Donal: Is Occupy Over?
Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR)
dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude
|
Donal: Is Occupy Over? Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR) dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude |
Read |
In American cinematic tradition, The Aging Warrior, usually played by Sylvester Stallone, returns to the arena for one last heroic battle against The Arrogant Challenger, defying expectations and muscular degeneration to prove that he's The World Champion For Eternity. The Wrestler, a moving, melancholy character study about a fictional pro-wrestler of a certain age, is not one of those films. There is no epic battle between Aging Warrior and Arrogant Challenger. There is no Arrogant Challenger, period. The young wrestlers in the film are just struggling to make it. They exhibit affection and respect for their legendary predecessor. The only battles in the movie are psychological, and the characters chiefly grapple with themselves. The physical wrestling, by contrast, is just showbiz. There are no extended training montages scored by glam rock battle hymns. Other than Springsteen's plaintive The Wrestler, which plays as the credits roll and haunts you out the door, the only music you'll hear emerges from car radios and arena speakers, giving the 80's metal and rock a tinny sound that underscores the old wrestler's faded glory.
There is also a long theatrical tradition of The Senile Has-Been who pitifully indulges himself in the delusion that he is World Champion For Eternity while the Arrogant Challenger cunningly usurps his throne. Examples include King Lear, Death of a Salesman, Glengarry Glen Ross, and the 2008 presidential election. The Wrestler is not one of those either. Randy the Ram (Mickey Rourke) knows full well that his career has neared the end and that there will be no return to the glory of his youth. These days, he lucidly endures daily humiliations with grim patience: locked out of his trailer home for failure to pay rent, taunted by the manager at his day job as a supermarket stocker, filled full of staples in a particularly sadistic but crowd-pleasing wrestling act. He finds solace in the respect he still receives from fellow wrestlers and devoted fans as he painfully climbs the ropes each weekend to deliver theatrical body slams. Evenings, Ram visits a chintzy suburban strip club for lap dances from a cynical stripper known to him by her stage-name, Cassidy, who firmly dismisses his amorous invitations.
The film pivots from sad to wrenching when Ram suffers a heart attack, bringing an abrupt end to his faltering career. Lonely and poor, he takes a degrading deli job at the supermarket and reaches out to Cassidy (Marisa Tomei) and his estranged daughter (Evan Rachel Wood) for affection. The second half of the film portrays Ram's struggle to interact with these two ambivalent women and deal with his yearning for the attention and adoration on which he had thrived as a performer.
With his blond mane and good-guy stage persona, Randy the Ram mimics Hulk Hogan, who wrestled as recently as 2007 at age 53. Like Hogan, the Ram had famously defeated the forces of Iranian villainy at Madison Square Garden in the 80's, the Iron Sheik being replaced with the fictional Ayatollah. Mickey Rourke has obviously devoted himself to the part. At 56, he must have undergone extensive training (and perhaps medication) to put on the impressive muscular bulk he carried. His studied performance seduces the audience with a beautiful portrayal of a sweet, broken man, who in contrast to his fierce stage persona and exploding pectorals exhibits affection and generosity towards Cassidy, his daughter, his fans, and his fellow wrestlers alike. But the audience's empathy comes at a price. The film frequently alludes to Ram's past as a self-centered, emotionally distant party-animal, but despite one scene of old time pro-wrestling debauchery, it's difficult to imagine such behavior from Rourke's tender wrestler. As a result, Rourke's rendering is less complex and less real than it might have been.
Marisa Tomei is excellent as usual, as a determined, self-protective older stripper and mother, though like Rourke, she displays too much sugar and too little salt. Cassidy is supposed to have buried her emotions within a thick defensive shell, but the shell cracks too quickly and easily for that to be convincing. At 44 and frequently naked, Tomei also looks fantastic.
Evan Rachel Wood is easily the weakest of the three as the angry, insecure daughter. With only a few scenes to fill out her character, it's a difficult role. Wood shifts rapidly from curses to embraces to tears and fails to make the character work.
But responsibility for the acting flaws should certainly be shared with director Darren Aronofsky. From Ram's slouch as he drags his suitcase around town to the dull lighting and tawdry sets, Aronofsky's wrestler is an object of pathos, not tragedy. As such, his tragic flaws seem as if they were pasted on by an eager screenwriter. These flaws should either have been removed from the script or else honored in the direction.
Except for this weakness, the directing was careful, subtle, and effective. If you excuse the half-baked tragedy and melodramatic aspects, you will be rewarded with a beautiful, uncommon film that traces the universal sadness of old age and lost purpose embodied in the muscular bulk of a uniquely American folk hero, and you will emerge from the theater emotionally exhausted but cathartically sated.
