Still waiting to see this. It hasn’t opened in Detroit yet. I hope I like it better than you did.
I too had a bit of an issue with how close Rourke’s character was to himself. I think it’s a great character and performance, but can you really call it brilliant acting when someone is just pouring their own tragic heart out on the screen?
Unlike you, however, I loved the film. Absolutely loved it.
It’s a movie that revels in the small victories of life, the real triumphs that happen all around us. Even more than the ending, the sequence when he gets into the groove of his horrible Deli-counter job, playing the customers like he would a crowd, and finally doing something and doing it well, was enough to make me tear up a bit. Of course, like most things in life, and everything in his, it can’t last.
I also love how inside-baseball it is about the world of professional wrestling, with no attempt to explain certain terms or techniques to the audience. I know nothing about that world, and I’m so glad it didn’t make things easy for me to jump into.
I have yet to see it, but I read an interview with Rourke recently, and it seemed he knew very well the similarities between The Ram and himself. He said it was very hard to act, and went into some dark places, but that is exactly why the movie is so interesting to me. Who could play the part better than someone who is actually living it right now. I have no comments on the movie itself, as I am still waiting for it to come to my city as well.
just came from a screening of this. my complaints are mostly technological. i hate hand-held when it serves no purpose and there were too many occasions when i found myself thinking “man, digital looks like garbage”. took me right out of the film. and i understand the analog man/digital era dichotomy, can hardly miss it. the only thing i really enjoyed about it was mickey rourke. to be fair, i am fan from way back and would like to see him do right by himself. average film, good performance on rourke’s part. deserving of the hype? not even close. and i really wanted it to be. i just hope it leads to better work for him.
Hahah what? “Digital looks like garbage”? Are you joking? This movie was shot entirely on Super 16mm, it’s the grainiest, filmiest-looking film I’ve seen since…well, since Pi.
I thought the film skirted the edges of melodrama at times but never quite crossed that line, and was all the better for it. I loved it, and found that the parallels between Mickey and the Ram only enhanced the story and the performance. It’s still acting, it’s just a more personal form of acting and that’s something I can really latch onto. Loved it.
yeah cole, you just blew your cover. the super 16 looked amazing and the fact that you couldn’t see the grain says everything one needs to hear from you. stay in film school dude
No, I disagree. We are losing our connection to movies, because we purposely disengage ourselves from what the characters experience to a certain extent. It’s the problem I’m having with Benjamin Button’s negative reception, a sign of how audiences either get it or they don’t by what they bring to it. I’m not saying you weren’t engaged, but part of the reason you didn’t like it is because of your own prejudice about what you think of Mickey Rourke. If you thought Marlon Brando’s monologue to his wife in Last Tango In Paris was phony, then you file in that category of ones who can’t separate the man from the character he plays.
The Wrestler couldn’t exist without him, plain and simple. It is about lost opportunities, and life passing you by. Mickey Rourke has had self destructions throughout his personal life, what he brings to the character mirrors his own struggles devoted to what he does. What’s not to like about that?
Sometimes good acting is about what the actor brings to the role, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I appreciated what Rourke brought to the wrestler, because he played it for real and never gave any false notes. I felt the same about Rocky Balboa, Stallone brought gravity to the role that mirrors his own. Same thing here.
I hope he wins, for there is no finer piece of acting I saw last year. I thought the film was earnest, and wore it on it’s sleeve. That’s more than I can ask from any film in the running, sometimes the sparse ones with a compelling central character are the best.
Cole, The Wrestler was shot on Super 16 and blown up to 35MM Anamorphic. Dude, handheld doesn’t mean digital, it suited itself to the story. Following this man and what his life is about requires up close and personal, that was Aronofsky’s framing device to get us into his world. Look up a few things before you go on, there’s a higher standard here than other sites.
I think the complaints with the cinematography stem from the fact that the film was finished using a Digital Intermediate 2K format. The film was shot using 16mm so its source format is super 16. However, its master format is the DI which, when a director desires to fiddle with his project digitally, can amp up the pallette of the picture.
