This might come off as being a little strange. I don't usually videotape myself for blogging purposes. I find that kind of thing revolting most of the time. But something came to me that I wanted to get out and I wasn't able to write it this time. So, rather than talking to the camera, which I don't think I can do, I used my roommate as an ear and I just videotaped a little rant in defense of Heath Ledger getting the Oscar. These thoughts resulted from the numerous ramblings that I was running across that expressed the opinion that he didn't deserve it and/or he wouldn't have received it if he were alive.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
SIN-E-FILE (Heath Ledger)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
I couldn't disagree more. 1st: If Batman and Ledger's performance was so "Hollywood" and "Entertaining" akin to the Oscars, then why didn't the Academy flood this film with more nominations. There are people out there who said it would be a crime not to give Ledger the award. Ledger was literally given this award when he died. The award was his. Meaning, it was given FOR HIS PERFORMANCE, but ALSO because he died so tragically. It was NOT given strictly for his performance. Forget about the nomination, the Award was his the day they found him dead in his apartment. If you believe that they gave him the award strictly for his performance you are really naive. I really, really, really don't believe we'd be talking so much about this performance if he hadn't of died. That in itself, tells us what this award was about. Hoffman I believe had sooooo much more complexity to his character than the Joker - so did Josh Brolin's character - they were so much harder to play than the outlandish Joker - who in this Batman, looks like, and is as thin as a crack addict, but somehow can beat people up with superhuman strength. Ridiculous. And let me say ... I think Ledger was extremely talented ... when I saw him play that drug addict in CANDY - I knew we lost something special, but "let's not go sucking each other's di**s yet."
You didn't listen to me. That's ok. cause if i wrote it, you probably wouldn't have read it correctly either. Yes, there are better performances, yes there are better actors in the catagory. but NO ONE mixed character development and ENTERTAINMENT to the successful degree that he did this year.
in the world of hollywood and the world of 'movies', this performance by ledger is oscar worthy simply because of the sucessful MIXTURE of these two things that i am saying. this is RARE.
Can you describe to me the character development in Heath's performance? He was definitely entertaining ... but can you describe to me the arch of the joker? Because to me Hoffman and Brolin were both entertaining and their characters had character development out the eyeballs. Please compare the character development between those characters ... you saw an immense change in Hoffman's character by the end of Doubt. You saw the complexities of Brolin's character as he tried to be friends with Milk, how he tried to understand and work with Milk, how he was jealous of Milk - all of these colors: can you explain the colors in the Joker - other than the ones that are on his face?
I can name several, several performances that were both entertaining and provided character development: Deer Hunter (walken), Kane (Welles), French Connection (Hackman), The Conversation (Hackman) ... I mean I can go on and on, these are just performances at the top of my head that were thrilling, entertaining and showed character dept. Who was more beloved by an audience than Sunny (Cahn) in the Godfather - the audience gasped when he got it at the toll booths. You are really talking out of your ass.
I can't believe you are calling that mixture "rare." It's rare in the scope of the history of cinema and acting, but it's not rare amongst oscar nods and oscar wins - there are numerous performances that have that mix - that are outstanding. Another example is (though he didn't win) was Pacino in Dog Day - he's a common criminal getting money for a sex change operation for his boyfriend: are you kidding me? That was in the early 70s, and yet Pacino made him funny, entertaining, and you are actually rooting for him - a man who took a bank hostage. Extremely entertaining performance - he had all of those issues to overcome and he still made the audience love him.
i realize now that i must not be explaining this right.
if you think hackman's (or most of the other people that you mentioned) performance in the conversation is "entertaining" to the slumdog millionaire audience, you are out of your mind. to you and i it is supreme entertainment. to most of the pepole in that theater at 2am (and most of the hollywood-loving "entertainment"- seeking peoples of the world)that is not entertainment.
when i say "entertainment" i am speaking of it in the mass audience sense. you heard "enteraintment" and found offence in what i was stating because what entertains you is presisely the opposite of what this dark knight movie offers. me too!
my point (ONCE AGAIN) is that i had the experience (and i am assuming this was the experiece of so many people that made this movie so much money) of sitting and watching someone's work that was deeper than perhaps the material required, was pulled from a frightening place, a really dark place (so much so that some say it actually killed him) AND YET, at the same time, he knew how to make it entertaining to the masses, to a degree that i really haven't witnessed with an audience before. that is why it is oscar worthy.
