Aronofsky's The Wrestler

[Watashi]

Darren Aronofsky’s The Wrestler makes it’s premiere next month, and we have the first batch of official promotional production photos. Aronofsky’s The Wrestler tells the story of a old professional wrestler (Mickey Rourke) barely making a living on the independent circuit, who is told by a doctor that he could die if he wrestles again. It’s a film which attempts to do for wrestling what Rocky did for boxing. Marisa Tomei plays a stripper friend named Cassidy and Evan Rachel Wood plays his estranged daughter Stephanie. We will be seeing the film at the Toronto International Film Festival next month, and will check back in with a review from the fest. But for now, check out these photos. As always, click to enlarge.

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/the_wrestler_low_4-440x292.jpg

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/d_aronoksfy_-_the_wrestler_low_3-440x292.jpg

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/d_aronoksfy_-_the_wrestler_low_1-440x292.jpg

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/d_aronoksfy_-_the_wrestler_low-440x292.jpg

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/the_wrestler_low_2-440x292.jpg

[Pop Trash]

I have a sneaking suspicion this movie could be awesome. I really hope he makes the wrestling scenes stylized and wince inducing in that Raging Bull way.

[Spinal]

At last, a role perfectly suited for Rourke's ugly mug.

[Qrazy]

I have a sneaking suspicion this movie could be awesome. I really hope he makes the wrestling scenes stylized and wince inducing in that Raging Bull way.

I'm hoping/guessing they'll be stylized in some sense but I don't see how they could be overly wince inducing given that it's fake.

[Watashi]

Guys, I think you are skimming the fact that Marisa Tomei plays a stripper who probably will get naked. A lot.

[megladon8]

It's ridiculous how hot Marisa Tomei is. Add onto that her age, and it's like some kind of God-given miracle.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I love whoever Marisa's agent is right now.

Also, Evan Rachel Wood...

[number8]

Marisa Tomei? Hot? Mmm...

[number8]

At last, a role perfectly suited for Rourke's ugly mug.

*sigh*

He used to be so fucking handsome.

[Ivan Drago]

I'm there.

[Raiders]

*sigh*

He used to be so fucking handsome.

It is seriously depressing to look at him in Angel Heart and then in those above photos. He sure did get fucked up in his early-90s boxing run.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Eh. I have some faith in Aronofsky, but this project (as it's described) and those pictures do nothing for me. I doubt Tomei will have better... scenes.. than in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, so even that seems kind of blah.

[megladon8]

It is seriously depressing to look at him in Angel Heart and then in those above photos. He sure did get fucked up in his early-90s boxing run.


I know the boxing didn't do him any good, but I thought that, even after all that, he still looked pretty good. He looked like a good looking guy who'd been a boxer...who knew?

It wasn't until he became a plastic surgery addict that he really went downhill.

[Milky Joe]

As a former huge fan of professional wrestling, this looks awesome.

[Bosco B Thug]

So are we in for any Aronofsky-style technical innovation and non-convention with this one?

Rourke's looking scary as usual, the role sure is suited for him.

[SirNewt]

I'm hoping/guessing they'll be stylized in some sense but I don't see how they could be overly wince inducing given that it's fake.

Yes, it's fake but the shit they do can still be pretty painful.

At least according Mick Foley. I don't know a lot about wrestling but the impression I get is that the indie circuit is usually a bit more dangerous too.

[number8]

Of course wrestling is fucking painful. Just because the matches are fixed and rehearsed and they try their best not to seriously injure each other doesn't mean they don't really throw each other around. There's a reason a lot of wrestlers end up old with a broken spine or neck or missing teeth. The fact that Mick Foley is still walking alone is a miracle.

[Spinal]

I've always thought of professional wrestling as a slightly out of control stage combat exhibition. Which means that there is plenty of potential for injury.

[DavidSeven]

Could potentially be sillier than The Fountain.

[transmogrifier]

Aronofsky's not a very good director, and this doesn't seem like especially great material...it'll probably be awesome.

[Morris Schæffer]

Oscar-nom for Rourke. I've a feeling this will be a tremendous comeback role!

[Ivan Drago]

Of course wrestling is fucking painful. Just because the matches are fixed and rehearsed and they try their best not to seriously injure each other doesn't mean they don't really throw each other around. There's a reason a lot of wrestlers end up old with a broken spine or neck or missing teeth. The fact that Mick Foley is still walking alone is a miracle.

Or so many concussions up to the point that their brain resembles that of an 85-year-old man.

Chris Benoit's head never would've gotten fucked up if wrestling was fake.

[balmakboor]

I think those pics make this look awesome. Plus I'll trust Aronofsky to take me anywhere. He hasn't let me down yet.

[Qrazy]

Yes, it's fake but the shit they do can still be pretty painful.

At least according Mick Foley. I don't know a lot about wrestling but the impression I get is that the indie circuit is usually a bit more dangerous too.

Fine but you're still not getting punched regularly in the face which I think sensory-wise is something closer to what Scorsese's aesthetic was striving to demonstrate. Here you get injured and break your backbone or something it's not a psychological element upon which you can as easily manifest a visual motif.

But yeah I guess there is the time between, during and after a particularly impressive stunt that could work as a recurring crux point for a visual motif.

[SirNewt]

Fine but you're still not getting punched regularly in the face which I think sensory-wise is something closer to what Scorsese's aesthetic was striving to demonstrate. Here you get injured and break your backbone or something it's not a psychological element upon which you can as easily manifest a visual motif.

But yeah I guess there is the time between, during and after a particularly impressive stunt that could work as a recurring crux point for a visual motif.

In one, your opponent is trying to make the fight look good and yet is refraining as much as possible from hurting you. In the other the guy really wants to beat your face through the back of your skull. It changes the psychology and physicality of it. . . I guess. . . some.

[KK2.0]

Could potentially be sillier than The Fountain.

i'm afraid so..

[Qrazy]

In one, your opponent is trying to make the fight look good and yet is refraining as much as possible from hurting you. In the other the guy really wants to beat your face through the back of your skull. It changes the psychology and physicality of it. . . I guess. . . some.

Yes it changes the psychology and physicality but my point is more so that in turn that change has an effect on the possibility for a recurring visual motif... you know you have Scorsese's getting punched in the head effecting the visuals motif or Aronofsky's own doing drugs/systematic/repetitious motif but I just don't see that in wrestling you have a similar element upon which to hinge such a motif (unless as I mentioned you're hinging it upon build up/follow through of stunts. I mean I'm sure we'll get good visuals of course but I just don't see a thematic through element here that would give us something more akin to the Aronofsky/Scorsese examples I mentioned earlier. Then again who knows, perhaps Aronofsky will find a through line that I'm not thinking about it but just trying to anticipate one now I can't think of anything. It seems likely though that he'll have his own unique punched in the head motif for his boxing pic after this film.

[megladon8]

Bruce Springsteen has recorded a song for the film. (http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/09/01/bruce-springsteen-in-the-wrestler/)

This is great news. I love The Boss.

[Henry Gale]

It won the top prize at Venice.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/09/06/the-wrestler-wins-the-golden-lion-in-venice/

I thought the news would end with the huge buzz for Rourke's performance, but this is something I did not see coming at all. We'll definitely see it released this year then I guess, huh?

[Amnesiac]

We'll definitely see it released this year then I guess, huh?

I hope so.

[Henry Gale]

Wow. I was fortunate enough to see it this morning during the last day of the Toronto Film Fest and it was just as great as I would have hoped.

Yes, Mickey is indeed fantastic, but what I was most impressed with was that for such a buzzed-about performance, it's almost the opposite of Oscar bait or any other type of obvious awards work. He's not going for the big, flashy emotional moments. He and Aronofsky knew exactly how they needed to present this character to the audience and it's how you see him on screen for entire film. You are hanging on to everything that happens to the character by understanding exactly what he's doing from scene to scene even if you don't necessarily agree. It's a character that is fully realized and beautifully executed. Marvelous work from both sides of the camera for sure.

Aronofsky's work here feels like nothing he's done before. Aside from things like it visually having a much grainier and unpolished look to it, overall it just feels as if his storytelling and style have changed the most. He seems far less interested in making everything about separate themes and doesn't let certain elements overpower others (for instance the score, though still Clint Mansell and still great, is noticeably more low-key than in the past films). He just let's it all unfold for these characters in a way that rings true.

This is a much different Aronofsky film from the kind he showed in (what he refers to as) his "Mind, Body and Spirit" trilogy, but it's just as much the type of movie I'd love to see him make again.

