That's Mr. Son to you Mr. President

Any true comic book fan can attest that Batman: The Dark Knight returns was a revolutionary publication. Firstly, in case you were not aware, the comic helped redefine the genre, elevating it beyond the realm of mere childsplay. Moreover, it proved to graphic artists everywhere that the world was ready for a new kind of hero. In fact, Frank Miller's portrayal of the character as a dark and compulsive figure has dominated most Batman projects to at least some degree.

Interestingly, it is this grim and grit that attracts me, and so many others to the Dark Knight. In the comic, Batman's extreme and obsessive actions are a direct result of his overcompensating for his guilt over giving up his life as Batman ten years ago and thus breaking his childhood vow to wage war against crime. His deep self-loathing, dark depression and general apathetic nature make him a relatable human being. He is a social outcast who wears a constant façade in order to convince those around him that he is not seeping into insanity. It is clear from the first pages of chapter one however that Bruce Wayne is clearly a repressed individual. It is fun to fashion oneself as a man faster than a speeding bullet… but that kind of entertainment is fleeting. How many real world problems can be remedied by chiseled abs and a cleft chin.

Anyway… enough of the fan boy and on to the good stuff:

One of my favorite aspects of the latter half the story, are the interactions between Batman and Superman. Superman and Batman live in near opposite universes. Superman is so humble, well mannered, nationalistic and unapologetically faultless, that he can be seen as a kind of caricature of himself. But Batman fights actual mob bosses, defuses bombs, and is unapologetically flawed. This Batman graphic novel even blatantly satirized Ronald Reagan and David Letterman, real people in our actual universe. Both Sups and Bats are revered in different ways, have different morals, solve problems differently and confront different types of problems. It is then unsurprising that when the two interact, tensions flare.

Interestingly, I could not find a single use of the words ‘superman’ in the entire series. U.S. officials always refer to Superman as "Kent", while Batman refers to him as Clark (and only refers to Green Arrow as Oliver).  I would argue that the super-heroes look upon their relationship with ordinary humans as a "them" and "us" situation. But with each other, they loose the conventionalism and address each other as peers. This makes the climactic fight between Batman and Superman a truly heart-wrenching spectacle. These aren’t just ex-teammates that have become too idealistically different…  they used to be friends.

I look forward to re-reading the Watchmen this week!  

Batman the Blank Slate

In many ways the first Batman comic is similar to the first Superman and Wonder Woman comics, but in one subtle way stands out. I didn’t notice it when I read the comic, but looking back I realized that there is no romantic interest introduced in the first issue. Superman has Lois and Wonder Woman has Steve, but Batman is alone. Batman is initially presented as a solitary figure and not much else besides the fact that he is rich is known about his personal life. Even Superman, and especially Wonder Woman, had some level of backstory. Of course in later issues Batman’s origin story is explored and he is even given a fiancé out of nowhere, who is of course immediately put into peril, in the fifth issue. Still, Batman’s solitude is part of what shrouds him in mystery, but also makes him seem flat in the beginning. Batman in some respects is more of a blank slate than Superman and Wonder Woman, which is why I think Batman more than other superheroes is able to be portrayed drastically different in the comics and on the screen. Darker interpretations fit Batman just as well as campy ones. 

We discussed in class some of the Christian imagery in The Dark Knight Returns, specifically references to the Pietà (end of the Batman vs. Superman fight) and the cross (page 27). The weather, at least at the beginning, could also function as one. The heat wave is referenced very often in the TV (framing?) narration. The heat rises as violence and disorder in Gotham increases and Bruce's personal stress escalates.  The heat wave breaks with a strong storm, at the same time as Batman starts to disrupt the growing crime wave. The weatherman describes the storm as "like the wrath of God...headed for Gotham," paralleling Miller's portrayal of Batman's return. His reappearance (to cleanse Gotham of crime/sin) specifically during a downpour parallels the story of the flood and further reinforces the narrative of Batman as an angry, godlike force.

False Idols

          Like many of his contemporaries, Batman has seen many iterations, changing to better suit his audience. Superheros are a product of the time in which they exist, and Batman is no exception. He still fights for justice, addressing current problems. However, most of the popular superhero comics shifted their frame of reference only slightly, allowing for a modern audience to connect with the material but preserving the intention. I do not think Batman experienced change in the same way as his contemporaries. Batman of old seems to be an entirely different entity with very few consistencies outside of basic plot elements and his name. Nearly every other elements seems to have shifted, including character motivation, art style and intention.
          As far as character motivation, Batman started out as a father-like character. He's always used fairly violent tactics, but he was subdued into an acceptable role model in order to fulfill cultural expectations. He fought with Robin, a child, for whom he served as a mentor and father-figure. The original use of guns was eventually phased out, a feature explained by the shooting death of Wayne's parents. However, in much more recent comics, he has returned to morally ambiguous violence. Robin does not serve as a foil for the child reader nearly as much in modern comics either, removing batman's responsibility to set an example for him.
          The art style used in order to construct the comics has drastically changed as well. There have been general changes over time in the way comics are drawn, including a transition to digital media. Aside from the obvious larger shifts in the industry, Batman comics in particular have shifted style fairly drastically. Originally the dark noir style was tempered by a heavy dose of camp and kitsch. Recently, the moral ambiguity present in the comics has pushed the art more towards straight noir style, even bordering on classic horror comics.
          These changes are related to the intention of the comics. The contrast between the development of Wonder Woman, Batman and Superman is not a coincidence. Superman and Wonder Woman did not provide a good pathway for expressing the post modern fascination with the destruction of iconic idols. Batman allowed for the writers to explore a much darker side of comics. It came with a built in noir element, the pre-existing vigilante story and crazy villains with the ability to cross the valley between a normal comic book baddie and something very sinister and morally much more challenging. Batman provided an excellent opportunity for the writers to bring the superhero into the 20th/21st century consciousness. The delicate interplay of personal vendetta and justice seeking was only possible in a hero like Batman. However, this means that over time, Batman changed more than other superheros. The reconstruction of Batman over time creates a similar story with a totally different intention.

