The Fighter Movie Review

There have been very few outstanding movies starring Mark Wahlberg recently. Arguably, he hasn't seen much success since The Departed in 2006. 2010 saw him in three movies, two of which were sub-par "B" movies. Despite those two setbacks, he ended the year on a strong note with one of the best performances of his career: "Irish" Micky Ward in the biographical drama, The Fighter.

The Fall of Dicky Eklund
 
The Fighter chronicles the life of two professional boxers, older half-brother and mentor Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale) and the aspiring Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg), during a period of turmoil within the family. Bale's character, who dealt with a severe bout of drug addiction following a traumatizing defeat - trauma so severe that the disgraced boxer compulsively denies the fact that he ever lost. Instead, he seemingly fools himself into believing he is still championship material - and has fallen down the ladder of success into obscurity. However, he spotted a glimmer of hope for redemption through the innate ability of his younger brother. Needless to say, his addiction to drugs and prostitutes fails to subside even after multiple imprisonments. This obsession to earthly pleasures oftentimes leaves Dicky too preoccupied to remember appointments made to train his younger brother, and the resulting sense of neglect felt by Micky triggers the notion that he perhaps might find a better path to success where his family is not included.

The Rise of Micky Ward

Director David Russel does an excellent job of conveying Micky's emotions; though some may disagree, Wahlberg's ability to emote seems genuine in this film. Onscreen, he almost seems to harbor a personal connection with the character - he looks completely natural being out of place. Before long, he befriends the eye-candy bartender Charlene Fleming (deftly played by Amy Adams who steps away from her usual less serious characters for this movie). Micky's relationship with Charlene only furthers the sentiment that he should search for a different path to stardom. A stark contrast to Micky's blood relatives, she expresses concern for his desires, pushing him to become his own man throughout the film. While Wahlberg's character is typically the reserved type, the relationship he has with Charlene brings out a new side of him that is willing to rebel and take a stand against those who never allowed him to speak out. It is here that Mark Wahlberg truly shines. He makes an amazing transformation from a man who simply follows the established order to someone who is perfectly capable of making his own decisions. At the same time, the status quo reconstructs itself according to his standards. Though faced with loss after loss under the management of his assertive mother, his break with the family propels him to heights never before imagined at which point Wahlberg's approach to the character is drastically modified; he is willing to argue and rebel against his family in situations where, earlier, he would have taken a one-word command and let it control him.

Lovers, Not Fighters?

Perhaps the least convincing aspect of the narrative here is the reaction of Micky's family to his decision to cut them off. Initially, they become furious, even bringing the entire family to Charlene's house where the aspiring boxer was staying and causing a scene that, surprisingly, did not draw the attention of neighbors. Their radical approach seemed firmly ingrained in each of their psyches, yet by the end of the film, they all came to support Micky without any real stimulus to do so. After years of never taking time to ask for Micky's opinion, when the boxer found success without their aid, they all instantly seemed to care about his desires, a fairly shallow development. The family only seems interested in success, yet they gave off the feeling that they actually cared about their son by the end without a major confrontation between the two opposing views. The change in Dicky's character is far more believable and owes a lot to Christian Bale's superb performance. Though Dicky's addiction keeps him from training Micky, it never affects the devotion he has for his brother's success. Still, he finds it difficult to escape a life of sin until after being arrested again for impersonating a police officer, battery, and theft, among many other charges, all for the sake of raising money for his younger brother. The fallen star is imprisoned and finally reforms himself after viewing a televised documentary which reveals to the world the secrets of his drug addiction and lifestyle. This broadcast opens his eyes to the type of person he became because of his lifestyle. Though the resolution seems forced for the majority of the family, circumstances merit all of Dicky's behavioral changes and the family enjoys both domestic tranquility and stardom into the early 2000s according to the afterword displayed after the last scene. 

The Shadow of a Star

Wahlberg's characterization of Micky Ward speaks to the audience indirectly - especially in the early parts of the film. Wahlberg's countenance and body language says in a nutshell what words don't. Micky is quiet, strong but passive, agreeable and disappointed. Had the script relied more heavily on the spoken word, the effect of Micky's transformation would have been significantly less impressive. But to pull off characterization without words, an actor with capable talent is required - something one might not have expected from Wahlberg with his last great movie, The Departed, having been released four years prior. Despite it all, Wahlberg truly pulls out of his shell for this one (ironic, considering his character was heavily introverted). By contrast, Bale's character is characterized through his over-the-top attitude. Whenever his family finds him in a crack house or in a building known to house prostitutes, he makes his grand escape through the nearest window with seemingly no regard for his physical health. His attitude overtakes all - even Wahlberg. While it's to be expected from a star of Bale's grandiose, its disappointing to see Wahlberg in one of his best performances overshadowed by a supporting character. Admittedly, while they play two vastly different roles, Bale's performance overtakes Wahlberg's, an indisputable fact that weighs heavily on the recognition Wahlberg will receive for this film. But regardless of the aptitude of others, Wahlberg managed to hold his ground with a solid performance.