I like how you skimmed over the character development (which you stated) Heath excrevated from the Joker - because there is none. There was no arch - there was no development. He made him extremely dark, more dark than we've ever seen the joker on TV or film. Great - I don't think he should get an Oscar for that. A nomination I don't have a problem with. I think there was plenty of Oscar buzz before he died that he might get nominated. I will believe for as long as I live, that Heath was primarily raised up to his stature (like we do for everyone who dies tragically young) because he died the way he did. He was certainly gifted, but he won this award because he died AND he was good in the role.
And by the way, I am talking about "entertaining" in a very general sense. When I spoke of Sonny Corleaone or Pacino in Dog Day - these are characters that were beloved by the mainstream - by a VERY mainstream audiences, not just film geeks. The Godfather is especially loved by the mainstream and critics a like - just as Goodfellas was - and you can throw Pesci's character into that mix as well - a character secretly loved and feared by audiences (mainstream audiences) - remember how scary Pesci was in that role - remember that? That was a great performance, no matter what you think of Pesci - as was Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs - those were VERY ENTERTAINING performances enjoyed, feared and loved by mainstream audiences. So - NO - I again do not think what Ledger did was unusual, and the fact that you think he was the ONLY actor to achieve that, is really ridiculous. I'm really starting to question your "acting" eye.
The only eye I have for you fine gentlemen is the brown one.
who said he was the only actor EVER to do that??!!?!?! i said it is RARE. and he was the only one, in my opinion, that did that this year, to this degree.
i think you are finally getting it. YES, Pesce and hopkins are in this same category of entertaining, mass appeal, and still respectable for the actual 'work' they did as actors. and...they each got the award. Ledger did it too.
and, MY GOD MAN, show me an arch in the hannible role!!!! show me it. there is just constant, boiling, calm, menace. these are not LEAD roles where there has to be an arch. they affect the lead characters. if there is no arch that doesn't mean that there is no development. wow.
what do you need to see from an actor to show evidence that there is a character that that particular actor has developed? ask yourself this question. a wide range of emotions? a change that occurs in the course of the film? REALLY?
This is a man playing a man playing a man. the character is in constant performance. as i recall, we don't see him alone in his room putting on his makeup! (ha ha ha !!!) is that bad? is that a flaw in his performance? no. if anything it is a flaw in the script. but not even so. because that is not the intention of that character in this movie.
god man, there are so many different types of characters in films. give a guy some credit. he actually frightened me when he was on the screen. his unpredicability seemed to not be coming from a contrived place. that is HARD TO DO!!!!
the academy recognized it. they get something right once in a while.
Actually - Hannibal HAS an arch - and if you'd read any book on the art of writing, you'll know that all the supporting characters should have their own motivations, their own goals and their own arch. The reason why you don't see it as often is because there are a lot of bad movies and a lot of movies not written well. Hannibal in the beginning of the film is just an evil fuck toying with Clarice, but as the film goes on, she earns his respect, and he actually ends up helping her, submitting to her power and authority.
Ledger did a great job - he was given a nomination and perhaps he would have won if he lived - but there is no doubt that half that award was given out of setimentality. I MEAN COME ON! THEY FLEW HIS FAMILY IN. They can't rightfully not give him an award after they fly the family in!!!!!!
Perhaps they just might have given him the award for his career - which I could see. The Academy does this - they give an award to an actor because his/her career was so outstanding. I don't think Pacino should have won for scent, but I think we agreed that he won for his tremendous career. I think they think, well, we can never nominate Heath or give him an award anymore, let's give him one for the gipper.
Heath might have frightened you, but he didn't frighten me - sorry. I felt like I was watching a performance, a great one, but a performance still. I could not get it out of my head that that was heath ledger under the makeup - the guy who died tragically young. I was not thinking of him as a seperate reality - he was a tragic and real figure. I was watching Heath play the Joker - not just the joker. Though I still say he was great in the role and certainly by far - the best joker.
Post a Comment