Batman in the 1980s-Part 2: Hello, I’ve Come to Talk

A look at the Killing Joke

When it comes to the Killing Joke an entire girth of articles have been written about it and its place in pop culture. Its recent animated adaption was possibly the biggest train wreck of any of the DC animated movies, made all the more funny by how hard DC tried to promote it. The adaptation tried to “fix” some of the problems with the most controversial element of the story, the crippling of Barbara Gordon, in some of the most wrongheaded ways possible. One could write another complete post pointing out everything wrong with the film but I am more fascinated by the buzz surrounding the film and the debate that sprung up on whether or not it should be adapted given the ugliness and bleakness of the source material. While Moores work is generally respected this one tends to be the outlier, with a vocal group of people expressing dislike for the book, including Moore himself. He has being quoted as saying “I’ve never really liked my story in The Killing Joke. I think it put far too much melodramatic weight upon a character that was never designed to carry it. It was too nasty, it was too physically violent

By the standards of Moore it is an exceptionally bleak work. Moore’s work especially in the 80s had a darkness to it but in most works there was just as much humanity, humor, and levity as there was bleakness, and depravity. Watchmen, Miracleman, and V for Vendetta are all works that cover the broad spectrum of human emotion and none of them ends as bleakly as the Killing Joke does. It has been theorized by some people that this bleakness may have been a result of his relationship with DC at the time falling apart. Various reports abound over the process of creating the Killing Joke, including that it was done almost solely as a favor for the artist Brain Bolland, or that it started out as an anthology story before being moved to prestige format. Overall it’s hard to pin down what exactly was going on behind the scenes at the time with Moore but one does get a sense he was getting fed up with superheroes at this point. For example his work on Miracleman at the time began to take a turn from superhero deconstructionism to sci-fi utopianism seemingly stating that superheroes would do better working to create a utopia than simply fighting villains. The Killing Joke seemed to be everything Moore saw wrong with Superheroes and one can also feel he to create an end point for the Batman/Joker dynamic (a big obsession with Moore at the time regarding superheroes was creating endings for them as can be seen in his pitch for Twilight of the Gods).

If Dark Knight Returns was Batman filtered through Death Wish, and urban vigilante movies, the Killing Joke is Batman filtered through Greek tragedy, the Book of Job, and horror films. It reimagines the Batman/Joker dynamic as not one of larger than life characters fighting each other, but that of two sad broken men, one unable to help the other. It’s a work that brings the Joker to new levels of depravity but also sympathizes us with him.

For me that is really were the work shines best. True horror is always able to touch us on a level beyond just base shock values and implying that we are only “One bad day” away from becoming a monster like the Joker is incredibly scary. This is made all the more real when one realizes how many similarities there are between Jack (the Joker pre-chemical bath) and Alan Moore. Alan Moore when he was first starting out quit his job to pursue his dream of being a comic book artist. At the time he had a newborn child and a wife. This is incredibly similar to Jacks situation of quitting his job at the chemical plant to pursue his career of being a comedian, with his wife having a child on the way. Moore is able to construct with Jack possible one of the best origin stories of any supervillian ever and recontextualizes years of Joker stories into something completely different. It’s a far cry from Millers portrayal of the Joker, and for many people it is the one part of the book everyone agrees on is amazing.

The flashback sequences are weaved brilliantly into the book through some amazing transitions that are a part of any great Moore work. Doors close in the present only for the next panel to switch to another door in the past opening in another direction. Reflections in the present transition to reflections in the past and panels of laughter in the past lead into panels of laughter in the present. While Millers work was full of deliberately jarring transitions, impressionistic figures, and overstuffed panel layouts, in contrast Moore and Bolland’s work is realistic and precise with smooth transitions and well defined characters and locations.

