Is 'The Dark Knight's' Heath Ledger doomed at the Oscars?
Don't get carried away with all of the Oscar buzz for Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight" that you see in USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, everywhere. Remember: Only one star has won an Oscar from the grave (Peter Finch, "Network") and roles like the Joker are rarely even nominated.
Maybe this next Oscars factoid may help to put things in more clear perspective. After the beloved Spencer Tracy died in 1967 after giving a dynamic, heartfelt performance in best picture nominee "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," he was widely expected to win best actor, but lost to Rod Steiger ("In the Heat of the Night"). However, Tracy's de facto widow Katharine Hepburn won best actress for a rather tame turn with little screen time in "Dinner."
Bottom line: Oscar voters wanted to bestow a hug after losing Tracy, yes — but they just didn't want to hug the dead guy.
When Peter Finch passed away, the situation was very different from Tracy's and Ledger's. The latter stars died more than six months before the Oscarcast. Finch died from a heart attack just two weeks before the Golden Globes while he was actively campaigning to stop that juggernaut Robert DeNiro ("Taxi Driver"), who'd swept the film-critics' awards. Oscar and Globe voters were still stunned by Finch's loss when they inked their ballots and they couldn't resist checking off his name.
Heath Ledger bears a striking similarity to James Dean. Both were heartthrob thespians whose promising careers were cut short by tragedy. Dean had two posthumous Oscar nominations. The first — for "East of Eden" — came nearly half a year after Dean died in a car wreck. The next year he was nommed for "Giant" and he lost both times.
When Oscar nominations come out next January, Heath Ledger will have been dead for a year. Given all of the Oscar hubbub he's generating now, I'm sure he'll be on that list of contenders, but can he really win?
Oscar voters aren't wild about campy villain roles in popcorn flicks like "Dark Knight." The only time one got nominated was Al Pacino as Big Boy Caprice in "Dick Tracy" (1990). Jack Nicholson's widely celebrated Joker in "Batman" (1989) — the same role now played by Heath Ledger — was nominated for a Golden Globe, but not an Oscar, which is odd considering how nuts academy members are for Jack. (Nicholson holds the records for most nominations and wins among male actors.)
And Oscar voters don't usually like villainous roles unless the actor rides to victory atop a best-picture sweep like Anthony Hopkins in "The Silence of the Lambs."
But — wait — that old trend may be changing. Just this past year we saw the trophies for best actor and supporting actor go to stars portraying bloodthirsty monsters: Daniel Day-Lewis and Javier Bardem.
And maybe the whole world, even Hollywood, is different today than it was when those other posthumous Oscar examples occurred. If so, then maybe this joker can get the last laugh. Especially if he holds an ole Oscar I.O.U. from academy members. Does he? (READ MORE, CLICK HERE ). If he does have a serious hope of prevailing, then which category should he enter, lead or supporting? Read more about that great debate — CLICK HERE!
(Warner Bros.)
Ugh, see this is why I have come to detest the Oscars year after year. It seems that, with the exception ofReturn of the King, the Oscar has suddenly become about how snooty the Academy can be by finding and recognizing the most obscure films that get played on 500 screens and at the film festivals attended by the Hollywood elite. Truly outstanding mainstream flicks like "Dark Knight" and "Wall-E" automatically get the upturned nose from Academy fanboys simply because of superficial things like the fact that one is a "campy popcorn flick" or that no animated film has been nominated for Best Pic since "Beauty and the Beast". Everything nominated for the Big 5 at last year's Oscars were dark indie-ish flicks that the general public just did not care about, which is why I cheered loudly for every "Juno" nomination of the night. Regarding Ledger's performance, as someone else stated, during the film, Ledger was alive for me, and it was only as the end credits rolled that I reflected upon his death. This movie was destined for greatness and maybe even the record breaking weekend whether or not Ledger had died.
So I guess we'll just have to wait and see if either the Academy decides to turn down their noses and acknowledge two of the biggest masterpieces of the year, or if I, along with $155 mil worth of other movie goers, will just have to sit back and relish in our own thoughts on the greatness that emerged this summer.
Posted by: Hans | July 20, 2008 at 07:23 PM
Wow. A lot of the fans here don't read very well. Tom isn't passing judgment on Heath, but trying objectively to appraise his chances, given history. When Tom refers to cartoony and campish villains, he's not putting down Heath or the movie, for crying out loud. He's anticipating that Academy voters will lump this performance in with other screen-chewing villains (like Hannibal Lector), and they don't tend to reward those enough. That's because a lot of voters tend to see these films as not very serious, campy, popcorn flicks. You might not see them that way. Tom might not see them that way. But Tom's absolutely correct that many OTHER people do. He's saying the type of role this was, and the genre in question, might hurt Heath's chances at Oscars. He's NOT saying that Heath doesn't deserve one. He's NOT putting down the performance. Reading the comments from fans is frustrating and depressing. What ever happened to reading comprehension? Put down those joysticks and pick up some books, guys. You clearly need the practice.
