Next Question
RSS
Yes, he did deserve it.
- He made that movie, and the movie is the biggest blend of critical and popular success in a movie for a long time.
-His character was truly scary and you really had no idea what to expect from him. He really came across as a mad genius, more so than any superhero movie villain I've ever seen, including Jack Nicholson's Joker (!). (Not saying he's a better actor than Jack but he's definitely the better Joker).
- There were scenes that could have come across cheesy or stupid (nurse's outfit) but they were good. A really difficult role to play right, but every scene was spot-on.
-Great acting work is supposed to show audiences something compelling and even challenging about the complex psychology of a character; this performance did.
-Finally, I think the best proof is that his work was by far THE standout performance in a cast that had strong work from Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman (many of whom have been nominated for or have won Golden Globes).
The competitors were very strong as a group of actors in terms of their careers as a whole, but these roles from Hoffman and Fiennes, even though they are EXCELLENT actors, are not all that different from other roles they have played; it was not a surprise to see their performances. Awards should go to great actors doing their best work. Downey and Cruise were good too, but I honestly don't believe that what they did in Tropic Thunder is as significant a contribution to acting as the other three nominations (I am not talking about them as actors overall, just about their role in that particular movie. And I don't mean that comic acting isn't just as hard as dramatic, it's just those roles were not as substantial).
Is it true that there might be ulterior motives for voting for him? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's not deserved. Awards shows regularly dismiss tremendous acting (and writing) when the movie is sci-fi or comic-book-adapted or fantasy, etc. The anti-genre bias and the personal or emotional reasons for voting for him probably cancel each other out (this part is just an opinion, but it is well-known that there is an anti-genre bias in big awards shows; listen to any TV critic talk about Battlestar Galactica (or Star Wars)).
Permalink | Report
He won for best supporting actor in a motion picture.
These are all good actors, generally playing roles they're good at. I think this is a little further of a each for Mr. Ledger, he's often playing the hero or love interest according to his filmography. He's also often a "regular" human, as opposed to the super-villain depicted in The Dark Knight. I won't argue whether the Joker is super-powered, any more than Batman is, but there is something about them that makes them well outside the normal experience or scope of ability for the people they threaten/protect/imperil. Ledger has done period pieces, but this is a little more science-fiction/noir versus much of his earlier work.
I won't go into the records of every nominee, but I believe Heath Ledger stretched himself to play the role, perhaps more than was required of his fellow nominees to complete their own. Since it is the elephant in the living room, his death may certainly have had something to do with his nomination and/or winning the award, but looking at the work on its own, it is definitely in contention without outside factors being weighed. It may even support that the rumor, I have no more evidence than that, going around shortly following his death was due to medication he was taking due to trouble sleeping, because the part disturbed him so much. If that has credence, it further suggests his effort, portrayed I believe successfully, in rendering one of the more complicated villains in contemporary culture.
Source(s):
Hollywood Foreign Press Association Website:
http://www.goldenglobes.org/nominations/index.html
IMDB Filmography listing for Heath Ledger:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005132/
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
What made Ledger deserve the award? The fact that had I not already known that it was him portraying the Joker, I would not have even guessed, and I have seen every Heath Ledger film and television series. In my opinion, that is what makes an actor good. When you can look right at him and see his character, and not even recognize the actor himself.
Source(s):
big sister to Batman comic book collecting boy.
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$3
January 12, 2009 04:48 AM
Did Heath Ledger deserve his Golden Globe for ''The Dark Knight''?
Was his work better than his fellow nominees?
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
- In Golden Globes |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| January 12, 2009 06:15 AM |
- He made that movie, and the movie is the biggest blend of critical and popular success in a movie for a long time.
-His character was truly scary and you really had no idea what to expect from him. He really came across as a mad genius, more so than any superhero movie villain I've ever seen, including Jack Nicholson's Joker (!). (Not saying he's a better actor than Jack but he's definitely the better Joker).
- There were scenes that could have come across cheesy or stupid (nurse's outfit) but they were good. A really difficult role to play right, but every scene was spot-on.
-Great acting work is supposed to show audiences something compelling and even challenging about the complex psychology of a character; this performance did.
-Finally, I think the best proof is that his work was by far THE standout performance in a cast that had strong work from Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman (many of whom have been nominated for or have won Golden Globes).
