I am astounded that this movie isn't nominated for an Oscar for best picture. It is a masterpiece, period. I honestly can't say enough about this film. Best movie I've seen in years.
While I can easily see Mickey Rourke winning the best actor award for 2008, the movie as a whole isn't as Oscar caliber for best picture. The script itself is weak in its development and maintainence of the relationships of Mr. Rourke as Randy 'The Ram" Robinson and his character's girlfriend and daughter. There are scenes which don't seem to hold up when Marisa Tomei or Evan Rachel Wood make their big decisions because their characters haven't been developed sufficiently to really establish that their behavior is consistent with who they (might be). As a result, there are scenes which seem manipulative and forced for the sake of the plot not for the sake of the natural evolution of the story and the characters themselves. The ending also is a directorial device that while sometimes effective is usually an easy way to compromise taking a position and attempting to capture the greatest audience satisfaction without having to commit oneself. Personally, for this movie, the ending was weak because it avoided taking a firm conclusion preventing the stronger emotions of reality to take hold.
Posts: 1481 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
Originally posted by tabuno: The ending also is a directorial device that while sometimes effective is usually an easy way to compromise taking a position and attempting to capture the greatest audience satisfaction without having to commit oneself. Personally, for this movie, the ending was weak because it avoided taking a firm conclusion preventing the stronger emotions of reality to take hold.
i thought the ending was probably the most original part of the film. i didnt think it was a great film but by aronfsky's standards it was a good film - borrowing a page from daradenne brothers for directing. i dont want to give much away for ppl who have nt seen it but the ending was a very literal way for "the ram" trying to leap into greatness or purity from what he had left. as for the script, yea it was weak at times but there were some great moments in the locker room. The dialog at times was almost laughable with tomei talking about passion of the christ. but it definitely gives dues to the wrestling world.
rgautam Enthusiast Posted 11 February 2009 02:24 PM quote: Originally posted by tabuno: The ending also is a directorial device that while sometimes effective is usually an easy way to compromise taking a position and attempting to capture the greatest audience satisfaction without having to commit oneself. Personally, for this movie, the ending was weak because it avoided taking a firm conclusion preventing the stronger emotions of reality to take hold.
i thought the ending was probably the most original part of the film. i didnt think it was a great film but by aronfsky's standards it was a good film - borrowing a page from daradenne brothers for directing. i dont want to give much away for ppl who have nt seen it but the . as for the script, yea it was weak at times but there were some great moments in the locker room. The dialog at times was almost laughable with tomei talking about passion of the christ. but it definitely gives dues to the wrestling world.
If the ending of this movie was its "most original," then it might not be saying too much. Much in the way No Country for Old Men (2007) still left much to the imagination, the ending of this movie too leaves much to the imagination, and as I've said it before, left it too much up to the viewer's imagination (unlike a book) where the emotional, viseral impact is dissipated by the Pick Your Own Adventure story book format, but even so, the children's storybook allows for a continuation of the literary story of the written word by the author unlike this movie. The commentary "that ending was a very literal way for 'the ram' trying to leap into greatness or purity from what he had left" still only refers to action that leads up to the end of the movie and not the actual ending of the movie which in and of itself still leaves something to be desired. Something more definitive would have likely had a much more potent and powerful emotional resonance.
Posts: 1481 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
Originally posted by tabuno: If the ending of this movie was its "most original," then it might not be saying too much. Much in the way No Country for Old Men (2007) still left much to the imagination, the ending of this movie too leaves much to the imagination, and as I've said it before, left it too much up to the viewer's imagination
i thought it works, cause it stays with you a little longer, gets the viewer to do a little more work than just having the director dish out and spell everything for the viewer. the emotional impact is the bait aronofsky dishes out with the scenes with his daughter and the relationship with tomie. the ending is what he is trying to make a statement about wrestlers.
going to no country for old men for a second, the the ending where tommy lee jones' character reflecting on what has happened throughout the film gives the viewer a chance to dissect what has been on the screen. one interpretation could be that it flips the psychopath genre and uses it to explore existential issues. The way of life led by chigurh is solidified by sheriff bell's uncle in a wheel chair who concludes that things have always been this way. the juxtaposition of that story with the retelling of the dream of a lawman(sheriff bell) meeting up with his father is for the viewer to draw a conclusion from tommy lee himself, who is in the midst of uncovering his piecing the puzzle himselef. so the viewer can either go with the ride that the sheriff provides or not.
