Mickey Rourke has had a resurgence of a career starting back with SIN CITY and the critically acclaimed THE WRESTLER. From there, he has had parts in some rather big movies including tomorrow’s IMMORTALS. One would think that an actor who has had such a career revitalization would be extremely grateful and careful of the words he chooses when discussing past projects regardless of whether or not they were happy with the final outcome. Not Mickey Rourke.
Mickey has been making the press tours for IMMORTALS and in the interviews he has let slip his unhappiness with the final product that was IRON MAN 2 in which he plays the villain, Ivan Vanko/Whiplash. SuperheroHype had an interview with the star in which he spoke of his dislike for the one-dimensional villain that ended up on screen:
“I try to find the moments where [the villain is] not that cliched, evil bad guy and it’s a big fight,” he explained. “I had it on ‘Iron Man’ and they won. It was going to work for Marvel and them breaking [Jon] Favreau’s balls and wanting just a one-dimensional villain. The performance and all the things that I tried to bring to it end up on the f—ing floor. That can cause you not to care as much. To not to want to put that effort in to try and make it an intelligent bad guy or a bad guy who is justified in what his reasons are.”
It would seem that maybe this would be a simple venting on his part however, there would be more interviews and with more interviews comes more elaboration. Crave Online had a more in depth talk with the actor on the subject while doing an interview for IMMORTALS:
Crave Online: I got the impression that even though you’re technically the “bad guy” in the movie, that he seemed to really sympathize with your character a lot.
Mickey Rourke: Well, I always try to bring that to a character. It’s like when I did Ivan Vanko in Iron Man, I fought… You know, I explained to Justin Theroux, to the writer, and to [Jon] Favreau that I wanted to bring some other layers and colors, not just make this Russian a complete murderous revenging bad guy. And they allowed me to do that. Unfortunately, the [people] at Marvel just wanted a one-dimensional bad guy, so most of the performance ended up the floor.
CO: That’s too bad.
MR: Well, you know, it is f**king too bad, but it’s their loss. If they want to make mindless comic book movies, then I don’t want to be a part of that. I don’t want to have to care so much and work so hard, and then fight them for intelligent reasoning, and just because they’re calling the shots they… You know, I didn’t work for three months on the accent and all the adjustments and go to Russia just so I could end up on the floor. Because that can make somebody say at the end of the day, oh f**k ‘em, I’m just going to mail it in. But I’m not that kind of guy. I’m never going to mail it in.
CO: I could tell you didn’t mail it in on ‘Iron Man…’
MR: No, but I’m saying it’s frustrating when that happens, when you care so much and you try so hard. At the end of the day you’ve got some nerd with a pocketful of money calling the shots. You know, Favreau didn’t call the shots. I wish he would have. And Theroux, we worked together to bring layers to that character, so, you know, I fight for that any time I’m playing like a bad guy. What made Henry Fonda so fantastic in the western that he did when he played a bad guy was what he brought to the character. All the goodness that he had in his face, or the moments that he had when he just wasn’t a one-dimensional bad guy. Because then, when he’s bad, you see that other color. You don’t want to always make him all “black.”
In all of the interviews so far, it appears that Mr. Rourke is only upset with the studio and even sympathizes with Jon Favreau for being forced to edit the movie a specific way, however in yet another interview for IMMORTALS, this time with MTV, he takes to putting down not just the studio, but also the director himself:
“If they let you play the bad guy with other dimensions other than one dimensional,” Rourke told MTV of playing a villain. “You have to fight for that though, to bring layers to the character. Otherwise, if you’re working for the wrong studio or let’s say a director that doesn’t have any balls, then they’re just gonna want it to be the evil bad guy.“
“So, if you’re working with some good studio guys that got brains and you’re working with a director with a set of nuts that’ll let you incorporate that then it’s fun,” he added, finishing with a zinger: “Otherwise, you end up with what happened on ‘Iron Man.’“
Finally, he had another interview with io9 in which he touches on the subject once again:
io9: So a lot of it is finding the right director who you feel comfortable with?
Mickey Rourke: I try to find the right director who won’t compromise his or anyone else’s integrity, and yet be political enough to give the studio what they want yet put up a fight to maintain that integrity. So we’re not watching some science fiction [f**king] wham bam thank you ma’am Marvel piece of crap.
Looking back at IRON MAN 2, I can say personally that I enjoyed the movie. Was it perfect? Far from it and there were many issues with the film, but I believe that Rourke’s performance was not one of them. He brought a sense of sympathy and a brooding revengeful nature to a character that could have so easily been one dimensionally evil. As with any movie, there are always scenes and takes that end up on the cutting room floor for a myriad of reasons. As an actor, it is unfortunately part of what they sign up for. Their job is to give the best performance they can give under the direction they are given and then it is in the hands of the director, producers, editors and studio.
I do believe that this is one of the main reasons that you see so many actors acting as producers or directors in movies later in their careers so that they can have more control over the finish product. Do I agree with Mickey Rourke’s opinion on the matter? That’s not for me to say, he is entitled to his own opinion, I just don’t know if publically slamming a director and a successful movie studio is exactly the best career move.
What do you think? Do you agree with Mickey Rourke’s statements? Let us know in the comments below.
Jim is an avid movie enthusiast, representing the general movie going audience, looking at movies for their entertainment value as opposed to their critical weight. He enjoys the escapism that movies provide. He is a fan of all genre's of movies, but gravitates toward comic-based movies, summer "popcorn" flicks and over-the-top comedies as his preference. 
So your’e saying every actor has to be a spineless bootlicker?
I like Rourke for not being a yes-man and for speaking up!
I mean it’s not that Rourke hasn’t delivered, mailed it in or quit,
he just took advantage of every persons basic right: freedom of expression.
A good studio and a good director don’t hire just spineless yes-man,
but rather people like Rourke, who disagree, but nevertheless do what they want him to do.
Paul,
Thanks for comment. No, I don’t feel that an actor has to be a spineless bootlicker as you say, but at the same time, there is a time and place for this. I actually praised his performance and merely stated that this sort of behavior could possibly effect future opportunities for him. I understand that there are going to be many disagreements between actors, directors, producers and studios but most have the right amount of couth to be above this sort of bashing.
Thanks for reading!
Jim
I get his point, and I think in IM2 he accomplished exactly what he set out to accomplish, despite the cuts that didn’t make it. But it breaks my heart to see him burning more bridges. He’s so freaking talented, and he’s losing his chances left and right because of these types of comments.