The competitors were very strong as a group of actors in terms of their careers as a whole, but these roles from Hoffman and Fiennes, even though they are EXCELLENT actors, are not all that different from other roles they have played; it was not a surprise to see their performances. Awards should go to great actors doing their best work. Downey and Cruise were good too, but I honestly don't believe that what they did in Tropic Thunder is as significant a contribution to acting as the other three nominations (I am not talking about them as actors overall, just about their role in that particular movie. And I don't mean that comic acting isn't just as hard as dramatic, it's just those roles were not as substantial).
Is it true that there might be ulterior motives for voting for him? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's not deserved. Awards shows regularly dismiss tremendous acting (and writing) when the movie is sci-fi or comic-book-adapted or fantasy, etc. The anti-genre bias and the personal or emotional reasons for voting for him probably cancel each other out (this part is just an opinion, but it is well-known that there is an anti-genre bias in big awards shows; listen to any TV critic talk about Battlestar Galactica (or Star Wars)).
| Asker's Rating: |
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (9)
January 12, 2009 05:19 AM
Heath Ledger's work was very good. His fellow nominees were Tom Cruise (Tropic THunder), Robert Downey Junior (Tropic Thunder), Ralph Fiennes (The Duchess), and Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt). He won for best supporting actor in a motion picture.
These are all good actors, generally playing roles they're good at. I think this is a little further of a each for Mr. Ledger, he's often playing the hero or love interest according to his filmography. He's also often a "regular" human, as opposed to the super-villain depicted in The Dark Knight. I won't argue whether the Joker is super-powered, any more than Batman is, but there is something about them that makes them well outside the normal experience or scope of ability for the people they threaten/protect/imperil. Ledger has done period pieces, but this is a little more science-fiction/noir versus much of his earlier work.
I won't go into the records of every nominee, but I believe Heath Ledger stretched himself to play the role, perhaps more than was required of his fellow nominees to complete their own. Since it is the elephant in the living room, his death may certainly have had something to do with his nomination and/or winning the award, but looking at the work on its own, it is definitely in contention without outside factors being weighed. It may even support that the rumor, I have no more evidence than that, going around shortly following his death was due to medication he was taking due to trouble sleeping, because the part disturbed him so much. If that has credence, it further suggests his effort, portrayed I believe successfully, in rendering one of the more complicated villains in contemporary culture.
Source(s):
Hollywood Foreign Press Association Website:
http://www.goldenglobes.org/nominations/index.html
IMDB Filmography listing for Heath Ledger:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005132/
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 12, 2009 06:10 AM
I was amazed at Ledger's work. I wasn't expecting much from a Batman movie, so maybe that influenced me, and I certainly had echos of Brandon Lee in The Crow ringing in my head (NOT a good first/last performance for Brandon Lee). This acting blew me away and certainly deserved the award... I'm also wondering if an Oscar is around the corner as well...
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 12, 2009 01:49 PM
Absolutely. Were there others deserving of an award? Sure. But the bottom line is that his acting in that role was quite deserving of an award. I do think that additional hype was placed on his performance post-mortem, but regardless of his physical status, he did an outstanding job in the film. I'm not much of a fan of the Batman series, but his role as joker was excellent.
Permalink | Report
Reply
January 12, 2009 02:42 PM
There were a lot of people who said that Ledger shouldn't have even been nominated, that they only nominated him because he had died. After watching the film, I can't understand why anyone would say that. He brought a whole new face to the Joker as a character, taking away the cheesy cartoon image Jack Nicholson lent when he portrayed the Joker back in 1989. The two most recent Batman films shed new light on the Batman franchise, taking the comic book essence and layering it effectively into modern day society. A villain like Ledger's Joker seems very real. I could easily imagine turning on CNN to find a broadcast about a recent string of terrorist attacks masterminded by a clown-faced suspect. What made Ledger deserve the award? The fact that had I not already known that it was him portraying the Joker, I would not have even guessed, and I have seen every Heath Ledger film and television series. In my opinion, that is what makes an actor good. When you can look right at him and see his character, and not even recognize the actor himself.
Source(s):
big sister to Batman comic book collecting boy.
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- ablesecurity225, November 09, 2009 08:35 AM
- hanem, November 09, 2009 08:27 AM
- qwe, November 09, 2009 08:24 AM
- bharath, November 09, 2009 08:21 AM
- vishaknair, November 09, 2009 07:56 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