To me, shooting in 16mm and then finishing with a DI (especially manipulating it through a computer) negates the grainy realism that 16mm cameras can bring. I have yet to see the film, but from what I have seen of clips and trailers, yeah, the DI looks like garbage and the natural grunginess of the super 16 would probably be more aesthetically suitable for the picture.
Shane, see the film. You’ve got some good comments there.
The Wrestler’s color palette was designed to appropriate a high contrast, realistic look. Hence the need to finish on a DI.
Super 16 has a certain grunginess, but it’s determined by the stock. The film was shot under various lighting conditions and the sources are indirect, meaning that they bounce everywhere just like in real life. The film is supposed to look like shit, that’s why they shot on high contrast stock and boosted it to feel like real life. It was very bold, and it looked like a documentary. The scenes in the grocery store are an example of shooting with available light or minimal, they lend that look Super 16 captures so well. The perforations of 35MM film would make a scene like that look too slick, it would have to be fiddled with in post to downgrade the slickness since more detail is captured and more light is needed to shoot it.
90% of current films use the DI as a finishing format, and I think some of it sucks. So many films lose the density of their format when they go to DI, and colors look too strong on release formats. Nothing beats a film timed photochemically, unless it was shot digitally. I like films that are timed traditionally unless they were digital, since the advent of film our eyes have had to adjust to emerging technologies. I’m surprised it flies right by the audience how overdone some films are in post. I’m yet to see a digital feature that looks like it could only exist on that format. I speak as a colorist, by the way.
There’s a shot where Ram goes through the butcher shop onto the market that’s a long, unbroken take. The lights were sourced like they would at that location, and grain was evident everywhere. In an interview with the director, he said he would show up at locations and just shoot with minimal lighting. The camera would follow Rourke everywhere, when you see it you would know.
Just felt the need to correct what this is, so many people don’t know and speak like they know. Not you, just for sake of the thread.
Maybe ‘garbage’ was a strong word. I’m so used to preferring traditional film formats over the DI that sometimes its hard to find it aesthetically pleasing. Aronofsky seems like a smart guy who is cognizant of how his films looks so I’m sure he got exactly what he wanted.
I say what is hurting cinematography today is the desire to cross technologies. You have DPs shooting on film but finishing digitally. The best examples of the DI I have seen are from films that shot on digital and finished with digital (Miami Vice, Collateral). There are only a handful of cinematographers who can manipulate with a DI and make it work- really only Roger Deakins and Emmanuel Lubezki and even with them I would prefer that they stick with film.
I’m wondering if one reason why 90% of current films are using the DI is because of the studios. I guess this is what is considered cinematic today. A curious example is The Dark Knight. It was released to theaters using a DI master format (even the trailers had really strong colors) but on DVD and Blu-Ray, it is obvious they went with the panavision anamorphic source. It looks great and it gives me hope that some mainstream DPs and directors will demand their way with the formats.
You have a good point, I too favor traditional source over digital source. The Dark Knight was finished traditionally, but went DI on release due to the conforming of the IMAX scenes to the anamorphic ones. That film looked like a film, not something overdone in digital.
The incentive to finishing in digital are driven by the market, today films are seen so many ways that unifying it’s delivery sources led to the creation of the DI. It’s a tool, and effective when it’s used to enhance the storytelling. Restorations are also useful, The Godfather’s recent overhaul is a good example of how emerging technologies can enhance something shot traditionally.
In the DI suite, often the colorist has control over how the images look, versus the DP who accomplished them on the floor. It seems like films were shot one way, and finished another way. You’re correct, Deakins is one of the few who use it sparingly, to accentuate what’s there rather than reclassifying it.
Finishing digitally is just the way it goes, I shouldn’t complain because it’s part of my job. But there’s ever a movie finished on DI that can compare to a movie print the way it was meant to be seen. There isn’t enough detail to match traditional, even at 4K.
What it’ll come down to is a matter of choice among directors and DP’s. Paul Thomas Anderson swears by anamorphic, and finishes traditionally. Can you picture There Would Be Blood as a strong DI finished film? I surely don’t. It looks like a movie, not a source.
Tools, all in the service of the storyteller. It’s how they’re used that gains the best of them.
I don’t believe that there should be any purpose in complaining about how the film should look. The director chooses a particular medium because he/she finds that it may suit what he/she wants to say. There are many other possibilities that Aronofsky may have chosen to use what he did. I think that films are still an art, especially when looking at the work of Aronofsky. I think he’s making art.
