However, Heath Ledger propelled the "Clown Prince of Crime's" dark portrayal to a whole another level. Everyone has heard the story by now, but Ledger immersed himself so deeply into the Joker character that it contributed to his premature death.

BULL-SHIT!!! Did you actually believe that piece of crap rumor? Heath Ledger's health was in a bad state, while working on some film for Terry Gilliam. He went back to New York to recuperate and accidentally overdosed on his medication. That's it.

Tim, the problem is the question is a bit silly. I fail to understand how this relates to “psychology” at all. This is filmmaking.

Yes, the Joker portrayed in "The Dark Knight" is a lot darker than the one played by Jack Nicholson. But what's your point? It's not meant to be a remake. The movies are incomparable. And to compare them with that of the television show is even more silly.

It's a difference in demographic -- when Adam West was running around as the caped crusader, he was living in a time when comic books were more largely regarded as something “for the kids.” Yeah, adults watched Batman, but the show was family friendly because the idea was to get a lot of kids watching it, too. I watched that show when I was six years old. Then out came Batman the Animated Series, where the show was still “light” and kid friendly, but Batman himself was a pretty dark character if you really look at it.

Fast forward in time to the 1989 rendition of Batman, starring Jack Nicholson as the joker. This isn’t a demonstration of any great social change. This film was directed by Tim Burton. Look at Burton’s other work—this is exactly the kind of movie he makes: taking something that would be expected to be lighter, take a little bit darker twist, but make it comedic and quirky at the same time. That’s just his style and we all know and love it.

Now “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight” have come out. These films are directed by Christopher Nolan. In case you aren’t aware of his previous work, check out “Insomnia” or “Momento.” The guy is a little twisted, and a lot edgier than any other filmmaker whose touched Batman (or any superhero for that matter!). That’s not a statement about how our times have changed, but more a statement to the fact that different people can re-imagine the same hero in very different ways.

Is that a commentary on our society or our collective consciousness? No. Different movies are about different things. But I fail to see what POINT you are actually trying to make by pointing out that the movies are different, because that observation in itself isn’t shocking. They’re different movies.

Tim, I can understand being put off by such negative comments, but you just never know what people are going to say or how they are going to react, because everyone receives information through their own filters. I can understand Rosie's emotional response to "that piece of crap rumor". Heath Ledger's death is tragic, a terrible loss of genius so young. But who really knows what happened. Are we sure that the news debunking the rumors are any closer to the truth? I can see the family and motion picture studio not wanting to taint his memeory. But unless we were close to him, who really knows? I want his death to be a mistake; I hope his death was a mistake; yelling at you isn't going to make that point more ceratin.

And sometimes one negative comment can lead to another...as though the first one sets the tone. I agree with Janey's observation that the different movies were re-imagined in the fashion of each director. But I also agree with you that it is a sign of the times that Nolan's vision seems so right on right now.

I haven't been blogging very long and wonder if there is any blog etiquette? The earlier responses seem mean and angry. Is it because we are anonymous and can unleash our darker side without concern for public opinion? Has our society lost its civility? Is this a sign of the times, too, or does it just happen to be the work of each commentator?

"Is that a commentary on our society or our collective consciousness? No. Different movies are about different things. But I fail to see what POINT you are actually trying to make by pointing out that the movies are different, because that observation in itself isn’t shocking. They’re different movies."

I've written a whole analysis on the subject if you want to check it out at http://encefalus.com/general/dark-knight-psychology/

Superheroes can really tell a lot about society and the changes it goes

Not that I need the confirmation, but I see that you agree with my point, that the changing role of the Batman superhero reflects the changes in society. I would suggest that you extend my thought in regard to what the future holds if you wish to contribute anything new on the topic.

Instead of looking at how our cinema reflects society, perhaps consider that it is our society which reflects popular cinema.

Batman, as I'm sure you are well aware, comes from a long-running comic book series. Frank Miller illistrated The Dark Knight comic book in 1986 and several other very, very dark Batman comics through the end of the 80's and early 90's. Miller, as you may know, is also the creater of "Sin City," an extremely dark series which came out in the early 90's and was made into a movie only a few years ago.

