It is Sylvester Stallone’s fourth interview of the day. Is he tired of talking yet? “No, because this is the first one about my memoirs,” he replies from a hotel room in New York, his hometown, overlooking Central Park, where he is meeting with EL PAÍS.

The conversation that follows confirms the impression that he has come eager to talk. For more than 40 minutes, the actor expands on subjects ranging from his frustration with a career that never took off as much as he would have liked, to his hatred and subsequent friendship with Arnold Schwarzenegger, and his change of attitude toward Donald Trump. Stallone introduced the U.S. president at an event in Mar-a-Lago in November 2024, shortly after his election victory, describing him as “a mythical character” and “a second George Washington.” Now, however, Stallone criticizes him for leading the United States into the hornet’s nest of Iran.

“Don’t get me involved in politics. I just said I hate war,” he says as the interview draws to a close.

He does not shy away from any question, not even the most painful ones about the death of his 36-year-old son in 2012 or the trauma of a brutally difficult childhood with parents who, he says, never loved him. Even at 80, it is something that still hurts.

The reason for the interview is The Steps, a surprisingly candid memoir in which the tough guy opens up like never before. It is not a conventional autobiography. Instead, it focuses on five pivotal moments in his life and reveals that, contrary to what his parents always told him, he is no fool.

Stallone peppers the conversation with sound effects, gestures such as clenching his fist to convey anger or the urge to hit someone, and impersonates the voices of people in his stories as he recounts anecdotes. He constantly compares himself to animals. All of this is delivered with the characteristic half-smile caused by a difficult birth that left part of his mouth paralyzed, a defect that did not stop him from becoming a global superstar with franchises such as Rocky and Rambo. Watching him now reflect on the 1980s and 1990s, when he was one of the most famous actors in the world, is a show in itself.

Question. In your book, Rocky is the only film shoot you discuss. Do you feel that the rest of your career failed to live up to what you expected after that extraordinary success in 1976?

Answer. Absolutely. I was not happy with my career. It all happened because I didn’t understand the rules of the game. The character Rocky and I were inseparable. And when people saw me acting like an arrogant, angry and spiteful person, they began to hate me — deservedly. My whole life everyone said, “You’re stupid, you’re a loser.” And when I finally proved them wrong, I overreacted. That was my mistake. I reacted like a child.

Q. When did things start to go wrong?

A. After Rocky, I shot F.I.S.T., a very good film with a very good director. But people hated it. They wrote my funeral. And what did I do? I fought back. I said: “Why don’t you say that to my face? We’ll fight.” It was just like I was still on the street, like an animal. I hadn’t learned humility. I didn’t realize a damned miracle had happened: I was the luckiest man in the damned world [with the success of Rocky], but I didn’t act that way. And it carried over into my life, my marriage and my children. It was a bad stretch that lasted many years.

Q. Rocky won three Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director. But you were nominated for Best Actor and didn’t win. How did you react?

A. It hurt because I felt I had lost it because of my words. I realized I had made enemies at the Academy. I thought we were going to win. How did we lose the Oscar for best score?

Q. Does it still hurt today, 50 years later?

A. Of course it does. I understand I did it. It was my fault.

Q. In your memoir, you write that when you finished the Rocky screenplay, you had just $80 in the bank, had spent nights sleeping in shelters and on park benches, and your wife was pregnant with your first child. Yet you turned down an offer of $360,000, more than $2 million in today’s money, because the deal required you to give up the lead role.. How were you so convinced you would succeed? Have you always had that much confidence in yourself?

A. No. I grew up with a tremendous inferiority complex. I wasn’t muscular. I had a mother and father who said non-stop: “You weren’t born with any brains, so build up your muscles; there’s nothing here” [he points to his head]. But something told me: do not sell it. I swear to God, I knew in my heart that this was the moment: either I landed a good acting part, or I would never be a star. At the first screening, people kept leaving the theater. Even my mother walked. I went home thinking: “I’m going to fucking kill myself. I’m going to be a broken, horrible man. I won’t recover. I have no skill. I have no work. I have nothing.”

Q. Your book carries a message about perseverance and never giving up. But isn’t there a flaw in the idea that people who don’t succeed simply didn’t try hard enough?

A. The only way to know whether you will succeed or fail is complete dedication and sacrifice. If it doesn’t work out, you can say you did everything you could, and it still didn’t work. That’s my philosophy.

Q. You also write that all your efforts were driven by a desire to be loved by your parents. Has that search defined your life?

A. It still does today. It’s such a sadness and regret! Why couldn’t you just love me? How about a kiss? Why do you fucking hate me so much? The more I got successful, the more they hated me. Because I reminded them that they didn’t have such things. They didn’t have talent. But they wouldn’t accept that.

Q. Did you make peace with them?

A. With my father, yes. With my mother, no. My father was physical; she was emotional. No one can hurt you more than your mother. You are part of her.

Q. How did growing up in a violent home affect your approach to parenting?

A. I was very physical. I knew I was strong, although I never used that strength against my children — only on the street. If someone looked at me… I felt like it was my father challenging me. I had a terrible temper. That temper also made me work hard. Even to this day, I’m competitive. I see guys in their fifties, and I say: “I can do that.” It’s weird. And I don’t like it. But it’s part of the animal. It’s like a Doberman; it’s built to be competitive.

Q. You went through one of the worst experiences possible: losing a child. Can anyone ever recover from something like that?

A. No. Even if you did nothing wrong, you have a horrible sense of failure. I still feel it today. I can’t even look at a photo; I don’t have any pictures of him at home. It’s too horrible. He was making movies. He was different; he wasn’t an action person but rather intellectual — he liked horror movies and strange foreign films. I know it was hard for him to be my son.

Q. Rocky V is based on your relationship with him.

A. Yes, it’s very autobiographical. A man my mother had just married called me and said: “Sly, you don’t know me. I just married your mother. I have bad news. He’s gone.” I asked who he meant, and he said: “Your son.” “What the fuck are you talking about?” I said. “Yeah, he died. I’m sorry,” he replied. Then he hung up. It was too fucking much; I couldn’t even breathe. I kept it inside. Two weeks later, I exploded. I fell apart. Like an animal.

Q. There has been a lot of talk about your rivalry with Arnold Schwarzenegger. How real was it?

A. We hated each other. It was deep. The hatred came more from me. The press pitted us against each other. He was smarter than me and would say: “Sylvester will make a good movie someday.” And I thought: “Fuck.” He was very political. He’s my favorite actor. I like him.

Q. But now you are friends.

A. Yes, because he’s special. We’re in contact. We even crossed paths about 10 years ago in a hospital. I couldn’t believe it. I was going in for shoulder surgery and there he was, coming out of the same operation, also for a shoulder. I’ll show you a picture. Isn’t that wild?

Q. President Donald Trump appointed you ambassador to Hollywood. What does that role mean?

A. When I was made ambassador, I didn’t even know. I was watching CNN, and they announced it. I called the White House to say I didn’t want the job. Ambassador? As if Hollywood were a foreign country! It seemed ridiculous. They also named Mel Gibson; I called him and asked: “Mel, are you an ambassador?” “I don’t even know what you’re talking about,” he answered.

Q. You have defended Trump. What do you think your country saw in him?

A. Sometimes you say things you probably shouldn’t. I’ve changed a lot when it comes to politics. He appeals to many people, but things are changing. War is horrible. I hate it! The only people who get rich are the military-industrial complex, with the blood and bones of those poor people who make no money. I hate the idea of being in Iran. When I did Rambo, I was talking about the Vietnam War. Since Korea, we’ve been going to countries for no fucking reason. War is only justified if you’re attacked. Why do we go there? I feel so bad for the soldiers. Their entire lives are wrecked, and yet they keep defending the flag.

Q. You shaped the idea of masculinity in the 1980s. How do you view today’s obsession with fitness and gym culture?

A. It’s very important, because men need to conquer something to prove their masculinity. It’s part of their nature. That’s why they go to war. Only men do crazy things, like jump out of windows or throw themselves off motorcycles. I never see women doing those things. Every man needs to challenge himself to see if he’s brave.