Final Words

While The Fighter likely won't be seen as a classic, it's definitely one of the most worthwhile flicks to hit theaters in the last few months. There are solid performances around the table from all the actors and actresses, including Amy Adams who seems miscast for this role but pulls it off nicely. The story moves smoothly and the characters are, for the most part, fleshed out well enough to keep anyone engaged from start to finish.


Story: 8
Acting: 10
Script: 9
Wow Factor: 7
Overall: 85%

Who Deserves Credit for Movies (Directors vs. Everyone Else)

It’s a trend that runs through the veins of most casual moviegoers – the attribution of the completion of a film solely to the director. It’s undeniable that the lucky individual who takes hold of the esteemed reins of director has the greatest influence over the development of a film. But to say that a movie like Shutter Island is “one of Scorsese’s best works” is a downright lie, not because there’s not a possibility for it to contend for one of his best works but because Scorsese wasn’t the only force driving the creation of the movie.

Shutter Island is the product of the adaptation of a novel by Dennis Lehane, multiple studios, Paramount, writer Laeta Kalogridis, a dozen producers, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the hundreds of members of the crew. Why, then, do most people attribute an entire movie’s creation to the director? My thoughts? They probably don’t know any better. I’m sure everyone has sat through the credits of at least one movie. The list of people involved are far too great for you to ever develop a familiarity with any of them, but that unfamiliarity doesn’t constitute the lack of recognition they receive. I’m willing to state that most directors don’t know how to handle all of the equipment, properly apply makeup, or perform most of the technical tasks required to make a movie successful.

Yes, it’s the director who makes decisions as to how scenes are shot, how to use the lighting, how actors should approach the scenes, and nearly every other aspect of how the film looks. But he couldn’t do any of that without a good many uncredited (by the general public) individuals.

For example, it doesn’t matter how Scorsese decides to direct DiCaprio, Leo is Leo. His screen presence is something in itself, something the viewer sees and automatically associates with DiCaprio, not Scorsese’s direction. In fact, many might also refer to Shutter Island as a Leonardo DiCaprio film, not a Scorsese film. Many likely considered Inception in the same manner. Despite Nolan’s direction being a large “must-see” stamp on the film, DiCaprio cast in the leading role was a magnet for his many Titanic fangirls and others who simply appreciate the work he does. The cast of a film is doubtlessly integral to its success, and leading actors may have just as much a right to call a film their own as the director.

The script, in this particular example, is unoriginal. No, I don’t mean stolen. I mean not the creative work of Scorsese. The film was adapted from a novel, but wasn’t advertised as such, and the collection of people who know about Shutter Island, the novel, are probably amongst the few who may sympathize with my ideas on this subject. Cinematography and film editing were each handled by a single members of the production team. Neither have names that I’m familiar with, though this contemplation of mine may lead me to take increased notice to these individuals. What’s more surprising to me is that the editor, Thelma Shoonmaker, is a three-time Oscar recipient who worked with Scorsese on multiple occasions, including Goodfellas and The Departed. However, I don’t recall ever hearing much about her, not even as a mere appendage to the name of Scorsese. Wouldn’t one be inclined to believe Shoonmaker’s editing has something to do with the visual presentation of what are considered some of Scorsese’s best? I’m sure many would say no because Scorsese oversaw her direction. For me, that’s not an excuse. Shoonmaker attended film school and studied the art of editing. She has her own style, and whether Scorsese had any input as to how she worked or not, it’s ultimately her style of editing that shows up, not Scorsese’s visual vision.

I believe I’ve made enough of my point clear in that brief analysis of Shutter Island, but readers would be wrong to interpret this as saying directors shouldn’t have their names pasted onto movie posters. That’s not true at all; in certain situations, they do deserve to be widely recognized as a driving force behind the creation of a film. In this area, directors such as Christopher Nolan and the Coen brothers begin to shine through. Not only to these directors oversee production, but they tend to fiddle with the screenplays, producing, cinematography, and editing. These are the directors who I have no problem attributing the majority of a film to. They put themselves in as many positions as possible, and while there are still a great many important aspects of creating a film that  they can’t take part in, the multiple roles they assume do enough to speak for their desire to create a film that’s most reflective of their creative vision.

So at the end of the day, who deserves credit for movies? Honestly, it’s hard to say. Cast and crew far outnumber directors, producers, and the like. There are roles that are more important than others. Maybe a movie would have turned out just fine with only a single grip. Maybe it would have turned out better without either; but that’s not to say they didn’t put forth their fair share of effort. It’s just an insignificant measure of worth that I’m using to determine who should be credited. There’s often only a single editor for a film. Without them, production would never conclude. Does that mean they deserve more credit than the casting director? Again, no.

At this point, I feel as though I’m just going around in circles, so I’ll finish up with but a few more statements. At the end of the day, deciding who should be given the most credit is quite ambiguous and largely varies from project to project. While I don’t agree with the fact that many people attribute movies only to the directors, there’s really no way to get everyone’s name out there – except in the credits. And for people who love making movies, that’s enough.