http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/06/DDQO15G3T3.DTL&type=movies
I read the article this weekend, and had seen "Milk", but since I just saw "The Wrestler" tonight I didn't want to fully judge it, but now I can. First of all, "The Wrestler" was incredible. SO emotionally wrenching, SO draining to follow this guys story, and SO relatable even though I am clearly not a middle aged messed up pro-wrestler. I know very little about Mickey Rourke, the only other thing I've seen him in is "Sin City", and the rest I found out from wikipedia this afternoon, but he is friggin' incredible. He fits exactly what Mick LaSalle was talking about.
The article really was talking about roles where an actor completely disappears into a role so they are unrecognizable (Chameleonic), and roles where an actor seems to be playing out some major part of themselves onscreen (apotheotic). Sean Penn does not act like Harvey Milk normally, or in any other film he's done, so when he did it well, it was crazy and awesome. Mickey Rourke, though an equally fine actor, really has lived the life of 'The Ram' wrestler, and you can see it. LaSalle argues that it is usually chameleonic roles that win the Oscar (Day-Lewis in "There Will Be Blood" last year, Nicole Kidman in "The Hours", Charlize Theron (uck) in "Monster"), and goes on to list a lot of evidence in his favor
Will it be true again this year? It seems hard for me to believe that the Academy is not going to reward Rourke for this awesome film, it really seemed to be his swan song. But, on the other hand, I kind of believe LaSalle. Otherwise, how could Nicole Kidman have won for just putting on a fake nose? I liked both the films, I can't decide which i would want to win, but my bets are going to go against this article and go for Rourke.
That's interesting. I think I tend to agree with LaSalle's observation. But what the hell? I thought you didn't want to see "The Wrestler." I distinctly remember you being very against this movie.
ReplyDelete