Two-Face Tuesday! Dick vs. Harvey, Round 1

[thehefner]

So a month ago, I started to explore to themes of Harvey being the Trial by Fire for the Robins, starting with Jason and then Tim. Now, of course, there is no Robin who has a more bitterly personal connection with Harvey than the first, Dick Grayson. It seems, in fact, that Two-Face is now officially Dick's arch-nemesis.

But why? How did this come about? What is it about Harvey, one of Batman's very worst enemies (second only to the Joker, IMO), that makes him ideally suited to be Dick's # 1?

I was going to post scans from "Prodigal" (the first "Dick as Batman" story from the 90's), but before I do that, I think it'd be best if we actually went back a bit further. Starting with the prelude to "Prodigal"--ROBIN #0 from 1994--and including the expansion/revisions of that story in the more-popularly-read ROBIN: YEAR ONE, both of which are helmed by Chuck Dixon, whom I believe we can therefore credit for inventing this particular archenemy dynamic.

Now, I consider Dixon to be one of the finest Batman writers, the only one of the 90's trio of Dixon, Moench, and Grant to be worth a damn (and the three of them working on "Prodigal" next week will be further proof of why I feel that way). And yet, he also writes what I consider to be one of the worst depictions of Two-Face ever put to print.

This might be due to the fact that Dixon, as far as I know, has never written a villain sympathetically. They're all either criminal masterminds (Blockbuster, Two-Face) or shifty losers (the Riddler Year One annual, Cluemaster). Best as I can tell, Dixon writes expressly for the heroes, which he does wonderfully. Problem is, that means the villains, even antivillains like Harvey and Mr. Freeze, suffer as a result.

Not that there aren't strengths to this depiction of Two-Face...







Let's start back in 1994, during the ZERO HOUR crossover. In ROBIN # 0, Harvey Dent (but don't call him that) explains the bane of his existence to the shrinks at Arkham. They assume it's Batman he hates worst of all, but no, Two-Face refers to someone else in particular...





And here's the first mention of several regarding Dixon's primary depiction of Two-Face as believing that Harvey Dent is killed and that now he has to avenge his own murder. Now that I actually write it that way, it sounds kinda interesting, right?

Except here's the thing: that means there is no good side to this Two-Face. There's just evil and madness. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Harvey's side of the story overlaps with Disco!wing reluctantly recounting the same events to Tim, when Harvey had both Batman and his successor Meany in the gallows, forcing an inexperienced Robin to choose which one to save. Can you already guess why I might have a huge frickin' problem with this take on Two-Face?





The coin comes up good side, which means that Meany is the one who gets hanged, but Dick has a plan...














Now, I imagine most of you know these events from ROBIN: YEAR ONE and haven't read this nor "Prodigal." Maybe I'm wrong and my old-fogie-dom is showing. If you've only read that one, you might have noticed that there are a couple small differences in the two versions. Dixon (along with Scott Beatty) really got a chance to expand not just Dick's story surrounding these events, but also his interpretation of Harvey's motivations.





Robin feels betrayed, which will lead to him acting like a dope and resulting in them both getting caught by Two-Face.











Ahh, so they're going with the original Golden Age origin, that the coin came from Moroni and was the key piece of evidence in the trial. Now look, I'm all for Old School comics, but this means that this is a Two-Face that completely ignores the wonderful origin with his abusive father and "the game."















That's Moroni? First off, man, that character has had like five different fates. In Pre-Crisis, he was still alive long after Harvey became Two-Face. In "Eye of the Beholder," he was shot by bailiffs in court. In that BATMAN CHRONICLES team-up story with Harvey and Jim Gordon, he was alive and arrested again after escaping from jail. In THE LONG HALLOWEEN, he was shot in the face by Alberto Falcone. In TWO-FACE YEAR ONE, he was shot by Falcone with Harvey actually beside him.

Heck, they can't even decide whether to spell his name Moroni (the original, and name of the actual angel of the Book of Mormon) or Maroni (the more common, as used in "Eye of the Beholder," and thus subsequently THE LONG HALLOWEEN and THE DARK KNIGHT).

Also, that corpse doesn't look anything like the Brando-esque in the flashback. He doesn't even have the snazzy mustache anymore! Are we to believe that Harvey killed Moroni himself and just left him to rot? It's always been a minor annoyance to me in this story, but hardly my biggest problem.