Posted by: Robert Scott | July 20, 2008 at 07:18 PM
Yes, i totally disagree with the label, "Campy" or "Cartoonish" villain. Sure they're were some funny moments most people would expect if they had read the comics or seen previous Batman movies, but i do agree, this joker has been stepped up and is more of a darker person then any o the previous jokers.
Posted by: Josh | July 20, 2008 at 07:03 PM
did u just call joker a cartoonish campy villain?! who ever wrote this is an idiot!!!! i may not be a die hard heath ledger fan, but common he gave the best performance that is legendary of the century! no one could ever pull off this role like him, he's a genius of how he played the joker!!!! i say give him the award man, he maybe dead but that doesn't mean u can't give him the Oscar! he deserves this award! if he ain't, i will really be pissed man!
Posted by: Donny Callahan | July 20, 2008 at 01:36 PM
This film, although based on a comin is a good movie and NOT at all like others of its kind which hopefully causes a change in how directors and writers approach these kind of projects (comic based). Ledgers, performance was top notch and reminds me of Daniel Day Lewis' Oscar winning performance in There Will Be Blood. WE SHOULD TRY TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT LEDGER HAS UNFORTUNATELY PASSED AND FOCUS SOLELY ON HIS PERFORMANCE. Personally I think he was incredible. The film itself (screewnwrite and direction) deserves more attention. This is what directors, actors and screenwriters alike should aim to accomplish in every movie. Ledgers performance as the Joker was infectious without a doubt...Im going to see the film again....and maybe a third time.
Posted by: Alex | July 20, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I'm sorry, but the fact is, this movie WAS amazing, and was definately Heath's most amazing film, and it is sad that it will be his last one, but still, I don't think the reason for all the oscar talk is that he's dead, it's because the character he portrayed was unlike anything people expected, it was amazing to say the least.. And I do see him winning the award, the part he played could not have been played better, he did it perfect. If he doesn't win, I will have lost faith in everyone else's judgement.
Posted by: xKAMRONx | July 20, 2008 at 09:46 AM
johnc, he finished filming the movie, then died, so NO you can't tell which parts weren't played by him. They were ALL played by him
Posted by: James | July 20, 2008 at 09:40 AM
Stating campy or cartoony villian role in regards to this movie, did you even watch it. Do you have the same comments for the other batman movies, they were a little more cartoonish. This batman goes down a darker road...
Posted by: Tom | July 20, 2008 at 09:17 AM
Sloppy, sloppy, Tom. "East of Eden" was James Dean's first starring role and the only one of the big three movies to be released before his death. That was his first nomination. "Giant" was his last movie, released a year after his death. His Oscar nomination for that came closer to a year and a half after his demise.
Posted by: johnc | July 20, 2008 at 07:20 AM
I saw the movie yesterday--it was great; BUT after Heath Ledger died, didn't they have to get some other actors to finish the role? You can actually tell while watching the movie, I think.
Posted by: Linda | July 20, 2008 at 07:09 AM
I can't believe people actually think that a person's death has an influence on ones ability to be engaged by a film. I am not a die hard fan of Heaths and was totally enthralled by his performance. I think if I were to be influenced by the tragedy that happened I would be watching the film with sadness everytime Heath came on the screen. He was very much alive while I was watching this film. I did not once think of the tragic circumstances until the movie was over. I believe other movie goers are able to differentiate between an outstanding Academy Award winning performance and a pitying show of support.
Posted by: filmnbuff | July 20, 2008 at 03:34 AM
Whoever wrote this is either an idiot, or did not see the mover, or both. Calling this a campy or cartoony villian role in a popcorn flick may be the dumbest thing ever said about any movie ever.
Posted by: Doug | July 20, 2008 at 12:49 AM
James Dean was nominated for Giant when he was barely on the screen. It's somewhat of a consensus that had he been nominated for Best Supporting Actor (as opposed to Best Lead Actor), he would have won. I hope the makers of The Dark Knight don't submit his name for Best Actor consideration as opposed to Best Supporting Actor because that will basically erase any chances he has at an Oscar.
Posted by: dude | July 19, 2008 at 11:21 PM
I too think Heath wouldn't have cared.. he would have also graciously thanked everyone for the award (if it were someone else) and probably dedicated it to the one that had died.
It does not matter who the award goes to, he will be remembered for his great movies (which is what he wanted... to take it to the grave).
I really couldn't tell you if I think the role was better played because he is a dead and i will miss him, or if it really was better. I don't think ANYONE (unless they don't know of his death) would be right in their mind to judge his performance.
