Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Feb 25, 2009 17:21:21 GMT
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Feb 25, 2009 17:40:32 GMT
That's incredible! And it's cool Penn remembered Rourke and gave him a little showcase like that.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Feb 25, 2009 18:06:39 GMT
Sly Stallone also did something real cool. Stallone wanted Rourke in Get Carter. The producer offered, according to Rourke, an insulting amount which he turned down. Stallone called him to ask if he were offered such and such would he say yes. He said yes. Stallone called him back and said that's the amount he's gonna get paid. Later on the set of Get Carter, someone told him that Stallone didn't want him to know, but Sly paid the difference out of his own pocket.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 25, 2009 18:12:21 GMT
Michael Bay would've done that.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 25, 2009 18:36:33 GMT
"Rourke's scene in The Pledge. Mesmerizing 2 minutes and 2 seconds for me."
Absolutly!!!! Besides, THE PLEDGE is a very underrated movie )all movies directed by Sean Penn are, actually, tohugh i haven't seen INTO THE WILD or whatever it was called his latest). And it is one of the two last truly good performances from Jack Nicholson, the other being in ABOUT SCHMIDT. After that, for me Nicholson is as dead.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 25, 2009 18:42:50 GMT
Michael Bay would've done that. Like he did to Joe Pantilano? Yeech. the GET CARTER remake sucked, but Rourke did good with the shit part he was given.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Mar 1, 2009 4:46:52 GMT
SPOILERS I saw the movie today and found it okay. Rourke acts well and so did Tomei. I did not really enjoy the tracking shots from the back, coupled with hand-held feel. I liked the use of fluorescent primary colors and the grainy look. But my main problem was with the dramatic arc - It starts with a totally de-glamorized and unsensational take on the sport that is inherently full of glamor and sensation. I loved that part. But the end spoiled it all - It was a "movie" climax with a dramatic ending - the lead dying in that "one last bout" on the stage. And what was with Tomei's character suddenly feeling so very strongly for him? I would have preferred an unremarkable end - maybe him dying the day before the match in the gym or something like that. Definitely not one of Aronofsky's best.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Mar 2, 2009 22:02:02 GMT
I finally saw THE WRESTLER. Really good movie, and excelent performance,s not just from Rourke (who was phenomenal9, but from everybody else.
This mvoie finally did it for me. After watching it, now i can officially say that wrestling offers any interest for me whatsoever. In fact, it all could disapear form the face of the Earth tomorrow, i wouldn't miss a thing, in fact, i would even be glad. Ronnie has to forgive me on that, given he's a big fan of wrestling, but for me, this movie killed it all. I pity the players, but that's it. End it all, i couldn't give a shit.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 3, 2009 4:42:01 GMT
Without wrestling, we wouldn't have gotten Roddy Piper in THEY LIVE, that great "Republicans are Evil Aliens" movie.
Just think about that Arkady.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Mar 3, 2009 20:51:26 GMT
Talk about small mercies.
Besides, i'm pretty convinced that role was writen for Kurt Russell, with Piper stepped in because he was more affordable.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 5, 2009 2:55:01 GMT
I think this is Aronofsky's best by quite a way, but it's frustratingly unfocused. It's a bit sprawling and doesn't really go deep enough into any of the things it touches on.
The thread to tug at, I think, is the contrivance of the daughter character. I don't mind a plot contrivance, that's fine; having a character who defines himself a certain way (as a professional wrestler) who then has that identity taken away, and who has nothing else in his life, is a contrivance from the beginning, particularly when what's robbing him of his identity arises directly out of that identity (steroid abuse and extreme exertion). It's a construct obviously, but that's actually good, because it also offers a focused, analytical perspective. It could be a fantastic way of exploring certain issues, but I don't really think those issues are much more than bumped up against; the cruelty and doom of his profession, and the parallel with professional stripping, as an exhibitionist form of athleticism that punishes ageing, or the contrast between that male veneration of the masculine as opposed to the feminine. We don't, for instance, really get a sense of the exploitation involved in either of the professions, of who the people are who profit off their bodies until they're used up and discarded.
The film also veers a little too close to individualism at times; Randy's dignity isn't any more violated by his menial labour than any of his coworkers' - maybe his pride hurts more. The screenplay should've been worked through a few more times, for the sake of clarity and focus. I mean, at the autograph signing we see how fucked up these ex-wrestlers are, and how that's something that comes for them apparently with some degree of certainty. In that case, surely the film can be nothing more urgently than an indictment of that entire institution (and I like the gendered parallel with professional stripping, because does it not suggest a psychological brutalisation on a par with the physical brutalisation of wrestling?), and so, since it's not honest to portray Randy as exceptional, you'd have to ask how the daughter relationship, and whatever details of Randy's past we're aprised of, are pertinent to that indictment; how did professional wrestling contribute to the disintegration of his family (if indeed it did)? That's a blind spot.
