'The Smashing Machine' and Why Most Biopics Don't Work
The Rock's transformation into real-life MMA fighter Mark Kerr is astounding, but the film itself is less so
(Mild spoilers follow)
The Safdie Brothers, independent filmmakers gone pro with the release of their hit film Uncut Gems in 2019, pride themselves on the unconventional: this is evident by their casting choices- Gems starred Adam Sandler in one of his most prominent dramatic roles that had everyone whispering if he was going to land an Oscar (didn’t happen, but he will very likely receive his first nomination this year for Jay Kelly). Even though the brothers split and are now each pursuing their own solo directorial efforts, these unique and often inspired casting choices have remained with them: Josh Safdie has made Marty Supreme (releasing in December), a film that features not only Timothée Chalamet as the lead but also a supporting cast including Kevin O’Leary from Shark Tank as the richest man in the world, Tyler, the Creator, and Penn from the Las Vegas magician duo Penn & Teller.
While Benny Safdie has split his time between directing and acting (and in the case of his miniseries The Curse, sometimes acting as a director in something he is directing) since Uncut Gems, he has still found the time to make the aforementioned miniseries for Showtime and his latest feature, The Smashing Machine, starring none other than Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson in one of his first true dramatic starring roles.
Right before he was announced to do this film, The Rock had hit a pretty low point in his career: his $300 million attempt to change the hierarchy of power of the DC universe bombed dramatically and a feud with Vin Diesel had essentially removed him from his most popular franchise, the Fast & the Furious movies (a franchise that might have finally died?).
Funnily enough, this casting announcement was preceded by a prophetic video essay released by filmmaker Patrick H. Willems in which he detailed out how The Rock’s career has followed an interesting pattern that has followed him throughout both his wrestling career and his acting career:
The entire video is worth a watch, but it mentions specifically two key turning points in his career:
His transformation in WWE from tame, nice guy persona “Rocky Maivia” into the “heel” everyone loved known as “The Rock”
His transition from playing tame, nice guy personas in PG-movies to playing the antagonist everyone loved in Fast Five and his subsequent domination of PG-13 action fare
The end of the video predicted another change for The Rock yet to come, as Willems clearly shows that whenever he hits a snag in his career, his solution is to always shake his persona up in an unexpected (usually edgy) way.
Enter The Smashing Machine, an R-rated, mid-budget drama based on the documentary of the same name (which I’ve heard is excellent), following the life of former MMA champion Mark Kerr. Immediately after the announcement there were proclamations that The Rock was “going for his Oscar”, and with a 15-minute standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival, it is entirely possible that he might get it.1
Johnson’s physical transformation (with the aid of a lot of makeup and prosthetics) is truly remarkable, but also his muted and gentle performance as Kerr outside of the ring is actually brilliant. Our introduction to Kerr is a brutal match-up in the ring that ends with him victorious, but also clearly concerned with the well-being of the man he just hurt. The opening credits montage that follows is actually kind of hard to watch, with voiceover of Johnson gently explaining his fighting mindset to an interviewer playing over brutal, sometimes bloody scenes of the fighter taking down his opponents. This visual dichotomy functions as a possible explanation for why Kerr is revealed to be addicted to painkilling drugs, a major part of the journey he is to take throughout the film.
This opening scene convinced me that this film was going to delve deep into the psychological effects of violence on one man, yet it did not deliver on this promise, instead opting to become a one-note, predictable sports drama where all loose ends are neatly tied up with a bow. And the reality is: it is difficult to make a grounded, truthful biographical film when you want to respect the feelings of the very-much-alive subject of said film.2 Kerr as a character goes from being psychologically unable to even process the thought of losing (a sports interviewer almost humorously fails to get an answer to a question on it from the fighter) to essentially being a character who is just a nice guy who is able to overcome every obstacle in his life. It is absolutely commendable that the real-life Kerr was able to do many of these things, but in terms of a dramatic arc this happens way too early in the film, so that at the halfway point Kerr’s arc simply flatlines and we can expect our hero to make the right choice at every turning point.
There are a few other factors that I think contribute to this film’s story failures: firstly Benny Safdie’s amoral filmmaking. Like Uncut Gems, he has made here an enjoyable, well-made film that has absolutely nothing meaningful to say about the morality of the characters’ actions. The protagonists simply make choices without any sort of clear arc, and while the character of Mark Kerr absolutely seems to be a better person than Sandler’s character in Gems, choices are motivated more for plot convenience than any internal reasoning.
The final, and most important factor, is The Rock. He is, of course, a producer on this film, as well as his wife Dany Garcia (who runs his production company with her brother, Hiram), and while he has clearly done a lot to collaborate with Safdie’s vision, there is one key tenet of the actor’s career that he will not deviate from:
He doesn’t lose.
I’m not just speaking figuratively here: ever since Vin Diesel inserted a clause into his contracts for the Fast & Furious films that essentially ensured that the ratio of punches/hits given outweighed the number received, The Rock has followed suit with a similar clause for all of his films. (This obsession seemingly has extended into his real-life persona: check this video where he refuses to lose a rock-paper-scissors fight.)
So it’s actually pretty interesting that a key part of this film is Mark Kerr’s refusal to accept the possibility of losing…until he does, but does he really? The film painstakingly shows how the first loss in Japan was actually not a loss: Kerr was actually cheated by referees not paying attention to the rules about head-kicking. For the rest of the film it’s made clear that Kerr-as-character is just a good dude surrounded by a loving but kind of crazy girlfriend (played by a disturbingly oversexualized Emily Blunt) and a best friend who is always there for him (real-life fighter Ryan Bader as real-life fighter Mark Coleman). Everything sort of unfolds a little too neatly, almost as if The Rock wanted to eradicate any idea in the audience that he would play a character who even remotely had any substantial flaws.
Overall, it’s still quite possibly (by default) the best film he’s made (although I still need to see Fast Five), but it’s hard to attempt to make a biopic that can successfully balance meaningful drama with the crowd-pleasing beats that Hollywood has survived on for a century. The film had a lot of potential to dive into the psychological effects of violence and how that was possibly connected with Kerr’s initial drug use, and could have ended with the real-life fighter’s decision to walk away from fighting entirely. For the real Mark Kerr to overcome his demons is remarkable: but since we don’t get to see this transformation really happen it winds up feeling unearned in the story. The movie is certainly worth seeing for Johnson’s performance alone, but don’t be surprised if you catch yourself checking your watch a third of the way through.
The fact that both The Rock and Adam Sandler are likely to receive Oscar nominations this year (and possibly win them) is kind of insane.