The Serious Joker

Something that struck me while reading the original Batman comics was the first introduction of the Joker. I was mostly interested in his first appearance on page 142.  Our first real introduction is a dark image of him sitting solemnly in a black throne in the center of the page.  Having been exposed to the Joker through movies and cartoons, I know him as hysterical villain who cannot stop smiling.  I thought that this introduction to him in the comics was very out of character.  For a villain who uses games and tricks to commit crimes, it seems odd to first introduce him as this solemn figure.  He is described as having "hate-filled eyes".


While this one panel seems particularly out of character for the Joker, he does fall into the role we are used to seeing on the next page.We talked in class about how he is one of the first introductions to "super-villains", or costumed villains that are superhuman in some way.  I thought maybe because the readers at the time were not used to a villain like the Joker, the cartoonist had to draw him in a light that readers probably were used to at the time.  This way the reader could be eased into this eccentric character.

Need More Violence

I was surprised to discover that this Batman is much different compared to the Batman that I’m more familiar with. Granted, I’ve never read any Batman comic books, but it still appears that the current character has progressed significantly since the time of Batman Chronicles 1. It was mostly Batman’s stance on violence that struck me. Contrary to his current role as “ethical vigilante,” he was cruel and vicious in these comics. The awesome neck-breaking panel was surprisingly morbid, and there are countless scenes where Batman puts villains into chokeholds or headlocks, kicks them, punches them, or throws tables at them. On page 109, Batman straddles a villain and starts beating the life out of him. His tactics seem more gangster-esque than they are in the current Batman films. If Batman were still this way, I could imagine Quentin Tarantino making an incredible film about this character – the type of movie that my mom would walk out on.

I had no idea Batman used to be this way, and wonder at point he transformed into the virtuous, no-killing hero he is today. Clearly, I wish he hadn’t changed. Other parts of the comic, such as the outlandish plot lines, felt dated and monotonous. I’m glad they progressed. As well as the Film Noir type of art, which is definitely not my aesthetic. But I think everyone needs some catharsis in their life, and an updated version of this Batman would serve us all well.

It's Way Past Time You Learned What It Means To Be a Man

That was what Batman said to Superman in his head in the last panel on page 190.

What I really like about Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns is how he exaggerates the characteristics of each character in the book, the not-too-hidden easter eggs, and not to mention of course, his art.

So what is it about this book that intrigues me that much? Maybe its the way I secretly thought the characters would end up, but had always hated to admit to the possibility.
Harvey Dent- he would finally get a new face. But with all those years as Two-Face, his mind has been completely distorted. With his hidden evil side maybe fully exposed for all those years, his new face is just a way to escalate his evilness- completely good on the outside, and completely bad on the inside.
Joker- even in the first book, Joker had always been portrayed as the evil knight that fights against the dark knight. The knight in shining arm with a blood-dripping sword in his hand, in the same way as Batman, battling for what he truly believes in. He is the counterpart to the hero. After all those years of quiescence, his "evil crime" button is finally reactivated after he hears news of the reappearance of Batman.
Catwoman- becomes in charge of an escort company. For me, I never fully agreed with how Selina and Bruce would end up happily ever after and have kids. In my mind, Catwoman is just way to independent to rely on a man and be trapped in the spell of love. Of course, after she gets old, she would probably do something that she had done in her earlier years- be pretty and steal from rich people, only this time she has other young girls to do it for her, and that others actually pay her for the girls.

Main characters-
Superman- As a die hard DC fan, Superman has always been my least favorite character. I even can say that I love the majority of the villains more than Superman. Of course, there would be another war between Superman and Batman: their beliefs are different. Growing up in a loving family, living where the crime rate is lower and the authority figures are so much less "compromised," and have women faun over you and not have to worry about it, the big boy scout has never been truly exposed to the evil in this world. Bruce knows what is out there is rotten. The fight between the two heroes (which of course Bruce wins ALL THE TIME, thank god) only strengthens the bond between the two. However, his goody-two-shoes attitude towards life, is what really irritates me the most.


Another thing that I wanted to mention was the "easter eggs."
One of which, people may be puzzled with the most: why was Selina dressed in a Wonder Women suit?
Answer: The easy answer is that the Joker wants to send a message to the super hero, that he should be careful because the Joker is finally on the prowl now. Wonder Woman, along with Superman and Batman are the three main founding figures of the Justice League and that they are the main characters in the DC world. Another thing, and many may not know- if you have spend countless nights binge reading DC comics like me, you would know that in one version of the story, Bruce Wayne actually has a romantic relationship/attraction with Diana. Joker is using this to send another "romantic" message.


This comic is a true piece of art. The panel transitions, the perspectives, and even the words. What hit me the most was when Bruce was recapping the scene of the murder where his parents died (P22-26): by using moment to moment panel transitions, it seems as if time has slowed down, or even stopped. With the simple use of cold colors and black, it becomes a very powerful scene.
Even on page 36, first "panel," the flying car is drawn inside of the words, making the outlines of the word the border of the panel.

It was because of the solid character buildup, the unique techniques, and the twists in plot and secret messages, the comic book becomes really attractive and sucks the audience right in. This is the comic book that I need to learn from.

