Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

Karina on SpoutBlog

  • THE WRESTLER Review

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    The Wrestler  (2008)

    From the first scenes of The Wrestler, in which Maryse Alberti’s handheld camera follows Mickey Rourke from behind as his Randy “The Ram” Robinson goes through the closing motions of what we’re to understand is a typically trying day, director Darren Aronofsky announces that he’s picked up a new set of aesthetic references since his last film, the non-linear effects extravaganza The Fountain. It’s apparently impossible for contemporary directors to adopt the technique described aboce without someone suggesting that they ripped it from a film by the Dardennes brothers, but its use in The Wrestler feels very different from its use in, say, L’Enfant: it doesn’t produce the same sense of a tension that could break if the camera ever allowed its subject to get too far away. In fact, several times, the camera just stops while Rourke keeps moving, allowing us to appreciate the full physicality of the actor’s performance long before we ever see his face.

    There must be a cerebral component to the way Rourke approached becoming the aging wrestler at the center of this film, because otherwise I doubt he’d have been able to so deftly navigate the character’s expansive emotional arc while still nailing all the jokes. But this performance goes way beyond the brain, or the precision with which Rourke transformed his appearance, or even the naturalism with which he performs the wrestling choreography. This is a performance that seems to start and end in the cardiovascular system, making everything Rourke actually does seem effortless. As if he’s just breathing it.

    A wrestling superstar in the 80s (famous enough, at his peak, to have his own 8-bit representation jumping off the ropes in a Nintendo game), 20 years later Randy is barely holding it together, sleeping in a van when his trailer is padlocked for failure to pay rent, unloading boxes at a supermarket to make the cash from small-time meets stretch to cover his bleach, tanning and human growth hormone habits. Randy remains fiercely committed to the sport, even though his body’s not what it used to be, and even though the sport –– at least on a mainstream, big-money level –– no longer has much interest in him. With the 20th anniversary coming up of Randy’s biggest fight (a face-off with an Iranian flag-waving wrestler by the name of The Ayatollah), Randy’s producer approaches him with “two words: Re. Match.” This gives Randy something to work on other than the hot-and-cold affections of aging stripper Pam (Marisa Tomei), but when a particularly intense fight results in serious injury, Randy has to turn off autopilot and reevaluate his options. That this all manages more often than not to avoid sports film fall-rise cliches and veer into unexpected directions whilst exploring a wide range of feeling is a minor miracle. It’s a cliche to say that Rourke’s performance is “fearless” but, well, it is. But it only works as well as it does because of the economy of The Wrestler’s construction, and the stealthiness of Aronofsky’s craft.

    The Wrestler may not superficially look or feel much like a Darren Aronofsky film, but that fact has too often been stated as relieved praise by people who had grown skeptical of the filmmaker. It’s true that The Wrestler’s style is, at least compared to Aronofsky’s previous two films, bare-bones, and the cutting is relatively sedate, and that the turn to austerity marks a comeback in terms of critical opinion for the filmmaker who, with Requiem for a Dream and then The Fountain, tried critical patience with his perceived bottomless indulgence for visual trickery.  But in its own way, it’s just as much of a film built on setpieces as Requiem, and just as dependent on style to draw lines between inner lives and external action and circumstance.

    Aronofsky has acknowledged that his goal was to stick to “the documentary style” as much as possible. This goes beyond the almost always hand-held camera: the wrestling scenes were shot at “real” meets staged by the production, with real current and former wrestlers as extras and as Rourke’s opponents, while Tomei learned from and danced alongside professional strippers. There is something undeniably farcical about a name-brand filmmaker (whose wife was recently on the cover of VOGUE, no less), dropping two movie stars into facsimiles of lower-class American life, produced with the “realism” of non-fiction film in mind.

    But it works. The documentary tropes end up playing like drag designed to temper the absurdity of the nuts and bolts of Pam and Randy’s jobs and lives; it makes their more melodramatic moments seem all the more plausible. And Aronofsky knows when he can get away with casting off his realism (as when Randy makes an entrance at his supermarket job to the sound of a crowd cheering in anticipation), and when he can’t. The stylistic quick-change allows us to transform back and forth between objective observer and subjective participant. As a filmmaker, you could say Aronofsky has moved from digital surrealism to a photorealist presentation of a hyperreal world.

    If Aronofsky gets away with his constructed reality, its a testament to the work of screenwriter (and former Onion writer) Rob Siegel that The Wrestler’s characterizations can be comical, but never really condescending. And in the ways in which Randy and Pam find common ground, the filmmakers carry across a subtext of cultural critique. At the risk of giving too much away, both Randy and Pam traffic in a kind of fear of intimacy for a living: they take on personas that are very much about what their bodies look like and how they can move and what kind of power they can exert, and they perform for crowds looking for a kind of vicarious thrill, but their admirers never see anything but the surface. Both past their prime to some extent, at one point the pair bond on their mutual nostalgia for the 80s, particularly the music, which Randy says was all about having fun. “And then that pussy Cobain had to come along and ruin it for everyone,” he gripes. “The 90s sucked,” Pam agrees.

