An interpretation of THE WRESTLER as decisive artistic phenomenon

Rating: 9/10 (9 October 2009)

A naturalist, poignant drama about a contemporary gladiator, representation of an individual—The Ram—artistic creation of Rourke, and of a distinctive place in society—one of the many classes of pariahs, THE WRESTLER is artistically a better opportunity than the one wasted by Rourke when he refused Coolidge's part in PULP FICTION, because THE WRESTLER is the better thing, and perhaps even an opportunity that few great actors get once if ever. There is an inherent sensationalism of the approach—well, what about the actual life of a Cro—Mag low—life who sells himself to be massacred and beaten? The very violence looks unnecessary and derisory. But then again the movie has a sense of the places, of life, the places are well filmed, the urban environments, the movie is delightfully plastic, with a sense of the places that the early Demme and perhaps some independents had or have; Rourke spreads his wings, his performance is once again amazingly diversified, as he hadn't the occasion of such a nuanced play since BARFLY and HOMEBOY and FRANCESCO. HOMEBOY, another gladiator tale, was a badly written movie (--Rourke was the screenwriter--); THE WRESTLER is breathtakingly written. Rourke's face, that beloved face, is once again animated by intelligence. This is a movie about pariahs; and it has the instinct to deepen not bloody gory fight scenes, wrestling matches, but the other side of its protagonist's life.
THE WRESTLER is very mature, very significant, deeply straightforward, well grounded in facts and extremely well written. The originality of the approach serves the story.
Rourke did several gladiators in his career; at least in those three movies written by him. And THE WRESTLER is by far his best gladiator. This movie has depth, life, meaning, aim and also that '70s freshness in directing that corrects the grittiness and makes it plausible. The directing is original, sure, intelligent; and probably 'intelligence' and originality are the words I feel most compelled to say about THE WRESTLER.
THE WRESTLER is the upgraded HOMEBOY, if you take my meaning, a profoundly straightforward and grounded drama; and actors like De Niro and Willis and others didn't get such good roles and it's long since any of the significant American actors I follow has been offered such a significant role. Well, in this amount of rubbish, THE WRESTLER is the diamond.
Three more things:--the movie has style;--it's fun, its naturalness allows it this fun, and it's never socially preachy;--it has gusto, atmosphere, the score sounds terrific. So 9/ 10, which means a truly awesome movie.
THE WRESTLER begins right in the middle of the things—no conventionality or schmaltz. That's due to the so intelligent and uncompromising script. The script and story, the direction, the performances, the score, the photography, the sets are all on the right side. This is the great independent movie that Rourke has always waited for and deserved. Rourke's wait proved to be a success story—he succeeded, I mean, in getting the leading role in that independent movie he always wished. His first no—nonsense movie after  how many yrs? At least 12—if we consider BULLET. And did you enjoy the vintage score? I did.
Not only the movie has a style; Rourke's performance does have one, too—whatever the similarities, I didn't feel that Rourke was simply 'playing himself'; on the contrary, there's a deployment of artistic intelligence in his play.
After the year with both SIN CITY and DOMINO followed two yrs with almost nothing, and then THE WRESTLER.
I do not say what follows on just because in cinema I swear by Rourke alone; on the contrary, this makes me more exigent towards him. As 'The Ram', Rourke has returned—he made again one of those roles that put him on a par with his Brando, with Clift, with Gabin, with Mastroianni and Belmondo—his true equals, whom he matched, and more than once, in his career, and now he returns and matches them once more. Yes, Rourke (--finally--) returned and made things better than he did in his youth. Age and experience gave Rourke a certain intelligent detachment; that's felt in his attitude, his performance aims at recovering the humanity of his character. The movie is bleak yet not deprived of a certain sense of—almost playfulness, the approach is sure and energetic, yet somehow relaxed. It spares us one—liners and wisecracks, but the script, the story has depth and meaning. One mention for the beautiful images—the movie deploys sense of spaces and of places, but also, as distinct, beauty, eye for the beauty of the surroundings.
Could Rourke surpass himself? I thought I knew everything about him and his acting; THE WRESTLING proved me wrong. He surpassed himself amply. In THE WRSETLER he went beyond and above his own standards. He's more than worthy of our love. Huge actor. Amazing acting. In THE WRESTLER he reached that hugeness and artistic greatness he said, in a French interview in '94, it was his hope to attain to. My adolescence was spent reading everything about Rourke, and seeing all his movies, etc.; I'm more than proud, and more proud than ever, about this. Rourke's THE WRESTLER proved that those who laughed were the clowns. Who made, in the last two decades, such a role in such a profound, meaningful and no—nonsense drama? Crowe, Spacey, Costner, Willis, Gibson, Cruise, Gere, Day—Lewis, De Niro, Pacino, Depp, Pitt? Where are their performances so true, in flicks ever so impressive? What Hollywoodian actor got such a role, in so serious a movie? Now how do they explain their rubbish? The actors which Rourke loved are now dead—most of them—Gabin, Clift, Brando, Harris, Newman; he is, fully, their successor in art. Yeah, the greatest actor of the generation that counted Gibson, Costner, Willis .