So, the inevitable backlash has started already, and the movie has been out for barely a week. Heath Ledger's performance isn't "that great" I read on one response to an article about The Dark Knight. "Nothing special," said another poster. "Aaron Eckhart was better," said another.
I am not surprised by the backlash, but I am disappointed in it. Regardless of the fact that his cast mates were extolling his performance prior to his unfortunate death, most of those who are against Ledger's acting today seem to be in one of a couple of camps:
Point two is faulty reasoning. Ledger died from an accidental and lethal combination of drugs that were all legally prescribed to him (site). There are plenty of people who argued that it would be very difficult to OD on any one of those drugs, but taking even a few of them together could lead to issues-- which is, according to the official record, just what happened. To say that he was a "druggie" or to imply that Ledger was trying to commit suicide is simple distortion.
Point three is the only one that has any credible argument to it, simply because what is one person's idea of good acting may not be for another. Without having some sort of guideline for what makes an acting job superior means that all awards for acting are either popularity contests or subjective interpretations, or a combination thereof. I have my own assessment of what makes for good acting, but admit that it may be too stringent.
What I think makes Ledger's performance stand out in The Dark Knight is that he completely subsumes himself into the role he has created. He is virtually unrecognizable as Ledger, and you see nothing of his prior roles in this one. It is a unique character formed from the imagination of the actor. I also think that the consistency with which the actor plays the role is important-- the character as interpreted by the actor must remain consistent throughout the movie, suffering little to no instances of the actor shining through or the character overwhelming the scene in such a way as to be a distraction.
As an example, George Clooney was nominated for the movie Michael Clayton last year. While I happen to like Clooney, and I very much enjoyed Michael Clayton, I thought this nomination was a bad choice. Clooney did a damn fine job, but it was the same character with the same emotions as has appeared in a few of Clooney's last few dramas. Compare Syriana to Michael Clayton, and you will see little difference in the way Clooney portrays either character. You could also use nearly any one of Kevin Costner's roles as another example of this; he is always basically the same guy with the same range no matter if he's dancing with wolves, saving a post-apocalyptic world, or playing catch with his ghost dad. Another example is actually Jack Nicholson's 1989 turn as The Joker. His version was more clownish than psycho, but you never, ever forgot it was Jack Nicholson up there. The writer tailored lines to his specific cadence, makeup was used in a way that allowed as much of Jack's face to shine through as possible, and they generally played to all of his strengths from years of playing the crazy guy in movies. Nothing wrong with that, and it was a great counterpoint to Michael Keaton's portrayal of Bruce Wayne/Batman, but there was little to no "acting" going on in the role.
I believe, if you could find someone who somehow didn't know that Heath Ledger was The Joker and had them watch the movie without seeing the credits, there would be little chance of them guessing it was the guy from A Knight's Tale or Brokeback Mountain. There are no mannerisms or affectations of the actor's in the role he is playing. I did not see him break character or have an "up" (too over the top-- which is hard to judge on a character such as this, but worth the effort) or "down" (you can see the actor shining through, or the actor is not putting the same level of effort into the character) moments. He was this person.
In the end, though, I know that posting this argument is just tilting at windmills. Nearly every year there is some sort of nifty movie-related thing that comes along and, just as soon as the mainstream jumps on board, the people who originally made it popular jump off and start the backlash. We saw it with Juno last year, as a recent example.
I am not surprised by the backlash, but I am disappointed in it. Regardless of the fact that his cast mates were extolling his performance prior to his unfortunate death, most of those who are against Ledger's acting today seem to be in one of a couple of camps:
- He is only being considered for an acting award because he died.
- He shouldn't be considered for an acting award because of how he died (i.e., that the Academy would be somehow praising a "druggie").
- He simply didn't do a good job of acting.
Point two is faulty reasoning. Ledger died from an accidental and lethal combination of drugs that were all legally prescribed to him (site). There are plenty of people who argued that it would be very difficult to OD on any one of those drugs, but taking even a few of them together could lead to issues-- which is, according to the official record, just what happened. To say that he was a "druggie" or to imply that Ledger was trying to commit suicide is simple distortion.
Point three is the only one that has any credible argument to it, simply because what is one person's idea of good acting may not be for another. Without having some sort of guideline for what makes an acting job superior means that all awards for acting are either popularity contests or subjective interpretations, or a combination thereof. I have my own assessment of what makes for good acting, but admit that it may be too stringent.
What I think makes Ledger's performance stand out in The Dark Knight is that he completely subsumes himself into the role he has created. He is virtually unrecognizable as Ledger, and you see nothing of his prior roles in this one. It is a unique character formed from the imagination of the actor. I also think that the consistency with which the actor plays the role is important-- the character as interpreted by the actor must remain consistent throughout the movie, suffering little to no instances of the actor shining through or the character overwhelming the scene in such a way as to be a distraction.
As an example, George Clooney was nominated for the movie Michael Clayton last year. While I happen to like Clooney, and I very much enjoyed Michael Clayton, I thought this nomination was a bad choice. Clooney did a damn fine job, but it was the same character with the same emotions as has appeared in a few of Clooney's last few dramas. Compare Syriana to Michael Clayton, and you will see little difference in the way Clooney portrays either character. You could also use nearly any one of Kevin Costner's roles as another example of this; he is always basically the same guy with the same range no matter if he's dancing with wolves, saving a post-apocalyptic world, or playing catch with his ghost dad. Another example is actually Jack Nicholson's 1989 turn as The Joker. His version was more clownish than psycho, but you never, ever forgot it was Jack Nicholson up there. The writer tailored lines to his specific cadence, makeup was used in a way that allowed as much of Jack's face to shine through as possible, and they generally played to all of his strengths from years of playing the crazy guy in movies. Nothing wrong with that, and it was a great counterpoint to Michael Keaton's portrayal of Bruce Wayne/Batman, but there was little to no "acting" going on in the role.
I believe, if you could find someone who somehow didn't know that Heath Ledger was The Joker and had them watch the movie without seeing the credits, there would be little chance of them guessing it was the guy from A Knight's Tale or Brokeback Mountain. There are no mannerisms or affectations of the actor's in the role he is playing. I did not see him break character or have an "up" (too over the top-- which is hard to judge on a character such as this, but worth the effort) or "down" (you can see the actor shining through, or the actor is not putting the same level of effort into the character) moments. He was this person.
In the end, though, I know that posting this argument is just tilting at windmills. Nearly every year there is some sort of nifty movie-related thing that comes along and, just as soon as the mainstream jumps on board, the people who originally made it popular jump off and start the backlash. We saw it with Juno last year, as a recent example.
Spot on: excellent analysis, with concrete points supported with verifiable fact, the very antithesis of what the newsies report on-air.
ReplyDeleteFor the media, it's all about personal opinion/reaction, as well as who is ponying up to pay for the exclusive Oscar parties hosted by the same "reporters" who are supposed to be neutral in their job performance.