Milk vs. Randy the Ramm

[spacemonkey]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/The_Wrestler_poster.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/Milkposter08.jpg

Okay so Penn beat Rourke to the Oscar...fair or not fair.

Who played the better role? Who should have won according to you? Should they have split the Oscar in two?

Did Mickey Rourke just 'play himself' or is there actual validity and depth to his performance? Should it be brought down because he invested so much of himself in the character and he was using his own emotions to portray a fictional character?

Im of the mind that Rourkes performance is just as important as any other that was nominated that night. Sure theres a lot of Rourke in Randy the Ramm, sure he used his own darkness and his own life experiences and frustrations to bring the character to life. But thats what true actors do.

They dont just play a part. They live it. And I think we should be thankful and appreciate these kind of performances, because at the end of the day, its what makes a movie that much more watchable, when the actor breathes a character to life, and moves you. Makes you feel for the character, makes you understand his inner workings.

According to me, Rourkes performance shouldnt be brought down by saying comments like "he was just playing himself" cause he wasnt. What Im sure Mickey Rourke meant when he said he was playing himself was that theres a lot of his own pain in the character. And that makes it more valid then any performance. It felt that much more real.

Kudos, to Mickey, you should have won bro. Not putting Sean Penn down his acting skill has been proven time and again to be great. But to me there was no more heartfelt, realistic or touching performance this year then Mickey Rourke as Randy the Ramm.

[Bourne101]

Both excellent performances. My vote goes to Rourke though.

[chinton]

Honestly I dont really get this contreversey over Penn winning. They both gave great performances and Penn won. Its not like a terrible performance won over Rourke or something.

[XSsoCX]

I think Penns win was more of a political thing, than a best actor thing. Personally I think Penn did a great job, but I really, truly believe Rourke should have won.

[spacemonkey]

Yeah, Ive just seen some posts where some schmoes bring down Rourkes performance because he is according to some "just playing himself" as opposed to Sean Penn who had to "transform himself" into Milk.

Why is one considered more valid then the other? To me, they are both equally valid. In fact, for me, Rourkes emotional investment in the character makes it that much more valuable to me. The performance was just more alive, realistic, human.

[BlownCamaro]

Eh, no surprise there considering it is Hollywood after all. Sean Penn has been sucking the academys cock for a while now so I saw it coming although Rourke was the better actor and deserved the award.

[PSUDelVec]

I was definitely pulling for Mickey Rourke because aside from the Dark Knight, The Wrestler was my favorite movie of the year.

That being said, I can't say I'm disappointed with the selection of Sean Penn because his performance in 'Milk' was equally brilliant.

[spacemonkey]

Yeah, it was just one of those years, where its like "damn, thats a tough one..." but like Blown Camaro said, Penns being sucking that Academy cock for a while now, it was bound to pay off somehow.

Hey, at least he didnt go "full retard" this time. Thats why he didnt walk home empty handed!

[Cosimo]

del toro had em both beat. criminal that he didn't even get a nom

[BlownCamaro]

Hey, at least he didnt go "full retard" this time. Thats why he didnt walk home empty handed!



Hahaha, I actually liked his performance in I Am Sam better than I did Milk.

[zombievictim]

It was more of a political win than anything. Rourke beats him in every way.

[BlownCamaro]

On a side note though I would have loved to have seen Richard Jenkins walk away with the award. I loved The Visitor and you can really enjoy just about every role he plays. But it was just a bad year to get nominated, going against the cock sucker (sean penn, not Harvey Milk I mean) and the comeback kid was a tough battle I am sure.

[LordSimen]

Sean Penn wins for reasons I've already stated. His total transformation is simply more impressive and much more award worthy.

It would be a mistake for anyone to take that as saying Rourke's performance is meaningless, because I never felt that way. Rourke's performance was amazing. It was a fantastic movie and Rourke gave 175% on it. He nailed it out of the park. But I simply think strictly on a difficulty level, which is something that should be factored in giving someone an award, Penn's performance took much more time and work and he nailed the role of Milk as well.

