|
Post by SeanJoyce on Feb 2, 2019 17:26:14 GMT
Beginning in the late 2000s, we saw plenty of white, middle-aged 80s stars (Oldman, Keaton, Stallone) make much-publicized "comebacks" that culminated in Oscar nominations, only to predictably and almost cruelly fall short of the big prize. Oldman eventually made good while Keaton's career got a 2nd wind and Stallone is still milking his iconic Rocky Balboa character for all it's worth.
But none was more painful than Mickey Rourke's failure to take home the gold over fellow 80s bad boy alum, Sean Penn. I still feel the same way I felt about these respective performances as I did then: Penn delivered a very admirable, mannered "technical" performance, a fine impersonation. But as Randy 'The Ram' Robinson, Rourke brought a career of baggage to a once-in-a-lifetime role and created something far more poignant.
The bad choices, the regret, the physical disfiguration and the hope for redemption, it's one of those super-rare and ultra-special unions between actor and material. Rourke was the only guy who could have played that part with such pathos and conviction. Penn would have been a deserved winner any other year, but he's not in Rourke's class in 2008. The fact that his other Oscar still had a sheen to it and that Rourke's would-be comeback never materialized adds lemon juice to the wound.
Anybody else still reeling over this one?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 2, 2019 17:33:55 GMT
While it would've been neat to see Mickey (a generally better actor than Penn) win an Oscar, I still slightly preferred Penn's performance that year, but both men rank at the bottom of the lineup for me (Jenkins and Langella top it, and I am fonder of Pitt's nomination than most). Still, that year should've been Brendan Gleeson's in a walk, or even Colin Farrell's in a pinch.
With that said, Mick was robbed in '05. I think Sin City was his real comeback, not The Wrestler, and I think he does so much more with Marv in a single scene than anything Randy the Ram does in the entire film.
So no, I can't say I'm really reeling over this loss, certainly not in comparison to the likes of Michael Keaton in 2014.
|
|
|
Post by Allenism on Feb 2, 2019 17:34:25 GMT
His win over Murray in ‘03 haunts me more just because he is legitimately bad throughout most of Mystic River. At least his performance in Milk, while surfacey and rehearsed, didn’t stink up the joint nearly to the same degree. Rourke was certainly superior, though, and would’ve made for an inspired win.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 2, 2019 17:57:34 GMT
There are many myths on this board imo and some like this one go back to the IMDB days but I'll repeat what I always say: Mickey Rourke was never much of a good actor in the 80s or much before The Wrestler or after The Wrestler. I wish he was, really, I don't hate him and I like him in some stuff (especially Rumble Fish, one scene wonder in The Pledge) but he wasn't special - he was Shia LaBeouf. People have to let this lie die a fast death - he was an interesting actor, and yes he should have won for The Wrestler, but that's as far as it goes.
But everyone knows why he lost - anything he had as an actor in the 80s he lost real early on and if they don't think your that special at your young peak, they ain't gonna change their minds (they didn't think Keaton or Stallone were ever that good either and Stallone was a nominee!).
Sean Penn is a great actor to me and I know no one agrees with that but even if you don't, in the 80s he racked up like multiple fascinating portrayals while Mickey Rourke merely stopped showering and pretended to be a boxer. He is not only behind Penn anyway, a lot of guys outacted him IN the 80s - Cage, Eric Roberts, Matthew Modine.
10 years later, Rourke's loss is completely logical. He should have won, he never could have won. Tough break, way it goes.