Helpful links:
Perceptive Dagblog readers know the difference between Obama, Romney and Bush:
Obama NYT today: .how President Obama’s thinking about what he once called “a war of necessity” began to radically change less than a year after he took up residency in the White House....The aide told Mr. Obama that he believed military leaders had agreed to the tight schedule to begin withdrawing those troops just 18 months later only because they thought they could persuade an inexperienced president to grant more time if they demanded it. “Well,” Mr. Obama responded that day, “I’m not going to give them more time.”...Mr. Obama concluded in his first year that the Bush-era dream of remaking Afghanistan was a fantasy...
Mitt Romney, Feb. 2012 : LAS VEGAS -- LAS VEGAS -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday night blasted President Obama and his administration for “putting in jeopardy” the nation’s military mission by signaling it hopes to end its combat mission in Afghanistan by the middle of 2013.
Appearing at a campaign rally here shortly after landing in Nevada, Romney said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s statement Wednesday that U.S. forces would transition from a combat mission in Afghanistan next year “makes absolutely no sense.”....
George W. Bush, from May, 2003: BBC - "We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide... Free nations will press on to victory,"
Bush Afghanistan strategy : Gen. Douglas E. Lute, who had spent the last two years of the Bush administration trying to manage the many trade-offs necessary as the Iraq war consumed troop and intelligence resources needed in Afghanistan, arrived with a PowerPoint presentation. The first slide that General Lute threw onto the screen caught the eye of Thomas E. Donilon, later President Obama’s national security adviser. “It said we do not have a strategy in Afghanistan that you can articulate or achieve,” Mr. Donilon recalled three years later. “We had been at war for eight years, and no one could explain the strategy.”
Mitt Romney isn’t very far into the vice presidential selection process. But according to a dedicated band of conspiracy theorists, the pick is all but a lock: Sen. Marco Rubio.
That’s the current thinking among a worldwide collection of activists who are obsessed with the secretive Bilderberg Group, an alternating roster of global power players who loom as large — if not larger — in the online fever swamps of the fringe as the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76518.html#ixzz1vN5egowz
Aristotle and Plato didn’t agree on much, but they were united in identifying wonder as the origin of their profession. As Aristotle said, “It is owing to their wonder that men . . . first began to philosophise.” This idea appeals to scientists, who frequently enlist wonder as a goad to inquiry. “I think everyone in every culture has felt a sense of awe and wonder looking at the sky,” wrote Carl Sagan in 1985, locating in this response the stirrings of a Copernican desire to know who and where we are.
Yet that is not the only direction in which wonder may take us. To Thomas Carlyle, wonder sits at the beginning not of science, but of religion. That is the central tension in forging an alliance of wonder with science: will it make us curious, or induce us to prostrate ourselves in pitiful ignorance? We had better get to grips with this question before we too hastily appropriate wonder to sell science. That is surely what is going on when pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope are (unconsciously?) cropped and coloured to recall the sublime iconography of Romantic landscape painting, or the Human Genome Project is wrapped in biblical rhetoric, or the Large Hadron Collider’s proton-smashing is depicted as “replaying the moment of creation”. The point is not that such things are deceitful or improper, but that if we want to take that path, we should first consider the complex evolution of the relation between science and wonder.
[....]
Pretending that science is performed by people who have undergone a Baconian purification of the emotions only deepens the danger that it will seem alien and odd to outsiders, something carried out by people who do not think as they do. Daston believes that we have inherited a “view of intelligence as neatly detached from emotional, moral and aesthetic impulses, and a related and coeval view of scientific objectivity that brand[s] such impulses as contaminants”. It is easy to understand the historical origins of this attitude: the need to distinguish science from credulous “enthusiasm”, to develop an authoritative voice, to strip away the pretensions of the mystical Renaissance magus who acquired knowledge through personal revelation. We no longer need these defences, however; worse, they become a defensive reflex that exposes scientists to the caricature of the emotionally constipated boffin, hiding within thickets of jargon.
... We’re trying to harness photosynthesis. A key part of photosynthesis is what happens when the sun goes down. Cells convert CO2 into sugar and fat molecules. And they store the fat to burn as energy to get them through the night ... We’re trying to coax our synthetic cells to ... store far more fat than they actually were designed to do, so that we can harness it all as an energy source and use it to create gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel straight from carbon dioxide and sunlight. This would shift the carbon equation so we’re recycling CO2 instead of taking new carbon out of the ground and creating still more CO2. But it has to be done on a massive scale to have any real impact on the amount of CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere, let alone recovering from the atmosphere.
