Author |
Topic: When Heroes Kill (Read 856 times) |
|
Nick
member is offline
Gender: 
Posts: 550
|
 |
When Heroes Kill
« Thread started on: Nov 9th, 2011, 01:31am » |
|
We're all very aware that every now and again a big deal gets made about Bruce's vow never to kill, to save all life no matter what the cost (such as The Joker many times) and he expects everyone else to adhere to this rule. But it's also pretty obvious that this gets thrown out of the window from time to time. I thought it would be interesting to compile a list of times when our heroes have actively killed, or refused to save someone which has led to their death.
We'll stick to modern Post-Crisis Continuity pieces here because Batman killed a few back in 1939 when his character was still being formed (and also because The All Star Goddamned Batman killed a few). We wont include Post-Resurrection Jason Todd because he is not classed as a hero. Also, I'm hesitant to include things like Blockbuster's death in Nightwing #93 because Dick's internal monologue is screaming for him to stop it, but he's just so physically exhausted he doesn't manage it. So while he blamed himself for not stopping it, he wasn't actively willing Blockbuster to die or simply just not caring at his moment of inaction.
This list compiles occasions I can think of where heroes have actively killed, or just shown blatant disregard for life for whatever reason:
Bruce Wayne
- Left Ted to bleed and freeze to death in Tenses. While not explicitly shown to die, the chances of survivial are absolutely minimal and it is strongly hinted he was always going to die in the snow by his premonition showing a skeleton in the exact same position we last see Ted.
- Leaves KGBeast to rot in Ten Nights Of The Beast. It is implied that Batman knows the Beast will escape on his own, and later retconned that he alerted the Police of where The Beast was trapped and he had in fact escaped.
- Stabs Ra's Al Ghul through the chest in Hush, fully expecting his followers to put him in a Lazarus Pit, but it was never a 100% guarentee surely.
- Goes around destroying Lazarus Pits so Ra's eventually dies in Death And The Maidens. Should it really count because Ra's should have died centuries ago anyway, Batman was just giving nature a little hand. And sadly Ra's still came back again anyway. 
- Throws a dying Joker into a dumpster in Batman & Son, the Joker is later saved.
- Kills a number of people in RIP. But he is The Batman Of Zurr En Arr at the time and is even more crazy than normal. But then this was his own self created back up personality "Batman Safe Mode" as it were, so arguably being an absolute nut-job was his responsibility.
- Shoots Darkseid in Final Crisis. The dying Darkseid is then exploded by Superman.
- Is about to shoot Joe Chill himself in Year Two but The Reaper pulls the trigger on Chill first / Drives Chill to suicide in Joe Chill In Hell. Doesn't matter which version you prefer to choose, either way it's well established Joe Chill murdered the Wayne's and their son would have directly caused his death regardless of The Reaper's involvement.
- I swear there are many many more. I remember one story where he is relentless haunting some petty crook so much he directly drives the guy to suicide. I forget what story this is, and there is a chance it is not even Canon anyway. If anybody recalls it, let us know! Most likely a Joker Henchman in Ego (Remembered by Snipe)
- Wants to kill The Joker and leaves him to die in a helicopter explosion in A Death In The Family (Remembered by Will)
- Shoots up a mafia acolyte with a machine gun in The Cult (Thanks again Will)
- Gotham Knights #74 suggests that Batman left The Joker's deadly pacemaker inside Hush for The Joker to kill him at any time. At the end of the issue he walks away as The Joker approaches, leaving him to deal with Hush however he sees fit. It is suggested in the internal monologue that he is leaving Hush to die, and this event is later referenced in Heart Of Hush from Elliot's own monologue reiterating the same opinion.
- In Blink (Legends Of The Dark Knight #158) he throws an Overweight Henchman into the path of machine gun fire. Could be interpreted as the other Henchmen's faults for opening fire on their colleague because they were scared and trigger happy. Nonetheless, Batman throws him directly into gunfire.
- Three kills in Jeckyll & Hyde. I personally believe this book was never intended to be a Continuity book so the rules were loose. I include it here simply for those who choose to accept it. See the discussion for details of the three killed by Batman.
Dick Grayson
- Beats The Joker to death in Joker: Last Laugh. The Joker is later revived.
- I distinctly remember an incident Post OYL when Dick let someone die that he could have easily saved, it was just like with Blockbuster. I forget whether it was in his book, or after he became Batman. But I really noticed at the time the way it was just glossed over and never mentioned again, especially considering how big a plot point it was in Devin Grayson's run. For some reason my brain is saying it was towards the end in either Wolfman or Tomasi's run but I can't say that with any certainty.
