Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 8, 2009 21:33:46 GMT
I didn't really know what to make of this. I found it engaging enough, but with little to it; but the more I think about it the more I like it.
I think it's Aronofsky's best film, and his most "straightforward" too, in terms of story and character. Love the close tracking shots used throughout, and there are some lovely flourishes such as the crescendo of an arena ambience as Randy's about to go out to work on the tills.
It's an interesting take on wrestling as something very brutal and real; I liked the emphasis on the body, on the physicality of the spectacle. That scene where Randy's getting seen to by the medics and going over the preceding moments in the ring. Wrestling itself is half staged performance and half real, of course, but there isn't always a clear-cut boundary. The early fights especially blur what's 'real' and what isn't, in terms of the pain Randy's feeling in the ring. Cassidy's own arena is handled in the same way, too.
I didn't like the determined-to-deny auteurism of the final cut to black; perhaps if the sound had continued after the image had cut out, I wouldn't have had a problem. But as it is, it's Aronofsky announcing his authority, having the final say and all that, and it undermined the rest of the film's methodic, inviting approach to narrative - making us connect with a loser.
Further thoughts?
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 9, 2009 0:02:16 GMT
SPOILERS I certainley dont mind an abrupt ending, but this one came off really weird. Kind of the same "alive or dead but it doesnt matter" idea that the Sopranos had, only more sloppy in my estimation. END SPOILERS
Overall though, this movie has grown on me a lot since Ive left the theatre. I didn't like the tracking shots following him as much as you did. Rourke was the man that 'made' the movie. Every single scene seems so genuine.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 9, 2009 0:56:08 GMT
Actually, I had to warm to those tracking shots. They annoyed me at first. But then they became a sort of stylistic motif that helped paint parallels between his different arenas. In particular, the one that I mentioned above, of Randy walking out onto the shop floor ready for a new experience at work.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Feb 9, 2009 1:15:01 GMT
Actually, I had to warm to those tracking shots. They annoyed me at first. I figured you would've liked it from the get-go. I mean, it's certainly not as smooth as the following tracking shots in Tarr films or the Goodfellas Copacabana long take, but I would guess it would have a similar effect. It's more in a Dardenne vein. I really like it in The Wrestler because it's a familiar shot in documentaries or performance-related/music-related films, and it fits in with the identity-performance theme in The Wrestler. Aesthetically, I also love the back of characters' heads and viewing them from the back like in Antonioni or in a Herzog film which I think was The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 9, 2009 1:23:25 GMT
I liked the one in the grocery store a lot actually...I believe there were two in the trailer park though that I didnt like. I saw the parrallel to his ring enterance of course, but just wasn't overly impressed.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 9, 2009 1:32:13 GMT
My early annoyance, I suspect, may simply be that it was Aronofsky directing them. And they're verrrry claustrophobic; their proximity to Rourke almost denies any chance to take in his surroundings. I realise that fits in with his social entrapment (alongside the extreme close-ups of the in-ring wrestling scenes), they just took a while to adjust to. Like I said, I liked them by the end.
I would have preferred the camera a little further away - keeping Rourke the same distance and in the same position within the frame would have still established the shot from his POV, but would have also allowed more of the surrounding environment to be seen.
I found the "Little more/Little less" scene in the store absurd and effective - though its violent, gruesome conclusion was banal and clichéd. It gave too much catharsis and relief to the preceding build-up; a resigned sigh from Randy would have sat much better with me. Perhaps I'm just a fan these days of implosion more than explosion.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Feb 9, 2009 1:36:01 GMT
I don't have a problem with the film's final shot. I think seeing and/or hearing what happened after the point the film ended is irrelevant to the focus on what Randy the Ram has, the only thing he has, which is Randy the Ram in the ring. Randy's decision is more important than the outcome, and I think the final shot and the character's final physical act we see mirrors the fact that he made his decision and for him there's not turning back: once you jump, you can't un-jump.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 9, 2009 1:46:42 GMT
Yeah, I get that. I actually loved the final shot.
But the cut to black and silence had an alarming air of determined-to-deny auteurism to it. Pretentious, I dare say. It was a complete and intentional disruption to the visual and audial flow. The silence and black last far too long before the credits begin.
