WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

I really don't see the competition between JEH and Heath Ledger. Its not like they were playing the same character.

_________________

Ledger doesn't measure up to Nicholson or Hamilton, from my perspective. Ledger was the only thing that saved TDK from utter oblivion. As for the other poster accusing us of possessing "Watchmen mania", that's laughable. A decent amount of Ledger's press came from his untimely death.

He carried the film, but he had much more breathing space and a greater range of expression. JEH had a mask and the confines of the GN, which Snyder remained exceptionally faithful to. His ability to produce such a likeable and conflicted character with these limitations is a triumph. By contrast, Ledger was one of the main focuses of the film, and he wasn't wearing a mask that made it nigh impossible for the audience to see his facial shifts.

JEH exhibited true acting chops by making every body movement a word. In a way, each step was part of his language. He communicated with the audience so easily. I never felt any connection to Ledger's Joker at all.

Character, no.
That doesn't mean the actor doesn't have it within him to humanize the character just a little. I'm talking about performance.

_________________
"Ah, walking into a field of flowers. Nothing says 'I'm going to rip your f*cking head off' like walking into a field of flowers!"--MadWorld

You said it better than I did.

_________________
"Ah, walking into a field of flowers. Nothing says 'I'm going to rip your f*cking head off' like walking into a field of flowers!"--MadWorld

Ledger's Joker was a one-note character, but I think that Leger played it better than anybody else could have, and he imbued it with a sense of creepy brilliance that is unique to his perspective on the character.

Rorschach is a better-developed, three-dimensional person.

To me, the character of Rorschach is just more compelling. The performances themselves were apples and oranges, so I don't know how to compare the two.

_________________
He did it.

Any humanisation (not sure if this is a word...) of The Joker would have undermined the character. THe whole point is that he is a complete nihilist. A force of nature. Ledger saw this and played the part according.

Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but the Joker was essentially flinging himself around the screen, sewing chaos and acting like an adult version of Jack Nicholson. An actor has it within himself to take a character that's not intended to be human and, through his tone/actions, establish a bit of a connection between himself and his audience. Even during the final battle, I didn't care for the Joker's fate. He came and went, whereas JEH made his character someone to loathe and love.

JEH took many limitations and conquered them with superb body language.

And he did an amazing job. An easier task for an actor when the range is so defined. JEH had a way trickier space to fill as Rorschach, imo.

_________________
...evidently chicken-town.

OH MY GOD! I can not agree more!!! That part was so heart wrenching for me, the death scene made it that much more. I'm glad the original poster mentioned the acting in the death scene, because I don't think it could compare either--JEH takes it to the next level. When he first says "what are you waiting for? do it" it was so pained, like he really wanted to die.
But don't get me wrong Ledger's Joker is phenomenal.

Although I'm in love with JEH's performance in the movie, I agree. I don't see The Academy nominating him for a best supporting actor bit...(only in my dreams )

Caesar Romero was the other Joker, not George Hamilton.

I saw Ledger's portrayal as a departure from both of the other Jokers. Romero played it for camp (which I find incomparable to the other two, let alone even close to their level). Jack mostly played a more evil version of himself with some facial tics thrown in. Ledger created a completely different character from the same basic tenets. I didn't find either of the earlier actors as compelling, convincing, or as close to an evil genius as Ledger. It's truly saddening that he passed before he'd even reached his peak.

As far as comparing Ledger and Rorschach, I'll have to hold off on that until I've actually seen Watchmen. However, I do agree with the sense that we're talking apples and oranges here. Haley is mostly playing on a more limited instrument than Ledger did. That he can transcend that limitation is a testament to his acting ability, but I don't think that takes anything away from Ledger's performance in the slightest, nor does it automatically make Haley's performance better than Ledger's.

We were discussing Mark Hamilton. Not even Ledger could rival his voice and laugh. However, I do think that JEH's ability to triumph under limitations does take away from Ledger's performance when you juxtapose the two, because restraints do impact the performance. Being able to rival Ledger under such circumstances is quite telling.

Truthfully, I found Ledger's performance to be overhyped, but it was still good.

Do you mean Mark Hamill, otherwise known as Luke Skywalker?

