An oscar for Heath Ledger !!

Started by nicoacc, Sun, 27 Jul 2008, 23:05

Previous topic - Next topic
I would've thought by saying "Ledger's performance... doesn't merit an Oscar nomination", I would've made my views quite clear.

Also, the issue at hand (for some reason) is whether or not Ledger deserves an Oscar, not whether Nicholson deserved one.  While I don't remember what else came out in 1989, I venture that he didn't deserve an Oscar either.

I'll close by saying that if Ledger does somehow win an Oscar for TDK, it'll be entirely a sympathy vote... unless Oscar season REALLY sucks this year.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 11 Aug  2008, 02:37Yes, please do. If one of the Joker's deserves an Oscar for their portrayal, it is certainly Ledger over Nicholson in my view.

As I've seen more and more of Nicholson's performances outside of B89 like Witches of Eastwick, his Joker seems more and more like Jack with Joker make-up.  Now I love Jack's Joker, but Ledger one-upped him.  If you compare the two, most would easily recognize the actor who played the Joker in B89 even if they had never seen the film but was familiar with Jack's body of work, I don't think it would be the same with Ledger's Joker.  

For me, Oscar worthy means someone who completely emmersed themselves in the role, so much so that you forget who the actor is and lose yourself in his/her portrayal.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 11 Aug  2008, 02:59
I would've thought by saying "Ledger's performance... doesn't merit an Oscar nomination", I would've made my views quite clear.

Also, the issue at hand (for some reason) is whether or not Ledger deserves an Oscar, not whether Nicholson deserved one.  While I don't remember what else came out in 1989, I venture that he didn't deserve an Oscar either.

I'll close by saying that if Ledger does somehow win an Oscar for TDK, it'll be entirely a sympathy vote... unless Oscar season REALLY sucks this year.

Nope, not clear at all.  Just curious about the criteria you use to judge who you think is worthy of an Oscar.  You said Ledger did not deserve one, but never said why you thought that. 

And if he does win, you think it will be "entirely" based on sympathy?  You are saying that no one, and I mean no one will want to recognize his performance?  I don't buy that for a second.
I appreciate ALL dark, serious, and faithful Batman films.

You said that you did not think he deserved one. I would've thought you would have elaborated your reasons why. Can't expect too much from people they days I suppose.

I am aware what the topic is. I was saying that if you compared the two Jokers, Ledger wipes the floor with Nicholson. As has been said, Nicholson was playing himself with makeup on.

Nicholson didn't deserve an Oscar or even talk of one then, and compared to Ledger's Joker, he most certainly doesn't now. It'd be sour grapes from the Nicholson/Burton crowd if Ledger got that Oscar, they couldn't stand it. It would officially label him better of the two.

A further nail in the coffin is that The Dark Knight is going to overtake Batman (1989) as the highest grossing Batman film (regardless of the inflation and adjusted box office). So take that!  ;)

Quote from: BurtonBatman on Mon, 11 Aug  2008, 03:12As I've seen more and more of Nicholson's performances outside of B89 like Witches of Eastwick, his Joker seems more and more like Jack with Joker make-up.
Correct.  In a sense, Jack was essentially hired to play himself, as the Joker in the comics is basically a more maniacal version of the Nicholson stereotype.  Not always and, arguably, not so much in the past 5+ years but the Joker of the 70's, 80's and a good bit of the 90's is well-represented by Nicholson.

QuoteNow I love Jack's Joker, but Ledger one-upped him.
In terms of immersing himself in the role, maybe, maybe not.  In terms of reflecting the comics, it's not even competitive.  Jack is *CLEARLY* the Joker from that era of the comics.  The best anybody can argue about Ledger is that he's the Joker from Batman #1... but even that's up for debate as that Joker was a killer and thief who played for profit.  He wasn't an anarchist, unless introducing a little anarchy would further his aims.  That Joker isn't likely to burn cash.  By contrast, the modern day Joker would as he certainly does enjoy a little anarchy but his demented sense of humor is utterly absent from TDK.  As a result, you end up with the worst of both of these two different Jokers in TDK.

Granted these things aren't Ledger's fault but in terms of purely enjoying one Joker over another, it's hands down Nicholson for me.

Quote from: BurtonBatman on Mon, 11 Aug  2008, 03:12Nope, not clear at all.  Just curious about the criteria you use to judge who you think is worthy of an Oscar.  You said Ledger did not deserve one, but never said why you thought that.
Tons of actors "immerse themselves in the role".  Ledger didn't reinvent the wheel by doing that.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 11 Aug  2008, 03:13I am aware what the topic is. I was saying that if you compared the two Jokers, Ledger wipes the floor with Nicholson. As has been said, Nicholson was playing himself with makeup on.
That's who the Joker is and that's what Nicholson was hired to do.

QuoteNicholson didn't deserve an Oscar or even talk of one then, and compared to Ledger's Joker, he most certainly doesn't now. It'd be sour grapes from the Nicholson/Burton crowd if Ledger got that Oscar, they couldn't stand it. It would officially label him better of the two.
You could give Ledger a gold medal in women's figure skating for all I care, it doesn't change my opinions about his performance.