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Feb 2, 2019 18:00:23 GMT
With that said, Mick was robbed in '05. I think Sin City was his real comeback, not The Wrestler, and I think he does so much more with Marv in a single scene than anything Randy the Ram does in the entire film. I think both Sin City and The Wrestler combine to make a sort of abbreviated comeback for Rourke. I agree with you that he's also perfectly cast and Oscar-worthy in Sin City, and just like the later film, it was a role that had a lot of parallels with his real life. Marv is a truly great character and Rourke is on-the-nose casting. I read a real interesting comparison one critic made between Rourke's roles in Rumble Fish and Sin City; he used the lines spoken by Hopper and Owen, respectively, where they both essentially said that the Motorcycle Boy and Marv were guys born in the wrong place, wrong time. Rourke's filmography is peppered with cool little moments like that. Consider Johnny Handsome, for instance, where he plays a disfigured criminal who undergoes extensive plastic surgery to get a second lease on life, and how he essentially defaced himself with constant surgical operations. His countenance in The Wrestler bespeaks all of that, in addition to a lifetime of sorrow and regret.
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Feb 2, 2019 18:04:46 GMT
There are many myths on this board imo and some like this one go back to the IMDB days but I'll repeat what I always say: Mickey Rourke was never much of a good actor in the 80s or much before The Wrestler or after The Wrestler. I wish he was, really, I don't hate him and I like him in some stuff (especially Rumble Fish, one scene wonder in The Pledge) but he wasn't special - he was Shia LaBeouf. People have to let this lie die a fast death - he was an interesting actor, and yes he should have won for The Wrestler, but that's as far as it goes. I've always thought that Rourke's 80s was a bit over-glorified, but yours is a minority opinion...thus this won't "die a fast death". Rourke was a fully-formed, adult actor in the 80s doing mature work while Penn was juvenile by comparison. Shia LaBeaouf??? Get the fuck out of here. Disagree all you want, don't care. And FWIW, this isn't a "Penn vs. Rourke in the 80s" thread, it's "Penn vs. Rourke in '08". As far as I can see, you actually agree with the thread's main premise. So what's the problem?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 2, 2019 18:09:34 GMT
I think both Sin City and The Wrestler combine to make a sort of abbreviated comeback for Rourke. I agree with you that he's also perfectly cast and Oscar-worthy in Sin City, and just like the later film, it was a role that had a lot of parallels with his real life. Marv is a truly great character and Rourke is on-the-nose casting. I read a real interesting comparison one critic made between Rourke's roles in Rumble Fish and Sin City; he used the lines spoken by Hopper and Owen, respectively, where they both essentially said that the Motorcycle Boy and Marv were guys born in the wrong place, wrong time. Rourke's filmography is peppered with cool little moments like that. Consider Johnny Handsome, for instance, where he plays a disfigured criminal who undergoes extensive plastic surgery to get a second lease on life, and how he essentially defaced himself with constant surgical operations. His countenance in The Wrestler bespeaks all of that, in addition to a lifetime of sorrow and regret. I'd argue Rourke's comeback started somewhat with Once Upon a Time in Mexico. I don't think he's particularly great in it or anything, but he clearly made an impact on Rodriguez, who all but cast him on the spot as Marv for their collaboration two years later. Of course, before then, Rourke was seen as kind of a punchline (the funniest moment in My Giant, and one that made my dad nearly choke to death laughing, was when Billy Crystal shows up with the shit kicked out of him, and when asked what happened, he just shrugs and says, "Mickey Rourke."), having gone from being a serious actor to (attempting to be) a boxer. So when Rourke got that second wind, despite his fucked-up mug limiting him to playing beaten bruisers, I was very curious to see how he would play these cards. He couldn't afford to be an asshole like he was back in the day. He needed to kiss the ring, needed to play the game, in order to keep himself working in quality projects with quality directors. But after Iron Man 2, that all seemed to go into the toilet, and I think Rourke has largely sunk back into obscurity. Michael Keaton, on the other hand, is playing it exactly as Rourke should have. Two consecutive Best Pictures under his belt, a well-liked villain in the MCU (whereas Rourke's largely ranked at or near the bottom of those), an underrated-but-excellent turn as Ray Kroc, and some promising upcoming works. Perhaps it's because Keaton wasn't as much of a dick in the old days as Mick was (from what I understand, Keaton's just kind of seen as a weird outsider, rather than a Hollywood schmoozer), perhaps it's because Keaton didn't fuck up his face like Mickey did and hence is more easily castable. But Rourke pretty well squandered that second chance, and proved that it's not about the raw talent, but about how you use it.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 2, 2019 18:15:43 GMT