Dark Knight v. Batman Chronicles

When I begun to read the Dark Knight I was confused about what was going on because there was so much going visually as well as in the text. I also found myself comparing it to the Fox show Gotham that is based off of how Batman came to be. The Dark Knight relates more towards the show because of the darkness in the graphics and there being a clear storyline versus in the Batman Chronicles that starts off with action first before we get the storyline.

The graphics in the Dark Knight are also simply beautiful in relation to detail. The color palette is so vivid and dark depending on the page unlike the Batman Chronicles the color palette is primary and complementary colors. In the Dark Knight the page itself is either all light or all dark while in the Batman Chronicles  the darkness and lightness varies per panel that is not visually pleasing to the eye. The simplicity in the text however makes the transition between panels easier to read.

Gotham

I have to assume that Bob Kane and Bill Finger intended for their character and his adventures to be something of an answer to Action Comics' Superman stories.  The early Bat-Man comics take place in a city that is identified only as 'a metropolis.'  Though this calls to mind the name of Superman's home city, the location is almost immediately identified as quite different than 'Metropolis.'  Superman appears to live and work in an American city like any other.  He battles relatively benign crime and is surrounded by people that resemble real world Americans.  Batman's unnamed metropolis is a decidedly uncanny locale.  The comics are not only drawn in more detail than Superman's early adventures, but this detail is also typically unusual.  Kane's characters and locations are often expressionist in ways that reminded me of the EC Crime Comics.  Especially evil characters are drawn with exaggerated features that seem to emphasize their villainy.  The evildoers plans are also far closer to what modern readers might expect of 'supervillains.'  I was struck by how boring most of Superman's early adventures were.  For the most part, Batman's escapades involve more heightened happenings and are far more interesting.   Wild Art-Deco architecture (20), garish costuming (120 and elsewhere) and oddly-colored backgrounds (14, 52, 133) are a fixture.  Such distinctive qualities continue to define Gotham and help to differentiate it from other locations within the DC Universe.  Batman's world, whether campy (the 60s television show and Schumacher's films), oppressively dark (Miller and Nolan), or somewhere in-between (Burton) is always outlandish.

On an unrelated note, I think it's only a matter of time before The Dark Knight Returns suffers an especially harsh critical backlash.  Given Miller's recent antics and the poor responses to work like The Dark Knight Strikes Again, the backlash seems to be underway.  Along with the fascistic bent of his recent output, Miller is largely responsible for superhero cinema's recent reliance on all things gritty.  It is unlikely that films as blandly dark and ashamed of their source material as Man of Steel or the new Fantastic Four would have come to fruition without Miller's tortured take on Bruce Wayne.  What was originally a novel take on Batman has become a crutch for superhero fiction of all types.

Batman's Landscape

A striking distinction between The Batman Chronicles and The Dark Knight Returns, lies in the difference in background detail between the two comics. In the earlier Batman comics, many of the panel backgrounds were simply uniformly colored with the inclusion of whatever objects were necessary to the plot. On the other hand, many of the panels in The Dark Knight Returns contain rich background detail that serves to compliment the visible action.

In the case of the earlier Batman comics, perhaps the most striking feature of the various panel backgrounds is their color and inconsistency. Despite all occurring within the same room, the first three panels on page 4 all have remarkably different colored backgrounds. Beyond simply introducing bright colors so that the comic may catch the eye of potential buyers, the different colors also serve to direct the reader's attention to characters present. In the first panel of the second row the blue background directs attention to Bruce Wayne's brightly colored suit, while the subsequent brightly colored background clearly distinguishes the white suit of Commissioner Gordon. A similar situation also occurs on page 143 in the middle row of panels. The orange background of the first panel obscures the orange suit of the man to draw attention to the clock, while the green background of the next panel draws the readers attention back to the dying man. In this way, the author uses the coloring of his panels to draw attention to the actions and characters present within them.

In The Dark Knight Returns the use of bright, unrealistic, colors is far less prevalent, with much more detailed and realistic backgrounds taking it's place. The end result is that the atmosphere of the comic is far more realistic than its flashy and lighthearted predecessor. This effect makes sense since the work itself is far darker and more serious than the earlier Batman comics. Batman is no longer the infallible, albeit sometimes gimmicky, hero of his youth, but instead, he finds his older and weaker self more at odds with the city around him than ever before. In this way, the increased detail given to the world he is so desperately fighting against further define his struggle.

In conclusion, while the minimalist and inconsistent nature of the panel backgrounds in The Batman Chronicles serves to emphasis the events present in the story, the darker and more realistic backgrounds of The Dark Knight Returns add to the atmosphere and themes of the work as well as the narrative.

Not What I Expected

Before reading The Batman Chronicles the only exposure I had to the iconographic Batman was through watching Christopher Nolan's, The Dark Knight (2008). While reading the first installment of the comic I was most surprised by the color scheme, which creates the 'campy' depiction we've described in class. I found that the color of Batman's costume in contrast to the setting in many of the panels, particularly the background color, served to make Batman look out of place instead of accentuating his dark and brooding persona. I had anticipated a dark, color scheme that accentuated a noir story, but found that Bob Kane's color choices sometimes contradicted with the story being told. The comic looks to be made for young readers, in which children can live vicariously through Batman's adventures. Personally I prefer a darker version, more in-line with The Dark Knight (2008) that I am used to.

