In The Wrestler Darren Aronofsky creates one of the most amazing films in recent memory. That he does so with pro wrestling as a backdrop validates everything that Robert Evans (who produced a couple of little films you may have heard of called The Godfather and Chinatown among many others) says about the necessity of breaking rules to touch magic.

Pro wrestling has been a popular part of American entertainment culture for nearly a century, but until now has been depicted very poorly in the movies. 1962′ ‘Requiem for a Heavyweight’ may be the best wrestling movie ever made until now almost by default. Requiem starred Anthony Quinn as an aging boxer who is at the end of his career and running out of options. He turns to pro wrestling out of financial necessity, and this career move is intended to symbolize his hitting rock bottom.

While Requiem is certainly a great film with some excellent performances by Quinn and Jackie Gleason it is at its core a boxing film. Pro wrestling is portrayed as the nadir of an over the hill pugilists decline, which has historical precedent (Joe Louis most notably) but does nothing to explain the phenomenon itself. Pro wrestling has endured as a popular attraction for over a century, and until now no one has bothered to do the work in order to get this right.

Pro wrestling has been featured in a lot of other movies”though never well. There have been a few documentaries of merit (Beyond the Mat), some low budget films more interesting for their classic footage than anything else (I Like To Hurt People) and countless bad movies.

In the starring role of Randy The Ram Robinson, Rourke turns in a performance that critics have compared to Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront, Paul Newman in The Hustler, and Robert DeNiro in Raging Bull. For a wrestling fan, its even more impressive due to his in-ring work. With the exception of a couple of extremely high risk spots, Rourke did all of his own wrestling and took all of the bumps himself. Its unfortunate that the Oscar voters couldnt see past their disdain for the subject matter to give Rourke the Best Actor award he so obviously deserved.

Aronofsky had a high degree of difficulty in creating an honest portrayal of professional wrestling. On one hand, he had to illustrate the raw and gritty reality of life at the lower levels of the profession. On the other hand, he had to convey to the audience the appeal of pro wrestling”why men like The Ram put themselves through hell to stay involved and why hardcore fans care so much. Miss the balance in one direction and the result is a film that misses the ability of pro wrestling to touch magic in its own way that keeps wrestlers in the ring and fans watching them. Err in the other direction and youve got a film that overly romanticizes a business that is at best tough and unforgiving and at worst barbaric and dehumanizing. Perhaps the most amazing thing about The Wrestler is how well it succeeds on both levels, which likely accounts for the effusive praise it has garnered from film geeks who wouldnt know a headlock from a padlock as well as pro wrestling enthusiasts.

Aronofsky and Rourke manage to convey the lure and revulsion that is unique to pro wrestling and simultaneously extrapolate them to much larger truths about human existence. It simultaneously depicts pro wrestling at its best and worst and gets them both right. By putting in the ‘due diligence’ to get the pro wrestling backdrop right, the film allows the brilliance of Rourke’s performance and the deeper thematic significance of his conflicts to shine through.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Share This