Damian Wayne
- Beheads The Spook in Batman & Son.
- Throws a blade right through the head of Otto Netz in Lethiathan Strikes, he thinks it is the only way to save his father.
Jason Todd
- Makes no effort to save a Suicide Bomber in Ten Nights Of The Beast, kicking him out of the way so he only blows himself up. Could Jason have saved him? Honestly I'm not sure on that one.
- Believed to have dropped Felipe Garzonas to his death in Batman #424 (I think). Later referenced in A Death In The Family and in Gotham Knights (again I think).
Selina Kyle
- Knocks Stan The Pimp to his death in Her Sister's Keeper. Ambigious whether this was intended because the art clearly shows she is diving to save her sister and knock him out of the way. Nonetheless has no remorse for his death.
- Lets Black Mask fall to his apparent death in Relentless. Although Black Mask survives, she later finishes the job.
- Shot Black Mask point blank in the head. Catwoman #52. She really wanted him dead.
Jean-Paul Valley
- Allows Abbatoir to fall to his death and therefore his victim also to die in Knightquest: The Crusade.
- Numerous more thereafter as both Batman and Azrael.
---
I'm sure there are many many many more cases I haven't remembered or just don't know about - especially with Bruce, I think he's killed or let more than a few people die. Particularly that driving a guy to suicide one that is bugging me.
Please add more guys! I'll edit into this post if I think of some more.
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 2nd, 2012, 01:01am by Nick » |
 Logged
|
|
|
|
Will
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 602
|
|
Re: When Heroes Kill
« Reply #1 on: Nov 9th, 2011, 06:26am » |
|
on Nov 9th, 2011, 01:31am, Nick wrote:| We'll stick to modern Post-Crisis Continuity pieces here because Batman killed a few back in 1939 when his character was still being formed (and also because The All Star Goddamned Batman killed a few). |
|
Not to hijack what cold prove to be an interesting dialogue, but I do find it striking that we have no real idea what, where or when...counts. Not any longer.
I think this is a cogent point because we really have no basis for what is in-character, or even what the character's past is. There is no Crisis, so there's the possibility that events from 1939 matter as much as those from 1989. Maybe more, depending on editorial.
There's an opportunity to explore these ideas further, and have greater backstory through retconning. I doubt it, because the killing code actually seems like one of the more agreeable pieces; it's there because it's convenient, and the exploration of cause&effect from within or without is of little consequence.
I thought O'Neil did some interesting work exploring it, even if it was only in the margins or suggestively most of the time, from Shaman through Knightsend.
Shaman is about the power of spiritualism, symbolism and ritualistic acts. In that sense, though it is a bit dry and even stilted in some of its characterization, it does work both as a thematic forebear to the Knights trilogy (to the extent of End[/u] exploring the idea of the symbol being totally separated from the man in its opening stages) and as a question of motif versus psychology: how does the very logical Bruce Wayne come to embrace the idea of dressing up as a bat?
With Miller, the idea was illustrative through the starkness of action, environment and thought: this Bruce Wayne is not all there. In fact, by so directly referencing Scorsese's [i]Taxi Driver, it's obvious that both Bruce Wayne and Gotham are on the brink.
The segue is close to deus ex machina, with Wayne near suicide, itself another interesting dichotomy in both psychology and canon: the story that all of post-Crisis Batman was built from, comes from an author that is obsessed with the character's fatalism. The same character that refuses to take a life is willing to bleed out if he can't pursue his obsession.
That the bat comes to him saves his life, figuratively and literally. This is the notion O'Neil weaves into Shaman, as the first strains of subversion toward Miller's Year One. A figurative death? Fine. But the idea that Wayne is willing to give up on his life altogether is quietly done away with.
And in the process, O'Neil has to find a new psychological basis with the bat motif underlying or driving.
So the spiritual aspect becomes more important in the loss of the psychological. Though Miller clearly understands the power of symbols, and explores the idea in both Year One and Dark Knight, he positions the character's spiritual journey as a equal to his psychology, creating a confluence where Wayne is something primal and animalistic, trying to find a way to express this power.
Shaman is the idea of divergent pieces coming together; though it structurally and geographically shows Wayne searching for a means to become what he eventually becomes, his psychological profile doesn't match up. He's smart, yes. But almost too logical. The need for a mental break -- the obsession and rage needed to make such an illogical leap -- is never provided.
Which creates a new paradigm. Whether one agrees or disagree (I fall closer to the latter), but arguing a lack of psychosis Wayne becomes an almost passive voice. The Bat seeks him more than he does it, suggesting the power is fated.
