The Wrestler

Wow. Brilliant, brilliant filmmaking.
Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream) has accomplished something magnificent here. Lacking the polish, resources, and budget of Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire, Aronofsky has created something completely different from a similar underdog-sort of story. While Boyle goes the flashy route with camera moves and dozens of cuts per-minute, Aronofsky favors long, lingering takes and a somewhat reserved handheld camera. Now, of course, this is a huge change of course for the way Aronofsky usually does things. Requiem was frantic and methodical, mimicking the lives of the drug-addled characters. This is a completely different kind of film. You know what that shows? Maturity as a director and storyteller. It's hard to find a voice as a filmmaker, but it's even more difficult to change that voice to suit the needs of a particular project. The Wrestler feels grungy, dirty, and thrown together... and it's perfect.
Aronofsky made the choice to shoot in Super-16mm with this film, and it was a great choice. The harsh film grain and hard shadows give it a documentary-like feel and heightened intensity. Also worth mentioning is the fact that not only is this a Super 16 film, but a Super 16 film presented in a Scope aspect ratio of 2.35:1. Film fans will probably know what this means, but for those that don't, basically it means you're blowing up an already grainy picture to a very wide theater screen. Film grain and imperfections are heightened and more visible. A bold and wonderful artistic choice by Aronofsky - perfectly fitting for the story he's presenting.
Now, there's all sorts of stories going around about this production. People say that Mickey Rourke believed so much in the project, that he didn't accept an acting fee. Neither did Bruce Springsteen for the closing song he contributed. Aronofsky apparently was given the chance to make the picture with Nicolas Cage for a budget of approximately $25 million. He turned it down to make the film with Rourke - for only $6 million, and a short 35-day shooting schedule. Like the story we so often hear with independent film, the many limitations on the production have combined to produce something magical. Everything is down-and-dirty, in the moment, and feels about as real as cinema can get.
I guess that's about all I can - and probably should - say. Rourke is simply amazing. If it seems like a simple case of stunt casting, don't worry... It's an iconic performance that in my opinion ranks right along side DeNiro in Raging Bull... A study of an imperfect man, perfectly realized on screen.
Do not miss this. Benjamin Button was an amazing major-studio picture. This film is equally as amazing - it was just made under much tougher circumstances. Whether that makes it more or less worthy is a matter of opinion. All that really matters is if it's worth your time - and it certainly is.