If you’re under 30, there’s a good chance you only know Mike Tyson as an American trash figure. You know him from the roasts on Comedy Central (sometimes they’re also really funny), from the guest appearances in the movies “On the way to the wedding they stop in Vegas”, from the reality show where he had to fight a shark, or from his dark sides – the serious criminal acts he was involved in (rape, assault) and the years he spent in jail. But Tyson’s story is, of course, much more than that: it’s a story of a rejected boy who grew up in Brooklyn, lived in a harsh reality with a mother who was a daydreamer and a father who wasn’t there – and yet, became the greatest in his field. A meteor who broke out at the age of 18, and became the world champion in the hottest weight category in boxing.
This fascinating story is being tried to be captured by “Mike”, a new series that aired on Hulu (in Israel you can watch it on the Disney Plus service). Like Tyson’s character, the series is also very frantic, fast, many changes. Stephen Rogers, who was also behind the film “I, Tonya” from 2017 (another spectacular sports story that ended in bloody tragedy, literally), is responsible for it – and there are quite a few similarities between the two products. Both works often break the fourth wall, in both they do not spare physical violence and splashing blood everywhere, and both also have a humorous and cynical side – alongside the destructive and suffering personality (almost the agony of Job) of the hero of the film/series. Trevante Rhodes, who will be remembered by some viewers from “Moonlight”, plays Tyson Hayesri – and does an amazing job. An equally large role was also recorded for the legendary Harvey Keitel, who appears as Cos D’Amato, the Italian-American trainer who accompanies Tyson almost to the promised land.
But there is another television comparison that can be made here, and maybe it will be even more informative – to “Winning Time” (or “winning team” in the Hebrew translation), which dealt with the Los Angeles Lakers of the late seventies and early eighties. Like “Winning”, “Mike” is also a very compressed series (although each episode takes less time than the HBO equivalent), very clip-like in its being and one that rivets you to the screen and does not let you leave. Another connecting line between the two series is the uncertain attitude of the real heroes – to the version of themselves they saw on TV. A bit like Jerry West and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar really didn’t like their on-screen persona (West tried to take HBO to court, Kareem, the man of the written word, tore the series apart in a long review he published), Mike Tyson also fought back – at least publicly – in Hulu and in the series they produced.
In a post published on Instagram four weeks ago, around the release of the trailers for the series, he asserted in a bold manner: “Don’t let Hulu deceive you. I don’t support their story about my life. It’s not 1822, it’s 2022. They stole my life story, and they didn’t pay me. For them, I’m another black man who can be sold at a high price.” He also called them, even more specifically, “modern slave traders”. And the truth is that it is hard to blame him for the anger. At least in the two episodes that have aired so far, Tyson’s profile is not very flattering: he is presented as a dependent character on the one hand, and very cruel on the other. One that had no real backbone, and went after people. Was it really possible to reach the greatest peaks of the boxing world with such a character? It’s hard to tell (maybe if you were born with crazy steel fists like Tyson’s), but his antagonism is understandable. And that’s exactly the problem with these series – they arise from an external-media view of a familiar figure (whether it’s Tonya Harding, Tyson or Magic Johnson), rely on books or other documents, usually not based on the person himself. And people are, as we know, always more complex than what is written or what is seen from the outside.
On the other hand, even if the story of “Tyson” is not very accurate – the result is definitely enjoyable to watch, and in a way also does justice to the character in its sporting sense: one of the greatest boxers in the modern era, who hardly gave up to anyone in the ring (only six losses in 20 years career) but that human frailties have subdued him again and again. Tyson was never a consensus. He has always been, and always will be, a controversial figure, hence part of his publicity – people either love him very much or hate him very much. Ironically, so was the series about his life. So maybe she’s actually a lot more accurate than Tyson is comfortable admitting.