I haven’t seen The Wrestler but I am looking forward to seeing it. I know, based on his past work, that I’ll fall in love with it. He’s not particularly my favorite director but he’s doing very interesting things. I’m glad to see some progression.
Brandon wrote:
“I too had a bit of an issue with how close Rourke’s character was to himself. I think it’s a great character and performance, but can you really call it brilliant acting when someone is just pouring their own tragic heart out on the screen?”
I think you can. There’s a tendency to overvalue “being someone else” as a mark of a great performance. But acting is about playing a part, which doesn’t necessarily require that you pretend to be a completely different person: it just requries that you say and do and pretend to want the same things that the character is supposed to say and do and want.
So, I don’t think Rourke’s closeness to the character necessarily makes his performance any less worthy of praise.
Rather than thinking of good actors as people who can convincingly “be someone else,” I’d argue that good actors are people who can convincingly find themselves in the roles they play.
All that said, a big part of what’s impressive about Rourke’s performance here is all the physical work he does. Not just in terms of bulking up, but also in the way he carries himself in and out of the ring – in the way he uses that new bulk. And I thought the way that Rourke’s natural charisma managed to shine come through despite his beat-up face and freakish body was very moving and completely appropriate for the character.
I think the movie is very good – the best filmmaker from Aronofsky yet – although all of the scenes with the daughter and most of the scenes with Marisa Tomei are a lot weaker than the rest of the movie. Not that they’re badly done, but that they feel unecessary.
I believe this comes out in Philadelphia today, so maybe I’ll be able to catch this tomorrow or Sunday. I (sadly) haven’t seen much this year, but of all the winter releases this is the only one I’m really motivated to see.
Ron B: I’m originally from Philadelphia, and would love to be there to see it: Weird “Rocky” vibe in a gray city.
I’m also looking forward to seeing “The Wrestler.” I recently taught a film course and showed “Angel Heart.” Most of the class didn’t know who Rourke is. But the real pleasure was hearing from a few who were knocked out by his performance. James Dean-style angst-y twitches combined with Brando’s attention to small gestures (remember the bit with the glove in “On the Waterfront”? Watch Rourke in “Angel Heart” fool with nose-guards and cigarettes), culminating in full-bore scenery-chewing à la De Niro in Jake LaMotta mode. The students wondered what happened to him—and I’m suspecting “The Wrestler” may be the short answer.
Saw this yesterday, and I thought it was very good. I can understand the gripes that “Mickey Rourke wasn’t really acting,” but I couldn’t picture anyone else in the role…the synergy between Rourke and The Ram was perfect and couldn’t have been done better.
While this is easily Aronofsky’s best film, I don’t know if it’s my favorite from him (as depressing as “Requiem for a Dream” was, I think it’s a modern classic). Still, it was well-done. Direction was tight, performances from all were top-notch (Rourke deserves the Oscar, Tomei deserves a nomination, and Evan Rachel Wood was fantastic in the little amount of screen-time she was given), and the screenplay was great. This movie could have easily become too sappy or too melodramatic, and while the script skates on the edge it never crosses into that territory.
One of the best movies of the year…which isn’t saying much considering how weak this year has proven to be. Be wary, however: if you’re not into a whole lot of violence in your movies, approach with caution. I figured the wrestling would be somewhat graphic in this picture, but I had no idea how bad it was gonna be. I don’t wanna spoil anything, but if staple-guns and barbed wire make you squeamish, you might wanna take a bathroom break for the second “match” in the movie. Just sayin’.