Meanwhile, as I mentioned before, Tim Burton made his first Batman film in 1989 (though he was pressured by the studios to make it have a "mainstream" appeal). The public loved this movie and even honored it at the Oscars. Tim Burton was then given full creative control to create Batman Returns, which shocked and frightened audiences with how exceptionally dark it was, and how disgusting the villains were. This was in 1992.

(The franchise was then handed over to Joel Schumacher, who completely ruined it by turing it into a merchandise/advertising tool and made two movies which are widely regarded as the worst Batman films of all time....so, lets just pretend like that never happened.)

Back to my point. Audiences aren't shocked by a dark Batman film anymore, because Burton already paved the way in '89/'92 in mainstream cinema. And had we been paying attention to comic books, and the ROOTS of Batman, mainstream society would have already known how dark this hero has always been. The Hero himself hasn't changed, but because the majority of us aren't comic book buffs, Burton was taking a risk by introducing the masses to the Batman who wasn't made just for the kids. Now, Christopher Nolan doesn't really have to take any risks because we've already come to love and accept the dark Batman who'd already been around forever in comic book subculture. Where were you when all this was happening?

Instead of observing how our cinema reflects our socitey as it changes, perhaps you should consider that society changes with (and due to) our popular cinema.

It was in 1986 that Frank Miller illistrated the Dark Night comic book. He then went on to create several other very dark Batman comics through the late 80s and early 90s. Miller, in case you don't know, is also the man who illistrated Sin City in the 90s, a very dark series which was finally turned into a movie only a few years ago (it's second installment in production now).

As I mentioned before, it was 1989 when Tim Burton created his first Batman film. The film was dark, but Burton was also pressured by the studios to water it down and make it appeal to the mainstream. The public loved the film and even honored it at the Oscars. Burton was then given full creative control to make Batman Returns in 1992. The film was very dark, the villains were very disgusting, and the public was SHOCKED by what they had just taken their kids to go see.

Because the mainstream public doesn't pay attention to comic books, they didn't already know that Batman had been this dark for a long time. Popular cinema just hadn't caught up yet.

Tim Burton took a risk. People that don't read comic books EXPECTED Batman to be among the light/fluffy superhero shoes that would inspire them and make them feel warm and fuzzy. Burton decided to introduce them to something a little closer to the truth, a little closer to what Batman already really was.

(Then the franchise was taken over by Joel Schumacher, who ruined it by turing it into a tool for selling merchendising and created two movies that are largely regarded as the worst Batman films of all time).

The point is...Burton has already paved the way to the dark Batman years ago. Not necessarily with his rendition of the Joker, but CERTAINLY with the Penguin in Batman Returns. (Watch it, he's at LEAST as disgusting as Ledger's Joker.)

Burton is the one who took the risks with mainstream cinema...at least 16 years ago. By now, we're already expecting a dark Batman and Christopher Nolan had no more risks left to take. He's made a different movie, with different characters and plot lines, but it's not a significant change from Batman Returns with regards to "shock factor." And it hasn't significantly shocked the public.

What does this mean? Does it mean that Batman is getting darker because the public is getting darker? No, obviously not, because Batman has already been dark for a long time.
Rather, the public is getting darker (or more accepting of darkness) because that is the direction that cinema is taking them.

Hey, I'm really sorry about the double-post just then. When I hit "post" the first time, I got an error messsage that said that my message hadn't been sent. Then I was all frustrated but took a deep breath and actually bothered to attempt to re-write it. Then when I hit "post" the second time, BOTH of my posts appeared.

Ugh.

Sorry about cluttering things up. If it's any consolation, I feel really silly :-P

:) It happens to the best of us!

