Don't believe what you read Issue #38

Darren Aronofsky's intimate dialogue with The Wrestler's audience

By Zipporah Porton
Published: November 18th, 2008 | 12:30pm

Darren Aronofsky doesn’t want you to believe everything you read on the Internet. He insists that despite multiple rumors that Nicolas Cage was the first choice for the role of Randy “The Ram” Robinson in his new film The Wrestler, it just isn’t true; the part was made for Mickey Rourke. Aronofksy is also unwilling to discuss his rumored upcoming film The Fighter, and doesn’t want to pick a favorite film or reveal the names of people he might be dying to work with.

While it sounds like Aronofsky fits into the category of Hollywood problem child, this was far from the truth as he endured a question and answer session, moderated by Hank Sartin of Time Out Chicago, at the AMC Century 21 River East theater after the screening of The Wrestler during the 44th Chicago International Film Festival. Comfortably seated, clad in a button-down blue shirt and jeans, Aronofsky looks like any dude you might see at a bar watching football. Though he didn’t reveal if he actually enjoys sports, his interest in athletes and wrestling were made evident during the Q + A portion of the night. He also had the ease and grace of a guy who has done this before, and even when refusing to answer questions, he was able to put curious audience members at ease while politely scolding them for believing everything they read.

The director of critically acclaimed films such as Pi and Requiem for a Dream, which earned Ellen Burstyn an Oscar nod, trudged down new territory with The Wrestler. After receiving a bit of a lampooning for his most recent film, The Fountain, Aronofsky saw The Wrestler as a chance to go down a different path. “It felt like the first three films were a chapter for me. And I kind of perceive them as a trilogy,” said Aronofsky. “I wanted to try being in the moment a bit more and being unprepared at times and letting that spark the creative process.” Using a documentary-style look and an actor in need of a comeback (Rourke), The Wrestler provided him with an opportunity to do something “radically, radically different.”

Anyone who has seen The Wrestler can tell you that despite the title, this is not a film about wrestling. Aronofsky confirmed this when this audience member asked simply, “Why wrestling?” Aronofsky explained to me that while not an avid wrestling fan, he has always loved the performance aspect, and the fact that wrestlers are not far from the Carny culture — one that he has always found fascinating. “I also like the idea of using your body as your art and what happens when it starts to fall apart,” Aronofsky revealed. He expressed that the movie could be about any athlete, “a baseball player, football player, or ballet dancer; they also go through the same thing.”

The director’s lack of extreme knowledge on the topic emerged when one ornery audience member asked how he knew the difference between two specific schools of wrestling. After a blank stare, Aronofsky allowed the audience member, clearly a huge wrestling fan, to explain the difference between the WWE and some other type that no one else in the world needs to know about, and certainly made no difference in terms of the film. Aronofsky did point out that he included the extreme types of wrestling, such as a scene where The Ram fights an opponent armed with a staple gun amidst broken glass and barbed wire, because he wanted to expose that more violent aspect of the wrestling world. Aronofsky gives wrestling fans credit and acknowledges that they aren’t stupid, and that they are fully aware that the matches are staged. Therefore, in the hardcore world, audience members “want to see the action being real … they want to see people put themselves at risk,” he said.

The main topic of the film and the discussion was, of course, Mickey Rourke. Aronofsky explained that he met Rourke at a restaurant in the meatpacking district, where it was “me, Mickey, and his Chihuahua.” He continued, “And the thing that impressed me the most is that, through 12 years of therapy, which he’ll tell anyone, he had come to places where he was very conscious of where he was, what he had done to himself and his career.” Aronofsky admitted that working with Rourke wasn’t easy, but “he’s unbelievably talented between action and cut. But it’s just getting him to the action which took some patience and a few other things.” Aronofsky also said that Rourke did not like to rehearse or block scenes, and he never really knew what Rourke would give on a specific day.

Aronofsky always wanted the end of The Wrestler to be glorious. In the post-film discussion, he explained how he contemplated the term “glory,” as it “implies some type of sadness because there is victory and there is defeat. Someone has to get defeated for glory to happen.” The moderator had originally questioned whether Aronofsky saw the film as a tragedy or triumph, and Aronofsky said that he does not like to work with such black and white terms.

Though different from his previous films, The Wrestler should not scare away Aronofsky fans. Even if wrestling is not your thing, he is sure that this film can speak to the audience in a different way. Regardless of anyone else’s opinion of the film, Aronofsky is pleased with his work. “It was exciting going to set every day and that energy [that] works to bring it alive,” he says. Based on the audience’s response as the credits rolled and various members applauded and stood (including this one), it is clear that the excitement transferred to the audience, making this a movie that they will not forget.

—