criterionforum.org

I was able to see this tonight. The film is very different from Aronofsky's other films. This is a film that is propelled by Rouke's performance and this is why almost every shot of him in the film is a steadi-cam traveling shot from behind. The camera becomes a character in the film and in the process it also links the viewer to Ram's trials and tribulations. Aronofsky also uses this film to critique the mindset of the 1980s in sports, music and politics calling attention to the way America loves spectacle more than reality. Thus this is a film that consistently expresses the tension between depicting Ram as a heroic icon of wrestling versus the reality that he is an old man who needs an edge to win. He is shown wearing glasses in several scenes to convey this point in a more direct fashion. However, in the scene where Ram is shown hawking himself and his memories to the fans, Aronofsky illustrates how men like Ram are more than stars/heroes, in fact these are humans who sacrifice themselves to please the inane masses and in the process are permanently scarred for life.
Another thing which i noticed is the way that Aronofsky questions what effect these men and their media spectaculars can have on children. The scenes where Ram wrestles with the kids are juxtaposed against the painful portrait of his failed life of drugs, strippers, booze, and meaningless sex. What Ram represents is the excesses of the 1980s and the body culture that developed to sell the notion that the only real men in America were warriors like Ram or movie stars who used force and guns to impose American ideology on the rest of the world.
Rourke's performance is fascinating and will land him an Oscar nomination without a doubt, but I don't think he will win it.

I'm sure glad the 80s ended so we could get back to preferring substance over spectacle and steroids.

Armond enters the fray, wondering why nobody remembers Johnny Handsome.

tavernier wrote:Armond enters the fray, wondering why nobody remembers Johnny Handsome.

The best part of that absurd review-cum-ode-to-Johnny-Handsome is the fact that White continually refers to Rourke's character, Randy "The Ram" Robinson, as "Ram Jam." He's never referred to in any such manner in the film. That phrase may be uttered once or twice in reference to The Ram's finishing move.

I almost choked on my drink when I got to the part where he invoked Ready to Rumble

tavernier wrote:Armond enters the fray, wondering why nobody remembers Johnny Handsome.

I read his review yesterday while checking Rottentomatoes and wondering who had given a negative review for the film to have a 97% instead of the perfect 100%. Lo and behold, Mr. White had the scathing review. This guy is a jackass and I don't expect anything else from him than negative reviews to critically acclaimed films and positive ones to pieces of crap. He should have his status as top critic revoked.

Aronofsky on Stern, discussing the film. Great interview.

Part I
Part II
Part III

Thank you for posting that.

AV Club interview with Darren Aronofsky.

moviscop wrote:Aronofsky on Stern, discussing the film. Great interview.

Part I
Part II
Part III

Robin really is an idiot, isn't she.

I don't listen to Stern that much bunch apparently she has done things like that in the past during interviews. I can't put my finger on it, but she is an asshole.

Source: F4Wonline.com, Wrestling Observer

Director Darren Aronofsky's new film "The Wrestler" starring Mickey Rourke has been getting rave reviews and winning awards left and right. The recent movie premiere brought out a number of pro wrestling legends, including Ric Flair, Rowdy Roddy Piper, Greg Valentine, Brutus Beefcake and others. With all the attention the film is receiving, WWE chairman Vince McMahon contacted Darren Aronofsky and requested a private screening of "The Wrestler". So, what did Vince think about it?

Whatever Vince told the director to his face remains a mystery, however a source close to the WWE boss says, "the word negative isn't strong enough to describe Vince's reaction. [This is] no surprise because Vince's vision of the 2008 image of wrestling and even fading stars directly contradicts what The Wrestler accurately portrays." Others in Vince's close circle knew going into the screening that this was the kind of movie he was going to despise.

This comes as no surprise to me.

Anything that would reflect negatively on wrestling (broken down pieces of meat, etc.) is an attack on his bank account.

It isn't that surprising.

Diane Paulus on Darren Aronofsky's 'The Wrestler':

Film a long overdue homage to pro wrestling

"I have been fascinated by the world of professional wrestling for years. I believe that when theater in the 20th century is studied from the vantage point of 500 years from now, professional wrestling -- and in particular, the heyday of 1980s wrestling -- will emerge as one of the most powerful expressions of theater of our time. So, to watch Darren Aronofsky's "The Wrestler" is to experience a long overdue homage to the power of professional wrestling. The film gets at the guts of what drives the allure of the ring for Randy "the Ram" Robinson -- and through the charisma of Randy "the Ram" what draws in the bloodlust-driven spectators. The direction is visceral and raw. Aronofsky tells the story with simplicity and authenticity. And Mickey Rourke gives the performance of a lifetime that is not to be missed."

Diane Paulus helms the Broadway revival of "Hair," to open March 5.

moviscop wrote:Anything that would reflect negatively on wrestling (broken down pieces of meat, etc.) is an attack on his bank account.

It isn't that surprising.

