Fait Accompli
"Given that Heath Ledger's Joker performance is worthy of a nod, but hobbled by its generic provenance, what's the extra magic ingredient that will put Ledger over the top come next February?," asks the Guardian's John Patterson. "Will it be the stark and depressing fact that he's dead, and thus worthy of posthumous veneration. Or will it have more to do with The Ugly?
"I'm betting on The Ugly. Death is no way to get Oscars. Back in 1968 there was a furious campaign to prevent the recently deceased Spencer Tracy being nominated as best actor for Guess Who's Coming To Dinner, on the sound basis that plenty of living actors deserved a break. Only in 1976 was this taboo finally overcome, with the recently deceased Peter Finch's victory for Network, but that was the 1970s, when everyone was crazy.
"So, The Ugly. Ledger went all Lon Chaney on his Joker. He worked out the makeup largely on his own, lathering himself up a Catweasel-style hair-catastrophe, and smearing his face with white powder to contrast with his two horribly healed, livid-scarlet cheek-slashes, which resemble what hangs out of the sides of a pastrami sandwich. For anyone who thinks Ledger got too involved in his role, bear in mind that Chaney -- champion makeup man -- actually pulled his eyeballs from their sockets with wires for his 1926 Phantom Of The Opera. He called it 'extreme characterisation.'
"Ugly's quite big this season. Hellboy endures snotty teenagers shouting, 'Dude, you're ugly!' at him in his forthcoming sequel, and the Hulk ain't no oil painting when his blood's up. But Ugly isn't bad for Oscars, or at least for nominations. The Elephant Man, Mask, Monster and The Hours (renowned babe to butt-fugly horror being a favored rite of passage in movie-star self-abasement trajectory) -- all those harrowing sojourns in the Ugly Chair, all that falling out of the Ugly Tree and hitting every branch on the way down, it adds up in terms of prestige and awards.
"Beautiful Hollywood always loves an ugly loser. So maybe it's Heath's year after all."
When was the last time that a villain performance was talked about so confidently and so early in the game as an all-but-certain Oscar nominee? Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men, of course. (My bad for spacing.) Before that, Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 20, 2008 at 1:55 PM
comment #1
BurmaShave says ...
Anton Chigurh? How soon we forget.
Posted by BurmaShave at July 20, 2008 2:16 PM
comment #2
Kristopher Tapley says ...
..........Lon Chaney fucking did WHAT??
As for your question, Jeff, that'd be last year and Javier Bardem.
Posted by Kristopher Tapley at July 20, 2008 2:17 PM
comment #3
rockne says ...
That is the most assenign, arrogant, conceited, condescending thing I've ever seen written. He's going to be a lock for a win because he's ugly? A "generic provenance"? So the guy's incredible performance and delving so deep into his role and just ACTING REALLY, REALLY WELL isn't enough to guarantee the award all on its own? He needs his makeup to do that? Please, please, let pop culture relegate critics useless much sooner rather than later. (No offense, Jeff.)
This was obviously written strictly to get "airtime", and to get people talking. Damn...it worked...
Posted by rockne at July 20, 2008 2:34 PM
comment #4
StoneFan1 says ...
Personally, I thought Tracy was much better than
Hepburn in "Guess Who's..." and I think Ledger
will be lucky to even get a nomination. This is just
July remember and by mid-August people will be
talking about other things. Ledger could get through
because it seems to be a weak year in the male
lead and supporting categories.
Posted by StoneFan1 at July 20, 2008 2:49 PM
comment #5
calraigh says ...
'' Assenign ''. Really? Not only have you missed the point, you can't spell it either.
Posted by calraigh at July 20, 2008 2:54 PM
comment #6
rockne says ...
I've actually seen it spelled numerous times as assenign, asinine, and assanign. I like the first. Sorry.
Posted by rockne at July 20, 2008 2:59 PM
comment #7
BurmaShave says ...
StoneFan1, what else precisely will people be talking about in a month besides a movie that could very well still be number one at the box office and will certainly be on everyone's minds? My fucking grandfather is going to see it today, no joke. And if your ideas about the zeitgeist entirely dictating Oscar nominations were true, all Best Picture winners would be about Christmas.