[JJFlamingo]

How do you not know that Penn didn't put a lot of "himself" into the role of Milk??

I'm just saying, cause you know he's liberal and all...;)

[BlownCamaro]

How do you not know that Penn didn't put a lot of "himself" into the role of Milk??

I'm just saying, cause you know he's liberal and all...;)


Sean Penn going gay gives gays a bad name.

[LordSimen]

I couldn't care less about politics or political leanings, politics alone do not dictate the way a person walks, talks and acts.

Penn became a completely different person than we've ever seen Penn be and that person happens to resemble the original Harvey Milk nearly 100%... Meaning he transformed himself into someone else.

[Bourne101]

Penn's performance took much more time and work

HOW THE HELL can you know that for a fact? Rourke went through extensive and difficult wrestling training and had to gain quite a bit of weight, not to mention that a lot of the gritty wrestling stuff, Aronofsky forced Rourke to actually do rather than use special effects. He put his heart and soul into the performance. Just because he didn't change his voice doesn't mean that he didn't put as much time into his role as Penn did. In fact, I would be surprised if Penn put as much time into it as Rourke.

On a side note, he also was not offered a cent for the role and I assume wasn't paid until it was discovered how brilliant the role was. So he essentially put himself through months and months of hell and extremely hard work, all while he wasn't going to be paid.

[Reigh Kaufman]

How do you give something 175%?

How can you "nail it out the park"?

LordSimen, are you posting this from Elton John's bash?:)

Long story short: I liked Rourke's performance but I don't like Rourke. I like Sean Penn - I'm glad he won. Did he deserve it?

Hmmm. I've seen Milk twice now and it is a much more chameleon-like performance...so, yeah, probably.

I still liked The Wrestler, but Rourke's performance didn't have me talking about it in the car on the way home tonight. Penn's did, and I watched Milk again on Saturday night - so a couple of days have passed and I'm still thinking about it.

I reckon that's as good a sign as any that the performance was a worthy winner.

[LordSimen]

HOW THE HELL can you know that for fact?

Playing any role takes work. Most definitely. Regardless of whether you play it as yourself or not- it definitely takes work. But playing a role as a completely different person? That always takes more work than playing a role as yourself.

[Cop No. 633]

Come on guys, LordSimen knows. The guy's a director after all. He knows a good performance and exactly what an actor puts into it.

Anyway, I think Penn got it and deserved it. I really enjoyed Rourke's performance, but I thought Penn did his best acting in Milk. I tend to think he can overplay his emotions, but he was restrained in his role, despite being flamboyant, but it was completely in character, so it fit very well.

I wouldn't have minded if Rourke had won, but hey, the guy walked away with a Golden Globe and a Spirit Award. That's pretty good if you ask me.

I think it's silly movies even have to compete, but this has been going on for years so what are you gonna do.

[Smiert Spionam]

Come on guys, LordSimen knows. The guy's a director after all. He knows a good performance and exactly what an actor puts into it.

I love inside jokes.

Anyway, I didn't see Milk, but if you were to put Harvey Milk and Randy the Ram in the ring together like the title of this thread might suggest, it'd be a massacre. :D

[screamer581]

Eh, no surprise there considering it is Hollywood after all. Sean Penn has been sucking the academys cock for a while now so I saw it coming although Rourke was the better actor and deserved the award.



The only cock sucking going on here is Micky Rourke's, from 90% of the people that post in these forums.

[DaMovieMan]

Both were great and deserving of the Oscar but only one can get it and Mickey Rourke deserved it more simply because he'll hardly have another chance and it would have completed his comeback. Penn already has an Oscar to his name, has been nominated many times before and will certainly be nominated again. (This kind of line of thinking is what got Kate Winslet the Oscar this year so it can't be dismissed since it's clearly how AMPAS operates at times)

If anyone doesn't think the Prop 8 and gay-rights politics had nothing to do with Penn winning the Oscar and it just came down to the fact that his performance was more "deserving" you are deluding yourself. The man pretty much summed up in his speech why he won ("I got this just in case you were commie-homo-loving-sun-of-a-guns" ... "I didn't expect this" and cementing the fact that he expected Rourke to win by addressing him directly at the end in the nicest way) It cannot be any more clearer that it was a political win moreso than a deserving win between two such performances.

