It was the best performance of his career (yes I think it was better than his performance in Brokeback Moutain). It was, in my opinion the single greatest performance ever given in a comic book based movie (yes, that includes Ian McKellen as Magneto in the X-Men flix). It was also one of the best all round performances of the year, so clearly and understandably many people have been talking about a possible Oscar nomination for Heath Ledger for his role as The Joker in The Dark Knight.
The thing is, most people up to this point have been talking about that possible Oscar Nomination in he context of Best SUPPORTING Actor… you know… because he was a supporting actor in the movie. But there have been some people poking their heads up to suggest that Warner Bros. should push for Ledger to be considered in the Best Actor category. A move that I contend would be both technically incorrect and an attempt to capitalize on the tragic death of Ledger.
#1 – TECHNICALLY INCORRECT
From a technically correct perspective, this has been a real issue with me for a couple of years now. To me, when you don’t have a clear definition of a category or fail to respect the categories boundaries… then that category looses all credibility and meaning. There are two categories… Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor. Sometimes a film clearly has two leads who share essentially the same screen time and number of pages. The horrible DiNero and Pacino film “Righteous Kill” would be an example of that. But in The Dark Knight, The Joker was not the lead character. Yes he stole the movie, I completely agree with that… but that doesn’t make him the lead and as such he is a supporting character.
The Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor is NOT a consolation prize. It’s not a second rate award. It is an award of excellence for those who filled roles of supporting characters. When people try to blur the lines between them I believe it degrades and demeans the category all together.
Heath Ledger is in the opening sequence of the film, but then disappears for a good amount of time before re-emerging at the mob boss meeting. He’s also missing for most of the third act of the film. NONE OF THAT DIMINISHES HIS IMPORTANCE OR HOW WELL HE PLAYED THE ROLE. It just highlights that he was not the “lead”. There is nothing wrong with that. “Best Lead Actor” does not mean better or worse than whoever is “Best Supporting Actor”. They’re just different roles that need to be played. But they are different and there are two different categories for a reason. Heath was magnificent… but The Joker was a supporting character, not the lead.
#2 – MORALLY WRONG
There were some people who charged that Warner Bros. were capitalizing on the death of Heath Ledger because of how they were marketing The Dark Knight. I firmly disagreed with them on this charge. I actually believe that Warner showed great class in how they handled the tragic passing of Ledger and didn’t feel they, in any way, attempted to cash in on the news of his death. I was afraid we’d see commercials and billboards proclaiming “See Heath Ledgers’ final complete performance… yadda yadda yadda”, but they never came. If anything they underplayed it and I believe they deserve much credit for that.
However, should WB make a move to push Ledger into LEAD Actor consideration, I think they’d erase all of that. In my opinion it would be nothing short of a stab at pulling money out of a dead man’s wallet, trying to capitalize on the buzz and tragedy all to gain higher exposure for their film. No one understand that business is business better than I do… and I don’t fault a studio trying to discover ways to make more money… but to me this would be such an overtly slime move that I’d recoil.
It should be mentioned that WB has not said that they’d push for a best LEAD nomination for Ledger at this point. That’s just what some pundits out there are speculating… but you know they’re considering it. And considering is fine… just don’t do it. It would be both the technically and morally incorrect thing to do.
For an opposite point of view with some good thoughts, check out the article over at In Contention.
If Heath Ledger doesn’t win Best Actor at the Grammy Awards then you know there has been a few wrong strings pulled. That movie has already been put into the top 20 in various all time greatest lists and…why? Because of Heath Ledgers portrayal of The Joker. It is voted as the 3rd greatest movie character of all time by Empire because of his performance. And these lists have been put togther by dozens of key film critics, not just anyone. Popular film critics have said that Heath Ledgers Joker is almost scarily well acted and even they can’t imagine how he did it. Christian Bale has done a good job at Batman but seriously, he is great in other movies, but to beat out Heath Ledger? NO WAY. And Aaron Eckhart? Are you serious? No doubt he played his part well but come on you’ve got to be kidding if you think that he can win this.
I think that Heath should get the “BEST ACTOR IN A SUPORTING ROLE”, and NOT…”BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE” because he IS a supporting actor, but don’t worry because being “best actor” does NOT mean that it is BETTER acting than “best supporting actor”. In fact, Heath’s *supporting* role is waaaayyyy better acting than say Russell Crowe’s GREAT acting that won “BEST ACTOR IN A LEAD ROLE” for “A Beautiful Mind”, for example.