But it's kind of hard to get in everything I felt about it right now. I'll probably talk it more about it closer to when it comes out in December/January. Right now it sits comfortably as the most emotionally engaging and consuming films I've in a while in addition to just being one of the very best of the year.

**** out of ****

[Amnesiac]

Good to hear some more nice thoughts on this film.

Things have really come a long way from the first rumblings about this one, wherein, naturally, people didn't really have much to say (except for likening Aronofsky to Barton Fink). I'm glad it's getting so much praise and accolades. I'm anticipating this as feverishly as Benjamin Button now.

[EvilShoe]

This one contains a lot of familiar material, but manages to rise above that problem for the most part. I didn't care much for Wood's character, and must say I enjoyed the smaller scenes with Rourke a lot more. The one where a Super Nintendo pops up is heartbreaking.

Rourke is as good as you've heard. It's almost as if if he got his face smashed up only to prepare for this role.

[Doclop]

Really liked this movie, too. I think it's one of those where you really have to get the bigger picture before its effect really sinks in. Loved the ending clearly.

[Amnesiac]

http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/thewrestlerposter.jpg

[Boner M]

WHERE'S THE GODDAMN TRAILER

[Grouchy]

"WITNESS THE RESURRECTION OF MICKEY ROURKE".

Heh.

[Amnesiac]

That poster would be much better off with that little blurb, but, oh well.

And, yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing the trailer sometime soon.

[Ezee E]

I may get to see this on Friday.

[KK2.0]

thinks are looking brighter on the horizon for this one.

[Watashi]

Trailer (http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/11/trailer-preview.html)

Finally.

[Boner M]

Um. This looks terrible (Rourke aside).

[Watashi]

Um. This looks terrible (Rourke aside).
What are you smoking?

This is probably one of the best trailers I've seen all year.

[Pop Trash]

Um. This looks terrible (Rourke aside).
Oh please, get over yourself. This looks great.

[The Mike]

Very nice.

[Boner M]

OK, it's obviously just a trailer and the film could as well be wonderful. And yes, the sense of place comes across strong in that footage. BUT I really hope the film isn't as maudlin as the trailer promises it to be, and that it doesn't steamroll us with the glib 'wrestlers are people too!' humanism that's comes across oppressively there.

So, perhaps not terrible. But despite my occasional beefs with Aronofsky in the past, I think he's extremely talented and I had high hopes for this one, and the trailer managed to quell them considerably.

[Boner M]

I expect Sven and no one else to share my reaction.

[Watashi]

I expect Sven and no one else to share my reaction.
Just curious, how much professional wrestling have you watched?

I grew up on it and almost never missed a show and read all the wrestler's bios, so maybe that's why I'm reacting so strongly to the trailer.

[Boner M]

Just curious, how much professional wrestling have you watched?
Lots with my dad when I was a kid, though he always encouraged me to enjoy the ridiculousness of it all. I never really 'followed' it per se.

[Qrazy]

Looks good.

[The Mike]

I grew up on it and almost never missed a show and read all the wrestler's bios, so maybe that's why I'm reacting so strongly to the trailer.I have this too.

Although, I wonder why they didn't just cast Diamond Dallas Page. :lol:

[transmogrifier]

Marisa Tomei is hot.

[The Mike]

Marisa Tomei is hot.
Truth is told!

[transmogrifier]

See, while others were wasting their time debating the merits of the trailer, and by extension, the film itself, I decided to take the prudent course and simply watch Marisa Tomei be hot, and then relay this information to the wider public.

[Boner M]

COUNTERPOINT!

Marisa Tomei is super hot.

[transmogrifier]

COUNTERPOINT!

Marisa Tomei is super hot.

Touche.

[megladon8]

I didn't get a "wrestlers are people, too!" sense from the trailer at all.

At all.

[Boner M]

I didn't get a "wrestlers are people, too!" sense from the trailer at all.

At all.
That's cos you didn't want to.

[megladon8]

That's cos you didn't want to.


Must be it.

You see right through me, like crotchless panties.

[Boner M]

Must be it.

You see right through me, like crotchless panties.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a332/colpot/reeceav.jpg

[megladon8]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a332/colpot/reeceav.jpg


I cut you.

[Melville]

I agree that the trailer looked a bit maudlin, especially the speech to the fans. But trailers typically tend in that direction. I'm assuming the film takes as a given that wrestlers are people; there's no need to press the point.

[Qrazy]

I agree that the trailer looked a bit maudlin, especially the speech to the fans. But trailers typically tend in that direction. I'm assuming the film takes as a given that wrestlers are people; there's no need to press the point.

Yeah I'd say the underdog story runs more of a risk of maudlination than the wrestlers are people angle. But I actually found the scene between him and his daughter to be quite touching.

[Raiders]

Um. This looks terrible (Rourke aside).

Eh, it doesn't look like a particularly compelling narrative, but the film is Rourke, and he looks remarkable... um, his performance looks remarkable.

[DavidSeven]

"The only place I get hurt is... out there."

Gag.

[Crying at the top of a turnbuckle]

Double gag.

[Qrazy]

"The only place I get hurt is... out there."

Gag.

[Crying at the top of a turnbuckle]

Double gag.

Wrestlers are people too.

[Sven]

I expect Sven and no one else to share my reaction.

Do we have a winner?

No, because DavidSeven was also gagging. This movie looks terrible.

[megladon8]

I hope it's playing in NYC when I go in December.

I'd love to see it on the big screen.

[Sycophant]

What an irritating trailer.

Doesn't make the movie look too hot.

Marisa Tomei, of course, looks super duper hot.

[Grouchy]

Wrestlers are people?

[Ezee E]

Marisa Tomei remains hot in what looks to be a completely meh film.

Same deal happened last year.

I heard it is good, but still, what a lame trailer. We basically see the entire movie.

[megladon8]

How come when I wrote a few months ago that I thought Tomei was hot, people acted like I was crazy?

[Ezee E]

How come when I wrote a few months ago that I thought Tomei was hot, people acted like I was crazy?
I don't recall.

If they thought you were crazy, they did not post or see her in the Lumet film.

[megladon8]

I don't recall.

If they thought you were crazy, they did not post or see her in the Lumet film.


I think it was in that thread.

[number8]

Was that me?

I don't think Marisa Tomei is hot.

[Ezee E]

I think it was in that thread.
Must be in the old thread, you didn't post in this one (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=54&highlight=Before+the+devil). In that thread, people pretty much call that the highlight of the movie, ha. And that probably is a fair assessment.

Anyways, those who did call you crazy came to their senses.

[Watashi]

Of course wrestlers are people. What else would they be?

[Boner M]

I think people are misunderstanding my point... my main qualm with the trailer is that every piece of footage makes it look like Aronofsky's working overtime to emphasise the irony that while pro-wrestling is the fraudiest fraud that ever frauded, the people involved with it are warm, genuine dudes with families and lovers and broken hearts JUST LIKE COMMON FOLK, awww. *sniffle*

Of course, that could just be one aspect of it and hopefully the film takes it for granted like Melville suggests.

[Watashi]

I think people are misunderstanding my point... my main qualm with the trailer is that every piece of footage makes it look like Aronofsky's working overtime to emphasise the irony that while pro-wrestling is the fraudiest fraud that ever frauded, the people involved with it are warm, genuine dudes with families and lovers and broken hearts JUST LIKE COMMON FOLK, awww. *sniffle*

Of course, that could just be one aspect of it and hopefully the film takes it for granted like Melville suggests.
I don't see the film like that at all.

Does the common folk work part time at a bakery and date strippers?

Despite the ham-fisted line in the trailer, it is more about the pain Rourke feels outside the ring rather than within. The film is loosely based on real pro wrestler Jake the Snake Roberts.

[Boner M]

*shrug* I've got nuthin'.

In the meantime, I propose a follow-up to this film... The Critic, which follows Armond White as he takes his kids to ball games, gets frustrated with collect calls, has a poignant meeting with his estranged father, and gets along with hipsters at record stores over a shared love of Prince. All of which showing that... dun dun dun... nutjob critics are ordinary folks too!

Starring Samuel L. Jackson.

[Watashi]

Directed by Wes Anderson of course.

[EvilShoe]

The movie's not as sappy as the trailer, don't worry.
(They pretty much showed the entire movie, though.)

[Derek]

*shrug* I've got nuthin'.

In the meantime, I propose a follow-up to this film... The Critic, which follows Armond White as he takes his kids to ball games, gets frustrated with collect calls, has a poignant meeting with his estranged father, and gets along with hipsters at record stores over a shared love of Prince. All of which showing that... dun dun dun... nutjob critics are ordinary folks too!

Starring Samuel L. Jackson.

