Mark Beall's Geek Beat: Musings on Heath Ledger

Totally agree with you on this one - I'd like to think that a part of Ledger's casting decision was due to the fact that you haven't seen him in any type of roll like the Joker. That way, when he comes on screen the audience is completely blown away (what I like to think of as the "Holy !@*?!@" reaction :P)

The margin for screw ups is enormous, but Nolan did exceptionally well with Begins, so I think the fans should at least give the guy some credit.

It would be a shame though if Ledger bombs as the Joker and subsequently digs a grave for the movies. I really enjoyed seing Bale kicking ass in a form fitting black suit :)

Reply

I think the guy a lot of people are leaving out when they talk about this is the Joker himself. The most popular incarnations are probably the Nicholson movie Joker and the Timm/Dini animated series Joker, voiced by Mark Hamil. These are not the only accepted Joker representations in the last 20 years, let alone in the entire history of the character.

The Joker has been played for the humor, with the giant mallets and bad jokes. He has also been played for pure insanity with the rants and the straight jackets. He also also been played for pure menace, with a old school gangster flare. There is a lot of room for the writers and actor to work with within the Jokers accepted history, assuming they don't want to do something completely new.

Like most other people sounding off, Ledger wasn't someone I was thinking of for the role, but I can see him embodying an interesting take on one of the biggest Batman villains ever.

Reply

I still don't understand why this is a controversial choice. Didn't Heath Ledger prove --JUST LAST YEAR-- his impressive range as an actor, garnering comparisons to Brando, getting an Oscar nomination, nailing a very intense dramatic role when mostly what he'd been known for up until then was what you've already for is what you've called the 'likeable rogue'

so why the controversy? Clearly he's an actor with already surprising range.

Reply

I think its a mistake up there with originally casting Michael Keaton as Batman during the Tim Burton years.

I also do not believe this is the work of Christopher Nolan. It feels more like a studio demand based upon the buzz that Heath received from *Brokeback Mountain*.

While I would say Christopher Eccleston should have been picked, I would have been happy with Paul Bettany in the role.

I also think its a mistake to give more screentime to Katie Holmes in this flick as has been hinted. The majority of the fans agree that she was the weakest link of the prior film.

I really wish Warners would reconsider. Casting decisions are very crucial to film properties like these. You make the right moves, you get box office business like the two *Spider-Man* films. You screw up and you get the box office dud of *Superman Returns* which is the *Leonard Part 6* of big budget comic book films.

Reply

Whoa! Lets not throw Leonard Part 6 around all willy nilly (sp?). You are obviously free to not like Superman, but that's just a low blow.

I don't think a lot of the complaints about Ledger involve his acting talent, as much as his fit to the role. You bring up Brando. He was great when he wasn't phoning it in, but could he have been Indiana Jones? How about Pacino as Spiderman? Gary Oldman as ... OK, he could play anyone he wants. Good acting and being a good fit aren't the same thing.

Oh, and Keaton wasn't physically right for Batman in my mind, but he did a great job none the less. A good actor can pull of a good performance in a role not necessary tailored towards them, but it makes it harder on them, and harder for the audience to get lost in the movie.

Reply

I can't believe that anyone would question whether Heath Ledger would be a good choice for this role based on his acting ability. He was nominated for an Academy Award for Brokeback Mountain and judging from what I read on these sites, most of you have never seen the film. (See the film and you'll see what constitutes great acting). If you had, you wouldn't question why he was sought to play this role. He's got incredible range and is able to disappear into every role he's played. Not all of the films he's been in have been good films, but he's been excellent in every one of them. I'd also recommend Monster's Ball, where he's definitely not playing a charming rougue. He's going to make a great Joker. No comparisons to other Jokers need to be made. He'll make the role his own.

Reply

I don't like Ledger for this role. His role in Brokeback was nothing much (irregardless of the hype). His other roles don't show the acting chomps that would be required for this pivotal turn in the franchise. As far as comparisons to Brando, there is just no way. I do like the idea of Christopher Eccleston in the role. His work on Dr. Who, alone, shows that he could more than handle the Joker.

That being said, I'd also like to point out another pick for the Batman franchise that I was surprised by, pleasantly, that being: Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face. Going into the movie, I hadn't heard that he was going to be in this role. When I first saw him on the screen, I thought for sure he was way out of his element. However, he did it and did it very well! Keaton has already been mentioned as another seeming faux pas but, he worked out pretty well.

In spite of his body of work and his most recent role choices, I'm willing to give Ledger a chance.

Reply