Fan Rant: Ledger's Drug Use Has No Place in Oscar Talk
Filed under: Action, Awards, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Oscar Watch, Fan Rant
An editorialist named Eric P. Lucas says in Friday's Los Angeles Times that since Heath Ledger's death was the result of his own recklessness, he therefore should not win an Oscar for his performance in The Dark Knight. "It's time to stop the canonization of Heath Ledger," Lucas begins. "He's just a pretty good actor who did away with himself and broke the hearts of his family and friends, and he shouldn't get an Academy Award to memorialize his death. ... Each year more than 100,000 Americans die of alcohol or drug abuse. It would be madness to commemorate one such death with the greatest honor in cinema. Please give the Academy Award to someone who's had the courage to stick around."
Lucas asserts that Ledger's performance isn't all that great anyway -- "a can-can dance of snuffling pseudo-psychopathia," he calls it -- but that's irrelevant to his larger point. It would seem that even if Ledger's Joker truly did represent the finest acting of the year, his personal behavior should disqualify him from Oscar consideration.
To Lucas I say this: Wanna watch me make this pencil disappear?
I actually agree with a lot of what he writes about how certain people's drug- or alcohol-fueled deaths make them more iconic than they would have been otherwise. Did Kurt Cobain's suicide rob my generation of its greatest poet? Nah. I think the only group that really suffered a major loss when Cobain died was the heroin industry. And I think it's silly when people talk about getting emotional when they see Ledger in The Dark Knight, as if the death of someone they never met still makes them misty-eyed all these months later. So let it not be said that I am not a heartless bastard.
My beef with Lucas is his ludicrous assertion that the manner of Ledger's death should have any bearing whatsoever on his Oscar-worthiness. Here's what should be taken into account when you consider acting awards: the acting. What's up there on the screen is all that matters. The Academy Awards aren't meant to be seals of approval on people's personal lives. Even if Ledger had died in the act of machine-gunning a busload of American-flag-draped orphans, it would have nothing to do with the quality of his film performance.
Roman Polanski is a convicted rapist. Frank Sinatra was a two-fisted drunk with Mafia connections. Lewis Carroll was probably a pedophile. Henry Ford hated Jews. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Do none of them deserve the praise they got for their professional work? Just how flawless does a person's life have to be for their creative efforts to have any merit?
Furthermore, when Polanski won an Oscar for directing The Pianist, nobody said, "Well, I guess that means the Academy endorses the drugging and sexual exploitation of 13-year-olds!" What people said was, "I guess that means the Academy thought Polanski's work merited an Oscar." Giving Ledger an Academy Award isn't going to send any message other than "he gave a great performance," period.
Lucas believes that people are praising Ledger's performance only because he's dead. The problem with this theory is that people were talking about Ledger's work as the Joker before he died, too. When Entertainment Weekly's Benjamin Svetkey visited the set last summer, Ledger was "all that anyone working on the movie want[ed] to talk about." I don't doubt that Ledger's death has tinted some people's analysis of his performance, but it's arrogant and presumptuous to insist that those of us praising him have somehow been deluded or misled by the facts of his demise.
Like I said, I'm a cold, insensitive jerk who has no personal connection to Ledger's death whatsoever, and I think his performance is brilliant. I'd think the same thing if he were still alive, or if he had punched my mother in the face, or if he had once married Paris Hilton. None of that matters. What he does in The Dark Knight is what matters, and that's the only thing the Academy should consider.
Related Headlines
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. I totally agree.People who get emotional watching Ledger's perfomance REALLY need therapy.
Posted at 10:46PM on Aug 1st 2008 by victor de la torre
3. I agree with you, but on a side note: please don't be like those critic haters on RT and wish death on people who disagree with you. there's no place for words like "To Lucas I say this: Wanna watch me make this pencil disappear?" That's just uncalled-for and makes you and cinematical look bad.
Heath was fantastic in dark knight, and at this point I feel he deserves an Oscar nomination. But if in a few months there seem to be 5 other performances that are better, it wouldn't be right to give it to Ledger just because he has passed. Not only would that devalue the worth of an Oscar, but it would devalue Heath's performance.
Posted at 10:54PM on Aug 1st 2008 by uforeader
5. For the record, I thought Eric's comment was quite funny : P
Posted at 10:43AM on Aug 4th 2008 by colby
6. you have a good point. Also i was under the impression that Ledger didn't kill himself on purpose. wasn't the official cause of death accidental overdose on sleep aids? so what's the argument now?
I think Ledger did a good job as the Joker. I don't know if it was oscar worthy but it will be remember years to come.
Posted at 11:04PM on Aug 1st 2008 by Claire
7. Thank you. That Snider-guy obviously wants to make a name for himself by committing douchebaggery.
Posted at 11:08PM on Aug 1st 2008 by KateGee
8. yeah, the whole "you only like his performance because he's dead" thing has got to stop. his performance was insanely hyped waaay before he died....the prologue was released in december, and all anyone could say was "wow heath is awesome"...michael caine was shouting oscar last summer while they were filming. his death only increased the hype for the sick people who get some sort of morbid kick from watching a film with a dead guy. also, i will admit, i didn't get "emotional" but it was sad watching the film and loving his performance so much and then realizing that we'll never get another one. i don't think i need emotional help for being sad that we'll never see him in another movie. it is sad, i think people who don't realize that need emotional help. but then again...i have a heart.
