Going to buy my ticket tonight for Friday night... should be awesome.

I would like to see this movie, too, but knowing that Ledger (or a part of him) may, in fact, not have been "acting" (as MaryAnn eludes to) is so sad, so heart-breaking, so horrific that I don't know if I can watch it. As a psychotherapist, I don't know that it's possible for me.
I can imagine what MaryAnn writes of in terms of our entire cultural sickness will be so depressing that I will want to vomit.
I haven't seen the movie, yet, I already say, what MaryAnn begins this review with...

Cannot wait! Going in a large group, and I loved your Batman Begins review too! Gave me insight I never saw into it at first.

Well, it isn't really any more comforting, but the Medical Examiner ruled Heath Ledger's death was accidental, not a suicide -- so I'm not sure how accurate it is that he had an "urge to self-destruct" ... seems like an unwarranted assumption. Dunno; the whole thing is a shame, regardless.

Yes, but Ledger was clearly aggitated, asking for meds, having high anxiety, couldn't sleep, all the signs that we know point directly to the need for psychiatric intervention, not just prescriptions from various physicians. Ledger told others that this role was doing a number on him (or him in this role--what it was bringing him in touch with.) What seems saddest to me is that no one gave him any help or insisted on it even--simply thought perhaps (as many will do--he'll be OK) and hey, whatever, the angst, it's really driving an amazing performance. I've had patients that if they'd been filmed in a movie would win Oscars. Not to compare them to Ledgers true acting talent at all. It's that when one has gone over the edge, put that with acting talent and... Ugh. I don't think I can see this.
Actually, I wonder about the ethics of it even being released. It will surely make tons of money and money seems to be valued above all. My guess is that MaryAnn is totally on target in this review. And in a way that many people just won't "get." Which is even more painful.

Saying Heath's Joker had a hand in his death devalues Heath's talent and abilities as an actor. His friends and cast members all said he was fully capable of distinguishing between reality and fantasy. It's a dramatic story that plays well in newspapers and tv reports but it ignores all testimonies of those closest to him.

Anyway, i can't wait to see this film 3 times on Friday.

I just know i'm gonna love it 'cuz Nolan can do no wrong.

MaryAnn says you should see it. So you should go if you want to. Re: friends and cast members comments now (as the movie is coming out) are very different than what they said at his death...and what Ledger himself had said...even on video. My opinion...someone should have intervened and they didn't. Then when Ledger was clearly deperate, it seems he didn't get the right kind of help. Only prescription drugs.
The whole thing is very sad but yes it will be a phenomenal performance...I certainly don't take one thing away from his acting talent. That's not even the point. Nor is it MaryAnn's.

The angle that this role aided to the demise of Ledger, in any manner, is simply false in all respects. Ledger's work here was completed four months before his passing, and he had already moved onto another project. The wet, rainy shoots in London on Dr. Parnassus made him come down with illness, and while back in New York, he accidentally mixed too many prescriptions drugs together. He was actually heard snoring an hour before his time of death.

Every actor on the set of Parnassus said he looked fine on the outside, but knew he was coming down with an illness due to the rainy shoot. That was the only glimmer of warning. On The Dark Knight, Ledger wasn't jumping around in character once the cameras stopped, but instead would sit down and talk with cast and crew of his daughter and the filming techniques on the shoot.

This is not some grisly case of the man dying on screen due to a mistake. This was entirely outside of the film itself.

Jeremy,
You sound like a personal friend of Ledger's. Wish your take was the whole deal. Somehow I don't think it is since he himself said what the role of the Joker did to him...and yeah, it can be three months prior...that's not long...and then come down with pneumonia (which I think would make things horrible) especially if you're already possibly depressed. All I know is what I heard Ledger say himself on a video. And it was about the Joker role. The other that you describe heaped on top of Batman would be the icing on the cake.
Anyway, knowing this tragedy, I'm not going to this movie. We do know that it did a number on Ledger and knowing that and with the questions that linger I'm not going to see it. If you can compartmentalize so well, then the issues re: Ledger (even as MaryAnn describes) won't bother you because you'll set them aside. I can't do that.

Agree completely, MaryAnn. I've sat beside many a patient in intensive care on consultations, hoping they'd pull through. Some made it, others didn't. They just wanted to get some sleep, get rid of pain, whatever. They wouldn't have said, I am intentionally trying to kill myself. Something(s) in life became too overwhelming and symptoms became too difficult..."accidental overdoses" happen more often than people seem to realize.

Accidental perscription drug overdoses do indeed happen, and unfortunately are on the rise. Not to say there wasn't abuse involved here, which is why a DEA investigation is still underway into who was prescribing. However, Ledger had actually only taken two prescriptions before heading to bed. Unfortunately, this was still too soon to the previous medications he had taken hours before, and his body toxicity became overwhelming. The best we can take away from this incident is the awareness of the growing problem, and learn form it.

Anywho, I leave you now with a recent story about Ledger and his time in Chicago:

http://tinyurl.com/59xz7b

Jeremy,
I agree with much you say. Also, though, the interview in the UK (during The Dark Knight)Ledger says he can't sleep, is exhausted, and has gone for nights and nights with only two hours of sleep, his mind wouldn't stop, couldn't stop thinking. Not a good picture. And one that could lead a person (when this stuff just continued and continued) to try to quiet the thoughts, get some sleep, relax, just sleep--anyway possible. The Joker was a role that would freak any actor out if they played it to the hilt in the way Ledger did on two hours of sleep, mind racing, always in character, anxious, observably jittery, etc. The warnings were there in the UK interview. There were other issues--his family life (Michelle and his child), the pneumonia (which can exacerbate any obsessive thoughts and depression.) I also think Ledger was the kind of guy (well, it's pretty obvious) that hid his feelings well. He would try to act upbeat even if he wasn't, that kind of thing. But jittery, couldn't sit still, couldn't sleep, mind racing, exhausted... Sad, sad, sad. And preventable with correct intervention. That's what bothers me so much. As MaryAnn said, a story for our times...so much preventable with proper attention and intervention. But if the problems aren't seen, or are ignored, or are brushed off, crashes inevitably occur.

