No Response for "Agenda Watch"

1. Matt Mazur December 30th, 2008 at 8:50 am 1

   “Non-story” is the best way of putting this — and then The Envelope has also blown it way out of proportion. People really don’t like Mickey Rourke…

2. Casey Fiore December 30th, 2008 at 9:02 am 2

   ya that was the most generic story ever. clearly made up by its wirter

3. Mary B. December 30th, 2008 at 9:04 am 3

   And yet it is repeated here.

   I understand your dilemma. Do you ignore it because it is just scurrilous gossip? Or do you expose it for what it seems to be – a blatant attempt to derail Mickey Rourke?

   Tom O’Neill seems to enjoy no ethical boundaries when it comes to using trash to get himself internet attention or his face on TV but what do those do who want to do the right thing or want to call out the shameless?

   Since the genie is out of the bottle I think you made the right call.

4. Noah R. December 30th, 2008 at 9:23 am 4

   “People really don’t like Mickey Rourke…”

   Which is funny because I find him infinitely more appealing than that self-righteous boob Sean Penn who seems to think everything he does is a chore and a favor for the rest of us philistines.

   As I just ranted about in “Why We Respond The Way We Do,” it annoys me that we even have to consider a story like this. So what if Rourke is dissing Penn? It’s his right as a human being and that doesn’t make his performance any less Oscar-worthy. But anything to get YOUR man onstage instead, right?

   In this sense, I’m glad it’s back to fawning over non-contenders like Jean-Claude Van Damme for me.

5. Rodrigo Junqueira Perticarari December 30th, 2008 at 9:33 am 5

   It is sad to how mean people can be.

   Mickey Rourke did not say this, I am pretty sure.

   Sean Penn x Mickey Rourke, that is a story worth-following.

6. richard crawford December 30th, 2008 at 9:36 am 6

   Mickey Rourke gets my oscar vote.

7. Matt Mazur December 30th, 2008 at 9:43 am 7

   It seems like O’Neill has been trying to discredit Rourke all season — do you all remember the story about ROURKE being the homophobe? Now he is being set up as the antagonist against the definitive gay performance of the year? http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2008/11/mickey-rourke-g.html

   All of these accusations are getting out of hand.

8. Sasha Stone December 30th, 2008 at 9:55 am 8

   I almost didn’t post it because I really do believe it’s a non-story – but since it’s out there and people are talking about it I felt like I had to say something. It’s nothing new, though, since it’s Oscar season and everyone is fair game. Rourke is a controversial figure, and so is Sean Penn — who knows what their relationship is. I know a guy, a good friend of mine, who told me some Penn stories that weren’t so flattering but can you imagine if I took those and wrote a whole article about them?

   What I really think is this: the race for Best Actor should be about the performances, full stop.

9. John December 30th, 2008 at 10:04 am 9

   The thing is: real or not, I don’t even take what was ‘written’ as him insinuating that Sean is gay. “Playing gay.”

10. Joao Mattos December 30th, 2008 at 10:16 am 10

    Just read the Daily Beast. It opens with “In a private text message obtained by the Daily Beast”. What the hell is that? Spy games stuff? People could be so mean. Even if Rourke said that, it was private, he didn’r said it in a publi space, like a hotel lobby. We can reject that idea from him about Penn – again, if it is true -, but nobody has the right to publishes that. It’s not something that important for public matter, like he is planning to kill somebody or robbing a bank, whatever. It just gossip.

11. Ryan Adams December 30th, 2008 at 10:43 am 11

    Rourke, allegedly:

    “Look seans an old friend of mine and i didnt buy his performance at all—thought he did an average pretend acting like he was gay besides hes one of the most homophobic people i kno” [sic]

    Yeah, because Rourke is famous for his gay-friendliness? Gut instinct, this strikes me as authentic. Same syntax and attitude that I’ve seen from Rourke on his gimme-an-Oscar tour of talk shows.

    Rourke sabotaging his life and career with his loud mouth, clumsy self-promotion, showboat personality, disagreeable manner, freakish arrogance and misguided attempts to mutilate his face and body into something he thinks looks hot? nah, not our Micky.

    But “if true” these traits would certainly be perfect for playing a wrestler famous for sabotaging his life and career with his loud mouth, clumsy self-promotion, freakish arrogance, and misguided attempts to mutilate his face and body into something he thinks wrestling fans will love.

    And in that sense, I guess it would be the farthest thing from “pretend acting.” Though some might argue it’s pretty far from “acting” of any kind.

    It’s been widely reported that Rourke cut his face up with a razor blade for a scene in The Wrestler — so is this his way to prove he’s not “pretend acting”?

    I think I know what Micky Rourke would require of Sean Penn to authentically play a gay man and not be “pretend acting.” It would be interesting to see to what lengths Rourke would go to play a gay man without “pretend acting.”

    Gruesome as it may be, I imagine it’s easier for Rourke to cut up his own face with a razor blade than to play anything other than what he already is.

    Just my opinion, based on empirical evidence. I think I know what kind of person Sean Penn is, based on what he says and does.

    I think I know what kind of person Micky Rourke is too, based on the same evidence. If Rourke is wants us to think he’s something else, he needs to show us something different that what I’m seeing.

12. KB December 30th, 2008 at 10:47 am 12

    I don’t know if I can believe this? But….if it’s true……may Penn kick Rourke’s ass all season long.

13. Mickey Rourke December 30th, 2008 at 10:58 am 13

    I DID NOT SAY THAT!

14. Ryan Adams December 30th, 2008 at 11:01 am 14

    While we’re on this ugly topic, I’ll say something else I’ve been feeling for a while.

    I’m not so sure about this whole, “Hollywood loves a comeback!” thing.

    Sometimes, don’t we wish some assholes would just go away and stay gone?

15. sirio11 December 30th, 2008 at 11:05 am 15

    I don’t know why you posted this Sasha, really. I mean, that’s their objective, to increase traffic publishing BS, and your respectable site just helped them a little.

    And LOL @ people here bashing here Sean or Mickey based on a piece of junk article.

16. Ryan Adams December 30th, 2008 at 11:12 am 16

    sirio11, I’ll repeat: My opinion of Micky Rourke is based on what I’ve seen and heard from him for years and years. If an article confirms what I’ve always already felt, I’m inclined to think it’s not “junk.” It’s trashy reporting maybe, but it’s also trashy behavior.

    I have no reason at all to suspect it’s not a fact. Just because it’s not a fluff piece fawning over somebody like 90% of entertainment articles are, that’s no reason to doubt its veracity.

    Miami friends of Rourke acknowledge he is brutally honest, even to his own detriment. “Mickey will call a spade a spade,” says a long time acquaintance. “Even if he makes you cringe sometimes with what he says, at least you’ll know he’s not bullshitting you.”

    Rourke plays rough, so he should expect the same in return.

17. Sasha Stone December 30th, 2008 at 11:13 am 17

    Oh it would be really sad if anyone took this as an opportunity to champion gay rights – that would be absolutely ludicrous. I too am rather stunned by the comments here — why would anyone not see through such an obvious agenda to derail the guy who gave the best performance of the year? Ryan, you haven’t even seen the movie so how do you know what Rourke did or didn’t do? I thought Sean Penn was really good, he’s been better. And so what if Mickey Rourke thought it wasn’t that great – are we really going to make the Oscar race for Best Actor about petty fights? It’s slimy journalistic practices to write it up in the first place and believe me, folks, if I told you some of my Sean Penn stories maybe you wouldn’t be so hopped up protecting him. Remember – because Sean Penn played a gay rights legends doesn’t make him one. And anyway, there weren’t enough actual gay actors out there to play Milk? Why doesn’t anyone get pissed off about that?