Fast-forward to the big moment, after Two-Face captures Batman and Robin...





I include this page because of that line: "I was the best choice." Even though it's not Dixon's intent, I personally would love to read that moment as Dick's "fuck you" to Harvey, one of Batman's original allies in the war on crime.

There's something powerful about Bruce's first big failure coming back to specifically haunt his sidekicks, much in the same way that Judd Winick used Jason Todd as the Red Hood (actually, much of the way Red Hood was used made me wish they'd used Harvey in that role instead).

Skipping further ahead, we've already seen the part where Robin makes his no-choice. In this version, he calls for the Judge not to hang if the clean side comes up. It does, and Dick breathes a sigh of relief.





And here we find the defining trait of Dixon's Two-Face: he cheats. Or more precisely, he makes the rules of his game and manipulates it to his own advantage, which may not be cheating, but is distinctly, patently unfair.

If this is the same Harvey Dent as seen in "Eye of the Beholder," then that would mean that this is proof that Harvey has become his father. I know some would see this as an inevitable, fitting, perhaps even poignant interpretation of the character.

Me, I'd find it lazily cynical, but there's no point arguing a hypothetical like that (unless you really want me to ;p ). So let's put that aside and carry on with the nasty business at hand...











Ugh. That might be the single ugliest, most irredeemably evil thing Harvey's ever done. Granted, it's not like Robin is like just any defenseless kid, but still, this scene crossed a line in more than one way. Including for Two-Face himself.











N'aw, Bruce. And in that moving moment, here we see Dixon really cares about. And of course, that's how it should be, since this is Dick's story.

But okay. Let's accept that this Harvey Dent is the classic version who went totally mad after getting acid in his face and turning into a twisted insane monster version of himself. It's a not-uncommon take on the character, particularly at the time. That was pretty expressly Doug Moench's (ugh) take throughout the 90's, and was also the Two-Face of BATMAN FOREVER. I should hope that nothing more would need to be said right there.




*shudder*

Now, in the past years, increased emphasis has been put on Harvey's good side in stories like HUSH, FACE THE FACE, and NIGHTWING: THE GREAT LEAP, not to mention the influence THE DARK KNIGHT will have on stories to come.

On the other hand, we have the MANHUNTER back-up story in STREETS OF GOTHAM. And that Harvey is very clearly this Harvey, the Chuck Dixon Two-Face cranked up to 11. Marc Andreyoko has clearly stated through Kate that Harvey Dent is dead, and that Two-Face is just a twisted mockery of the man, pure, sneering evil through and through.

Well, that, plus the occasional dreamy look he gives in Kate's direction:




(credit to northstarfan for that)


This take on the character is BATMAN FOREVER's Two-Face through a DARK KNIGHT filter, a villain who exists purely for Kate to thoroughly trounce, just as this Two-Face exists purely for Dick Grayson to defeat. There's absolutely nothing more to the character.

Now, I'll admit, this take has its strengths. Freed of all angst and tragic struggling between his warring sides, this Two-Face is free to be a magnificent monster capable of evil badassery like this:








Essentially, this Two-Face is Clarance Boddiker from ROBOCOP. And god damn if I don't love me some Boddiker. Now I'm imaging him throwing Dick off the back of a truck, asking, "Can you fly, Robby?"

And yet, for all this awesomeness, I hate hate hate this take on Two-Face. Because what you get here is a great villain, yes, but it's at the expense of an amazing character.

The best writers understand that what makes Two-Face such an enduring character isn't that he's a scary insane monster who'll rig games to his own advantage. No, it's that he's a genuinely good man who struggles with that monster inside him, existing simultaneously. Mr. Hyde without Dr. Jekyll is just another murdering sociopath (the exception being the Hyde of LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN, naturally), and a Two-Face without Harvey Dent robs the character of all his complex and moving power.

I think everything that's wrong with this version can be summed up in this scene:







Greg Rucka wrote it best in his introduction to GOTHAM CENTRAL: HALF A LIFE, wherein he explained that (and I'm paraphrasing here, as I don't have my copy on hand) Harvey Dent flips a coin to decide between a moral and an immoral action, not two equally evil options. Andrew Helfer understood this in "Eye of the Beholder," explaining Harvey's two sides become deadlocked, and the coin is the tie-breaker.