You should stop with all the assumptions and what ifs. What use does it have? You simply don't know if it was suicide and any thinking about it will do you no good (which is apparent when I read your comments). I know that some of you won't be able to switch those thoughts off at will but perhaps you should try to focus on the positive things instead. For one: He gave a wonderful performance and will be loved for it by Batman-Fans and Non-Fans alike for a long time to come.

It was NOT suicide (as you argue above--I didn't say it was.) That's not the point. If you can't see the events (not event) that led up to his demise, then there's nothing to say. His death could have been prevented. Knowing that...and knowing what he himself said, I won't see the film. But you will. Fine for you. My experiences and what I know and see are different than yours. I've talked to many Batman fans (and Joker fans for that matter) that said they weren't going. So, hey, it isn't just me.)There are those who recognize a psychological train wreck (even if highly talented) in action over a period of time--and one that is alone in the midst of it--alone and miserable and can't even sleep. KNOWING that in advance, I won't go. I'd thought I might, but I won't.

I'm not Jeremy.
Of course there were events that led to his death. Otherwise he wouldn't be dead. Would you say that there would be a 100% guarantee that he would live now if he hadn't played the Joker? Of course, you wouldn't say that. 50% perhaps? Who knows? He said that he never slept well if he invested as much thought in a character (it was the same with previous films). Perhaps he shouldn't have made films at all.
You claim to be one of those who recognizes a psychological train wreck? And you can recognize him as such after some video interviews without actually seeing im in person? Or did you know him?

I'd say yeah, from watching the UK interview, I could see things fraying apart for Ledger. I know the signs...seen them for years. But that's not really the point. MaryAnn addressed the issues of our entire culture in her review and that seems to go completely unaddressed with no concern of what she is pointing to. What this movie symbolizes. It's not for those that are simply going for an action picture as MaryAnn makes clear. And, I think, many will miss what she is saying in this excellent review. It's strange to me and I could be very wrong about this, but it seems that I am overwhemingly outnumbered by males on these posts. Not sure what that says. And byt, I hated Sex and the City movie. Loved In Bruges.
This movie has more dynamics that I think I'd clearly get and would make me feel as MaryAnn (horribly depressed myself) and then add the loss of Ledger to it. But everyone must make up his/her mind whether to go or not.

Can we focus on the movie and not on the conspiracy theories?

I do believe there's a sort of thing as an accidental overdose.

Look, when you suicidally overdose, it's generally the same pill. Heath died from a bad combination of pills.

Changing the subject a little, do you think he hgas a chance of getting an oscar nomination for best supporting actor (and if he does, do you think that would be apropriate, like, should some family member go get it)?

If it so happens that way, I'd love to see Daniel Day Lewis accept the award on Ledger's behalf to give to his family. Lewis' tribute to Ledger at the award ceremonies was quite moving, even though he had never known the man.

Daniel Day Lewis is one to throw himself completely into a role and says it's a very dark place (if the character is)...can be very disconcerting or worse. Combined with all the things Heath had going on, Lewis was concerned evidently--or either afterward could see why events spiraled downward. Lewis would be a good one to accept any award if the family didn't want to. Why not Michele Williams (if she wanted to)?

http://fataculture.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/review-the-dark-knight/

Just reviewed it myself, and I concur with you indeed.

We've been over this before. As I said then, I'm not sure I believe there's such a thing as an "accidental" overdose.

Regardless, I agree with the above poster who said this speculation might "devalue" his performance. Then again, I haven't seen the film yet. Maybe I'll hate it. Maybe I'll think Jack's Joker was better. Either way, I'm going to have a hard time separating the performance from the life, but it seems important to try.

Nick,
What in particular do you concur with MaryAnn about? How did the Ledger issues (whatever they may be, however you might feel or not about them) affect you? Did you feel horribly saddened as MA discusses. Did you see the movie as a mirror held up to our culture? I had planned to see this movie, but the Ledger piece of it (in all it's confusion and ambiguity) makes me turn away. I don't want to remember Ledger this way. Even if he is dynamic--I suppose I'd prefer to remember him as the confused and profoundly sad, but very dear cowboy in Brokeback Mountain, than the manaically pathological, lonely, sick Joker. Sure, I'd like to see Bale et al, but I don't think that Ledger's performance will do anything but depress and as I said, make me feel really ill. Such a waste, as MA begins her review (or gets to that point--the sadness, the loss.)
For those who can comparmentalize, push aside such things, view the film as film only, forgetting the real lives of the characters, I say go, but otherwise, I think it would haunt in a awful way.

Newbs,
If you think of Ledger every time you can't sleep...seems that this movie will haunt. I can't separate the actor from what happened to him not long after the making of this film, and knowing what he said about his mental state during the making of the film. And for those who would jump on me for saying this, I am clearly aware of the pneumonia he had and that would play a key (bacterial/viral illnesses can make one even more depressed, anxious, etc., if the problem is there to begin with.) Why should we separate the characters from the real people when something is involved like this (Ledgers' death)? Why should we not think of it? And in thinking of it, how can it not get in the way? Unless as I said, one has the capacity (and I don't think of this as a positive characteristic) of being able to compartmentalize feelings. Instead of integrating them. Bomber pilots compartmentalize all the time. Lots of people do in situations where if there was integration there would be a different outcome.
There is also the saying in psychiatry that's used all the time..."accidentally on purpose"...sometimes we aren't so aware of our unconscious issues as we'd like to think we are.