    The Wrestler is about two people whose professions are in some way dependent on 80s-dated, surface oriented ideas of gender and entertainment and escape, who were left behind in a way when pop culture took a turn away from fantasy, towards something supposedly more authentic, more real. But fantasy is a tool that most of us use to deal with reality. In some way, that dealing process has been the subject of each of Aronofsky’s films, which makes The Wrestler one of a piece.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth

  • 5 Reasons Why I’m Thrilled That the CHE Roadshow is a Hit

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    If you’ve read this blog with any regularity, you’ll know that, as a work of stand-alone cinema, I am not crazy about Che. However, that doesn’t mean that I was anything but thrilled to hear that the Steven Soderbergh film sold out most of its weekend shows at the Ziegfeld in New York and the Landmark in Los Angeles. Here are five reasons why Che’s +$30k opening weekend per screen average is –– say it with me now –– Good For Cinema:

    It validates IFC’s willingness to take chances on acquisitions. Over the past 18 months or so, as one studio has shut down their indie arms after another (and the Weinsteins have drifted off into virtual acquisitions irrelevance), IFC has picked up the buying slack, walking away with seven films at this year’s Cannes alone. There’s been some criticism that the company buys so many films that they can’t give each special attention, and when a much-praised film like The Pleasure of Being Robbed (one of those Cannes buys) is ushered out of the IFC Center after a single not-spectacular weekend, it’s easy to see how the rush instigated by the volume of product could get on the nerves of interested parties. But Che’s big weekend proves two things: a) the IFC team’s willingness to buy films that nobody else puts out is paying off, and b) they are capable of giving a product with special needs the individual concern that it needs. And speaking of the need to impress in a single weekend…

    The roadshow concept puts first weekend mania to good use. When a festival acquisition opens and closes at the IFC Center after a single week, the filmmaker is disappointed, but IFC’s model of simultaneous distribution via Video On Demand means that the film itself is still able to reach viewers on a longer tail. On that model, the one week NY theatrical run serves as a generator for press for the VOD run. The Che roadshow takes that concept and explodes it: by making Che’s Oscar qualifying run an event, complete with an opening night appearance by Soderbergh (see below), IFC has created guaranteed interest for its planned 2009 release of Che as two seperate films. In part, because…

    …the roadshow also puts a sense of confrontation back into film culture. The new At the Movies isn’t bad just because Ben Lyons is so bad (although he is so, so bad). It’s bad because the sense of conflict has been neutured. Any film worth a damn is going to inspire conflicting opinions; right now the only real public space for those clashes is the blogosphere, and the extent to which our back-and-forths are actually truly public at all is debatable. Friday night’s premiere of Che at the Ziegfeld, where the audience stuck around for a rowdy Q & A session with Soderbergh which stretched into the early morning hours and included audience member debate over whether Guevara was “a revolutionary” or “a murderer” (see the video above, via indieWIRE), proved that there’s still a chance for meaningful conversation and conflict about a film’s worth and intentions in the public sphere.

    It gives auteurs with big ambitions hope. When Che appeared at Cannes, Variety’s Todd McCarthy mocked Soderbergh’s ambitions and wrote the endeavor off as a “commercial impossibility.” That, of course, was meant as a pejorative; again, I don’t like the film, but in relating my issues with it, I praised Soderbergh for making a film so obstinately indifferent to commercial concerns. It’s Variety’s job to assess a film’s future in the market,but in this case, they did it in a scolding way, imposing their own standard for success on a film made with different goals in mind. That Che seems to be finding its audience in spite of Variety’s assessment should hopefully give hope to other filmmakers that they can actually get away exploring uncompromised visions, as long as they temper their expectations.

    Soderbergh may be breaking his own pattern. In the two decades since Sex, lies and videotape premiered at Sundance (yes, it will be 20 years next month), Soderbergh’s career has had its ups and downs, and major successes have often given way to two projects that were percieved as commercial failures (usually one made on an “art” budget and the other a big studio disappointment), which seemingly necessesitated a return to “safe” territory. Ocean’s 11 begat Full Frontal and Solaris, which Ocean’s 12, begat Bubble and The Good German. Ocean’s 13 was both awesome (for what it was) and awesomely successful. If Soderbergh could follow that up with a project as uncompromising as Che and have it not ultimately declared a financial debacle (even a $5 million total gross would make it a huge hit compared to the average gross of an IFC simultaneously released film), maybe going forward he’ll be on better footing to merge his experimental instincts with his Hollywood clout more seemlessly than before.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth

  • SLUMDOG Sweeping Critics Groups

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    It’s starting to look like early predictions that Slumdog Millionaire would be the Juno of 2008 were wrong: Juno, though a massive box office hit and an eventual Best Picture nominee, wasn’t selected as the Best Film of its year by a single critics group, an honor which Danny Boyle’s film has landed several times in the last week alone. Though excluded from AFI’s list of the Top Ten films of 2008 (it’s possible that Wendy and Lucy took its place — and if so, awesome), Slumdog was given top honors by the New York Film Critics Online (which I just joined, although I won’t be eligible to vote until next year), the Boston Society of Film Critics, and the National Board of Review (not purely critics, but often treated as such). The Los Angeles critics gave Danny Boyle Best Director, and most surprising (to me, anyway), the New York Film Critics Circle cited Slumdog’s cinematographer, Anthony Dod-Mantle, over Harris Savides, who shot their #1 film, Milk.

    So what does it all mean?!? None of these groups have a particularly fool-proof track record when it comes to predicting Oscar glory, but the blanket of praise for Slumdog seems to have already lent the film an air of inevitability in a year otherwise lacking in films that everyone can get behind. Which is annoying for those of us who think Slumdog is a servicable crowd-pleaser which has been way over-praised. Which would mean that it *is* Juno 2, after all.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth

 


Advertisement