If it ends with a tearful death bed reunion with Patrick Svensson, the only man who ever understood him, I'm so there.

As for The Wrestler, the trailer's pretty meh, but I expect the film to be better.

[Watashi]

Patrick Svensson

Is it wrong that I had to actually google this name before I finally "got it".

[Derek]

Is it wrong that I had to actually google this name before I finally "got it".

Well, iosos doesn't go by his full name here, but really, who else understands AW like he does? :)

[Qrazy]

Well, iosos doesn't go by his full name here, but really, who else understands AW like he does? :)

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/michaelwalford/2008/05/29/browning_version_1.jpg

[Qrazy]

Some more footage spliced with interview (Aronofsky/Rourke).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRDainAvvrk

[Qrazy]

Also Aronofsky and Bale need to do a movie together because the similarities are ridiculous.

[Milky Joe]

So Rourke bladed himself in this movie. What a pro. I really look forward to this.

[Morris Schæffer]

Wonderful trailer! I love those critic quotes! Nothing beats a powerhouse comeback performance. Go Rourke!

[Amnesiac]

I really like the trailer.

What's wrong with a 'wrestlers are people, too' type of storyline? Raging Bull could be reduced to 'boxers are people, too' if you wanted to craft the trailer in that way. Plus, there's nothing wrong with attaching alienated, weary, broken people to alienating, exhausting, and physically daunting professions. Or is there? Seems like a logical fit to me.

[dreamdead]

I agree with Boner. Trailer look weak structurally (as in plot), but I'm expecting some typical visceral Aronofsky goodness in direction and some dandy Rourke acting.

[Milky Joe]

I am most excited to see this movie to see a realistic depiction of pro wrestling. If it can deliver on that, I'll be satisfied.

[Ezee E]

Nothing wrong with the "wrestlers are people", it's just that the trailer does such a shitty job about it.

[Boner M]

Aronosfky is people, too.

[KK2.0]

interest with comments, up!

interest with trailer, flatline.


Wrestlers are people?

Larger than normal people.

[Fezzik]

Larger than normal people.


Rey Mysterio not withstanding :D

[number8]

:eek:

Marisa Tomei. Double nipple rings.

[Ezee E]

Terrifying (http://movies.yahoo.com/photos/red-carpet/gallery/1306/the-wrestler-ny-screening#photo6)

[Amnesiac]

Some interesting Aronofosky news (http://www.cinematical.com/2008/12/11/aronofskys-plans-for-noah-and-the-fountain-redo/) regarding Noah and a 're-do' of The Fountain:


Darren Aronofsky's Noah movie is on every sensible film fan's wish list, and it seems to inch a little closer to reality every day. In September, he revealed that he had finished the script -- and now comes news as to what he's doing with it. Aronofsky told Ropes of Silicon that he's currently in the process of turning it into a graphic novel. Considering the one he did for The Fountain, we'll be in for a very special read.

But fear not, film fans, he's still planning to put it on the big screen: "Eventually we'll set it up, but we're just figuring it out. It's a very difficult film to get made and we're slowly working on it to get it put together." And how's this for a tease? "There is an actor attached, but I'm not going to say who, but he's a big movie star.

Now I'm really curious as to who the "big movie star" is.

And the following excerpt offers some details on his redo of The Fountain:


Meanwhile, over at First Showing, Aronofsky clarified (kind of) his idea of redoing The Fountain, saying that it wasn't a recut but something like a redux: "It's something more for fans. I worked on the film for 6 years and it went through a lot of versions. And there was one version that was much closer to one of the scripts that we had. And we kind of chose between which way we would go with it and they both are kind of interesting. So I was always curious for myself to see what that alternative version would be. And we cut it actually recently, it's done ... It's very similar but it's looking at a few things in a few different ways and answers a few questions for people and raises some new questions in other ways." The director hopes that popular demand will convince Warner Bros to let him properly make and release it.

This reminds me that I really want to check out the Bluray version of the film.

[Ezee E]

I hope Brad Pitt isn't his star. He's bailed on Aronofsky twice.

[Amnesiac]

I hope Brad Pitt isn't his star. He's bailed on Aronofsky twice.

I know about The Fountain but what's the other instance?

[Ezee E]

I don't know the full truth to this, but he was suppose to work with him on The Fighter but had to bail out. Production has since been put in developmental hell.

[Henry Gale]

After 36 reviews, this is still holding onto a perfect tomatometer. I loved the movie and think Rourke should get the Oscar from what I've seen from this year (though I doubt anything will change it), but I definitely didn't expect such a great initial response.

The critics awards that have been released have also been quite impressive (though for the most part it's just Rourke and Tomei being recognized with those).

Can't wait to see it again in the next few weeks.

[Morris Schæffer]

I think this is my most anticipated film that's on the immediate horizon. Can.not.wait.

[eternity]

After 51 straight positive reviews, Armond White is the first guy to come along and spoil it. Awesome.

[transmogrifier]

After 51 straight positive reviews, Armond White is the first guy to come along and spoil it. Awesome.


Heh. It's not a patch on Ready to Rumble, apparently.

(actually, I think Aronofsky is one of the most overrated directors around, so in this case, White's beligerent rantings with poorly reasoned criticisms sit better with me :))

[Qrazy]

Roommate's sister studies film and managed to get a screener copy of this... boo yeah!

[Watashi]

Roommate's sister studies film and managed to get a screener copy of this... boo yeah!
Rip it. I want it.

[Ivan Drago]

Roommate's sister studies film and managed to get a screener copy of this... boo yeah!

I study film and I don't get screener copies...how the fuck did she get that?

[Qrazy]

I study film and I don't get screener copies...how the fuck did she get that?

Don't know, I"ll have to ask her. I think she interned with CBS this past summer but I'm not sure if that's how she made the connection.

[Qrazy]

Rip it. I want it.

Never ripped something before but I"ll see what I can do.

[megladon8]

Qrazy, if you're able to copy it, I'll take a copy as well.

I'd pay a few bucks for it.

[Ezee E]

I'll wait and see it in the theater.

Of all people, Wats should be able to wait, considering he can see any movie in his theater for free, and I'm sure it'll be playing in January.

[Dukefrukem]

Aronofsky was on Howard Stern this morning. Anyone catch it?

[EvilShoe]

Interview with Aronofsky on the movie:
http://www.avclub.com/content/feature/darren_aronofsky

[Qrazy]

I waited and saw it in the theater. Surprised no one's seen/commented on it yet. I liked it, wasn't blown away. An average script was elevated by good acting and solid execution. Will discuss more when someone else posts some thoughts.

[Ezee E]

comes out here on Friday.

[number8]

I loved it. Its strongest point is not Randy's own family drama but rather his love for wrestling and the movie's excellent portrayal of that lifestyle. I love every single one of the locker room scenes. It's great in both introducing that world and at the same time not explaining it so as to reward those who are familiar with it (ie. it shows the trick of blading, but never calls attention to it).

As a former rabid fan of wrestling, it struck a very emotional chord with me. I kept seeing my favorite wrestlers from years ago, who must now lead these unbelievably sad lives, all because they destroyed themselves entertaining me.

[Milky Joe]

As a former rabid fan of wrestling, it struck a very emotional chord with me. I kept seeing my favorite wrestlers from years ago, who must now lead these unbelievably sad lives, all because they destroyed themselves entertaining me.

This is what I'm looking forward to (not looking forward to seeing really sad people, mind you, but you know what I mean). Apparently Vince hated it, which can only mean that it's a truthful, honest look at the wrestling business, something I've wanted to see for a long, long time.

[number8]

This is what I'm looking forward to (not looking forward to seeing really sad people, mind you, but you know what I mean). Apparently Vince hated it, which can only mean that it's a truthful, honest look at the wrestling business, something I've wanted to see for a long, long time.

S'peakin'a which... (http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/4609-the-slamming-truth-behind-qthe-wrestlerq.html)

[lovejuice]

count me in among those who love this movie. i echo 8 and qrazy that while the script itself is nothing to write home about -- it's still better than the original rocky, if that means anything -- the acting and directing really score. i love aronofsky's "honest" approach. not very often for a director who's greatly praised for his visual to step back and tone down his signature. the movie does benefit from rourke's taking the limelight and not aronofsky.

my favorite film of 2008.

[chrisnu]

Great character work. The movie is all Rourke, and he is fantastic. Very unobtrusive filmmaking by Aronofsky. I much prefer this to the good-looking but underdeveloped The Fountain. Highly recommended.

