Heath Ledger's Joker -- Oscarworthy?

[LadyStarblade]

Interesting article today:

Oscar buzz already surrounding Ledger's Joker.[/url]

My question, before any of us have judged the full performance, is this.

Do you think that any Oscar nomination/win would be clouded or 'astrisked'? As in, basically, he noms/wins because of his tragic death? Is the performance being overhyped because of it?

Discuss, if you so choose. To me, a great performance is a great performance and should be rewarded appropriately. Any other thoughts?

[PoolMan]

I think it's a poor idea to be talking about before the movie's release... it practically stinks of fan satisfaction, when the viewing public hasn't even seen the role portrayed yet. What if it's not all we hoped for?

Oscar buzz ahead of a movie's release is old hat, but given we're talking about a dead actor, I just think it's a lame idea. At least wait till we've seen it before robbing someone else.

[Al]

Yeah, I'm kind of getting a Human Stain Redux vibe off of this. Major, major Oscar buzz (Anthony Hopkins! Nicole Kidman! Philip Roth!) but tanked at the box office and critics were only lukewarm.

Then again, the Academy Awards has a reputation for letting Hollywood make itself feel better. They didn't get to give Heath an Oscar for Brokeback Mountain, so I'm sure there will be some inclination to give a posthumous Oscar. Is that really different than Al Pacino getting it for Scent of A Woman or Paul Newman for The Color of Money?

EDIT: Not that I'm seeing TDK tanking or critics being lukewarm, just the Oscar thing

[BlackCatWhiteCat]

I agree that it is tacky to be talking about an Oscar nomination before the movie is even out!

I can't deny that, watching the trailers, I feel like Heath's portrayal of The Joker is going to be insanely terrific.

I also can't deny that, at the first mention of Oscar for his performance, I felt like it was cattle prodded by the actor's tragic death. We all know that an Oscar (just like a Grammy) win isn't necessarily indicative of a good performance. I'll better be able to answer this question once I've been able to weigh his performance against other nominees.

I just don't know at this point. I think I'm going to love it. His Joker, to me, is going to be the root of the Joker's personality. It's like Jack Nicholson was the buzz and Heath is the hangover.

Also, like my husband pointed out, the makeup for Heath's Joker actually looks like a guy who fell into a vat of acid.

I care not, these days, about Oscars and Grammys because I feel both award systems are screwed up. I got jaded along the way, I guess.

[drew]

Jul 3, 2008 9:51:26 GMT -5 Al said:

Is that really different than Al Pacino getting it for Scent of A Woman or Paul Newman for The Color of Money?

Pacino beat a very deserving Denzel Washington (Malcolm X), who then got his "pseudo-Lifetime Achievement" Best Actor Oscar for Training Day nine years later. Among those that Denzel bested was Will Smith (for Ali), who I believe is on schedule to get his Best Actor Oscar the next time he even remotely deserves it. And the politics train keeps on rolling...

As far as Heath Ledger goes, unless his performance is shockingly bad (which is not bloody likely, if you ask me), I get the feeling that 90% or more of the people who would vote for him have already filled out their ballots mentally. So, yes, I do think that an Oscar win for Ledger would be tainted, whether it turns out to be deserved or not.