Yes, precisely MaryAnn...you wrote: Ledger's performance will, inevitably, be "devalued" because of his death but I don't see that there's any way around it.
I don't see any way around it either. And, yes, how, in this case, do you separate the actor from the role he played in this film, knowing what we know? I suppose, many will (the compartmentalization thing) but that's a huge part of what I do see as being wrong with "us" or "our culture." If we have that ability and use it blithely then what does that say about our humanity? And we can't just say, "it's only a movie." That's trite and insensitive, and not in touch with our own feelings (really scary) besides.

I'm certainly looking forward to seeing Ledger's last performance, although it may be a couple of weeks, since word is, all of the theatres that are playing is are sold out! This may end up being the hit of the summer.

I remember when they were filming here in Chicago last summer. I still have pictures that I took of the police cars and paddy wagons with the "Gothom City" Logos and license plates. I'm sure that Ledger probably gave a great performance. He certainly gave the performance of the ages in "Brokeback Mountain" and that showed just how special, and gifted an actor he is, as that was a tricky role and Ledger's take on it should have been a shoo-in for the Best Actor Oscar. Only the subject matter scared most of the voters away. What a loss.....

Heath Ledger was a great actor. However, let's be honest, people would not have realized that had it not been for his towering, immortal performance in Brokeback Mountain. As the NY Times said, it was as good as anything ever even by Brando (and Sean Penn). Thanks to his Ennis del Mar, people started looking back at his ultra-fine work in films like Candy and Lords of Dogtown and heck, everything he did. It was his performance in Brokeback that made his tragic, untimely death the stuff of front page news, otherwise I fear his awful loss would have gone the way of say, Brad Renfro, another fine actor whose untimely death barely made the papers. So, when Heath wins that overdue Oscar for Dark Knight, it will be just as much for Brokeback Mountain. Alas I will not be watching, as the Academy Awards are (and always have been) a meaningless popularity contest. It became obscene (as Dustin Hoffman accused them of being back in 1974 before he sold out in 1979) when they denied Brokeback Mountain and Heath Best Picture and Actor of 2005. Brokeback was the most honored pre-Oscars film EVER, nothing with a fraction of its awards had ever lost, yet older Academy members were vocally, publically, proudly saying they wouldn't even watch the "gay movie", they weren't interested. Right-wingers protested, got behind Crash as a politically correct alternative, and they denied Brokeback its due (and, for the record, no film with as few pre-Oscars honors had ever won, it wasn't even nominated for the Golden Globe!). Whichever film you prefer, for 80 years the Oscars have been determined by precedent, except that year, with Academy members admitting they would not go gay. If they said they wouldn't go black or hispanic or Jewish or whatever, just imagine the outcry. No excuse. So may Heath win the prize he deserves, for The Dark Knight, and especially for the beautiful Brokeback Mountain.

I don't know if Ledger should have gotten best actor for Brokeback, but I definitely think the movie should have won best film. Way over Crash--at least to me.
I think if Ledger wins an Oscar is will be for The Dark Knight (and that alone) and as MA says, the questions will loom as to whether he deserved it for the role or whether it will be given to him out of sadness that he is gone.

Wish you'd talked about Ledger too. You'd have heard, I think, different things than you're hearing from Bale et al now, as the movie opens.
Michelle Williams will not attend. The one Ledger was closest to and had a child with won't be seeing this movie.

I will see this movie and it WILL haunt me in some way no doubt, but that is LIFE.

Sara, I understand why you don't want to go, as there seems to be a professional conflict occurring in your mind, but re-infocing the idea to others is possibly stopping them from having a learning experience.

There is a lot to take away from the movie and everything that has happened with Heath.

I can understand Michelle Williams and co not going, because the pain is too close.

Peter,
I certainly ddon't mean to stop anyone from seeing the movie, nor is that something I could even do nor want to do. People will flock to this movie in droves. I've said MA in the review above said, "See it" and I think she's right on about most reviews. What else she says (and I'm glad) helps me personally know I won't go. Her review is the best and most insightful one I've read. My husband (who likes Batman movies and action movies) said under the circumstances that he won't go. I have friends who aren't going. That's just life too. We all make our own decisions. MaryAnn does a fabulous job of making connections re: this movie and our culture that I do fear others won't make and that bothers me--but nothing I can do about it.
The sadness for me is too close but not just for me, or because of my profession, it's because as MA says we know much about the Ledger who played the character, much of what was going on with him and I really don't want to see him in this character as his last performance. That's my opinion/feeling/decision. I know this sounds dumb but my mom's favorite character (comic) is Batman and she says she can't see this movie and my father said he won't either. My son who is in his 20s is conflicted about it but he will get what MA says and has read her review. If he wants to see it, that's his decision. As it is anyone's. The movie will haunt him and I don't want to hear his angst over it for he will have it. This movie is unique in the ways we've all discussed. I had planned to go but decided against it. I never said for any one else to not go. In fact, I said that MA gave it her highest rating, but with warning both re: the whole situation with Ledger (being astute to your own feelings) and how this movie is dark in terms of our culture right now. That's all. Sorry if I gave another impression; I didn't mean to. I'm very tired of people in this country (and the world) compartmentalizing (which makes chaos easy) and I fear this move will only feed in to that. But lots of movies do. They just aren't as well done and seductive. At least you read the top review before you see the movie.

maybe i'm missing something here, but how will *not* seeing this movie in any way honor or respect heath ledger and his career? if he gave a great performance, does it really matter what his personal demons were? it's what he chose to do as his profession and seeing the movie -- if one claims to be a "fan" -- would be respecting his performance and choices that he made in life.

Bonxbee,
MaryAnn expresses answers to your questions in an incredibly insightful way in this review. To me, it does matter, knowing what we know of this situation and this person and what he said about this character (again, UK interview)...he was tormented. And then he died. Many factors played into this, I realize but I don't want to see a movie that will make me cry in sadness (because of the Ledger situation) and because of how it mirrors our culture (and I doubt many of the teeming moviegoers will get that which is depressing to me.) MaryAnn addresses this in the review and also again on a post of hers on July 16.
I think Heath would say, as was pretty much his philosophy, do what you feel/think is right for you. And that's what I'm doing. I know enough about the movie to know that I don't want to see it under the circumstances that have been discussed in this column. If I were a reviewer, yes, I'd force myself to go, but I'm not a reviewer. It would not be entertainment or "learning" for me. I fear it will be entertainment for many people and very little "learning." But, c'est la vie.