[Watashi]

The more I think about this film, the less I like it. The film just hammers the point of 'sacrifice' like a blunt object. I also felt the end cheated a bit for having you cheer for a guy who shouldn't earn any of our sympathy. I guess there is some sadness in it, but people comparing this to Raging Bull should just stop. Jake LaMotta is a completely different animal, full of fiery emotion and tortured history. Randy is just kinda... boring. His relationship with his daughter is so force-fed that it could have easily been wiped out. Rourke does the best of what he is given though. It's the ultimate actor showcase for him, so I'm not really seeing the "best of the decade" praise immediately when he is naturally portraying a ficticious version of himself. Nic Cage would have been at least interesting (and hilarious).

[chrisnu]

I don't think that the film is that apologetic. At the end of the film, he's left with absolutely nothing, and openly admits that the world doesn't give a shit about him. All he has is the adulation of fans. I don't think that we as the audience are necessarily supposed to be one. I didn't see the ending as particularly triumphant or uplifting. I think that his actions in the film are open to different emotional responses. That's part of what makes it good. I don't think that the film sets itself up to have the gravitas of Raging Bull, and it's not necessarily bad to be without those aspirations.

[number8]

It's way more Rocky than Raging Bull.

Why shouldn't Randy earn sympathy, anyway?

[Mysterious Dude]

I don't know much about what it's like to be a wrestler, but they totally nailed what it's like to work in a grocery store deli.

[Watashi]

I don't know much about what it's like to be a wrestler, but they totally nailed what it's like to work in a grocery store deli.
Meh. That's how it is at any job. You'll have stupid customers no matter where you go.

One day, Randy's having a blast working at the deli and literally the very next day, he has some impatient customers and gets recognized by a former fan and loses his patience and temper. Toughen up. I didn't buy his quick breakdown.

[number8]

Meh. That's how it is at any job. You'll have stupid customers no matter where you go.

One day, Randy's having a blast working at the deli and literally the very next day, he has some impatient customers and gets recognized by a former fan and loses his patience and temper. Toughen up. I didn't buy his quick breakdown.

But you--and most deli or retail workers--were never a worshipped national celebrity.

[Boner M]

I liked the film quite a bit, although my complaints about the trailer still reverberate slightly. As a few reviews have noted, the Evan Rachel Wood subplot was just a series of false notes - her character, her performance, her function in the narrative - even if it allows for Rourke's most moving moment. However, there was streak of absurd humour throughout the film that prevented things from becoming too maudlin (I loved the shot of Rourke crawling into the tanning bed).

[number8]

Some of the lighter scenes are actually sadder for me than the breakdown scenes with his daughter. I'm thinking specifically of him getting the local kids to play Nintendo with him, and they think it's so old and boring. I love how in that simple scene, it conveys that even small children pity him (they don't like the game, yet they play with him anyway to be polite, but not enough for another round).

[lovejuice]

i don't particularly like the daughter/father subplot either, but i can argue for it. they probably share a lot more history than what's shown or implied within the timespan of the film, and we are supposed to accept the irrationality of the relationship between two individuals who have loved and hated each other for all their lives.

[Qrazy]

Meh. That's how it is at any job. You'll have stupid customers no matter where you go.

One day, Randy's having a blast working at the deli and literally the very next day, he has some impatient customers and gets recognized by a former fan and loses his patience and temper. Toughen up. I didn't buy his quick breakdown.

a) I don't know that it was necessarily the very next day.
b) I've worked in a restaurant where one day was fine and the next shit.
c) It wasn't just the customers it was primarily the direction his life was headed, and his relationship with his daughter and the stripper.

[Mysterious Dude]

I will say I was pretty disappointed by the direction, or lack thereof. I love the flash of Pi and Requiem for a Dream, and I think it's too bad if Aronofsky has "matured" beyond it.

[Pop Trash]

I pretty much loved it. This and Milk are the most emotionally gratifying films I've seen from '08.

I suppose I could deconstruct it and say it does have some flaws. I really loved the first scene with his daughter (where they dance in the abandoned building) but the second was too histrionic and felt a little forced. Also, Marisa Tomei showing up at the end was I suppose a little cliche. But honestly, I don't care. It does such a good job in putting us into the environment of these characters that everything feels honest and earned.

Also, I agree with Antoine and will say that I hope Aronofsky doesn't abandon his previous stylized filmmaking simply because The Wrestler has been so well received. The stripped down, dogme style works here because the film form matches the function of the film and its protagonist. Hopefully Aronofsky recognizes this and moves into other directions for his next films. So far he has been good at matching the form to the function. Hip hop montage style for the drug abuse of Requiem for a Dream, gorgeous retina burning cinematography and SFX for The Fountain, and now stripped down grainy handheld style for The Wrestler.

I don't get some of the complaints that its somehow glib or makes fun of the characters. I mean sure pro-wrestling has some built in absurdities, but that's what makes it an interesting subject. Plus this goes a long way in proving that pro-wrestlers aren't just fakely going through the motions. Like the other (also very good) contact sports movie this year Redbelt, this has the "big fight" ending but manages to subtly change that cliche to make it interesting and moving. The very end is perfect and just ambiguous enough to not feel too pat.

[lovejuice]

Also, Marisa Tomei showing up at the end was I suppose a little cliche.

since i watched too few movies last year, i would never get tired of praising or defending this favorite babe. aronofsky handles the end very well. it's touching but not too cliche. i will argue, the fact that tomei doesn't stick around for randy's "finale" actually makes her appearance equally tragic and uplifting.

[Sxottlan]

I really loved the first scene with his daughter (where they dance in the abandoned building) but the second was too histrionic and felt a little forced.

Yeah, that scene didn't work for me either. When she seemed to come around pretty quickly, I got the impression that it was also crash just as quickly. The entire daughter subplot felt a little half-developed.

And I'm still trying to figure out Randy's thinking there at the end. I thought he came off as either real dense or just selfish when even after Pam shows up, he tells her his real family is out there and then goes out and wrestles. Seemed like he was blowing her off.

Otherwise, I loved the movie. Loved the look of it. I did have to chuckle at the number of ruined places they found a phone for him to use.

And I used to work in a deli. No one gets that particular with how much potato salad they get.

[Yxklyx]

I will say I was pretty disappointed by the direction, or lack thereof. I love the flash of Pi and Requiem for a Dream, and I think it's too bad if Aronofsky has "matured" beyond it.

Well, this is his first film he didn't take part in writing - plus he actually produced it. He's also not writing his next two films (including a RoboCop REMAKE). I think he's been assimilated by the Hollywood machine - just directing material given to him and is no longer an auteur.

The movie was good - though nothing particularly compelling.

[Raiders]

I think he's been assimilated by the Hollywood machine - just directing material given to him and is no longer an auteur.

What a silly assumption. Not all directors who do not write their own screenplays are studio hacks. Very likely he has some hand in choosing the screenplays and he may very well have a lot of creative freedom in making changes, editing, and so forth.

[lovejuice]

And I'm still trying to figure out Randy's thinking there at the end. I thought he came off as either real dense or just selfish when even after Pam shows up, he tells her his real family is out there and then goes out and wrestles. Seemed like he was blowing her off.


i totally understand him. he realizes his life is out there, even if that means to die in the ring. more than that, it's clear pam's place is anywhere but beside him no matter where that is.
i am too personal with this film. i watched it on the day i got an award for my short story and when i heard some heart-broken news about my ex-girlfriend -- whose name is, no less, pam, and looks somewhat like an asian version of tomei.

[Qrazy]

With Pam it was simply too late, too late. Once he heard the crowd calling for him he couldn't go back. He tried to make his 'real' life work and he couldn't. And even if she had come around earlier it still may not have been enough. The deli counter scene suggests this. All he knew how to do was wrestle, it's what made him feel alive. Returning to some of his former glory was the most he thought he could wish for. One of the things the film really does correctly is it's exploration of the loss of fame. This isn't Rocky where you get to have your cake and eat it too (and yeah Rocky didn't win the fight but he lasted 15 rounds and got the girl). In this film if you want the cake you have to pay the price. The price being your life. And dead people don't eat cake.

[Henry Gale]

Well, this is his first film he didn't take part in writing - plus he actually produced it. He's also not writing his next two films (including a RoboCop REMAKE). I think he's been assimilated by the Hollywood machine - just directing material given to him and is no longer an auteur.

I'm pretty sure I've heard Aronofsky say that he always wanted to make the movie but he just didn't know how to write it himself. Over time he worked with different screenwriters and developed scripts only knowing that he wanted it to end the way the final film does. It wasn't until Siegel's script that he was happy and even then he basically re-wrote all of the dialogue to "better fit Mickey's mouth".

But I will admit that before I had heard all of that (which was after I saw the movie at Toronto Film Fest) I just assumed a more optimistic of your thinking.

