-
Website
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ -
Original page
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/new-images-of-heath-ledger-in-doctor-parnassus.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
mychaleg
85 comments · 2 points
-
Peter Donohue
123 comments · 83 points
-
littlemovieman
58 comments · 2 points
-
Rohith
48 comments · 1 points
-
Reebee7
114 comments · 58 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Twilight Saga: New Moon Sets Records, Hauls in $140 million
3 hours ago · 4 comments
-
Caption This: Win Uwe Boll’s Far Cry on DVD!
1 day ago · 20 comments
-
New Moon Topples The Dark Knight’s Opening Day Record
1 day ago · 14 comments
-
Here’s Your Chance: What Did You Think of Twilight: New Moon?
2 days ago · 23 comments
-
Review: The Twilight Saga: New Moon
2 days ago · 10 comments
-
Twilight Saga: New Moon Sets Records, Hauls in $140 million
monumental: of outstanding significance; massive: imposing in size or bulk or solidity;
So actually, Ledger's career was short of monumental. Ledger was only 4 or 5 years younger than Christian Bale is now. Compare the two. Ledger was active for about 10 years. Check out what someone like Johnny Depp did, at the same age range, from 1988 to 1998. Heath Ledger was surely a great guy, but he is receiving praise mostly through the evolution of the media mass effect rather than anything he's actually done in his career.
First off, I never used the word "massive" as it does not apply. And Secondly, Heath Ledger's career was monumental in the sense that it was of great importance to many of the actors that looked up to him and also to his fans.
Notice how in my previous comment I said that he "was un-matched by most of young Hollywood today"? Notice the word MOST which is defined as a superlative of many, meaning that he was un-matched by MANY not ALL of young Hollywood.
I would without a doubt consider Christian Bale and Johnny Depp to be among some of the better actors working today.
And to call upon the early career of Johnny Depp in comparison to Heath's is a waste of time.
If Johnny Depp had died at the age of 29 like Heath did, then he would have passed in 1992.
Thus no Benny & Joon, no Gilbert Grape, Ed Wood, Donnie Brasco, Raoul Duke and certainly no Jack Sparrow! He would have been remembered as being Edward Scissorhands and the teen heart-throb from 21 Jump Street...
If you look at Heath's career, he received "praise" and critical acclaim for not only The Dark Knight and Brokeback Mountain, but also Candy, The Four Feather's and Monster's Ball.
In regards toward your comment of him "receiving praise mostly through the evolution of the media mass effect"; even if news only traveled by newspapers and telegrams still, his death would have been a tragic loss to the acting and film community as well as to his fans around the world... I am sure that the media played a major part in the publicity of Heath's death, but that is the reality of today. Where the internet supplies it users with instant news and the users are free to do with it what they will. But the "praise" that Heath received and is still receiving is due to the tremendous talent that he possessed, and the artistry he applied to his craft.
And to clarify, "massive" is a synonym of "monumental." But I'll never convince you and you'll never convince me, so I'll leave it at that so I don't have to name 50 actors in the 20-30 range who have better careers than Ledger.
Ledger could have only left his performances as Ennis Del Mar in Brokeback Mountain and the Joker in The Dark Knight and still have been better than most of the inhabitants of his profession. Most actors never get a single great role.
If his career was short of monumental it was because his life was cut short.
But please don't insult people's intelligence by saying we're all just brainwashed
by a "media mass effect".
If you want to argue about when the actors "hit the scene" as you call it, I suggest you re-watch 10 Things I Hate About You. Ledger's was a supporting role in that film and NOT the lead as Johnny was the lead in Cry Baby (Universal Studios)... Ledger wasn't a lead in a major studio feature film until A Knight's Tale (Columbia Pictures) in 2001. It is a matter of opinion as to who had the better career. Some might say Ledger's performances that earned him one Oscar nomination and one Oscar win by what would have been his 30th birthday is far more impressive than Johnny earning his first nomination at age 40 and sill not having won by age 46... I on the other hand, do not judge success by the merit of awards.
Johnny is one of my favorite working actors as was Heath. You CANNOT compare the two careers because they are SIGNIFICANTLY different! So I suggest you stop trying...
You can name a list of 800 actor's that you think have better careers than Ledger, but that is your opinion. And you are entitled to it, but do not belittle the success and talent of a great performer merely because you believe that the actor's well deserved praise is mainly due to the media's exploitation of his death. Again, the main point of this discussion for me is that Heath earned that praise long before his death. Weather you agree with it or not, it is the TRUTH! Accept it and move on with your life.