If LordSimen or anyone else who talk as if Mickey Rourke and Sean Penn are their best friends can't understand that both actors played a character and invested their talent and their own personal emotions into their roles as far the role demanded and did an equally excellent job in their respective films then that is their short-sightedness. To dismiss Rourke not being a professional wrestler as a "small detail" as far as transforming for the lead in a film called The Wrestler makes everything else he says not hold much water.

Bottom-line: to say Penn won because he was more deserving is to be blind to what is crystal clear. But at least this isn't like Russel Crowe losing to Denzel Washington when the latter got it for his mediocre performance in Training Day and the former completely blew his respective competition and left empty handed.

[Pentangeli]

Brad Pitt got nominated over Leonardo DiCaprio! I find that the most puzzling thing about the lead actor category. DiCaprio's performance in Revolutionary Road was, in my mind, the best lead actor performance (excluding foreign language performances) of the year.

Between Rourke and Penn, I vote Rourke. Rourke v Langella would be a tougher call.

[BlownCamaro]

The only cock sucking going on here is Micky Rourke's, from 90% of the people that post in these forums.



http://oihayaku.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/lex-luthor-wrong.jpg

[Sad man]

Mickey probably deserved it more, but I liked Penn's performance better.

[gayzilla]

...If anyone doesn't think the Prop 8 and gay-rights politics had nothing to do with Penn winning the Oscar and it just came down to the fact that his performance was more "deserving" you are deluding yourself...It cannot be any more clearer that it was a political win moreso than a deserving win between two such performances.



Seriously dude, if they gave out awards for politics Milk would have won Best Picture and so would Brokeback mountain for that matter. If you think Penn only won because he played a gay character, then you are the one deluding yourself.


and I'm not sure if you meant to contradict yourself, but you present the argument that Rourke should have won for a reason that has nothing to do with his acting. (though I do agree with you on this point as I recognize Oscars as more of a career award than for a specific portrayal of a particular role, and I'm fine with that. As evidenced by both Penelope Cruz and Kate Winslet this year)

Both were great and deserving of the Oscar but only one can get it and Mickey Rourke deserved it more simply because he'll hardly have another chance and it would have completed his comeback.

[outsyder]

Seriously dude, if they gave out awards for politics Milk would have won Best Picture and so would Brokeback mountain for that matter. If you think Penn only won because he played a gay character, then you are the one deluding yourself.

Crash won that year.

[DaMovieMan]

Yeah but not even gay rights politics could of stopped the Slumdog train. It's enough that Sean Penn wins for them to get their political message across, they knew what kind of speech he was going to give and he made the whole film anyway.

If you re-read my post carefully you'll notice i said both actors deserve the Oscar. Meaning they both give Oscar-worthy performances but since only one of them can walk away with it you have to start looking at it through Oscar's twisted angle and say Rourke deserved it more than Penn on the basis of his awards history and possible future of no nomination again. What tipped the scale toward Penn for the Oscar was politics plain and simple and he made it clear in his speech.

[tbone]

When I first saw Milk Penn's I thought very much of Penn's performance, but it just hasnt stuck with me. The more I think about the movie the more I think about Sean Penn was just playing Harvey Milk, Penn himself was still there. Rourke became Randy the Ramm, he actually created the character. I don't care if Rourke drew from his own experiences, in many ways I thought that made his performance greater. He was forced to recognize his own demons and admit his shortcomings to create a wholly three dimensional character that you sympathize for.

[gayzilla]

Crash won that year.

The only reason Crash won was because half the voting academy was in the damn movie.

