Two Great Movies

I recently watched both Slumdog Millionaire and The Wrestler, and I have to say I was impressed by both of them.

Slumdog has a great soundtrack, an inspiring story, and a fine ensemble cast that makes the story work. While I do not generally like flashbacks, this story used them to great effect and as what they are meant to be-- a storytelling device (rather than what so many movies try to use them for-- a device to create tension). You see the "slumdog," a poor boy from the dregs of society, answering questions posed to him by the host of the Who Wants to be a Millionaire show in India. After each question, but usually prior to his giving an answer, you flash back to his hard life and how he learned the answers. The story is about what motivates him to do everything he does.

The direction on this is fast, frenetic, and colorful, but avoids the usual pitfalls of "shaky cam" and too many quick cuts. The movie's silent costar is India itself; the locations, colors, sounds, and spirit of the land pervade the movie and I have a hard time believing that the same film made in another region would reverberate as well.

The Wrestler, on the other hand, is about a broken down man who is holding onto his fame twenty years after his heyday. His body is failing him, his mind is going, but he cannot give up the adoration of the fans or the rush he gets when they cheer him on or chant his name. He has deluded himself into thinking he has a relationship with an aging stripper, he wants to try a fresh start with his estranged daughter, and prove that he matters. After a heart attack, he finds the shock of the "real world" too much and he would rather risk his life by going back to the ring to hear the fans shout his name than be a no one with the stripper.

The documentary style shoot helps to impress upon the viewer the stark realities of this man's life. However, the exclusive one-camera style sometimes made me a little nauseated when the camera would swing 180 from one person to the other and back. I especially liked the fact that they didn't have great exposition into why these people are the way they are; too many films explain every character trait and nuance away, and leave nothing to the imagination of the viewer. In this film, you don't know the back story of the stripper, you don't know what happened to cause Randy to leave his daughter and become estranged. You just pick it up in the middle, learn what you can, and move on.

Mickey Rourke is fabulous in it. I'm not a big fan, thinking he peaked about 9 1/2 Weeks and has been going downhill since. But this role was practically written for him and it is great that he went into it full bore and balls out. I think this would have been a great choice for the Academy Award for best male performance and would have been an awesome counterpoint to Heath Ledger's supporting Oscar; one role (The Ram) allowed the actor (Rourke) to take so much of his actual life and use it to make a role feel even more real, while the other (The Joker) allowed the actor (Ledger) to create a fictional character from whole cloth and make it so totally real and frightening. Each shows the opposite end of the acting spectrum but both were extraordinary performances that deserved awards.

I agree with those who thought Bruce Springsteen's end credits song should have been nominated for an Academy Award. It was a powerful, stripped down, bare bones song that fit perfectly with the movie. I'm not saying it was better than the three songs nominated (or the Slumdog song that won), but it was certainly a worthy effort for nomination. It actually would have been a stark contrast to the upbeat, driving force of the songs from Slumdog, and would have given Academy voters something different to consider.

All in all, two great movies that deserved the accolades they received.