Reports were rampant following Ledger's death that the intensity of his performance caused the anxiety, sleeplessness, etc. that led to the declining health that caused his untimely death - in other words he died for his art. How can you compete with that?
Had he won the Oscar for Brokeback Mountain or even if the film had won the best picture award it was expected to win, I don't think there would be the collective guilt and/or wanting to right a wrong there seems to be over his snubbing less than two years before his death.
The New York Film Critics and other organizations that honored him for Brokeback saw no reason to award him for The Dark Knight and gave the award (in New York's case) to Josh Brolin in a far more conventional award calibre turn.
Had he not died, and had the film been the box office success it was, he may or may not have been nominated, but he would not necessarily be the all but certain winner he is.
The first nominee for playing a comic book or comic strip character, the latter actually, was ten year-old Jackie Cooper in Skippy way back in 1931. He actually would have been a more credible winner than Lionel Barrymore at his hammiest in A Free Soul.
The next serious contender for playing a comic book or comic strip character was Jack Nicholson in Batman 58 years later. Category confusion may have been the reason he wasn't included, that and the fact he'd already won twice for more serious performances. The Globes nominated him for best comedy actor, though he lost to the only serious contender there, Morgan Freeman in Driving Miss Daisy.
Al Pacino was widely expected to be nominated for best actor for The Godfather Part III, not supporting actor for Dick Tracy, though the Globes nominated him in both categories so it is conceivable that he was anticipated as a double nominee that year as he would be the following year for Scent of a Woman and Glengarry Glen Ross. Dustin Hoffman had also been talked of as a possible nominee for Dick Tracy.
Pesci's win was no surprise. He and Bruce Davison in Longtime Companion were the only serious contenders. Pesci had won the National Board of Review and L.A. Film Critics award, while Davison won the N.Y. and National Society of Film Critics awards and the Globe. Pesci should have been prepared. If he really thought Pacino was going to win he may well have been the only one, but not prepare a speech? More likely he did but forget it or was too embarrassed to deliver it or had some other reason he didn't want to make public. The Pacino remark seemed to be something he pulled out his hat. If anything, he should have though Davison would win.
Michelle Pfeiffer was nominated for Love Field in 1992, a more serious work than Batman Returns, though her performance in the latter underscored her versatility and helped propel her nomination for that barely released film.
As for Gene Hackman in Superman. I thought it was one of his worst performances, horrible mugging that all but threw the film off-kilter. He was much better in that year's Under Fire.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1233311558
Categories One-by-One: Supporting Actor
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
I believe the closest thing the Academy ever got to nominating a comic book type villain performance was Al Pacino in Dick Tracy but that was a comic STRIP character, not a comic book character. The sentiment surrounding him is that it's his sixth career nomination without a single win. When Joe Pesci won and delivered one of the shortest acceptance speeches in the history of the Oscars, he said in an interview that he didn't prepare a speech because he thought Al Pacino was going to win.
What was that Supporting Actor race like?
I also believe Jack Nicholson came close for the Tim Burton Batman movie but I think his votes got split between Lead and Supporting.
What was that Supporting Actor race like?
I also believe Jack Nicholson came close for the Tim Burton Batman movie but I think his votes got split between Lead and Supporting.
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
I write this post not to really debate the race, which is headed for a near-certain Ledger victory, but to reflect for a moment on how truly amazing it is that the initial Oscar talk (which began about this time last year) actually seems to be headed for an actual Oscar.
I remember almost immediately after Ledger's death, talk began to surface on the blogosphere about how he might win an Oscar for The Dark Knight. Some of us -- myself included -- seemed sort of baffled by this: how many comic book villain performances have even been NOMINATED for acting Oscars, let alone win them? It seemed like little more than wishful thinking from those hoping Heath's last performance might snag him the recognition his great Brokeback Mountain turn didn't.