We We Like the Joker

I believe, having discussed this with many of my peers, that the Joker is one of the most universally liked Batman villains, which his continued presence in both the comics and film adaptations certainly support. While he often comes across as less goal-oriented or driven than a lot of other Batman villains (sporadic murders and the propulsion of chaos), he is also the most similar to Batman. In the Batman Chronicles Vol. 1, the Joker is first introduced to the readers as he broods in a large, ostentatious home by himself, which parallels Bruce Wayne's own habits. Both individuals also lack a focus in their purposes. Batman works as an ambassador of general goodwill, while the Joker works to cause scattered chaos through the city of Gotham. Both individuals are incredibly intelligent as well, often working to outsmart each other, rather than best the other in strength, making their battles much more stimulating to read. Additionally, the artistic comparisons of the two yield an engaging tension-while Batman is a force for good, he is shown in dark blues and grays, often cloaked in shadow. The Joker, meanwhile, wears bright purple suits, has green hair, and clownish makeup-and we rarely see him in shadow. Artistically, readers might almost assume that Batman was the villain to Joker's hero. This interesting dichotomy between the two parallels the tension between Bruce Wayne and his alter ego, further linking the two. The Joker's similarities to Batman provide a tension that more effectively engages readers in the development of the two characters.

Developing readership

Even though Superman and Batman are very similar in their artistic and writing styles, I enjoyed reading Batman over Superman. I particularly liked how Kane and Finger built the readership as the story went on. For example, there is not a detailed introduction of who Batman is or his role in society in the beginning of the story. However, as more issues come out, his family story and his reasons for his actions are explained in detail. I feel like this method of developing on the protagonist as the story goes on makes the audience more engaged in reading the comics, as they will be be able to practice a closure by constantly wondering about the backstory or predicting about future events. Even though the readers are more engaged in the story, Batman, who is not born with a superpower and whose morality is a little bit ambiguous, is not a character that the young readers can easily identify with or that the readers can look up to. Then, Kane and Finger brings in the character, Robin, the wonder boy, who represents the marginalized groups in society. Since Robin is considered to be more cheerful and innocent than Batman, it’s easier for the readers to identify with Robin more than with Batman. Furthermore, bringing in Robin into the story makes the story more dynamic and interesting. I think that Kane and Finger’s style of story outline and introducing new characters when needed is what makes Batman so much interesting than Superman.

Our Dark and Broody Batman

"Where the hell is Alfred?!" was one of my first thoughts after reading through The Batman Chronicles along with, "Where is my dark and broody Batman?!"

Batman is what Superman couldn't be - the dark, detective vigilante. But since the purpose of his creation was to be what Superman was not, Batman still ended up with some of the original Superman qualities. Maybe it was due to the time period, maybe it was because it was still the beginnings of superhero comics, but Batman had cheesy, campy lines like Superman did.

This contradicts with what most of us know and love of Batman. In Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, he is serious, broody, a man of few words (although he does a lot of "talking" through his thought balloons of analyzing and reflecting). I have to appreciate the original comics because that's where he started and evolved to what he is now.

In order for Batman to be his true angsty self, he needs his Robin and his Alfred. They help lighten the mood and provide a positive outlook where Batman can't. Robin, as we discussed in class, is supposed to be Robin-Hood-esque, and if we keep going with this idea, Robin is the squire to Batman the "Dark Knight". We see several Robins come and go, and they all are young and passionate to give us that optimism. Alfred Pennyworth evolves from a bumbling detective/comedic foil to Bruce Wayne's family butler. He comes with a bunch of skills as an actor, medic, spy, and guardian. Bruce would pretty much be dead without him. Basically, Alfred becomes Bruce's father figure when his parents are murdered, and later Robin fills the role of a son. This mismatched family not only provides some comic relief with Alfred's sarcasm and Robin's childish defiance but is a necessary one. Batman goes around with a "I don't need anyone" attitude," but in reality, everyone needs a support system. He wouldn't be the same. We can't have our Batman without our Alfred and our Robin.

Moon shine

The Moon and the Sun have always been objects that have been revered by humans. Needless to say, people have been assisted by the light provided by the moon at night, and the sun during the day. Because of the significance these two objects have in the lives of people, they have been related to religion and super natural beliefs. The Batman (or Bat-Man) series takes advantage of people's preconceived ideas of the moon and apply it to the significance of Batman. Batman is the knight of the dark who appears from shadows to bring justice to the city of gotham. The usage of moon in the background of panels highlights the significance of Batman and how he is considered as a hero of gotham. In addition, the moon is used as if it were a spotlight in a theater. Whereas everything at night is dark, the moon resides behind the mysterious figure of Batman and leads the readers to focus their attention on the hero. The moon is used not only to shape people's perceptions of Batman, but to draw their attention to him.

Vulnerability is Strength

While Batman doesn't have the same super powers as Superman, he does have sort of excess of power. When he punches or kicks men off of roofs or out of windows, he does so as a result of his physical power over these men. Kane and Finger show Batman's superhuman status through a physical prowess that not even Batman can control. The idea of power out of control echoes again as Batman swings through the air breaking Mikhail's neck with a on page 34.

To add danger and suspense, Kane and Finger add vulnerability to Batman as the story progresses. Early on, Batman only flees men with guns temporarily, often returning to beat them up once the threat of their gun has been distracted. He only gets captured by traps or magic towards the middle of the Chronicle, and only overpowered by people knocking him out from behind.

By the time the reader gets to the end of the Chronicle, they find the Joker, who stand toe to toe with Batman physically. Finger and Kane have learned a new way to showcase Batman's power. The caped crusader has a more accessible super power; tenaciousness. Batman has taken beatings and always comes back. While he loses fights to Dr. Strange's giants and Joker in their respective stories, he triumphs in the end. 