Just wanted to add that my post was more directed towards PHRODO_00 and not NIXON. Wasn’t paying enough attention to the posters’ names.
@NIXON, and others who whined about “best actor”
You’re incorrect. It’s not Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, it’s BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE, and BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE.
Seriously. There is no “Best Actor” category, that’s just how people talk about the award. Get your facts straight before you go ranting in the blogosphere.
[source: http://www.oscar.com/nominees/%5D
Hey “Real”
No, it doesn’t throw my argument off at all. Not in the least. The Academy doing something wrong doesn’t disprove my point. It actually enforces it.
At any rate, WB seems to agree with me and they’ve submitted Ledger for best SUPPORTING actor… as it should be.
the fact is… And you should know this…. You don’t have to be on the screen for a certain amount of time nor actualy be the leading role to be nominated for best actor…. Anthony Hopkins was in silence of the lambs for 25 minutes and won the award. That in itself throws your argument off
Hey Talli,
No. The fact of the matter is that Ledger simply isn’t on screen enough to warrant “lead actor”. I watched the screener again tonight, and Ledger’s character just disappears from the movie or extended periods of time throughout. He is a supporting character like Dent it. His screen time is eclipsed by Bale’s. Thus, Bale is the lead actor… Ledger and the other great actors in various roles are the supporting cast.
so in your opinion, what makes Batman the lead role, where as the joker isn’t?
Is it because he’s a hero, a “good guy?”
What truly distinguishes a lead role from the supporting cast?
Here is an interesting part of definition of “leading actor” according to the encyclopedia. Pay attention.
“Sometimes there is more than one significant leading role in a dramatic piece, and the actors are said to play co-leads; a large supporting role may be considered a secondary lead. Award nominations for acting often reflect such ambiguities.”
I don’t think you can genuinely say that doesnt describe the joker role to a tee. Unless you got some hate in your blood.
Talli, your feelings on the subject still dont change the definition of the category.
Those are all important roles to be played, which is why the Academy honours them for it, but they are STILL supporting roles.
A solid supporting cast is what makes a movie great, and Ledger and Eckhart both were oustanding. But they don’t get promoted to lead for doing a supporting job really well.
I think your argument is flawed on the technicality issue. From where I’m standing at, all, Bale, Ledger, and Eckhart, played the lead roles. Where as Gyllenhaal and Oldman would be supporting roles.
Whether its for best actor or best supporting actor, he should certainly win. I have never seen on film an actor change their voice, facial expressions, and overall posture the way heath ledger did as the joker. If they wouldn’t have said it was heath ledger, would anyone have known it was him? Yeah he wears a lot of make up in the movie but still… You can’t even tell its him except for some very small parts in the movie.
I Agree with Nixon. The Best Actor category if for the best acting regardless of the characters position in the film.
Anthony Hopkins won for Silence of the Lambs with only 16 minutes screen time. Likewise Michael Douglas won for Wall Street when he was clearly the supporting actor to Charlie Sheen. In 1994 John Travolta was nominated for Best Actor for Pulp Fiction and he wasn’t the lead actor there either.
I think he deserves the nomination for Best Actor, not Supporting.
I totally Disagree, this isn’t about categories, this is about how great the actor was….
and then its up to the Warner who was the actor to supporting actor…
And we can then agree…
Best actor means best acting, doesn’t mean which position…
Best Suport Actor means best secondary or partner actor…
So there is no one in the world can say that Christan Bale is the actor and Heath is secondary, even if Batman was the main character….
I say Best Actor baby…..
Although I agreed with you, it came to my mind that there’s no Best lead actor prize, if you just go by the name, the term Best actor could, and actually should include suporting roles, it’s not like they aren’t actors are they?
Oh yeah and Casey Affleck was a supporting role last year in “The Assassination of Jesse James” ? What the hell!!! Fellas I know the title as Jesse James in it but come on. That movie was about Robert Ford’s story. It based almost completely around him. How the hell was Casey Affleck a supporting character? That was a travesty. He still wouldn’t of won but he definately would’ve gotten the nomination. I think George Clooney could’ve been pushed aside to make way for Casey’s amazing performance.
Oh and why wasn’t that score nominated in the score categroy. The score for “The Assassination of Jesse James” was one of the best scores I have ever heard. I heard someone tell me that they don’t nominate scores with two names attached to the composing credit but I thought the Gladiator score had Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard attached to it. The academy blew it on that one. And they blew back in 2001 when they gave it(best score) to “Crouching Tiger” instead of “Gladiator”. Terrible decision.