Where Bollands work truly shines through is in his faces. Bolland has a very select talent in the industry of being able to truly express shock, horror, sadness, and pain with vivid detail. In the Killing Joke he is able to create some of his best work through his illustrations of the Joker. While he succeeds in making the horrific visage of the Joker look absolutely terrifying in some panels, I am most impressed by the ones which portray the Joker as a broken clown, putting on a fake smile meant to mask his inner turmoil.

nntnxu3

While we are on the subject of art one of the various debates that has sprung up on the internet is about the recolor of the work by Bolland in 2008. The recolor eschewed the bright rainbow of colors of the original for a more “realistic” color set.

bnjaxlc

Many would argue that this fits the works dark subject matter better which I vehemently disagree with. The original coloring of the book is a sickly reflection of comic books of the time. The spectrum of jarring yellows, greens, reds, and purple serve to create a sense of surreal insanity. It’s the classic color pallet of comic books but oversaturated up to an uncomfortable degree emphasizing how this is a Batman/Joker story that’s amped up to a horrific level.

With the Killing Joke though one aspect of that horror is generally regarded as an Elephant in the Room. The crippling of Barbara Gordon is by far one of the most controversial moments in comic book history and it remains one of the most famous examples of “woman in refrigerators” to this day. It is a moment where Moore’s self-criticism of the book rings true. It is a moment that for many understandably represents a line that was crossed where Moore went too far. As much as I love the work, I do feel that the crippling is a moment that is unnecessary and does play into a lot of negative tropes about women in comic books.

Another aspect of the book that has caused much discussion in recent years is the ending and the question of whether or not batman kills the Joker a theory brought up by Grant Morrison in a an episode of Kevin Smith’s podcast “Fatman on Batman”. If one interprets the ending as the death of the Joker it serves as an effective capstone to the message of the work. Batman finally is broken at the end by the Joker and ends up killing him portraying the Batman/Joker relationship as one of two insane people forever fighting each other. The ending whether you believe he kills the Joker or not is supposed to tell the reader that in reality this eternal struggle is not one of epic fights and daring adventures, but a tragedy about two mentally ill that we should not find funny or entertaining.

4auygnr

The Killing Joke is a work that on a pure storytelling level is fantastic, but it is also a work squarely of its time. The fan base that surrounds it and obsess over it, are the kind of people that I feel truly don’t understand its message. It’s a work that should make us look at the Batman/Joker relationship in a tragic light and not as “The ultimate Joker story”. It is the darkest one someone had taken Batman at that time, and for the 1980s the novelty of darkness was something new. Sadly the effect both DKR and the Killing Joke had on comic books was a negative one and for as groundbreaking as these works are they have caused the world of superheroes to become on not of childhood wonderment but of prurient violence and destruction. With that thought I leave you off with the two panels from issue 26 of Animal Man, the perfect criticism of the violence and grittiness that these works lead to.

capture

Batman in the 1980s-Part 1: The World Only Makes Sense when you Force it to

A look at the Dark Knight Returns.

There seems to be a weird reappraisal among comic book fans of some of the rather dark stories of the 1980s that redefined the genre. While you will be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn’t consider Watchmen to be a classic, other famous works of the era, notably Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moore’s the Killing Joke, have had there reputation tarnished with time. Criticisms of both tend to stem from the same place, as both works bring to the characters to a new level of darkness, unexplored before in comic books at the time, and both have a really uncomfortable misogynistic treatment of woman within their pages. The Killing Joke suffers from this more than Dark Knight Returns and it’s a sad day when Frank Miller is able to say he has a more progressive portrayal of woman in his comic book (In fairness Miller himself only made the new Robin Carrie Kelly female by editorial mandate).

These works were also part of a trend in the 1980s to really redefine Batman’s comics into much darker and harsher titles. While Death in the Family could also be included among this list I think many people generally don’t have as much conflicted feeling about it as they do the other two titles I listed. It for most people is just regarded as kind of a mistake and as a story it really is cringy to read in the modern era, Joker being the ambassador of Iran and all.

I feel though that both of these titles deserve to be looked at through fresh eyes and see how they differ in various aspects. The portrayal of Batman, the portrayal of the Joker, etc. I also want to look at how both these books drastically affected the Batman mythos and really try and understand the point they were trying to get across.

To start I feel we should talk about the Dark Knight Returns and my complicated personal history with it. As a child I was very aware of its existence through various Wikipedia articles and from various histories on comic books I had read. But it was only when I got to be a sophomore that I first read the comic book. At the time I had just finished Watchmen for the first time and was incredibly eager to read more material like it. DKR seemed like the natural follow up given that when you talk about 80s superhero comic books it is generally regarded along with Watchmen as the defining comic of the decade. So I sat down read DKR and generally enjoyed it. Most of its politics I found went over my head a bit. I got the sense that Miller had some problems with women, and I felt it wasn’t as well written as Watchmenm but overall I liked it.

