David Sorry I botched the quote. I guess it was Craig who nailed it. I didn't know anyone else but you could write so insightfully! As to the whole perspective thing, I wonder if the world will ever grow up enough to quit dividing everyone in groups. I don't get any of it. There are people who I like and admire, and ones I dislike and despise, but it is based on individual traits, not what group they are a member of. I wonder why I lack this sort of bias? Maybe I will acquire it when I finally "grow up".
When I finally get to see Milk and The Wrestler I will be able to weigh in on these movies. It is so rare anymore that I see a newly made movie and think, Wow, that was REALLY great. Bruce On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:39 PM, David Kusumoto <[email protected]>wrote: > ** I think everyone has acquitted themselves well in this debate. Though > my feelings about Rourke and "The Wrestler" -- vs. Penn and "Milk" -- aren't > changed -- I respect the opinons of those who remain solidly behind "Milk" > -- even though I myself wished the story had been constructed better on > film. Penn's performance does transcend the material, and while I didn't > think "Milk" was a great film, it did deserve its Best Picture nomination. > > ** This next part is tricky and expressed very delicately, so please > forgive me if this comes out a little awkward. As a person of color -- I > feel some of us have difficulty stepping back a little so we can judge > material about ourselves more critically. This is true about any group, be > they Asians, African-Americans, gays, etc., anyone judging filmed > entertainments depicting characters similar or unlike ourselves. Some of us > (myself included) -- can be so biased -- that we're not able to distinguish > what's truly great -- vs. what's just "OK." We're too close to the > material. So we sometimes "vote the ticket" regardless of quality, so long > as the portrayal of ourselves is positive. Hence we have people who still > think "Brokeback Mountain," "The Joy Luck Club," "Amistad," "Dances with > Wolves," etc. -- have the equivalence of "Citizen Kane." The equal rights > and diversity agendas are extremely important -- but when it comes to art -- > it should never trump quality, however subjective. Voting for what's noble > in art -- can sometimes result in material that becomes dated or puzzling > over time, e.g., "Gandhi" over "E.T." -- "Crash" over "Capote," -- "Dances > with Wolves" over "Goodfellas" -- "Lost Weekend," "Forrest Gump," > Gentleman's Agreement," "Rainman," etc., the list goes on. > > ** I bring this up because I feel "Milk" and films like it -- were being > praised by people -- (not all) -- using a similar prism. I thoroughly > enjoyed "Milk" without an agenda -- despite my complaints about its > structure. But my feelings for "The Wrestler" forced me to confront my own > biases against Penn AND Rourke -- before finally deciding Rourke's was the > better performance. *But my opinions are not facts -- and reading the > passions people have expressed about Penn -- further reveals why some > justifiably feel Rourke did no more than play himself.* Even if I don't > agree, it's a valid point. I just don't want people to think that by > selecting Rourke over Penn, that I'm treating Penn and his film harshly. > The mere fact that some of "Milk's" fans graciously concede that Penn was > great -- while his film was not so great -- is beyond fair. > > ** This allows me to segue into MoPo itself. I have tried the other forums > and MoPo has always been the best for me, dating back to the 1990s. My only > complaint is I wish old people like myself would stop hogging things so that > more younger people can take part. I feel too many of us are dismissive of > young people's tastes, as if we ourselves weren't derided for our own when > we were in our teens and twenties. But as young people age, the smarter > ones discover older material on their own. Proof? We discovered Bogart, > Chaplin, William Powell, Rita Hayworth, etc. -- and I think I'm safe when I > say most of us weren't even alive when those legends were at the peak of > their careers! So congratulations, MoPo! And congratulations to all of its > members! -kuz w/the news. > > -----Original Message----- > Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:49:51 +0000 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OSCARS > To: [email protected] > > What is interesting about it is when someone really gives you a clear > vision of why they have that opinion. For me, not only do I learn alot > about that person, but I am often enlightend to something I didn't even