Ooops, no, wait. Sorry. Not that The Wrestler. This The Wrestler, directed by Darren Aronofsky, starring this guy:
Yeah, I know; I gotta learn to use the manual focus when I go into zoom mode. But yes, that is Mickey Rourke, in mufti, at today’s press conference.
The picture itself is as remarkable as you’ve heard. The reviews out of Venice and Toronto cited a paring down of Aronofsky’s polyglot style, and noted a Dardennes influence, offering the many from-behind travelling shots of Rourke, as evidence. Yes and no. Unlike the work of the Dardennes, The Wrestler is hardly a film that’s bereft of cinematic flourish. There’s one sequence in which Rourke’s gone-to-seed wrestler Randy “The Ram” is choreographing a particularly gonzo match with an “opponent,” that cuts directly to the match’s aftermath, both participants bloody as hell backstage, having their wounds attended to. Each particular wound heralds a flashback to the ring, where we see precisely how said wound was acquired. It’s harrowing, as “real” as it gets…but nowhere near naturalistic. Another thing the festival notices didn’t prepare me for is how funny the film often is. There are long stretches of out-and-out (albeit mordant) hilarity here.
I still get stick from some Aronofsky devotees for my Première review of Requiem For A Dream, in which I acknowledged that the director had a boatload of talent…but that he also lacked commiserate judgment. I was happy to see, in The Fountain, that he had gotten a lot smarter about just how to deploy his considerable gifts. This holds for The Wrestler—he’s a major director now, without question. On the surface the story is a conventional one—a has-been is on the ropes, seeking redemption. The characters seem stock—the has-been’s object of affection is a stripper, the has-been’s got a daughter who’s violently estranged from him. But Robert Siegel’s script, and Aronofsky’s direction, tells us some new things about these putative types. And the film is so convincingly steeped in a its peculiar subculture that it makes the alien seem familiar, and vice-versa. And yes, Rourke’s performance is magnificent. Behind that ruin of a face you can see the cool guy of yore, and yet you’re painfully aware that the ruin is what’s left. That is, the other guy is gone.
It’s a spectacularly impressive film. It’ll be a blast to talk about in more detail when it opens in December.
I can’t wait to see this, but I’m actively steeling myself against this being painted as a “return to form” by every reviewer who didn’t get THE FOUNTAIN.
Even if one hated THE FOUNTAIN, Matt, one couldn’t call this a return to form. Aronofsky uses a new DP (documentary cameraman Maryse Alberti) and a new editor, redefining his entire aesthetic in the process. The scene Glenn cites (the juxtaposition of match/post-match) is about as close as THE WRESTLER gets to the old, cross-cutting-crazy Aronofsky, but even then it suggests to me a homage to the love scene from DON’T LOOK NOW more than anything else. (Okay, now I’m just cannibalizing my own review, but I love talking about this movie.)
I guess I meant “return to form” in a less literal way…more like “Hey, after that crappy movie, he made a good one again!”
Which, regardless of the merits of THE WRESTLER, is just going to piss me off.
So The Fountain is worth watching? The reviews put me off that one.
I, along with Mr. Kenny, found the film beautifully heartfelt. Easily one of the finest of that year.
@R. Totale
“The Fountain” is a wonderful film. Honestly, I’ve read very few negative reviews that I think genuinely got the film, a lot of people went in rubbing their hands to cream Aronofsky, frankly.
I’ll be intensely curious to see where its reputation is, in ten year’s time.
OK, this might be a lot of tilting at windmills, GK, but I’d be curious to your thoughts and others on this…given that The Wrestler is still far out from when most folks will see it, don’t you think describing the flashback sequence above constitutes a spoiler? Even though it’s not a plot-spoiler per se, it’s certainly a spoiler for film nerds/geeks/however you want to define it, such as the people who read here, in that you are (possibly) depriving us the joy of experiencing that sequence for the first time in a pure state.
To use an obvious example, would you have mentioned the epic Goodfellas Copacabana shot in a preview/review? I remember seeing that for the first time and being giddy at watching it unfold in front of me, with no knowledge it was coming.
Of course, the counter-argument could be made that DA is known for a frenetic film style, so this sequence overall shouldn’t be much of a spoiler, but I would say that telling us when it comes in the film certainly is.
So am I worked up about nothing? Or are aesthetic/technique spoilers as legitimate as plot spoilers? Does “He’s Luke’s father” = scope of tracking shot at beginning of Touch of Evil?
If we’re gonna be that strict about what constitutes a spoiler, I might as well give up writing about film altogether. What would you have me do? Just say, “trust me, it’s not really like a Dardenne brothers movie?”
Believe me, the sequence has a visceral impact that my description cannot vitiate.
I found “The Fountain” to be very flawed, but still unlike anything else that came out that year. The fact that it was so mercilessly dumped on is very depressing. I wish I’d caught it in theaters.
Can’t wait for “The Wrestler”.
PS – Why have the order of the comments been reversed?
I once received an e‑mail chiding me for “giving away” the *opening credits* of GHOST WORLD. My feeling is that if you’re that spoiler-sensitive, it’s time to unplug the Internet.