One does not have to be a wrestling fan of close to 45 years to know just who that is.
Non or casual wrestling hear that nickname and know who that is- Ric Flair.
Arguably and most people's choice as the greatest pro wrestler of all time (Check my list out from 2011),
Ric Flair has almost become better known to a large chunk of the public for his refusal to give up the wrestling business and his occasional embarrassing outburst outside the ring.
When I heard of the ESPN 30 for 30 program deciding to film an episode on Flair, I was excited.
ESPN's commitment to making quality films about sports has been a strong one and many of these ranks with some of the best work that a filmmaker can do.
I was all prepared to love the film because I was a fan of Flair at his peak and was hoping he hadn't become too much like the washed up "Mountain Rivera" that was in wrestling because he had to or was there because that's all he knows.
And what I came away with after the film thinking Flair really was Mountain Rivera without the manager that he needed to bail out.
I found the film to be interesting yet uneven.
I didn't mind what I was surprised to see Flair criticized for in spots online-the taking of the Buddy Rogers "Nature Boy" gimmick.
In pro wrestling, there is almost nothing original, so I didn't have an issue with that and I thought Flair was more than respectful in giving Rogers plenty of credit.
I would liked to have seen more contemporaries of Flair given more spots to talk about his career and I thought the film would have been suited to more of those appearances and less from the "celebrity" fans such as Michelle Beadle.
I'm generally not a fan of appearances from those types and I think it takes time away from opinions from sources that have legitimate backgrounds.
I also thought that that the film showed Flair as wrestling's Peter Pan that never grew up despite being almost seventy years old.
There's only so long, no matter the subject or how much you like them, that you can be beaten over the head by the same topics- I got it, Flair had a lot of women, was a functioning alcoholic, was a philandering husband and an absent father, except to his youngest son Reid, who was more of a buddy than a son.
It belabored the point and almost dehumanized Flair a bit.
The wrestling part of the film was lighter than I expected and the personal half of the film made realize that as much as I was a fan of Ric Flair the wrestler, I didn't really like Ric Flair the man.
I knew the background of Flair, I had read his book, watched his shoot interviews and had heard all the stories, so I didn't really learn anything new, but the more I watched, the more I was torn- but either side wasn't good.
Did I feel bad for Flair or did I dislike him?
I felt bad for the loss of his son, Reid and no parent should have to deal with that type of pain, but he didn't make me feel empathy for much other than that.
I don't want to say that "Nature Boy" was a bad film, just a different one than I expected and I was
left a little empty by it.
What I wonder is this- was I half empty from the film or Ric Flair himself???
Back later with more and perhaps another inbox cleaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment