The Dark Knight: Oscar Bound?

[suarezguy]

I don't see much point in hoping for or being saddened by Oscar results. For all the excitement, they're just a poll of people's opinions, and aside from a few truly awful examples, art, especially film, is pretty subjective. I don't think TDK is worth an Oscar, it was pretty common place superhero-action movie stuff, and disappointing compared to the hype it generated.

If Ledger doesn't win, it's a criminal act of ignorant stupidity. His performance was one of the best of all time, of any film. He truly made the character live. You don't see Heath Ledger in that film one bit.

That's what's supposed to happen with acting, aside from some of the biggest stars who can get away with playing similar characters. I think Hopkins in TSotL, Nicholson in A Few Good Men, the leads in The Last King of Scotland gave much better performances. I admit, part of why I wasn't impressed with TDK's Joker was the writing and use of him, but for me it's hard to see the performance aside from that.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I think of Hopkins as the male lead of Silence of the Lambs. It certainly wasn't Anthony Head or even Scott Glenn.

Maybe there wasn't a male lead? The movie belonged to Jodie Foster. It is possible for a movie to not have a male lead. I guess you could call Tony Hopkins the "male lead" in The Silence of the Lambs but regardless of that, it still doesn't take away from the fact that he was a supporting character. Jodie Foster and Scott Glenn had more screentime than him.

As for Ledger in Dark Knight (note to self, Dark Knight, not Dark Knight Returns,) for how many of those minutes is he the center of the scene? Especially scenes without the official star? The number of minutes is a good starting point but Ledger was in a starring role, just as Hopkins was in Silence.

You could say the same for Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. For how many minutes in the scenes that Eckhart was in was he the center of the scene? Probably many. Ledger and Eckhart were the principal villians, so of course they are going to dominate the scene when they are featured. I guess I just equate to starring role equaling screentime. That's not refuting that Ledger and Hopkins didn't steal the show in their respective movies, but that does not make them the leading characters in their films.

Or Michael Keaton in Beetlejuice, even though he had maybe nineteen minutes on screen time. Does anybody else even remember Alec Baldwin was in Beetlejuice?

Yeah, I do. I remember Winona Ryder a bit more, though.

Much of the publicity campaign pushing for Dark Knight explicitly mentions the huge amount of money the movie made. That is a new low, even for Hollywood, in esthetic criteria.

Get a hold of yourself. Movies do this all the time. Do you watch much TV? Every Monday there's a new advertisement proclaiming whichever movie got #1 at the box office and exploiting it. Movies take advantage of their monetary success all the time. This is not unheard of, or new.

PS Almost forgot---if you mean, who is the star? Obviously you're right that it's Bale. If you don't admit the possibility of multiple leads, no matter how uncommon, then the question admits of no debate. But this merely seems unduly official, misleading conventional wisdom, to me.

Well, I was going by who got the most screentime, and who he was billed first. That would be Christian Bale, followed by Michael Caine, and then Heath Ledger.

However we're arguing semantics, really.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

In time, when all the hysteria over TDK has died down, I hope Heath Ledger's performance in Brokeback Mountain will be hailed as his best. There is so much for an actor to do with a character like the Joker, so much opportunity to pull all the acting stops out. His performance as Ennis Del Mar was breathtaking and heartbreaking and it was all so subtle.

TDK was a good movie but not the year's best in my opinion. It'll probably get nominated, as will Ledger, who will probably win Best Supporting Actor but I can't see the Academy going for a comic book movie as Best Film. Then again, they did give 11 Oscars to Titanic so what do I know!

Brokeback is already acknowledged as his greatest performance and at least half of this posthumous Oscar buzz has to do with that role. If he wins it will be an award for his whole career, not just TDK.

 

[JM1776]

I'll be astonished if it wins one of the big six for anything other than Best Supporting Actor, which is practically a given considering the sympathy vote. Ledger gives a credible, not incredible, performance ... but it was essentially his last film, and the Academy's not going to pass up an opportunity for maudlin generosity.