There are many myths on this board imo and some like this one go back to the IMDB days but I'll repeat what I always say: Mickey Rourke was never much of a good actor in the 80s or much before The Wrestler or after The Wrestler. I wish he was, really, I don't hate him and I like him in some stuff (especially Rumble Fish, one scene wonder in The Pledge) but he wasn't special - he was Shia LaBeouf. People have to let this lie die a fast death - he was an interesting actor, and yes he should have won for The Wrestler, but that's as far as it goes. I've always thought that Rourke's 80s was a bit over-glorified, but yours is a minority opinion...thus this won't "die a fast death". Rourke was a fully-formed, adult actor in the 80s doing mature work while Penn was juvenile by comparison. Disagree all you want, don't care. And FWIW, this isn't a "Penn vs. Rourke in the 80s" thread, it's "Penn vs. Rourke in '08". As far as I can see, you actually agree with the thread's main premise. So what's the problem? I do have Rourke as the winner for this year, but usually the discussion goes into strange tributaries by people who should know better so I was cutting it off early . But he was never winning on Oscar night, and besides that "they never thought he was that good" piece of it, he also lost to a performance by an actor that precisely appealed to his other actors - a very complete well rounded performance by Penn. That aspect killed Rourke I'm afraid and is not something Penn usually does - rather he gives uneven performances that work part of the time - but Milk was far more disciplined than almost all his other stuff. That made his performance seem like an example of craft, professionalism and complete and made Rourke to some seem like a mere stunt. That is the height of irony really - he not only lost to a rival, but the rival was being completely the opposite of what he normally is, and by being the opposite made people question Rourke's own (great) work....
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Feb 2, 2019 18:42:17 GMT
Most devastating loss since I started following the Oscars... by far.
I still re-watch Micky's Indie Spirit/SAG/Golden Globe acceptance speeches once in a while to console myself.
I'm a fan of Penn, but both of his wins are pretty fucked.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 2, 2019 18:45:46 GMT
Most devastating loss since I started following the Oscars... by far. I still re-watch Micky's Indie Spirit/SAG/Golden Globe acceptance speeches once in a while to console myself. I'm a fan of Penn, but both of his wins are pretty fucked. There was a conspiracy theory going on around that time that Rourke lost the Oscar because of his speeches, that the Academy wouldn't risk him dropping the F-bomb on stage the way he did at the BAFTAs, etc. Then two years later, Melissa Leo shattered that glass ceiling.
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Feb 2, 2019 18:58:54 GMT
I'll just say that I personally think politics were the governing agent here, as opposed to a verdict on the quality of the performances. As somebody else noted, the political climate was ripe for Penn's film/performance. And with the flippant, "I don't give a fuck" attitude exhibited by Rourke at all the awards shows, he was probably perceived as too "outside" the Hollywood establishment.
In short, Penn was the safe choice that year...Rourke's nomination was his reward (which is a crock of shit.)
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Feb 2, 2019 20:06:23 GMT
The better performance won. Rourke was fantastic though.
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Feb 2, 2019 20:35:46 GMT
I'll just say that I personally think politics were the governing agent here, as opposed to a verdict on the quality of the performances. As somebody else noted, the political climate was ripe for Penn's film/performance. And with the flippant, "I don't give a fuck" attitude exhibited by Rourke at all the awards shows, he was probably perceived as too "outside" the Hollywood establishment. In short, Penn was the safe choice that year...Rourke's nomination was his reward (which is a crock of shit.) Great post(s) dude and I completely agree. Not a slight at Penn either cause I dug Milk as well but just think Rourke's performance was on another level. There are so many moments in The Wrestler where Rourke just killed it. oh well , his performance will be remembered for a LONG time that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Feb 3, 2019 5:29:58 GMT
Love Rourke, but I can't begrudge Penn's win for Milk. Now... had it been Penn in Mystic River, that would be a whole different story.