    Bottom line is that the Oscar race has no business becoming mucked up with bullshit like politics are. Do people have to be so squeaky clean to win Oscars these days? To make sure all of their closets are up to snuff because god forbid anyone should show the slightest bit of imperfection when they’re RUNNING FOR BEST ACTOR. Mickey Rourke gave the best performance of the year – he deserves to win.

    I could give two shits whether he is a heroic person off screen, just as I could have given two shits when it was Russell Crowe or Sean Penn who missed their chance at winning because of the personal lives. Rise up, people.

18. Ryan Adams December 30th, 2008 at 11:19 am 18

    ” It’s slimy journalistic practices to write it up in the first place and believe me, folks, if I told you some of my Sean Penn stories maybe you wouldn’t be so hopped up protecting him. “

    That’s a pretty unusual sentence, Sasha. Jarring juxtaposition.

    I’m looking forward to seeing the movie. I’m not making a firm judgment on the performance. I’m only saying that an actor cutting up his face with a razor blade is fucking bizarre and totally unnecessary. “pretend” blood is fine for me, thanks. I don’t see how such a silly and freakish stunt can enhance someone’s acting. What’s next? Real bullets in movie gunshot wounds?

    I didn’t post this article and I would not have done. I’m only responding to it with my own genuine heartfelt feelings. It has absolutely nothing to do with “gay rights agenda” for me. It’s about an actor’s apparent inability to curb his self-destructive tendencies.

    I don’t see how talking about Rourke’s creepy facial mutilations that he’s repeatedly inflicted on himself is off limits. It’s not just for that scene. He’s done it for years. How is that cool or somehow tragic when Nicole’s botox is a topic of ridicule?

19. Noah R. December 30th, 2008 at 11:20 am 19

    But Ryan, who gives a shit? Either you think he deserves the Oscar or you don’t. If the performance warrants the award, don’t complain if he doesn’t behave the way you or anyone else wants him too. If these awards are supposed to be about the quality of the work then what the hell does anything else matter? As I said earlier, I don’t like Sean Penn — never have — but he gave one hell of a performance in Milk so that’s enough for me to endorse the man for an Oscar nomination.

    Also your complaints about Rourke cutting himself remind me of all the cynics last year who looked down on Daniel Day-Lewis’ acting style as pretentious. A good actor does whatever he/she needs to do to give a good performance. If that means self-abuse, that’s their business and not ours.

20. Sasha Stone December 30th, 2008 at 11:23 am 20

    Uh, who cares whether Charlize Theron gained real weight for Monster or Robert De Niro gained fifty pounds to play Jake LaMotta – they could have donned fat suits or done it with makeup. What he does in The Wrestler goes beyond razor blades in his skin anyway. There is a lot more to the performance than the stunts – but the stunts give a good depiction of what pro-wrestling is like and the damage it can do to the body – you have a built-in prejudice against him because of who he is. Admit it.

21. Sasha Stone December 30th, 2008 at 11:34 am 21

    Right, Nicole’s Botox is not done for the characters she plays; she is Botoxed to stay young looking and unfortunately, she has sunk into the place where she should start playing roles like Mickey Rourke is playing and not ones like in Australia. I posted it because others are writing about it and making a big deal of it – I always try to stop the slimy campaign practices that bloom this time of year. Always have done.

22. Ryan Adams December 30th, 2008 at 11:39 am 22

    “you have a built-in prejudice against him because of who he is. Admit it.”

    With all the back and forth, I’m not sure if this is addressed to me.

    If so, what exactly am I being challenged to admit when you tell me to “Admit it”

    “built in prejudice against him because of who he is”?

    What does that even mean? How do I know “who he is”?
    Who is he?
    Somebody tell me.

    [I think the only movies I ever saw him in have been Year of the Dragon, Angel Heart, and Sin City. He kicked ass in all those. I never saw that Six and Half Weeks or whatever. I really think I've only seen 3 Micky Rourke movies. I like his acting just fine.]

