There are other surprises as well. How did Mickey Rourke's whispery tenor deteriorate into a growl that dropped two octaves? Is that sleep-apnea breathing of his something he affected for the character, or is it a permanent condition? Rourke playing a washed-up wrestler (Randy "The Ram" Robinson) doesn't require any great suspension of disbelief; the thespian feat that cinched his Oscar nomination was looking like he was having a good time behind a deli counter, charming regular shmoes into buying an extra scoop of potato salad.The Ram's story is played against the quieter drama of Cassidy (Marisa Tomei), a stripper who might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but who recognizes that age is bringing her particular career choice to a definitive close. She clearly knows from bitter experience it's best not to give this big lunk an "in", and yet ... he's kind of sweet.
If played with subtlety and conviction, there's no reason why the obvious shouldn't be emotionally compelling. I knew I'd swallowed the hook deeply when I heard Randy and Cassidy ranting about how the 90s, and Curt Cobain, ruined rock 'n' roll, and I ... well, I didn't agree with them. But I thought they had a point. And this was all taking place as "Round & Round" by Ratt was being played — an environment that emphatically did not lend itself to their argument.
A film like this doesn't usually produce sequels, but that's what I'm proposing. I'd line up and pay good money to see Tomei's character attempt the transition from stripper to square. Can she find intimacy after 20 years of pole-dancing? Can she manage life as a coffee-slinger or office temp? How does she navigate her son's transition into puberty? Not too many suits in Hollywood are likely to take a chance on such a movie, but if you can market a film with an aging guy in tights, why not a film with an aging woman in a thong?
7 comments:
I thought this was actually one of the best movies of the year. And I second the sequel notion.
A fine movie, and one thing I particularly liked about it was that it made no attempt to explain everything. Many important things were left up to the viewer's imagination. The ending of course is ambiguous, but so are many of the details: Why was Randy never able to get his financial act together? Why did his daughter hate him for so many years? Is there an ex-wife in the picture? By leaving these things up to the viewer's imagination, the movie was satisfying in a way that many aren't.
Peter
DH - nice to see you're on-line, even when you're on vacation!
Peter - "keep it unspoken" seems like such a simple rule to follow, but we sure don't see too many examples of it coming out of Hollywood, do we? Daronofsky's keen on keeping mystery intact in his movies, and it is indeed a real treat to watch.
Oop - looks like I'm merging Darren Aronofsky's name.
I've been meaning to see this. Good to have a nudge from you to get to it.
Can't wait to see it.
In an almost completely unrelated note, I spent most of last year with long hair and a longish goatee (started as too busy, because the Halloween costume "The Dude" from Lebowski, which no one in the neighborhood "got", then just kept going.)
These are the three cracks I got about my appearance:
Our CIO said when he looks over at me in meetings, he thinks of General Custer.
One of my clients (after I shaved it off) said, "so you're done with the Jesus thing, eh?"
A guy at a convention I went to said, "Hey, you look just like that guy in the movie "The Wrestler!" (He went on further to say that it was partially because I am so stocky.)
So, was that a good thing or a bad thing?
Man, Custer is never a good comparison! As for Jesus, that kind of depends. But with The Wrestler, you might as well take it as a compliment, since Rourke's beef is of the 'roided-up variety. But, uh, just say "No thank you" should any girls ask if you're into a little "Fireman action."
Post a Comment