Posted by BurmaShave at July 20, 2008 3:00 PM
comment #8
coxcable says ...
Ledger had the great supporting performance of the movie. But Eckhart had the great supporting role... the one the entire story flows through. And usually it takes both the combination of juicy role and performance to get a supporting Oscar nomination (as it did with Javier Bardem perfection last year).
The Joker is nowhere near the most important dramatic aspect of the film. So all this hype for Ledger's great work in an OK role is clearly because of his death.
If we had lost Eckhart instead, everyone would be blowing the Oscar whistle for him and his OK work in a great role.
Posted by coxcable at July 20, 2008 3:06 PM
comment #9
Josh Massey says ...
Ledger would have gotten the nomination if he was alive. Ledger will get the win because he's dead.
Posted by Josh Massey at July 20, 2008 3:07 PM
comment #10
rockne says ...
What? Blowing the whistle for Eckhart if he had died....this post has officially become too ridiculous...even for me.
Posted by rockne at July 20, 2008 3:21 PM
comment #11
broadstreetbully says ...
Apropos of nothing, really, I thought this AP graphic concerning TDK's opening day grosses was quite amusing when one looks at the Shrek entries. Were these Max's films?
http://apnews.myway.com/image/20080719/BOX_OFFICE_DARK_KNIGHT.sff_GFX215_20080719133505.html?date=20080720&docid=D921OI1G0
Posted by broadstreetbully at July 20, 2008 4:50 PM
comment #12
broadstreetbully says ...
Apropos of nothing, really, I thought this AP graphic concerning TDK's opening day grosses was quite amusing when one looks at the Shrek entries. Were these Max's films?
http://apnews.myway.com/image/20080719/BOX_OFFICE_DARK_KNIGHT.sff_GFX215_20080719133505.html?date=20080720&docid=D921OI1G0
Posted by broadstreetbully at July 20, 2008 4:51 PM
comment #13
romeoisbleeding says ...
I am starting to feel a tad burned out over all things Dark Knight already. Is it possible to grow weary of it this quicikly? Maybe I need to take a nap. When do we start talking about the Fall movies?
Posted by romeoisbleeding at July 20, 2008 4:52 PM
comment #14
supertaster says ...
romeo, DK has a 9.7/10 on IMDB...there's a "campaign" to take down the Godfather ... it's officially ok to be weary.
Posted by supertaster at July 20, 2008 5:03 PM
comment #15
chappiesan says ...
Seeing that Heat has an 8.2 on Imdb, me thinks The Dark Knight is in need of a little bit of a correction. As in, down to the 7.x's.
Posted by chappiesan at July 20, 2008 6:15 PM
comment #16
romeoisbleeding says ...
Thanks Supertaster, I was feeling very alone. oh my god... are you serious? a campaign?? oy.
Posted by romeoisbleeding at July 20, 2008 6:15 PM
comment #17
BurmaShave says ...
IMDB's number one film of all time. Really? Has the hype ever gotten this crazy before?
Posted by BurmaShave at July 20, 2008 6:44 PM
comment #18
StoneFan1 says ...
Who cares about the IMDB rankings? My God!
Sight and Sound is the only poll that matters. End
of story!
BurmaShave - Are you kidding? People will be
talking about a million other things this coming
weekend! We've got the attention spans of a new
born child these days.
Posted by StoneFan1 at July 20, 2008 7:56 PM
comment #19
Chase Kahn says ...
cox, I kind of see what you're saying, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it an "OK" role. It's the greatest comic-book villain ever set to paper, and it's a role that requires a larger-than-life performance. That's something a lot of people didn't think Heath had in him.
He also has as much face time as Batman in this movie (although the same could be said for Harvey Dent).
Honestly, I thought Eckhart was very good in his role, but I thought perhaps Oldman was better despite the fact that it's a bit of a cliched character...
Posted by Chase Kahn at July 20, 2008 7:58 PM
comment #20
BurmaShave says ...
StoneFan, all I know is in summer of 2003 Jack Sparrow was on the lips of everyone for weeks, and he wasn't even dead. Why are you so desperate for us all to be gnat brains? This movie is a phenomenon.
Posted by BurmaShave at July 20, 2008 8:14 PM
comment #21
nemo says ...