 

[stj]

Maybe there wasn't a male lead? The movie belonged to Jodie Foster. It is possible for a movie to not have a male lead. I guess you could call Tony Hopkins the "male lead" in The Silence of the Lambs but regardless of that, it still doesn't take away from the fact that he was a supporting character. Jodie Foster and Scott Glenn had more screentime than him.

Yes, it's possible for a movie not to have a male lead. That wasn't Silence in my opinion. Amusingly enough, the Academy agreed with me on this one---Hopkins got the Best Actor Oscar, not the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. On the other hand---

However we're arguing semantics, really.

You're right. So let's think of it as a brief off topic discussion. It's interesting in its own right. Is it more useful to go by official order or screen time? Or is it more useful to consider the importance of the role in the story or the importance of the actor in drawing an audience? The latter is more sensible in most cases but there those examples, like Silence or Beetlejuice, where it's more subjective. Which means, more confusing, not clearer.

As to box office as a selling point in Oscar campaigns---I'll defer to your experience. I do tend to avoid ads.

 

[Trekker4747]

Because like I said, I really like my testicles.

I really like your testicles, too.

*LIP SMACK*

Too far man, too far.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Maybe there wasn't a male lead? The movie belonged to Jodie Foster. It is possible for a movie to not have a male lead. I guess you could call Tony Hopkins the "male lead" in The Silence of the Lambs but regardless of that, it still doesn't take away from the fact that he was a supporting character. Jodie Foster and Scott Glenn had more screentime than him.

Yes, it's possible for a movie not to have a male lead. That wasn't Silence in my opinion. Amusingly enough, the Academy agreed with me on this one---Hopkins got the Best Actor Oscar, not the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. On the other hand---

However we're arguing semantics, really.

You're right. So let's think of it as a brief off topic discussion. It's interesting in its own right. Is it more useful to go by official order or screen time? Or is it more useful to consider the importance of the role in the story or the importance of the actor in drawing an audience? The latter is more sensible in most cases but there those examples, like Silence or Beetlejuice, where it's more subjective. Which means, more confusing, not clearer.

None of this is useful considering that what qualifies as a Best Actor performance or a Best Supporting Actor performance is strictly defined by the Academy as being determined by billing. Hopkins won Best Actor because he was billed before the title. Ledger can win Best Supporting Actor because he was not billed before the title.

 

[Harvey]

Were any actors billed before the title on The Dark Knight? Since the film doesn't have a traditional opening credits sequence, how is this determined (or does it say The Dark Knight right off the bat at the beginning of the end credits--I can't remember)?

 

[Tom]

The big question is what other films will contend with TDK? Last year No Country For Old Men won and alot of people attributed that to the fact that there was no really stand out film of 2007.

 

[Siwilliams]

The big question is what other films will contend with TDK? Last year No Country For Old Men won and alot of people attributed that to the fact that there was no really stand out film of 2007.

There was 'Sweeney Todd - The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street' which did not get a good release....it was not that wide of release

 

[Orintho]

A slim shot, but one none the less. Plus consider motives for the Academy. Picking a popular film like TDK would be a good way to increase public interest.

 

[Harvey]

The big question is what other films will contend with TDK? Last year No Country For Old Men won and alot of people attributed that to the fact that there was no really stand out film of 2007.

Sure there was. It was called No Country for Old Men.

Any year that produces Michael Clayton, There Will be Blood, and No Country For Old Men... and nominates them... that's a good year for the Academy.

 

[Thrall]

The Dark Knight was a good movie but it was not a perfect film. The dialogue was still mediocre just like the first one. Christian Bale's Batman-voice annoyed alot of people(I didn't think it was that bad). Harvey Dent's demise was unnecisarry. The Hong Kong subplot was unnecisarry fat that could have been trimmed. The action ranged from "enjoyable but disconjointed" to "confusing and difficult to follow". Because I still have no idea what was going on in that construction site scene. The pacing is too rush-rush and doesn't give you time to relax and take a breather so by the end you're just exhausted and worn out rather then elated. So watching it becomes a great undertaking. It's not a movie you can just pop in and watch like the first one was. And yes I'm a purist who hated the make-up thing.