He doesn't seem to mind making movies still, which is certainly an attack on his bank account lol.

exte wrote:Diane Paulus on Darren Aronofsky's 'The Wrestler':

Film a long overdue homage to pro wrestling

"I have been fascinated by the world of professional wrestling for years. I believe that when theater in the 20th century is studied from the vantage point of 500 years from now, professional wrestling -- and in particular, the heyday of 1980s wrestling -- will emerge as one of the most powerful expressions of theater of our time. So, to watch Darren Aronofsky's "The Wrestler" is to experience a long overdue homage to the power of professional wrestling. The film gets at the guts of what drives the allure of the ring for Randy "the Ram" Robinson -- and through the charisma of Randy "the Ram" what draws in the bloodlust-driven spectators. The direction is visceral and raw. Aronofsky tells the story with simplicity and authenticity. And Mickey Rourke gives the performance of a lifetime that is not to be missed."

I'm glad to see someone else feels this way. I pointed out earlier that there is enough backstage drama that's been going on in wrestling for years, that's all ripe for screen adaptation. My dream project would be to be able to tell the story of the Von Erich family, as it's both a bonafide American tragedy and a really fascinating narrative. This documentary does a really good job of painting the picture of what went on in the organization they helped build (and ultimately help destroy).

My other dream project would be to tell a heavily fictional (IE, names changed etc, etc) account of the Monday Night Wars and within that framework, try to put in as much of the backstage stuff that's happened since the 80's. My tongue-in-cheek pitch would be that it's a cross between Network and Gladiator.

When I read that quote I immediately thought of Wrestlemania III and how could you not? In what other forum do 93,000 people show up to see two icons like Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant collide?

Absolutely. When it's at it's best, it is an art form and entertaining as anything else you can imagine. But when it's terrible as it often can be, it's garbage. That match itself is sub-par at best due to Andre's deteriorating health and him being just plain tired of the business. But the lead-up to it (per usual for their big matches at the time) was good drama, and the execution of the finish at the end of the match is perfect.

What was most sad about Ric Flair's retirement last year was that he was literally the last link on the chain of that era of wrestling, as far as active performers. Everyone else is retired or they wrestle sporadically in these smaller promotions like gypsies. On top of which, the list of people he worked with reads like a who's-who of the last 50 years from Buddy Rogers to John Cena. I recently watched a interview he filmed for an independent company, talking about his career and life and it was incredibly moving to watch him talk about this path he lead with minimal regret and the chutzpah that made him "The Nature Boy".

With that said, I wonder what he thought of the movie as well.

filmnoir1 wrote:This is a film that is propelled by Rouke's performance and this is why almost every shot of him in the film is a steadi-cam traveling shot from behind. The camera becomes a character in the film and in the process it also links the viewer to Ram's trials and tribulations.

I was reminded very strongly of the Dardenne Brothers. Stylistically, the opening five minutes appeared to be a direct lift from Rosetta.

And how about this sequence from Rosetta? Look familiar? http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=t87bThaIBi0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

nyasa wrote:I was reminded very strongly of the Dardenne Brothers. Stylistically, the opening five minutes appeared to be a direct lift from Rosetta.

And how about this sequence from Rosetta? Look familiar? http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=t87bThaIBi0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On the latest Creative Screenwriting podcast the screenwriter of The Wrestler said that Aronofsky mentioned the Dardenne Brothers as an influence on those shots.

The films behind The Wrestler.

Antoine Doinel wrote:The films behind The Wrestler.

He is doing a big no-no in the business, and that is calling wrestling fake. The matches/events may be pre-determined, but the bumps are real. They know how to keep punches, kicks and moves from hitting full force or even hitting at all, but the canvas, ropes and stunts are pretty real and real hard. For a guy doing a movie about a broken down wrestler and doing extensive research for it, he comes a little bit harsh on the pro wrestling magic.

If you've seen the film, you would agree that most of the film is about said real bumps and bruises.

But despite that, wrestling is fake. These men are performing a choreographed violence ballet at the expense of their own bodies, but they're not fighting one another until one submits. Which still is how it's presented to the audience. There's no bowing and curtain calls. I think that's all Aronofsky means when he calls it fake.

In spite of the conventional plot mechanics, Mickey Rourke's performance and Aronofsky's atypical restrained direction (for him anyway) make The Wrestler notable. For the first 30 plus minutes the movie was better than Aronofsky probably thought. Through repetition of Randy's routine I think Aronofsky's would have achieved his goal with greater effect.

When the cliche checkpoints kicked in (the strained relationship with the daughter, the parallel life of the stripper, and the one last match) I started to care less about the characters because this undermined the first act where the air of misery was so carefully established. The beginning was straight out of a Dardanne brothers film (L'enfant).

I also found the role of the daughter pretty weak, but maybe because the actress didn't have the chops to go toe to toe with Rouke. We were short changed of her back story, and that of the stripper. However the movie is called The Wrestler, and Rourke is the best thing in it...so maybe he rose above the production so much that those elements are/were not so important.