River Phoenix or Heath Ledger?

jmt225

Global Moderator
Simple question... who do you believe would have had the better career if River Phoenix and Heath Ledger wouldn't have died so young?

River Phoenix is probably one of the most handsome men ever in cimena, and perhaps even one of the most talented and versatile if you look at his body of work. Even at the age of 12/13, he was fantastic in Stand by Me and there's no doubt that he stole the show and gave the best performance in the film. Then you move on to the movie where he got nominated for an Oscar (which he should've won when you look at his competition that year) at the age of 17, Running on Empty. That film is one of my all time favorites and River carries it from start to finish. And after that he would go on to also give Oscar worthy performances in both Dogfight and My Own Private Idaho (in fact, he probably would've gotten nominated for My Own Private Idaho if the Academy was back then like they are now, with the gay support and what not). His last couple of films were okay at best, but you could tell his personal problems were affecting his work. But hypothetically, when I ask you the question above, think of Phoenix the time he shot My Own Private Idaho and pretend from that point on he would've been drug free. Would he have had a better career than Heath Ledger would have had if he lived on?

Heath Ledger is someone we all first noticed with 10 Things I Hate About You. It was a fun little film, but his performance was nothing special. However, in his next three features, he was simply phenomenal. In the The Patriot, he gave one of the best death scenes in the history of cinema in my opinion when his character died. In a Knight's Tale he single handily carried that film to its awesomeness. And in Monster's Ball... well, let me put it this way: I only saw the film for Halle Berry's infamous sex scene, but I felt like Ledger still gave the most powerful performance in the entire film, even though his on-screen time wasn't very long. After these three films, he basically disappeared because he only did indy films no one gave a shit about for a few years. But then I saw him once again in Lords of Dogtown and at first glance, you're not that impressed by his performance, but once you see and hear the real life version of the character Ledger was portraying, you realize just how great of a job Ledger did with the role. And of course, after Lords of Dogtown, Brokeback Mountain was released, and Ledger gave one of the most unbelievable performances of all time in that movie. And then, obviously, there was The Dark Knight, where he brought on of the most popular villains in American entertainment history to a brand new level.

So, when you look at it all, who in the World goes on to win the awards, be the bigger box office draw, and make the larger impact in the history of film?
 
Tough question, they were both so bland.

Phoenix without a doubt, Heath Ledger made the mistake of doing The Dark Knight and playing it's most iconic character. If he hadn't have died do you think people would have cared about Heath Ledger the actor? Your average guy on the street would call him The Joker and only think of him as The Joker. Just Harrison Ford is more Han Solo or Indiana Jones than himself. I could probably come up with a better examle if I was being paid to do so.
 
One thing that I think of when looking at Heath Ledger today, as if he was still alive was the role of the Joker. It was an amazing performance, and I wonder, like many great actors before hand, would Heath be able to top it. Would we as fans actually think to ourselves while we watch his next film, is he as good here as he was playing the Joker? I think he would be haunted by his great performance and probably his inability to top it.

River Phoenix himself would have to compete with performances laid out by his brother. Sibling rivalry could have existed a lot more between his brother and himself later down the line. Thought I do believe that River had the ability to top Joaquin's performances in the long run, and releasing more quality acting in movies post 2008 than Ledger.
 
Heath Ledger is by no means a bland actor Jake, and neither was Phoenix.

Ledger was a great uprising actor, with his greatest performance in my opinion coming from the film Candy, and not the Dark Knight. I know it's the cool thing to be a rebel now and say the Dark Knight wasn't that good among film buffs, but thats bullshit. Ledger made the Joker himself, and Nicholson will never again be thought of as that character. The way he totally threw himself into characters like the Joker is what made him great. From Brokeback Mountain to Candy to the Dark Knight to even Lords of Dogtown he stopped being Heath Ledge and immediately became his character. Everytime I watch Lords of Dogtown I can't believe how much Ledger changes his voice and persona in that movie, totally different from him in real life.