But here, this character is entirely Harvey's bad side, which makes you wonder why he bothers flipping the coin at all. For this Two-Face, he uses the coin purely to justify his evil actions, making him no more complex or interesting than any fanatic who uses religion to justify theirs. Of course, some people prefer that version of the character, so I suppose it's a matter of taste.

Me, I'd rather have a complex and sympathetic antagonist who speaks toward the human condition instead of a remorseless Joker-lite monster who exists purely to have his ass kicked most righteously.

Let's wrap up this post where we started, back in the present-day continuity of 1994, where--years after the events of ROBIN: YEAR ONE, the three biggest players in the upcoming story event share their final thoughts on that fateful first encounter:





A no-win situation. Which is exactly what's wrong with Dixon's Two-Face.



And thus the stage is set for the imminent rematch between Dick (who will be assuming the mantle of Batman for the first time) and Two-Face in "Prodigal." Hopefully next week, after over a month of talkin' about it, I'll finally get to those scans as well.



Suggested tags:

char: two-face/harvey dent
char: batman/bruce wayne
char: robin/nightwing/dick grayson
char: robin/red robin/tim drake
creator: chuck dixon
creator: scott beatty
creator: javier pulido
creator: tom grummett

Comments

[aaron_bourque]

I think you can have both. In fact, it's probably a matter of varying therapies.

[thehefner]

That'd be neat to see a story actually explore, kinda in the way that Morrison explored and reconciled the various iterations of the Joker over the years.

[aaron_bourque]

. . . there should be DUELING THERAPIES!!! Like, one camp is trying to integrate Harvey's personalities, and that results in Two-Face only (with varying degrees of evil) and the other is trying to remind him of what a good man Harvey is, which results in conflicted!Two-Face!!!

[sun_man]

I can't wait for you to post round 2.


Dick wails on Harvey as Nightwing and it is glorious

[thehefner]

I'll do the best I can with the page scan limit! That last issue with the final confrontation is proving to be a toughie.

[icon_uk]

Again, I just can't "get" Dixon's Two-Face, or rather the aura of "extreeeeeeeeeme dangerousness" which he is automatically assigned (I'm sure there's a suitable RPG terms for it). The explanation that he's so dangerous because his obsession runs to the core of his being is an explanation of his mindset, not an explanation of why Robin isn't allowed near him. Obsessions of one sort or another define nearly ALL of Batman's villains, from Catwoman, to Penguin, to Bane, there's really nothing about Two-Face's duality which renders him that different.

And wholehearted agreement on missing the point of the coin, Two-Face would indeed doublecross you, but he wouldn't twist the coins outcome. That way lies "Batman Forever"...

[thehefner]

Yeah, I certainly appreciate them trying to build Harvey up as an epic-level threat rather than another gimmick joke of a villain. Especially considering that's exactly how many writers and fans see the character... even to this very day, it seems!

And yet, it always struck me that the Two-Face here never quite lived up to the hype that Dixon presented through Batman. Especially not with the Two-Face of "Prodigal," who was little more than a bitter, raving madman who--far as I could tell--only got as far ahead as he did because Dick and Tim were distracted with Wesker and Ratcatcher.

Yeah, Two-Face should be the only character to double-cross somebody fairly. :)

[icon_uk]

It's weirder than that, at the end of Prodigal Two-Face captures Tim and puts him in a handy death trap.

Now it should be noted that Tim was always a relatively wise and cautious Robin about such things, who almost never served as the Boy Hostage because he didn't let that sort of situation arise, and yet we have to accept that Two-Face was somehow able to sneak up on him, overpower him and use him as bait, and that Two-Face was just so darned awesomely dangerous we shouldn't need to see any hint of how he managed it. Likewise Batman's ongoing orders for Tim to never go near Two-Face physically. Considering who he DOES let Tim get near, Two-Face's threat level just seemed extremely overestimated.

[thehefner]

Yeah, we don't even see how Two-Face captures Tim! Haha, wtf? It's like, "I'm gonna get Two-Face!" and then cut-shot over to Tim being tied up. "Whoops."

