Hollywood is sometimes a cruel place. It might be a place of struggle and conflict for some people, but for others, it can be a place of unending wealth and success. Others discover both, though. These are the humans the machine spits out after it has chewed them up. Everyone has experienced having their lives flipped upside down, from former child actresses like Lindsay Lohan to established stars like Johnny Depp.
The story of Mickey Rourke is one such well-known tale. The actor revealed to The Independent that he distanced himself and many people during his fall from popularity. He believed he was unstoppable and that his career was too significant to be over. He added that he missed out on a decade’s worth of films and turned down several roles, one of which would have seen him play a significant role in one of Quentin Tarantino’s more well-known works.
Mickey Rourke could have starred in Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction
Mickey Rourke discussed some of the film roles he turned down during his Hollywood slump in an interview with the Daily Mail. He discussed Eliot Ness’s portrayal by Kevin Costner in The Untouchables. He can still recall being contacted by Dustin Hoffman for Rain Man and declining a part in Silence of the Lambs. Without the starring men we’ve grown to know and love, all three of those films would undoubtedly seem very different, but one role called for a more thorough justification for his rejection of the position.
“Quentin Tarantino called once — I think it was for ‘Pulp Fiction,’ the part Bruce Willis played, I didn’t even read the script. I allowed myself to get proud and angry because I could do the acting. I thought I’d have to be dead not to f***ing work.”
With Moonlighting, Hudson Hawk, and Die Hard, Bruce Willis had already established himself as a major player in Hollywood by the time he took on the part of Butch Coolidge. Being cast in Pulp Fiction among actors like Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, and John Travolta helped him get further notoriety.
Mickey Rourke’s bad reputation is quite well-known
Mickey Rourke is reportedly difficult to deal with, if not by most accounts. What justification do directors have for continuing to take a chance on someone who can’t control their attitude on set when there are so many performers competing for work? The more great an actor is, the more a producer would be ready to overlook, but no matter who you are, there are certain lines that shouldn’t be crossed.
Rourke has been referred to as a “loose cannon” on set. Director Alan Parker, who worked with Rourke on the film Angel Heart said,
“Working with Mickey is a nightmare, He is very dangerous on set because you never know what he is going to do.”
It’s obvious that many eminent directors eventually came to the conclusion that they didn’t want to tolerate it. He certainly has a lot of talent for what he does, but he’s not the only one. Although his enthusiasm might transfer well on screen, it has apparently frequently been a detriment off-screen.
Source: Daily Mail
