Film review: The Wrestler (2008)

[my_daroga]

There's something to be said for the pleasure of being surprised by a film, or a book, or even a discussion, about a topic you're not that interested in. It means that the treatment of it, the thought put into it, or the human drama of the situation transcends your own personal likes and dislikes and I, for one, enjoy that sort of surprise. When a

Comments

[confusedkayt]

Oh man. This movie *gutted* me when I saw it, though I recognize that it's for very idiosyncratic reasons. My biggest fear in life is turning out mediocre somehow, and this just gouged that wound. I was a wreck for a couple of days afterwards. (Perhaps I love me some movies a little too much... :P)

I quite like what you said about non-showy acting and trusting the audience. I'm probably taking my life in my hands to admit this to you, film buff that you are, but I can't stand most indie movies because of the aesthetic. I don't like the grainy-looking film, the over-artsy shots. I really, really don't like it when the acting is portentous, and the shots even more so, because the director is an ARTIST goddammit, and he's telling you something *deep* and *important.*

Of course, it's not fair at all. Many big-budget movies are pompous and heavy-handed. It's just that they have slick visuals, sharp sounds to fall back on. For me, the aesthetic part of cinema is by far the most enjoyable. Even though I hope for well-drawn characters and interesting plots, a beautiful, fun, overwhelming movie will do it for me even if it's filled with archetypes.

But this... It reminded me that I like indie films, and low-budget arthouse pics. Aronovsky is established enough that he's not frantic to cram in-you-face meaning into the foreground of every frame. But it's there, all the craft and love and detail. It's just that it's serving the story instead of standing in for it. Same thing with the acting. Mickey Rourke... Man. I tried to imagine someone else in this role and came up with horror-show images of Jamie Foxx *feeling* the pain of homeless, you know? He lets Ram be dignified, and storied, and pathetic - lowercase letters all. Both of these qualities seem missing from a lot of movies dealing with serious subjects, and I join you in really wishing they weren't. The Wrestler is the sort of movie that I'll never re-watch - it's too painful, especially now that my ridiculous hope that it was somehow going to end well is squashed. But I am awfully glad that I did see it, and that you did, too!

Oof. This comment is nearly as long as your review... Sorry about that!

[my_daroga]

I think I was unclear above. I am not sure how to express that I found the film very effective and affecting but didn't feel very personally towards it, though I can definitely see how you (or one) might. There was a certain distance in my reaction even though I did feel it very deeply--I'm sure I didn't say that, and I'm not sure I'm saying anything now that makes sense.

But I am not one to judge you for feeling a movie too much!

I'm probably taking my life in my hands to admit this to you, film buff that you are, but I can't stand most indie movies because of the aesthetic.

I always think it's funny when people say stuff like this, because though it's the stereotype I am not a huge "indie" fan either. Not in and of itself. I like films where the aesthetic and the themes match, to some degree. Sometimes, the "gritty reality" thing totally works, but it has to be part of the overall plan. (Either that, or the film itself has to totally lack pretension and just be good, and then it can look like crap and I don't care.) Now that's not true in all cases, there are exceptions. But I don't like self-consciously arty stuff, or at least when I do there's something else I'm hanging my regard on. A lot of my favorite movies were big Hollywood things back in the day; even though say something like Lawrence wouldn't get made today it's hardly highfalutin indie fare. And I like lots of "bad" stuff, too. I'm also, frankly, tired of the hand-held look, the pseudo-documentary style (unless it's done REALLY well--Christopher Guest can go on forever as far as I'm concerned), and the quirky poppy misfit first film thing.

At the same time, I mistrust the slick visuals and my bias is to think that if they've got all that money, they're not putting much else into it. Now, I mean. I feel that most blockbuster films are B movies with A movie budgets--I stole that line from someone, but I can't remember who and I think it's very true. I love B movies. But one of the pleasures I get out of old B movies is the innovation dictated by the small budget--the Roger Corman stuff from the 60s/70s is so creative because they just didn't have anything to work with and that makes it feel more true and immediate to me than watching the same fairly empty plots played out with more money than anyone knows what to do with.

But I'm clearly in the minority there, and I understand why. Most people just want to be entertained, and that's totally valid. At this point, there are different things that entertain me, is all.

Never apologize for the length! Don't you know this is why I write these--because I love talking movies? I love you're penultimate paragraph. You got it exactly. This movie is so much more effective because everyone held back from telling you how to feel or emoting for you. It's something that I think looks like a paradox to most directors/actors, if the bigger-budget Hollywood equivalents are any guide. How will the audience know this scene is poignant if we don't tell them so?