Whereas Kane and finger attempted to make a character similar to Superman in power at the beginning of their comics, it appears they learned something along the way. By differentiating Batman from Superman, he becomes a more successful character. Batman's vulnerability is his strength.

Ironic

It is now clear where the title 'the big blue boyscout' comes from. Superman is clearly portrayed as a puppet for the government in this epic comic: Dark Knight Part IV. It is exciting to see Miller's portrayal of both characters. I have always seen Superman as the hero who more often than not opposed the radical and extreme actions of the government although he made an effort not to become an enemy. Although I am more unfamiliar with batman, (I only recently started reading some recent comics on him) I see him as the character who is cautious of superman's abilities and power and also more trusting of the human race. That being said, it is more plausible for him to fight for the government or for humanity. But it seems that they have switched roles in the Dark Knight and it is interesting to see how Miller plays with this idea.

Dark vs. Light in "Batman"

Batman is my favorite superhero we have encountered thus far. There are a few reasons for which I enjoyed this comic more than Superman, Wonder Woman, and the X-Men. As a socialite, Batman, unlike the previous Goddess, news reporter, and mutant, seems less contrived (since, as a socialist, he has the time to develop his physical superiority and the money to produce effective tools). Moreover, I appreciate the complexity of dark and light implemented via various aspects of the symbolism, art, and characters. The symbol of the bat, knight, and moon are especially resonant. As we have discussed, there is a duality presented via the bat and the moon. Batman's cape facilitates a bat-like silhouette, and his x-ray goggles are reminiscent of bat vision. Furthermore, the concept of the knight fits in with the Bruce Wayne's quintessential nature. Lastly, the prominence of the moon in numerous compositions, emphasizes Batman as a man of the night, which heightens the importance of darkness despite the bright color scheme. The art is equally complex, as it integrates aspect of camp, with darker elements. I especially found that the art in The Dark Night Returns was somewhat reminiscent of Tardi's ligne-clair (I could be wrong).  I saw more of an emphasis on setting and furthermore the color scheme was limited within scenes, and also toned down. This seemed to accentuate the grim (similar to the grim view of corruption in Paris) time through which Gotham and Bruce Wayne were both suffering. Lastly, emphasis on the villains as important and even likable/entertaining characters produced a complexity that was missing in the previous superhero stories (in Superman and Wonder Woman only the heroes were recurring). I agree with the majority of audiences in finding the joker a captivating and essential part of the Batman series and it seems that in developing the heroes relationship to the villain, there is greater character (on both sides) and plot complexity. Although good always prevails, there is a more realistic depiction of evil.

Batman as Sherlocke?

I would probably compare the original art style of The Bat-Man Chronicles to the original Supermans. However, whereas Superman seemed to remain stagnated in style, The Bat-Man Chronicles definitely grew to be more dynamic in terms of color and anatomy. The characters all start out as blob like, but by the end in The Bat-Man Chronicles, they become a lot more defined.

There are also definite references that I saw in the beginnings to a Sherlocke Holmes type of figure- especially the way that Bruce Wayne is depicted smoking a pipe- although this might be just a product of the times and something that is not as significant as I want to think it is. I think the fact that Batman is supposed to represent a person who works the with police to actually solve crimes, rather than delivering an abstract justice,  makes the Sherlocke interpretation work and adds more interest than the chaotic lawful that is Superman.

Batman Iconography

Some first things I noticed from reading the first couple of pages is the increased complexity, like we’ve seen in the newer X-Men issues, of the comic sequence. Now, no longer are panels just next to each other, but often inserted within one another, placed behind or in front of one another and call to be read in a specific way. The first page includes a lot of really close action-to-action closures which are visually very iconic and distinct. Some panels are small and used to resemble different types of media, such as television. There is a mixture of inserted splash pages with smaller panels and beautiful full-width shots which provide the comic with a cinematic experience. There are some really dynamic shots of Batman.

            I can see a continuation of the noir element in Batman, as the opening scenes as well as most of the comic is shrouded in black shadows. It is interesting to see a continuation of the panel color schemes; each page seems to have a different color scheme. Sometimes this is done purposefully to represent different sequences such as dreams.

            Reading through the book, what’s also unique of Frank Miller is his ability to juxtapose two scenes or multiple scenes at the same time, something that is not as possible or effective on screen. Specifically, at pages 49-51, readers can visually see the two scenes and are able to look back and forth between the television and Dent as well as Batman’s actions. When the two collide, the effect is powerful.

            Frank Miller also engages with the reader in a completely different type of interaction. By having readers physically turn the book upside down to read it, when the Batman returns, heightens the reader’s interaction and engagement with the novel. It is almost as if we are entering the perspective of Batman. Reading this section upside down immediately points to its significance.

            There’s something to be said about the ‘cinematography’ of the sequence and art direction by the artists. They play with icons very well; even looking at the cover, the distinct black shape of Batman’s cowl fills up the entire cover. Two triangle shapes for eyes and pointed edges identify the figure as Batman, looming over the detailed figures in the bottom half of the cover. Being able to simplify Batman’s entire essence into simple shapes or symbols is what is so important to make the ‘identity’ of the superhero an icon. Being able to recognize this in the sky, on the news or even a signature on a letter with these shapes is a powerful tool for Batman to use over Gotham, a tool to know his departure or return to enforcing justice and his pursuit to battle wrongdoing. 

