Batman/Superman

For my final essay, I would love to explore the famous dichotomy of Batman and Superman. In the class, we are presented to the pair in the form of former allies, now starkly divided by their respective upholding and distain of an unjust law, in Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns.

            In the Dark Knight Returns, Batman and Superman are represented as polar opposite in terms of where they stand in the modern day. Bruce Wayne is an old man now, not quite what he used to be, on the outside. He has given up his acts of vigilantism, because of a truce the superhumans of yesteryear came to with the United States government. Meanwhile, Clark Kent is still as young and vibrant as he had ever been. Inside, however, Clark has become pacifistic towards the ways of man; instead of being a hero to the people, he is a puppet of the government. Clark’s values as an individual sway him to avoid conflict and take orders from whoever is wearing the badge. Even as civilians, Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent stand as opposites.

            The difference between the two is exacerbated, if not defined by, when they are in costume. Clark Kent’s Superman, stands tall, colorful, all-powerful, and is unafraid of opposition. He doesn’t even wear a mask! Superman is a stark contrast to Bruce Wayns’s Batman: clad in black, residing in the shadows, essentially powerless is you look past his fighting skills and awesome gadgets.

            On a baser level, Batman stands for vengeance, whilst Superman stands for authority. Interestingly both vengeance and authority can be interpreted as a symbol for justice. Batman’s is a more personal struggle against crime as his very origins are steeped in it. Superman, however, is the child of fortune. Raised by country folk, Superman was taught a healthy respect for law and order above all things.

            One can begin to see oppositions in Batman and Superman that parallel political ideologies. Superman, the Man of Tomorrow, is an immigrant from the planet Krypton, raised in the heartland of America. He learns to use his seemingly infinite powers for the good of the people who brought him in. Superman is in a way the embodiment of the American Dream; he is an immigrant, who came to America and made a place for himself in the world. One could go on to note, that he, as with the American dream, is twisted in Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns. Whenever the government has become biased, authoritarian and overpowered, so too has Superman.

            For Batman, after his parent’s tragic demise, he lived a life of financial comfort with the billions he inherited. But Bruce Wayne was so distraught by his parents’ death that he vowed to solemnly avenge them by pouring every ounce of his being into his crusade against crime. Where Superman is the embodiment of the American dream, Batman is the embodiment of the human condition; he is stubborn, resourceful, seemingly powerless, but in possession of a willpower that is second to none. He is an embodiment of what every person can be whenever they give themselves over to a cause bigger than themselves. For Batman, in The Dark Knight Returns, he has become old and frail and in need of a legacy; just as the human spirit is impermanent, and in need of remembrance. 

The Dark Knight Returns: Academic Response

The following is in response to the prompt for the discussion for or against the artistic differences between the film and literary versions of The Dark Knight Returns:

While you make a strong case for the use of The Dark Knight Returns’ art and its’ insight into the world of Miller’s story, I generally disagree that the film version is hindered on an emotional level by the streamlining of its visuals. At the heart of my argument, I generally believe that the art and visuals of graphic novels are second to the nature of story, in terms of emotional determination. Although, I will however compromise and say that art definitely reinforces the tone of a graphic novel.

            One such other graphic novel, conveniently enough another Batman tale, Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth serves the function of detailing character’s appearances based solely on other character’s perspectives. In the graphic novel, written by Grant Morrison and illustrated by Dave McKean, characters outward appearances and even their speech bubbles are based on other character’s thoughts on the character. Maxie Zeus is extremely elongated, sporting a blue text bubble, representing his lightning based abilities. The Joker is almost devilish in appearance, and his text is large and messy, written in scribbled red, bursting through the bubble itself; this all represents the Joker’s antagonistic nature to the Batman as well as his inherent chaotic nature. Batman himself is painted from the view of the criminals, appearing more as a frightening specter than a costumed hero; even his text is white lettering against a black bubble, symbolic of his dark nature. All this is to say that while the art in The Dark Knight Returns is a reinforcement to the tone of the novel, its absence in film form does not hinder the film in any way, unlike it would for the Arkham book.

