HEATH WILL PLAY THE JOKER IN BATMAN BEGINS SEQUEL!

[opinionista]

Interesting that you should mention that, Natali. I read a couple of places that Heath turned down the role of Spider-Man in favor of Brokeback Mountain, for which I have always respected him. That's one reason I found this news slightly disappointing.

I sometimes enjoy watching comic-book movies myself, but I hate what big cartoonish blockbusters have done to cinema in general. I wish we would get back to an art dominated by character-driven films like Brokeback and all the others that were up for Oscars this year (yes, even Crash).

Where did you read that Katherine? I read he turned the Spiderman role down in 2000 because he had three previous commitments. He was offered to do Brokeback in 2004.

“You want to know the truth? The short story, [“Brokeback Mountain”) was published in 1997. It was optioned to become a movie in 1998. My first American movie was ’10 Things I Hate About You’ in 1999. There were so many actors during the past seven years who have been attached to ‘Brokeback Mountain,’ yet who have been convinced by their managers, agents, publicists, or all three combined, not to do it, because it would ruin their career. I was approached to make the movie, maybe because I was the last on the list, in early 2004 and didn’t think twice about it. The same can be said about Jake (Gyllenhaal). Neither of us needed to have ‘permission’ from our agents to make this movie. It was our decision alone. To be honest, nobody advised me to not do the movie. Fear is manufactured by the studios putting up money. Focus (the studio releasing “Brokeback Mountain) has had a track record with quality hard-to-market films, including ‘Far From Heaven,’ which also just happened to be a film with gay undertones."
http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/interviews/HeathLedgerInterviewBrokebackMountain.php

[serious crayons]

Where did you read that Katherine? I read he turned the Spiderman role down in 2000 because he had three previous commitments. He was offered to do Brokeback in 2004.

You're right, Natali. It wouldn't make sense that he would make the two decisions simultaneously, and I shouldn't have shorthanded it that way. What I was thinking was, he turned down a big opportunity -- playing a superhero in a big-budget summer blockbuster -- but then (several years later) took a risky opportunity -- playing a gay man in a low-budget art-house romance that, supposedly, was expected to be low-profile.

I thought it showed integrity to have made both those decisions. I read about it a couple of places, I think, but here's an excerpt from Rolling Stone, which describes him turning down Spider-Man not for scheduling reasons but on artistic grounds:

After the triple dreamboat whammy of 10 Things I Hate About You, The Patriot (as a publicist's fantasy: Mel Gibson's son) and A Knight's Tale, he found himself at the big studio table. Executives mapped out a career with the shape of an Entourage season: billboards and paydays. They wanted this Aussie kid from Perth ("It's the most isolated city in the world") to play Spider-Man. Ledger walked out. "I was like, 'Ah, fucking hell. I'm part of a machine.' I started to feel like a bottle of Coke. And there was a whole marketing scheme on to turn me into a very popular bottle. And Coke tastes like shit. But there's posters everywhere so people will buy it. So I felt like I tasted like shit, and I was being bought for no reason."

Two things:

-- Playing Mel Gibson's son is probably no longer a publicist's fantasy

-- Here's an example of why I don't trust celebrity journalism. From your excerpt:

Neither of us needed to have ‘permission’ from our agents to make this movie. It was our decision alone.

From Rolling Stone:

A dare: Who'd be man enough to play gay? My agent told me, 'You're perfect for this one,'" Heath Ledger says.

I guess the two quotes aren't quite mutually exclusive, but ...

[opinionista]

You're right, Natali. It wouldn't make sense that he would make the two decisions simultaneously, and I shouldn't have shorthanded it that way. What I was thinking was, he turned down a big opportunity -- playing a superhero in a big-budget summer blockbuster -- but then (several years later) took a risky opportunity -- playing a gay man in a low-budget art-house romance that, supposedly, was expected to be low-profile.

I thought it showed integrity to have made both those decisions. I read about it a couple of places, I think, but here's an excerpt from Rolling Stone, which describes him turning down Spider-Man not for scheduling reasons but on artistic grounds:

After the triple dreamboat whammy of 10 Things I Hate About You, The Patriot (as a publicist's fantasy: Mel Gibson's son) and A Knight's Tale, he found himself at the big studio table. Executives mapped out a career with the shape of an Entourage season: billboards and paydays. They wanted this Aussie kid from Perth ("It's the most isolated city in the world") to play Spider-Man. Ledger walked out. "I was like, 'Ah, fucking hell. I'm part of a machine.' I started to feel like a bottle of Coke. And there was a whole marketing scheme on to turn me into a very popular bottle. And Coke tastes like shit. But there's posters everywhere so people will buy it. So I felt like I tasted like shit, and I was being bought for no reason."

Two things:

-- Playing Mel Gibson's son is probably no longer a publicist's fantasy

-- Here's an example of why I don't trust celebrity journalism. From your excerpt:

From Rolling Stone:

A dare: Who'd be man enough to play gay? My agent told me, 'You're perfect for this one,'" Heath Ledger says.

I guess the two quotes aren't quite mutually exclusive, but ...