I also don't know if his Brokeback Mountain was better because it was controversial and gay oriented or if everyone liked it because it really was good. (I think the only people that can judge that one are the people who were never told that gayness was wrong.. and really, how many people is that?) {before you start bashing me.. I LOVED the movie, but I loved heath and jake and all the man-love in the world}
So... there's no point in argueing, people will have their beliefs and beliefs are the hardest to change.
Posted by: Anjyl | July 19, 2008 at 08:23 PM
There has been a lot of buzz around Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker and therefore, very high expectations. Well, there seems to be a very strong consensus: he delivered the goods and more. In every one of his scenes, he is simply electrifying! I think that a big part of the success of the film is largely due to on his exceptional performance. The Joker might not have the longest screen time, but he is absolutely central to the entire movie, so I could easily see a nomination for Best Actor. In any case, it will be the “most talked about” performance by an actor this year for sure.
Here is a quote from Liam Lacey’s review of The Dark Knight in the Globe & Mail, Canada's largest-circulation national newspaper:
“The triumph of the movie is the performance of Heath Ledger, who might posthumously get the Oscar here he deserved for Brokeback Mountain.”
Posted by: Daniel | July 19, 2008 at 07:57 PM
Heath disappeared and a psycho came alive. Unlike Nicholson, Heath melted into the character and there was no longer Heath Ledger; this is a legendary Joker. In contrast, Jack was still Jack playing Joker. Hence if Jack got nominated, Heath should win an Oscar because simply said, He EARNED IT!
Posted by: Carina | July 19, 2008 at 07:34 PM
Slam dunk for Beast Actor in a Leading Role. What planet are all of you on? That was a riveting performance. Genre? Puhleeze. His death? Puhleeze. This is not sentimental. This is a tremendous performance, period.
Posted by: ultimatenyg | July 19, 2008 at 07:04 PM
I will say this: I always get a gut feeling when I watch certain films that are up for Oscar consideration. And I definitely felt it watching Heath's performance. It went beyond my expectations. I thought his nomination for "Brokeback Mountain" was well deserved but I felt no sense of him "deserving" to be nominated posthumous for the end of what would have been an amazing career. But after watching "The Dark Knight" I can honestly admit that he is worthy of any accolades he may receive during this awards cycle. I must also mention consideration for Christopher Nolan for Best Director. After receiving a DGA nomination and yet not being nominated at the Academy Awards (for "Memento"), the Director's Branch may want to award Nolan with a nomination considering the critical and soon-to-be commercial success of “The Dark Knight”. Many have already herald this as the greatest super-hero movie made in recent history surpassing the high marks of "Spider-Man II" and "Iron Man" (the most critically acclaimed "super-hero" movies up to this time). I wouldn’t underestimate this film in terms of award consideration.
Posted by: Tone | July 19, 2008 at 06:18 PM
Given the rave reviews and the Oscar telecast ratings plummet of last year, they would have to be bat-s*** not to throw nominations at this film.
Posted by: K. Bowen | July 19, 2008 at 02:29 PM
I think Heath's performance in "The Dark Knight" is enough to win the Oscar. Also, add the fact that he lost for "Brokeback Mountain", and it only increases his chances.
Posted by: KB | July 19, 2008 at 02:17 PM
Who's campy??
Did you see this film?
Posted by: ABR22 | July 19, 2008 at 02:07 PM
There was Oscar buzz over Heath's work in The Dark Knight before he died, it was NOT a byproduct of his death.
Posted by: DC | July 19, 2008 at 11:52 AM
"
Sorry, I’ll be the 1st to say the Ledger is only getting all this attention because he is dead. Prior to his OD, they were showing small parts of Batman, but nothing was being said that would make him worthy. As soon as he had his drug OD, they made him the King of this movie.
If he were alive, this movie would be just another Batman movie."
I find this comment horrible. 6 months ago they weren't even finished editing the film! Of course they weren't showing alot of footage and they weren't showing alot of Heath as The Joker because it was still very hush hush. If Heath was still alive, he would be getting Oscar buzz. The performance is amazing! Why not see the movie before you start to make comments!
Posted by: Awardshq | July 19, 2008 at 06:33 AM
This is NOT a campy role you moron!
Posted by: Jason | July 19, 2008 at 05:29 AM
Heath will get his first posthumous award in his home country, The Chauvel ,at the upcoming Brisbane International Film Festival. It is one of the highest awards bestowed on Austalian actors. He will also get a multi million dollar performing arts centre named after him along with memorabilia his family will donate in his home town of Perth where I live. There is also a local scholarship in his name for young actors.Miss you everyday, Heath.
Posted by: viola | July 18, 2008 at 10:51 PM