[icon_uk]

Yeah, as you might imagine I have no problem with a tied up Robin (Though beating the crap out of the lil fella like here? Not nice.) I want to feel like the bad guy EARNED it.

[bradhanon]

John Byrne is on record as saying that he only wants to write villains that are pure evil. He considers morally complex villains, villains who have any kind of explanation or even self-justification for their actions, to somehow be squishy liberal nonsense. The same, obviously, goes for villains that have some redeeming qualities or elements of good in them. It is possible that Chuck Dixon has a similar ideological objection.

I am amused, however, that noted gun enthusiast Dixon perhaps overlooked something in that second-to-last scan. Quite likely he assumed that, since the dialogue refers to a right and a left barrel, he didn't need to explicitly spell out in the script that Harvey is holding a double-barreled shotgun. Instead, we get a tommy gun, rendering Harvey's dialogue gibberish. The moral: never assume the artist has any idea what the hell you're talking about.

[thehefner]

Interesting! There seems to be a certain conservative mentality that good is good and evil is evil, and we have to fight evil, simple as that.

Naturally, that mentality fits neatly into the superhero genre (y'know, fantasy), so it's kind of a wonder what more conservatives don't read comics, or that more comic writers themselves don't lean that way. Maybe they're just not as open about it as people like WIllingham and Dixon.

I didn't know Byrne felt that way too, though. I vaguely recall that he wrote Magneto at one or two points. I wonder if he wrote him as pure fanatical evil as well? And wasn't his Dr. Doom among the best versions of the character? Those stories bear revisiting!

And oh man, I feel so dumb for not noticing that bit about the gun all these years! So dumb!

[sistermagpie]

What a silly idea. So are villains just supposed to be made of evil or something? Everyone has justifications for what they do--it doesn't make them good. That's like saying all villains have to be villains because they set out to be evil villains on purpose, which is really naive. The exact kind of naive he seems to be trying to push on squishy liberal nonsense.

[thehefner]

I remember reading a commenter on Newsarama's message boards (admittedly, hardly the bastion of intelligent comic thought) say that he hated the idea of, say, the Joker being depicted with a sympathetic origin because "I don't want to feel bad when the Joker gets beaten up."

I'm fairly certain that the people who argue for the "bad is bad" mentality are a bit more intelligent than that, but still, that even one person could think that's the way it works still boggles my mind.

[an-idol-mind.livejournal.com]

Not unexpectedly, I disagree with Byrne. A lot of comic book villains need some motivation and reason for being what they are. In a genre that lends itself to absurdity, such grounding keeps the characters from being a joke.

In the case of Two-Face, if you take away the Harvey Dent aspect like in the scans above, you present a guy who has all the stupid parts of being a supervillain. Stupid name, stupid gimmick, stupid plans. You're back to the old days of wondering why Harvey doesn't just shoot Batman when he has a chance instead of going through his long monologues and poorly planned death traps.

Aside from all the storytelling potential that a partly sympathetic villain has, having a guy be evil through and through reduces supervillains to the status of bad Bond villains. They need a reason to do what they do, or they're reduced to jokes in most people's eyes.

[aaron_bourque]

squishy liberal nonsense

Ugh.

I really need to break into the business to be the token "reasonable conservative creative"

[psychopathicus_rex]

That's rich, considering that he himself turned Dr. Doom, formerly one of the most thoroughly evil villains ever, into a relatively sympathetic character. Also, I believe it was he who introduced - or at least reinforced - the idea that Galactus is more of a cosmic force than an actual villain. Up 'til then, he had basically been written as 'great big guy who EATS PLANETS, THE HORROR, THE HORROR', and that was the extent of his characterization. So either Byrne has a mighty poor memory, or he's a big ol' hypocrite.

[icon_uk]

I'm also not necessarily a huge fan of the BTAS Two-Face, but I do LOVE the relationship that Bruce and Harvey have there.

You could genuinely feel that these guys had been friends, and liked each other. Plus Batman's constant hope that Two-Face can be cured (Even when it's Big Bad Harv who messes up Harvey's chances), and in one of the few cases where he is more cynical than Batman, Robin not taking it for granted that Harvey IS redeemable, is always fun to watch.

As I think Dick puts it in one of the BTAS comics; "You always see Harvey, all I see is Two-Face."

[thehefner]

What don't you care for in the BTAS Two-Face?

