Mickey Rourke Wins a Golden Globe for His Performance in The Wrestler; He Could Have Been Better

Most people who watched Mickey Rourke literally stumble onto the stage last night to accept a Golden Globe for his acting turn in The Wrestler were genuinely inspired by the once down-and-out actor's amazing comeback. How could anyone not get a bit misty-eyed when Rourke talked about his dogs, and how they were pretty much his only friends when everyone else in Hollywood abandoned him? (His second favorite film of the year must have been Wendy and Lucy.)

Hey, I get it. I thought Mickey Rourke was great in Diner and Barfly, but what about The Wrestler? What's gotten lost in the media hype surrounding Rourke's "comeback" is the actual film and the performance itself.

The film tells the story of has-been wrestler Randy "the Ram" Robinson, and it is, by all means, a good film. A good film. The director, Darren Aronofsky, is Ivy League educated and has clawed his way up to almost-Hollywood-elite status by helming such films as Pi (dreadful), Requiem for a Dream (overreaching, lugubrious, and ultimately flaccid). Clearly Aronofsky's zenith is The Wrestler, and without a doubt it's his best film yet.

But after watching The Wrestler, I kept asking myself: What kind of performance would Mickey Rourke have turned in had the film been directed by someone else, say, Martin Scorsese or Mike Leigh? True, asking such a question is a mug's game, but nonetheless I have an answer: Rourke's performance quite possibly would have been truly great, masterful. Instead, Rourke gives a pretty good performance.

Scene after scene it's glaringly obvious that Aronofsky's directing style seems incredibly passive. Sure, I wasn't on the set, and yes, I have no idea how he works day to day. But I can just imagine Aronofsky never really pushed Rourke, something all great directors do. Remember Sharon Stone in Casino—bad actress, excellent performance; same can be said about Shelley Duval in The Shining, two examples of great directors, Scorsese and Stanley Kubrick, pushing their actors to deliver great performances.

Several scenes in The Wrestler look as if Aronofsky just needed Emotion X and Rourke was instructed to deliver. Cut. Print. Let's wrap for the day.

Sure, it's not fair to compare Aronofsky to legendary directors, but great screen performances don't just happen; they aren't preordained or predetermined. They're nursed, coddled, and hatched with the help of the director who should demand more than just simple emotion. In the case of Aronofsky's latest, a pretty adequate director got a pretty good performance from an actor who has proved he's capable of doing better.

But I can't stop thinking about the dogs...that is pretty touching.

Comments

[yoli647]

Went to see the movie yesterday, and it was excellent. Been telling my family and friends to go see it.

[gouge]

Well Dave, to each his own -I have spoken to two friends about this performance, one an actor who has been in 15-20 serious films -mostly very well known films, and to a Pulitzer prize winning/New York Drama Critics Circle winning playwrite/­screenwrit­er -they both felt it was one of the finest performances every caught on film -I think I'm going with their take rather than yours-

[David Bourgeois - Huffpost Blogger]

Hey Gouge: Sounds like you haven't seen the film. But yeah, listen to your friends. They'd never steer you wrong. I mean, really, who are better able to definitively state a masterful acting performance than a...uh...p­rize-winni­ng screenwriter and an actor. You got me there. My opinion, as an 18-year veteran journalist and writer, is but detritus. Thank you for helping me see the errors of my way!

[DCvote]

This article is very bizarre in it's criticism of Arnofsky. Most people regard Requiem For A Dream to be a modern classic (#66 of IMDB's top 250 films). While I haven't scene the wrestler yet, the two Arnofsky movies i've seen (requiem for a dream and the fountain) were both fantastic.

[hummingbirdpneumonia]

is this article an attempt at satire?

danielwf's post and the subsequent reply was embarassing and alerted me that this article was indeed meant to be taken seriously.

[derekw007]

I really think that us wondering how something happened that we had 1) no part in or b) have no reason to care one way or another is/are really proof that some people need to get lives and find something better to do.

I could spend all day wondering if "Bachelor Party" would have been better if it had been directed by Guillermo del Toro and had Paul Giamatti in a supporting role rather than Adrian Zmed - but then I remember I have a job and a family to feed and other stuff like that so I don't think about it.

I find it ironic that this article was penned by someone named "bourgeois" - I would have thought the name "David Hoity Toity Foo Foo Idle Richy Pants" would have been more suitable for the content discussed.

Now, I'll go back to worrying about starving people and other non-Hollywood stuff.

[David Bourgeois - Huffpost Blogger]

Hey. Thanks for making fun of my name. That was really funny AND insightful. Maybe you want to make fun of my background as well? Obviously you're so concerned about "starving people," that you spend your time reading the ENTERTAINMENT section of the Huffington Post.

[derekw007]

Everyone needs a break from starving people - they are sooooo needy. But incredibly thin....

[DanielWF]

I was on the set of The Wrestler, every day, as a member of the crew.

You are most certainly entitled to think that The Wrestler is not the greatest thing since sliced bread. Love it, hate it, it's your column.

But your speculation that Darren Aranofsky seems to have been a "passive" director could not have been more off-base. Darren pushed Mickey every single day, to areas of vulnerability, emotional access, places not easily reached. Just listen to any one of the million interviews Mickey has given since The Wrestler won the Golden Lion and his main talking point is what a tough bastard Darren can be. And he can be. He can also be charming, sensitive, rude, funny, right about some things, wrong about others, as all good directors are.