But mostly, it's just not a very fun movie. And that's not really a bad thing, neccissarily. Because the film is a powerful film due to it's unwavering maturity, complexity, and realism. I just think that in his strive for credibility for the genre, Nolan sacrificed the number one rule of pop-corn movies and superherodom: He forgot to make it fun. This is Batman, not King Lear. He runs around in tights beating up cartoony criminals. This is not something that requires a lot of intellectual insight here. I'm not saying I want Adam West or anything. I'm just saying he could have toned the realism down a couple notches and still made a great film, but not nearly as overbearingly mature and complex. Because, to be honest, I had more fun in 5 minutes of Iron Man then pretty much all three hours of the non-stop intellectual overbearingness of The Dark Knight.

So if it doesn't get an Oscar nom, then I won't be surprised because there might be members of The Academy who agree with me.

 

[Caligula]

Sure. The Dark Knight COULD win Best Picture (and on that basis I voted "yes").... but it won't.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Were any actors billed before the title on The Dark Knight? Since the film doesn't have a traditional opening credits sequence, how is this determined (or does it say The Dark Knight right off the bat at the beginning of the end credits--I can't remember)?

"Before the title" is actually a little bit of an outdated way to describe it because so many films don't have traditional title sequences any more. Billing has to do with actor's contracts which determine the order they are listed in and pay rate. Very occasionally more than one actor or actress may have "top billing" (for instance both James Dean and Rock Hudson were nominated for Best Actor for the movie Giant), but usually it's simply whichever male and female are billed first who qualify for the Best Actor/ Best Actress nomination and everyone else on the bill would go to Best Supporting categories. Ledger was listed behind both Bale and Caine, so there's no way he can qualify for Best Actor for TDK.

 

[N-121973]

When are the Oscar nominations announced? I heard somewhere that the Golden Globe nominations are announced later this week and they're supposed to be a good indicator for the Oscars.

 

[IJD GAF]

Not 'til January I think.

 

[Aragorn]

Best Actor and Best Supporting actor nominations are based on what you're submitted as.

George Clooney as Best Supporting Actor for Syriana? It was an ensemble with Clooney as 1A, Damon as 1B and Wright as 2, but it was mostly Clooney's movie. Nicole Kidman wasn't on the screen that much in The Hours for her Best Actress. Hell, Jamie Foxx was a Supporting Actor nominee for Collateral, and he was the driving character and in it for like 99% of the run time. Ethan Hawke getting a Best Supporting nomination for Training Day? Judi Dench won Best Supporting for five minutes of screen time in Shakespeare in Love.

The actors get submitted based on what they think they're more likely to win.

 

[MicahBrack]

I voted yes, but don't think it will

Same here. Yes, it could win best picture. But it is highly unlikely that it will.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Best Actor and Best Supporting actor nominations are based on what you're submitted as.

George Clooney as Best Supporting Actor for Syriana? It was an ensemble with Clooney as 1A, Damon as 1B and Wright as 2, but it was mostly Clooney's movie. Nicole Kidman wasn't on the screen that much in The Hours for her Best Actress. Hell, Jamie Foxx was a Supporting Actor nominee for Collateral, and he was the driving character and in it for like 99% of the run time. Ethan Hawke getting a Best Supporting nomination for Training Day? Judi Dench won Best Supporting for five minutes of screen time in Shakespeare in Love.

The actors get submitted based on what they think they're more likely to win.

Looks like we're both wrong.

From 80th Acadmey Awards Rules

1. A performance by an actor or actress in any role shall be eligible for nomination either for the leading role or supporting role categories. The determination as to whether a role is a leading or supporting role shall be made individually by members of the branch at the time of balloting.
2. The leading role and supporting role categories will be tabulated simultaneously. If any performance should receive votes in both categories, the achievement shall only be placed on the ballot in that category in which, during the tabulation process, it first receives the required number of votes to be nominated. In the event that the performance receives the numbers of votes required to be nominated in both categories simultaneously, the achievement shall only be placed on the ballot in that category in which it receives the greater percentage of the total votes.

Huh. So I guess Ledger could be nominated for Best Actor if enough Academy members nominate him for that award as opposed to Best Supporting. Assuming enough people nominate him to get him into either category.

Shows what I know...