[Benny Profane]

I haven't read through the thread, or read any reviews on this film, but a friend just told me that Marisa Tomei shows her goodies, and I don't think I can wait for the DVD now. I'll try to see it this weekend.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I haven't read through the thread, or read any reviews on this film, but a friend just told me that Marisa Tomei shows her goodies, and I don't think I can wait for the DVD now. I'll try to see it this weekend.

Or you can just watch half of her filmography.

Anyways, saw this the other day and thought it was good, but hardly great. A middling screenplay shot in occasionally annoying, occasionally interesting verite style that was overshadowed by Rourke's wonderful performance.

Oh, and how painful was that wrestling scene? Godsdamn, I thought I was going to throw up.

[Raiders]

Or you can just watch half of her filmography.

Before the Devils Knows You're Dead and The Wrestler are half her filmography?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Before the Devils Knows You're Dead and The Wrestler are half her filmography?

There's no way that those are the only 2 movies she's shown herself to me. I have naked Tomei in various scenes in my frontal lobe.

[Kurosawa Fan]

There's no way that those are the only 2 movies she's shown herself to me. I have naked Tomei in various scenes in my frontal lobe.

Factotum is the only other one I know of.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Factotum is the only other one I know of.

Bah! All of you.

The point essentially is that Tomei gets naked a lot.

[Ezee E]

Bah! All of you.

The point essentially is that Tomei gets naked a lot.
Post 2000.

Pre-2000 though? Anyone?

[number8]

http://www.mrskin.com/nude-celebrity/939/marisa-tomei-nude

[Yxklyx]

I haven't read through the thread, or read any reviews on this film, but a friend just told me that Marisa Tomei shows her goodies, and I don't think I can wait for the DVD now. I'll try to see it this weekend.

I was wondering if those were just realistic looking pasties, hmm...

[Amnesiac]

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww46/Amnesiac7/rourkere.jpg

Great film.

Aronofsky begins by pursuing Randy in an effective long-take, an obstinate tracking shot focused on Randy's back as he wanders from a school gym and towards his poor excuse for a domestic space. The lonely walk of a weary, washed-up pariah of sorts, whose solace is a van ornamented with artifacts from his fizzled out wrestling career. Since Randy's face is decidedly withheld for a good while, one gets the sense that Randy is eluding the camera, waiting until he arrives at his closed off sanctuary (the inside of his van) before revealing his disheveled and weathered face. This is, of course, a particularly apt opening considering the shame, loneliness and faded prestige that haunt Rourke for the duration of the film.

There is a lot more to appreciate. The obvious, yet effective, parallel between Tomei and Rourke's characters — they are both coming to terms with the transient nature of their similar careers. They both make their living in industries where the prime commodity is the flesh; she is in the business of carnal desire, while he is in the business of masochism and mutilation. They both are found grappling with the expiration date that came with their aging bodies. And thus, we find these gentle, affable, human souls, so particularly lonely and weary... lost and adrift in industries where any glory is either ephemeral, or horribly demeaning.

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww46/Amnesiac7/rourke2.jpg

The ending is particularly bleak but fitting. After ruining his chance at redemption with his daughter, and being turned down by Cassidy, Randy begins to realize that all he has left is some guy vaguely remembering him at a Deli counter. This is the Ram's reward: standing around at desolate autograph signings and getting occasional, curious recognition from random people. The fact that this is his lot in life, rather than meaningful and loving relationships, is what causes him to return to the only thing that makes him feel alive: pain.

Whether it is a matter of self-punishment, a means of dulling himself to a world he can't seem to reconcile with his socially stunted nature, or a way of finding transient glory despite his fleeting relevancy... the ring is the only place the Ram has left at the end of the film. And by the time Cassidy shows up, it's far too late — he's in the pilot seat, the engine is revved up, and he's readying himself for one last kamikaze mission.

Pairing broken, weary men able only to claw and scratch at the world rather than be let into its warmth with a career of self-mutiliation is a terrific idea. It could have been done with too much saccharine, but Aronofsky and Robert D. Siegel made sure that we got something quite affecting. Rourke is pathos incarnate, tempering his doomed trajectory with several flashes of humor, kindness and warmth. Unfortunately for the Ram, Cassidy, and Stephenie... the expiration date on weathered bodies can never quite match up with the longevity of the longings of the heart. These frayed bodies do not show mercy, they do not halt in their steady decay and ruin so as to give reprieve, and another redemptive opportunity, to the stumbling mistakes of earnest human beings.

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww46/Amnesiac7/rourke.jpg

And then there is the idea of Randy as a Jesus Christ figure. While one could certainly say that they were both "tough", Randy's resiliency is for naught. He has no epic quest, no grand salvation to deliver. His sacrifice is muddled amongst the mundane and the arbitrary. His weak and trembling longings for something beyond the fading vestige of a gaudy and increasingly irrelevant career is left buried under the roaring screams of the crowd and the visceral impact of his final Ram Slam.

[Ezee E]

The camraderie and love of wrestling is akin to Field of Dreams' love of baseball. Twenty years of wrestling has led to a torn up body, little to no money, loneliness, but that roar of the crowd can't be beat.

Spoilers follow.


This is what fuels Randy's life, and a near stint with retirement shows that he has nothing but wrestling going for him. He attempts to make it work, by playing nice with a stripper, rekindling a family relationship, and even enjoying a day at the delishop, but the inevitable comes down on him. It's not what he enjoys, and he goes back to what he loves.

The wrestling scenes are brutal but not disturbing. I never wonder why Randy is doing this profession, it just seems understood without any telling. The friendship and his determination seem good enough.

What's interesting is the way we follow Randy. Whenever we're behind him, he seems to be playing "Randy" or at least be in a good mood. Whenever we're in front of him, backing away, he's angry/sad/"himself." This is mirrored by Marisa Tomei's character who also has to put on an act for customers/fans.

Many do not like the family storyline with his daughter. It is what it is, however, I think it's just Randy finding out that he is too late at being that kind of person. It's understandable to not be sympathetic for that man, but the only reason he attempted to go that way was because of his near-retirement.


Darren Aronofsky changes his style, but it's all for the better of this film. This film is first and foremost Mickey Rourke's. Had we used the kinetic editing, or previous visual style of Aronofsky's films, I hardly think it would've been as affecting.

There really is not much wrestling in this movie, similar to Raging Bull, but their scenes are the most significant. After all, it is what Randy is all about. And that's what makes it one of the best movies of 2008.

[/slightly drunk, so apologies for incoherence]

[megladon8]

I don't think Mickey Rourke is very frightened by Chris Jericho. (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=tnR_WX5snAs)

Looked like Rourke was holding back a laugh the whole time :)

[The Mike]

I don't think Mickey Rourke is very frightened by Chris Jericho. (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=tnR_WX5snAs)

Looked like Rourke was holding back a laugh the whole time :)

Not scripted at all. :lol:

[chrisnu]

I don't think Mickey Rourke is very frightened by Chris Jericho. (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=tnR_WX5snAs)

Looked like Rourke was holding back a laugh the whole time :)
I get the feeling that Rourke could've mentally destroyed him at any time, but chose not to. Taking the high road, as he said. :)

[Derek]

I get the feeling that Rourke could've mentally destroyed him at any time, but chose not to. Taking the high road, as he said. :)

:lol:

"Have a good night, son."

[Yxklyx]

I thought it cool that he drove a Dodge Ram Van.

[Dukefrukem]

I haven't had internet to talk about this film but I saw it over the weekend and loved it. Rourke is taking it home at the Oscars.

[Sycophant]

This movie was pretty damned beautiful.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Boy, I continue to not have very good things to say about the movies I'm cramming in before Sunday. This is really disappointing. The Wrestler isn't a bad movie, in fact I'd be willing to venture that somewhere in that plot (especially with that performance by Rourke) is a very good movie, but it's so downtrodden with cliche after cliche that it feels as mediocre as nearly every other film I've seen from this Oscar season. Not a single film has done anything to truly separate itself. And I don't get the love for Tomei's performance. Average, unlike her physique.

[Qrazy]

Boy, I continue to not have very good things to say about the movies I'm cramming in before Sunday. This is really disappointing. The Wrestler isn't a bad movie, in fact I'd be willing to venture that somewhere in that plot (especially with that performance by Rourke) is a very good movie, but it's so downtrodden with cliche after cliche that it feels as mediocre as nearly every other film I've seen from this Oscar season. Not a single film has done anything to truly separate itself. And I don't get the love for Tomei's performance. Average, unlike her physique.

Yeah the script really hurt this film.

[Amnesiac]

I don't really see what is so awful about the script.