23. Paul Outlaw December 30th, 2008 at 11:43 am 23

    If there’s any truth to the story, all I can say is: Indiscretion is never pretty and seldom clever. However, Rourke has every right not to like Penn’s performance and even to “accuse” him of homophobia. (He wouldn’t be the only ex-husband of Madonna that this was said about.) I’ve seen worse things written about Angelina Jolie on this very website.

    But the text message in question doesn’t really make any sense if you’ve seen Milk: Penn either gives an even more incredible performance than I already thought or he’s not homophobic at all.

24. Sasha Stone December 30th, 2008 at 11:49 am 24

    Because of who he is, a perceived (by you) homophobe. And I guess you would have had to grow up in the ’80s like I did to know who Mickey Rourke was. Alas, you are half my age so how could you know. He was a wonderful actor once. And he’s come back and done great work. Sad to see that it will probably come down to this nonsense that could block him from winning. Who stands to gain, you have to ask yourself. Sean Penn has already won recently so he’s probably out — and they don’t like him either, so that leaves Frank Langella and Clint Eastwood. Your two favorites.

25. Michael December 30th, 2008 at 11:55 am 25

    Here is how it is:
    Penn and Rourke gave the best performances of the year in the category they will compete in. Period. Both were amazing and are going to be remembered. I could care less about anything else. I would hope the same of others.

    And I love Sasha’s bringing up Deniro/Theron weight gains. MR’s tiny little cut on his forehead is far less dangerous than these extremes (we won’t even go into the whole The Machinist/Bale stories. Oh yes and Brody in The Pianist).

26. Ryan Adams December 30th, 2008 at 11:58 am 26

    I think the bigger point here, and really the only important issue for me:

    Some are acting like this is an attempt to derail Micky Rourke.

    Funny, because I see Micky Rourke’s “homophobe” accusation as a very nasty and crude attempt to derail Sean Penn.

    but what do I know, fag that I am.

27. KB December 30th, 2008 at 12:02 pm 27

    With all due respect Sasha, Penn gave the best performance of the year! He has more precursors to back it up.

28. Ryan Adams December 30th, 2008 at 12:02 pm 28

    “so that leaves Frank Langella and Clint Eastwood. Your two favorites. “

    touché
    excellent deployment of the knife-twisting smiley

    Love to stay and spar some more, but I have to go out and buy some razor blades for my traditional New Years Eve ritual.

29. Michael December 30th, 2008 at 12:04 pm 29

    Obviously, Frank Langella planted this story. “kill two birds…”

30. qwiggles December 30th, 2008 at 12:04 pm 30

    This is a ridiculous conversation. The performances don’t even need to be a part of it, so I’m especially confused by the path that takes us from this story to whether the razor blades are necessary. (My contribution: watch the film, where this much written about scene is not an actor’s stunt so much as a character’s stunt within the ring, which hardly reflects upon Mickey’s ‘method.’ Critical distinction.)

    A little empathy here, Ryan: let’s say Rourke really is a nasty, blunt S.O.B. Do you think the worst he could do was text a friend that he found Penn’s ‘doing gay’ spiel phony? And if you knew someone, didn’t like him, and on some level, were jealous of the praise coming his way and felt like an underdog — Rourke seems to have a persecution complex, after all — you wouldn’t say something about his personal character? Especially if his character as you see it is contrary to the image portrayed in the performance that’s being hyped?

    Look, this reads like standard actor-dislikes-the-competition, sour grapes gabbing between friends at worst. What’s important is that this was a text message between people discussing the race as it involves the texter. Of course petty things are going to be said, as petty things are issued from my fingers when I text my friends. Audience plays a huge role here, and it is unfair to treat as public a comment that was private, especially when the sentiments expressed are as banal as they were here. Of course the homophobe accusation was meant by Rourke to derail Penn’s campaign — to the guy he was texting. Whereas making this text public strikes me as a much more powerful, much more concentrated effort to derail Rourke’s campaign by saying “Look, the comeback kid is a jerk.” Surely you can see the difference.