I think by citing Scorcese and Sharon Stone you are also confusing "great acting" with histrionics. "Great acting" is not always crying and screaming. It is often found in the quiet moments of listening and tentatively revealing. It is many things, not just one.

It is physically inhabiting a role. That is what Mickey did on The Wrestler, and in my 25 plus years of working on film sets, I have never witnessed such an immersion of actor and character as I did in those days last January.

[strangerinthenight]

'deep, very deep.

Tell me, why is it that in Mickey's ugliness and rough looking style, his horrible life story, somehow there is a diamond in the rough ?

And, where can I find those interviews ? Never mind, I'll check Youtube.

[DanielWF]

imdb.com.

[livesbythec]

Three cheers for the underDOG! What a great "shout out" to our faithful canine companions. Mickey gave an amazing heart-felt acceptance speech, and I'm happy to see that he seems to be in a good place right now. I wish him continued success in Hollywood and hope he finds another script worthy of his unique and gritty talent. I wish him well and look forward to seeing "The Wrestler."

[Bloodwart]

How does Aronofsky get a pass for giving the finger on live major network television? Was this a digital malfunction?

[superlive]

Arrgh!

Aronofsky was blacked out in the PT showing and Rourke was muted for that matter.
I don't think Aronofsky should be faulted for a directorial misjudgment by NBC.

[Citizen54]

Not that it matters, but I thought "Pi" was fantastic. Calling it "dreadful" makes me question everything else you say. I have a feeling I will find "The Wrestler" to be much better than "pretty good."

Besides, it has Marisa Tomei in it.

[OttoMann]

"Calling it "dreadful" makes me question everything else you say."

My thoughts exactly! Pi was made on an extremely small budget, yet it was obvious that the filmmaker had skills.

As for directing performances, the actors in Requiem For A Dream were great. I haven't seen The Wrestler, but based on Requiem, the guy clearly knows how to get good performances. It's not like he's George Lucas....

[LoRiseAntlers]

TRhank goodness he's not George Lucas!

"The Wrestler" is much more than a "good movie".It is an incredible piece of storytelling.
It just sounds like you have it out for Aronofsky."Pi" was a very good movie.

You always come off as the stereotypical critic,you know,unable to do,you criticize.

[strangerinthenight]

Until Penn and and this guy were both nominated for best actor, I never heard of him. Actually, I have seen some of his films. Minor roles below the supporting role level, but he actually can deliver. Despite minor role, he gives a commanding performance. But I never to find out who he is, much less, wait to read the credits. This guy to me is one of those un-name actors who gets minor roles, but roles worth remembering..

I googled him, only because of all unknown actors (at least to me), he would vie against my very favorite, Sean Penn. To my astonishment, at one point, he was a ladies man and with a very promising career and he has been acting before I was born. This guy's story is tragic. Geez, his face shows it all. He is a dog lover. Interesting. He couldn't be that good - to vie for Best Actor against Penn. NO WAY.

Then I read his IMDB, . . . . . . . OMG, he was once upon a time a lead actor. Do you believe that ? Actually, I have Barfly and Once Upon A Time In Mexico.

That ugly, looser looking guy, who is down on his luck, and whose only friend is a DOG, is nominated fro Best Actor. I finally read the credits - His name is Rourke, Mickey Rourke. Worthy Nomination.

YES WAY !

I said nomination. 'am still for Penn.

[montecarlo408]

Actually, Rourke was kinda sexy before the drugs and the boxing, which in combination basically caved his face in.

[HeevenSteven]

He could have been a contenda; eh.

[Jon Chattman - Huffpost Blogger]

I always wonder how a film would have, could have been under a different director. In this case, i think Aronofsky did a fine, gritty job. I more wonder about something like "Bonfire of the Vanities" being directed by someone like Stephen Frears or a Star Wars prequel directed by a guy like Fincher.

[superlive]

Are you serious? Fincher co-ruined the ALIEN franchise. He's not a corporate merchandising sort of director. Leave him the visually quirky idea-driven projects.

[areaman03]

No way. Alien 3, while not as good as the first two films, managed to strike a nice middle ground between the atmospheric tension of the first, and the action/adventure of the second. Under the conditions that Fincher had to deal with (a script in tatters, fights with the studio, the fact that it was his first film, etc) he managed to pull together a movie with a very distinct atmosphere, yet with the same feel of the universe depicted in the prior installments. Alien3 was bad-mouthed largely because a huge contingent of the fan-boy audience wanted something like Aliens (the 2nd film) on steroids. What they got was a gritty and nightmarish film that conceded nothing to fan-boy expectations, and instead took a leap into the abyss without looking back. It's not the film it could have been, but over time, it's come into its own.

For a bad Alien film, check out the dismal "Resurrect­ion"--THIS is how you ruin the Alien franchise--CGI, cheap humor, Winona Ryder, disgusting effects and a betrayal of the fact that Ellen Ripley WAS A PERSON--whose courage was borne out of her humanity and compassion--NOT some superhuman, tough talker.

Seriously, pick-up a copy of the "Assembly Cut" of Alien 3--it reinstates almost 40 minutes of extra scenes and sub-plots that were cut out and truly rounds out the experience.