I just saw this film and I was very moved by it. It’s about time we saw a high profile film with a richness of characterization, observation and thought. The film hits you with its sheer believability. Those who call it mawkish or sentimental are not only misguided but, more worryingly, might be lacking heart. I was also taken aback by Aronofsky’s choice to shoot handheld 16mm, giving this a very different look from his last two films (and closer to his best, ‘Pi’). No doubt, ‘Requiem for a Dream’ would have benefited from a similarly grainy and unglamorous look. The camera work, acting and writing brought a number of films to mind, most namely Cassavetes’s ‘Chinese Bookie’, Fassbinder’s ‘Herr R.’ and Herzog’s ‘Strozek’
Surely we all know that Rourke is acting? Lest we forget, film is an unnatural construct. However, when done well, it can draw emotions and thoughts and sensations as no other art can. We can easily be swept away by it. But it’s made in bits and pieces with dozens of people standing around you and no matter how close the role is to home, it takes a certain amount of concentration and ability to carry a performance through convincingly. Although the similarity of Rourke’s career trajectory with that of “Randy The Ram" will lend the film an added hook of interest to some of the audience, let’s not forget that ultimately he’s playing a role. I find it amusing to see both critics and laymen trawling lines in the script for hints of “confession”, as if the actors had made it up themselves. Or as Joe Gillis says in Sunset Boulevard, “Audiences don’t know somebody sits down and writes a picture; they think the actors make it up as they go along”.
This film is very much about reinvention. It’s simply to not always possible (or desirable) to live off the glories of the past and attempt to remain the same. We have to learn to adapt. And that’s the sad, horrible and realistic thing about it. The film presents no nicely tied up threads and that is ultimately what makes it so compelling and gives it such an emotional pull. Maybe it’s not so surprising that people feel such a need to find the join between fact and fantasy in films after all…
I think The Wrestler was the best kind of disappointment. I had extremely high expectations of the film, being a fan of Aronofsky and aware of the near universal critical praise it seemed to be getting. I walked in expecting to be truly wowed and no amount of prior warning led me to have any kind of idea of the understated directing style that was utilized. There were also a couple of weak points that I thought were more the fault of the script than of Aronofsky or the acting. Tomei had a very stereotypical role that was predictable and didn’t really add much to the film. I like Evan Rachel Wood, but the estranged lesbian daughter trope also seemed hackneyed and predictable. At times the authenticity of the film also felt forced. For all the gripes I have about the film, I really did enjoy Mickey Rourke’s performance and the candid look behind the scenes of professional wrestling. The film deserves credit for taking a potentially ridiculous topic and making it believable and profound in its own simple way. I think it deserves a second look on my part, this time without some of the preconceived notions I was taking into the theater on the first viewing.
This film was a true look into the life`s mistakes,near misses and broken promises.Darren Aronofsky`s casting of actors(brilliant)as in the case of Mickey Rourke,so you could identify with the part that he was playing.
Most relationships are just that close to happiness or disaster,and the sublety of that came thru very clearly in the three main actors.For Marisa and Mickey`s characters came to the conclussion that their mortal bodies have been their vehicle at the expense of relationships lost or sabotaged.Evan rachel wood`s character is one of the casualties of a non-existent father.Try as he might,some wounds that have been supressed cannot be easily forgiven.
This film reminded me of a quote from the great theologian Thom Yorke,“just cause you feel it,doesn`t mean it`s there”
I know everyone’s given that Cole guy a hard time about the film/digital thing, but I just wanted to say this: I thought the use of hand-held did serve a big purpose. With the reappearing shot of us behind the walking Randy, bleached hair tied up, just following him through out his day, and the several long-takes, I really got drawn into the reality, and weight of this story, where the glamorous newspaper cutout intro and pumped 80’s rock soundtrack, is contrasted by a washed up wrestler with a hearing aid, seeking companionship from a stripper. We WERE just following what seemed like a REAL guy. This was partially thwarted by the cliche female characters of the film, as Richard said.
One of my favorite shots is the opening, with Rourke hunched over in an obscure, colorful, kindergarten classroom, waiting to get paid. Through out the movie, the colorful and young 80’s is some former glory, and the Ram is just trying to pick up the pieces from when he really was doing something with his life. The whole setting has this sense of surreal obscurity, with a gritty has-been who takes steroids and can’t pay rent on his trailer to keep us grounded. Firmly.
About half of “The Wrestler” works well. The film features a fascinating performance by Mickey Rourke who owns the role of a once notable entertainer cashing in on his former fame with diminishing returns. The only place Randy “The Ram” Robinson feels comfortable, the only arena in which he consistently succeeds, is the wrestling ring. Even though he is aging and his body is starting to turn on him, The Ram keeps heading back into the ring. It is the only place where he can be whole and fully realized.