Posted at 11:10PM on Aug 1st 2008 by Jordan M.
9. hey. i totally agree with the whole canonization thing. its like "hey lets give this award to this dude who either may had been a total pussy and offed himself or he was an pill popper who had a few too many" you know? totally agree. on the other hand, its pretty dumb and blind that you still believe Kurt Cobain committed suicide after all this years, i mean 3 times the lethal dose of heroin? come on. so i guess i am a cold and insensitive jerk too for saying that this kind of thoughts just goes to prove the naive and illusional person you are.
Posted at 11:31PM on Aug 1st 2008 by mahm
10. I'm so glad someone agrees with this, Mr. Snider.
I can't even count the amount of people who make these ridiculous accusations. Even Michael Caine said, "If he doesn't win, I'd like to see the performance that does."
Honestly, If he doesn't at least get nominated simply because of these "off-the-screen" factors, then the Academy is being hypocritical, themselves.
Posted at 11:54PM on Aug 1st 2008 by Seth
11. I agree that it is an inappropriate thing to say. Having said that, I don't think Ledger's performance is Oscar worthy. He did a good job playing a psycho, but his Joker was really Joker In Name Only (JINO).
Posted at 12:09AM on Aug 2nd 2008 by DanJack
12. You need to watch his performance again and compare it with any other psycho villians out there.
Posted at 12:06AM on Aug 4th 2008 by joker
13. There were plenty of people that said that Polanski should not receive an award because of his past alleged crimes. Secondly, theorizing in the same article that Ledger should be awarded even in the face of the his death, but then go on to say that Cobain is nothing to be worth HIS critical acclaim. Careful what glass houses you are in when you start casting stones. Additionally, Polanski agreed to a plea bargin of stagatory rape (specifically to "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a 13-year-old girl.). He was never convicted. Perhaps semantics. But important distinctions I find.
In any case... people should be more than free to express their opinions based on the art that is to be the topic of the award. And the award is exactly that. An observance of the artwork, regardless of the personal demons they face.
Additionally, it is harrowing to see poeple continue to talk about suicide (if indeed that is what happened and not just an accidental overdose) as a coward's way out. These sort of comments are perfect example of the demonizing of mental health, and why it continues to go so under reported and treated.
Posted at 12:11AM on Aug 2nd 2008 by Nathan Larsen
14. "I'd think the same thing if...he had punched my mother in the face."
Nothing says Oscar nom better than a good mother-punching.
I think the "tint" you brought up certainly will affect who is on the ballot, but hopefully it is only a tint. I'm guessing, however, that it'll be more of a hue.
Ledger was good enough for the nom, regardless.
Posted at 12:25AM on Aug 2nd 2008 by Daniel
15. Great article and right on point.
Lucas is nothing but an Attention Whore
Posted at 12:28AM on Aug 2nd 2008 by Ky
16. Attention Whore is quite accurate.
Posted at 1:02AM on Aug 2nd 2008 by victor de la torre
17. I don't think Ledger's performance in the film even warrants an Oscar nomination. He was good, but I think Eckhart was better in terms of acting prowess. Unfortunately, Eckhart will get nothing, which is sad because his Harvey Dent is what I keep coming back to when I think of the film, not Ledger's Joker.
Posted at 12:41AM on Aug 2nd 2008 by Mike
18. I agree with you on the Eckhart's part.... Just out of curiosity: what did you think of Vardem´s character in "No Country for Old Men"? Was he way better than Ledger?
Posted at 1:05AM on Aug 2nd 2008 by victor de la torre
19. You make very good points. I am glad that someone provided a counterpoint to Mr. Lucas' article.
However, I'd also like to add that people who get emotional after seeing Ledger's last completed performance are not crazy, nor do they need therapy. When you've been a fan of an entertainer for years, and then he passes away, it's an emotional thing, whether you knew him personally or not. One cannot judge in what ways an artist inspired someone, and therefore the feeling of loss can be very great.
Posted at 2:29AM on Aug 2nd 2008 by Alicia
20. I think alot of this is over blown too much of this is because Ledger is dead and simply: HEATH LEDGER COMMITTED SUICIDE AND SHOULDN'T BE PRAISED FOR DOING SO, he is getting the same treatment as Cobain and Dimebag he's great b/c he's dead, I loved the Dark Knight, loved Ledgers performance as Joker but I don't think he did any better at his role that Eckhart did at Harvey Dent and I don't think either are as good as Daniel Day lewis was last year so I'm thinking there are still more performances to see.
Posted at 2:48AM on Aug 2nd 2008 by Aaron
1. *Begins slow clap*
Posted at 10:20PM on Aug 1st 2008 by Justin Meltzer