comment #1

Arran says ...

I don't see why people are calling the piece some kind of hatchet job just because the author dared to question a few things. He called the stepfather, who gave a different version of events. There was really no suggestion that what he said was obviously the true version.

Not automatically buying into the publicist's version of Rourke's story does not make the author a meaniepants. It makes him a journalist.

comment #2

sumo-pop says ...

About a year ago I saw an episode of The Actors Studio with Matt Damon reminscing about meeting Mickey Rourke on the set of The Rainmaker and he seemed duly impressed by Rourke's humility and sincerity. He basically said Rourke was more interested in advising Damon not to "fuck up" like he did than anything else. Damon has always seemed like a guy with a good bullshit detector so I'll go with his opinion on Rourke.

comment #3

BurmaShave says ...

Arran, your reading comprehension skills and knee-jerk defensiveness of asshole scumbag feature writers are charming, but a journalist is exactly what Pat Jordan is not. The two people who've released this statement are two people a journalist might have called, instead of the one person guaranteed to give a conflicting version. I hope he issues a public apology ASAP.

comment #4

Arran says ...

You're totally right that he should've called other family members as well. But I simply didn't read the piece and instantly think "scumbag takedown job".

A totally unbiased piece? No. A heinous hatchet job? No.

comment #5

MilkMan says ...

Oh, what's the matter, Pat Jordan isn't following the already-decided upon feel-good narrative that's been concocted by the studio's PR dept? What a bad human being Pat Jordan must be. Or maybe the truth is somewhere in between. How about this: Mickey Rourke was a certifiable asshole for the first 25 years of his career, so maybe he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's great in the film. I'm sure he is. He's always been a really good actor. But the piece was more about what he's like as a human being, and while I don't necessarily trust Pat Jordan, I also don't trust Mickey Rourke. I though the piece was refreshing in that Pat Jordan didn't have his tongue firmly lodged in Rourke's asshole, like he's supposed to. But I guess shame on him, right, for not bowing down to the man who starred in Wild Orchid and Another 9 1/2 Weeks.

comment #6

madskrilla says ...

the journalist's bad faith is evident. it's not brain surgery, rourke said he was abused, the old man says it's not true. go ask other witnesses, family members. but then maybe they'll tell you -- as they just did -- that the abuse happened and if anything, Rourke is downplaying it. and your hit piece goes belly up.

bad, bad show, New York Times

comment #7

madskrilla says ...

> maybe the truth is somewhere in between.

no, either the abuse happened or it didn't, there's no middle way. many witnesses said it did happen, the alleged perpetrator denies it. (sounds familiar, by the way). the crux of the issue is, the reporter went for "he said / he said", without investigating any deeper, because it fit his angle, that Rourke is a fabulist. I don't care about Rourke, I care about standards. this is bad journalism & bad faith.

comment #8

BurmaShave says ...

Full disclosure: MilkMan has been fucking Pat Jordan since '88.

comment #9

berkguru says ...

why do you idiots care about his personal life anyway? just enjoy his work in a film and leave his life to those people that know him

comment #10

Joshua Mooney says ...

Mickey Rourke is a fabulist, and ham-handed one at that. But this comes as no surprise and anyway, to quote Jordan, "So what?" He's an actor, a troubled guy, a solipsist, and maybe he's not that bright. Jordan's is facile and ultimately depressing angle on this story, though. In the end, he was just shooting fish in a barrel. Not very sporting. I expected better, for some reason. On the other hand, I'm not sure there IS another angle on Rourke (what would it be?). And Rourke shares the blame. Despite his years, his trials, and his previous media experience, he comes across as remarkably unsophisticated in his dealings with the press here. (There is a thing called fact-checking, Mickey.) But Jordan was pretty obtuse himself. Clearly either biased against Rourke or sullen and angered by the assigment in general. Take his line, "Mickey Rourke has a sore throat." Is that a witty homage to Gay Talese's classic Sinatra profile, or a bored, cyncical nick? I can't tell. I should be able to. And yes, Jordan should have contacted other family members about the abuse issue (which is far more important than whether or not Rourke inflated his boxing resume). But I won't be shocked to hear later that he tried to contact them and was rebuffed, or that he left them messages which "weren't returned by press time." That's show biz.

comment #11

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability disaster recovery