And then there’s his estranged daughter (Evan Rachel Wood) and stripper friend Cassidy (Marisa Tomei), the Mary Magadalene to his suffering servant. Assigned to Randy by Syd Field, they keep getting in the way of the authenticity that Rourke and Aronofsky establish in other scenes. For every seemingly unrehearsed scene focused on the backstage bonhomie of the Ram and the other wrestlers, there’s a screenplay required confrontation between Randy and his daughter or Randy and Cassidy. These might not stand out as glaringly in a movie that employed less of a stripped down aesthetic. The film uses the over the shoulder, day in the life technique of the Dardennes, a grainy washed out presentation, and a raw performance by Rourke and the other wrestlers. These faux-verite elements clash with the pedestrian drama provided by the women in The Ram’s life. But don’t blame actresses Wood and Tomei. They’re hindered by a predictable script.
Well worth seeing for Rourke’s tremendous performance, but the movie as a whole comes up short.
I saw a little of myself and a lot of someone close to me in this film. If a man has done physical labor his entire life and doesn’t know how to do anything else, then what becomes of him when his body starts to break down? If a woman relies on her looks to get by, what of her when her beauty fades? These are relevant questions for a lot of people and I think this movie shows the tragedy of aging unprepared and alone as well as any that I can remember. For me, it was a genuine work of art.
The big thing with me was the camera. Some of those shots just looked terrible I don’t did they film it on digital? But overall I liked the film. After I saw it I really didn’t though but the more I thought about the characters I more I liked it. It’s not a masterpiece or anything though just like a B.
I need some help digging out my thoughts on the film, I thought it was tremendously good, a great allegory for us, and a great representation of a real human being’s existence. It could just be me, but I saw that it was not about professional wrestling, that was used to symbolize what we all go through, we all wrestle with life, don’t we? I am projecting that, though. I loved the look of the film, great colors, the handheld cameras didn’t just put Rourke in the moment, it put me there too, like Being John Malkovich…. it’s as close to a masterpiece as anything else that can be seen as such…
Well, this is out on DVD and the packaging totally sucks. And I must say, I laugh seeing all the previews stacked on the beginning, followed by such a paltry amount of features. Fox put more effort into the trailers than the DVD package for the film itself, which is disappointing because it’s a very good film.
Criterion? Are you listening up there?
Oliver, I hope they are. Thanks for the heads up DVD notes. Just watched this movie on megavideo and I was really, really impressed.
That scene with the staple gun is really brutal. My favorite scene is right before he enters the deli, where he pauses… (not going to say more). Probably one of the best movies of last season.
I think it was possibly the best film of the year. Granted, its not perfect and I still am not an Aronofsky fan. I think the film was good in spite of him rather than because of him. Like him or not, I think the film was carried by the Mickey Rourke’s performance. He made the film feel believable and a lot was said about redemption and human nature.
Mickey Rourke gave a ferocious performance (on par with early Brando) and the film itself was one of the very few completely unforgiving American movies in a long time. Whether or not it was the BEST of ’08 is hard to say…it was a good year for US releases: Synecdoche, New York ; Milk; Burn After Reading; The Dark Knight…
Cayley James
In the wave of award season hype perpetuated by both ticket buyers and critics alike, I ventured into the fray and payed 8 bucks to see The Wrestler. I paid eight dollars to sit for two hours waiting for something, waiting to see what made this film so remarkable, so insightful, empathetic and the leader for the best actor winner.
I couldn’t have cared less what happened to these three ridiculous caricatures. For someone who didn’t see Mickey Rourke’s career suicide first hand … maybe this movie is more exciting for people who witnessed him totally bomb a promising career. Marisa Tomei was given only cliches to work with and the chance to prove to the world that her tits haven’t sagged. And Evan Rachel Wood’s performance as an estranged lesbian daughter with a disconcertingly pallid complexion was hardly complex.
In my opinion it was unsatisfying, a little heavy handed. And to be honest Mickey Rourke wasn’t really playing a character, he was playing himself, that monologue at the end was too close to reality for comfort. Who was he? The Ram: washed up wrestler OR Mickey Rourke: the ultimate publicity tool?