            While I do like the idea that Gotham may not or may not be as grim and foreboding as it is presented to us, I don’t agree that the Dark Knight Returns is told (shown) threw the vernacular of Bruce Wayne. The points in the story in which we are actually made to observe things perspective are framed for us by Frank Miller. Take for example the final page of Book 1: Batman has just foiled Two-Face’s plan and is now face to face with Harvey Dent. First we see him as he actually appears, then, as Bruce narrates about closing his eyes and being able to actually see him, we get a glimpse at how Batman sees him. The fact that Miller went out of his way to show us Batman’s perspective implies that the book is naturally not seen through his eyes.

            On a personal level, the artwork of The Dark Knight Returns is actually what kept me from reading it for a long time. The dull coloring and disjointed visuals, while symbolically relevant, hinders my enjoyment of the story on a certain level. It’s like these action movies nowadays with their shaky hand-held camera scenes during the action sequences. While it’s all well and good that we feel like “we’re actually there” by having our view be shaky, uneven and unfocused, I’d much rather just  be able to actually see the fellows actually duking it out.

The Dark Knight Returns: Books 3 and 4

In chapters 3 and 4 we follow the Caped Crusader through his final confrontations with both his greatest enemy, the Joker and his (once) greatest ally, the Man of Steel, Superman. Whilst Batman, faces these rather extreme threats, we as an audience take in many more events than our actual protagonist is involved in. A Russian Cold War, a mounting gang problem, looting and rioting are some of the few subplots that we are presented with. Though, each of these subplots are eventually resolved by the Dark Knight himself, they essentially built entirely on their own. 

What Frank Miller does to facilitate the growth of these subplots is rather ingenious, if not a little disjointed, so far as pacing and the flow of the story goes. For example, throughout chapters 3 and 4  we are given newscasts about the increasingly violent acts of the newly formed gang, the sons of Batman. Instead, of a traditional transition into and out of these scenes, Frank Miller takes up only 2 or 3 panels from a page to tell the story. Another quick cutaway that struck me as particularly interesting was the one in book 3, where Batman and Robin are riding to their next destination in search of clues to the Joker's plan, but just prior, we encounter three panels of a flashback or possible daydream of Bruce's father getting shot. Again, this is resolved by Batman later as he justifies to himself the possible killing of the Joker, but the cutaway is more drastic and almost random. Overall, this technique works both for and against this book. On the one hand, it does accomplish the act of advancing the plot faster, by not lingering on the small, growing plot threads, but it also tends to give the book the infamous disjointed feel that it is known for.

Another subject I'd like to discuss, is the relevance of the Batman vs Superman conflict. Here we have a symbolic representation of righteous civilians rebelling against the all-powerful authoritarians. Batman has started to change things, stirring hope and trouble in equal measures. Superman, with his extraordinary gifts is morally obligated, or so he thinks, to help out or aid anyone who is in charge. Batman with HIS history and upbringing is obligated to provide truth and justice no matter what the cost. This is a rather ironic turn of events in that Superman himself is often thought to embody "Truth, Justice and the American Way." Superman has chosen to submit to the tyranny of other men so long as it brings peace. Batman has chosen to defy any and all in positions of power to truly serve justice. A friend of mine once told me a very interesting analogy: Superman is the embodiment of how we, Americans, see ourselves; Batman is the embodiment of how other nations see us. 

In short, the dichotomy of the Batman/Superman relationship was a very interesting one to explore, because of the very political and psychological  implications it has.