Understood. And, I agree, it does matter--the "demons" (as you put it) that fueled this performance. For me, yes, personally too upsetting and horrible. I've talked with others (who I know personally) who feel similarly. Many don't, obviously. I certainly have utmost respect for Ledger's work--tremendous, in fact-- but do not want to see this film at all. I have no desire to cry the whole way through and possibly throw up on the floor and both are highly likely. MA's review was insightful and important, I think--extremely so and I think she has hit upon profound issues that many will miss about this movie. So, those who have read her review and do see the film, I'd say you are lucky indeed to have her review in your head as you watch the film. It can only make the film richer for you, plus you are fully prepared for what you will see. Hopefully, this will bring about discussions among those you see it with who didn't have the opportunity to read MAs review. I sure as heck made sure my son had her review (he plans to go to the movie tomorrow night.) His response to her review (and he's 22) was: Wow...she points to the main message and isn't afraid to deal with the issue of Ledger either. He made copies of my email to him (with her review) to share with his friends prior to going to the movie.

i guess i just am not as distraught about HL's death as some are. i thought he did great work and some not-so-great work, but while i can regret whatever led to his death at such a young age (carelessness, suicide or accident, whatever), i cannot think of myself as throwing up at viewing his performance. all actors of whatever level -- if they are true to their craft -- bring out something of themselves in every performance. whatever HL brought out in this performance, i don't understand why it would be more upsetting than watching him in Brokeback Mtn and thinking it must have brought out some side of him that was homosexual, or watching him in Ned Kelly and thinking some part of him must be a criminal.

certainly, if you're the kind of person who will be upset by thinking the last performance he gave was this kind of wild, raw, emotional one, then by all means stay away -- i guess i'm having trouble understanding why people are finding that watching this performance would be thought to expose more of his inner workings than any of his others.

There is a difference here. There is a difference in watching Ledger in this movie as opposed to Brokeback Mt. (Help me here maybe MA as I'm obviously not getting my thought/feelings/point across)--Ledger was at a very very different place emotionally when he made Brokeback and when he played the Joker. And the outcomes are vastly different in terms of what it did to him, what he said it did to him. If you can't see the sadness and the horror (not in the movie, that's not what I'm talking about)...in the real person who is playing the character (or maybe not so playing the character) then what can I say? I've said all I can. I certainly can deal with difficult movies but this one falls into it's own category that is not like other "wild, raw, emotional" movies. If that isn't understood...

I've read many reviews saying that you don't really think about Heath in this movie because he's almost not there. He disappears entirely into the Joker and doesn't remind you of, in any way, the actor.

"we were witness, in a small way, to how this role affected him, in a way that we're usually not...."

No were not. We have no idea if this role had anything to do with his death at all. It's sad that we're speculating about Heath's personal demons and death. I said it before and i'll say it again. It devaules Heath's talent as a actor. And i'm not gonna do that based on gossip.

Your review reminds me why I love Batman. He's not some self-indulgent psychopath like the Punisher, or a would-be god-emperor like Superman always seems a hair away from becoming. He's insane, certainly, but he's still sane enough to know it. He knows that in order to avoid hypocrisy in his vigilantism, he must do everything he can to avoid being judge, jury, or executioner. Since he doesn't even have the legal footing of the police, he can't allow himself to kill even in self-defense. He manages to walk that a razor-wire tightrope--physically, mentally, emotionally, and morally.

Hats off to whoever designed the sound of this movie. There are some absolutely striking silences peppered with only the faintest environmental noise that bring serious intensity to already gripping scenes. Even most of the action sequences manage to maintain the same starkness and it works perfectly throughout. Also, regardless of how high your expectations are for Ledger's Joker, he will not disappoint. He is very simply hair-raising.

Sara, I too have sat with patients who have 'overdosed' and have had deep discussions with them about whether or not it was accidental (I'm a psychiatrist). It is frequently a very hazy area, as you know, with many conscious and unconscious motivations driving such behavior. That said, avoiding TDK is a mistake. HL was an actor, and a damn good one, and we don't know if it was the craziness of the Joker or simply the intensity he poured into the performance (independent of the role) that may have fed into his anxiety and depression. He was obviously a very intense artist, but it is possible that playing such a loose cannon was liberating or cathartic for him, it isn't as if he got off the set on his final day as the Joker and overdosed.

Since he was so good at portraying himself as different from how he really felt (i.e. he was an incredible *actor*), it makes it very difficult to make a judgment here without actually sitting down with him and talking with him--obviously impossible.

That said, the movie is awesome, and draws into sharp relief the deepest moral questions, and spotlights the darkest pits of human nature. It is not, as MJ said "a nightmare of modern neurosis"--this is ancient mythology as it was originally intended: an in depth look at ourselves as humans. Batman is a modern Osirus--lord of the underworld, a kind of god-man in the ancient mystery tradition, and the Joker a modern Mephistopholes, who shakes our conscious "sensibilities" to the core with unconflicted destructive force. HL nails this perfectly, as if he knows the Joker lives deep within everyone, just as Batman (and even Bruce Wayne) does. I don't think HL would want anyone to miss this performance on account of his death--he poured too much of his soul into it.