[Rawlin67]

i hate when people take preparation for a role into the actual performance itself. I was talking to a guy who said Rourke deserved it more because of the training he had to undergo for the movie, and even if he had had to have worked longer than Penn, that doesn't mean shit. It is about the performance itself, it is about the 2 hours we watch them on the screen, not the hours and days and months before then. yes, its awesome to hear when an actor goes above and beyond the call for a role (Bale in The Machinist comes to mind) but that doesn't automatically make his performance amazing, or better than anyone elses.

still, on that note, I would say i was pulling for Rourke.

even though the Academy somehow missed out on DiCaprios best performance of his career. The guy can get nominated for his performance in Blood Diamond but the genius of Revolutionary Road is missed out on? Fail Academy.

[jaw2929]

Penn more than deserved his award. Rourke should've never even been nominated. I thought about writing a fucking rant in the Rant's forum about he and Tomei being nominated.

Rourke at least put in a solid effort. But Tomei? Fucking please. She prances around nude in all her flicks, and now all of sudden it's fucking Oscar worthy? Fuck off. Tomei's nomination is one of the biggest jokes I've ever seen.

[outsyder]

The only reason Crash won was because half the voting academy was in the damn movie.

I'm just saying although Brokeback didn't win, a very socially minded film did.

[screamer581]

Penn more than deserved his award. Rourke should've never even been nominated. I thought about writing a fucking rant in the Rant's forum about he and Tomei being nominated.

Rourke at least put in a solid effort. But Tomei? Fucking please. She prances around nude in all her flicks, and now all of sudden it's fucking Oscar worthy? Fuck off. Tomei's nomination is one of the biggest jokes I've ever seen.


The best supporting actress field this year was pretty slim picking, so I didn't have a problem with Tomei being nominated. She wasn't amazing (besides her bod...damn) but she was pretty decent.


Like I have said in lot's of other threads, Micky was great, but I just thought Penn gave the better performance, and was very glad he won.

[jdparker]

The best actress field this year was pretty slim picking, so I didn't have a problem with Tomei being nominated. She wasn't amazing (besides her bod...dayumn) but she was pretty decent.

Personally, I thought the best supporting actress category was the tightest one of the year. All five nominees were worthy of the oscar, it was the most difficult one for me to predict. Tomei definitely deserved to be there. I dunno if people were distracted by her tits (understandable) but she definitely gave a top-tier performance.

In regards to the topic, I was cheering for Rourke and thought he gave the better performance. Penn was fabulous and Oscar worthy. You may say I'm disappointed by the result but in no way angry.

[bigred760]

I thought Mickey Rourke delivered a better performance and carried his movie better than Penn. Sean Penn was really good as Harvey Milk and deserved the Oscar. I just think Rourke deserved it more.

[screamer581]

http://oihayaku.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/lex-luthor-wrong.jpg

http://blog.internetnews.com/apatrizio/orly_owl.jpg

[Frosty_86]

Like someone said earlier, I think Sean's win was more of political thing more than anything with California's Propisiton 8 thing. I didnt see Milk but I may eventually, I did see the Wrestler and while I liked it I didnt see anything that really impressed me about it. I thought Rourke was good in it but nowhere near oscar caliber

[Major Mojo]

Mickey Rourke got shafted!

I'm devastated he didn't win, not only because his performance was so unbelievably touching, but because his acceptance speech would have been AWESOME!

[spacemonkey]

But I simply think strictly on a difficulty level, which is something that should be factored in giving someone an award, Penn's performance took much more time and work and he nailed the role of Milk as well.

I know what you mean Simen, I just dont think its fair to say Penns performance was more challenging or difficult to pull off because Rourke had to do just as much transforming as Penn did.

Check it out: Rourke is not a professional wrestler (or a wrestler at all for that matter) and he did many of the wrestling special moves himself. I was amazed to see it was actually Mickey Rourke pulling off all those wrestling stunts himself, specially considering he aint a 20 year old kid anymore.

