Benny Safdie’s The Smashing Machine is a strong display of his gift for filmmaking, but it often falters in its storytelling. While visually captivating, it’s often all style, and very little substance. I would prefer the inverse.
Now, addressing the elephant in the room: does Dwayne Johnson actually act in this one, or is he just… himself? I am pleased (and somewhat surprised) to report that yes, his portrayal of Mark Kerr is earnest and believable. It won’t get him the Oscar he’s clearly going for with this, though. Johnson’s believability as the lead was what many might have thought was going to make or break this one, but the film’s issues are not his fault. His greatest achievements during his performance are the more dramatic and intimate scenes, revolving around Kerr and his then-girlfriend Dawn Staples (Emily Blunt). The pair’s edginess towards each other makes for uncomfortable viewing, with Staples jumping from kiss to passive-aggressive insult with a level of versatility not too dissimilar to what her fighter boyfriend demonstrates in the ring.
The method of shooting fights enabled Kerr the fighter and Kerr the man to feel separate. Safdie decided against having the camera inside the ring, creating a documentary-style viewing experience. This means we are limited to either what the TV cameras would see, or claustrophobic, obstructed views through the ring’s ropes. This choice creates a strong divide between the softer, personal scenes and the times in which Kerr is embodying his fighting persona. In the former, Kerr is vulnerable; in the latter, he is an untouchable, otherworldly character.
While the filmmaking and acting may receive my praise, the same cannot be said for the writing or pacing; often, narrative threads will be abandoned, and major events one might assume to be key to Kerr’s story are made trivial and are finished quickly. This is a struggle for biopics, as life does not follow the “hero’s journey” template. The film might spend an enormous chunk of time focusing on a fight, then skip over important moments such as characters making up after an argument or resolving personal issues. Possibly the most egregious instance of this is Kerr’s relationship with opioids, something you may assume will be a central piece of The Smashing Machine’s puzzle. In the film, the topic receives a heavy focus- deservedly- but only for the first act. Why even bother showing it then?
Which leads to maybe the film’s biggest issue: it has no reason to exist, and it makes no argument for itself to. I say this due to the presence of the 2002 documentary. Safdie’s film directly and purposefully emulates scenes from this, meaning dialogue is often completely ripped from the source material. Why would we watch a re-enactment of an interesting story over genuine footage of the events themselves?
In my eyes, the film needs and extra half-hour, or more, to drive home the stakes. There is an absence of consequences here, resulting in a heavyweight collaboration that ultimately feels weightless.
3/4
Image Credits – The Movie DB