    And come on…I’m sure Sean Penn has some pretty offensive things to say about Rourke, too, maybe by text, in private. And who would be surprised or offended if he did? Incidentally, I once texted someone at TIFF saying “Holocaust survivor/Oscar winner Adrien Brody leaving popcorn mess behind me.” I hope this never gets intercepted and used as evidence of my disdain for Holocaust survivors or Oscar winners.

31. Osbourne Cox December 30th, 2008 at 12:05 pm 31

    1. The thought of Mickey Rourke “texting” makes me giggle like a school girl.

    2. Mickey Rourke looks like a science experiment gone wrong who’s never met a bar of soap he’s liked but he gave one of the best performaces, if not the best of the year. I couldn’t care less what skeltons are falling out of his closet or if he’s talking smack about Sean Penn. For the record, I think Sean Penn was fabulous as Harvey Milk.

    3. If Rourke didn’t say this then who has the most to gain by derailing his oscar campaign?

32. w.j. December 30th, 2008 at 12:05 pm 32

    I don’t see where these alleged statements of Rourke’s could, in any way, affect his Oscar chances. He’s regarded in Hollywood as an outcast, a bit of a self-destructive wacko. Ryan’s right about that. And Penn’s considered a bit of an arrogant, opinionated asshole when he wants to be. So let’s see: does Frank Langella hate babies and puppies? Come on!! The best performance will win DESPITE the personalities involved and these silly allegations.

33. Michael December 30th, 2008 at 12:11 pm 33

    Another thing: not sure if being labeled “homophobe” hurts your Oscar chances, if anything it may help. Ouch.

34. Sasha Stone December 30th, 2008 at 12:12 pm 34

    I don’t think texting anyone has any chance of derailing an Oscar campaign – for one thing, it’s a private opinion. It isn’t a public statement. It was made public by a cheesy reporter trolling for hits. I wouldn’t blame Penn’s campaign either — it’s just the kind of stuff that happens every year. Penn WAS great as Harvey Milk, there’s no question about it. Was it the best performance of his career as it is for Rourke, Langella, Pitt and DiCaprio? I don’t know. Anyway, Eastwood will win if Rourke is out of it and if Eastwood is nominated.

35. qwiggles December 30th, 2008 at 12:15 pm 35

    “And I guess you would have had to grow up in the ’80s like I did to know who Mickey Rourke was. Alas, you are half my age so how could you know. He was a wonderful actor once. And he’s come back and done great work.”

    Sasha, why cheapen a legitimate argument about the relative weight of an actor’s performance vs. his/her personality by going here? “How could you know”? I guess all those literary scholars who weren’t born in the late 16th century should really shut up about Shakespeare, huh?

36. XanderLJ December 30th, 2008 at 12:16 pm 36

    Sasha, why in god’s name do you keep insisting Penn is “out” because he won recently?? Were you saying Hilary Swank was out in 2005, because she had the same space between wins that Penn would have. Plus, Penn is an infinitely better actor, and it’s an infinitely better performance, than Swank, so if she could, he should be able to EASILY!

    I haven’t seen THE WRESTLER, may see it later today, but I think there’s a good shot I’ll think Rourke did the best job and root for him. But I’ll still believe the most likely winner is Penn. I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t win, actually.

37. Noah R. December 30th, 2008 at 12:34 pm 37

    “Obviously, Frank Langella planted this story.”

    Hahaha some characters never leave their actor. God bless Tricky Dick!

38. Sasha Stone December 30th, 2008 at 12:42 pm 38

    Sorry, Ryan is the one who said he didn’t know. I really wasn’t being insulting – look at what Ryan wrote about what he knows about Mickey Rourke. I do think it’s sweet, though, that Ryan has so many defenders here. I love him too, he knows this.