Past Batman and Batman's Past

It's almost impossible not to be familiar with Batman today. Through countless media iterations and revisions, the character has reached iconic status. Batman persists as a cultural artifact in part because of his backstory; the tragedy gives justification and depth to what would otherwise be a ridiculous premise. We talked in class about the exclusion of the backstory in the early issues of Batman, and professor Serrano began the discussion with an interesting challenge: try to approach Batman as though you were unfamiliar with the character and were seeing him for the first time. Personally, I don't think such a thing is possible, and it made me  wonder about the role of backstory in the creation of the character. To what extent was the tragic backstory always a part of Batman? There are no hints of it in the first few issues and the tone of 'Batman the detective' seems entirely at odds with the tone of 'Batman, the orphan driven to compulsively pursue justice through unresolved grief and guilt.' It's a drastic departure, and what I realized when I tried to approach Batman with fresh eyes is that I can't read that in the original presentation of the character. It's something that I have to read into the character.

Authorial intent is difficult to navigate in any circumstance, but the Batman mythos becomes complicated by the fact that, for part of his existence, his backstory was unknown. Obviously there's a huge precedent for gradually uncovering the background of a character. Yet as Collin pointed out, it's difficult to tell when the backstory entered into the question. Was it there from the beginning or created after the character gained traction? Would Batman have had the same backstory if the comics hadn't gained popularity so rapidly, or would he have remained a static character? Did Kane and Finger create the character with depth in mind, or at least, with a space for depth to be created, given the chance? Since questioning authorial intent often devolves into these pointless rhetorical questions, it is perhaps more constructive to look at how we come to grasp the Batman legacy and mythology. At least for modern readers, encountering early Batman becomes an exercise in trying to retroactively project his origin story into the character in the complete absence of any evidence or indication that we should. The early Batman stories almost work better without the backstory because we don't encounter the cognitive dissonance of trying to "uncover" the extended narrative in the first appearances of the character. But not only is this almost impossible for anyone with any familiarity with the character, it almost seems to do disservice to Batman's status as an icon: trying to omit the origin story from our understanding is removing an integral part of Batman-hood. Like in Tezuka's "Hell," the image comes to acquire and enforce certain meanings as takes its place in cultural parlance.

Batman's Iconography

The first few issues of Batman are an interesting mix of characteristics that we generally associate with the character and other details that seem very much out of place. Batman is established as the vigilante of the night and we at least have the beginnings of the technology that he is now associated with. For the most part I could see the building blocks for what the character has become. However, in other instances there were details that seemed out of place. Most prominently I found myself distracted by the fact that Batman (in full costume) would jump in his red sports car as a means of transportation. The juxtaposition between the character that was being developed and his mode of transportation seemed absurd to the point where it was humorous. On a side note I was also surprised that the Bat-plane was introduced before the Bat-mobile. The initial issues of Batman offer a general framework for the progression of the character but are void of much of the defining details that we now associate with the Dark Knight.

Costuming in Batman

Hi, all! When reading Batman earlier in the week, one of the first things that struck me is the way in which Batman's costume becomes a central character in the stories and affirms the superhuman qualities of this "ordinary" socialite. Without the costume, Batman wouldn't be a superhero, and I suspect the comics wouldn't have had nearly as large an appeal.

I think it's worthwhile to note how Batman's costuming differs from that of other superheroes whose comics we have read earlier on in the semester. Whereas Superman or Wonder Woman's costumes clearly break the mold of normal, every day attire, they still stay well within the realm of what is considered "human" or "natural." We don't look at Superman's silhouette behind a full moon and say "what is that?"

Batman's attire, on the other hand, draws inspiration from the inhuman, from the "other." I believe this is what elevates him to the status of a Superhero, and is necessary for his larger-than-life ability, especially given the fact that he doesn't have any intrinsic super-human abilities.

The costuming of Batman also ties in to the mystery, Dr.-Jeckyll-Mr.-Hyde appeal to the comic we discussed in class. If Batman didn't appear (at least visually) as more bat than man, the mystery and intrigue behind the superhero would be lost.

Batman's identity

My final essay is about how a superhero's identity is created, and looking at Batman has given me a lot of ideas. Especially because Batman isn't given his origin story right away, it's interesting to see how Batman's hero identity is created. Most notable is his costume: it's the first thing we see on the cover page and title page, and the fact that it looks like something familiar (a bat) also engrains it in our minds. From there, there's the element of secrecy- the mystery of who batman is. All the other characters add to this mystery and awe of the superhero. I've explored the idea how Western superheroes are often about concepts: they're about the idea of a superhero rather than an individual person. In this case, I think batman supports this theory: Batman is all about the noir, and I think Batman the superhero works towards this: although Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same person, the differences between the superhero and his alter-ego are staggering. This separates the superhero from the individual Bruce Wayne. Batman is a dark figure who shows up when the action begins and disappears when it ends: he's always on a mission. Bruce Wayne is the guy adds some motive and personality to Batman. To me, Batman is literally an action figure. The separation between superhero and alter-ego means that superheroes only deal with life-threatening important issues- they don't deal with day-to-day life. In class we talked about how Batman's entire physical looks and costume differ from Bruce Wayne: less dorky, less refined, more rough, more muscular, more emotional. Although Batman is human, he doesn't deal with normal human issues.

Uncomfortably Similiar

Uncomfortably Similar

     As we learned in class today, Robert Kane (and Bill Finger) was commissioned to create a comic in parallel to that of Superman. Having read Batman Chronicles before knowing this and feeling that there was something fishy going on with respect to how similar the two comics are, this piece of information confirms my suspicion. Now, having the knowledge that the Batman Chronicles were written with the intention of imitating Superman and looking back at the chronicles, the amount of similarities between the two become more and more evident to me in seemingly all aspects of the comics.