Erik,
Thanks for your comments. Your description of the ancient themes (same as MaryAnn goes into) is the only reason I would see the movie (perhaps on DVD at some point.) It does bother me (as MaryAnn has pointed out) that we DO know that Heath was disturbed and did not get the help he needed. He was advised during the filming of The Dark Knight to get psychiatric help but did not and no one insisted on it. For me, this brings up questions such as: why would the studio not insist on it? Was his performance so good that perhaps it was in the best interest of the money-making machine to use Ledger (even though this might have been bad for him? Dangerous for him?) Ledger's drug use is well-known and started before The Dark Knight. How does that fit in? I realize this is speculation but it is what concerns me...was he on strong uppers (cocaine, etc.) during his performances, then afterward would have trouble sleeping at night and a terrible cycle began of addiction that, yes, could lead to a "great" performance of a good actor (similar to steroid use in athletes but worse) but could explain why a person was sleeping for only two hours a night for a lengthy time, perhaps was taking something during the day for shoots. Then add in the exhaustion, aggitation, inability to sleep, anxiety, depression, etc. I don't really want to watch Heath self-destructing in this movie (even if it makes for a "great performance") and he WAS on a downward spiral at that time and it continued. I realize we don't know but bits and pieces--someone does the whole story, though, something was very wrong and his acting may have been mixed in with strong drug use. Does that take away from the "acting"? Well, yeah, it would to me. Was he a good actor? Yes. Was hs good in Brokeback? Yes, but I thought Gyllenhaal was actually better. So, the known drug use (and other problems) and the downward spiral that began before The Dark Knight but then worsened makes it seem (whatever was going on with Heath) that he was almost taken advantage of--as if you were filming someone who was manic but not yet overty psychotic (but getting there fast)...it would be abusive (my opinion). With all those questions floating around...and they are and will always be...I really don't want to see him like this in his last role. I don't know that it IS attributable to only great acting or something else combined. That bothers me. I also think if it's clear (for whatever reason) that if an actor needs to seek psychiatric help (and is told this) during a shoot and the studio knows this, that it should be insisted on no matter how "great" the performance they are getting out of an actor. Otherwise, it bumps up against abuse of the actor to me and I don't want to be party to that myself. The whole thing is sullied for me. But I realize that others feel very different. May they deal with it as they wish.

This review is different from others.It's very personal and appears to be a memoirs for Ledger. I didn't like him as an actor,but upon seeing him in The Dark Knight this afternoon, I felt sadness. He was brilliant all throughout the movie. In fact, I couldn;t see Heath Ledger until the last scene whereas, he was hanging,smiling ans stating his philosophy.

ProudPinoy,
You are right on that MA's reviews are "different from others." They're better, they see what others can't see or don't want to see or feel. Yet she remains analytical at the same time.
Why did you feel sadness when you say Ledger in The Dark Knight? Because he is now dead or because of something else (or both)? I'd be interested in knowing.
Another disturbing comment that Mathias made: "you don't really think about Heath that much because he's almost not there. He disappears into the Joker..." This says a lot on many levels. What we do know is that something was very wrong and that Heath did end up "disappearing" and for good.

MA,
I realize that's it's speculation (extent of drug issues)--I said that-- but it's known that there were drug issues before, during and after--that part's not speculation. What kind, what type, how much, how often...I have no idea, but it is something I think about. And it's something that can cause a person to crash and burn, even a young person. And again, when during a film an actor is advised to seek psychiatric help...and they don't...and they play an insane role, well, it bothers me. That's all.

MJ--point taken, though the twisted choices the Joker makes the populace go through are guided by the principle that humans tend to throw out all the rules when it comes to self preservation. The Joker then says--"ahh, so the rules are just bs, aren't they?" He has a point! Terrorism is just mankind's most recent paranoia that summons forth this otherwise ancient ugliness.

As for HL's drug use and the studio's treatment of him, you pose an ethical problem, how forceful should we be in our insistence? Should someone have pink-slipped him and forced him to go to a hospital? Hindsight leaves us with an outraged 'yes!', but that's too easy. In my job, I can only force hospitalization if there is good evidence at the time that a person is a danger to themselves or others, otherwise I am unethically abusing my power to curtail someone's autonomy. It's always a tough call, and suicide is very difficult to predict anyway. Sure we have 'risk factors', but they're not that predictive. Fact is, though, HL refused treatment--was that unwise? Clearly! Trajic? Certainly, the world will miss him. But at what point to we force people to make 'wise' choices against their will? I don't have all the answers, and I do this for a living!

Also, in the movie, the Joker is not a psychotic character in that he doesn't hear voices, ramble, bounce off the walls or have delusional thoughts; he is clear thinking, articulate, calculating and very menacing. He is quite controlled--they weren't filming a manic man on the verge of insanity, but a fiercely measured and well-concieved characterization. In other words, a well acted role. But that's just my opinion, you'd have to see it to judge yourself :)

Erik,
I completely understand the points re: "making a person" get treatment or the inability to predict suicide. People, even mental health professionals of the highest caliber, can't read minds. If though (sorry, speculation but from one mental health professional to another) if someone is working for you and you are aware that something is very amiss (and perhaps you even know what it is), know enough that you recommend psychiatric treatment at least, then you most certainly do (as an employer) have the ability to fire the person if they don't get help. That happens a lot. Forcing them to treatment. No. Firing them. Yes. But who would fire such a person when such a performance was being gotten from him and money to be made? Even if it is on the brink of some sort of significant problem? It would be all too easy to brush it off.

The people here trying to do posthumous psychoanalysis of Heath Ledger need to stop.

IMHO, you're honouring his death far less by refusing to see this movie than you would be if you did go and see it. His portrayal talks about important things; the importance of self-responsibility; why society going too far in the direction of anarchy *or* fascism are both bad.

The single most important thing his role here will force you to look at, though, is the truth that there is evil within every single person, as well as good. Batman explained to him, and he should have seen, that good is there as well, but in the story he proves with Harvey that even within the supposedly best person, evil still exists. Harvey was referred to as Two Face while he was training, before Rachel's death or him ever experiencing the truth of that.

If you do not go and see this film because you're worried that maybe his performance is a little too real for you, then you are a coward, and you have no place to claim to be lamenting his death. You claim to mourn him, and then refuse to view what may well have been his greatest accomplishment, simply because it might make you uncomfortable?