QuoteA further nail in the coffin is that The Dark Knight is going to overtake Batman (1989) as the highest grossing Batman film (regardless of the inflation and adjusted box office). So take that!
I'm cool with that.  I don't need my opinions to be validated by the popular majority.  It was only ever going to be a matter of time until a Batman flick came along to do what TDK is poised to do.  Luckily my ego is not at stake here.  B89 is a better film than TDK.  So is BR.  I don't need the masses to agree with me in order to be right.  I am right and that's enough for me.

Mon, 11 Aug 2008, 04:03 #24 Last Edit: Mon, 11 Aug 2008, 04:06 by The Dark Knight
There is no maybe or maybe not. It is. Ledger one-upped Nicholson. Symbolically, Nicholson throws away fake money, Ledger burns real money.

In terms of enjoying the two Jokers, it is Ledger hands down for me. He locked himself in his room for a month and delivered a layered, fascinatingly dangerous performance. I expected every window and every quiet moment to explode into anarchy. Unrelenting menace hovered over every scene like a dark cloud. That could not be said of Nicholson, no matter how he was asked to play it.

True, actors immerse themselves in their roles, but Ledger was totally absorbed. He did an absolutely fantastic job. He did re-invent the wheel in terms of the character of The Joker, as many have said, Nicholson included. He took it to a whole new level. I rank it the best portrayal of the character in ANY medium. Every word of dialogue was tailored to what Ledger created. His mannerisms were bizarre; he defied the basic form of walking. His words were meaningful, intelligent, darkly humorous and utterly terrifying.

This performance does warrant an Oscar, whether people want to declare this or not.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 11 Aug  2008, 04:03There is no maybe or maybe not. It is. Ledger one-upped Nicholson. Symbolically, Nicholson throws away fake money, Ledger burns real money.
I don't think anything in the movie actually says the cashmoneymoolah was fake.  It's in the comic adaptation and maybe the novelization but the movie suggests nothing more than legit cash.

QuoteIn terms of enjoying the two Jokers, it is Ledger hands down for me. He locked himself in his room for a month and delivered a layered, fascinatingly dangerous performance.
Which wasn't anything to do with the comics.  There's simply no escaping that.

Mon, 11 Aug 2008, 07:15 #26 Last Edit: Mon, 11 Aug 2008, 07:22 by The Dark Knight
The money was fake. It's in the comic adaption and the novel. You can't just disregard those. That's that. There's simply no escaping that.

Heath locking himself away was pure dedication. For you to say his version was nothing at all to do with the comics is an ultimate cop out. You just don't want it to be, and to keep justifying Nicholson. Get real.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 11 Aug  2008, 07:15The money was fake. It's in the comic adaption and the novel. You can't just disregard those. That's that. There's simply no escaping that.
Sorry, no.  I don't.  I don't even know if that part was even filmed.  It's not included in the movie so those things shouldn't count... unless, of course, we're supposed to believe, all evidence to the contrary aside, Knox somehow wound up covered in Batman's cape at the end of the movie.

QuoteHeath locking himself away was pure dedication. For you to say his version was nothing at all to do with the comics is an ultimate cop out. You just don't want it to be, and to keep justifying Nicholson. Get real.
The Joker in modern comics does not behave the way Ledger's Joker did.  That's not open to debate, it's fact.  The comic book Joker has far greater resonance with Nicholson's portrayal.  This too is fact.  And like I said, my ego isn't at stake here.  If a superior portrayal of the Joker comes along (which I think BTAS in large part is better) I'm ready, willing and able to label it as such... but Ledger's simply isn't.  When it comes to live action, Nicholson's Joker is still top dog.  His character is the Joker; Ledger's character was Hannibal Lecter in makeup.  Ledger did a fantastic job and stole almost every scene he was in but he was the Joker pretty much in name only.

Quotebut Ledger was totally absorbed. He did an absolutely fantastic job. He did re-invent the wheel in terms of the character of The Joker

Talk about a broken record. Let's see if i can finish this off i have heard this argument from nolan fans a million times before, Heath was so absorbed in the role of The Joker that he literally became him, so that's why he had to be put on sleeping medication which resulted in his death there for he should win he Oscar ::). And if he was so absorbed in his role then don't you find it strange that all of his co-stars said that he was always himself off camera.

Lots of actor's absorb themselfs in there roles other wise they wouldn't be very good actors. Heath's death was NOT a result of his role, lets not forget he had already finished with The Joker and was already into filming his new movie when he died. This whole Joker killed Heath BS came about from the stupid media trying to make money off his death and idiotic Nolanizes beileving it. Same goes with the Jack Nicholoson "i warned him" thing if anyone had payed enough attention they would have known that he warned him against the medication he was taking NOT the role of The Joker.

QuoteHis words were meaningful, intelligent, darkly humorous and utterly terrifying.
Im pretty sure you mean the Nolan brother's words were meaningful, intelligent, darkly humorous and utterly terrifying.


I have not said anywhere that the role killed him. I have said he was absolutely in character for the film. I say Ledger's dialogue is written a lot better and delivered a lot better. His laugh is pitch perfect.