'The Wrestler' Director wants wrestlers included in the SAG

[monkeystyle]

http://www.lostcolonyentertainment.com/

'Wrestler' Director Calls for Screen Actors Guild to Intervene on Behalf of Real-Life Wrestlers

Friday, December 29, 2008

As we reported several days ago, World Wrestling Entertainment owner Vince McMahon was reportedly angered by the content of Darren Aronofsky’s critically acclaimed film, “The Wrestler,” after the filmmaker gave the wrestling promoter a private screening at his Stamford, Connecticut offices.
The film, which centers on an aging wrestler named Randy “The Ram” Robinson (played by Mickey Rourke)--who goes from headlining major WWE-like events to performing in high school gyms in front of 200 fans--apparently struck a raw nerve with McMahon, who is allegedly blocking Fox’s attempts to advertise the film during WWE broadcasts on Fox-owned MyNetwork..

Aronofsky probably didn’t endear himself to McMahon with recent comments he’s made regarding the unionization of the wrestling industry either.

“There’s really no reason why these guys are not in SAG,” Aronofsky told Newsday. “They’re in front of a camera performing and doing stunts, and they should have that protection. They should have health insurance and they should be protected."

Curiously, McMahon has long maintained that his “independently contracted” performers aren’t athletes but “entertainers,” partially to get around having his events regulated by state athletic commissions. However, in order to keep the Screen Actors Guild out of his business, his shows are strangely identified as “sports programming.”

"I’m really curious to see what some of these old-timers make of it,” said Aronofsky in an interview with Reelz Channel. “When I won the Golden Lion, I dedicated the film to all the wrestlers, I kind of shared their stories. They’re a unique lot. They’re not organized, they have no pension, no health care, so many of them are tragically dying at a young age. I was talking to Mickey, ‘Why aren’t wrestlers in SAG?’ If you really think about it, the Screen Actors Guild should organize them…They’re performing in front of a camera, and stuntmen are SAG."

Interestingly enough, Rourke was nominated this past week for Best Actor at the SAG Awards for his role in “The Wrestler.”

and...

Aronofsky Screens ‘The Wrestler’ for Unhappy WWE Boss

Friday, December 25, 2008

With three Golden Globe nominations in the bag (Mickey Rourke for Best Actor, Marisa Tomei for Best Actress, and Bruce Springsteen for Best Original Song), Director Darren Aronofsky is receiving major Oscar buzz and almost universal critical praise for his new film, “The Wrestler.”
What’s more, the movie is being hailed by many people in the professional wrestling business as the most spot-on, accurate depiction of that industry ever captured on celluloid.

In a review for The Washington Post/Newsweek-owned Slate Magazine, wrestler-turned-best-selling-author/actor Mick Foley wrote:

“I'm not sure if I should feel so good about a movie that doesn't seem to show my world in a flattering light. The wrestling business as a whole has always reminded me of Dorothy Gale's post game analysis of her time in Oz: ‘Some of it was horrible, but most of it was beautiful.’ We don't get to see much of that beautiful stuff in Aronfsky's film, although we do see shades of it...Still, I didn't find ‘The Wrestler’ to be a downer at all. Sobering at times, but not at all depressing. Despite all the suffering—both physical and emotional—that Rourke's character endures, the movie is sprinkled with moments of genuine warmth and great humor.”

A project more than ten years in the making, “The Wrestler” tells the story of Randy “The Ram” Robinson, a former WWE-like superstar now down-on-his-luck, attempting a comeback on the indie circuit.

Rourke, who was actually Aronofsky’s original choice to play the role, took over the part from Nicholas Cage two years ago after Aronofsky accepted an offer from Producers Agnes Mentre and Vincent Maraval, the heads of the French-based distribution company, Wild Bunch. Cage willingly stepped aside for Rourke, which allowed Aronofsky to shoot the film on a reduced $6 million budget.