Understand this, MaryAnne; modern psychotherapy is a big part of the whole damn problem. They try and create a picture of what is defined as baseline "normal," and then pathologise anything that is outside of that definition. It makes me sick.

I'm sick of you damned normals; I'm sick of your fear. I'm sick of you trying to claim that you have any idea what the words pain or fear mean. You label anyone who doesn't fit into the eight hour a day mould, that is killing this entire planet, as autistic or God only knows what else, and then you make it even worse by calling us "rainbow/Indigo children," and go on about how being different is such a wonderful thing.

It's garbage from beginning to end, and we know it even if you don't.

We know about your fear of us.

We know we are considered freaks.

We know that when either the current or a future government re-enacts Auschwitz in America, those of us living in that country will be among the first to be killed, as we were during the time of Hitler.

We know that living alone day after day, and that having people recoil from us in horror when we're just trying to do something such as food shopping, and lying in bed at night in an empty house at 4 in the morning, rigid with fear ourselves of things that empirical Science has no room for, and so denies the existence of, isn't glamorous, or sexy, or fun, or special. It is a state of biting cold, terror, and relentless, gnawing agony on a level that you, in your sheltered, mundane, utterly pointless lives cannot even begin to remotely comprehend.

Mary Anne is right about one thing. The Joker is out there. Oh, I promise you he is. Maybe his spirit was present within Heath before he died; maybe it wasn't. If you refuse to see this film purely out of fear of that possibility however, then you have nothing but my contempt.

You do not know what fear really means.

Have fun when fascism truly comes to your country, as it is all but there now. You'll get to learn all about fear then, I promise you. Maybe if you actually watched more things like Heath's performance, and didn't spend quite so much time hiding under your bed, you'd actually be able to avoid what's coming.

If Heath died as a result of making this movie, then that is what he died for. He died in order to give us an opportunity, even if only in allegory, to look at some things which some of us are very uncomfortable about facing, but which the cost of ignoring for too much longer might very well be our lives. Yes, it's getting that serious.

If you really care about his death, honour it. Go and see this film, and be willing to learn the lessons it teaches.

(yawn)

Of course there is good and evil and in-between in every person. Fear of that isn't what would keep me from going to this film. The self-righteous leader and the terrorist surely are brothers and feed on each other for various reason. They would not exist without the other. I get that. I get that we should ask questions like...why do they (whoever they are) hate us? Some of the question/answers that are denied, I certainly see. I'm not skipping over it. It's not the message of the film that scares me--the message of the film is important, clearly. It's the process of what happened to Ledger. And wondering what exactly that was because we really don't know. It's hidden. Clues, yeah. But it's been hidden.
I understand much of what you're saying, I think, regarding the movie. As does MaryAnn in her review. Her review is one that does touch on the issues you bring up. She didn't say she hid under her bed. Nor does it mean I'm hiding under mine if I choose not to see this movie (not because of it's message--I get the ideas of what the message are about.)
As far as analyzing, speculating, thinking about what happened to Ledger, feeling sad about it--that's going to happen and I don't see it as a negative thing. Haven't movies been made about JFK, etc., etc.? There's analysis and speculation. And usually there is cover-up somewhere too. So those of us who analyze might think more deeply than you realize and have seen things you don't realize. Are there worse things to see/experience? Always. I understand that.

MA,
You can't "force" someone into treatment and I don't think that's been said. Well, you can force it if an individual that is under your care is of immediate harm to themselves or to others. And a whole other argument could be held, but mental health clinicians work with individuals, families and small groups, not corporations or governments. There is such a thing as "intervention" that can be effective with individuals. It might have the feel of forcing but it's more confrontation in a caring way. That's what it appears that Ledger missed out on. Enabling occurs a heck of a lot and for many reasons.

So, Erik...I'm just a ranting nut case, eh?

The sky is blue, the birds are singing, the children are safely playing in the park...everything's just fine, right?

For Erik, too...
Did you see V for Vendetta? To me, that film was one that I'd say everyone should see and I get the sense that The Dark Knight has similar themes. Wondering if "the people" fit in as the ones who must do what needs to be done as opposed to the Batman/Two Face/Joker in The Dark Knight (as it was the people who made the difference in V.) In V, neither V nor the cops (et al) were anything to emulate (complex characters for sure, but you'd not pick one over the other compared to the people.) It was the people that made the difference. Somehow I'm not hearing much about the people in The Dark Knight. Seems like all is saved by a hair by Batman (and barely at that.) If that's the case, V would seem to have the deeper message.

On a completely different direction of thought, and one particularly appropriate to this site, if there should be a sequel, David Tennant has expressed interest in playing the Riddler. I realize the link itself is a little old, but it's new to me. Just ran across it looking up Dark Knight stuff.

Anyone who thinks the United States is closer to fascism than France or any number of other European countries may be in the middle of an accidental overdose of something.

I saw this last night. Unlike some I didn't see it as Ledger playing as his demons, but rather as him channeling all of societies demons. That it what I found so very disturbing and sad here. It was a very real depiction of the sickness it our society, the world's society, and having that move through you could produce extreme amounts of anxiety and stress.

People overlook the importance of sleep all the time, but every little bit you miss you are pulling yourself apart at the seams; it's extremely damaging to every part of you, especially mentally. Added pressures and stress from a negative work environment (even though working on a movie might not be negative, playing a role such as this, however, would be) can make sleep impossible and the need for sleep is essential. I can understand the need for escape from all of that, I've been there myself.

Also, the problem with reliance on Rx drugs is very dangerous to all of us. Anyone taking any meds is walking a razors edge. The industry is very frightening and the FDA is paid by the companies (more or less) who make the drugs. It's meant to make money, not help people, not really (though meds do help save lives, I'm not saying they don't. but they are very powerful and people overlook that and treat them on the level with candy). Our society is one of treat the symptom, ignore the cause and that is what brings tragedy about.

This is rambling now, but I wanted to throw my hat into the ring as I don't see this the exact same way. It made me sad for our society and doubly so for a man who had to see, and be, the worst of it. How sick we have all become.

Soroso,
I haven't seen the movie, but have relatives who saw it last night and I've heard a lot about it. It sounds like a many scenes were edited out (and kind of choppily and perhaps,confusingly in places); perhaps, also much of Ledger's acting--that took energy on his part--was edited out. In that case, he would have spent much more energy on the film than we see.

Re: the drugs, alcohol, etc., especially with teens and twenties is not in a good place right now. Our college campuses are awful in terms of dominant campus culture (social life). When we're read books like "Drinking to Die" and ambulances are going back and forth from freshman dorms to ERs on a routine basis, there's a problem. I don't know how many people are really aware of how it is now and I don't think the college admins are telling parents and students this either. It's way over the top. Dangerous.
Among the young men (20's) who saw the movie last night that I talked with...they see the cultural implications, etc. but are saavy enough to know that even if we might wish for a hero to save us, it ain't gonna happen. It takes everyone doing their part.

That's why I think V for Vendetta would take my vote over this movie. If you haven't seen V, then rent it. It didn't have near the publicity, etc., but goes (to me) beyond where The Dark Knight went and empowers the people to action as opposed to creating a dependence on a hero. (I know that we're supposed to take from The Dark Knight the idea that we ALL are to struggle with our own inner demons and then,act for the betterment of our world.)-- but that's not how it often comes across. People, more often than not, want a hero that will do it "for them." Critical thinking is lacking all the way around and is badly needed.

I read quickly, so excuse me if I misterpreted anyone.

I think people read too much into people's acting and what's going on in their real lives. During Brokeback Mountain, HL was playing a quiet man struggling with his sexuality; in real life, he was having an affair with Michelle Williams and having a daughter with her. In real life, it was a relatively happy time for him. On screen, one didn't get that impression.

Acting.

I liked but did not love HL's performance as the Joker. The person who blew me away was Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. And I've seen him in a number of movies before (notably the wonderfully twisted satire Thank You for Smoking). He brought a certain subtly and soul to a very tricky role. Late in the movie, when his character lost it, he was outrageous but in a completely different way from HL. While the Joker was all about anarchy, Two-Face was all about vengence.

I hope Eckhart comes back (hell, comic characters always rise from the dead), and I do love the notion of David Tennant as the Riddler.

You probably ought to watch a movie before evaluating it.

Laurie, I think that Eckhart had perhaps the trickiest role of the film -- certainly the biggest dramatic arc.

But I can't agree that it was the best performance. Eckhart exhuds affability and a sense of fair play. I didn't quite buy his decent in to homicidal madness. He looked at any moment as if the right word would get him to rethink his whole vengeance thing.

Heath on the other hand. It wasn't a performance. It was the perfect animation of archetype.

Whew, MaryAnn, glum review ... how about the resounding decency of the people of Gotham - isn't that cause for optimism? The Dark Knight Transcends

I don't agree that this movie is an indictment of the current state of world affairs (if that's not what you meant, then forgive me for misinterpreting you). The movie takes no sides; it merely presents the moral conundrum of how to stay honorable when fighting a pure force of chaos, and when to stop playing by the rules. That is what made the movie truly fascinating.

PS: Darn, I should have began that post with, "Why so serious, MaryAnn?"

Qner, but even before Dent's...um...transformation, there's a scene that shows that for all his surface affability, he was dangerous underneath. However, he showed that, aside from his obsession with the silver dollar, he was ultimately extremely reasonable. Until he went beyond reason.

I think one of the points the screenwriter/director was making was to say that, while the Joker was the most extreme case of someone losing it, that anyone can become a villain given the right circumstances.

Yes, its too bad he is dead. But the pseudo-philosophical viewpoint that the guy that he played(the Joker) is collectively every person in the country is retarded.

It was a decent movie, but seemed alot like an eye-seizure inducing nonstop blur of explosions and bullets that got old after awhile. Personally, Batman Begins was way more enjoyable.

Anyone who doesn't come away from this film absolutely loving it and it tying it philosophically to Bush, global warming, and how evil the Iraq war is..is going to be crucified by your rage obviously. Sorry to dissapoint

MaryAnn,
I wrote:
It sounds like many scenes were edited out (and kind of choppily and perhaps,confusingly in places); perhaps, also much of Ledger's acting--that took energy on his part--was edited out.
And you responded:

Sara, if you have any basis whatsoever for offering such wild speculation, let's here it. Because I see absolutely nothing to justify such a claim.

I said my basis was that close family members and friends that have seen the movie reported this as THEIR reaction. That this was a weakness of the film to them--it appeared to them to be choppy in places, and somewhat as Phil says above (eye-seizure inducing eye candy of explosions and bulletsand so on that was overdone.)

My comment was simply that if lots of editing is done (or over-editing, even) in a movie, then, for instance, the Joker's roles may have been more difficult than it even appeared because of extra scenes that were deleted. But, no, I have no idea how many scenes from the Joker's part was deleted. We'll see some of that when the DVD comes out. As I've thought about it, look at all the movies that people have made that placed them in "disturbing" roles. Re: Ledger, IMHO, other issues were in the pot along with the role. But if it's suggested that the person get care during a role and they don't and they end up dying, then, yeah, for me, that's awful.
I WILL see the movie, but will wait for the DVD. There was tremendous discussion on this post prior to the release of the movie and you didn't HAVE to see the movie to make a comment. It's all over the internet, in the news, etc.

MaryAnn,
Also on your site, you mention the massive billboards looming all over NYC of Ledger's Joker and how they are haunting.
Under the circumstances (with his death) that to me, PERSONALLY, seems like a tacky marketing tool. Which has obviously worked.