That's my problem; if it had cut straight to a titlecard, saying, "The Wrestler" or something, I wouldn't have minded at all.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Feb 9, 2009 1:48:31 GMT
Do you have the same reservations towards the cut to black and silence (and the duration until the credits begin) of The Sopranos finale?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 9, 2009 2:02:26 GMT
I was wondering how long it'd be before I was asked that. In all honesty, I had a comeback ready in anticipation earlier, but it seems to have abandoned me. I don't have reservations regarding that, though. Chase initially wanted a longer duration, one that lasted the entire length of would-be end credits, then to the HBO sequence; that might have annoyed me. The Sopranos has continually forced us into discussing moral ambiguities and narrative loose ends; and its departing note is in line with the preceding tone. I found the conclusion to The Wrestler unnecessary, to be honest, and destructive to its preceding, slowly immersive tone. Aronofsky needs to tame himself if he is to fully grip me in future films: he's not a good enough storyteller or filmmaker (yet) to justify his stylistic indulgences. I actually immediately thought of The Sopranos when it happened, and wondered whether Aronofsky was a fan.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 9, 2009 2:27:41 GMT
SPOILERS I certainley dont mind an abrupt ending, but this one came off really weird. Kind of the same "alive or dead but it doesnt matter" idea that the Sopranos had, only more sloppy in my estimation. END SPOILERS Overall though, this movie has grown on me a lot since Ive left the theatre. I didn't like the tracking shots following him as much as you did. Rourke was the man that 'made' the movie. Every single scene seems so genuine. That's bullshit. Randy died, and WRESTLER made it pretty clear without actually showing it. Plus, the script I read months ago said so.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Feb 9, 2009 3:47:44 GMT
I see, Capo. Thanks for replying.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Feb 19, 2009 16:59:44 GMT
Ronnie, did you post a review of this film yet?
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 19, 2009 17:08:35 GMT
SPOILERS I certainley dont mind an abrupt ending, but this one came off really weird. Kind of the same "alive or dead but it doesnt matter" idea that the Sopranos had, only more sloppy in my estimation. END SPOILERS Overall though, this movie has grown on me a lot since Ive left the theatre. I didn't like the tracking shots following him as much as you did. Rourke was the man that 'made' the movie. Every single scene seems so genuine. That's bullshit. Randy died, and WRESTLER made it pretty clear without actually showing it. Plus, the script I read months ago said so. sorry, just read this so I hadnt replied. Yeah, all signs point to it happening the way you say it does, but it really doesnt matter. What did matter was his decision to get in the ring and climb up onto the turnbuckle for that finishing move. There's a reason it isn't in the movie despite being in an older version of the script.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 19, 2009 18:15:09 GMT
Ronnie, did you post a review of this film yet? No, it finally opens this weekend at my area. Those Cocksuckers!
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 19, 2009 18:24:44 GMT
limited releases are truly the work of the devil. There is always articles about how no one watches the Oscars anymore. Maybe its because its difficult for people to see the fucking movies.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 20, 2009 4:52:40 GMT
limited releases are truly the work of the devil. There is always articles about how no one watches the Oscars anymore. Maybe its because its difficult for people to see the fucking movies. Yup.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 20, 2009 13:02:58 GMT
Capo, don't take me wrong, but could you write a review with a bit more to it then just "the movie was ok, i liked it, yeah, fun stuff"? Look at our pal Ronnie, he writes proper reviews where we understand perfectly what kind of movie we are dealing with, but also his own point of view and opinion on it.
Don't take this as a criticism, just a coment, ok? It would be cool to know WHAT YOU REALLY think of this movie.
Limited releases used to work in favour of the movie. It created word of mouth which build up to a movie's sucess. Today, in this era of Michael "Complete Piece Of Shit Untalented miserable Hack" Bayass movie type bullshit, movies need to open big to fool the public to see them before they discover what a piece of shit those movies are. Ocasionally, justitice is done for a proper good movie, like THE DARK KNIGHT. But i do kind miss the old days when movies build up slowly. On the other hand, it's good to know one can watch a movie in another theater if one missed the 9 O'Clock session.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 20, 2009 18:33:17 GMT
arkady, I think Capo did a fine proper review for himself with THE WRESTLER. Not everyone can or wants to ramble 1000 words like me. In a way like me, his thoughts are conversationalist like talking to buds at the Pub after they saw it. So he's good in his own way. Though someday he hopefully will quit confusing "Important to the Filmmaker" with "Pretentiousness." Also Arkady, I hate Bay as much as you, but don't mention him in almost EVERY FUCKING POSTING, ok? You'll just empower that hack. Don't go Dubya against the Enemy, be a ninja!
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 21, 2009 12:31:27 GMT
Well, about THE WRESTLER, all i have to say is: Welcome back Mickey Rourke, we missed you.
And as for Darren Aronowski, he doesn't need oscars, he's married to Rachael Weisz.
|
|