Nikki Finke smacks down the NY Times, accuses the paper of being biased against Mickey Rourke:
One of the most time-honored traditions of the Oscars is the redemptive quality of its nominations process. Talent who’ve hit the the skids over the years through their own bad decisions personally and/or professionally can suddenly find their careers revived because of Academy Award attention from their peers.
Such is the situation this year with Mickey Rourke and Fox Searchlight’s The Wrestler. Which is why that recent New York Times Magazine profile of him was so unfair. For a newspaper that rarely examines anything Oscar with a cynical eye, this is usually a slam dunk bit of heartwarming PR: actor squanders great promise, gets written off by the Industry, then gives a wonderful performance, and gets the recognition that was long overdue. Instead, the NYT decided to go a different way: investigate every claim that came out of Rourke’s mouth in order to expose him as a kind of whacked-out con man who’s “spent his entire adult life playing not fictional characters but an idealized delusional fantasy of himself”. It’s hard to imagine, say, the NYT writing as negatively about Sean Penn or Frank Langella. But that’s because the class-conscious newspaper of record doesn’t place Rourke, long a fixture of straight-to-video feature films, in the same thesp elite category. But, worse, the mag went about this bit of character assassination badly.
Finke also gets a statement from Rourke’s family taking the paper to task for not doing basic fact-checking.
No Response for "Oh and Speaking of Negative Campaigning"
Well, he never was really an actor.
Is he good now?
I don´t know.
I´ll wait and see.
First Angelina Jolie and now Mickey Rourke. The NY Times is full of holiday joy this year.
I see it as vicious, although I suppose it’s fair to examine someone’s life in a critical light. I just think it’s an odd angle to take on Rourke. His troubles are well documented. I don’t think reporters are obligated to fawn over him and mindlessly follow the “comeback” angle, but where is the news (or the insight) in saying his past is messed up? I’m surprised and disappointed in the NYT.
Gah.
I read the article and I came away with a different impression as being reported now.
The article was fine–it was an ugly description of Rourke’s current state. But so what. It was done the way most reporters describes the interview, and that includes the reporter’s impressions and observations. And looking at Rourke’s picture, it’s pretty much spot on.
It’s all silly. NYtimes was all right.
If the NYT ask, tell them…
i am quietly juddging them…
Flapp says He never was really an actor.
**************
Hmm…I seem to remember him acting quite well earlier in his career in Body Heat, Diner and Barfly.
Anyhow, he’s magnetic in The Wrestler, deserves all the acclaim he’s getting.
I think Rourke’s fantastic in “The Wrestler” and I’ve liked him in everything since he’s “come back” from “Sin City” to “Domino,” and enjoy his bizzare and quiet performance in “Rumblefish,” but I saw him on the Graham Norton Show last week and he was a little homophobic, a bit pervy and grabby with Jessica Alba, and a little tired and old.
I have a feeling if anythings going to knock him out of the Best Actor pool, it’s going to be the interviews and press he does when “The Wrestler” comes out. If I were at Fox Searchlight, I’d hire him a strict publicist and cut interviews to a minimum. Let the reviews of his performance speak for him.
I meant Jessica Biel, not Alba.
I haven’t read the NYT piece yet, but the interview he did with EW was not exactly flattering either. And it’s not as if Penn and Langella right now are giving negative interviews.
Cahiers I agree, he’s kind of an old-fashioned off-putting guy in person, though I will say without having watched it that Graham Norton would probably make Ms. J act a little homophobic.
Also Flapp yeah that’s just ignorant and absurd.
I’m not a very emotional guy, but when Mickey Rourke is at his best, he’s one of the few actors who can get to me on an emotional level. To say he’s not really an actor is simply absurd.
Ok, I`m sorry for be “ignorant and absurd.”
For me he´ll never be on the same team as real actors.
People like Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Kate Winslet, Joaquin Phoenix, Emily Watson, Ryan Gosling and Glenn Close, still whitout an Oscar.
But, in a world whit GREAT ACTORS like Cuba Gooding Jr. and Angelina Jolie, Rourke deserves the gold.
The Times is such a morass of fail sometimes, all you can do is make popcorn and laugh.
My thoughts exactly, Gentle Benj, and not just sometimes. Most of the time these days.
In a world of decent journalism, reporters would get off their duffs and do a wee bit of investigation. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. All they had to do was pick up a phone and talk to other members of Rourke’s family rather than leave the impression Rourke had concocted a history of abuse. That is a sin of omission unworthy of a newspaper that wants to retain its reputation.
I still have fond memories of The Pope of Greenwich Village – both for Rourke and for the once great Eric Roberts.
And maybe we should try to remember that Oscars are not supposed to be about life time achievements or who is the overall better actor. As far as I am concerned those are often the unremembered character actors anyway. I have to remind myself that the Oscars are supposed to be about the best portrayal of an actor in a specific performance that year.
Mary,
I understand your point of view.
But all we know things aren´t like you say.
Yeah, people will criticize Sean Penn for his politics or whacked bedside manner, but when he turns in a brilliant performance, they have nothing but acclaim. Rourke, Russell Crowe, and other less popular actors’ actors should be so lucky.
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.