Especially in comparison to that GOTHAM ADVENTURES issue where Batman is holding a grudge against Selina, even after she saved his life and ended up in a coma. Dick is appalled, citing how Bruce isn't willing to give her a chance, especially considering how he never gives up on Harvey. Batman's rationale is that Harvey's crazy, therefore not responsible, whereas Selina's sane and therefore is.

I love the dynamics at play there, because both of their perspectives absolutely fit the characters.

[icon_uk]

BTAs Two-Face seemed to be about abrogating all responsibility for his actions and assigning it to the coin.

His belief seemed to be that the Universe is nothing but chaos so he uses the coin because it's as good as anything else to make a decision, rather than, say, judgement, or morality. He has no responsibility for the outcome of the coin toss,so the actions he takes aren't his fault

[thehefner]

I think you have a point there. Even in the best BTAS Two-Face stories, I've wondered if that kind of puts a damper on the emotional impact of his actions. If he does something bad, then he's willfully irresponsible and assigning the blame to something other than himself. When he does something good, it doesn't count, because the coin told him to do it, not because he wanted to.

I still love that Harvey because of the friendship with Bruce, and how much of the internal struggle is depicted, not to mention Richard Moll's whole performance. And yet, thanks for nailing down exactly why I still think "Eye of the Beholder" is the best Harvey yet seen! :)

[aaron_bourque]

That's actually sort of the point. Harvey can't take that kind of responsibility anymore.

[icon_uk]

Well, yes and no (appropriately enough).

BTAS Two-Face does it because it doesn't matter to him which eventuality happens, the other take on Two-Face is that Harvey forces the good option into the mix to half the chance of evil happening. Half of him does try to take that responsibility, it's perhaps the only thing keeping Harvey going and Two-Face from becoming a complete monster, the fact that Harvey CAN make Two-Face half as dangerous.

[irrelevant]

Harvey Dent flips a coin to decide between a moral and an immoral action, not two equally evil options.

You nailed my issues with this take on Harvey very neatly. What makes Dent such a fascinating character is his division. Take away any redeeming value and you lose Harvey--all you've got left is Two-Face. And then, for me at least, you lose the essence of the character.

Like you, I really enjoyed Dixon's writing, but yeah. He kind of failed in this way. Which is sad, because Robin: Year One really was excellent, and could have been even more so if Harvey had been written as the multi-faceted self he's capable of being.

[thehefner]

I know, right? It's pretty much just for that reason that I've been waffling on including ROBIN: YEAR ONE in my hypothetical "favorite Batman stories ever" list.

[lucean]

I don't think that it's necessarily fair to say that Dixon wrote the villains as unsymphatetic, as he did include their backgrounds and gave a good idea why they became what they were and why that made them tragic. Harvey's origin and sense of betrayal do weigh heavily on the scans you provided and, you know, Bane.

I think it's rather that Dixon viewed them as people who made that choice, or for whom the choice was made, and who were now so far gone that even though they were tragic, there was no return for them, they were lost causes. I think that Harvey's popularity and status, in view of that position, there really wasn't any other way to write the character, as it follows from that that if the character is one of the big bads, then he needs to be a monster, he need to be someone to be feared. And the coin allows a too easy pass for that story then, as how can they be always that monster and person to be feared, when they are at the same time defined by the coin toss.

I don't necessarily agree with that position, but I don't view it as an always bad approach to the character, because for instance the cop scene there? Just don't see it going with the other option. Still, I also loved Rucka's approach to the character, which was vastly different.

[thehefner]

Aha! Bane! Yeah, Bane is an absolutely excellent example that shoots a hole right through my thesis in that regard. But I don't entirely buy Harvey's sense of betrayal, though.

As depicted here, it's hinted that he was already somewhat corrupt in the sense that he was going to bend/break the law to enforce justice, even as DA. The Judge himself says that he tried to help Harvey, but couldn't because of Harvey's "brand of justice." This could likely indicate that Harvey was already a guy with unstable ethics, and coupled with a persecution complex that blames multiple people for his own "murder," I feel that any sympathy or empathy in his character is lost under the weight of his own madness and hatred.

Don't get me wrong, I do like the idea of his Two-Face side being a complete and utter monster in this regard, capable of scenes like with the cop. But only when the coin comes up in his favor.

