The Wrestler

[Serge Teulon]

I recently watched "The Wrestler" and what a great film it was.

Good cinematography - doco style; great directing and wonderful performance by Mickey.

His character was 'the one' for him, if you know what I mean.

 

I strongly recommend it!

[Tom Lowe]

I recently watched "The Wrestler" and what a great film it was.

Good cinematography - doco style; great directing and wonderful performance by Mickey.

His character was 'the one' for him, if you know what I mean.

 

I strongly recommend it!

 

I am really looking forward to this one. I am glad to see my main man Darren Aronofsky back on top.

 

It saddened me to see the shabby reaction to The Fountain, which I felt was a true masterpiece. I hate to see artists go out on a limb like Aronofsky and Jackman did, and then be criticized and even mocked. 99% of filmmakers would never have the vision nor the balls to put everything they had into a risky movie like The Fountain. They would rather play it safe with some Hollywood crap or a comic book movie. I'm extremely pleased to see Aronofsky right back on top so quickly.

 

It goes to show that you can take risks, and even if you are perceived to have stumbled a bit, there will still be people around who support real artists. After all, that's how Malick keeps shooting. :lol:

[Serge Teulon]

I also really enjoyed The Fountain, I think of it in the same terms as Pan's Labyrinth.

They are both a breath of fresh air in imagination and originality. But unfortunately the majority of critics dribble over films that fit the mainstream.

 

However, The Wrestler isn't as left field as The Fountain but it does prove that film making, which doesn't require big effects (and budgets) to astonish, is out there and being made.

[Jamie Metzger]

I just saw it last night, with a completely packed house! That made me feel good since you can consider this film "indie", or atleast indie on a marketing scale.

 

I thougt the movie was great. It was very funny, honest and touching.

 

 

I felt like it was too short, or that some plot points were left open (maybe for viewer interpretation) that I wanted a resolution to.

 

All in all, the entire audience would laugh and cry when necessary, and I was moved by it. Micky Rourke did an excellent job.

 

I really liked how dark the movie was lighting wise. There were some scene that were so dark that you really couldn't see what was going on, but you knew the character and his surrounds so well by that point that you didn't need to. I think artificial lighting would have killed it. Gordon Willis Lives!

[Tom Lowe]

The movie was very good. I hope Rourke gets Oscar recognition.

 

I thought the ending left many plot points unresolved. But then again, maybe not.

 

Mansell's low-key score was perfect.

 

Any idea why Libatique did not DP? I guess maybe he was just busy. He is on board with Aronofsky's next two pictures.

[Kevin Jones]

You guys are lucky. The theaters in my area didn't buy any reels of The Wrestler. I'll have to wait for it to come out on DVD or something.

[Ruairi Robinson]

The movie was very good. I hope Rourke gets Oscar recognition.

 

I thought the ending left many plot points unresolved. But then again, maybe not.

 

Mansell's low-key score was perfect.

 

Any idea why Libatique did not DP? I guess maybe he was just busy. He is on board with Aronofsky's next two pictures.

 

 

What did you feel was unresolved?

[Tom Lowe]

What did you feel was unresolved?

 

 

(((((((((((SPOILERS))))))))))))))

 

 

(((((((((((SPOILERS))))))))))))))

 

 

Whether he lived or died. What happened with his daughter. What happened with Pam. Etc.

 

The ending just seemed too predictable, formulaic, neat, and on the nose. But look, I'm willing to overlook those things, because the rest of the movie, and Rourke 's performance, were so great they override those concerns.

[Jason Debus]

Saw this on Christmas. Definitely the best film I've seen this year (haven't seen any of the Oscar bait movies this year like Ben Button, the Reader, Doubt, etc., probably the other top ones I've seen would be Dark Knight & Slumdog Millionaire).

 

If you look at the film from a character arc perspective, all things come to a clear conclusion for Randy, his daughter, and the stripper. The last shot (and shots leading up to it) are very clear on 'what happened' to Randy.

If you put spoilers in your post please use spoiler formating.

 

 

I read somewhere that Aronofsky wanted Alberti to DP because of her documentary experience. The combination of her at DP with the 16mm handheld camera really gave the film a 'direct cinema' feeling which put you in the main character's shoes, showing everything from his perspective.

 

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that this was shot on the new Vision3 in Super 16mm (7219, daylight scenes were 7217). It looked great on the big screen. There was grain of course, but the posters on the wall were quite readable. There are spots were the more impressionistic Super 16mm format shows but mostly was very sharp and gritty which is perfect for the subject matter.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

Saw it yesterday and really enjoyed this film. It's certainly one for the times, socially, economically and artistically. They might as well put a big "2008" stamp on it, and I mean that as a good thing.

 

Rourke's entire down & out career made him a perfect fit for this part. I guess it's a role he demised for, ha ha

 

It was a packed house when I saw it too, which is really cool considering it was playing in two auditoriums at the AMC Metreon.

