Late Thursday night, I watched an interview between Charlie Rose and Mickey Rourke about Rourke's career and his performance in The Wrestler. Rose was intent on drawing the connection between Rourke's personal life and the main character in film, Randy the Ram. That's been commented on in numerous reviews of the film, and I wonder if people are paying enough attention to the performance, which I think is a great one. It is interesting how Rourke's life resonates with the film, but should that even be taken into consideration? Aren't great actors supposed to be able to create characters that are nothing like themselves? Is it easier to perform a role that is close to your life? Or, is it harder because it's too close to the bone?
What makes me think about this even more this year is the "competition" that the media is setting up between Rourke's performance and Sean Penn's in Milk. (Interestingly, the two actors are long time friends, and Penn has tried to help Rourke with his career during lean times). Penn is one of the great actors of our generation. I think Rourke, perhaps, is too, though his career has been much more uneven and tumultuous. Will the Academy Award Committee be looking at the performances only?
On the flip side, how often do actors get a chance to bring their lives into their roles? Should that be the reason that Rourke wins the Academy Award this year? There isn't likely to be another time when his life and his art will intersect this closely.
The interview made me think about how a reviewer should -- or maybe shouldn't -- separate the actor for the role.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is a test
Post a Comment