[sistermagpie]

Have to agree with everyone here--and you. This kind of fixing of the outcome completely undermines what Bruce tries to imply earlier. The coin *is* just a gimick here. There's no reason to think about it at all, because Two-Face is always going to be about murdering everyone involved. He just pretends to flip a coin as a schtick.

I see what he's trying to do. He's trying to say that the obsession with two makes Harvey not only have a choice between living and dying but two kinds of death. But in that case he would lay it out as: live or die. And if it came up "die" it would be: death by drowning or hanging? He's not about tricks through wordplay.

But then, it's just damn HARD to come up with a situation that really portrays what Batman is saying. You want to have a situation that shows that if you play Harvey's game you get sucked into his madness. But what we got instead was just that really, it's a gimick. If he offers you what seems like a way out, he's not.

[thehefner]

Yeah, this Harvey is one who has already decided on the outcome he wants, and is just creating options for how to get there, and even twisting those as he sees fit.

I hate how some people still do this with the character, right up to stuff like David Hine's JOKER'S ASYLUM: TWO-FACE. Same damn thing: theatrical death trap, forcing someone to make a choice that's really no choice at all, with no other purpose than to twist the knife cruelly.

Harvey is not frickin' Jigsaw from SAW. Hell, even Jigsaw is arguably more fair than this Two-Face.

[maxisanacorn]

No matter how many times I see the art from Robin Y1 I just go ga-ga over it. They really need to get that artist back and do more stuff. I love the vintage/Deco influence, it's very BTAS only slicker. Would love to see Detective Comics with Batwoman under this look.

[mistersandman]

Hell yes. I don't know why more artists don't use the BTAS Two-Face design, I think it's really snappy! The black/white is so much more striking than the brown/purple that's been around forever.

[thehefner]

Agreed! Did you read Brubaker's CATWOMAN run? Pulido draws my favorite arc, and he uses an even more sparse style than this. It's not for all tastes, but man, do I adore his work there. Same goes for Marcos Martin, who filled in on the fourth part of R:YO and drew the whole of BATGIRL: YEAR ONE. Love their style.

[alienist]

I agree with you on Dixon's Two-Face - it really misses the point of what makes Harvey a good character and a good villain. The scariest villains, for me, are the ones who still have humanity left, who could easily have been something else. Two-Face takes that dichotomy and runs a mile with it, and it's tragic and fascinating.

I suppose I'll just decide that during these stories, Harvey lost the battle for a while and Two-Face took over completely, and the coin really is just a gimmick for him - and a way to make people think there's a fair chance when there isn't.

(As an aside, I really liked what they did with Harvey in No Man's Land.)

[psychopathicus_rex]

I have to say, I really like how Harvey is depicted here, in terms of the artwork. He looks almost reptilian, like half of him is actually Killer Croc. It looks nothing whatsoever like acid scarring, of course, but neither have any number of other depictions of him - the standard coloration of his left side is GREEN, for Pete's sake. Ever seen green scars? I don't think so.
(A random thought - running with the 'who cares about realism' aspect, wouldn't it be awesome if there were some sort of supernatural-themed Batman story - maybe an Elseworlds or something - and Two-Face showed up as half regular person, half zombie or skeleton or Cthulhu or something? 'I'll flip the coin and decide your fate - but I'll have to do it with my RIGHT hand. The other one doesn't have a thumb.')

[freddylloyd]

Personally I feel that Deathstroke is Dick Grayson's arch-nemesis while Two-Face is his bête noir. But that's a very fine distinction.

[starwolf_oakley]

It's almost funny how whenever they do a "Harvey first becomes Two-Face" story, he at least temporarily goes the "crazed vigilante" route, going after the mobsters he couldn't convict as D.A. "Long Halloween," "Two-Face: Year One,"
the B:TAS story and The Dark Knight.

Perhaps Dixon and Co. figured that with Two-Face's murderous hatred of Batman there was only so far they could go with Harvey as a murderous vigilante. So he just becomes a mobster with a sadistic coin fetish.

[thehefner]

Considering that his very first appearances had him being a twisted Robin Hood figure as often as a vicious criminal (depending on how the coin came up), it's kind of surprising and sad that he doesn't do the crazed vigilante thing more often!