39. Sasha Stone December 30th, 2008 at 12:44 pm 39

    Well then I hope Penn does win. My instincts about him this year is that his Into the Wild was almost completely shut out last year. That shows how the Academy really feels about him. The DGA even nominated him and AMPAS didn’t?? It was tough getting him the win in the first place and that was only because he A) attached to a Clint Eastwood film and B) he did all of the necessary press up to the Oscars. I love Sean Penn. I thought he was great in Milk. If he wins I will not complain – in fact, if Milk wins anything I will rejoice. I’m just going on instinct, which isn’t always right. I didn’t Hillary Swank should have won that year and was hoping she wouldn’t – I did know she would win, though, because of Clint.

40. richard crawford December 30th, 2008 at 1:32 pm 40

    loved Penn in Milk. Rourke gets my vote.

    Penn won over Bill Murray too. Now THAT was criminal.

41. michelleK December 30th, 2008 at 1:48 pm 41

    Mickey’s performance in The Wrestler is so beautiful and subtle…it is NOT a showy role like you would expect. He studied at The Actor’s Studio back when it was the place to be. Let’s not forget Mickey is the real deal.

    The Daily Beast should not have gone with this story as it is a low blow and hearsay at that. Who is trying to stop Mickey? Why are Penn’s supporters afraid? First the Times piece and now this? Have we all forgotten what an ass Penn used to be? He’s still out there drinking, chain smoking and womanizing…he’s just better insulated!

    Perhaps it was Langella who planted the story! Who has the most to gain! At any rate…I liked both performances, although Penn is a bit more of a grandstander…but, I would like to see more support of Mickey’s attempt to be a better person…much like the Ram tried in The Wrestler. I’d like Mickey to have a different result however, and find out that not everyone is waiting to smack him back down.

    So, let it be a fair fight to the finish. Rourke, Penn and Langella all three deserve to win. Is negative campaigning the way to win? Ask John McCain what he thinks.

42. Andre December 30th, 2008 at 2:35 pm 42

    what the hell? I just read an interview with mickey rourke last week where he said penn’s performance in milk was his favorite of the year…

    yeesh!

43. Matt Mazur December 30th, 2008 at 3:40 pm 43

    Sasha — one of the reasons I enjoy this site so much is your perceptive way of throwing your hat into the ring on hot-button issues such as this…

    Post 17 is an example of this, and it is precisely what I was feeling. If people don’t like Milk, you can’t just yell “homophobe” at them.

    I appreciate your talking about journalistic ethics, too. Very much so.

    This is of great concern to me as a writer who wants to not be perceived as merely an online personality looking for sensational topics. I, too, grew up in the 80s, and was taught during a different time — when I was trained as a journalist, it was by a tough old man who covered Watergate, and if I ever did something even a fraction questionable, I got called out on it — with the advent of the internet and blog culture surrounding the film industry, I would suspect that the number of people actually being trained or schooled as “journalists” is dwindling and that “ethics” aren’t as cut and dry as they used to be.

    I am thankful that you and this site are, while still allowing for spirited debate, keeping things FAIR.

    As an online journalist I appreciate this very much, because if one person decides to just throw ethics out the door, it will reflect badly on anyone trying to make a name or a career for themselves online. And those who are continually eschewing traditional ethics in favor of landing scoops are the ones with “reputations” — they think they are above it all.

44. shane December 30th, 2008 at 3:59 pm 44

    I’d think dissing Sean Penn would help your Oscar chances…

    The Academy did it pretty hard last year.

45. Ryan Adams December 30th, 2008 at 5:01 pm 45

    “And anyway, there weren’t enough actual gay actors out there to play Milk? Why doesn’t anyone get pissed off about that?”

    Coming back to this after having cooled down, this is a question worth trying to answer.

    Who are we considering to play Harvey Milk then?

    Rupert Everett?
    TR Knight?
    Ian McKellan?
    George Takei?

    Who am I leaving out? Lance Bass?