... We envision facilities the size of San Francisco. And 10 or 15 of those in this country. We need sunlight, seawater, and non-agricultural land, but you need a lot of photons to drive this. You need a lot of surface area of sunlight to do that. It’s a great use for Arizona. Lots of sunlight there.
... If we can’t get some key scientific breakthroughs within the next couple of years, it probably won’t happen in 10 years. So it’s something that’s really dependent on fundamental science. But we’re already able to do things that were once seen as impossible.
... I think the new anti-intellectualism that’s showing up in politics today is a symptom of our not discussing these issues enough. We don’t discuss how our society is now 100 percent dependent on science for its future. We need new scientific breakthroughs—sometimes to overcome the scientific breakthroughs of the past. A hundred years ago oil sounded like a great discovery. You could burn it and run engines off it. I don’t think anybody anticipated that it would actually change the atmosphere of our planet. Because of that we have to come up with new approaches. We just passed the 7 billion population mark. In 12 years, we’re going to reach 8 billion. If we let things run their natural course, we’ll have massive pandemics, people starving. Without science I don’t see much hope for humanity.
I was put in mind of Ric Flair. Did you see the documentary on the old wrestler that thought he was going out on top only to have his last match fixed against him?
He looks a bit like Flair, but his persona is more Hogan. Ram doesn't fight dirty or dress like Liberace. And Flair didn't wrestle the Iron Sheik for the WWF title at Madison Square Garden.
I don't know the documentary. Do you have the link? What does it mean to fix a pro-wrestling matched? Aren't they all fixed? In the film, the wrestlers treat the matches as performances rather than competitions, though backstage camraderie seemed idealized to me.
I don't remember the names. I saw part of it a while ago on the Doc channel when we had Dish TV. He was a longtime performer and wanted to go out with the title. They had told him that he would win to get him to do one last match, but actually fixed it so he would lose.
Found it:
http://www.documentarychannel.com/main/content/view/105/28/
It's so much deeper than that. The documentary mentioned is "Bret 'Hitman' Hart - Wrestling With Shadows".
The infamous screw-job was at a PPV in Bret's home town about a week before he left WWF for WCW. His contract was up at the end of the show. The planned finish was for Hart to win in his home town in exchange for doing one more match for free the next night in another town (on Monday Night "RAW") where he would lose and the belt would go to someone else.
Since the contract would be over, Hart would not legally be required to do this. Vince McMahon arranged for Hart to lose with Shawn Michaels (his opponent) and Earl Hebner (the ref), with Hart in the dark about it. When Michaels applied the Sharpshooter finishing hold (that Hart was supposed to counter), McMahon signalled for the bell and Hebner and Vince hauled a$$ to the back with the belt. Michaels looked dumbfounded as well but it was revealed later that he was in on it.
McMahon was afraid Hart was going to take the WWF belt to WCW like Ric Flair had done in years past. WWF was losing to WCW in the ratings at the time and this could have been a death blow to RAW.
I still don't think Vince was justified. Hart seems to be a man of his word.
Wow, thanks for the full story, Smark. I'll have to get the documentary.
And thanks for finding the link, Donal.
OK, I only saw the last fifteen minutes, so that makes more sense now.
A highligh of my teaching career was sharing a slice of pizza with Kiiiiiiing Koooooonnnnng Buuuuundyyyyyy. We also raised about $500 for the National Honor Society.
I have vivid memories of your champion wrestling days (just another reason I always looked up to you). At the time, I thought it was a strange -unglamorous/unspecatular- sport, my image changed a little after I read some of John Irving's works, as a tiny teenager... I have a question: How does this movie resonate with your adolescent cultural landscape?
Welcome, dupree. Funny that the wrestling stood at to you. (Judging by your email address, I'm guessing that you're KK.) Yes, I was wrestler in high school, though far from a champion. And I've been frequently recommending the World According to Garp on dagblog, probably the best book concerning high school wrestling ever written, though the subject is somewhat tangential to the main thrust.
In answer to your question: none whatsoever. Or at least no more than anyone else who grew up in the 80's. "Pro-wrestling" is a theatrical performance and bears very little relation to competitive wrestling, which is not as fun to watch but has the advantage of being an actual sport. We wore green frill-less singlets with ugly white earguards and stayed as low to the ground as we possible could to avoid being taken down. In contrast with professional wrestling, where the best wrestlers are those who play to the audience, good competitive wrestlers tune out the audience entirely. Indeed, it's difficult to do otherwise when you're pouring every last atom of strength you can summon into cranking your opponent onto his back or keeping him from doing the same to you.