in both cases the directors play is at display, and its not impact that they are going for. Its a more sublte way of making a film, although in my opinion no country's ending was more subtle than the wrestler's.
rgautam Enthusiast Posted 11 February 2009 10:46 PM Hide
quote: Originally posted by tabuno: If the ending of this movie was its "most original," then it might not be saying too much. Much in the way No Country for Old Men (2007) still left much to the imagination, the ending of this movie too leaves much to the imagination, and as I've said it before, left it too much up to the viewer's imagination
i thought it works, cause it stays with you a little longer, gets the viewer to do a little more work than just having the director dish out and spell everything for the viewer. the emotional impact is the bait aronofsky dishes out with the scenes with his daughter and the relationship with tomie. the ending is what he is trying to make a statement about wrestlers.
It's nice but rare to have somebody who is willing actually to engage and make a stronger response to an opinion.
[spoiler alert]: But in response, how does the movie actually end? Or more meaningfully how might the movie have ended if the director had kept on filming and the actors had kept on acting?
Does Mickey Rourke's character suffer a heart attack? If he does, is it before or after he wins the match? Does he survive?
With these questions left unanswered, it is difficult to imagine the actual film experience at this point for there is none to be had, it's over.
Are we to rejoice that Randy survives and lives and wins and gets back together with his girlfriend? Or do we suffer pain and regret at his death?
Without experiencing these scenarios on-screen, the director deprives the audience of a more directly powerful emotional auditory and visual explosion of human behavior on screen and leaves us to our own somewhat dimmer imagination in the darkness of the theater as the rustle of people getting up to leave distracts us from the immediate aftermath of our experience due to the movie's incomplete conclusion.
My more American and inspirational ending for this movie, one likely that would not be tapped into by many other people would be that at the end of the movie Randy falls to the canvas, stumbling and Marisa Tomei's character makes her grand entrance to demand that the competition be stopped and frantically climbs into the ring exposing how visibly sick Mickey Rouke's character is (he is dying) which then in turn exposes the charade of this match and instead obtains the audience acceptance that human suffering and medical life-saving take precedence over entertainment and courageous that their man would risk his life for the sport. My proposed scenario, it would appear to me, is a viable one that goes to speak to the human spirit of forgiveness, acceptance, and compassion. Unfortunately, without the Director's and actor's cooperation, I can only vaguely visualize this scene and its emotional power.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: tabuno,
Posts: 1481 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
i m not sure how many ppl would want to have an ending like you are suggesting but lets just talk about the movie on its own merits.
spoilers here:
to me it was not important to what happens to 'the ram' in his final match because what has already happened in the film is an indication of a cycle that the wrestlers go through. his heart attack in the middle of the film already has us saying that he shouldn't be doing what he is doing. it is too simplistic in my opinion to leave aronofsky gesture as just rejoicing or being sad. the statement made at the end isn't about us, or exposing the charade of wrestling. its about the wrestlers who find transcendence in the charade, through those big moments in the ring jumping off the top rope, where they are gods.
the ending that u want would be something out of the 40s or 50s cinema or more recently ron howards Cinderella man (what a bore fest). but this isnt feel good hollywood cinema. although there are moments in the film that feel like it, but thats another topic to discuss. aronofsky strong suit is the way he plays with us during a wrestling match scenes and locker room scenes, in between the outside world and the wrestling world.
rgautam Enthusiast Posted 12 February 2009 08:25 PM Hide Post i m not sure how many ppl would want to have an ending like you are suggesting but lets just talk about the movie on its own merits.
spoilers here:
to me it was not important to what happens to 'the ram' in his final match because what has already happened in the film is an indication of a cycle that the wrestlers go through. his heart attack in the middle of the film already has us saying that he shouldn't be doing what he is doing. it is too simplistic in my opinion to leave aronofsky gesture as just rejoicing or being sad. the statement made at the end isn't about us, or exposing the charade of wrestling. its about the wrestlers who find transcendence in the charade, through those big moments in the ring jumping off the top rope, where they are gods.
the ending that u want would be something out of the 40s or 50s cinema or more recently ron howards Cinderella man (what a bore fest). but this isnt feel good hollywood cinema. although there are moments in the film that feel like it, but thats another topic to discuss. aronofsky strong suit is the way he plays with us during a wrestling match scenes and locker room scenes, in between the outside world and the wrestling world.