Also, agree 100% with Stephen that Rourke's comeback was Sin City where he was absolutely robbed of a nod at the very least. His best performance is still The Pope of Greenwich Village, though.
|
|
jakob
Full Member
Posts: 827
Likes: 698
|
Post by jakob on Feb 3, 2019 7:57:48 GMT
Even worse given where Rourke’s career (and even more so his face) went after his loss.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Feb 3, 2019 10:53:19 GMT
Beginning in the late 2000s, we saw plenty of white, middle-aged 80s stars (Oldman, Keaton, Stallone) make much-publicized "comebacks" that culminated in Oscar nominations, only to predictably and almost cruelly fall short of the big prize. Oldman eventually made good while Keaton's career got a 2nd wind and Stallone is still milking his iconic Rocky Balboa character for all it's worth. But none was more painful than Mickey Rourke's failure to take home the gold over fellow 80s bad boy alum, Sean Penn. I still feel the same way I felt about these respective performances as I did then: Penn delivered a very admirable, mannered "technical" performance, a fine impersonation. But as Randy 'The Ram' Robinson, Rourke brought a career of baggage to a once-in-a-lifetime role and created something far more poignant. The bad choices, the regret, the physical disfiguration and the hope for redemption, it's one of those super-rare and ultra-special unions between actor and material. Rourke was the only guy who could have played that part with such pathos and conviction. Penn would have been a deserved winner any other year, but he's not in Rourke's class in 2008. The fact that his other Oscar still had a sheen to it and that Rourke's would-be comeback never materialized adds lemon juice to the wound. Anybody else still reeling over this one? Boo fucking hoo!! Penn was definitely better. And is BY MILES the better overall actor. The former is debatable, the latter is not.
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Feb 3, 2019 14:44:24 GMT
Oh yea that loss was and still is painful for me.
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on Feb 4, 2019 0:09:29 GMT
I like Penn, think he can be a great actor, also like his two Oscar winning performances, including Mystic River, which seems to be pretty hated around these boards. He was better in other things, but still. But it's kinda funny, he won his Oscars in years in which other actors gave performances that reached beyond just what their movies dealt with, movies that played very shrewdly with their actors' public personas, their legacies etc., which doesn't really happen that often. Rourke and Bill Murray. So in hindsight, maybe the wrong guy won in those years. But Penn was at a moment in his career when the critical community really assembled behind him. I remember a Charlie Rose talk with some critics, Travers, A.O. Scott, Denby I think, around that time and he was THE working actor for them (apart from DDL). And as I said, Penn is a great actor, so Academy Award winner Sean Penn is fine by me. But Rourke not winning for The Wrestler, I agree, it hurts. I have to say I'm someone that normally doesn't really care if the winning performance is the best performance out of the nominees. Firstly, the Oscars are politics, which means they suck most times. Secondly, judging art against each other is a futile thing in the first place (I know, I'm guilty of that too). Thirdly, I believe if a performance is good enough, it's more important to honor a guy/gal for their overall body of work, even if there's a better performance nominated or the person hasn't really been that great an actor in the first place, but had an impact on movie culture in general, was smart/tough enough to survive over decades in a pretty brutal business. So for example, that Stallone loss for Creed really bugged me. But there are exceptions to that. And I'm totally aware of the fact that, like everything else, it's totally subjective. But once in a blue moon, there are performances that are just undeniable. De Niro in Raging Bull. Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood. And in the case of Keaton and Rourke (and Murray) you really had the perfect storm. Great performances in very good-to-great movies, including the added bonus of genius casting. At least Rourke didn't have to lose against Eddie Redmayne, ugh. And nice to hear a shout-out to Johnny Handsome. Nice performance, nice movie, Walter Hill is the man. What's really sad is what Mickey has done to his face. He didn't look like the Mickey Rourke of the 80's in '08 obviously, but as far as I'm concerned, he looked fine, different, but fine. But over the last couple of years, his face started to look like a bad Halloween mask. He's hanging around, talking weird shit with those TMZ dudes, wearing those god awful skinny jeans...