 

And is it just me, or is Marisa Tomei getting hotter and doing even more nude scenes than ever these days?

[Ira Ratner]

And is it just me, or is Marisa Tomei getting hotter and doing even more nude scenes than ever these days?

 

I was going to wait for the DVD, but now I changed my mind.

[A. Whitehouse]

I was going to wait for the DVD, but now I changed my mind.

 

Just saw it on Friday and thought it was a great film. Enjoyed the story and it was brave of Aronofsky to avoid doing some of the visual language he's done in his previous films. Thought it had a great documentary feel and it looked great on the big screen. I knew going in it was S16 but was really surprised by the result, cropped to 2.35 no less. Pretty sharp and grain free for the most part. Mickey Rourke was great. Have to dig up the Kodak article about it...

[F Bulgarelli]

The print I saw looked pretty grainy at times, I thought maybe they were using 7279.

I really enjoyed the film, there is this sadness always present in the main characters life, it's one of those rare instances in movies where you really feel for this person. I loved what they did with sounds as he goes into his first day working in the deli and we hear the voices of the fans cheering and then stops suddenly and the interaction with the costumers in the Deli. Also, the little event where people came to get autographs from the wrestlers, really great stuff. All really clever ways of telling a story. Very documentary like, no doubt.

Overall, great film.

[James Martin]

I'm wondering, does anyone know the process which was made to make this a 2.35:1 film?

 

IMDB list anamorphic, but that is just for the projection prints, I guess.

 

Did they crop it or use an anamorphic lens? I was very impressed to see it was 16mm, I thought it was just 2-perf designed to look a bit grainy?

[Alex Lindblom]

It was just a normal straight crop.

 

Link to PDF Kodak - The Wrestler

[Marcus Joseph]

The film was fairly remarkable, something that will be appreciated for years to come, and it was a shame that it didn't get a Best Picture nomination. Thanks for the link, Alex.

 

I recently watched a discussion (or in the more traditional sense, interview) on YouTube between the two filmmakers Boyle and Aronfosky,

, which they discussed different parts of the process in production through the segments. I found it pretty interesting that they got no video playback throughout the entire principal photography (except for the last scene), the takes seemed pretty spot on, but I guess that was due to such great acting, and it probably added to the more documentary and realistic feel and tone of the whole thing.

[Paul James Savarese]

This is a movie that would not have had the impact it did without 16mm! Perfect match between medium and story! Makes me want to break out the Bolex!

[Robert Houllahan]

Just saw it great film loved the 16mm saw it in a big new stadium multiplex on a very large screen such a small piece of negative with the 2.35 crop and amazing how well it holds up great color very good sharpness considering the ratio of negative area to screen area. Saw Slumdog in a small art house theatre with a screen area about one fifth the size and while I liked that film allot and liked the look the SI-2k felt soft and washed out on a much smaller screen.

 

May 16mm live well forever, amen.

 

"And is it just me, or is Marisa Tomei getting hotter and doing even more nude scenes than ever these days? "

 

Ay! very fine woman that Tomei great actor great part, Rorque too loved the deli scenes esp. how he quits.

 

-Rob-

[Brad Grimmett]

(((((((((((SPOILERS))))))))))))))

 

 

(((((((((((SPOILERS))))))))))))))

 

 

Whether he lived or died. What happened with his daughter. What happened with Pam. Etc.

 

The ending just seemed too predictable, formulaic, neat, and on the nose. But look, I'm willing to overlook those things, because the rest of the movie, and Rourke 's performance, were so great they override those concerns.

You're contradicting yourself here I think. You say it was predictable, neat, and formulaic, but I think the fact that those things weren't resolved is proof that it wasn't formulaic, neat, or predictable at all. I like that this movie wasn't wrapped up with a bow on top. Assumptions can easily be made of course, but it was more powerful because of the fact that certain things were left to the viewers imagination.

 

I loved that the camera literally followed the characters. I thought it was a great way to show the viewer their point of view. And the operating is fantastic! Great film.

[andres victorero]

I just see today (on theaters now in Spain) and love it.

A powerful story and great performances, a really great job of Mr Rourke. well directed, good doc style cinematography and great S16

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

yes great film, great mood.

as far as i could read from Kodak and hear from interviews.

the DP used 7219 V3500T rated -3 stops (2000 asa?) for the nights and 7217 V2 200T for the exteriors.

camera was 416 the new S16 from arriflex and the lens were ultra primes zeiss.

 

Does anyone has a clue of why this choice of 7217 to match with the 7219.

 

i wish Maryse Alberti could post here to describe all the artistical choices she made, like you gentlemen do in the "in production" segment of this forum.

 

 

did you knew Aronofsky was proposed 3 time the budget to make his film if it was with Nicolas Cage and he declined about 6 millions dollars to stick with Rourk!

maybe at this point the film would have been forced to be shot in 35mm..... a totaly different film isn't it ?

 

also a fantastic perfomance of Marisa Tomei!