Any thoughts on that?
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Mar 5, 2009 4:22:44 GMT
For me the exploitation of the wrestlers is displayed in the lack of health care and pension that their employers don't provide for them. It's like the issue with health care and pensions for professional American football. There's also a lack of health care for current wrestlers. Do they have the wrestlers undergo physicals? Randy has a weak heart and is being allowed to wrestle; there's no barrier like there are for American pro football teams and players in the instance of putting the health (financial investment on the part of the teams) of the player into consideration (e.g., extensive medical tests for concussions, etc.). I also think there are small details that did enough for me like the measly monetary award Randy got for that brutal staple gun/barbed wire match - the compensation is inadequate.
I don't follow American pro wrestling today, but I think in the 80s and 90s, they changed venues a lot. It was pretty much like a concert tour for musicians. It's also something Rourke mentioned in his Spirit Awards speech in which he mentioned the wrestlers are on the road a lot. I think that's significant in his relationship with his daughter, not necessarily the cause, though.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Mar 5, 2009 4:49:43 GMT
Also, it would've been nice to see the exploitation by the promoters and owners/bosses dramatized, but for me it was effective just seeing the outcome of neglect/exploitation.
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Mar 5, 2009 9:33:22 GMT
Sly Stallone also did something real cool. Stallone wanted Rourke in Get Carter. The producer offered, according to Rourke, an insulting amount which he turned down. Stallone called him to ask if he were offered such and such would he say yes. He said yes. Stallone called him back and said that's the amount he's gonna get paid. Later on the set of Get Carter, someone told him that Stallone didn't want him to know, but Sly paid the difference out of his own pocket. I saw them shooting Get Carter when i lived it Vancouver, it's funny just how short Stallone really is and between every take his assistant would run up, throw his expensive looking jacket over his shoulders and spark him up a cigarette, he'd have all of three puffs before throwing it away ready to do the next scene, it was quite amusing to watch......and then half way through one of the scenes a couple of homeless guys rolled past, noticed Stallone and starting shouting "Aaadrian" at the top of their voices, taking the piss out of him.....it was hilarious!
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Mar 5, 2009 18:18:40 GMT
I don't udnerstand why people think the daughter is the weak thing in the movie. For me, she worked wonderlfully. She was his anchor to the past, one past where he had soemthing good in his life and he wasted away in idioticies. But seh was soemthing good, something that was even reachable, and he fucked up because he's bound to make the same mistakes, over and over again... like people do.
I found all his scenes with the daughter to be quite good. And again, Evan Rachael Wood rpvoes she is one of the most dependable and talented young actress around. Her role wa ssmall, but it was filled with enough understandign why rourke's character would still return to her, even if he barelly knew her.
Really, it's a mystery to me why people knock down the daughter sub-plot and Wood's acting.
also, i'm quite tolerant with the type of filmmaking that Aranoski does with THE WRESTLER. Many people think it's unfocused filming, me, is ee it as a style that does reflect how we experience life as we live it. We don't see life as a continuous narrative line, but as a series of episodes connected one after the other. It's how we remember our live,s it's how others perceive us, it's the human dimention portaited in cinema. Typical narrative strcutire is artifice, which can be very sucessful, but doesn't really has that reality feel then the style of THE WRESTLER has.
And if you ask me, Aranoski's best movie is still THE FOUNTAIN, and i pity the fools who think that's a bad movie.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Mar 5, 2009 18:42:34 GMT
And if you ask me, Aranoski's best movie is still THE FOUNTAIN I agree. I like it the most, followed by RFAD. I can hardly remember anything from Pi and I am in no mood to revisit that.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Mar 6, 2009 18:33:57 GMT
I like the filmmaking ferocity of PI. And rarely for a filmmaker, it seems that Aranoski treally understands science and the scientific milieu, and how many scientists operates. And those he does know how they operate, he never uses them as the elads, but as supporting characters that always work as the voice of reason in the story. This both happens in PI and THE FOUNTAIN.
Also, he's one of the very rare directors who seem to be very sympathetic to scientists, even if they are flawed and obsessive people. most of directors outthere, they always portait scientists as if they are "fools who tampers with things that should be of God's alone", or whatever is that retarded bullshit nonsense designed to kiss christian fundie's asses.
By the way, in PI Araniski, i might even guess deliberatly, misuses and mistakes the "Pi", when actually it should had been the "Phi" to represent the golden spiral, which the continuous mathematical/geometrical imagery through the movie. It's the Phi which is the geometrical representation of the golden spiral, or rather, the Phi is the mathematical representation of the golden spiral. The moie, however, misrepresents that as the "Pi". I suspect the reason why so is not ignorance but deliberate, because the Pi is a much better known number among the people. And it's easier to say, too.
|
|