Here's a little bit of news, the actor who played the steroids dealer in the film, Scott Siegel, was arrested on drug charges after leading police on a high-speed chase (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/The-Wrestler-Actor-Leads-DEA-on-High-Speed-Chase.html). Apparently he was also " arrested in 1999 for distributing steroids, ecstasy and an animal tranquilizer that can be used for hallucinations."

[The Mike]

I don't really see what is so awful about the script.

Here's a little bit of news, the actor who played the steroids dealer in the film, Scott Siegel, was arrested on drug charges after leading police on a high-speed chase (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/The-Wrestler-Actor-Leads-DEA-on-High-Speed-Chase.html). Apparently he was also " arrested in 1999 for distributing steroids, ecstasy and an animal tranquilizer that can be used for hallucinations."

METHod actor? :lol:

[lovejuice]

I don't really see what is so awful about the script.

the way i see it is, no, the script ain't that great. but the whole movie is supposedly built on a cliche. that's why the acting, and i'll argue, the directing are so much stand out. as long as there's no lucasian dialogue -- which i don't think there is -- the script's serviceable.

[Amnesiac]

the whole movie is supposedly built on a cliche.

Yeah, I don't know if the apparently cliché quality of the script ipso facto hurts the final film, though.

[Qrazy]

I don't really see what is so awful about the script.

Here's a little bit of news, the actor who played the steroids dealer in the film, Scott Siegel, was arrested on drug charges after leading police on a high-speed chase (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/The-Wrestler-Actor-Leads-DEA-on-High-Speed-Chase.html). Apparently he was also " arrested in 1999 for distributing steroids, ecstasy and an animal tranquilizer that can be used for hallucinations."

It's a series of cliches buoyed solely by Aronofsky's directorial approach to the material and the performance of the cast. An aging wrestler nearing the end of his career, one last chance to kept back on top, his heart problems keeping him from wrestling, the daughter sub-plot, failed adjustment to everyday living, I only get hurt out there, basically the overall arc of the story. If I'd read this script before seeing the film I would have decried it as disposable Oscar baitery.

[lovejuice]

Yeah, I don't know if the apparently cliché quality of the script ipso facto hurts the final film, though.

then can we say "american dream" -- a theme of sort to this movie -- is by itself a cliche concept?

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I don't know if the apparently cliché quality of the script ipso facto hurts the final film, though.

They made the most out of the cliche-ridden script they had. If they had had a better script the film could have been even more successful.

[Amnesiac]

If I'd read this script before seeing the film I would have decried it as disposable Oscar baitery.

Good thing you saw the film then.


They made the most out of the cliche-ridden script they had. If they had had a better script the film could have been even more successful.

Perhaps. But it's a film. A script isn't a film, and we're not merely dealing with typography when we go see The Wrestler. This is exactly why we can sit around talking about Aronofsky, Rourke, Tomei, Wood, Alberti, etc. elevating the material. Yes, a script invariably informs and affects a film, but there are all these other people breathing life into it. The presence of a cliché or two shouldn't be a crippling detriment. Nor even worth excessively moaning about each and every time, because even material that has an overtly clichéd backbone can manage to exude pathos and sublimity.

A downward trajectory narrative littered with certain familiarities, sure. There's nothing abhorrent about treading over old ground, there's only something abhorrent about someone who does so without any interest in redeeming that old ground. Making it tick again.


then can we say "american dream" -- a theme of sort to this movie -- is by itself a cliche concept?

I guess. It's a idea that can be mined and tackled from all sorts of angles. And that's fine by me.

[number8]

Well, that's assuming scripts are always exactly like the movie. I think for this one the script was vastly different from the finished film. Spiegel went through many (significantly different) drafts--he claims it was around 50. Eventually the minimalist one you see onscreen is one that was hammered down and decided on by Aranofsky and Rourke to work best in bringing out his performance. I agree, and so in terms of accomplishment, the script performed its job very well.

[Qrazy]

Good thing you saw the film then.

Perhaps. But it's a film. A script isn't a film, and we're not merely dealing with typography when we go see The Wrestler.

No, but it is part of the foundation of the film and if the foundation is faulty the house as a whole suffers.


This is exactly why we' can sit around talking about Aronofsky, Rourke, Tomei, Wood, Alberti, etc. elevating the material.

Key word being elevates. As in the script needed to be elevated from where it began.


Yes, a script invariably informs and affects a film, but there are all these other people breathing life into it. The presence of a cliché or two shouldn't be a crippling detriment. Nor even worth excessively moaning about each and every time, because even material that has an overtly clichéd backbone can manage to exude pathos and sublimity.

It can strive to but ultimately fail to reach such heights because it's launching off of a faulty springboard. Rourke made the final speech work well enough but it wasn't a perfect synthesis of speech and performance because the speech itself was fairly glib.


A downward trajectory narrative littered with certain familiarities, sure. There's nothing abhorrent about treading over old ground, there's only something abhorrent about someone without any interest in redeeming that old ground. Making it tick again.


That would all be well and good if the script subverted it's cliches, except it doesn't, it's just carried past them by the strength of Rourke's performance and Aronofsky's direction.

[Qrazy]

Well, that's assuming scripts are always exactly like the movie.

I don't think it's really assuming any such thing.


I think for this one the script was vastly different from the finished film. Spiegel went through many (significantly different) drafts--he claims it was around 50. Eventually the minimalist one you see onscreen is one that was hammered down and decided on by Aranofsky and Rourke to work best in bringing out his performance. I agree, and so in terms of accomplishment, the script performed its job very well.

I don't really feel that it did. I don't care if he went through 50 or 100 drafts the only draft I'm commenting on is the one in the finished film and I still find it to be weak. And not weak because it's minimalist but weak because I feel it often takes the easy road either in terms of character arc, plot arc, narrative thread, what have you.

[Amnesiac]

No, but it is part of the foundation of the film and if the foundation is faulty the house as a whole suffers.

Nah, it's context-sensitive. Once the script makes the transition to the screen, if that transition is successful, then hooray. Most certainly, there would be scripts that are unsalvageable dreck but that's not what we got with The Wrestler.

I just can't saddle up with those who would want to take a film down a significant notch solely because it contains certain hallmarks/familiarities/clichés.



Key word being elevates. As in the script needed to be elevated from where it began.

Yep. Elevation, the transition process, the acquisition of competent talent, etc. ... and out came a great film.



It can strive to but ultimately fail to reach such heights because it's launching off of a faulty springboard. Rourke made the final speech work well enough but it wasn't a perfect synthesis of speech and performance because the speech itself was fairly glib.

In regards to the faulty springboard analogy, it's not the springboard that makes the final call, it's the execution and the executors. Any script can be handled horribly, and yes some scripts catapult certain films more assuredly, but so long as there is assured talent behind the helm, most scripts can be steered towards success. I am not saying the script is relevant but that it can does not have to be marvelous in order for a fantastic film to be made, nor does a horrible script automatically necessitate a film bankrupt of quality. One of the benefits of a visual, performative medium.



That would all be well and good if the script subverted it's cliches, except it doesn't, it's just carried past them by the strength of Rourke's performance and Aronofsky's direction.

Redeeming clichés and tapping into what makes them tick, what makes them work, doesn't necessarily mean you have to subvert them or breach them. You can adhere by them, sure, but you can do so with gravitas and assurance. The Wrestler managed this feat.

[Qrazy]

Nah, it's context-sensitive. Once the script makes the transition to the screen, if that transition is successful, then hooray. Most certainly, there would be scripts that are unsalvageable dreck but that's not what we got with The Wrestler.

Ok I made the singular remark about theoretically reading the script outside of the film but ultimately my criticisms have been referring to the script in relation to the film just as with a different film I might criticize a poorly lit shot or some faulty sound design.


I just can't saddle up with those who would want to take a film down a significant notch solely because it contains certain hallmarks/familiarities/clichés.

I don't find those three things to be synonymous.


Yep. Elevation, the transition process, the acquisition of competent talent, etc. ... and out came a great film.

Out came a pretty good film but not a great one because the script is weak.


In regards to the faulty springboard analogy, it's not the springboard that makes the final call, it's the execution and the executors. Any script can be handled horribly, and yes some scripts catapult certain films more assuredly, but so long as there is assured talent behind the helm, most scripts can be steered towards success. I am not saying the script is relevant but that it can does not have to be marvelous in order for a fantastic film to be made, nor does a horrible script automatically necessitate a film bankrupt of quality. One of the benefits of a visual, performative medium.

Yeah well no, I don't agree with any of these theories as regards the creation of a film.