see. > I, too, thought Sean Penn was great in Milk. I loved the film and it had a > huge impact on me as I left the theater. I thought Penn's acceptance speach > was wonderful and give him alot of credit for voicing an opinion that is > not exactly a popular one. There are many, that while they may share the > same opinion, would not voice it in a public forum such as the awards > are thinking it might hurt their careers. Personally, I thought Sean Penn > was even better in "I am Sam" and was overlooked for the award that time. I > guess it was his time and this was the film that was going to do it. This is > a film that will be just a great on your t.v. > > Sue > > -----Original Message----- > Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:33:07 -0800 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MOPO] OSCARS > To: [email protected] > > this is the great thing about expressing one's opinions.... how 2 people > can watch a film, look at art, etc. and one can say the piece, image or film > is great..and another can say it is so-so... > > jeff > > -----Original Message----- > On Feb 24, 2009, at 1:24 PM, Franc wrote: > > > > Bruce, I'd recommend you drive the two hours to see MILK which was a > terrific film, whereas The Wrestler was so-so. Mickey Rourke gave a very > good performance but I kept thinking he was actually playing himself whereas > Sean Penn was really stretching to play Harvey Milk. He was superb and > although the film is not a great film, it's certainly far superior to The > Wrestler. FRANC > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* MoPo List > [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]> > ] *On Behalf Of *David Kusumoto > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:43 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] OSCARS > > Hi Bruce -- Because of the multiple forwarding of text -- you accidentally > credited me for writing the first paragraph in your note. Craig Miller > wrote it -- he felt Penn was better than Rourke -- and that "Milk" as a film > was better than "The Wrestler." He defended both views admirably, and > "nailed" why Penn was better, but I disagreed on both counts; Penn did a > fine job in what to me felt like a TV-movie-structured bio-pic. > > I myself would not drive two hours to see "Milk" again. But I would do it > to see "The Wrestler" -- because of the originality of its presentation and > the sheer force of Rourke's performance. > > > -----Original Message----- > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:50 AM, David Kusumoto < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Craig: > > No argument here as to "Milk" being Sean Penn's best performance ever. I > just felt Rourke's performance -- put side-by-side among those nominated -- > was phenomenal. And I admit going in, I didn't want it to be so because of > my antipathy towards Rourke. I think the appeal of "Milk" vs. "The > Wrestler" (and Penn vs. Rourke) -- depends upon the expectations and biases > you bring after you put your money down. For the sake of time, I'll just > copy and paste portions of what I wrote earlier today -- in response to a > few people who commented privately about my take/analysis of the dynamics > behind Penn's win, his victory at the SAG awards last month -- and the > hatred many people have out here against Rourke because of his documented > run-ins, lack of professionalism, right-wing comments and his, for wont of a > better phrase, overall weirdness. > > <<<<"Hollywood has always been uncomfortable with conservatives like > Heston, Stewart, Wayne, Cagney, Hope, Eastwood, Nicholson and Rourke. But > in the case of Hope, Eastwood and Nicholson, Hollywood prefers its > conservatives to refrain from being outspoken like Heston, Wayne and Rourke > (but I'm in no way putting Rourke in the same iconic league as Heston and > Wayne). It's just a double-standard about Hollywood itself in the > post-Vietnam era. ....I hope you are happy for Sean Penn's win because of > his performance -- without regard to issues regarding the nobility and > heroic nature of Harvey Milk himself. Because for the longest time, I felt > Penn OWNED the best performance of 2008 -- slam dunk -- UNTIL I saw "The > Wrestler." It was then I had to face down my own prejudices against Rourke > -- and decide as honestly as I could -- who turned in the better > performance. Penn was great, but Rourke's was something you see about as > often, as I said, as a DeNiro in Raging Bull or a Hopkins in Lambs. I'm not > kidding, I went in with low expectations, almost rooting against the picture > because of all I had seen before. But the acting and