River Phoenix was an amazing talent as well, with his best performance in my opinion coming from the previously mentioned and completely underrated Gus Van Sant classic "My Own Private Idaho" (probably the only film in which Keanu Reeves might be called a good actor). His role in that film is flawed in so many ways, detestable and mesmerizing at the same time. Beautiful work.

And we all know he was great in Stand By Me, that doesn't even need to be said again.

To be honest though, among the two, my vote would probably go to Heath Ledger. While Phoenix was an amazing talent, I feel that Ledger truly was a better actor then Phoenix. It shows in his body of work.
 
Heath Ledger is by no means a bland actor Jake,

He was though, wasn't he!

I know it's the cool thing to be a rebel now and say the Dark Knight wasn't that good among film buffs, but thats bullshit.

The final 30 minutes ain't great.

Ledger made the Joker himself

Not really. I've read versions of The Joker like that.

The way he totally threw himself into characters like the Joker is what made him great.

I don't agree with that. Any good actor could play The Joker. His representation of him was how I thought he'd be.

Getting into character is also bullshit.

Vince Vaughn: ''Yeah, yeah, I was really in my character. It's like I was actually Santa's brother''

Maryl Streep is renowned for not getting into character, she just does it. If it's good enough for Meryl, possibly the greatest actress of all time, then it's good enough for everybody else.
 
He was though, wasn't he!

The majority of people who watch films would disagree lover.

The final 30 minutes ain't great.

It does slow down a bit towards the end granted, but the film is still top-notch all around. Even Apocalypse Now had some slow parts.

Not really. I've read versions of The Joker like that.

So have I. Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke" comes to mind immediately (definitely the greatest depiction of the Joker).

But it's hard to take that dark and disturbing character and translate it well onto film. Nicholson's Joker was great, but was far too campy and over-the-top (not to say that's a bad thing, that was the atmosphere Burton wanted to incorporate) for my tastes. To become the dark Joker on film and not appear cartoonish is a rather tall task to ask for, and Ledger pulled it off with flying colors. Obviously the role didn't require the emotional complexity of Hamlet, but the job Ledger did was still very well above your average acting performance in any type of comic book film.

Getting into character is also bullshit.

Vince Vaughn: ''Yeah, yeah, I was really in my character. It's like I was actually Santa's brother''

Maryl Streep is renowned for not getting into character, she just does it. If it's good enough for Meryl, possibly the greatest actress of all time, then it's good enough for everybody else.

I died a little inside the day Fred Claus came out.

Every actor has their different methods, but you can't exactly say that one method is the end-all, be-all of quality acting.
 
Getting into character is also bullshit.

Vince Vaughn: ''Yeah, yeah, I was really in my character. It's like I was actually Santa's brother''

Lol... Vince Vaughn is a jackass, for one. And also... the guy is just plain horrible. Sure, Wedding Crashers was okay and Swingers wasn't that bad, but Jake... if you're going to quote someone, at lease quote someone who's actually talented in the artform of acting. ;)

Maryl Streep is renowned for not getting into character, she just does it. If it's good enough for Meryl, possibly the greatest actress of all time, then it's good enough for everybody else.

I'm sure River Phoenix was the same way, but I don't think something like that gives anyone an advantage over the other.

And X, I forgot about Candy. I saw that after Ledger's death because Showtime was playing it non-stop. And while Ledger did indeed give a tremendous performance, the film itself doesn't rank up there with my favorite work of his. It's good, but I don't know. Maybe I would've enjoyed/appreciated it more if I saw it before his death rather than right after.

Anyway, to answer my own question finally, I think I have to go with River Phoenix. TM brought up two good points about Ledger perhaps never getting rid of the Joker image, and also the fact that once Joaquin hit big, there probably would've been some interesting stuff between those two.

But yeah... while I think Heath Ledger was a tad bit more talented than Phoenix was by their untimely deaths (keep in mind that Phoenix died WAY before he could've ever met his true potential, whereas Ledger was peaking around his death), I think at the end of the day... River Phoenix would've captured the more awards, been the bigger draw, and overall have the better filmography. The guy was on his way to huge, huge things, whereas it’s possible Ledger was able to give us his absolute best before he past on.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,840
Messages
3,300,776
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top