The Dark Knight Returns #1
Feb. 20th, 2017 01:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)

A.V. CLUB: So you actually consciously set out to change things in the comics industry?
FRANK MILLER: Well, I set out to remark upon them. And seeing how all these heroes had been castrated since the 1950s, and just how pointless they seemed to be... In this perfect world of comic books, which was what it was back then, why would people dress up in tights to fight crime?
A.V. CLUB: Because there wasn't anything bad enough going on back then to justify that extremism?
FRANK MILLER: It was just a bunch of goofy villains. It was 1985 when I started working on this, and I thought, "What kind of world would be scary enough for Batman?" And I looked out my window.
15.5 pages of 48



















no subject
Date: 2017-02-20 02:30 am (UTC)The line about not speaking to Dick doesn't really jibe with the later... "developments" of Frank's writing.
It's almost funny. Almost.
The way Bruce acts towards the mutants, seeing them as Joe Chill... Bruce Wayne's got more issues than the mere split personality he's clearly got going.
Guy's not healthy even without the Bat.
Makes a person wonder if Miller's meaning is the Batman persona is the saner one.
(Wouldn't be a surprise.)
Isn't it slightly alarming that of forty-eight pages in an issue, this is a selection of fifteen and it still gets the entire gist across.
That Miller sure loves him some decompression.
(Wondering how much of those forty-eight consists of talking heads yammering back and forth.)
A future blighted not only by a rise in violent crime, but the continued existence of 80s fashion trends.
Poor sods.
And that Wolper.
I get the character is meant to be obnoxious, and idiotic, and deserving of whatever fate is inevitably going to befall him, but...
He goes beyond simple unlikableness. He's not a character that it's possible to like to dislike, he's just completely irritating in every way.
Also (last point, promise), the art isn't good in most places, but that panel of Bruce revealing he's got no mustache anymore?
That's a good panel.
no subject
Date: 2017-02-20 03:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-20 03:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-20 04:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-20 04:47 am (UTC)If all of the story is there, one might ask, then why bother? Isn't it just indulgence after all? It better not be; if it is, then I have spent a large portion of my life wasting my time. As it happens, I think that in really good stories, the whole is always greater than the sum of its parts. If that were not so, the following would be a perfectly acceptable version of "Hansel and Gretel":
Hansel and Gretel were two children with a nice father and a nice mother. The nice mother died, and the father married a bitch. The bitch wanted the kids out of the way so she'd have more money to spend on herself. She bullied her spineless, soft-headed hubby into taking Hansel and Gretel into the woods and killing them. The kids' father relented at the last moment, allowing them to live so they could starve to death in the woods instead of dying quickly and mercifully at the blade of his knife. While they were wandering around, they found a house made out of candy. It was owned by a witch who was into cannibalism. She locked them up and told them that when they were good and fat, she was going to eat them. But the kids got the best of her. Hansel shoved her into her own oven. They found the witch's treasure, and they must have found a map, too, because they eventually arrived home. When they got there, Dad gave the bitch the boot and they lived happily ever after. The End.
I don't know what you think, but for me, that version's a loser. The story is there, but it's not elegant. It's like the Cadillac with the chrome stripped off and the paint sanded down to dull metal. It goes somewhere, but it ain't, you know, boss.
no subject
Date: 2017-02-20 05:42 am (UTC)What dates it most obviously, in a modern reading, is the TV satire. This will date me as a complete Old, but it's hard to convey to anyone born after 1985 just how refreshing Miller's original TV panels were. He was hardly the first to satirize TV in comics (MAD had a 33-year head start) but his formalist approach was something genuinely new, and it gave the story a scope and cultural resonance it would have been hard to achieve any other way. A lot of it still works, because the style of reporting Miller satirized is still something of a baseline, even in a more fragmented media environment that includes Fox News and the Internet.
