East Coast Musings 03.01.09: Oscars Fallout
Posted by James Craig on 03.01.2009
Coming off a perfect set of Oscar predictions, The question of, "Was Micky robbed?", will be addressed here.
In this column, I will explore various facets of the film and television worlds and offer my views on why things are they way they are and where I feel the subject of each topic in heading in the future by weighing both the pros and the cons each is facing. Nothing is safe and no one is safe as from my focus.
Hi all, and welcome back for another installment of East Coast Musings. We are a week removed from the Oscars ceremony, and while Slumdog Millionaire was the night's big winner, the talk of the night revolved around two subjects. The first being whether or not Hugh Jackman was at the very least passible as host and the second is Micky Rourke not winning the Best Actor award. Former first, Jackman was great, and delivered on the promise of the show's producers to have "fun". To cover the latter, I think that the race going into the awards was a 2 horse race between Rourke and Penn. Both men had their fair share of awards success prior to the Oscars. To me, this was really a 1 vs. 1A situation, where to many, either choice was the correct one.
One one hand you have, really great story surrounding Rourke and his comeback with The Wrestler generating buzz since even the Summer and early Autumn. Everyone loves to watch as someone builds themselves back up from near destruction in a triumphant way. Rourke was the perfect man for the role in The Wrestler and it really is hard to imagine anyone else being able to take on the material in the same way and produce the same sort of story. In many ways, this was Micky Rourke's story of redemption that he was bringing to us on screen. It seemed as if we were all engaged in watching this real life movie unfold, with ups and downs for a man not only personally but also professionally. The man's dog, the most faithful and cherished friend he had ever had, died before the awards. This is truly a story that could only happen in the movies. Wouldn't you know it, we were heading into Hollywood's biggest night, and this seemed like the perfect place for this story to close in grand fashion. There was only one problem. Sean Penn.
The story of the redemption of an anguished soul, rising like a phoenix from the ashes of both personal and professional fires, had already been told and Sean Penn came out the winner. For some the story isn't nearly as compelling the second time around. When you add to the equation that Penn's performance in Milk was powerful and profound, then you start to see where the Academy was coming from. I've talked about this in the Joaquin Phoenix article, that the best performances are when they come from the actor or actress becoming fully immersed in their role. While Rourke was in many ways playing out his own life on screen, in a very moving way, Penn's earnest portrayal of Harvey Milk reached out from the screen and made you pay attention to the film and it's message.
Sure, there are some that will point to Hollywood's left wing bias taking priority over a truly deserving Micky Rourke. Whether anyone there wants to admit it or not, Hollywood is a very politically driven place. That said it is only all too easy to point a finger at the academy and say that because if the the political leanings in Milk that Sean Penn unjustly won the award. There is even the argument being made that perhaps the Rourke's reported involvement in WWE's Wrestlemania was some how an affront to the sophisticated sensibilities of the Academy voters and they in turn changed their vote to Penn as a form of punishment. It is easy to side with the conspiracy theorists here, I will admit to that, but at the same time, Penn isn't a completely reformed bad boy. Some incidents may have been on a smaller scale but they still happened. Penn even turned up inexplicably on an episode of Viva La Ba with his son and watched as his son helped in the completely trashing of Johnny Knoxville's car. Not entirely the same thing, but you have to imagine that being on a Jackass alum's show would be the same affront to sophistication as appearing on "wrestling's grandest stage of them all."
We can all argue until we're blue in the face about why Rourke didn't win. It seems that that is all the conversations surrounding this award are about. Why Rourke didn't win and not why Penn won. As I said, both men were fully deserving of the award. The Wrestler catered to one demographic that may not be inclined to even watch Milk and he same can be said for some in the demographics the Milk catered to. What really needs to be recognized by both sides is that we were really fortunate to have a race that included such strong performances from these two men, not to mention the other 3 nominees. While Rourke may not have won, he is back on Hollywood's radar and there will be plenty of chances for him in the future if he can keep himself out of trouble. Look at this more as a wrestling angle and not a Hollywood fairy tale. The money is in the chase.
