Critic displays lack of tact with Ledger's passing

Many in the entertainment industry had similar reactions to the tragic death of 28-year-old actor Heath Ledger last Tuesday. They displayed sadness, shock and expressed deepest condolences and sympathies to Ledger's family and particularly to his two-year-old daughter. With the sudden and inexplicable passing of such a young and promising Hollywood talent, we were reeling.

Well, everyone except New York Post film critic Lou Lumenick.

On the day of Ledger's death, Lumenick wrote of the actor, "It's always a tragedy when a 28-year-old dies, but I wasn't totally surprised. He spent the last decade throwing away opportunities any young actor would die for."

Here's the full entry, courtesy of Lumenick's New York Post blog:

I was in the security line at Salt Lake City International Airport when I got the news that Heath Ledger was found dead today in his Lower Manhattan apartment of an apparent drug overdose. Our paths crossed only once, when I interviewed Heath for The Four Feathers. All I remember is that he seemed hung over on a Sunday morning, blew smoke in my face and make it very clear he wasn't there voluntarily to promote his film.

Ledger was Oscar nominated for Best Actor for his fine and sensitive performance in Brokeback Mountain, but he did the film and his candidacy no favors by joking about his discomfort with homosexuality in many interviews. When Ledger, whose career had pretty much flatlined at that point, won his first award for Brokeback, he didn't bother showing up to collect it at the New York Film Critics Circle gala.

It's always a tragedy when a 28-year-old dies, but I wasn't totally surprised. He spent the last decade throwing away opportunies any young actor would die for. Ledger's death leaves a big marketing problem for Warner Bros., since Ledger plays the Joker in one of their biggest summer releases, The Dark Knight.

I understand that Lumenick was possibly attempting, as many critics do, to play the devil's advocate in the wake of tributes and solemn broadcasts. But the man went too far. He crossed a line that should never have even been approached. Lumenick criticizes Ledger on the basis of his single meeting with the actor -- that of an interview. And while I might see how Lumenick could feel bitter towards Ledger, does his petty resentment warrant criticism on the day of Ledger's death? More importantly, does it warrant criticism devoid of sympathies for Ledger's family and loved ones? For his daughter?

Who in the right mind discusses the marketing trouble of The Dark Knight mere hours after its leading actor is pronounced dead? Who disparages someone's reputation with the support of a single meeting years prior? And just who the hell has the right to slander an actor's short-lived career just as it begins to blossom?

Apparently, Lou Lumenick.

Lumenick is a perpetrator of the notion that critics are heartless snobs. He views Ledger's death as marketing trouble, a speed-bump in the production of a film. At the very most, it's a shame.

I'll admit, Lumenick is a very talented writer and a top-notch reviewer, one who, until very recently, I respected and ranked among the best. But I find it hard now to read or take to heart anything he writes. I've left my thoughts in the form of a comment on Lumenick's blog, and I urge those reading to do the same. It's been nearly a week, and Lumenick hasn't so much as addressed his severe blunder.

Lumenick, you've lost yourself a reader. What a shame.

Speak out. Respond to Lou Lumenick. Here's the original post.