Redeeming clichés and tapping into what makes them tick, what makes them work, doesn't necessarily mean you have to subvert them or breach them. You can adhere by them, sure, but you can do so with gravitas and assurance. The Wrestler managed this feat.

It tries pretty damn hard and mostly succeeds, it's true.

[Pop Trash]

I guess I can see how if you seperate the script from what's up on screen, some of it could be cliche. And I've stated that the last scene with his daughter and Marisa Tomei's character showing up at the end was a bit much. But I think Aronofsky and the actors do such a good job of immersing you into the world of broken down Jersey and the world of wrestling in general, it doesn't matter. I honestly thought the script was good, maybe not great, but good. I especially liked any of the scenes involving just the wrestlers. That writing seemed spot-on. And let's face it...life is often one cliche after another. The key for films (or any storytelling) is to make such "cliches" seem true and naturalistic and true to the form of the particular film.

[Raiders]

I think Ed Gonzalez had a nice line that summed up the film's problems nicely:


The problem here in a nutshell: Aronofsky wanted to make a '70s movie, but instead of looking back to Hal Ashby, Bob Rafelson, or Martin Ritt for inspiration, he takes a page from the John G. Avildsen more schematic playbook.

[Qrazy]

I guess I can see how if you seperate the script from what's up on screen, some of it could be cliche. And I've stated that the last scene with his daughter and Marisa Tomei's character showing up at the end was a bit much. But I think Aronofsky and the actors do such a good job of immersing you into the world of broken down Jersey and the world of wrestling in general, it doesn't matter. I honestly thought the script was good, maybe not great, but good. I especially liked any of the scenes involving just the wrestlers. That writing seemed spot-on. And let's face it...life is often one cliche after another. The key for films (or any storytelling) is to make such "cliches" seem true and naturalistic and true to the form of the particular film.

I think it's a good film as well. I just don't think it's a great film and mostly for scripting reasons.

[Amnesiac]

Ok I made the singular remark about theoretically reading the script outside of the film but ultimately my criticisms have been referring to the script in relation to the film just as with a different film I might criticize a poorly lit shot or some faulty sound design.

I don't want to say a script is beyond criticism or anything, but I think the main thing is that I am more inclined to forgive the clichés of a certain script if the outcome is good. Spotting a cliché isn't always an automatic detriment for me because there are so many other factors involved.



I don't find those three things to be synonymous.

Fair enough, I was bit precipitate with my addition of "hallmark", which is admittedly a little out of place in a debate over the merits of a "cliche-ridden script".



Out came a pretty good film but not a great one because the script is weak.


Yeah, like I said, perhaps... but I can't sit there and really and truly bemoan the clichés because I can't honestly tell myself that they truly hurt the experience for me. Or that Randy's particulr story necessitated the subversion of a typical downward trajectory narrative (or, in other words, what you might call a handful of clichés). I certainly demand a certain something out of films in order for them to be "great". But that doesn't mean they absolutely need to abstain from clichés. I don't watch a film, spot a cliché and get discouraged because I realize that its presence does not automatically make the film dissatisfactory. Perhaps I am redundantly stating my point here, but oh well.



Yeah well no, I don't agree with any of these theories as regards the creation of a film.

Again, I'm not trying to discredit the influence and importance of the script writing process when it comes to making a film, a foundation is important... rather, I think a film can persevere beyond the apparent limitations of a script and become something quite great. I think Siegel and Aronofsky set up this one up rather adeptly, and most likely knew that it was going to take a strong directorial effort as well as bravura performances to make this thing work. The foundation was set, it's about what you do with the foundation. Like I said, film is a performative/creative medium and it's these type of factors that can make a cliché compelling, even if you're seeing it for the third or fourth time.

But I understand, you just can't help but think it would have turned out to be something better had it been more original rather than going over the same old ground. I can see where you're coming from, and the less cliché-heavy version of The Wrestler you want may ostensibly have turned out to be the superior film, but I personally didn't feel that the clichés actually crippled the film in any significant way. I'm not sure this is the type of story that has to subvert or breach clichés... there's still a place for cliché in cinema, I'd say.



It tries pretty damn hard and mostly succeeds, it's true.

Yep, I guess I just feel it succeeds more than you do because I wasn't too miffed about spotting a few clichés.


I think it's a good film as well. I just don't think it's a great film and mostly for scripting reasons.

Which is, ultimately, a fair position to get behind. Eh, maybe I should have pulled the "agree to disagree" card a while back.

But one more thing...


Rourke made the final speech work well enough but it wasn't a perfect synthesis of speech and performance because the speech itself was fairly glib.

How is the final speech somehow glib? That is, if we have the same definition: "fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow". Given the context of Randy's character, and what he went through, and his over-all characterization... how did that speech not absolutely work, given both the character and the performance? In what ways is it insincere or shallow?

[Qrazy]

How is the final speech somehow glib? That is, if we have the same definition: "fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow". Given the context of Randy's character, and what he went through, and his over-all characterization... how did that speech not absolutely work, given both the character and the performance? In what ways is it insincere or shallow?

Yes on all of the above before this paragraph I think we should go the agree to disagree route since our opinions regarding the film don't vary that greatly.

Again I feel that Rourke was able to just barely pull off what at heart strikes me as a really cheesy scene. I meant glib as in superficial rather than insincere. I suppose in a sense it's sincere but tying together Randy's final move with his heart failure... I don't know, the metaphor just seems too blatant to me. Yes in a sense the film has been building to this but should it have been? Aronofsky walks a very fine line here between pathos and melodramatic overzealousness and I feel he only partially succeeds.

[Amnesiac]

Yes on all of the above before this paragraph I think we should go the agree to disagree route since our opinions regarding the film don't vary that greatly.

Again I feel that Rourke was able to just barely pull off what at heart strikes me as a really cheesy scene. I meant glib as in superficial rather than insincere. I suppose in a sense it's sincere but tying together Randy's final move with his heart failure...

But even so, he is incredibly unhealthy, weathered, and on top of all this, he is kind of stunted when it comes to forming relationships. In a way, Randy is kind of a self-induced pariah... I thought the idea of him heading back to the one place that could resuscitate him (however transiently) was incredibly appropriate. And the heart-failure had to be a factor, because it totally informs Randy's misery. There's an unsettling desperation in Randy's actions, mostly attributable to the fact that he's totally aware this could be his end, and yet he seems almost ecstatic when he walks in. I found all that to be really tragic and I couldn't manage to find the cheese in it... but I probably could envision a similar scene, without the same talent, coming out a little cheesy.


I don't know, the metaphor just seems too blatant to me. Yes in a sense the film has been building to this but should it have been? Aronofsky walks a very fine line here between pathos and melodramatic overzealousness and I feel he only partially succeeds.

Again, I can see where you're coming from but I feel that the film naturally escalated to that point without tipping over the precipice into insincerity. Where else should the film have been building up to? This is a guy whose only claim to success has been the ring, every other facet of his life has in someway been broken or is soon to be broken. There's an affecting tragedy there... the idea that all he is left is this gaudy, sensationalistic arena and even that resuscitating force will end up destroying him. And I don't see how Aronofsky or Rourke doesn't sell this effectively.

Is the final scene too appropriate? Or too on the nose? Or too cliché?

[Qrazy]

But even so, he is incredibly unhealthy, weathered, and on-top of all this, he is kind of stunted when it comes to forming relationships. In a way, Randy is kind of a self-induced pariah... I thought the idea of him heading back to the one place that could resuscitate him (however transiently) was incredibly appropriate. And the heart-failure had to be a factor, because it totally informs Randy's misery. There's an unsettling desperation in Randy's actions, mostly attributable the fact that he's totally aware this could be his end, and yet he seems almost ecstatic when he walks in. I found all that to be really tragic and I couldn't manage to find the cheese in it... but I probably could envision a similar scene, without the same talent, coming out a little cheesy.



Again, I can see where you're coming from but I feel that the film naturally escalated to that point without tipping over the precipice into insincerity. Where else should the film have been building up to? This is a guy whose only claim to success has been the ring, every other facet of his life has in someway been broken or is soon to be broken. There's an affecting tragedy there... the idea that all he is left is this gaudy, sensationalistic arena and even that resuscitating force will end up destroying him. And I don't see how Aronofsky or Rourke doesn't sell this effectively.

Is the final scene too appropriate? Or too on the nose? Or too cliché?

It's just one of those situations where operatic excess comes together with a naturalistic aesthetic and the scene walks a very fine line as a result. It's mostly successful but yeah, too on the nose. His heart literally breaking as he does his final Ram Slam, it's a bit much.

[Amnesiac]

His heart literally breaking as he does his final Ram Slam, it's a bit much.

Well, it's strongly implied (Randy's obviously perspired and weary as he prepares himself) but it's still a little ambiguous. Either way, I think that, just like the clichés, something that is ostensibly sugary or contrived can still be executed with the right amount of gravitas... if you have the right talent at the helm.

[ledfloyd]

Best Picture at the ISAs

[number8]

Rourke's acceptance speech was legendary.

[chrisnu]

Rourke's acceptance speech was legendary.

Found it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v19168_AOfA)

[Boner M]

Somewhere, iosos is weeping.

[dreamdead]

Awesome speech. Great change-up from the typical thank the agent nonsense that has become customary.

The film itself is good. The direction is likely Aronofsky's most accomplished while remaining in perfect harmony with the story, and it's wonderful to see Aronofsky also adopt a slight Dardenne Bros/Tarr behind the actor perspective. Naturally, this film's script is still too sensationalistic to work on the Dardenne/Tarr wavelength, and it is the weakest aspect of the film, but it's intesting to see an artsier style married to a classical Hollywood script. Although rather schematic in their structure, Rouke's scenes with Wood aren't that bad, so even if the closeness in the abandoned building isn't fully earned, it still works. And though the ending is basically understood from the start, I like where Aronofsky and Siegel choose to end it, as it's still largely understood as a moment of personal failure.

[Qrazy]

As it's still largely understood as a moment of personal failure.

I don't know if I agree with this bit. I do with your other remarks.

[DavidSeven]

Saw this a couple weeks ago. Not bad. The last Evan Rachel Wood scene brings it down some notches. That whole arc is unconvincing, but they went especially too big on the final confrontation. It's also a little too cliche for a film that already has a stripper with a heart of gold. Rourke was good, but thought he emoted too much at times. Not convinced that Aronofsky did anything special with his verite stylings or that it added anything significant to the film. Got to give a credit for an affecting story though, and there's some nice nuances sprinkled throughout.

[Qrazy]

Saw this a couple weeks ago. Not bad. The last Evan Rachel Wood scene brings it down some notches. That whole arc is unconvincing, but they went especially too big on the final confrontation. It's also a little too cliche for a film that already has a stripper with a heart of gold. Rourke was good, but thought he emoted too much at times. Not convinced that Aronofsky did anything special with his verite stylings or that it added anything significant to the film. Got to give a credit for an affecting story though, and there's some nice nuances sprinkled throughout. Liked it more than my comments suggest.

Well without the verite stylings in terms of cinematography, approach to staging and dramatic direction don't you think the estranged daughter, stripper with a heart of gold, and over the hill wrestler set-up would have devolved into complete cliche? I'd say it's the verite approach to the material that breathes any life into it at all.

[DavidSeven]

Well without the verite stylings in terms of cinematography, approach to staging and dramatic direction don't you think the estranged daughter, stripper with a heart of gold, and over the hill wrestler set-up would have devolved into complete cliche? I'd say it's the verite approach to the material that breathes any life into it at all.

I was just thinking exactly along these lines before I read your post. There's probably some legitimacy in that view, but then, it seems the style functions as more of a crutch than anything else. I'm probably being unfairly harsh since I saw the film days after seeing the superbly shot Rachel Getting Married, but I wish Aronofsky didn't let go of all his sensibilities in service of Rourke and this story.

[Pop Trash]

I was just thinking exactly along these lines before I read your post. There's probably some legitimacy in that view, but then, it seems the style functions as more of a crutch than anything else. I'm probably being unfairly harsh since I saw the film days after seeing the superbly shot Rachel Getting Married, but I wish Aronofsky didn't let go of all his sensibilities in service of Rourke and this story.
Wow, I really didn't think this was any "worse" in its hand-held verite style than Rachel Getting Married.

[DavidSeven]

Wow, I really didn't think this was any "worse" in its hand-held verite style than Rachel Getting Married.

Demme's shots were staged and blocked better, and I thought his focal length adjustments were on-point every time. His shots were probably more difficult too given the number of subjects crammed into confined spaces. I believe Aronofsky said he often just put the camera on his shoulder and just started shooting, and that certainly came across in the film. This is clearly not the approach that Demme took -- there was obviously a high level of intracacy in his shots. Anyway, don't mean to say that the style of this film is bad or inappropriate. It just wasn't very special.

[Spinal]

What a complete and utter disappointment this was. The biggest problem is a shallow, unimaginative screenplay that barely improves upon the experience of reading a plot synopsis. Shallow characters placed in obvious dramatic situations that are neither moving nor insightful. On more than one occasion, I was able to predict what the next line or scene would be. The naturalistic acting and direction give it an air of faux importance, but there just isn't much here of substance. Rourke's much hyped performance rarely goes beyond a conversational mumble. Many bad scenes. Not a single great one. Lame.

[Amnesiac]

What a complete and utter disappointment this was. The biggest problem is a shallow, unimaginative screenplay that barely improves upon the experience of reading a plot synopsis. Shallow characters placed in obvious dramatic situations that are neither moving nor insightful. On more than one occasion, I was able to predict what the next line or scene would be. The naturalistic acting and direction give it an air of faux importance, but there just isn't much here of substance. Rourke's much hyped performance rarely goes beyond a conversational mumble. Many bad scenes. Not a single great one. Lame.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y112/videodrone5000/Random_Crap/vlcsnap-2678778.png

[Spinal]

Are you trying to tell me that's a great scene? Because, no. The word would be 'maudlin'.

[Amnesiac]

I actually just felt that the picture seemed somehow apt given the content of your post.

But, yeah, I thought it was a pretty good scene.

[Spinal]

But seriously though. Marisa Tomei ... holy crap.

[Amnesiac]

I also thought she was great in this. Both her and Rourke, pathos-infused performances.

[Spinal]

I also thought she was great in this. Both her and Rourke, pathos-infused performances.

I wasn't talking about her performance. She was fine, but nothing really special compared to her best work.

[Pop Trash]

What a complete and utter disappointment this was. The biggest problem is a shallow, unimaginative screenplay that barely improves upon the experience of reading a plot synopsis. Shallow characters placed in obvious dramatic situations that are neither moving nor insightful. On more than one occasion, I was able to predict what the next line or scene would be. The naturalistic acting and direction give it an air of faux importance, but there just isn't much here of substance. Rourke's much hyped performance rarely goes beyond a conversational mumble. Many bad scenes. Not a single great one. Lame.
Says the Slumdog Millionaire defender. Lame.

[Scar]

Watched it last weekend, and consider me the Anti-Spinal in regards to the movie.

[Derek]

Watched it last weekend, and consider me the Anti-Spinal in regards to the movie.

So you didn't think Marisa Tomei was smokin' hot?

[Scar]

So you didn't think Marisa Tomei was smokin' hot?

D'OH!

[DavidSeven]

Her nude scene(s) were steamier in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Sort of overshadows the best thing The Wrestler has going for it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Her nude scene(s) were steamier in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Sort of overshadows the best thing The Wrestler has going for it.

My sentiments exactly. Though I certainly don't want to discourage her from future... endeavors.

[Qrazy]

Her nude scene(s) were steamier in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Sort of overshadows the best thing The Wrestler has going for it.

Was she the one having sex with PSH at the beginning of the film? Because I shut it off about 30 seconds in.

[DavidSeven]

Was she the one having sex with PSH at the beginning of the film? Because I shut it off about 30 seconds in.

Why would that make you want to shut off the film? Anyway...

Yes. And she gets naked again later. You didn't miss much otherwise.

[Qrazy]

Why would that make you want to shut off the film? Anyway...

Yes. And she gets naked again later. You didn't miss much otherwise.

Naked Philip Seymour Hoffman. I decided I was not in the mood for that image at that juncture in time.

[Spinal]

Says the Slumdog Millionaire defender. Lame.

Yeah, typically the neg rep function is not intended to be used for differences of opinion, Captain Sillypants.

[Spinal]

Naked Philip Seymour Hoffman. I decided I was not in the mood for that image at that juncture in time.

It's hard to imagine ever being in the mood for that.

[Morris Schæffer]

What a complete and utter disappointment this was. The biggest problem is a shallow, unimaginative screenplay that barely improves upon the experience of reading a plot synopsis. Shallow characters placed in obvious dramatic situations that are neither moving nor insightful. On more than one occasion, I was able to predict what the next line or scene would be. The naturalistic acting and direction give it an air of faux importance, but there just isn't much here of substance. Rourke's much hyped performance rarely goes beyond a conversational mumble. Many bad scenes. Not a single great one. Lame.

I liked it a bit more, but I really agree with you here. I wouldn't say there were any bad scenes, but most of them are just sort of, well, there.