    Somehow to me that’s more insulting than having a brilliant, prestigious and daring straight cast.

    So no, I’m not too pissed because I’d rather have seen the movie get financed and produced instead of casting it like a gay porn flick. Jeff Stryker as Harvey Milk? yeah, no.

    But it does bring us back to my original point. Aronofsky went in search of a real live fuck-up to play the fuck-up in his movie about a fuck-up.
    
    (my turn to twist the smiley shiv.)

46. Matt Mazur December 30th, 2008 at 5:03 pm 46

    I believe Van Sant addressed this “why not a gay actor” criticism himself in print by saying, and I am paraphrasing, “who should I have gotten? Alan Cumming?”

    I thought that illustrated the point, nicely!

47. Paul Outlaw December 30th, 2008 at 5:16 pm 47

    The cast of Milk is populated with openly gay actors, one of many the great things about the film. The only one of them who I could see as Harvey is Denis O’Hare, a Tony Award winning actor who has popped in a number of Oscar-nominated movies, including Michael Clayton, Sweet and Lowdown, 21 Grams, Half Nelson and Charlie Wilson’s War. He’s also in Stephanie Daley and A Mighty Heart and plays the corrupt nuthouse director in Changeling.

48. Ryan Adams December 30th, 2008 at 5:37 pm 48

    “The cast of Milk is populated with openly gay actors”

    James Franco, right? Right? Please say “right.”

    um, Denis O’Hare as Harvey Milk might have been interesting, but we wouldn’t be talking about Milk as a Best Picture contender, and kiss that big whopping blockbuster $13 million Milk has earned goodbye too. I wanted this movie to be an EVENT, and it is.

    What? Out of 13,000,000 citizens of Mumbai, they had to go to the UK to find an Indian actor? Why aren’t people pissed off about that? No Catholic actresses could be found for Doubt!!? This is a sillier conversation than my whiny razor blade issue.

49. Osbourne Cox December 30th, 2008 at 5:45 pm 49

    I love Denis O’Hare. That is all.

50. Princess of Peace December 30th, 2008 at 5:46 pm 50

    The Daily Beast sounds like a cheap rag. And I am surprised and saddened that this site and other more serious film sites are talking about this cheap gossip. Whoever deserves the Oscar the most should get it. Right now I am rooting for Rourke.

    It seems that more and more the web is becoming a wasteland of trash!

51. Paul Outlaw December 30th, 2008 at 5:59 pm 51

    Ryan, I have five words for you: No Country for Old Men.
    

    Who’s to say what kind of film Van Sant would have made if he had cast anyone other than Penn? We’ll never know. But if the rest of the cast had remained the same (well, perhaps with Penn playing O’Hare’s role, ha ha) and no superstar in the title role, he might have taken more risks. We’ll never know. But given the political climate this fall, Milk would still be an event and might even still be a contender with an A-list ensemble as light on marquee names as NCfOM.

52. Ryan Adams December 30th, 2008 at 6:03 pm 52

    Now you’ve gone and hurt Tommy Lee Jones’ feelings.

    Anyway, the marquee names for NCfOM were the Coen brothers.

53. Paul Outlaw December 30th, 2008 at 8:03 pm 53

    Anyway, the marquee names for NCfOM were the Coen brothers.

    Whose films, before NCfOM, were as beloved by AMPAS as those of marquee name Gus Van Sant:

    Coens – 13 nominations, 2 wins.
    Van Sant – 9 nominations, 2 wins.
    

    PS. Tommy Lee will get over it. He has his Oscar.

54. michael January 1st, 2009 at 6:45 am 54

    Ryan Adams said: “Aranofsky went in search of a real live fuck-up to play the fuck-up in his movie about a fuck-up.”

    Brillaint casting, I say.
    Also if one has yet to see the movie with/about said “fuck-ups”… I’d call that pretty “fucked up”.

55. michael January 1st, 2009 at 8:04 am 55

    oops, brilliant