I agree completely with this article in every single aspect except one. If WB is considering pushing for a run at the Leading actor award for Heath then I’m sure it is more on doing it for Ledger than for themselves. We all know that “best supporting actor” doesn’t mean anything less than “best actor” but we also all have to agree that there is just a little more “glamor” in the lead award. I feel that (if they do it) WB may be trying to get that Lead Award for Ledger more than trying to capatalize for money. Two reasons. At that point what more can they make really. Do they really stand to make any more oney out of it? Does having “Best Actor” on the cover fo your DVD really sell that more DVD’s. My guess is that it helps but not that much. It would really be more about adding that “glamor” to Ledger’s legacy than anything else.
Here’s hoping they don’t though. We all know Joker was a supporting role in the movie. Probably the most important supporting role in a movie in a long time but still just a supporting role. Tremendous job by Heath by the way. Barring a miracle performance in the next 3 months I say Ledger has the award in the bag. So far on one has even come close to being as good as he was in The Dark Knight
I’m betting he’ll win and I’ll bet anyone here that if TDK doesn’t win Best Pic I will fuck ten squashes
I DO agree with you, especially in today’s world.
However, I would just say that Heath Ledger’s performance would belong in the lead category if we still REALLY went by what those categories were initially meant to do. The Academy created the supporting categories to honor actors who weren’t big names an who wouldn’t have been given lead roles. It’s as years have passed that big name actors have become a fixture in the category.
I dunno. What about Forrest Whitaker winning for Last King of Scotland, or Anthony Hopkins winning for Silence of the Lambs? How often were either of them on-screen? I think Ledger could legitimately be considered one of three leads in the film. Realistically, Bale and Eckhart share roughly the same time as Ledger.
Was I a “supporting actor?”
Should Daniel Day Lewis have been considered for supporting in Gangs of New York? Seems about equal……. Villian is always “supporting?”
I would just like to add that this wouldn’t (as has already been mentioned) be the first time they botched the nomination category for a performance. So all this talk of “it isn’t fair because it isn’t in the right category” and John’s “technically incorrect” heading makes no sense at all because apparently they gave up putting things in the right category a long time ago. Seriously. Look back a bit. ALMOST every year there is someone who is put in supporting that was a lead or lead that was a supporting. All I’m saying is they have screwed it up before, you can bet they will screw it up again.
On a side note, Heath is the best performance supporting or otherwise that I have seen this year – but we have a TON of good looking films right around the corner that I think will change this discussion by a mile.
Allow me to once again rant about the injustice of CASEY AFFLECK being nominated in the wrong category last year.
Hey John,
What would you think if The Academy Award converged the two categories into one and called it BEST ACTOR.
I’ll keep this short:
I agree with you 100%, John.
End of post.
Best Supporting Actor sounds about right. Putting him in the Best Actor category is a bit of a stretch.
yes he should be nominated, i think
Hey Henrik,
You said:
“No one should get an oscar for playing the joker. Its just a comic book movie, big deal.”
Wow. A character is a character regardless of genre. The ability to embody that character, make the audience believe in that character and emotionally react to that character (whichever emotion is targeted) is the job of the actor.
If the person who best accomplishes that task is someone in a comic genre role, a dramatic genre role, a thriller genre role… then so be it and they should be rewarded and acknowledged as such regardless of genre.
The only reson people wants him to get an oscar is becaus he is dead. No one should get an oscar for playing the joker. Its just a comic book movie, big deal.
Wha? i thought this was about Heath Ledger not being nominated for best supporting actor because it wouldn’t be fair to the other actors just because he’s dead.
Hey Heather,
The logic is that Heath was not the lead actor, and thus should not be nominated for best lead actor.
Also, if you don’t think the studios winning Oscars pays off for them in spades, then you need to look into that a bit more. It does indeed pay off which is why the studios spend fortunes in Oscar campaigning.
He HAS to be nominated and I think Joker fits on supporting role.
I believe because the story of the movie needed 3 strong characters, it’s the good, the bad and the “edge-of-good/just-his-own-rules”.
Another thing is that Eckhart and Ledger were amazingly good at their roles, to the point the main character was dimmed a little.
Gary Oldman (I’m forever a fan) was solid but his character was not one of the 3 pillars that held the movie.