The Dark Knight Returns: Book 2

With this week's blog I want to primarily flesh out the mythos of the Batman/Robin and how Frank Miller uses this famous partnership in The Dark Knight Returns in order to give us insight into Batman's admittedly deranged psyche.
In this story we are introduced to an older Bruce Wayne who has retired the cape and cowl altogether, presumably after the death of the second Robin Jason Todd, based on the comments Bruce and Alfred made after the first battle with the mutant leader. When he was in said battle, Batman had found himself bested. Beaten, and with his body failing him, Batman is practically all but defeated... until the brave/stupid heroics of "Carrie. Carrie Kelly... Robin."
Carrie Kelly is introduced to us as a kid who's parents really don't care about her, or they just don't remember her since they are both usually stoned. Soon though, she is inspired, like many citizens of Gotham, by the return of the Dark Knight. Carrie takes to the mantle of Robin on her own after a chance encounter with Bats when she and a friend are attacked by Mutants. Then, she spends her allowance on a Robin Halloween costume and takes to the rooftops. Later, whilst trying to discern where she can find the Bat, she overhears a conversation about something big going down at the dump and heads over in the hope that "he might be there..."
She eventually finds Batman locked in combat with the Mutant leader, taking a whopping beating from him. She sees him about to strike the finishing blow and can't take it anymore, she rushes in to try and stop him. Bruce, dazed and hallucinating, envisions the original Robin, Dick Grayson, in Carrie's place. It's at this point Bruce begins to reminisce about the days of old, whenever Robin would do something brash and stupid, and Bruce, would be forced to play one last winning move to save Dick. Grievously wounded, Batman has Carrie take him back to the Batcave, where she is officially bestowed the Robin title.
Carrie Kelly is quintessential to this book as Robin is quintessential to Batman. The role of Robin is very important for two specific purposes: It provides The Dark Knight, a motivator, a reason to keep on fighting whenever he's at the end of his rope to save the poor kid; and it reassures him that what he does is working. Robin is symbolic of the meaning of Batman, to inspire ordinary people to rally to arms for what they believe in and by having a Robin by his side Batman is constantly reminded of his own importance to the world.

Frank Miller reinforces the pathology of Batman by giving him a Robin who is symbolically relevant to the people of Gotham. She is the first of many of Batman's disciples and her appearance as Robin symbolically completes the true return of the Dark Knight.

The Dark Knight Returns: Book 1

Here, we arrive to the famous tale of Batman's rebirth. Written by Frank Miller in 1986, The Dark Knight Returns was the turn from the Adam West TV Batman, who many regarded as cheesy and campy , to the modern, dark, brooding figure we know in the current age. The Dark Knight Returns shows strong creative differences from our previous reading material, Watchmen. In Watchmen colors cascade with a warm vibrancy, the colors are strong and bright and pop in each panel, even in the darker areas. Here, though, in The Dark Knight Returns, colors are used sparingly, at best, and even in bright scenes, strong colors are opted out for pale shades. This can be taken, perhaps, as a sign of the times; of the bleak, unending, hopeless nightmare of city that Gotham has become in it's famed guardian's absence. Possibly, it is an indicator of the state of Bruce Wayne's mind. Overtime though, we start to see more colors pour in, blues and yellows, not unlike the silver age batsuit seen in this graphic novel. Undoubtedly, the return of colors, symbolic of hope, is in direct relation to the return of Batman.

Another aspect we can tell is immediately different is the change of panel structure, from Watchmen's standard 9 grid, to a little more crammed 16 grid. Though there is really a lack of consistency in terms of the 16 grid; there are only a handful of pages that actually have a full 16 panels. This graphic novel is definitely a more flexible in terms of style and structure, opposed to Watchmen. As well as sporting many "freestyle" pages The Dark Knight Returns makes use of the background of which the panels are set as a panel of it's own. Typically, the panels are set against a white background, but Miller ventures to have some scenes, expand beyond panels perhaps to provide weight or importance, subtly to whatever is happening within the background. Take for example page 31, where, from the shadows, The Dark Knight takes out a couple of baddies attacking two young girls, in the background, we are focused on a silhouette lurking, tossing batarangs and silently dealing JUSTICE.
Another aspect really expanded upon by Frank Miller in The Dark Knight Returns, is the visual use of sounds. We got little-to-none of this in Watchmen, but here Miller evokes very powerful feelings of epic scale; the primal strike of thunder is as a Que for the Dark Knight to strike his punishing blow upon the rampant criminal underworld of Gotham. It is really remarkable the ways Miller is able to give the impression of a sound through visuals. The rumble of thunder in the distance is long and low, the crack of lightning is large, the sounds of a man being barraged with batarangs "THUNK THUNK THUNK THUNKK" is heard in the mind's ear so clearly, it's as if we can actually hear it.

