I stumbled across this interesting bit of praise for “The Wrestler” amid Variety’s typically dense Award Central section. The high marks come from Broadway director Diane Paulus, who is set to open a revival of “Hair” on March 5. I love her equation of professional wrestling to “one of the most powerful expressions of theater of our time.”
Too often I think those who would rather bash wrestling for not being a “sport” per se miss the point that it is a brand of entertainment, a level of performance and worth plenty more than the uneducated, back-handed swipe it so often receives. Thankfully, Darren Aronofsky and Robert D. Siegel understood that. It’s refreshing to see someone like Paulus does as well:
I have been fascinated by the world of professional wrestling for years. I believe that when theater in the 20th century is studied from the vantage point of 500 years from now, professional wrestling — and in particular, the heyday of 1980s wrestling — will emerge as one of the most powerful expressions of theater of our time. So, to watch Darren Aronofsky’s “The Wrestler” is to experience a long overdue homage to the power of professional wrestling. The film gets at the guts of what drives the allure of the ring for Randy “the Ram” Robinson — and through the charisma of Randy “the Ram” what draws in the bloodlust-driven spectators.
Comments
5 responses to “Broadway helmer Diane Paulus on ‘The Wrestler’”
I’m still confused as to why this film is getting so much praise. I mean the whole film is a complete cliche. The daughter with the “missed birthdays”, the stripper with a kid and a heart of gold, and the poor washed up fighter who just wants to fight and be loved. The whole movie is a cliche. I can’t believe Siegel’s terribly written script ever made it to production. It certainly has great performances, direction, and cinematography, but the script is just brutal. The interaction between the wrestlers (behind the scenes) is wonderful to watch, and yet I heard that was mostly improvised. Siegel’s screenplay should’ve been rewritten by Aronofsky. That would’ve been more interesting.
“It certainly has great performances, direction, and cinematography”. That might explain the praise, Matthew. I thought the script was fine, and it’s hackneyed quality almost worked to its advantage. There was a pseudo-Mamet quality to the way it captured the everyday conversation of these types of people. And there were some killer lines.
As for Paulus, I couldn’t agree more. And one of the things I love so much about this movie is how it reignited my old childhood interest in these men. There’s some great stuff on Youtube for anyone feeling nostalgic. Haha just limit your daily exposure to Golddust and Ultimate Warrior if you don’t want to lose your mind.
I’m a Sting man.
I want to know what more professional wrestlers think about the film. I read the review Mick Foley gave the film and found it fascinating. I wonder what the Ultimate Warrior thinks!
While I admired Roarke’s performance, I felt the film was pointless. Tomei was nothing in this role…sorry, but Evan Rachel Wood was better.