Q. And what do you think of the new masculinities?

A. I don’t even know. What is that? A real man is physical. That’s what he’s put on this planet for. That’s what he was and always has been.

Q. How does someone who came to embody masculine strength and vigor come to terms with aging?

A. It’s an adjustment. The gym is the church of the soul. I go just to be in that environment. I can no longer lift 300 pounds. That’s over. But there are other ways to feel strong and masculine. Otherwise I would die. Everything would fall apart if I stayed home watching TV. I would get depressed. I feel pretty good. Dying is easy. Living is hard.

Q. What do you think about the woke movement?

A. It’s kind of boring. I like outrageousness. I like people to say outrageous things and do outrageous things. That’s what I loved about the 1980s, with Andy Warhol and people like that… just crazy. But it’s coming back. It’s all a cycle.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

The U.S. midterm elections will not only determine who will occupy the Congressional seats and governorships up for grabs in November. In several states, voters will also find ballot measures seeking to amend laws, approve tax changes, or add new provisions to state constitutions.

These measures allow certain public policy decisions to be put directly to voters, either through initiatives introduced by state legislatures or through citizen-led processes. From voting rules to taxes, housing, immigration, and reproductive rights, these are some of the most relevant initiatives that voters will consider in the midterms.

California: Voter ID and taxes on the wealthy

California will vote on 14 ballot measures. Five were placed on the ballot by the legislature, while nine came from citizen initiatives.

The most contested is Proposition 39, which would require voters to present an official ID to vote in person and provide the last four digits of one of those IDs on mail-in ballots. The initiative would also provide free identification cards and require annual reports on the percentage of voters with verified citizenship in each county. The state currently requires identification and a Social Security number to register to vote, but not at the polling place. The measure is opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and the California Democratic Party.

The other major battle is over taxes. Proposition 3 would make permanent the tax on high incomes approved in 2012 and extended in 2016, with 89% of the revenue going to public schools and 11% to community colleges. Proposition 40, better known as the billionaires’ tax proposal, would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on people with assets exceeding $1 billion.

Housing is another major area. Proposition 1 would authorize a bond for affordable and veterans’ housing, costing state coffers between $500 million and $600 million annually for about 25 years, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Proposition 37 would create loans for middle-income buyers of newly built homes, while Proposition 45 would expedite environmental reviews for housing, water, transportation, and clean energy projects.

Florida: ‘Save Our Homes’

In Florida, voters will decide on three amendments, all proposed by the legislature, which require 60% of the vote to pass.

One of them, known as Save Our Homes, is the most controversial. It seeks to substantially increase tax exemptions for primary residences and halve the annual cap on increases in the assessed value of nonresidential properties. It is controversial because, while supporters say it would provide much-needed, significant economic relief in response to inflation, critics and public safety agencies warn that the measure would create a severe shortfall in local budgets, putting funding for essential public services such as police, fire departments, and education at risk.

Immigration enters the ballot box

The American Immigration Council, an organization that advocates for immigrants’ rights, is tracking nine state measures affecting these communities. Most concern who can vote.

Arkansas, Kansas, South Dakota and West Virginia will put amendments to a referendum specifying that only citizens may vote; Alaska and Arizona are considering similar initiatives, while Arizona’s would also require identification and ban foreign contributions to political campaigns. There are recent precedents: in 2024, eight states approved measures of this kind. Supporters present them as a matter of common sense; opponents point out that federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting and that, according to available data, such cases are extremely rare.

Another major measure is Colorado’s Amendment 81, which would require local police to notify the Department of Homeland Security, within 72 hours, when a person who is unlawfully in the country or whose immigration status cannot be determined is charged with certain crimes. Opponents argue that it would apply to people who have been charged but not convicted and could even affect someone with a prior felony who is charged with a minor offense, such as a traffic violation.

Idaho, meanwhile, will vote on an amendment to establish English as the official language in its Constitution. If approved, and unless required by federal law, English would be the only language used in the state’s public proceedings and documents, affecting Spanish-speaking communities.