Watchmen The Movie

All right! So this week we talk about the comparisons between last week's blog subject and its portrayal in the 2009 film by Zack Snyder.
First of all, let us note that the film is essentially the closest thing to an onscreen adaption we will ever get. The story, barring the film's final act, is verbatim the story told within the graphic novel; in fact you can see that the film uses almost the EXACT same dialogue, as well as the exact same camera angles. For that matter, the casting was spot on, Rorschach's voice in the film was EXACTLY what I had in mind whilst reading the graphic novel.
Last week, I spoke mostly about Rorschach, what it means to be a "hero" and the thematic ramifications of the ending, and, in this regard, Watchmen lost none of this in translation to the film medium. Rorschach did exactly what Rorschach did in the graphic novel, definition of the term "hero" is still relative; Veidt saved the world but in an evil manner, but Rorschach was willing to liberate the world from this lie, albeit in the process doom it yet again.
Although, the one difference the movie had from the graphic novel that may actual have some thematic significance is the ending. In the Watchmen movie, Veidt kills a vast number of the population by using a device, that deceptively looks like Dr. Manhattan's handiwork, all around the world in massive explosions. In the graphic novel, however, Veidt used his resources to create a false alien entity, teleport it to New York, and kill half the city with a psychic shock wave, as it died.  The only reasons for this change, that occur to me, are that it gives the audience a less radical notion, and it shifts the blame of the newly united world onto Dr. Mahattan, as opposed to a totally unreal enemy. Fundamentally, this changes nothing. The world is still united, Dr. Manhattan and the gang, except for Rorschach, still acknowledge the gravity of the event and agree to keep it a secret., and Dr. Manhattan still leaves the Earth, permanently, after said events.
Besides the plot materials as well as the thematic materials, one of the chief differences from the graphic novel and the movie are the fundamental differences between any adaptation. The graphic novel provides better tone and structure because it is able to convey color schemes that affect our emotions and understanding. Also, with it's structure, it is able to convey higher literary concepts than could be done in film. My prime example is Dr. Manhattan's chapter in Watchmen. In the graphic novel, it conveys Dr. Manhattan's sense of "time" much better than it does in the film; in the film it felt mostly like narrated flashbacks. So in this regard, the book is a much better medium.

Watchmen Chapters 11 and 12

At last our journey is at an end with the characters of Watchmen. In Adrian Veidt's search for the answer to world peace, he has come up with a plan to slaughter millions to save billions; in turn turning violent attention from man's self to an imaginary foe. In concept Veidt's plan is perfect. No more war, no more conflict, it's all at an end. Veidt is, in the darkest possible way, the true "hero" of the earth. Our protagonists have made it all the way to Veidt, but failed to stop his plan, and, if they have any hope of this whole crusade being worth anything at all, must make a compromise: they must remain silent, or the world will return to a doomed fate of war.
Except, there is only one person who has a problem with this: our dear, sugar-cube loving, ink-blot shifting detective, Rorschach. Rorschach will NOT compromise in justice, in response to the others' telling Rorschach that they must compromise, "Joking, of course... No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never Compromise." This really speaks volumes about the Rorschach character. In Rorschach's eyes, there can be no justice if there is to be any compromise. Things are black and white, there is good and there is evil, Rorschach would argue. Which, as I spoke of in chapters 5 and 6, is further attributed to his duality as a character. Things are only one way or the other. Most people would say that Rorschach is way to harsh, or that he is essentially crazy, that he's not a hero at all. But he is the only one willing to stand against the others and fight to let the truth be known. The only character to truly stand for justice. In my perspective, Rorschach is the "true hero" of Watchmen. Fittingly, the world of Watchmen has no place for a true hero...
 After Veidt's plan is fully completed , though, is when we are brought forth a profound, if not disturbing question: Who is/are the real heroes of this story? What defines a hero in general? One could assert that, even though he is the antagonist of the book, Adrian Veidt is the hero. He's saved billions of lives, and effectively ended war on earth. Sounds like a hero, right? If we follow this line of thinking we can boil it down to: Veidt was able to compromise justice to end injustice. This is the antithesis of Rorschach's line of thinking: He is unwilling to compromise in the pursuit of justice in anyway, no matter what the cost, evil must be punished. In a way one could look at any of the characters here and present them as the hero or the villain of the story.
Watchmen breaks our 'heroes' apart and shows us what they are really made of: All powerful beings, who are ignorant and are careless towards humanity, smart, rich kids who are just in it for the thrill, masterful tacticians who are willing to put anything on the line to win, anarchists who see beyond the structures of society and simply don't care, and lastly, unflinching, uncompromising, enforcers of justice, who see only in shades of black and white. While on the surface they appear to be fantastic comic-book 'heroes', these characters are flawed beyond recognition and redefine what it means to be a "hero".