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jan 16, 2020 22:02:37 GMT
I didn't and still don't get the love for Rourke in The Wrestler, as I found nothing remarkable about the performance aside from his physical dedication. Dramatically, it was just shallow and minor. I'd have taken any of the other nominees over him, as well as snubbed performances like DiCaprio in Revolutionary Road (who had the best performance of the year after Ledger). I didn't think Penn was great (Hirsch was the MVP IMO, and Brolin weirdly ineffective after an awesome previous year in NCFOM and blowing legends Denzel/Crowe off the screen in American Gangster), but he had some technical things going on in his favor.
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Jan 21, 2020 3:29:02 GMT
I didn't and still don't get the love for Rourke in The Wrestler, as I found nothing remarkable about the performance aside from his physical dedication. Dramatically, it was just shallow and minor. Seriously, do you know anything about Rourke's career preceding The Wrestler?
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Jan 21, 2020 3:31:36 GMT
Boo fucking hoo!! Penn was definitely better. And is BY MILES the better overall actor. The former is debatable, the latter is not. You're right, it isn't debatable, since an effortlessly-talented performer like Rourke is easily better than a histrionic try-hard like Penn. Fuckrod.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Jan 21, 2020 3:54:50 GMT
Boo fucking hoo!! Penn was definitely better. And is BY MILES the better overall actor. The former is debatable, the latter is not. You're right, it isn't debatable, since an effortlessly-talented performer like Rourke is easily better than a histrionic try-hard like Penn. Fuckrod. Omfg, you wait A FUCKING YEAR for a comeback, and the best you can do is "Fuckrod"?!?! I'm pretty sure I win by default. 😆🤷♂️😆 What happened: Is it just the downer of still living in a shithole like Cleveland?? Either way...you're on your own. I stand by my comment (which, ironically, wasn't even THAT disparaging toward Rourke...just said Penn was the slightly better performance and much better overall actor), but I got nothing more to say on the manner. Maybe that dummy futuretrunks can indulge your need to argue about a year old thread.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jan 21, 2020 4:05:24 GMT
I didn't and still don't get the love for Rourke in The Wrestler, as I found nothing remarkable about the performance aside from his physical dedication. Dramatically, it was just shallow and minor. Seriously, do you know a nything about Rourke's career preceding The Wrestler? His career? Isn't that exactly the problem? I've seen 75% of his 80s work, and to this day people will try to act like hearsay about an Actor's Studio audition matters more than actually doing the work onscreen. Rourke is a way bigger poseur than Sean Penn, and his career shows it.
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Jan 22, 2020 3:24:56 GMT
This entire thread only came back into focus because of a bump by somebody else, dickhead.
I haven't lived in Cleveland for nearly a decade, but that was a brilliantly-realized and well-thought-out retort.
Aw, say it ain't so!
But...but...you used words like "definitely" and "not debatable". Not up for backing them up, pussy?
I'm elated, overjoyed and relieved you've got nothing more to say on the manner (the manner of what?)
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Jan 22, 2020 3:27:38 GMT
Seriously, do you know a nything about Rourke's career preceding The Wrestler? His career? Isn't that exactly the problem? I've seen 75% of his 80s work, and to this day people will try to act like hearsay about an Actor's Studio audition matters more than actually doing the work onscreen. Rourke is a way bigger poseur than Sean Penn, and his career shows it. I said nothing about an Actor's Studio audition...come to think of it, I didn't say anything to you about Sean Penn either If you truly understand Rourke's career arc and can't see anything special in his performance as Randy 'The Ram' Robinson because of it, then there's really not a whole lot I have to say to you. Thanks for stopping by!
|
|