"The Elephant Man, Mask, Monster and The Hours (renowned babe to butt-fugly horror being a favored rite of passage in movie-star self-abasement trajectory)"
I had no idea John Hurt was a renowned babe before he starred in The Elephant Man. The things you learn here!
Posted by nemo at July 20, 2008 8:33 PM
comment #22
nemo says ...
So the only thing keeping a dead actor from getting nominated and winning an Oscar is some silly taboo?
Does this same silly taboo apply to directors? Cinematographers? Best makeup? Sound engineering?
If you're going to have a rule against posthumous awards, then make it an explicit rule. The Nobel Prize has an explicit rule against awards to dead scientists. There is a long list of scientists who deserved the Nobel, but died too early -- Rosalind Franklin deserved the Nobel for the double helical structure of DNA at least as much as Watson and Crick.
But if there's no explicit rule, then go ahead and award away, and silly taboo be damned. The Oscars are just a high school popularity contest anyway.
Posted by nemo at July 20, 2008 8:42 PM
comment #23
D.Z. says ...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i1da5db18eb0203bb77509be94bf13abf
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i1da5db18eb0203bb77856dffdb9795ca
Posted by D.Z. at July 20, 2008 10:00 PM
comment #24
JHRussell says ...
There is one big diff with Bardem - NCFOM did not release theatrically until late November...I realize there was a lot of blog buzz pre-release about the movie and Bardem in particular, but it wasn't until the masses saw the movie that the brilliance of Bardem's performance was so clear...
The biggest obstacle to a nom for Ledger is the summer release...otherwise, if this had been a winter holiday season release, I think the momentum would be unstoppable.
FWIW, Ledger's performance is the best I have seen this year...not sure if it will hold up for the Oscars, but I would not bet against it...I think it also helps his chances that it is a supporting role...
Posted by JHRussell at July 21, 2008 7:08 AM
comment #25
StoneFan1 says ...
"Phenomenon"?? Really? I'll go with you on that
one IF it makes over $400-500 million in North
America and doesn't fall 60-70% next weekend. If
it taps out before $350 million, then it was nothing
more than a front-loaded, summer blockbuster. WB
better go for Supporting Actor, I know Ledger has
a great shot of winning that, but if their ego gets
in the way and they go for lead, it'll be tough for
him to win.
Posted by StoneFan1 at July 21, 2008 8:14 AM
comment #26
Richardson says ...
"If you're going to have a rule against posthumous awards, then make it an explicit rule."
It's not a rule. It's human nature. Dead people are not around to campaign for their Oscars, so that's a big handicap. And the Oscars are supposed to be a happy occassion, so people are reluctant to bring down the entire ceremony [and from the get-go, no less, since the supporting awards will be given out within the first hour or less] by having to be reminded that a great actor who gave a great performance is dead.
Peter Finch won because of the timing of his death; after all of this hype around Ledger's death coming in July, are Oscar voters really going to want to bring it all back up in February? I wonder, but I suspect not.
Posted by Richardson at July 21, 2008 10:57 AM
comment #27
Richardson says ...
"what else precisely will people be talking about in a month besides a movie that could very well still be number one at the box office and will certainly be on everyone's minds?"
Well, in a month is when the Oscar campaigning season starts, so, presumably, people -- meaning the people who vote, not bloggers on the Internet -- will be talking about the movies they see at the NYFF and at Toronto, for a start. It's difficult to say which movies, precisely, that will be, because that sort of buzz comes directly from people actually seeing the movies, so it's harder to predict.
Posted by Richardson at July 21, 2008 11:00 AM
comment #28
supertaster says ...
Fanboys are mobilized and out in force. 'Batman Begins' has an 8.3 and is ranked around 100th. To me, it's twice the movie that the Dark Knight is. Sure there is no performance as compelling as Ledgers, but 'Begins' had a deeper, more resonating philisophical undercurrent, no out-of-frame-out-of-mind editing issues, and Bale wasn't running around with 'roid rage the entire film. I'd say Gylennhaal's presence drags down TDK even further, but that was balanced out by her character's death...
Posted by supertaster at July 21, 2008 11:51 AM
comment #29
janee
says ...
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability architecture
Posted by janee
at May 17, 2011 7:14 AM