It remained in my mind for a long time though and as I grew more politically aware I constantly wondered what I would think about it when I reread it. That chance only came recently when I was on vacation in a place in central Ohio. I had shitty internet, and only a copy of Upton Sinclair’s “OIL!”, and Pokemon Crystal to entertain me. I did have however my copy of Dark Knight Returns which I had lent to my father to read. He however could not make it through as he felt the work was too dark for him.

So on one fateful night I sat down in the wee hours of the morning in a cabin in Central Ohio, and reread the Dark Knight Returns. When I came out the other end I had a billion thoughts and felt incredibly conflicted on it whether I liked it or not. I did feel though that with this reading I fully understood the work and what it was trying to say about Batman both as a person and as a myth.

As a person Miller explores Batman on a psychological level. He portrays Batman in the early chapters as a man who suffers from intense personal trauma and a repressed desire to be Batman and to fight crime. Bruce Wayne starts the work off as an alcoholic broken man constantly haunted by his past with a death wish, his desire to be Batman manifesting as a hallucination of a Bat. While we can surmise it is a part of Bruce’s internal psychosis it is framed in supernatural turns, a specter of his past that haunts him until he gives in returning to his cowl. When he returns he constantly seems to refer to any danger he is in as a “good death” emphasizing how he is at a point in his life where he desperately desires to die in some heroic way rather than wasting away in some alcoholic miasma of self-pity.

kgnzyqn

tok6vfj

This insanity is portrayed in a way that doesn’t lionize Batman at first. In fact the end of issue one draws a direct parallel between Two-Face and Batman. While both tried to give up their lives as both a superhero and a supervillian they both ended up succumbing to their insanity. As a self-contained story about two men who are unable to escape there tragic flaws it works brilliantly.

lb5ikgk

From there Batmans psyche starts to be pushed to the back of the narrative. While the underlying death wish is still present throughout the story, Batmans becomes much surer of his actions and resolute in who he is. The only major exception to this is his fight with the Joker, one of the strongest moments of characterization throughout the work. Before the fight occurs Batman keeps swearing to himself that this is it, he will kill the Joker. When finally confronted with it he cannot bring himself to do it leaving the Joker to commit suicide in a way that frames Batman for his murder.

ecnv4rd

As a myth Miller truly gets complicated in his portrayal. Batman is shown throughout the work as someone who morally stands apart from nearly everyone in Gotham. His resoluteness in his actions and incorruptible moral code are shown early to contrast with how many people in Gotham operate with many average people being portrayed as hypocrites, or people complicit in crimes by accepting them as “just the way it is”. One of the most apparent moments of this comes when Batman confronts a General about dealing arms to the Mutants gang to fund his wife’s cancer treatment. We only see the aftermath of this confrontation with the General shown to have killed himself, Batman holding his corpse draped in an American flag. The message it sends is that Batman’s moral standard is one that is too high for the modern world of corruption that so many people just accept.

Page upon page is spent on various commentators talking about Batmans effect on society whether it be positive or negative. Psychologists try and pin down his mental state while moms worry about his effect on children. All of this serves to parody the talk show filled climate of the 1980s characterizing them as devoid of substance and humanity. The only person who ever seems to express his/her feelings on the societal place of Batman in a way that is not subject to mockery is Jim Gordon who describes him as a akin historical figure, somebody whose actions is above all discussion of morality.

yZv15Fb.jpg

Through all the debates in the comic and all the interpretations I feel this view from Gordon is the one that rings true to the spirit of the book. For Miller Batman just is, he is a great (great not as in good but as in larger than life) man whose politics cannot be judged in the same way we judge normal people.

Both his psychosis and his political statues are summed up in one single line “The world only makes sense when you force it to”. Said by Batman during the fight between Superman and Batman it is the thesis statement of the work. Its implications are very wide and do not seem to imply very nice things about both Batman and Frank Miller.

Behind that single line is a dark justification for fascist behavior that every person willing to excuse “strong leaders” for their brutal methods rely on. Behind that line is a statement that only through brutal force can the world be made sense of. Behind that line is the implication that might makes right, that at the end of the day only the strong deserve to rule.