What happens when one's moment in the sun is past? What happens when the charade is broken and the the arena audience's fantasy in the movie is shattered? What happens to the man here? Is "The Ram" being glorious in his final moments or he being irresponsible to his sport? Is trying to be a martyr? Is he really playing to the crowd or really just to himself, trying to be something he no longer is? Has he actually bought into his own disguise and failed to see himself for who he truly is in that moment and that time?
Personally, whether he lives and dies is an important fact that I want to know. The transformation from his few rather fascinating, entertaining, and truly wonderful moments behind the meat counter which were suggestive of another feasible life are then just pushed into to the dustbin of script plot possibility ending.
Most of us have our moments and many of these over-the-hill events will occur more and more often to each of us (unless we die prematurely) as our society ages and the director Aronofsky ignores the more important question in this film that of retiring and living, and living past one's prime. In my mind, it was too easy an out for Aronofsky to leave the audience with this dreamlike, fantasy-suicidal last moment of glory, fame, or just plain foolishness of a person unable to cope with his own personal life, his history, his relationships, failures.
Sometimes it takes more courage and bravery to live and to face up to the reality of who we are in the present and that is what I would have hoped the director would have been willing to done and allowed Mickey Rourke to have commanded a classic movie that would have resonated beyond wrestling and would have shone some beacon on the more universal themes of living and dying - what a movie it could have been then.
Posts: 1481 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
One of the dangers of focusing so narrowly on one aspect of the movie, especially when it is a critique, is that it can distort the accomplishment and overall brilliance of the movie itself. The quantity of time spend on the ending of this movie and "what ifs" really are footnotes to the emotional intensity and impact, the greatness of the performance by Mr. Rourke. The Wrestler brings to the screen a raw footage, pseudo documentary feel that brings the whole sport of professional wrestling into a new human light.
Posts: 1481 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
well if u want to watch a movie about when the charade is over, bret hart's documentary of the final match in wwf is real sweet.
all the questions u are asking are being answered in the film, from tomei equating him to jesus christ to him being responsibele to the sport by going to signings.
aronofsky does show the other side when he is working behind the counter, he did try to live up to the society...
if u liked the "pseudo documentary feel" really look at the work of the dardenne brothers. aronofsky's approach is not nearly as effective as the dardennes to their subjects.
rgautam Enthusiast Posted 15 February 2009 11:33 PM Hide Post spoilers:
all the questions u are asking are being answered in the film, from tomei equating him to jesus christ to him being responsibele to the sport by going to signings.
aronofsky does show the other side when he is working behind the counter, he did try to live up to the society...
if u liked the "pseudo documentary feel" really look at the work of the dardenne brothers. aronofsky's approach is not nearly as effective as the dardennes to their subjects.
(1). I don't know if I would be enthralled in making so much of the reference to Jesus Christ and responsible book signings as a sign for what is likely to happen to Mickey Rourke's character. Such a Jesus Christ complex places an awful lot on this character's shoulders to the point of suggesting a mental disorder if one takes it far enough, which I don't believe would be the intent of Aronofsky.
(2) As for the deli scene, Aronofsky allowed the scene to become so successful and entertaining that it seems to present Mr. Rourke's character not just living up to "the society" but almost embracing it without any implications of defiling his own sport of wrestling. The scene almost requires some counter scene to offer why Mr. Rourke would in fact turn away from this alternative lifestyle and why he would have changed his mind and embrace the behavior he did at the end of the movie.
(3) Thanks for the Dardenne Brothers (producers) reference, but not very accessible Belgian producers, aren't exactly stocked on my local video store shelves or local theater. Think medium-sized United States city in the Rocky Mountain states.
Posts: 1481 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
rgautam Enthusiast Posted 16 February 2009 12:21 PM Hide Post they had l'enfant and rosseta at my blockbuster, maryland woo!! they do it all produce, direct and write...some essential viewing man!
If it wasn't for the flu, I'd eat my words. No use throwing them up. But I'm not to thrilled about having to eat sub-titles in my present condition. Give me entertainment for now! Need food for my body, not my soul.
Posts: 1481 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