Dear Rosey,
Heath Ledger immersed himself so deeply into the Joker character that it contributed to his premature death. The psychology of his character and how intensely he played role of The Joker are demonstrated throughout the film. I watched the movie, and I remember coming out of it saying he played it intensely-I didn’t read it somewhere and throw a spin on it. I agree his medication and the synergistic effect of both pain medication and sleep medication is what ultimately killed him-but the role of his character most certainly contributed to the reasons for the medications in the first place... Ask yourself why was he taking medication? As for the sleep medication he mixed with the pain medications, if you saw the movie and how intense his performance really was you would agree he was affected by his characters role. The massage therapist found his body. So, apparently the aid of medication and holistic relaxation methodologies were needed in his case to overcome the effects the film had on Ledger on a personal psychological level. It was a tragedy to hear of his premature death at such a young age. You missed the entire point Dr. Delaney was making in his blog. What a shame. I think because Ledger died at such a young age while still filming a movie was the psychological and social draw to make the movie the highest grossing film in US history.

I am surprised that Tim Delaney did not look at some of Heath Ledger's televised interviews - well I do not know if he did or did not.

If you read this Mr/Dr (I am not sure which) Delaney have a look at these interviews. While you do so, study his hand and body movements. Doing so, may enlighten you a bit as to what may have influenced the path which lead to Heath Ledger's death. To be frank as a professional I would have expected you to read his body language. However, every possibility due to the time that you take with your book writing that you may not have seen these interviews.

Jenny

P.S. I do not think that Bipolar symptoms are due to brain inflamation. An idea not based in evidence.

Please try not to compare the 60's television show to the rest of the batman mythos. It really has nothing to do with the true batman story. The Joker in his very first incarnations, more than two decades prior to that awful tv series was a murderous psychotic criminal of unknown origin. Ledger only did what was necessary to capture on screen what comic fans have been reading for almost 70 years now.

In conclusion, what I'm saying is your comparison is completely irrelevant.

Good versus evil has been a reliable theme in the various incarnations of the Batman tale. The Dark Knight departs by creating a clearer visual of the villain's madness. I choose the word "visual" because the madness is not explained; it is shown.

The madness is not tragic; it triumphs. Rachel dies a terrifying death, Harvey Two Face is created and destroyed, and Batman becomes the Dark Knight.

That's the difference --- madness triumphs. The movie is accepted not just by us to the tune of many, many millions of dollars in ticket sales, but receives critical acclaim (see: the Golden Globes, the SAG Awards, and the upcoming Academy Awards).

So the triumph of madness, and in a sense, for this hand, evil, is appealing. Unlike Commissioner Gordon's son, I was unconflicted by the ending. It felt authentic. Even the Commissioner's son's reaction was authentic, if it did not mirror my own.

Batman's reinvention as the Dark Knight represents a fall from grace in Gotham's public view, but we are a different audience. We, along with Commissioner Gordon, understand his difficult choice. This is another twist from convention: evil triumphs in the battle, but you see that the war is, as they say, on. Again, because this seems to be an inevitable but unpredicted outcome, it feels authentic.

That's what I value now in 2009 that I did not place a high price on in the 1980/1990s. Authenticity versus escapism.

Sadly, Heath Ledger's death, which was as stated in the blog post *allegedly* attributed to his immersing himself in the role, may have helped artificially seal the story as authentic for some viewers. The story did not need Heath Ledger to die to be a great story.

I hope this comment is thoughtful or even marginally insightful. I'm reasonably appalled at much of the commentary here and feel that a great film and a great actor, certainly the efforts of the blogger to create a launching pad for thoughtful discussion, deserve a more elevated discussion.

Thanks, Dr. Delaney, for well, giving me a few moments of "authentic escape" to muddle through my thoughts on this one. I've never studied sociology, so I am bummed that you stopped writing here. I am a new reader.

I realize that this is a very late comment, since this blog is no longer active, but I'm curious as to whether psychologists are interested in taking a deeper look at what is going on in superhero comics. I have some thoughts here:

http://geniuswithaparachute.blogspot.com/2009/08/comic-book-superheroes-...

Those who never read comics but only go by the movies are missing something about the whole superhero culture, since most of the innovation happens in print (also true for SF/F/H in general).

My impression based on something a psychologist said to me a long time ago is that psychologists seem to be completely unaware of this dark underclass in society that has its own culture. I sense a lot of class privilege in the PT blogs I've read so far, and I think it's cutting scientists off from some important information about what's going on in the world.

There isn't anyone who blogs about media violence, is there?