Blog RE: Lex Luthor and mental illness

[The Laughing Fish]

A BvS fan who suffers from a disability has written a blog analysing Eisenberg's Lex, and she draws parallels between his eccentric behavior and mental illness, specifically how she relates to him. Mind you, this doesn't mean the writer of this blog is a deranged sociopath or has antisocial tendencies, but she is making comparisons between Lex's behavior with different changes in abnormal psychology.

Here is an excerpt:

Geschwind Sydrome comes comorbid with temporal lobe epilepsy. First categorized by Norman Geschwind, the syndrome consists of 'chronic, mild, interictal (i.e. between seizures) changes in personality, which slowly intensify over time.' Not all Geschwind people show all of the symptoms, of course, but I exhibit most of them.

The five changes:

Hypergraphia — the tendency for extensive and compulsive writing.
Hyperreligiosity — intense religious feelings and 'philosophical interests'
Atypical sexuality — about half of the people with Geschwind report having a decreased libido.
Circumstantiality — people often speak around the point, but always circle back around to it.
Intensified mental life — 'deepened cognitive and emotional reactions.'
(sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2003418 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschwind_syndrome)

Lex Luthor shows the hyper-religiosity, intensified mental life, and circumstantiality symptoms particularly strongly. He fixates on deifying and demonizing Superman, and uses religious metaphors constantly. His ADHD amplifies the circumstantiality somewhat, too.

And as for the intensified mental life?

Lex developed about four different concurrent plans to take down Superman that he could switch between at will. Lex's genius is probably inextricably linked to how his brain functions so differently from a 'typical' brain.

I exhibit hyper-religiosity in the same way that Lex does. For me, I don't believe very strongly in the reality of 'God,' but Christian religious symbolism fascinates me and appears often in my speech and my writing. Circumstantiality also defines a lot of my speech. I talk at length, and because my brain moves the way it does, I add 'unnecessary' detail a lot of the time. But, the way my thought processes work, that contextual detail is necessary to understanding the point. And I've learned that just because that detail might seem obvious to me, that doesn't mean it is to other people.

Source: http://comiconverse.com/batman-v-superman-lex-luthor-13311

I'm not too found with her use of the term "ableism", but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt because she's referencing about her own condition, rather than using it for some SJW agenda.

Thoughts?

[The Dark Knight]

I agree with the overall message that EisenLex is a genius.

EisenLex schemes his way THROUGHOUT Dawn of Justice. I'm guessing he's the busiest comic book villain in recent memory. But we know the popular things to say about this incarnation of the character. The sheep say he's a poor man's Heath Ledger. But here's the thing. EisenLex is a better character than Ledger's Joker. He does more, achieves more and it's not all hinged on dumb luck. The sheep judging EisenLex on his mannerisms are like Luke dismissing Yoda as a small, harmless insect when he's actually a dangerous and powerful Jedi Master.

[johnnygobbs]

I'm not too found with her use of the term "ableism", but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt because she's referencing about her own condition, rather than using it for some SJW agenda.

Thoughts?

I have a diagnosed mental illness, and 'ableism' is a real thing, every bit as real and destructive as racism, sexism, and homophobia.  It's not some SJW construct, but an actual form of bigotry and discrimination that stigmatises people with disabilities, physical and mental, both in the work place and in a wider social context.

S for Lex, there are so many crazy/mentally ill villains in the DC Universe, it's a shame Zack Snyder felt he had to make one of the rare relatively sane ones, amoral self-serving businessman Lex Luthor, a 'crazy' too.  We already have the Joker and Tw-Face and a vast number of other villains who serve that purpose; why couldn't Snyder have gone with the brilliant 'Brad Pitt meets Richard Branson' concept of Luthor that was initially promised, rather than the stuttering, twitchy, man-child Golden Raspberry nominated joke of a character he eventually went with, to the detriment of this increasingly doomed and little-loved cinematic universe?

[The Laughing Fish]

I have a diagnosed mental illness, and 'ableism' is a real thing, every bit as real and destructive as racism, sexism, and homophobia.  It's not some SJW construct, but an actual form of bigotry and discrimination that stigmatises people with disabilities, physical and mental, both in the work place and in a wider social context.

You'll have to excuse me but I've seen too many SJWs ruin good causes to suit their agenda.

S for Lex, there are so many crazy/mentally ill villains in the DC Universe, it's a shame Zack Snyder felt he had to make one of the rare relatively sane ones, amoral self-serving businessman Lex Luthor, a 'crazy' too.  We already have the Joker and Tw-Face and a vast number of other villains who serve that purpose; why couldn't Snyder have gone with the brilliant 'Brad Pitt meets Richard Branson' concept of Luthor that was initially promised, rather than the stuttering, twitchy, man-child Golden Raspberry nominated joke of a character he eventually went with, to the detriment of this increasingly doomed and little-loved cinematic universe?

Right, because the Razzies really have credibility when it comes to trashing truly bad performances, like Ben Affleck's Batman, Danny DeVito's Penguin. Don't they? Give me a break.

I wouldn't call myself the biggest fan of Eisenberg's Lex, but he was no more of a joke of a character than Nolan's laughably overrated villains. Bit rich to call him a stuttering, twitchy man-child when that description can easily apply to TDK's Joker too, and at least his plans made some sense in comparison.