_________________
He did it.

Sorry about that. Mark Hamill, not Hamilton.

When the Joker was falling to his apparent death in TDK, my reaction was "Oh, the Joker dies."

When Rorschach got obliterated by Manhattan, my reaction was "NOOOOOO! Rorschach died!"

While I love TDK, make no mistake, the only reason the movie did so damn well was because Ledger died shortly after filming. There was much speculation that it was the role of the Joker that killed him. There are even some conspiracy nuts I know that claim the character of the Joker is "cursed".

JEH is very much alive and well. If, God forbid, he were to suddenly die, Watchmen would be in the black even more than TDK. People would be saying that the role of Rorschach was just as "cursed" as the Joker.

_________________

Hm, it seems like at least half of people are saying--to different degrees--that both JEH and Ledger are good in their own right and not really suited for comparison. Can this be less about who's better than deserving recognition? I haven't seen Watchmen yet, so I'm not going to bother offering thoughts, but I get the impression most hope JEH gets recognized for a good performance. For the smattering of reviews I've read, reviewers have spoken well of him. I think even in negative reviews. Maybe not as articulately as many have done on this forum, but he's getting it.

I will say, though, that I could care less if he gets an Oscar. Who wins or is simply nominated for an award on any given year can make so little sense that they've ceased to be a consistent indicator of a solid performance to me. But anyway.

I know I might get tarred and feathered for saying this, but Heath Ledger ruined TDK. He's too good in it. And I get bored with any scene he isn't in. His Joker is brilliant.

However, if I had to pick, I'd say Haley as Rorschach. But Rorschach is so much more complicated. The Joker is too easy to pin down as "the bad guy". Rorschach is a far more fascinating character. Haley's performance was incredible and so was Ledger's performance. Ledger took the Joker to a new level. Haley managed to pull Rorschach right of the page and got it just right. So which is more impressive? Creating something new out of a character we've already seen a hundred times or turning in a performance that perfectly captures the essence of a character straight from the source material?

I was more captivated by Haley. So I have to vote for him. And that's saying a lot coming from a long-time Ledger fan. I watch TDK and think "Wow, Ledger is doing such a great Joker." As I see Watchmen, it feels like I am watching Rorschach and not an actor.

_________________
There is no Walter. Only Zuul!

I don't think I can vote in this. I think Ledger's performance totally lives up to the hype and he deserves all the acclaim he receives for the role. Is some of the hype related to his death? Yeah, but most of it isn't. The Heath-as-Joker backlash is one bandwagon you will not find me joining.

Jackie Earle Hayley's performance was everything I could have asked for in Rorschach and more. In a way, I think he carried Watchmen almost as much as Heath carried The Dark Knight. His scenes were the biggest crowd-pleasers and the most emotional, I don't think I'd have enjoyed the movie nearly as much without Hayley's presence. Which isn't intended to take away from the other actors, I thought everyone (yes, even Malin) did a solid job at the very least. Rorschach, however, was the undisputed showstopper.

It's pretty obvious, though, that Ledger's performance will be remembered by the public long after than Hayley's, rightly or wrongly. And as much as I would LOVE to see JEH get some Oscar love, it ain't happening. Watchmen will be lucky to score some technical nominations and that's that.

So yeah... I don't know.

_________________
-----------------

I'd argue that it's far more difficult to create a new (and completely different) vision of an old character that's so well-known than to work from an essentially fully-storyboarded character that no one has ever played before. John Hurt was very good in The Elephant Man with even worse impediments than Haley had, but I wouldn't classify Merrick as one of the greatest characterizations of all time.

It's going to take an absolutely brilliant performance from Haley for me not to give the nod to Ledger, if I have to choose. As for Ledger's death, it had no effect on my decision to see TDK, nor on the way I viewed his characterization. I'd have gone to see the movie regardless. However, it is truly a shame that there'll be no more coming from this plainly exceptional talent.

For the record, I am a movie aficionado from way back, and it takes quite a lot to impress me. I have a wide field of performances for comparison. Contrary to what a certain poster seems to think, I'm not a fanboi who will automatically love Haley's performance just because he's playing Rorschach.