I'm not sure if it was because Miller himself was more flexible in his thinking or because he had to submit to a lot more editing (I suspect the latter), but Dark Knight Returns lets itself doubt its own ideology in a way that's highly refreshing, and almost totally absent in Miller's later work. Batman here is a figure to be celebrated, but also pitied: he's ultimately the other scarred half in Two-Face's new coin, someone who can't help what he is despite wishing he could. The "both sides are sort of right but mostly wrong" scenes here still largely work, and the attempt to reach across the aisle is something I sorely miss, especially when I pick up anything Miller wrote after 1988 or so. (He did do other good things after that, but none that could be said to attempt anything like political balance.)
no subject
Date: 2017-02-20 06:28 am (UTC)It's funny... there's a five-year age gap between my wife and myself, and she started reading comics as an adult while I've been reading them since the age of three. Once she got into the hobby, I handed her both DKR and Watchmen to read and she was... completely, utterly unimpressed. I was aghast and, while things didn't get heated, we had one heck of a conversation about taste and literary appreciation (thankfully, we laugh about it now).
But what came out of all that for me... buoyed when our daughter, now 12, subsequently became a comics fan... was how the writing techniques and flourishes so revelatory to my generation seem so normal to those who follow. DKR isn't as impressive to some newer readers (not all, but some) because its tricks are now commonly used in TV shows, movies and, yes, comics - because the authors of those stories read DKR on release, like we did. Same with much of Alan Moore's work. And it goes the other way - Buddy: The Vampire Slayer was a game-changer for my wife, but less so for me because I'd grown up reading Claremont and Roger Stern.
My Dad - an extreme latecomer to genre entertainment, having developed an appreciation at the tender age of 55 after years of dismissing it - compares it to the way some younger music fans dismiss the Beatles until they truly grasp how much they changed music. I think it's an apt observation.
no subject
Date: 2017-02-20 07:31 am (UTC)I just.. I kind of wish most the following writers who piggybacked this stuff and sellotaped this characterisation of Batman onto the 'main/real' Batman actually did so with the same level of quality and nuance. Even Frank himself devolved into parody of this after a point, seemingly unable to grasp Bruce Wayne as the genuinely damaged individual he's presented as here, who needs Batman, and instead giving us 'the goddamn Batman'. And that way lies a slippery slope. I have this to thank for Snyder's run and my favourite characterisation of Batman and the Joker in years, but we also have this to thank for every 'MY PARENTS ARE DEAAAAAAAAD' meme.
no subject
Date: 2017-02-20 08:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-20 12:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-20 06:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-20 07:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-20 08:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-20 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-20 09:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-21 01:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-21 02:19 am (UTC)Batman Year One illustrates all of the weaknesses with Batman's origins, while this story illustrates the issues with his inevitable ending.They bookend all of Batman's issues.
He starts as a naive, disturbed, broken child, dealing with the death of his parents in the most horrible way possible, and ends as a bitter, violent narcissistic goon.
Hmm... that gives me some ideas for "Bruce Wayne, supervillain"
Date: 2017-02-21 03:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-21 04:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-21 06:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-21 06:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-21 06:36 am (UTC)But to be honest, my favourite Batman writer might just be Tomasi for the moment.
no subject
Date: 2017-02-21 06:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-21 06:43 am (UTC)Like, am I meant to take it seriously? I don't think so. Does it butcher certain characters? Sure, but it's out of main continuity, so does it really matter much? Is it fun? Hell yes. I think people are hard on it because it's not DKR, which is fair, but it's so preposterous I can't help but like it.
no subject
Date: 2017-02-21 08:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-02-22 12:38 am (UTC)Honestly, I'm tired of this "everything needs to be Watchmen (if you're Moore), DKNR (if your Miller) or comparable to them if you're anyone else" bulldust.
Re: Hmm... that gives me some ideas for "Bruce Wayne, supervillain"
Date: 2017-02-23 02:27 am (UTC)That's a great idea - having a mercenary squad would actually be more practical than the whole "lone vigilante" thing.
Re: Hmm... that gives me some ideas for "Bruce Wayne, supervillain"
Date: 2017-02-23 04:18 pm (UTC)* "We're not calling ourselves the Justice League of Assassins, and I actually considered Justice League of China before my idiot cousin outed himself with the name to impress some girl."