     When we studied Superman earlier this semester, one of the main takeaways from the narrative was with respect to Superman's invincibility. Because there was never a fear for Superman's safety, the audience would never have a reason to doubt Superman's success and would lose any feelings of suspense or thrill that a typical action/superhero narrative would provide and rendered the stories quite boring. While you could probably make the argument that for really any superhero story 99.9% of the time the protagonist/superhero succeeds in the end and the audience should never truly fear the character's demise, I felt a very similar sentiment with Batman as we all did with Superman. Despite the fact that Batman is in fact a human and isn't physically indestructible, he is protected by all of the gadgets and money he has to support him. As Professor Serrano said in class today with respect to comparing Bruce Wayne/Batman's money to Superman's physical prowess, "pick your poison", as they virtually function to the same "invincible" effect. However, for me at least, the main difference between the two characters' that lead me to much prefer Batman was in their personas: Superman is a corny goody two-shoes while Batman has a bit of a clever, sadistic side to him.

     Furthermore, while I found most of the artistry of the two comics to be uncomfortably similar, I was particularly struck by the similarities between Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent. As Colin pointed out today in class, Bruce Wayne looks exactly like what one would imagine a 1940's superhero's alter-ego to just as Clark Kent does. As I'm now looking back at panels from some of the Superman comics we read earlier this semester that depict Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent appear nearly identical: if you put the two's side by side in front me (and took off Clark's glasses), I don't think I'd be able to tell the two apart.

     While of course Batman has an important place in comics and in history, after doing a more detailed comparison of the two and revealing how closely similar they are, I'm lead to believe that Batman was primarily created as a cash cow after seeing the success and popularity of Superman. Were the publishers of DC simply trying to squeeze out every dollar they could from this genre, or were they genuinely trying to appeal to a more refined audience of the superhero genre?

The rise of the super villain

Batman is cool and all, but it's really the super-villains we drool over in the batman lore and these super villains appear early and often in the first few Batman Detective comics. Superman and Wonderwoman felt generic because there were no super enemies to fight. Superman has all these crazy powers, yet he finds himself fighting petty crime that blurs from one strip to the next. And his one villain was a dude named "Ultra-Humanite". If that's the name an evil genius wracks his brain to come up with, then I question his genius. Batman's villains were distinctive and creative. Doctor Death, The Monk, and even villains popular today like Hugo Strange and The Joker helped differentiate one story from another and didn't force the audience to focus on Batman. The villains were all crazy, and the various death traps and ways the tried to kill Batman were out there. The duc tried to spin Batman to death, one of my favorite attempts. It's always amusing to see how bad villains are at actually killing good guys. Batman, on the other hand, seems to have no problem with it. Some of the villains come across as goofy, and Batman might be the scariest character of the lot excluding the Joker with his smiling to die gimmick.

 Seeing what characters had sticking power is interesting, and even Batman's fiancee whatsername doesn't seem to make the cut and Batman's little red hotrod has transitioned into a blacker Batmobile. The Joker, however, has arguably  achieved more fame than the Batman himself and looks almost identical to how he was first drawn. There's proof if you ever go to ComicCon. 

Does Batman Belong in a Flower Patch?

Before enrolling in this class, I knew very little of superheroes. I had never read a comic book and I had only seen three movies about superheroes, a list including The Incredibles and Sky High. The third movie I have seen is The Dark Knight, not because I was particularly interested in Batman but because ever since watching 10 Things I Hate About You in middle school, I had fallen in love with Heath Ledger.

Based solely off the knowledge I had gained from that film, I expected the Batman comic to be fairly dark, featuring  a brooding hero, and a city in constantly darkened by crime. Thus, imagine my surprise when I came across vampires and werewolves, among other magical elements.

In the film, Gotham felt like a real city, similar to say to Detroit or my home of Cleveland. The crimes, although seemingly never-ending, were believable. Yet, the Batman Chronicles appears to have a supernatural edge.

The issue that I find to be the most bizarre of the collection is issue number 34 of Detective Comics in which Batman stumbles across a faceless man. The faceless man alone left me puzzled, but then comes along a garden of talking flowers, the faces of attractive women imbedded in their petals.

What?

With his dark costume, Batman seems very out of place in a colorful garden, as if he had been thrown into the pages of Alice in Wonderland unexpectedly. Then to have the flowers speak with advice that sounds like it was pulled from a fortune cookie? I honestly began to wonder whether or not the writers had taken some kind of drug while brainstorming the plot for this particular Batman episode.

I'm curious to know when Batman transitioned from this kooky, fairy-tale like world to a comic with a darker and more realistic tone, and why that decision was made.

Origin Stories and First Issues

       I brought this up briefly in class today but I figured I'd expand on it a bit in a blog. I'm interested in the fact that in both Superman's and Batman's first issue, there's a distinct lack of origin story. When I first noticed this discrepancy, I felt like it was nonsensical that the first issues of these stories would not start immediately at the beginning of their stories. Beyond that, at least in Superman's first issue the reader gets some explanation as to what Superman can do (ie. his powers explained fairly extensively); in Detective Comics #27, all the reader gets is that "Bat-Man" is "mysterious and adventurous", that he fights crime, and that no one knows who he is (although we basically figure it out in the first couple of pages). No explanation as to why he chose to dress up in a bat-like costume, no talk about him moving in the shadows, no details regarding his utility belt or even how he got acrobatic. All this comes in later issues, but like with Superman, there's a bit of a disconnect when you read about this hero developing out of nowhere and saving the world.