[Serge Teulon]

.....did you knew Aronofsky was proposed 3 time the budget to make his film if it was with Nicolas Cage and he declined about 6 millions dollars to stick with Rourk!

maybe at this point the film would have been forced to be shot in 35mm..... a totaly different film isn't it ?

 

After seeing it with Rourke, can't even bear to think of it with NC!!

Hurrah for Oronofsky!!!

[Chris Burke]

did you knew Aronofsky was proposed 3 time the budget to make his film if it was with Nicolas Cage and he declined about 6 millions dollars to stick with Rourk!

maybe at this point the film would have been forced to be shot in 35mm..... a totaly different film isn't it ?

 

 

It is great to hear that and it shows that some of us still just want to tell good stories and don't care about money and fame. Nicholas Cage, I used to have some respect for, but for the past while he has been doing nothing but chasing the money.

[Anthony Schilling]

I saw it last night, and although I enjoyed the story I was more interested in seeing how the Super 16mm looked on the big screen. I was really impressed how it held up... especially the new 7219. Some of the shots had a fair amount of grain depending on the density and content (noticable but not distacting at all) I could only detect minimal grain on denser shots. Over all, many parts were comparable to recent 3 perf 35mm films I have seen. The 7219 was really sweet in the darker scenes.

 

Given the high speed stocks that were used, I really see a lot of potential for S16 for theater releases... Especially with the V3 stocks coming out. I'm sure 200T will be next. The colors and shadow detail were awsome. To compare, I recently saw "Rachel Getting Married" shot on HD and it looked very muted and boring. "Wendy and Lucy" were shot on S16 Expression 500T (my least favorite stock) looked a lot like old 7240 to me but worked well for the mood of the film, muted but the film look and grain gave it the required mood. I think S16 would also make a great stock to use more in 35mm features, like "Babel".

Edited April 4, 2009 by Anthony Schilling

[Jean Dodge]

What's going almost unsaid here is the fact that these recent films that are making a splash with critics such as Wendy and Lucy and THE WRESTLER are super16mm but also "blown up" by going to a digital intermediate. What is the verdict on this? Both films are downbeat stories about poor people struggling, so perhaps they benefit from the "gritty" feel and intimate shooting style that 16mm lends itself to.

 

Or, we could examine aspect ratio:

 

Different stories, but both THE WRESTLER (s16) and THE ARGENTINE aka CHE pt1 are handheld 'scope ration. CHE was shot on Red with ananmorphic lenses - essentially one way to give the director/cameraman Soderberg the ability to create a "look" and use good 35mm glass - his alternative would have been to do what Alberti did, and crop a s16 neg and use the best Zeiss glass for that - the 16mm master primes. Instead he was able to use 35mm anamorphic lenses to give his hero a subtle lift, and the story an epic feel that also was tempered with the "man of the people" handheld look - a novel combination, especially when combined with the color/contrast treatment that was selected in post. (name another handheld jungle film that was widescreen!) I agree with Mr. Mullen in the thread on CHE when he said the look of THE ARGENTINE reminded him of National Geographic magazine photos shot on Kodachrome - you could also almost feel the slick paper making the blacks transform and shimmer - an artifact of the crushed blacks from the Red "4k" codec.

 

The Wrestler, on the other hand had a classic cinema verite style - the sequence in the deli where Mickey R. is improvising dialog with real customers, and has an extended frustrating exchange with a picky customer (played by the director's mom, i think!) stands out almost too much from the rest of the drama, it's so "real." Proximity to the actors has a lot to do with that, which reminds me of another point: Someone mentioned surprise at the team's not having video playback, but this is nothing to be surprised about if you consider the director is a lot more invested in getting the best performances from a mercurial, always in the moment method and constantly searching actor like Rourke than he should be about obsessing over what's already in the can. A good actor's director engages as much as possible with the moment, and the performance as it is going down from take to take, and doesn't hide in video village when the real work is happening on set. M. Alberti is an amazing shooter and if you can't trust her to enter into the dance, who could you trust? (I've had the pleasure of working with her in close quarters before - she has killer instincts and the reflexes of a jungle cat, to use a cliche.) So Aranofsky stood where directors have stood for a century - right beside the camera, where he belongs. Soderberg operates for much the same reason, to be "in the scene" or at least as close as is possible. Not the only way to do it, but in my opinion a very effective one. The results speak for themselves.

 

 

 

As for the spoilers regarding the outcome, I felt like I saw enough to draw my own conclusions...

 

 

*****SPOILERS below*******

 

 

*

*

*

*

 

 

 

 

 

*

*

*

*

 

 

 

No one came back, girl or daughter, and he either died, or wished he had, which is more realistic. Poor bastard was back signing autographs at the VFW hall next week and working as a dishwasher again some other place and living in his van. All he had was the ring, and he wanted nothing more than to go out in a blaze of tawdry glory, the end. BUt eh may or may not have gotten his wish. His heart was already "broken" once and yet he had to go on living. Why not another time?