Posthumous Awards.

Immediately Heath Ledger will spring to mind, but this is concerning the entire topic of posthumous awards.

People have said Heath Ledger deserves the Oscar, or at least a nomination. I am reserving judgement as I am late seeing the movie (Will see it tomorrow).

Do you agree he deserves the nomination and/or award?

Why/Why not?

More importantly, do you feel posthumous awards are necessary or not?

Personally, I don't quite see the point of giving an award to people on behalf of a dead man or woman, since awards are SPECIFICALLY for the actor or actress. Appreciation will be there no matter what, which is what truly matters. It also taints the proceedings because there'll always be the matter of "Well, did he/she get it because they died?". I think there are a lot of credible reasons for posthumous awards to cease being given.

Your thoughts?

-AC

I can't comment on Ledger. I think his performance was great, I haven't seen enough other movies this year though.

As for posthumous awards and in specific the Oscars, I think if the stated goal is to award the ... award...to the best actor of the period in consideration it should not matter whether they are dead at the time of the awards or not. The best is the best and should be honoured as such.

In terms of Heath Ledger, it really depends on who else would be up for the award. It was a very good performance, his best? No, but unfortunately that's not what matters.

What I dislike is the Ledger bandwagon, which seems to be becoming somewhat of a pandemic. Members of said bandwagon seem to all claim that he deserves the award, without knowing or caring who else could possibly be in line for it.

Ledger certainly deserves the nomination. There are still going to be a number of films coming out this year that will have great performances, so it's hard to say now if he deserves the win, we'll see. If it stays as it is now, though, then he does.

And I agree with Bardock about posthumous awards. If the best performance was given by someone who is dead, then he should be recognized for it, regardless.

I think denying an actor an award that he otherwise would have won purely on the grounds that he's dead is no better than giving an award to someone just because he's dead.

I know people who don't fall victim to the "He died." syndrome, and have all raved about Ledger's performance. That is why I am more optimistic that the hype is going to be justified than unjustified.

I agree that people should wait and see who else comes out, though. It being Oscar-worthy would only go far enough to granting a nomination at best.

In general though, awards should be given to the person winning it or not at all. I think Ledger should get like...an honourable mention, recognition absolutely (Provided his role is that good), but I do not feel he should win the award. I think the appreciation will be there regardless, his role is no less revered because his family haven't received a shiny statue, and his family will undoubtedly not think he has been overlooked simply because he hasn't won.

Leave that to somebody who can appreciate it the award itself, who would value the material object itself.

-AC

I guess it depends on what the stated goal of the people doing the awards is. But if they want their awards go to the person that did the best job they shouldn't care about whether they are dead. A different goal obviously would justify a different approach.

I mean, if they gave it truly because they felt that was the absolute best performance, fine.

An element of doubt will always exist, though. Like would he have won had he been alive etc.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I mean, if they gave it truly because they felt that was the absolute best performance, fine.

An element of doubt will always exist, though. Like would he have won had he been alive etc.

-AC

True. But you would have that either way (i.e. "would he have won if he was still alive?"😉. And I guess since the Oscars are always highly discussed anyways it would not really make much difference.

He will get nominated, he will win, Michelle Williams will accept the award tearfully, the ratings which have steadily decreased the last 5 years will soar.

You know this to be true.

Personally i still think it's too early to tell...i don't think there has been anything this year to match Daniel Day Lewis in "there will be blood" like last year...or Julian Schnabel in Diving bell and butterfly...which i personally thought was the best performance of last year

i don't particularly think it's an outstanding performance....although he does a good job of making you believe it's not Heath Ledger playing the part...so that's got to be worth something

i do, however, disagree with the complete hysteria his performance has gathered since his death...as Johnathan Ross said...it wouldn't be getting this much attention if he was still alive

I don't necessarily feel Ledger deserves an Oscar nomination, his role was great, it was a blast to watch; Oscar worthy though? He was nominated in Brokeback, that I agree with; that role was above and beyond his Joker.

Living or dead shouldn't matter. If an actor's role was superb that year and it deserves a nomination and possibly winning, death shouldn't be a factor.

I don't understand the people who say he deserves to win when they don't even know who he would be up against next year, if he gets an nomination that is.

It could be next years sympathy vote, like with Martin Scorsese a few years back, or whenever The Departed remake came out... but I would rather hope that if they chose Ledger it was because of the acting, not death.

As for his performance, I believe it deserves a nomination because it was pretty good, voice was interesting, mannerisms, delivery was fantastic with the excellent script he had to work with.

I've enjoyed Ledger a lot since the release of Lords of Dogtown, he was fantastic and weird in that, and was very happy when it was said he was taking the role of the Joker.

If his performance is better than any of the nominations announced, then I don't see a problem with awarding someone who is dead with an acting Oscar. Family can keep the award for him.

Originally posted by MildPossession
I've enjoyed Ledger a lot since the release of Lords of Dogtown, he was fantastic and weird in that

Well, there's a gem I'd completely forgotten about.

Ledger was a good actor, granted - though Brokeback will always be his stand-out performance for me, I thought he was amazing in that. Really good in Monster's Ball, as well.

It wasn't until

Spoiler:
Ledger's Joker came out wearing that pink nurses uniform that I felt a warm fuzzy realization, and I said to myself, damn this is great.

That part was just perfect! especially when he was

Spoiler:
hitting the bomb detonator to try and finish the explosion off

Apparently Ledger nailed it and was one of the closest Jokers to the original comics in the 40s according to the paper I read today. I've never read the comics but apparently he was very dark before the silly camp television series came along.

I was under the impression it was the 70s and 80s in particular that reinvented the Joker in the dark way that we know him in now.

We need a massive comic fan of all the Batman stuff. 🙂

Originally posted by MildPossession
We need a massive comic fan of all the Batman stuff. 🙂

Well, when i said "I was under the impression" I actually meant "I know"...

I think he certainly deserves a nomination. Win? Yeah, it's obviously too early to know if someone is truly better than him. So far, though, his performance is easily the best in the year.

That being said, the Academy would not nominate him if it wasn't for the uber "He died", and the immense DK acclaim/hype. Not because he doesn't deserve to win, but because the Academy often tends to overlook 'mainstream' movies, in categories that aren't cosmetic, such as visual effects, makeup, etc, etc, etc. Take Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow, for instance. It's one of the most popular and iconic characters of the 21st century, and although he was nominated for best actor, he didn't win, although many I spoke to think he deserved to. Why? Again, the Academy likes artsy films, not mainstream entertainment.

Last year, though, Javier Bardam got an award for playing 'best supporting actor' in No Country for Old Men. Did he give a better performance than Ledger? Very, very far from it, but he had the advantage of giving an at least solid performance in a film that makes the Academy wet their pants. So, based on all this, I think we can safely say that Ledger might have been nominated if he hadn't died, but he wouldn't have won an award he (so far) deserves. It's his death that gave him a true shot at winning.

IMO, the Dark Knight should be at least nominated for Best Picture, but that's an entirely different story.

No Country For Old Men was a mainstream film.

Jonny Depp got a nomination, in my opinion his performances in POTC don't even deserve that.

TDK probably will get nominated for best picture, I don't think it deserves a nomination or a win, though.