The film correctly portrays pro-wrestling as theater, but I was impressed by the way it succeeds in doing so without sneering, acknowledging that it is not the sport that it pretends to be while recognizing its practioners for their talent and seriousness.
great review, G. much better than anything I could have done - though i gotta think you could have come up with better examples of The Senile Has-Been genre - aside from the 2008 presidential election, im not even sure the ones you mentioned apply.
anyway, i think you're right that we needed to see a bit more of the 'bad' side of The Ram, maybe an opening credit flashback scene or one involving his daughter may have helped crystalize that side of him. But i still felt it was a rather easy and logical extension to see how someone who was at the top of the pro wrestling allowed himself to indulge the excesses of that world at the expense of nurturing those important personal relationships.
The plays are excellent of course, so they don't fall into cliche like Rambo and Rocky, but they all contain archetypes of old men who take shelter in delusion, which contrasts with Ram's lucidity. Lear and Loman literally go insane. Levene, I admit, does not fit as well into the group, insofar as his exercises in self-promotion may be more pretense than hallucination. Let me know if you have better examples, but tragic old men are hard to come by these days. There Will Be Blood? Paul goes insane but not because of impotence.
It would have taken more than a single flashback to change Ram into a tragic figure. I suspect that the hole in the film was due to Rourke and Aronofsky relying on the "easy and logical extension" you mention rather than weaving selfish hedonism more fully into Ram's character. The movie's greatest strength is its resistance to caricaturing Ram. But in that case, it can't rely on caricature to fill out the missing bits.
PS I think that you would write excellent movie reviews, Mr. Wannabe Screenwriter.
It's not about wrestling (except at the very end) but your review brought to mind the 1962 movie Requiem for a Heavyweight. Anthony Quinn and Jackie Gleason are at the top of their craft, as is Cassius Clay. Just had to toss that in.
The Wrestler sounds intriguing. I saw a TV ad promoting the film as "the resurrection of Mickey Rourke." Resurrection! Seems to me "comeback" would have sufficed.
funny ... the one scene (or at least piece of dialogue) in the wrestler that rang false was when the stripper character played by marisa tomei likened rourke's injuries to those suffered by jesus, so perhaps the word resurrection was intended.
I share Barton Fink's skepticism of wrestling pictures.
This is not your father's wrestling picture
I think flashbacks of him ignoring his daughter or being a bad father would have been overkill. He had a picture of her when she was 12 instead of the 20 year old. He had no idea what she liked, who she was and the audience knows that's the result of the choice he made to put wrestling above family. I felt empathy for both of them even knowing he was responsible for making the choice to put the sport above his family. He had been used his whole life by the sport, given everything he had including his body, his health, his dignity (wearing spandex even) and all he had left was the dwindling adulation.
I love that the film was gritty and didn't glamorize the sport at all. I was a WWF junkie when I was a kid, breaking curfew to stay up and see Saturday Night Main Event. Randy "The Ram" definitely reminded me more of Randy "Macho Man" Savage (in looks, if not in character). And to be honest, I had to wiki him because I swore Randy Savage was one of those who suffered an early death. I am glad he's not on the list, but it's pretty frightening to see how young these wrestlers were when they died: http://prowrestling.about.com/od/whatsrealwhatsfake/a/wrestlersdeaths.htm
The problem with the portrayal of Ram's relationship with his daughter was not that we couldn't "get it" but that we couldn't "see it." It's hard to imagine the guy as a self-centered asshole even though we are told that he knows nothing of his daughter and that she hates him. When Ram parties all night and misses his appointment, it seems like an out of character mistake rather than an instance of a fundamental character flaw.
So if a flashback helped to fill out a side of Ram that the film has told us about but has not shown us, then it would have been a good thing. If, on the other hand, it were just pasted on like the other decorations of debauchery, it would add nothing.
BTW, I think that if the movie had played up the angle of him putting his sport before his family, it would have been more consistent with his character. But as it is, we don't know why he doesn't know his daughter. It's not just that he was on the road all the time. It's that he partied to hard or was too irresponsible or didn't care. This aspect of Ram's character is just underdeveloped.
I don't see the Randy Savage thing, but I'm glad that we're back in disagreement. Our recent harmony of opinon has been disturbing to me.
Wow, that list is absolutely disturbing. That's unbelievable