       When I brought this up in class, Colin said that the reason the respective authors decided to leave out the origin stories for the first issues of these superheroes is that they wanted to hook the readers with action right away, and not spend time on an origin story that could possibly turn off potential readers. I think this is the most logical reason for leaving out the origin stories from the first issues of these superhero comics. I think another thing to remember is that these stories were usually just one per the larger issue (ie. Detective Comics) and therefor the artists/writers only had so much space to make their characters/stories pop off the page and separate it from the other stories in the issue. However, I am interested therefor in how the creators of these comics chose when to reveal the origin stories to the readers. Especially considering there were no ongoing storylines throughout all the individual stories, there was no logical place to interject the origin story. Were they waiting until they got word back on how popular their comics were? Considering the Superman origin story didn't come until far after it's first handful of issues, I find this answer troubling.

It also is important to touch on the fact that Wonder Woman had her origin story in the first issue, bucking the trend of the male superheroes. Prof. Serrano suggested that this was because Wonder Woman's power had to be justified in that era in order for her to be respected, and I agree with that assessment. However, the success of Wonder Woman makes an argument that the origin story could lead to intriguing new possible readers. Especially for Batman, if it was revealed in the beginning that he was an orphan hell-bent on destroying the evil that killed his parents, that could have been a great way to bring in some intrigue and separation between his character and others.

The Importance of Gear

    Batman, as I think we all can agree, is the superhero whose power is money. If not for his ability to research and/or purchase his numerous special gadgets, Bruce Wayne would just be a normal person without the means or the capability to fight against crime. And though this aspect of his character becomes most apparent in the modern film adaptations, its seeds can be seen as early as in the comic's third installment.
    When Batman decides to face off against Dr. Death, he seems to pay particular attention to the devices he brings with him. On page 19 there are two panels (the second and third in the second row) that portray Bruce looking at two pieces of equipment: his smoke pellets and suction gloves.  Not only are there panels dedicated to Batman gearing up, but they seem to be centered around the objects, each constructing panel to draw our eyes toward the gadgets. This use of composition seems to hint at an overarching importance of accessory not seen in a character yet.
    Ultimately, I think this focus on Batman's gadgets has two specific consequences. First, it gives rise to the non-super hero. From this point, powers are not required to fight crime outside the law, and the audience gains a character closer to their perspective. Granted this creates a problem of othering between "normal" superheroes and those with powers, but that seems to be dealt with in some part (as we have seen) by the X-men series.
    Secondly, by giving Batman so many cool things, the opportunity for merchandising expands drastically. Now instead of selling just a Batman costume, as would be a similar case with Superman, companies can sell individual pieces of gear. Eventually, this impetus snowballs into the mountains of superhero merchandise we see today. And it's all thanks to a rich kid with a keen sense of justice.

The Question of the Faceless Man

While reading through these original Batman comics, one particular individual stood out to me: The faceless Charles from Detective Comics #34.  At first I did a double take and assumed that this individual, simply referred to as "Charles," was the superhero known as the Question.  I had been exposed to the Question through the Justice League Unlimited TV show when I was younger and later learned more about him through his appearances in comic books.  I always liked his character, but only knew his secret identity to be that of Vic Sage, so I assumed that this character was a precursor or template for the Question to appear later on in comics.  But I didn't think he was the actual Question.

However, when I researched the Question to see if his creator took inspiration from this Batman comic, I found that Vic Sage was actually short for "Charles Victor Szasz."  Essentially, this faceless, trench-coat wearing man named Charles could very well be the very first time comic readers actually see the Question, even though his first appearance is cited as being in Blue Beetle #1 (1967).

I find it very interesting how this character in Detective Comics #34 was potentially re-purposed into becoming an iconic hero that has been featured in many comics over the decades and on TV.  We talk about how characters evolve over time through various artists and writers, and the differences in Batman from these early comics to his current portrayal certainly testifies to how much characters change.  I find it very interesting how often these side characters like Charles are overlooked, even when they have the potential to be recreated into something iconic and beloved by fans years later.

Batman Vs. Superman

Reading the Batman Chronicles, I couldn't help but compare these to the previously read Superman Chronicles. Maybe its the familiarity of the two heroes or the similarity in the style of the chronicled stories, but I immediately started comparing the two. Overall, I noticed some major differences between Batman and Superman.

Batman obviously has no powers, a fact in itself giving him a sense of vulnerability, however, this fact is reinforced throughout Batman's stories. Batman even gets shot in one of the early stories, representing his mortality. I felt when reading Superman that his powers made him a somewhat one dimensional character in that he had little to no conflict. With Batman, the character is often put in legitimate danger, having to escape using his skill and wits. This allows for a richer and more engaging story.

In addition, the introduction of actual, and often colorful, villains helps to add some depth to the stories. Where Superman is able to dominate his adversaries who are typically human, the introduction of characters like the Joker prove to be legitimate antagonists and allow, once again for actual conflict.

Finally, the introduction of Robin the boy wonder allows for a more relatable story. With a character that could believably, in theory, be the reader, I'd like to imagine that younger readers would be more engaged and feel more connected to the stories. Superman was an adult who had a job and a life, something many children couldn't relate with, whereas Robin is just a boy with merely the responsibilities of a boy.

Repetition

Tatsumi's short stories are definitely the darkest we have read this semester. There are persistent themes of isolation, impotence or emasculation, and the taboo, as well as a general feeling of being trapped. Tatsumi pursues a similar strategy to Tezuka in the use of stock characters in multiple short stories, both in terms of characters' faces and their situations (for example, repeated stories about older men dealing with some form of emasculation or shame). The repetition of simple faces casts these characters as everymen and implies the commonality of the negative emotions and bad situations experienced. It also adds to the general bleak tone of the collection. Faces repeat just as themes tend to repeat, without a break in the cycle.