In that way, the O'Neil retrofit origin for post-Crisis is almost typical for the superhero comic, at least to one side. Bruce Wayne suddenly doesn't choose this as much as it chooses him. The balance of Miller is undone, and the idea of psychological drive is undercut, while spiritual literalization becomes the thematic drive for the story as well as the key to Batman's existence.
The overall narrative is dedicated to the man and the bat becoming one. Before that happens, even while Wayne wears the costume, there are moments where he doesn't have control.
This shown at the end of the first issue. Though clumsy in its dialogue, it works in presenting the power of the symbol. A power that is beyond Bruce Wayne, both spiritually and in his understanding. When the young girl kills herself in fear of the motif, the point is made.
And in some way,, it's an example of Batman causing a death. It also creates a decent standard for O'Neil's view of the character: death as an issue of control. This is also the driving force in the work he did on Venom (another exploration/attack on the character presented by Miller, I believe). The idea of what weakness means, in different contexts, and how to find balance (justice?).
Though Knightfall, etc are the "big" event that Shaman (and other work, by other authors) helped create, I do think that O'Neil's best work on the subject was Venom. Batman devolves into a bully, and the material works because it's so organic in exploring addiction and the near-homicidal maniac that results; it feels honest and far less forced than any of the other work O'Neil provided during the period, even while its agenda is largely the same.
It's the best rejoinder he provided against Miller's viewpoint. A pity that Knightfall wasn't nearly as successful.
Quote:| - Throws a dying Joker into a dumpster in Batman & Son, the Joker is later saved. |
|
This is a vague one, isn't it? That's not a critique of you or its inclusion, but the larger scale of the killing policy itself: how can Batman really know whether his nightly actions will or will not cause death? What's the real standard?
Statement. Safe sentiment. That's the real point, from DC's viewpoint. Batman's? It's almost beside the point even as it is the point, amazingly. Intent matters. But so does result.
The latter is ignored while the former is pushed.
Back to this scene, I felt it was as much an artistic statement by Morrison as any type of physical one. Scratch that. More important and present as an artistic statement.
Note that before the dumpster scene, Morrison presents a "dark" Batman/Joker confrontation/splash/scenario that is so ridiculous that it's a parody. And that's the point: that the Joker-as-killing-machine had become risible.
The sequence ends with Batman throwing the Joker in a dumpster. To me that was a meta-statement, that not only was the Joker garbage but also that those who had written many of the "darkest" Joker Stories were presenting the audience trash, best thrown away.
Quote:Damian Wayne
- Beheads The Spook in Batman & Son. |
|
Damian strikes me, and this may be tangential to the topic, as Morrison's version of Miller's Dick Grayson.
Quote:Jason Todd
- Makes no effort to save a Suicide Bomber in Ten Nights Of The Beast, kicking him out of the way so he only blows himself up. Could Jason have saved him? Honestly I'm not sure on that one. |
|
Agreed.
So far as Jason, and as regards intent, Batman wants the Joker dead, and tries to kill him at the conclusion of A Death in the Family. I'd have to look through it again, but the issue of collateral may be present.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 550
|
|
Re: When Heroes Kill
« Reply #2 on: Nov 9th, 2011, 11:26am » |
|
As always, a pleasure to read your analyses.
What I was defining as "Continuity" was 1986-2011 Post Crisis-Flashpoint. DC's Continuity has always been chaotic at best, but Flashpoint threw it right into DiDio's maelstrom so we may as well stick to the time when it made the most sense it ever has. Not that I'm going to even attempt to impose absolute rules (because DC are incapable of doing it and they produce this stuff), but more general guidelines I suppose. So generally it's material published 1986-2011, and flashback tales that plugged the Year One-Jason gaps published in this era such as certain LotDK stories, The Long Halloween, Robin/Nightwing/Batgirl Year Ones, Fortunate Son, you know, all that good stuff. 
The reason I chose that particular incident from Batman & Son is because we've seen numerous times Batman actually aggressively fighting to save Joker's life - such as LotDK #200. Not only is the first page a full splash of The Batman bursting into a hospital, cradling Joker in a crudely drawn homage to the iconing Aparo A Death In The Family splash of the lifeless Todd, but The Batman is ordering that all the dying patients will have to wait until The Joker has been saved.
Counterpoint that with a Joker that has been shot point blank in the head. Does The Batman keep the man secure so the paramedics can follow their best practice procedures to save the man's life? The chances of death are through the roof, the chances of severe brain damage or paralysis if he survives a near guarentee... Nope, he picks him up in yet another full page homage to that iconic Aparo splash, walks over to a dumpster, and throws him right in there full force. That said to me (from a character perspective rather than metatextual) The Batman to be saying 'this is where he belongs, let him rot'.
Indeed Batman does want Joker dead at the end of A Death In The Family, but I chose not to include just the wanting of someone dead, because I think this would go on forever. Likewise I didn't include things like in Knightfall how Batman would have killed Zsasz if Montoya hadn't stopped him, because despite his rage I don't think he was actually trying to kill Zsasz.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm looking for times when someone has died because the hero chose not to save them, or the hero has out and out killed them.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 9th, 2011, 11:30am by Nick » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
snipe
Administrator
member is offline
Master Dick
Gender:
Posts: 1695
|
|
Re: When Heroes Kill
« Reply #3 on: Nov 9th, 2011, 3:37pm » |
|
on Nov 9th, 2011, 01:31am, Nick wrote: - I swear there are many many more. I remember one story where he is relentless haunting some petty crook so much he directly drives the guy to suicide. I forget what story this is, and there is a chance it is not even Canon anyway. If anybody recalls it, let us know!
|
|
Ego by Darwyn Cooke methinks. Former Joker henchman, right?
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 550
|
|
Re: When Heroes Kill
« Reply #4 on: Nov 10th, 2011, 12:59pm » |
|
I had a quick flick through Ego, and that does appear to fit my description, so it quite possibly was that, cheers! 
I also thought maybe I was thinking about Joe Chill In Hell, which suggests that Batman's handing the gun to chill was soon followed by Chill's suicide. Without trying to get into yet another Continuity discussion (which seems inevitable), the inclusion of this is debatable. The depiction of Chill is much is line with his story from the early 1940s Pre-Crisis version. So whether you accept it as a subconscious flashback, or a flat out hallucination all depends on whether you want to include Year Two. The much altered Year Two depiction of Chill still fits with the backstory Morrison gave in RIP, but doesn't fit with the Joe Chill In Hell chapter of The Black Glove. Personally I never bothered with Zero Hour (or Mini Flashpoint as it shall be known) so I've always kept Year Two on my shelf and always kept Joe Chill as the identified Wayne murderer. Anyway, if we accept Year Two, Bruce would have shot Joe Chill if The Reaper hadn't got in there first. So either way, if you want to go with Morrison's hallucination/flashback(?) version or the 1990s updated Year Two version, we can add Joe Chill to the list.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 10th, 2011, 1:01pm by Nick » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
Geekchic
member is offline
Gender: 
Posts: 16
|
|
Re: When Heroes Kill
« Reply #5 on: Nov 12th, 2011, 5:31pm » |
|
This is an interesting thread, I am reading alot of 86 - 11 stuff at the mo so I will keep an eye out !
Delly x
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Will
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 602
|
|
Re: When Heroes Kill
« Reply #6 on: Nov 14th, 2011, 07:31am » |
|
on Nov 9th, 2011, 11:26am, Nick wrote:| As always, a pleasure to read your analyses. |
|
I've always said you have taste.
Quote:| The reason I chose that particular incident from Batman & Son is because we've seen numerous times Batman actually aggressively fighting to save Joker's life - such as LotDK #200. Not only is the first page a full splash of The Batman bursting into a hospital, cradling Joker in a crudely drawn homage to the iconing Aparo A Death In The Family splash of the lifeless Todd, but The Batman is ordering that all the dying patients will have to wait until The Joker has been saved. |
|
I haven't read the LOTDK issue.
It does put a point, maybe an exclamation, on the outright perversity of the Joker/Batman dyad, and perhaps the killing code as well. At least from your outline. It also suggests that the Joker is more important and intrinsic to Batman than any ally.
Obviously the Joker gives a great marketing purpose to Batman, and is simply a great character. This is perhaps the most major reason why Batman can't kill him, or any other villain.
But, in-narrative, the point is rather dollars and "sense", too: if Batman destroys his enemies, particularly the weird ones, does he continue to have a casus belli?
Anyway, it's one way to look at it, both as a cynical narrative bandaid and from a psychological vantage.
Within the strata of Batman-as-Control-Freak, I see an argument from both sides, but I tend to think that killing a character like the Joker would give our favorite freak more fascist bang for the buck.
