Jump to content


Photo

The Wrestler


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Serge Teulon

Serge Teulon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 22 December 2008 - 12:21 PM

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!
  • 0

#2 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 22 December 2008 - 05:34 PM

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:
  • 0

#3 Serge Teulon

Serge Teulon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 23 December 2008 - 07:41 AM

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.
  • 0

#4 Jamie Metzger

Jamie Metzger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco

Posted 28 December 2008 - 03:54 PM

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!
  • 0

#5 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 29 December 2008 - 12:17 AM

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.
  • 0

#6 Kevin Jones

Kevin Jones
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Director
  • Woodstock, GA

Posted 29 December 2008 - 03:57 AM

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.
  • 0

#7 Ruairi Robinson

Ruairi Robinson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 December 2008 - 06:01 AM

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?
  • 0

#8 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 29 December 2008 - 10:04 AM

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.
  • 0

#9 Jason Debus

Jason Debus
  • Sustaining Members
  • 311 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 29 December 2008 - 01:48 PM

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.
Spoiler


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.
  • 0

#10 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 04 January 2009 - 11:16 PM

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?
  • 0

#11 Ira Ratner

Ira Ratner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Other
  • Coral Springs, Florida

Posted 05 January 2009 - 08:32 PM

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.
  • 0

#12 A. Whitehouse

A. Whitehouse
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 267 posts
  • Director
  • Melbourne

Posted 11 January 2009 - 06:51 AM

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...
  • 0

#13 F Bulgarelli

F Bulgarelli
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 January 2009 - 03:07 AM

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.
  • 0

#14 James Martin

James Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 January 2009 - 05:38 PM

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?
  • 0

#15 Alex Lindblom

Alex Lindblom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Other

Posted 17 January 2009 - 04:29 AM

It was just a normal straight crop.

Link to PDF Kodak - The Wrestler
  • 0

#16 Marcus Joseph

Marcus Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 22 January 2009 - 06:59 PM

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.
  • 0

#17 Paul James Savarese

Paul James Savarese
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • NYC

Posted 01 February 2009 - 09:04 PM

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!
  • 0

#18 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1582 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 02 February 2009 - 12:12 AM

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-
  • 0

#19 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 February 2009 - 06:03 AM

(((((((((((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.
  • 0

#20 andres victorero

andres victorero
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain

Posted 11 March 2009 - 06:39 PM

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
  • 0


Abel Cine

CineTape

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio