The Dark Knight Returns
1986
Frank Miller
Frank Miller (pencils), Klaus Janson (inking), Lyn Varley (colors)
**********
Pros: Witty Dialogue, Themes, Originality
Cons: Uneven Artwork, Some Unfortunate Implications, Not Great as an Adaptation
In my younger days, I would have preferred Alan Moore to Frank Miller. The former’s subversion of simplistic heroism seemed to be a wiser choice than the “fascism” (though I never took that accusation seriously) of the latter. In retrospect, such cynicism has reinforced society’s problems Any commoner is shamed out of mere aspirations to heroism while those who run society drive it further into the ground through a combination of corruption, cowardice, and well-meaning action. This was obviously far more reasonable than Moore’s “literally Nazis” assessment in V for Vendetta, and it was terribly prescient.
The Gotham of Dark Knight Returns’ future is even more hopeless than ever. People live in perpetual fear of a violent gang known as the Mutants. Like many people when faced with evidence that their utopian policies have failed, the leadership of Gotham is only concerned with a denial resulting in increasingly damaging acts. When Bruce Wayne has had enough and comes out of retirement as Batman, they expend more energy denouncing him that the problems that he’s responding to, despite their failures' inspiring him to take action. It’s anarcho-tyranny. The remarkably fat and short mayor seems to representative of weak men’s creating hard times. The story, however, manages to make them human, although Gallagher seems to be an exception.
In Washington you see an aged Ronald Reagan as he drives America into nuclear disaster by pushing a proxy war. I don’t like the use of such an obvious figure in a Batman comic, but it’s easier to appreciate after seeing the light on neoconservativism.
Less sympathetic is Dr. Bartholomew Wolper, a psychiatrist with a burning hatred for the Caped Crusader. His annoying sophism is most apparent in which he describes how Batman allegedly influenced supervillains best he can when the term “meme” was not yet popular (this logic was deconstructed in a BTAS episode). He fails to cure Two-Face of his insanity, allowing him to rampage near the beginning of the room. Finally, his trust of the Joker gets him killed.
Meanwhile, Superman has become an acquiescent tool of the government, fighting their wars while remaining too guarded to help his people very much. This is akin to how good men historically served their country militarily despite knowing how wrong that country is. There’s another good theme in that Batman defeats him in battle to demonstrated that we can win against the powerful, but that only works because Superman is holding back. I’m not much of a Snyder fan, but it makes more sense for Batman in that movie to eliminate a potential threat to humanity while taking advantage of his opponent’s restraint; he’s not doing it out of pride, and he reasonably concludes that all Superman would need to wipe out humanity without our being able to do anything about is a change of heart. I also believe that this slandering of Supes is yet another reason this be better as an original story.
The one scene that does seem “fascist” is the moment in which Gordon waxes nostalgic over FDR. Even when allowing the possibility that he “knew” about Pearl Harbor beforehand, Gordon believes he was great because he was a charismatic leader and therefore beyond questioning. This is ironic considering the comic’s apparent anti-war arc.
I don’t buy into the “all art is political” complaint, but the Batman franchise hinges upon myth and archetype to the extent that politics don’t work for it, even politics I may agree with. Oddly enough, despite its right-wing nature, Dark Knight Returns is surprisingly hoplophobic. This just makes it a sign of the times; gun control is one of the few issues in which the Overton window has shifted rightward.
The plot is original and complex, with Batman’s dealing with multiple threats assisted by the likable new Robin, Carrie Kelley. Once again, one complaint I have is that it’s not a very good Batman story. Batman is uncharacteristically brutal and sadistic, and I'm not a fan of his often schizophrenic reflections. Another problem is that the Joker is practically humorless. He doesn’t tell a single joke unless you interpret it as excessively dry wit. This would have been better as an original work.
The dialogue is very witty. While Alan Moore’s is more naturalistic, this book is almost poetic; I’d love to see Miller’s interpretation of Dr. Doom. The noir-style narration is great because it is well written enough to impress me who has been trained by cartoons to interpret the trope as a joke. There’s also a future slang that Miller has developed in a way that’s natural, unforced, and original. The younger characters speak like this almost constantly; it’s not just a technical term every once in a while. This graphic novel also features news broadcasts to add context, another thing which would work better an original story because they take one of the mythos of the franchise. These sequences take advantage of the comic medium since the fit better in it. This intuition of mine is reinforced by Bruce’s half-crazy self-reflections.
The plot is engaging, but there is one absurd moment in which a plane crashes into a building, causing every car in the vicinity to explode from merely being glanced at by flying shrapnel. It's odd to see the Pinto Effect's being played straight as opposed to being used stylistically or ironically.
My biggest complaint about the book is the artwork. It seems to be designed for stylish splash pages in that Miller’s lineart can vary from good to amateurish. The coloring feels incomplete. I’m also not a fan of how Batman is shaped like Wolverine.
Overall, Dark Knight Returns is a creative, and insightful, and entertaining political work, and it has a very good animated adaptation.