Other initiatives

In Missouri, Amendment 3 proposes an almost total ban on abortion, with exceptions for rape, incest, and medical emergencies, and would enshrine in the state Constitution a ban on gender-affirming care for minors. It will be the first time voters decide whether to repeal an abortion right they themselves approved at the ballot box. The state will also hold a referendum on the congressional map, although the state Supreme Court ordered the 2022 map to be used in these elections.

Virginia will vote on reproductive freedom, the removal of the ban on same-sex marriage, and the restoration of voting rights after completing a sentence. Nevada, meanwhile, will vote again on its abortion amendment, which would establish abortion as a fundamental right.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

“Let’s defeat the patriarchy.” “Cornell protects rapists and expels protesters.” Graffiti like this appeared Monday morning on the facade of Day Hall, one of Cornell University’s administrative buildings. This is the latest sign of outrage among many students over a case that has shaken not only this elite New York State university but the entire United States — a country that is increasingly viewing with concern how sexual violence against women on college campuses is a structural problem for which no solution has been found.

The graffiti accusing the university of protecting rapists refers to the lightness of the punishments given to the accused in the case brought by the former student known by the pseudonym Jane Doe, who said she was the victim of a gang rape in October 2024 by those now known as “the Cornell 7.”

Documents published by The New York Times show that two of the accused were expelled from the university. Another, who had already graduated, was banned from the campus. The university suspended two others for several semesters and handed down a period of probation. And two more (who entered the room after receiving a text message offering sex with a woman) were ordered not to contact Jane Doe, to take courses on sexual harassment and social media use, and to write “reflection papers” on the subject, the Times reports.

The events took place on October 19, 2024. That day, Jane Doe went to a party at the Chi Phi fraternity in Ithaca, the city where the university is located. She had been drinking and went to the fraternity house to meet Matthew Ingalls. In a room they began having sex and he asked if a third person, Jonathan Newell, should join them.

During the encounter, she says she was given ketamine and more alcohol until she lost the ability to consent. These two men — the ones who were expelled — invited other fraternity members via Snapchat messages to join in the assault reported by Jane Doe, which lasted for several hours.

A few weeks later, Jane Doe reported the incident to the university police. In testimony that lasted several hours, she said she was 100% certain she had been raped. But that statement was not passed on to the prosecutor’s office, which therefore did not consider it necessary to open an investigation and did not file charges against the alleged attackers.

Cornell University has been criticized for its handling of the case. After several days of silence during which its president, Michael Kotlikoff, was at the center of controversy, over the weekend he alluded, without saying so explicitly, to mistakes in the university’s handling of the matter.

“We must do better,” he said in an eight-minute video. “We don’t have all the answers, but we are committed to investigating and finding the answers our community deserves.”

Examining the role of fraternities

He also said that the university will examine the role of fraternities, which some people are calling for a ban on because they are associated with practices that can sometimes be humiliating.

“At their best, these organizations can provide ​students with friendship, belonging, mentorship and a powerful sense of community. But being part of ​a group can never diminish individual responsibility,” Kotlikoff said.

Amid this national debate, Jane Doe’s lawyer said on Sunday that his client has received threats from people demanding she withdraw the civil lawsuit against the seven alleged attackers, the university, the fraternity they belonged to, and her own sorority for not having supported her.

“I’m not afraid of these ​people,” lawyer Thomas Giuffra told CNN. “But the threats, the abuse to protect what’s going on, the status quo — these ⁠guys are disgusting. They should stay in their mother’s basement and stay out of the world.”

After Jane Doe’s lawsuit became public, the state governor, Democrat Kathy Hochul, announced last Friday the removal of the prosecutor in charge of the case and her replacement with Letitia James, the New York attorney general with a reputation for being relentless. James is a long-time adversary of President Donald Trump, whom she sued in 2022 — before he won his second term and returned to the White House — for financial fraud.

A New York judge ultimately imposed a fine on the Republican magnate of about $454 million. Trump has appealed that ruling and says the entire process is politically motivated.

Asked last Friday about James’s appointment in the Cornell case, the president of the United States said he felt sorry for the seven accused, calling James “corrupt.” “I feel badly for whoever she’s looking at because they won’t get a fair shake,” Trump said.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition