How does Fat City compare to The Wrestler?

I think that FAT CITY and THE WRESTLER have many things in common but what seperates them mostly is their director's attitude towards the milieu he depicts and the downbeat life of his protagonists. Huston depicted the milieu in the way you would expect him, having been a boxer himself and a man of remarkably adventurous life experiences, to do: With a certain distance but a deep understanding of that "subculture", without burning passion, but quite intimate and sometimes poetic.

Aronofsky manages to get a huge amount of authenticity but at the same time, he gets sort of lost in his strong demand of realism a bit and yet, he tries to understand the milieu but doesn't so entirely (I'm not familiar with it either, I just write down my feelings, impressions). Just compare the final scenes of both films. They perfectly represent the approach of Huston and Arronofsky: While Huston lets his film fade out in a depressing way but with a undeniable touch of compassion for his helpless characters, Arronofsky strongly wishes (for) his character the sort of last triumph which Randy himself yearns for so much and the final scene, when it is almost certain that he will die after that last big jump, there is a sort of artificial "Buddy-Backslapping" between Aronofksy and his protagonist. This isn't out of place and I must admit that I was touched by THE WRESTLER to a larger degree than I was by FAT CITY (which I watched just three weeks prior to the screening of the WRESTLER I attended). But, I'm much fonder of Hustons Approach (not surprising, since he is one of my five favorite directors) since he keeps more reflective, thoughtful distance to his characters and their world without ever loosing his sense for immense intimacy and empathy for them, he keeps a certain realism throughout the movie and still manages to keep a gentle lyricism and poetry which THE WRESTLER has only in very few scenes and overall, FAT CITY simply is a very, very personal film (Huston also wrote the screenplay together with Gardner whose novel he selected himself, but demanded no credit), made with admirable ease by an aged and experienced, versatile master of cinema while THE WRESTLER is the fourth feature by a young (sort of) Independent-Filmmaker who was intrigued by his material in (obviously) quite an enthusiastic and passionate way - what I'm trying to say is that FAT CITY has the kind of unsentimental and unpretentious wisdom and greatness only a veteran of the cinema like Huston with his experiences and his very personal input could bring into such a film while Aronofsky's Film simply isn't nearly as superiour and easily crafted. That said, THE WRESTLER has many wonderful qualities and the characters certainly are more easily to understand and identify with, therefore, it might be more moving that FAT CITY - but then again, the respectful mystery with which Huston laconically surrounds his characters with (that has always been one of his most unique talents), or, which he allows them to keep, is something that makes FAT CITY linger on in your mind much longer and with more intensity than THE WRESTLER. At least in my opinion.

PS: I forgot to say that even though Rourke gives an incredibly screen aura and charismatic as well as physical presence to Randy, I find Stacy Keachs earthy performance much more sublime. Well, sounds like I didn't like THE WRESTLER at all - I really did, but in comparison to John Huston, Aronofsky still has a lot to learn. I rated both of them 9/10 anyway;-)
And, just to add that important detail: I think THE WRESTLER was much, much more mature, even and unpretentious than Aronofsky's previous films, therefore I assume, he already learned a lot since THE FOUNTAIN (which I don't exactly find dull but rather interesting [though not great], by the way).

I'm not a native English speaker (I'm from Germany), hope this post was easy to read and understand.

Although they both appear to be "sports movies" they are in fact polar opposites. Fat city is a character study of Tully, who is a weak person who makes excuses for himself and blames others for his lot in life. As the movie opens he leads a circumscribed life of limited opportunity. At the end he has made the transition to utter hoplessness and it is clear he will die young of alcoholism. He is an object lesson to Ernie who resents being conned into marriage, even though his wife and child are what are going to keep him from ending up like Tully.
On the other hand, The Wrestler, is a social commentary on the bleakness of the currrent Amereican Landscape. He shows us a socially, economically, spiritually, and morally bankrupt world whose only function is to abrade away any shreds of humanity that one of its inhabitants might develop. In this world the desire for simple dignity is so radical that it must ultimately lead to suicide.
As to the comparative quality of the two films, they are both outstanding. Fat City is especially well acted with Candy Clark and "Ernie" giving outstanding performances. The dialogue and people are quite accurate as anyone who has ever spent any time on skid rows can attest to. The Wrestler can be quite heavy handed ala early Bergman. There were times when I felt I was being hit over the head by a rubber mallet by someone screaming,"GET IT"! All in all The Wrestler is a much more ambitious film and can be forgiven it's faults. Both are highly recommended.

Fat City TKOs The Wrestler in 3 rounds.

I just watched this movie and didn't think it was that good. Gritty realism? I don't know any people like the people in this movie. I don't think putting a bunch of self-destructive losers together makes a movie realistic. Is your life like that? Do you know anyone whose life is like that? Do you know any people like that?

As I was watching this movie, I couldn't remember ever seeing another movie where ALL the characters were THIS stupid. And I developed the sense that all this mumbling idiocy was supposed to stand as a realistic portrayal of the working class, or of the lower class, and it made me uncomfortable. Mumbling lower class idiots does not equal gritty realism. And it should be noted that while many of these characters were mumbling to let us know just how drunk they were, most of the people in this movie mumbled whether they were drunk or not.

Both The Wrestler and Fat City are gritty, and both incorporate elements of realism that other more mainstream movies might choose to gloss over, but I found Fat City needlessly depressing and irritating, whereas I found The Wrestler depressing, but far more compelling as a story. Just my take, obviously.