Finally saw the movie last night.

*major plot spoilers*

I just wanna say up front: Tiny Lister is my hero.

There is so much to discuss about it, part of which I barely even discussed with my friend Tony, that I might even start up a new blog dissecting superhero movies starting with this one.

I've heard comparisons of this movie from Tony and a few other friends to oddly enough Godfather Part II (and not Empire Strikes Back), suggesting we might finally be seeing superhero movies as Oscar-caliber epics rather than big blockbusters. And I can see it. This is a movie that's more than just about blowing things up (although they do), or beating up criminals, or big exciting chase scenes through narrow city streets. This is a movie about ethics, about right and wrong, and not on a pop psychology level but reaching the deeper Jungian/Campbellian stuff. This is a post-9/11 film about terror, about chaos, about how far do we go when villains themselves go too far. Which is why the movie is more than just what happens to Bruce or Harvey or Gordon or Rachel or Lucius, it's about the consequences of their actions, about the decisions made that go wrong or break the law. Which is why for me the best things about the movie were how Lucius Fox reacts to finding out how far Batman went to hunt down the Joker using illegal/unethical surveillance (paying attention, Yoo and Addington?). It was about the meager little accountant in Wayne Enterprises who figures out where all the R&D stuff is going and tries to commit a little blackmail, only to have the whole thing threaten his life and where he witnesses Wayne himself risking his life for him. It's about the final confrontation between Batman and Joker, with thousands of lives on the line, and the Joker waiting for the people he's threatening to prove himself right, waiting for two more bombs to go off, waiting for two men (a tattooed career criminal and a middle-aged office manager) to make the final decision. It's about Harvey's coin flips, about how absolutely right AND wrong he is about how chance and fate work. It's about the last decision made at the end of the film, a willing step into darkness, because it's the only way to win.

It's a pity Heath died. At the end, still talking with and taunting Batman, giggling that he sees them 'playing this game forever', I believed him saying it. And then I realized that in the real world he's gone now.

This could not only be the first year we FINALLY get one superhero movie up for Best Picture, we might actually get two (Iron Man and Dark Knight).

PaulW,
For your blog, you'll be able to add the one below. Might be more complex than all others put together, especially with Crudup. Of course, apocalyptic and heavily male-dominated. As these movies tend to be, as most of the world is (not all) but most, certainly our country.

http://watchmen--trailer.blogspot.com/

second great movie of the year..the antithesis of wall-e, but its equal.

do the two movies "complete" eachother? i think so.

only chaos can give birth to a dancing star. f.n.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I see it as maybe an exaggerated warning of sorts that if we allow morality to crumble this is what will happen. If we as a civilization allow ourselves to disregard the common good and welfare of our world, then surely we will crumble. We must tame our violent tendencies and prejudices.

Except that Heath wasn't talking about The Dark Knight during the itnerview when he said the role really knocked him around and he was having trouble sleeping, he was talking about I'm Not There. Heck he'd only just started working on the Dark Knight when that interview was done.

Just like Jack Nicholson quote about `I did warn him' Jack wasnt talking about playing the Joker, he was talking about taking Xanax.

Don't listen to sound bytes. Read full articles, the media like to grab little teasers and use them to sell papers.

To Sara,

Thanks for your comments. I disagree that there are choppy scenes. If there were I missed them (and that I find unlikely as that sort of thing bothers me). Perhaps they did not like the film's style of shooting scenes and took it as bad editing. I would say see it for yourself before believing such things, but you've stated already that you have no interest in doing so, and that's fine. But, again, I strongly disagree.

As per drugs, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I wasn't trying to tackle the whole drugs and alcohol insanity, I was just meaning to highlight an oft forgotten problem; the perceived safety of prescription drugs that are anything but. Some are dangerous but the benefit outweighs the danger. Others are dangerous because companies are.. lazy? liars? unethical? I'm not sure which to pick. And the public is unawares.

But both what I was talking about an what you were talking about goes in with what I said about society treating the symptom (half heartedly at best) and ignoring the cause. You can substitute anything, drugs, drinking, violent video games, cell phones, whatever and get the same result. People should be looking at why such things are needed and desired in the first place. What in our society is demanding this self destruction? The ill of society is a byproduct of whatever that is.

As for V, I like it very much, but it is asking different questions than this film. As such I wouldn't call it a replacement for this film as both offer interesting looks into society. But given what you say about drugs... the original source material for V is quite different from the movie as there is more about creating anarchy and there is much drug use. The movie took that out and made it less about the complete anarchy. I still enjoy it though.

And I enjoyed The Dark Night as well.

To MaryAnn,

I didn't type this before, but thank you for an interesting review as it is inspired some interesting comments here. I like that very much bout your reviews.

soroso,
I'll watch TDK when it comes out on DVD. I've talked to quite a few people who have seen it (in my family) and also friends, one who is chair of a university political science dept. All around suggested (interestly) wait until the DVD but I didn't see V until DVD either. Saw Batman Begins on DVD and all the crashes, crashes, crashes, really put me off. V was violent, yes, but the story, quite compelling and I was not put off by that movie. Interesting, too, that it didn't have near the marketing (at least I don't think it did) that the Batman movies have. The upcoming Watchmen movie (same writers who wrote V) caught my attention mostly because of Crudup (great actor, I think and usually chooses good roles--or rather unusual ones.) I put the link to the trailer above. The turnoff is, again, all the explosions, glass shattering everywhere, hyperviolence. Very male-dominated stories; or rather completely so. For an aware female, it can become tiresome, discouraging, even if relevant. Actually, it starts to make one angry. It seems that the androcentric viewpoint is enjoyed by our culture, celebrated, and not much is learned by simply repeating the violence/power games, over and over and over. In the real world and in the movies,repetition compulsion. I do see our world as being psychologically in the Iron Age with high tech weaponry. Better wake up and it doesn't take a movie that I we're to "enjoy" for me to ge