"I was like an insane person,” says Aronofsky. “I would walk up to strangers on the street and ask them what they thought of Mickey Rourke. He was haunting me. He was meant to do it. I have so much respect for Nic Cage as an actor and I think it really could have worked with Nic but…you know, Nic was incredibly supportive of Mickey, and he is old friends with Mickey, and really wanted to help with this opportunity, so he pulled himself out of the race."

The film, which captured the prestigious Golden Lion Award in Venice, set off an all-night bidding war at the Toronto Film Festival, with Fox Searchlight besting such notables as Sony, Lionsgate, and The Weinstein Company to take home U.S. rights for $4 million.

With such mass acclaim for “The Wrestler,” it is somewhat curious that Vince McMahon, the Chairman of World Wrestling Entertainment and the undisputed “king” of the wrestling industry, is said to be extremely unhappy with the film.

This past week the infamous wrestling promoter invited Aronofsky to privately screen the film for him at WWE headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut. McMahon, whose struggling film production company, WWE Studios, also has a deal with Fox (one in which it pays the film giant to distribute its mostly straight-to-DVD fare through the Fox Atomic label), airs its TV show, “Friday Night Smackdown,” on the Fox-owned MyNetwork.

Reportedly, WWE has veto power over any wrestling-related advertising that runs during “Smackdown,” which has apparently made it difficult for Fox to advertise its current best Oscar contender on its own network’s top-rated show.

“It’s amusing but it’s not surprising,” says Writer/Producer/Director Richard O’Sullivan, who recently placed a sitcom set in the wrestling industry—entitled “Citizen Pain”—in development at the Toronto based Fight Network. “Vince McMahon is a wrestling promoter. His wrestling company, which his father left to him, is the only thing that’s ever been successful for him. His boxing events failed. His restaurant failed. Evel Knievel jumping the Snake River Canyon failed. He bought the Debbie Reynolds Hotel…that failed. He started a football league and a bodybuilding league and he’s made a bunch of movies which get horrible reviews and don’t turn a profit. The only one of his guys who actually did turn into an a-list star was Dwayne Johnson and that was only after he broke away from Vince, got out of ‘the wrestling vacuum,’ and took control of his own career. So I can see how Vince would be really pissed that a movie about ‘his’ industry—which thematically is out of step with his vision of the business—is getting great reviews and winning awards.”

“Smackdown,” which moved to MyNetwork two months ago after a long run on the CW Network, has traditionally been the top-rated show on “Fifth Network” outlets (meaning non-ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox networks). It began in 1999 on the old UPN Network, then moved to the upstart CW Network in 2006 when UPN merged with the rival WB. Despite posting good ratings, however, WWE programming commands a lower advertising rate than lesser-rated shows and earlier this year CW programming chief Dawn Ostroff cancelled McMahon’s show, saying it was “impossible to promote [any other shows] in or out of it.”

“Pro wrestling has been a staple in television for over sixty years,” says O’Sullivan. “But advertisers still look at it sometimes as this low-rent, trailer park trash sideshow, and the content of McMahon’s TV programs really doesn’t do a lot to change that perception. Aronofsky’s film has really given the wrestling biz a bit of a shot in the arm. People are looking at the industry and the people who work in it and they’re giving them some major respect. But as usual, it’s gonna take Vince McMahon all of five minutes to un-do that good will because as he has publicly stated…he’s in ‘the garbage business.'"

Whatchu think?

 

[Headfirst For Hardcore]

I don't think that Wrestling in the SAG will ever happen, but it's a nice thought to even mention them. There's so many stereotypes towards wrestling now, I don't think the mold that Vince McMahon made of the larger than life, blown up characters will ever change when people in the mainstream see wrestling. And that would be a big break from kayfabe with the WWE Entertainers being known as "Screen Actors", which Vince probably would hate.

“Vince McMahon is a wrestling promoter. His wrestling company, which his father left to him, is the only thing that’s ever been successful for him. His boxing events failed. His restaurant failed. Evel Knievel jumping the Snake River Canyon failed. He bought the Debbie Reynolds Hotel…that failed. He started a football league and a bodybuilding league and he’s made a bunch of movies which get horrible reviews and don’t turn a profit. The only one of his guys who actually did turn into an a-list star was Dwayne Johnson and that was only after he broke away from Vince, got out of ‘the wrestling vacuum,’ and took control of his own career. So I can see how Vince would be really pissed that a movie about ‘his’ industry—which thematically is out of step with his vision of the business—is getting great reviews and winning awards.â€

Ouch. I'm sure those comments won't effect Vince at all, because even if the Wrestler blows up as something huge, he probably would make things less like the Wrestler and more unrealistic.

 

[monkeystyle]

And that would be a big break from kayfabe with the WWE Entertainers being known as "Screen Actors", which Vince probably would hate.

Fact of the matter is though Vince himself opened this door. He wants to call them entertainers so that he can get around the rules governing athletes, now he should reap the consequences of this gambit.

 

[MikeRaw]

I don't care whether they end up in the SAG or not, but, I don't see why they shouldn't. Like the guy said, they are acting, no matter how you want to put it.
However, there's also a case for them not being in... Unless I'm mistaken, stage actors for plays and musicals are not in, are they? If they're not, neither should wrestlers, because wrestlers are actually more putting on a play than they are acting.

Anyways, it could also be a problem, because you can't just limit it to wwe guys, and then soon enough all kinds of wrestlers would want in.

I don't really care either way, and I'm sure it's not going to be a huge issue, but I can see reasoning for both sides.

 

[Travis40]

Fact of the matter is though Vince himself opened this door. He wants to call them entertainers so that he can get around the rules governing athletes, now he should reap the consequences of this gambit.

Is there any proof that he changed them to "entertainers" for that reason? The only piece of evidence I've seen is a poorly written news story on wrestling news sites.

 

[Kaedon]

I think this is more of the mainstream media looking down their noses at "those poor wrestlers" who are too dumb to start a union for themselves or are being held down by the EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL Vince McMahon.

 

[monkeystyle]

Is there any proof that he changed them to "entertainers" for that reason? The only piece of evidence I've seen is a poorly written news story on wrestling news sites.

This isn't anything new at all.

What you're thinking of is the 'news' story regarding how the wrestlers were going to be referred only as entertainers on the show.

Fact is for many years now wrestling has been referred to as sports-entertainment for the sole reason of bypassing governmental athletic regulations.

In reference to Kaedon's unenlightened comment. It's pretty goddamned hard to start a union when if you try your boss will just fire you and anyone who goes along with you. And then you really have nowhere viable (don't even say TNA in jest) to work within North America due to a monopoly.

 

[Airfixx]

I think this is more of the mainstream media looking down their noses at "those poor wrestlers" who are too dumb to start a union for themselves or are being held down by the EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL Vince McMahon.

Taken to the extreme it's all a bit Team America, eh? LOL

"Deploy the FAG!"

 

[Quintastic One]

I think there needs to be a congressional order that demands that the WWE specify, are they actors or are they athletes? Because if they are actors, the SAG should step in and help them. If they are athletes? Then Vince should be held accountable by the athletic commissions and forced to do similar drug testing to actual sports to where the consequences for being caught are more strict. If he tries to slide past it and say its both? Then subject him to higher testing AND the SAG. If he tries to say its neither, I'd like to see what bullshit title he's going to try and give his workers in order to get past both actors unions and sports ones. If someone is smart enough to take action against WWE, then we can legitimately see some strong change in the industry over the next few years over a lawsuit that will require Vince to pick a side on what his industry actually is.

 

[Kaedon]

I think there needs to be a congressional order that demands that the WWE specify, are they actors or are they athletes? Because if they are actors, the SAG should step in and help them. If they are athletes? Then Vince should be held accountable by the athletic commissions and forced to do similar drug testing to actual sports to where the consequences for being caught are more strict. If he tries to slide past it and say its both? Then subject him to higher testing AND the SAG. If he tries to say its neither, I'd like to see what bullshit title he's going to try and give his workers in order to get past both actors unions and sports ones. If someone is smart enough to take action against WWE, then we can legitimately see some strong change in the industry over the next few years over a lawsuit that will require Vince to pick a side on what his industry actually is.

No there doesnt. Congress needs to worry about keeping us safe and balancing their fucking budget. I am so sick of congressional hearings on bullshit like this. It started in the 1980s and it hasnt stopped since.

 

[monkeystyle]

I think there needs to be a congressional order that demands that the WWE specify, are they actors or are they athletes? Because if they are actors, the SAG should step in and help them. If they are athletes? Then Vince should be held accountable by the athletic commissions and forced to do similar drug testing to actual sports to where the consequences for being caught are more strict. If he tries to slide past it and say its both? Then subject him to higher testing AND the SAG. If he tries to say its neither, I'd like to see what bullshit title he's going to try and give his workers in order to get past both actors unions and sports ones. If someone is smart enough to take action against WWE, then we can legitimately see some strong change in the industry over the next few years over a lawsuit that will require Vince to pick a side on what his industry actually is.

QFT.

Shockingly enough.

 

[Evil Austin]

Just like Kaedon said they did that in the late 1980's just before 1991' I beleive. Vince and Linda were sent to court and Vince brought in one wrestler to help his case and that was Hulk Hogan. When it looked like Vince was going to jail for drug use and he would be locked away for about 20. years and there would be no WWE nor 90's. Hulk Hogan's testimoney saved him. It was in one of the biographies I forgot though which one I have about 5 at home.

 

[Quintastic One]

Not to get into any kinda argument, but isn't protecting our entertainers through better drug testing or through allowing them to be unionized keeping American's safe and healthy? Maybe a small small group of us, but judging by the way America has so far been keeping us "safe" for the past 8 years, we shouldn't be trusting them to make decisions for us in the first place. But that's an entirely different debate.

In addition, millions of people are wrestling fans, if only casually. So keeping the workers safe and not allowing our entertainers to die at the age of 35-40 I think is a good investment for the good investment. If we heard that Football or Baseball or Basketball was causing dozens of deaths each year at early ages due to drug abuse and suicide problems, I am sure we would be doing something to control it. Wrestling is the single most under appreciated and under protected sport/entertainment industry in the country, and I find something wrong with that.

 

[Kaedon]

Not to get into any kinda argument, but isn't protecting our entertainers through better drug testing or through allowing them to be unionized keeping American's safe and healthy? Maybe a small small group of us, but judging by the way America has so far been keeping us "safe" for the past 8 years, we shouldn't be trusting them to make decisions for us in the first place. But that's an entirely different debate.

In addition, millions of people are wrestling fans, if only casually. So keeping the workers safe and not allowing our entertainers to die at the age of 35-40 I think is a good investment for the good investment. If we heard that Football or Baseball or Basketball was causing dozens of deaths each year at early ages due to drug abuse and suicide problems, I am sure we would be doing something to control it. Wrestling is the single most under appreciated and under protected sport/entertainment industry in the country, and I find something wrong with that.

Well if you want them to do that, why doesnt the government make tobacco and alcohol illegal? That would keep a lot of people healthy and safe. And how about telling people how many calories they can consume a day? The bottom line is these people CHOOSE to get into the business and if they dont like what the find, the can get the fuck out. Its not the governments job to wipe your ass just because people before you made some dumb choices.

 

[Quintastic One]

That's just where we fundamentally disagree. I don't believe joining the wrestling business is making a "dumb ass" decision. People in the wrestling business have more passion for what they do than half of real athletes, and they are underprotected and underappreciated for what they do.

I don't quite see your connection between giving wrestlers health insurance and making tobacco and alcohol illegal. Is smoking cigars and drinking Sam Adams considered a career that you are paid for and that there is under utilized insurance for athletes who happen to suffer liver and lung problems later in life? As far as I know there is no such thing, so your comparison is VERY faulty.

Other than that, the main point is that its simple math that tells us that wrestlers die younger than any other athletic performer out there, and the causes are clear and obvious and fixable. I think as the primary supplier of professional wrestling, WWE should be held responsible for its superstars.