Yeah, celebrity journalism is really unrealiable. They really give journalist a bad name, don't they? Anyway, what I wrote about actors wanting Superhero roles came from an article I read a long time ago, when Batman and Robin was released in 1995. Don't remember where I read it. I guess not everyone thinks the same, but also Heath's situation has changed now. Then he was a single man, with no responsbiliities and lots of time to take on different roles, and explore with movies. Now he has a daughter to think about, and two homes.

Also, The Joker is a challenging role, IMO, more than playing Spiderman I guess.  I don't see Tobey Maguire needing to make much effort to be convincing. And Kirsten Dunst's performance is about the worst I've seen in my life, considering how good she did in Interview with a Vampire. She's really bad, and annoying. However, they've been paid a lot of money.

Like I said, I think Heath has a challenge ahead with this role because a lot of people are doubting his talent and acting capabilities, because of Jack Nicholson's oustanding and impressive performance in Batman. Heath is a great actor, but Nicholson is a legend.

[Ellemeno]

...Heath's situation has changed now. Then he was a single man, with no responsbiliities and lots of time to take on different roles, and explore with movies. Now he has a daughter to think about, and two homes.

"They were no longer young men, with all of it before them..."

[serious crayons]

"They were no longer young men, with all of it before them..."

True. Now Heath is 27. 

[nakymaton]

True. Now Heath is 27. 

  Heh. Still too young for a Best Actor Oscar, but too old to turn down parts like the Joker. 

(It seems as though all A-list actors have to do their time in superhero movies, or bad disaster movies, or something like that. It's as if having A-list actors gives the popcorn flicks some kind of credibility. "Ooooh, The Core couldn't be that bad... it has Hilary Swank in it. Didn't she win an Oscar or something?")

I'll watch it. I didn't see Batman Begins (don't go to the movies that much these days), but I'll see a superhero movie to watch Heath. (And I don't think the Batman movies are Sin City. Batman Begins was rated PG-13, so I don't think you have to worry about Heath doing an Elijah Wood and being so disturbing that he's unwatchable, Mikaela and Meryl.)

[Meryl]

'll watch it. I didn't see Batman Begins (don't go to the movies that much these days), but I'll see a superhero movie to watch Heath. (And I don't think the Batman movies are Sin City. Batman Begins was rated PG-13, so I don't think you have to worry about Heath doing an Elijah Wood and being so disturbing that he's unwatchable, Mikaela and Meryl.)

I'm not too worried.  It's distasteful to watch any character with such unredeeming qualities as the Joker, but Heath will make him interesting.  Batman Begins at least had a reasonably believable plot and made an attempt at character development.  Elijah was good in Sin City, but when it turns up on cable, I don't have much of an urge to re-watch it.  It's stylized barbarity with characters that don't have much going for them.  Once was enough. 

[serious crayons]

It's as if having A-list actors gives the popcorn flicks some kind of credibility.

And maybe for the A-listers, it gives the chance to show they have range. Hey, they're not JUST serious talented actors able to turn out poignant nuanced Oscar-worthy performances in challenging roles! They can also play unchallenging roles in movies dominated by costumes and CGI special effects!

Still, I have a lot of faith in Heath, and I have a lot of faith in Christopher Nolan. And for that matter, I'll also gladly see any movie with Christian Bale in it (well, except for the creepy ones where he plays a serial killer or an undernourished factory worker). So I'm hoping for the best.

Speaking of Christopher Nolan, if anybody hasn't seen Memento, his debut flick, I highly highly recommend it. It's absolutely nothing like Brokeback, but it's easly in my top 10 (a list in which, admittedly, there's a LOT of space between No. 1 and No. 2).

[nakymaton]

And maybe for the A-listers, it gives the chance to show they have range. Hey, they're not JUST serious talented actors able to turn out poignant nuanced Oscar-worthy performances in challenging roles! They can also play unchallenging roles in movies dominated by costumes and CGI special effects!

And can make a lot of money to support their urges to act in low-budget Oscar bait. It's the cheesy blockbusters that provide the big paychecks.

(As a Lord of the Rings fan, though, I take issue with the assertion that CGI and costumes are necessarily inconsistent with good movie-making! I'm still boycotting all Clint Eastwood movies because of his slams against Return of the King in the 2003 Oscar race. But then I've got a popcorn-movie heart, I'm afraid.)

(Meryl... I never even saw Sin City. Hubby rented it without me, and told me that it was the sort of thing that I would hate, Frodo or no Frodo. And he knows me well enough to tell exactly what violence will freak me out.)

(And Memento was good, if kinda freaky.)

[serious crayons]

And can make a lot of money to support their urges to act in low-budget Oscar bait. It's the cheesy blockbusters that provide the big paychecks.

You're right. You couldn't expect them to scrape by on those measly -- what? low-seven-figure? high-six-figure? -- arty-film paychecks.

(As a Lord of the Rings fan, though, I take issue with the assertion that CGI and costumes are necessarily inconsistent with good movie-making! ... But then I've got a popcorn-movie heart, I'm afraid.)

Me too, to be honest. I was just being smart-alecky. I liked the LOR movies (probably not as much as you, but I did like them). And actually, I see most of the big popcornish blockbusters. They're not my favorite type of movie, but they're almost always entertaining and spectacular and they keep my kids quiet for a couple of hours (though I also used to go see them pre-kids, too).