I don’t get your logic. What’s the difference of WB pushing Heath for a supporting actor nod and a Best actor nod? They’re both awards – and won’t get them any money. If anything, WB pushing for HEath to get Best acting nod would be honoring the great actor. Kudos to WB if they decide to get HEath the Beast acting nom.
need to see RK not need RK, LOL.
I gree with you john (i need to RK but hated that you put righteous kill as an example,come on, why the hate,LOL,) Heath Ledger performace as The Joker have been the best of 2008 so far, but even with that the movie was about BATMAN, his moral choises, his personal conflicts, is gotham really needem him or it was time for a change, etc, etc, but like i said as great as the performance was heath deserve a supporting nod.
I’d rather Best supporting actor nom for him than Best actor. He’ll have a better chance to win it.
I think many people tend to forget that TDK was a Batman movie, starring Batman, being centered around Batman. Heath did steal the show, no doubt, but he was still a supporting actor, not the main actor.
The reason Nicholson didn’t get an Oscar nomination in 1989 for his Joker was that he most likely received split votes. He received support for Best actor and best supporting actor and was canceled out of both categories. That was the opinion at the time.I hope this dosen’t happen in this case. WB should push best supporting actor period. If they do he will WIN!
John: I didn’t mean giving it to him BECAUSE he died, butit should be considered to a degree. Obviously it should be given to him for the performance. If it was a crap performance and he died, I wouldn’t want him to win, but that’s not the case obviously.
In the end, it should be given to the best performance, I’m just saying it should be considered, that’s all (I think I may have been to extreme with what I meant. Oh well).
Besides, didn’t one actor win the award after he died and there were better performances that year (I cannot remember his name at the moment)
I’m gonna agree with you in principle John, but I think a very good case could be made that the Joker was the main character and Batman only a secondary (or third after Harvey Dent/Two-Face). It never felt like Batman was moving the plot along, it was like he was being swept along in it. It was an large ensamble cast and, yes, the plot does refure to Batman, but he still, at least to me, never felt like the main character- like he remained in the shadows.
Also, I wouldn’t say he’s getting the nod simply cause he passed away. Many actors have passed on before films and given great performance that were widely recognized. The only actor I think who has received a posthumous academy award was Peter Finch if I’m not mistaken; and rightfully so because he was fantastic in Network. Who knows, maybe Ledger could join that iconic status by completing such a feat…I’m all for it.
so john, what do you think about brando’s oscar for the godfather? because he has like 30 minutes screentime in that movie and still got best actor.
I didn’t even have to finish this blog entry to agree. Heath Ledger wasn’t the star of the picture; even though he was fantastic in it. Best Supporting Actor I would say so 100% and in fact, I hope he does indeed get the nod for best supporting actor.
Forest Whitaker won Best Actor for his supporting role The Last King of Scotland. Sure, he definitely stole the show with a more than amazing performance but he was supporting James McAvoy. he should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Even though it was a great year for supporting actors that he I think he still would have had a shot. Sure he would have been up against a great performances like Djimon Hounsou and Alan Arkin, but I think he still would have taken the statue home.
Forrest winning that category has always bothered me, and you can guarantee it will bother me if Heath gets a Best Actor nomination even though he was the supporting actor to Christian Bale. They shouldn’t let this happen.
Hey Mike,
I can not disagree with you more when you say something like “2: He will never have a chance to win an award of this caliber. The other nominees could come back every year if they want, and Ledger cannot.”
In my opinion that is a terrible idea. It cheapens the award. The Award should go to the person who turned in the best performance. Nothing else should be taken into consideration.
If you give it to Heath Ledger just because he’s dead, then you should put an asterisk beside his name in the book to denote that he only won it because he’s dead.
Personally, I think this topic has been done TO DEATH already. Also, I think Ledger should win the Oscar for Best Supporting (or whatever really, not our choice what they nominate him for) for two reasons:
1: He was incredible as the Joker, he deserves to have this performance to be recognized
2: He will never have a chance to win an award of this caliber. The other nominees could come back every year if they want, and Ledger cannot.
Also, I read the last time this topic was brought up here, wasn’t Forest Whitaker only a supporting role in Best King of Scotland and won Best Actor? (I haven’t seen the movie, so I have to go on a comment by a viewer from here).
I agree that the late Ledger should not be in contention for a posthumous lead actor Oscar nom. I could easily see a nod for supporting actor (which I think Aaron Eckhart should be given a nod also; sadly, if that happens, the performances will cancel each other out)
I also expect nom’s for tech awards, a repeat in photography, for example. So it’s not like I expect DK to go out empty handed.
Indeed, there’s many films left to see- and many films that we have seen in which varied talents should be deserving of also being considered, such as Brendan Gleeson in In Brudges.
I’m completely agree you on this. I am in support of his nonmination for best supporting actor for this role because he gave a wonderful performance that terrified me through the whole movie.
Whether he deserves to win remains to be seen. As of right now, from the movies I’ve seen, I’m torn between Heath and Brendan Glesson for In Burges, which is still my favorite movie this year.
I Believe he deserves a nomination….idc wtf movie it is ( and i have seen just about all this year) i believe a oscar should go to the actor that every one is talking about if its good comments…fact is this movie was awesome cause him….majority of peole i asked said they thought bale was meh but ledger stole the movie…now i dont feel this way cause he died….actually i can care less that he died, but the fact is this halloween kids will wear joker every where even over batman, why? cause ledger was so awesome and people loved his acting in it. I also dont think he was a supporting actor….my opinion is the movie had 2 stars ledger and bale…every one else was supporting to them. i wasnt caught up in the hype of his death , and actually i was kinda hoping he would suck so i could hate on the movie…fact is the #1 thing i liked about this movie is the direction ledger chose to use with the joker….cause i dont think a super comic book joker would have worked well,
well….i just dont see anyone else that did better…so far
even if hes a suporting actor, the price is for the best ACTOR so it doesnt matter
i really cant think of a better performance so far…
The problem with the Dark Knight is that there weren’t any LEAD performances. I’d say that Ledger deserves a nomination in the SUPPORTING ACTOR category but lead? Hell no. You know, it would be nice to see Gary Oldman’s Gordon role be nominated in the supporting acting category as well. I’d even go to say that Oldman impressed me more than Ledger in TDK.
Hey there Adox
When you say “I think he deserves it” do you mean he deserves the nomination or deserves the win?
I’m not sure how you can already say he deserves the win when you haven’t seen all the other performances of the other potential nominees yet.
i agree man, but if he’s going in that category then there will be some craziness if he doesn’t “even get that award” i think he deserves it anyway.
Yes, but what I mean to say is that even though he was shit in a lot of movies, he grew into being something that was going to one day be huge.
At least that is the direction I feel he was heading. But I understand why you feel that way about him 100%.
I just think he had grown so much in the past few years and it culminated to EXCELLENCE in “the Dark Knight”. Does that make any sense at all?
Hey Robert,
I see where you’re coming from, but I have to disagree. His “Overall Career” wasn’t really all that great. He was a hit and miss actor who was BRILLIANT when he was on… but pretty bad when he was off.
I think that there is a large pool this year (as any) of Excellent lead and supporting roles out there. I think he shouldn’t be nominated for any and that they should just give maybe a new kind of award for his overall career culminating at “The Dark Knight” to his family as just a Respect NOD to him.
I completely agree with this. Mainly because I too, like many people, believe that Ledger more deserves a nomination for the “Best Supporting Actor” Oscar. Being that he was only probably in HALF of the entire film, it just makes more sense then being thrown into the “Best Leading Actor” list just because. It’d be like putting Micheal Caine in the “Best Leading” poll for his role as Alfred. It just wouldn’t make any sense in my book.
I agree with you John but I’ve been saying since I saw the film that I think Heath even being nominated for best supporting actor is a little redundant, for two reasons.
1. Feel free to disagree with me but I believe that the point of winning an academy award for acting is the chance to walk up on that stage and be recognised and congratulated by your fellow colleagues in the industry for a performance. It is a seminal moment that all actors hope to achieve in their career. At its most cynical, the award is the career boost that gets you parts like nothing else. Heath cannot take away either of these. Also, like it or not, his very nomination creates a feeling of obligation among voters and no other actor in that catergory would have a chance of winning (and at that point, the whole point of the catergory becomes redundant and it feels like Heath should be getting some special posthumus award instead – but that’s a whole ‘nother issue).
2. Aaron Eckhart gave the best performance in the film. He should be nominated; just my opinion.
I think WB is going to push TDK, but not so much for Heath. What they want is the best picture nomination; for the film to be recognised, not just as a comic book movie, or as the most successful film of the year, but as an American film among the highest quality of its year. A nomination in itself would make history……..I mean it’s a friggin Batman movie :)