred to as literacy has been object of analysis and study beginning with the Greek civilization. Among the principal arguments raised since their time, the “Great Divide” theory, which claims that literacy causes dramatic changes in individuals’ cognitive development, seems to be not only one of the strongest contentions but also the most widely accepted among scholars.

In 1963, “The Consequences of Literacy” by Goody and Watts first appeared arguing for the Great Divide theory. They considered that the “Great Divide” or “Great Leap” was the result of the adoption of the alphabet principle by the Greeks and the massive expansion of literacy among its citizenry. As regards its impact, Goody, Watts believed that learning to read and write alters the cognitive thought processes of the individual; literacy, said they, modifies the way in which the mind works. Ong went further to say that literacy “transforms human consciousness.” Hence, because it improves individuals’ capacity to reflect -and access to other thinkers’ reflections- literacy is believed to have led to the development of abstract, logical and scientific thinking in the western culture.

Opposition to the “Great Divide” theory, however, has emerged in modern times. Olson (1996), for instance, considered that the analysis of literacy and cognition was unable to specified how exactly one influences the other. The “Great Leap” theory has also been said to be ethnocentric (Heath, 1983; Scribner and Cole, 1981) for it does not seem to account for the development of societies out of the western world.