the film were > amazing. Not what I expected. I felt "The Wrestler" should have been > nominated for Best Picture. It had an austere, hand-held, grainy > authenticity many would appreciate. I so did NOT want to see the picture, > but I came out feeling it was time well worth spent.">>>>> > > <<<<"Now as to the merits of "Milk" vs. any other film nominated in the > Best Picture category. My view is "Milk" was structured conventionally like > any standard bio-pic. But Penn's performance transcends the linear > construct. Without him, "Milk" sinks like a dead weight TV-movie. Had > "Milk" been presented more innovatively -- Harvey Milk's journey and > accomplishments -- would've felt more profound and emotional with audiences > of all stripes, gay AND straight. I am always hoping a film like this does > more than preach to a choir of believers who know how the story ends. > "Milk" is based on titanic material -- but lacks the necessary balance of > subtlety, sledgehammer and innovation -- that should have left all other > pictures in the dust. This is why perhaps in my view only, "Milk" does not > feel "best" or even "new." It's supposed to play out like a high-stakes > emotional drama, not a paint-by-numbers canonization. The national scope of > the story with Anita Bryant and other "villains" are treated like a > documentary. The movie's engine is Penn's charisma, not the script, and > this doesn't quite feel right. And I've purposely left out the fact -- > (because most people haven't seen it) -- that this same material was covered > in a superior documentary, "The Life and Times of Harvey Milk" in 1984.>>>>> > > I'm back again. It's ironic that "Milk" is even being debated against "The > Wrestler" -- when the more relevant discussion as it relates to the Oscars > -- is how "Slumdog" overcame its flaws and beat everybody up. My wife and I > liked "Slumdog," but it didn't move us in the same way the meditative and > reflective "Benjamin Button" did, however over produced it was. Its > existential ideas about the transient nature of life, love and mortality > matter to anyone over 50. Maybe that's why it's a box office failure. > Could its weighty ideas been explored as effectively for less money? > Maybe. But what a handsome picture it is. > > -d. > -----Original Message----- > Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:53:11 -0800 > To: [email protected] > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MOPO] MOPO] OSCARS > CC: [email protected] > > This was, by far, Sean Penn's best performance. He's a heavily mannered > actor whose performances are always full of the things actors love: > screaming, crying, dying, being mentally handicapped. You can always see > "acting". But in "Milk", he gave a subtle, nuanced performance that wasn't > full of ticks. He relaxed into the character and stopped being "Sean Penn, > A*c*t*o*r". I thought he deserved the award (although I also thought > that Mickey Rourke was excellent). > > While not related to who should win for their performance, I thought "Milk" > a better film than "The Wrestler". Rourke and Marisa Tomei were both great > but the film was only "okay". > > Craig. > > At 12:18 PM 2/23/2009, David Kusumoto wrote: > I was extremely disappointed with Sean Penn's win. Sean Penn is an > outstanding actor who gave an uncharacteristically loose, engaging and > wonderful turn as an heroic figure -- in what I thought was a > conventionally structured, by-the-numbers-bio-pic capped with the > standard "where-are-they-now" text epilogue. His performance was > noble and deserving -- but his victory was politically correct and in > keeping with the Academy's self-seriousness to anoint things historic that > makes it feel good about itself (hence the standing ovation). > > But in my view, the demands of his role paled compared to Mickey > Rourke's shattering, full-range performance in "The Wrestler." I am not a > fan of Mickey Rourke and dislike him intensely. But I could not ignore -- > having seen all the performances nominated this year -- what he did in > this picture, from start to finish. His character was an exercise in total > immersion, on par with what I believe have been the best larger-than-life > performances nominated since 1980 -- including De Niro in Raging Bull > (win), Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs (win), and Liam Neeson in > Schindler's List (lost to Tom Hanks). > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ How to > UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: > [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF > MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