I think it's much disappointing that you rather dismiss a film you specifically refused to see, and the entire cinematic universe for that matter, based on what critics say and a grudge against Eisenberg. I seriously don't understand you. I don't recall you being this irrational before. I had my issues with BvS, which were mostly about borrowing the same serious tone as Nolan did, but I'm glad I gave it an opportunity to learn there was more good than bad, rather than blindly jump on the bandwagon.

[The Laughing Fish]

So...not even a response? How typical.

[Catwoman]

I don't recall you being this irrational before.

Must not read the Batman Returns part of this site often.

[johnnygobbs]

So...not even a response? How typical.

I'm sorry.  I didn't realise you required a response.

I thought you made some compelling points in your argument, but I'm still not completely convinced (which is no failing on your part whatsoever).

It's just that Lex is such an iconic villain, and it's a shame that this Cinematic Universe chose to go down one of the worst possible routes they could have taken the character.  DC is already stuffed full of mentally ill outcasts and freaks.  What I love about Lex in the comics and most other media, is that he's the legitimated antagonist, the one with great press.  And ideally he should be portrayed as charismatic, and possibly even handsome (bald dome or not).

And yes, the 'stuttering, twitchy, man-child' description can be applied to TDK's Joker, but that isn't a problem, because the Joker is supposed to be a clearly unhinged and creepy character, rather than a well-respected and admired public figure.

It's almost ironic, but after Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey's comedic and semi-buffoonish versions of Lex, and Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal of a nervy kid with Asperger's, the closest anyone has ever got to embodying the nefarious but charming and publicly respected businessman of the DC comics, is Christopher Walken as 'Max Shreck' in Batman Returns.

I still don't understand why Snyder and co decided to ditch the 'Brad Pitt meets Richard Branson' concept they originally suggested for their version of Lex, for something that is wholly unsatisfying and more akin to The Joker or The Riddler than the classic Lex.  To me it indicates that they have no faith in their material and that they're making things up as they go along, rather than attempting to understand the essence of the characters they've been asked to bring to life.

[Dagenspear]

I'm sure he has a mental illness of some sort. Just like Bruce does. That doesn't mean anything for the quality of the movie. Because the question "Why do they have mental illnesses?" is still there. And "Why spend more than one scene trying to explain their motivations when it doesn't really matter to them, they're mentally ill, that's their motivation?" It's the pointlessness of the movie. Of course Superman's issue is different. He clearly doesn't have a mental illness, but the movie will still have his motivation make no real legit sense. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[The Laughing Fish]

So...not even a response? How typical.

I'm sorry.  I didn't realise you required a response.

Thanks for the answer.

And yes, the 'stuttering, twitchy, man-child' description can be applied to TDK's Joker, but that isn't a problem, because the Joker is supposed to be a clearly unhinged and creepy character, rather than a well-respected and admired public figure.

You are aware that Lex wasn't always like that in the comics, right? He was a mad scientist for a long period of time, and the respected businessman persona didn't really come into play until the Post-Crisis era. No, you don't have to like it, but there is a precedent in the character's history.

With that said, this brings to my next point.

It's just that Lex is such an iconic villain, and it's a shame that this Cinematic Universe chose to go down one of the worst possible routes they could have taken the character.  DC is already stuffed full of mentally ill outcasts and freaks.  What I love about Lex in the comics and most other media, is that he's the legitimated antagonist, the one with great press.  And ideally he should be portrayed as charismatic, and possibly even handsome (bald dome or not).

You know what? Your explanation about why you don't like the concept behind Lex's characterisation in BvS because you think it's repeating the same crazy villain cliche, and using Max Schreck as an example as the devious, yet charming sociopath, would've been totally acceptable and a valid reason, if you hadn't taken your opposition against the film WAY too far.

That's the problem here. When the film was getting closer to release date, I recall you taking every opportunity complaining about Eisenberg and how the film wouldn't live up to expectations, even going so far by claiming you wouldn't bother to see it. You seemed rather happy to report about the negative critical reception and how box office returns were short of a $1 billion, while still claiming the film is a failure if it failed to be appreciated universally by fans. I could've understand your stance if the BvS producers committed PR suicide by pissing off the target audience like the idiots behind the Ghostbusters remake, but your consistent point of contention had always been about Eisenberg as Lex.

Mate, you're not supposed to just jump on a bandwagon based on critical reviews or what other people say. That's not how fandom works, or at least that's not how it's ought to work. A fan is supposed to watch something and judge for themselves, explaining why they either loved it or hated it, or talk about why they thought it had some good things and bad things. A fan isn't supposed to blindly accept or reject something because of critics scores or how much money it makes. 

Now there are plenty of people here, myself included, who gave opinions about the film. There were some who loved it, there were some who liked it, there were some who couldn't stand Lex, but it still didn't take away their enjoyment/love for the film, and there are several people here who didn't like it that much. In any case, they gave it a chance. I can't that away from them, regardless if I agree or disagree with them. Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about you.

Whatever, I'm not going to waste my time any further, so I'll leave it at that. Goodbye.

[Dagenspear]

You are aware that Lex wasn't always like that in the comics, right? He was a mad scientist for a long period of time, and the respected businessman persona didn't really come into play until the Post-Crisis era. No, you don't have to like it, but there is a precedent in the character's history.

Mad scientist Lex isn't what this movie put out really. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!