I just feel didn't have enough on Camera time for me to warrant a judgment. Overall there wasn't any bad acting in the movie!

 

From answers.com:

"The shortest performance ever to win a lead acting Oscar is Anthony Hopkins'

performance as Hannibal Lecter, with about 16-17 minutes of screen time, in

The Silence of the Lambs (1991). Hopkins won the Best Actor Award for his

role."

 

I feel that Ledger got more than 16 minutes of screen time. It is thus not un-

precedented. If I take issue with anything, it's that Ledger lifted many of the

many of the creepy habits of The Joker from Anthony Hopkins's portrayal of

Hannibal (most notably the constant lip licking ala lip fluttering of Dr. Lecter.)

On the part of crazy idiosyncrasies he didn't have a great deal of originality. If

Ledger brought anything new to the table it was that, whereas Hannibal was

controlling, the Joker was chaotic. Hannibal would reach out of the screen

and take your mind; the Joker, as portrayed by Ledger, would cause you to

lose your own. Unlike Jack Nicholson's rendition that was one part Willy Wonka

and one part, well, Jack Nicholson, Ledger brought a Joker that was one part

Hannibal and one part something never-before-seen: pure chaos. You can't

say any of Ledger's other roles had that quality.

 

In my opinion, the nomination is certainly warranted and if nothing is better

comes along, which I don't see happening, then I'm all for his winning.

For those of you who voted No, why?

 

Personally that was one of the best performances I have seen in a long, long time. Even before he died we were hearing all about how devoted he was to this character and it really showed. That was a truly amazing performance coupled with excellent writing.

 

That's what I wondered as well...No one seems to give a real answer as to answer why they voted no..

I just feel didn't have enough on Camera time for me to warrant a judgment. Overall there wasn't any bad acting in the movie!

I think the Joker might have had more screen time than Batman.

I think the Joker might have had more screen time than Batman.

 

Than Batman? Yes, but not Batman + Bruce Wayne.

Than Batman? Yes, but not Batman + Bruce Wayne.

No not together, but there definitely wasn't too much of a difference, especially as far as lines go.

No not together, but there definitely wasn't too much of a difference, especially as far as lines go.

 

And the Joker's role IMO was way more intense, well partially because he was the villian but his role had a lot more emotion and character.

I misread the question. Definitely worthy of a nomination, but not sure it was winner caliber.

Ledger in NO WAY deserves an 'Oscar' for his part but was pretty good.

 

Nomination??? Possibly...

Edited July 27, 200818 yr by ScarHeel

It boggles my mind that there are 10 people on here who don't think he even deserves to be nominated.

It boggles my mind that there are 10 people on here who don't think he even deserves to be nominated.

 

edit

Who said he doesn't deserve to be nominated???????

 

There's just a tad bit of difference in receiving an Oscar & being nominated for an Oscar...

You and 9 other people, read the title of the thread. :thumb:

You and 10 other people, read the title of the thread. :thumb:

 

Yeah, that's kinda why I edited my post...:thumb: :thumb:

Yeah I guess people should read it's just a nomination that I suggested..Because there are some critics that say he doesn't even deserve that...

Okay, so the Oscars that are honoring the best in film in the year 2008 will not be held until February 22, 2009..We still have half a year to decide who & who does not deserve an award or nomination. Who knows, this movie/performances may be forgotten by the end of the year. There's still 1 or 2 movies that haven't been released yet...

For Best Supporting Actor, I assume?

 

Yes...