He had to re-educate himself as far as being in the ring is concerned. In boxing, you have to hide your moves, not let your opponent know where you are coming from, in wrestling its the other way around, you see whatevers coming from 5 miles away. It was a whole new ball game for Rourke, yet he went in there and did it himself.

And on top of that, he had to relive and remember all that pain and suffering from his past, bring it to the performance, which is a taxing thing when you think about it, digging up old wounds, painful memories, doing that aint as easy as you might think.

[spacemonkey]

Aronofsky forced Rourke to actually do rather than use special effects. He put his heart and soul into the performance.

Actually, he wasnt forced by Aronofsky Bourne, Rourke wanted to do those stunts himself, while Aranofsky stood by the side ropes behind the camara, terrafied.

[spacemonkey]

I did see the Wrestler and while I liked it I didnt see anything that really impressed me about it. I thought Rourke was good in it but nowhere near oscar caliber

I just dont get it when people say they werent impressed by what was obviously one of the best peformances of the whole year, and a very emotional and moving film. Movie is over and people immediately mention that its an Oscar caliber performance.

When you see The Wrestler, most people take the character with them, and actually, I saw this more then once myself (saw the movie twice already) people leave the theater hitting their arms the same way Randy the Ramm did. Movie is over, but Randy goes with them.

But anyhows, Ill just chalk it up to this being a very tough year, there were some really good performances.

[BoBoi]

It's a tough call because both performances were stellar, but there could only be one winner at the Oscar. I must say though that I like Penn's performance slightly more, and I mean at the slightest of slightest.

But I can't say that it would be a shame if Penn didn't win, since he already had his Oscar, but apparently that's not how things always work out. I mean at the end of the day, we live in a world where Peter O'Toole is Oscarless, and that in itself says a whole lot of things.

It's sad. But sometimes, no guts, no glory. A lot of actors/actresses didn't win first time around, or even for their most deserved role, but came back and win for their lesser deserved role, a.k.a. the "due" factor (Denzel for example). I hope Mickey can come back and win one day, even that day may never come...

[The Postmaster General]

Seeing Milk, I was really impressed with Penn. It was the first movie where I didn't make Spicolli references as a backhanded criticism of Penn. He was really lost in the character. As films, I think I liked The Wrestler more. Milk felt kind of cable-TVMish to me. Rourke was awesome and the character was great, but to me good acting is evident by me forgetting the actor in a role and Penn did that with Milk.

I don't think his win was to get a message out. I think he was picked the same reason people are always picked, and to the people that don't want those people to win, their reason changes every year depending on who won.

Personally, after seeing In Bruges, I thought Farrell could have used a nom.

[Annie Hall]

I think Milk was probably a better movie overall...I found it very compelling, and it's a fascinating story that could very well have been screwed up.

However, Rourke--god among men--deserves all kinds of accolades. So many, it actually hurts.

In the end, my ideal world would have Rourke winning and Milk winning...but...what world is that.

[Reigh Kaufman]

I think Milk was probably a better movie overall...I found it very compelling, and it's a fascinating story that could very well have been screwed up.

However, Rourke--god among men--deserves all kinds of accolades. So many, it actually hurts.

In the end, my ideal world would have Rourke winning and Milk winning...but...what world is that.

I don't know what you just said...but welcome back! :D

[BadCoverVersion]

It's a tough call but Randy edges it for me...just by this much.

Critiquing somebody for 'playing themselves' is just nonsense. If somebody invests attributes of their own make-up into a character then they should be applauded for opening themselves up in such a way and striving for a truthful and utterly personal performance.

Sean Penn did an excellent job, but in the same way that Rourke is being called out for 'not acting'...I would say that there were a couple of fleeting moments in which I saw Penn playing the part of Harvey Milk, rather than just being Harvey Milk.

Don't get me wrong, I think both were excellent...and I have no problem with the fact that Penn bagged the bald guy.