And then, in surprising turn of events #1, Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight turns out to be as acclaimed as his fans had hoped it would be. Now some might say, of course it would be acclaimed, Ledger's turned in terrific performances before, why not now? But Jack Nicholson is a great actor and I don't recall him winning serious prizes for Batman. Neither did Gene Hackman, also a great actor, for Superman. Nor prize-worthy thesps Michelle Pfeiffer and Tommy Lee Jones in their Batman films. I think Ledger deserves his awards, but it's certainly important to step back and realize how rare it is for a role like this to catch this kind of fire. Some might say, cynically, that he's winning prizes BECAUSE he died; but given the genuine critical praise for both his performance (and the film), I'd argue the added sentimental value in awarding Ledger is no where near the chief reason he's being honored.
Surprising turn of events #2 would be that no genuine competitor emerged to give Ledger a run for his money. Some might argue that a posthumous favorite like this would naturally running the board. But imagine, for a moment, if Ledger were competing against a genuine, unhonored veteran, like Morgan Freeman in '04? Or a widely-beloved star having a great year, like Clooney in '05? How about an equally iconic performance in the Best Picture favorite, like Bardem last year? Would he be such a sure thing? While last year's Supporting Actor derby wasn't so competitive, the three years before that were real races. How lucky for Ledger to land in a category alongside an actor with a miniscule role in a film no one likes, a guy in a popular comedy as non-Oscar-friendly as they come, the actor who just beat him three years ago whom no one is looking to honor again right away, and an actor widely seen as being given a body of work nomination for the past couple years.
And so as Heath Ledger will very likely go on to win the Oscar in what will surely be a very touching, memorable moment, I know I will be remembering the rather surprising turn of events (beginning with the actor's shocking and devastating death in the first place) that caused it to happen.
Edited By The Original BJ on 1233297887
I remember almost immediately after Ledger's death, talk began to surface on the blogosphere about how he might win an Oscar for The Dark Knight. Some of us -- myself included -- seemed sort of baffled by this: how many comic book villain performances have even been NOMINATED for acting Oscars, let alone win them? It seemed like little more than wishful thinking from those hoping Heath's last performance might snag him the recognition his great Brokeback Mountain turn didn't.
And then, in surprising turn of events #1, Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight turns out to be as acclaimed as his fans had hoped it would be. Now some might say, of course it would be acclaimed, Ledger's turned in terrific performances before, why not now? But Jack Nicholson is a great actor and I don't recall him winning serious prizes for Batman. Neither did Gene Hackman, also a great actor, for Superman. Nor prize-worthy thesps Michelle Pfeiffer and Tommy Lee Jones in their Batman films. I think Ledger deserves his awards, but it's certainly important to step back and realize how rare it is for a role like this to catch this kind of fire. Some might say, cynically, that he's winning prizes BECAUSE he died; but given the genuine critical praise for both his performance (and the film), I'd argue the added sentimental value in awarding Ledger is no where near the chief reason he's being honored.
Surprising turn of events #2 would be that no genuine competitor emerged to give Ledger a run for his money. Some might argue that a posthumous favorite like this would naturally running the board. But imagine, for a moment, if Ledger were competing against a genuine, unhonored veteran, like Morgan Freeman in '04? Or a widely-beloved star having a great year, like Clooney in '05? How about an equally iconic performance in the Best Picture favorite, like Bardem last year? Would he be such a sure thing? While last year's Supporting Actor derby wasn't so competitive, the three years before that were real races. How lucky for Ledger to land in a category alongside an actor with a miniscule role in a film no one likes, a guy in a popular comedy as non-Oscar-friendly as they come, the actor who just beat him three years ago whom no one is looking to honor again right away, and an actor widely seen as being given a body of work nomination for the past couple years.
And so as Heath Ledger will very likely go on to win the Oscar in what will surely be a very touching, memorable moment, I know I will be remembering the rather surprising turn of events (beginning with the actor's shocking and devastating death in the first place) that caused it to happen.
Edited By The Original BJ on 1233297887