The Wrestler
2008, dir. Darren Aronofsky
starring Mickey Rourke, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood
I saw one review for The Wrestler that said, "Witness the resurrection of Mickey Rourke," and I don't think anyone could have put it any better. After years of small roles and b-movies with cookie cutter performances, Rourke has again showed the kind of acting skill he routinely displayed twenty years ago. In the film, Rourke plays the eponymous character named Randy The Ram Robinson, a wrestler once at the top of the game in the 1980s, but who has, with age, fallen to wrestling in community centres and high school gymnasiums for a couple hundred bucks at a time. His body, and spirit, are broken from the toll pro wrestling takes on a person, almost every person, who has ever been in the industry. After a heart attack, Rourke is told he must quit, and he does try, but he finds he has no other place in this world than in the ring, and is drawn back in for a rematch of a classic main event battle he had in the 80s.
Supporting Rourke are Marisa Tomei as a stripper that Randy is friendly with, and Wood and Randy's estranged daughter. Tomei's character Cassidy, like Randy, is also a performer in an industry that does not bode well for the aging, and who also finds that she must move on, but proves to have a bit more strength to do so, probably because she has some family left, whereas Rourke really doesn't. Wood, as Randy's daughter Stephanie, has all but given up on him, basically because he all but gave up on her when she was growing up. Randy tries to reconnect with Stephanie after his heart attack, but finds that his problems still prevent him from fully taking responsibility for his relationship with his daughter.
The Wrestler is only the fourth film from Darren Aronofsky, and although it may not seem to have anything in common with Pi, Requiem For A Dream, and The Fountain, at the heart of it, all are about the failings of the body holding back the strength of the mind. Rourke, like the protagonists of those other films, has desires of greatness, but is held back by his weaknesses and the passages of time, which are inescapable for us all. Rourke is any many ways a doppelganger for Randy, but hopefully this performance will allow him to escape those trappings.
5 stars out of 5
Seen Friday night at the Bytowne with Steph, Paddy, and Gary. Had some popcorn and a diet Pepsi.
Showing posts with label Gary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gary. Show all posts
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
What Would Jesus NOT Do?
Choke
2008, dir. Clark Gregg. 89 minutes.
Starring Sam Rockwell, Anjelica Huston, Kelly MacDonald, Bijou Phillips, and Clark Gregg.
Choke is the story of Victor, played by Sam Rockwell, who dropped out of medical school to support his Alzheimer's-afflicted mother (Anjelica Huston), but frequently abandoned him throughout his childhood and would then kidnap him from his various foster homes. Victor is also a sex addicted, and we see various quick flashes of all the women he's had sex with as he sees them again in the hallways of his mother's hospital, or at the Colonial Recreation Park where we works. To pay for his mother's medical care, Victor pretends to choke on food at restaurants, after which the people who rescue him feel obliged to send him money from time to time. If I ever give you the Heimlich maneuver, don't expect a cheque afterwards. In fact, you should be writing me a cheque.
I have to confess that I have not read Choke, the novel by Chuck Palahniuk, but I have read some of his other novels, such as Survivor and Fight Club. So after watching the film version of Choke, I have the distinct impression that what I saw on screen was not a completely accurate adaptation of Palahniuk's novel. To give you an idea of what I mean, imagine if David Fincher had changed the end of Fight Club (the movie) so that Edward Norton realized he was Tyler Durden, and this gave him a new lease on life which allowed him to reacquire all his success, get his job and old apartment back, and become a well-adjusted member of society. I'm thinking that film would not have had the same impact. But that is how I'm guessing actor Clark Gregg, in his screenwriting and directorial debut, has changed Choke. It ends with a message, yet as Gary said to me after the movie was over, "I'm not sure it's supposed to."
That all of course leads to a few questions of film reviewing in general. One is, can you (or should you) review a film based on how it's different than its origin novel, especially if you haven't read that novel? I want to say no, whether you read the novel or not, because deep down I feel a film should be critiqued on its own merits, and not on any external sources. That said, this lingering feeling that Choke was missing something will not go away. And since I have some experience reading novels by Mr. Palahniuk, I can't help but thinking that there is far more to the novel than there is to the film. Is that fair to the film? Maybe not. But on a more selfish note, if there is stuff missing, is the film fair to the audience?
Leaving that feeling aside for a minute, I will say that despite its patchiness, Choke is a very funny, sometimes off-puttingly so, film. I laughed out loud throughout the film, and never got bored of it (though no 89 minute film should ever bore you). Sam Rockwell is always better when he plays weird or off-balanced characters, and he's no different here. Anjelica Huston in particular impressed me, and I thought that this was some of her best work in years. In the end though, I think the acting elevated a weak script and even weaker direction by Clark Gregg, who gave it a good try, but should probably stick with acting, where I've always liked his work.
2 1/2 stars out of 5
Saw Choke Tuesday night at the Mayfair (where the heat was working better) with Gary, Kris and Ryan. Had some popcorn and a can of diet Pepsi.
2008, dir. Clark Gregg. 89 minutes.
Starring Sam Rockwell, Anjelica Huston, Kelly MacDonald, Bijou Phillips, and Clark Gregg.
Choke is the story of Victor, played by Sam Rockwell, who dropped out of medical school to support his Alzheimer's-afflicted mother (Anjelica Huston), but frequently abandoned him throughout his childhood and would then kidnap him from his various foster homes. Victor is also a sex addicted, and we see various quick flashes of all the women he's had sex with as he sees them again in the hallways of his mother's hospital, or at the Colonial Recreation Park where we works. To pay for his mother's medical care, Victor pretends to choke on food at restaurants, after which the people who rescue him feel obliged to send him money from time to time. If I ever give you the Heimlich maneuver, don't expect a cheque afterwards. In fact, you should be writing me a cheque.
I have to confess that I have not read Choke, the novel by Chuck Palahniuk, but I have read some of his other novels, such as Survivor and Fight Club. So after watching the film version of Choke, I have the distinct impression that what I saw on screen was not a completely accurate adaptation of Palahniuk's novel. To give you an idea of what I mean, imagine if David Fincher had changed the end of Fight Club (the movie) so that Edward Norton realized he was Tyler Durden, and this gave him a new lease on life which allowed him to reacquire all his success, get his job and old apartment back, and become a well-adjusted member of society. I'm thinking that film would not have had the same impact. But that is how I'm guessing actor Clark Gregg, in his screenwriting and directorial debut, has changed Choke. It ends with a message, yet as Gary said to me after the movie was over, "I'm not sure it's supposed to."
That all of course leads to a few questions of film reviewing in general. One is, can you (or should you) review a film based on how it's different than its origin novel, especially if you haven't read that novel? I want to say no, whether you read the novel or not, because deep down I feel a film should be critiqued on its own merits, and not on any external sources. That said, this lingering feeling that Choke was missing something will not go away. And since I have some experience reading novels by Mr. Palahniuk, I can't help but thinking that there is far more to the novel than there is to the film. Is that fair to the film? Maybe not. But on a more selfish note, if there is stuff missing, is the film fair to the audience?
Leaving that feeling aside for a minute, I will say that despite its patchiness, Choke is a very funny, sometimes off-puttingly so, film. I laughed out loud throughout the film, and never got bored of it (though no 89 minute film should ever bore you). Sam Rockwell is always better when he plays weird or off-balanced characters, and he's no different here. Anjelica Huston in particular impressed me, and I thought that this was some of her best work in years. In the end though, I think the acting elevated a weak script and even weaker direction by Clark Gregg, who gave it a good try, but should probably stick with acting, where I've always liked his work.
2 1/2 stars out of 5
Saw Choke Tuesday night at the Mayfair (where the heat was working better) with Gary, Kris and Ryan. Had some popcorn and a can of diet Pepsi.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
In Heaven, Everything Is Fine
Eraserhead
1977, David Lynch. 90 minutes
starring Jack Nance, Charlotte Stewart, Jeanne Bates, Jack Fisk
If you've seen Eraserhead, and you're talking to someone who hasn't, their inevitable question will be "what is it about?", and that will probably be a question you dread. Most people who have watched the film will probably argue that it is also an irrelevant question, but for the sake of simplicity, let's just say that, loosely, Eraserhead is about a man who finds out that he fathered a child prematurely, so he moves in with the mother and the child, and discovers that the child is severely deformed. And yet as I write that, the plot seems even more irrelevant than ever.
Eraserhead isn't really a narrative film, per se, and yet it does have a fairly straightforward plot line. In that way, it's one of the mot narrative surrealist films. If you were having a party and wanted weird video installations throughout your home as decoration or art, Eraserhead might be a wise DVD to purchase. David Lynch shot it on a shoestring budget over a period of 5 years, which adds to its disjointed feel. Upon this viewing, for the first time on a big theatre screen, it struck me how much its style and plot foreshadowed most of Lynch's later work, for everything from Blue Velvet to Lost Highway to INLAND EMPIRE. If you do get a chance to ever see this film on the big screen, be sure to check it out.
4 stars out of 5
Steph, Gary and I made our first trip to the new Mayfair, where I wanted to have popcorn, but they were sold out, something I've never seen in 23 years of going to the movies. Poor form Mayfair, poor form. Also, someone please turn on the furnace in that place ... it's freezing.
Fun Fact of the Day: The general rule of thumb for film screenplays are that one page of script equals one minute of film. So, for example, a 90 minute film should have a script between 90 and 100 pages. Eraserhead's script was about 18 pages long.
1977, David Lynch. 90 minutes
starring Jack Nance, Charlotte Stewart, Jeanne Bates, Jack Fisk
If you've seen Eraserhead, and you're talking to someone who hasn't, their inevitable question will be "what is it about?", and that will probably be a question you dread. Most people who have watched the film will probably argue that it is also an irrelevant question, but for the sake of simplicity, let's just say that, loosely, Eraserhead is about a man who finds out that he fathered a child prematurely, so he moves in with the mother and the child, and discovers that the child is severely deformed. And yet as I write that, the plot seems even more irrelevant than ever.
Eraserhead isn't really a narrative film, per se, and yet it does have a fairly straightforward plot line. In that way, it's one of the mot narrative surrealist films. If you were having a party and wanted weird video installations throughout your home as decoration or art, Eraserhead might be a wise DVD to purchase. David Lynch shot it on a shoestring budget over a period of 5 years, which adds to its disjointed feel. Upon this viewing, for the first time on a big theatre screen, it struck me how much its style and plot foreshadowed most of Lynch's later work, for everything from Blue Velvet to Lost Highway to INLAND EMPIRE. If you do get a chance to ever see this film on the big screen, be sure to check it out.
4 stars out of 5
Steph, Gary and I made our first trip to the new Mayfair, where I wanted to have popcorn, but they were sold out, something I've never seen in 23 years of going to the movies. Poor form Mayfair, poor form. Also, someone please turn on the furnace in that place ... it's freezing.
Fun Fact of the Day: The general rule of thumb for film screenplays are that one page of script equals one minute of film. So, for example, a 90 minute film should have a script between 90 and 100 pages. Eraserhead's script was about 18 pages long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
