What
with it being Batman's 75th anniversary this year, and since it looks
very much like the upcoming Batman v Superman film is going to be
taking its cues from Frank Miller's seminal comic book, I thought I'd
take a look at it and see how it holds up. And I have to say, it
doesn't hold up well at all in my opinion. I understand that it was
hugely influential in redefining who Batman is for the modern age,
even if its dark, gritty reaction to the Adam West show stops just
short of outright begging to be taken seriously, but it just doesn't
work as a story.
My
main problem is the depiction of Batman himself. He's almost
unrecognisable compared to what we expect him to be: sure, especially
in this post-Nolan world we expect him to be the Dark Knight, but the
Batman of this comic is little more than a thug. This is a Batman who
uses guns and kills people, and if you know the first thing about
Batman, you know that's a problem.
He's
a hypocrite as well, which makes it even worse. There's a panel in issue #4 where he breaks a gun in half and declares it the
weapon of the enemy, and that's great stuff. He calls a gun "a
coward's weapon. A liar's weapon", and that's exactly how a man
whose parents were murdered with guns ought to act. Trouble is, it
follows on from him chasing after Two-Face while carrying a sniper
rifle, straight up shooting one of the Mutant Gang in the face, and
mowing down the rest of the gang with the Bat-tank's "rubber
bullets. Honest."
It's
at its worst in the third issue though, where the Joker breaks out of
Arkham again, goes on a rampage, and Batman spends most of the issue
debating whether or not it's morally justifiable to kill him. This is
after the aforementioned shooting a guy in the face, by the way. In the end, he snaps the Joker's neck, but he somehow does it so precisely that
he just paralyses him. Our hero, ladies and gentlemen. Funny how everyone (rightly) cried foul at Superman breaking Zod's neck in Man of Steel, but no one ever comments on this.
I
have other problems with the book, too. There really isn't any plot
to speak of, for one thing: Batman just comes back out of retirement
because Gotham is a wretched hive of scum and villainy - you know,
just like always - and eventually ends up punching Superman in an
alley because Frank Miller couldn't figure out how else to finish the
story. It's very disjointed and episodic; in the four issues, he
fights Two-Face, the Mutant Gang, the Joker and Superman, each for
one issue. Maybe it read better as single issues back in 1986, but as
one story it doesn't flow at all.
I
know there are people who like Miller's art, but I find it so
unpleasant to look at that it took me about three tries to even get
past the first issue. It's not the problem I have with Scott Pilgrim
where the style just clashes with my sensibilities, I just think the
art in DKR is ugly. Batman's showdown with the Joker looks like a DC
Comics-themed sumo fight, there's a panel in the last issue where
Superman is winking but looks more like he's having a stroke, and the
cover of issue #2 (see above) is one of these big iconic images that
I find utterly hideous. Plus, when the number of panels on the page is routinely in double figures - sometimes as many as 16! - it's time to dial it back a bit.
Which
brings us to the characterisation of Superman, which is somehow even
worse than that of Batman. I love Superman. He's one of the most
noble, wonderful ideas in all fiction: a man who could conquer the
world is his lunch hour and rule it with an iron fist, but who
chooses not to because of his unshakeable sense of right and wrong.
His powers aren't what make him Superman, it's the fact that he
invariably uses them to do good and help people. In his own words,
"Do good to others and every man can be a Superman."
Miller
writes him as a minion of the US government who obeys the President's
order to go to Gotham and punch Batman to death.
The
Dark Knight Returns depicts a version of Batman and Superman, the
World's Finest Superheroes, that I just don't want to read. Batman is
an angry, psychotic thug, and Superman is a mindless government
drone. They're unlikeable, they aren't heroic, and I don't want to
read stories about these versions of the characters. It pains me that
this book altered their relationship so much, changing them from
close friends and allies to antagonistic, incompatible people who
just happen to have similar goals.
If
you can convince me I'm wrong, by all means do. I want to see what
everyone else sees in The Dark Knight Returns, but it doesn't work
for me. For the record, Frank Miller's other Batman opus, Year One,
is a book I think more highly of every time I read it, and though
post-Sin City Miller is a raving lunatic, he did a lot of genuinely
great work in the '80s. I don't think DKR is a good comic, though,
and I'm dreading the influence it's going to have on the already
pretty grimdark DC movie universe.