It’s a line that is reflected throughout the book in the numerous fights that occur. In two fights in particular the fight with the Mutant Leader and the fight with Superman the implication of might makes right is made clear. In Miller’s world the brutal domination of your opponent is what gives you the right to lead. While Watchmen laid bare the unhealthy masculine ideas of power at the heart of many superhero stories, Dark Knight Returns revels in it. It suggests that this how real leadership is won, while portraying the actual leaders of the land as wimps, hiding behind veils of polite speech that covers up the uncomfortable horrors of what was happening in the world.

Both aspects of Batman, that of the tortured old man, and that of the myth are reborn at the end of the story. After faking his death Batman emerges underground with remnants of his army of ex-gang members ready to take on the American government and having finally gotten over his death wish commenting that “this will be a good life”

dbyt6r4

While Batman’s arc is the center stage we are also treated to various stories about his side characters throughout the work. Jim Gordon is portrayed in the beginning as deuteragonist to Batman as the story follows his retirement from the GCPD force and his daily struggles with the Mutant gang. He manages to be one of the few people in the story who comes off as resolutely likeable. One part of his story though where he shoots a young mutant gang member comes off as very uncomfortable and awkward in the modern political climate.

Carrie Kelley the new Robin though is by far the most likeable character. A 13 year old girl with shitty hippie parents (we are treated to more Miller political satire through them) who runs away and becomes Robin is the perfect self-insert character for many teenagers reading the story. As it goes on though Miller does not shy away from the darker aspects of sidekicks. Batman at one point explicitly refers to her as a soldier and later panels show that she is almost irrevocably fucked up in the head by being Batman’s sidekick. What I find interesting is that when I first read the work I completely missed all of the commentary on sidekicks and thought she was just an uncomplicated fun self-insert character.

Catwoman shows up as the head of a Call Girl agency and for the most part has little to do with the story other than being uncomfortably brutalized by the Joker at one point. It’s by far one of the most egregious moments of misogyny in the book and further underlines Frank Millers problems with how he writes woman.

The Joker is portrayed as a figure of pure evil. In an interview once Frank Miller described how he and Alan Moore once got into an argument about the nature of the Joker. Frank favored a view he described as satanic, as an eternal figure of evil tormenting Batman while Moore favored a view that sympathized with the Joker as someone who was mentally ill. This difference in interpretation will become very apparent when we look at the Killing Joke. In the Dark Knight Returns, Joker awakens from a coma as a reaction to Batman’s return emphasizing how his purpose is as a figure of pure evil, forever dedicated to fucking with Batman. This is a Joker who is a silver tongued manipulator and not the cackling maniacal psychopath that he is commonly portrayed as. Its a more restrained Joker that im surprised did not catch on given how influential DKR is.

By far though the most radical interpretation of a character we have comes in the form of Superman. In the Dark Knight Returns he is shown to be the opposite of Batman, a man whose morals do not lead him to rebel against authority but to blindly follow it. He’s a patsy to a decrepit looking Ronald Reagan who is portrayed himself as a total idiot. Superman is a man who knows that he can do better but his dedication to authority leads him to follow terrible leaders. It’s a dark view of the character but not an ill-fitting one and it is shown rather unsubtly through his introduction where in the American flag leads into a close up of the superman symbol.

kjhvryw

In terms of structure and writing it’s hard to argue that Miller was not at the top of his game here. Panels lay crammed together overstuffing a page emphasizing how jarring the events in the comics are and how the media instantly turns events in passionless news stories, something that is shown in this video far better than I could express it.

Art wise Miller is also producing some great work. He draws the characters in his trademark short and stocky impressionistic style. While later his art would devolve into self-parody his drawings in DKR are able to portray brutality and make the impact of a punch work incredibly well. You really feel a lot of the violence in his scenes unlike in other comic books of the era

10oxptl

For me Dark Knight Returns feels like the most interesting, well-written paper you have ever read that argues for a terrible position that you can’t stand. It’s a work that’s overall message it’s trying to push I find repugnant but the work itself is absolutely brilliant. I can see why it made as big of an impact as it did in the 1980s and it still holds up as one of the best Batman stories ever written.

In part 2 we will finish with a look at the Killing Joke.