Quote:| Counterpoint that with a Joker that has been shot point blank in the head. Does The Batman keep the man secure so the paramedics can follow their best practice procedures to save the man's life? The chances of death are through the roof, the chances of severe brain damage or paralysis if he survives a near guarentee... Nope, he picks him up in yet another full page homage to that iconic Aparo splash, walks over to a dumpster, and throws him right in there full force. That said to me (from a character perspective rather than metatextual) The Batman to be saying 'this is where he belongs, let him rot'. |
|
Very good points. I won't argue against them, because I don't think there's a very reasonable case to be made.
The only point I'd put across is in support or in addendum, and that is the contrast here -- what strikes me is that Batman's no-killing code, especially as relates to the Joker, is almost a bad joke or the truest sign of a character, if not world, that has a moral outlook so reductive it's insane. The absolute need to save the Joker, again and again, plays out like some kind of Love Conquers All romantic trope in its extremes.
By showing the Joker to be so heinous, and the Batman to be little more than a self-righteous nut that is altogether obsessed with his own creed, many of these stories are both frail and anticlimactic. BrokeBat Mountain.
I think that the point, from editorial, may be accidental. That they want the shock without the fallout, cause without effect, and in so doing they create stories that advertise Batman's "morality" as THE out for all of the Joker's OTT Evil du jour (possibly matched to Gordon's De jure/legalese, no matter which family member is maimed or murdered). At some point Batman becomes complicit.
The problem is that the Joker is the ultimate proof that Gordon's system doesn't work and that Batman doesn't provide the remedy for such corruption or subversion, and through poor story-craft often enables it.
That's criticism of what has come. But it's also an opportunity for analysis, or future storytelling as selfsame.
Quote:| Indeed Batman does want Joker dead at the end of A Death In The Family, but I chose not to include just the wanting of someone dead, because I think this would go on forever. |
|
But I think that, by the end, he intends to kill. Or at least to leave him for dead.
Which is very much what he does. By the standard of Jean Paul Valley or Batman Begins, Batman's actions leave little doubt.
Batman's thoughts also point to this:
"The final showdown between the Joker and myself. [...] One of us is going to die."
"Let there be an end to it! No more!"
Likewise, Starlin creates a scenario that is a microcosm for the Batman of that era, and the choice that he makes in regards to the Joker. Though allegory is intrinsic to high-concept fiction, Starlin's era -- on the coattails of Miller, arguably -- is also very literal in its thematic structure, often taking real-world topics and inserting a guy in a bat-suit into the proceedings. In that way, it's a world away -- many worlds away, in the post-crisis sense -- from what Grant Morrison has alluded to and appreciates about the fifties.
While logistically and logically A Death in the Family is a bit too contrived (and therefore starts to break down or move into a realm of more direct thematic analysis rather than strict/simplistic plot-logic or cohesion), the story pays off well, and even logically, within the standards of socio-political-drama-from-thematic-outline.
It pushes the Batman to, well, intend to kill the Joker, as the thematic outline becomes international lawlessness matched to international "law". It creates a scenario where Batman's vigilante nature comes more to the fore in place of the "super"hero assumption of so many decades prior, and it creates a greater tension as far as Batman's motives and his relationship with the Joker.
The irony of the zeitgeist, and Starlin's part in it, is that Jason Todd's death was publicly presented as a referendum on his volatility and darkness, when the truer point -- beyond marketability (that may be a really bad starting point, or impossibility) -- for however short a time, may have been that Batman was being presented and explored in such a way that Robin was an impediment, both in psychological structuring and so far as overall tonal value.
Quote:I guess what I'm saying is that I'm looking for times when someone has died because the hero chose not to save them, or the hero has out and out killed them.
|
|
Cool with me.
At the same time, by the implied standard of grant morrison's Joker "death", I'd argue for the climax of Family.
Either way, I have at least one to add to the list. In the opening for book two of The Cult, Batman kills at least one mafia acolyte with a machine gun while hallucinating that he's murdering Two-Face.
It begs the question of control, but id-like intent is there matched to gruesome outcome.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 14th, 2011, 07:59am by Will » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 550
|
|
Re: When Heroes Kill
« Reply #7 on: Nov 14th, 2011, 08:40am » |
|
I had a look at the last page or two of A Death In The Family, and I am gonna go with it! I had remembered it that Batman was shouting for Superman to rescue The Joker from the water. But no, firstly the inner monologue "Farewell, old foe!" to me suggests a term of endearment, and suspected death. But the art clearly shows Batman could have grabbed The Joker before diving out. Then he is actually commanding Superman to find the "body", fully expecting The Joker to be dead. So yes, I'm going with it, he left The Joker to die in the helicopter explosion.
Obviously the real world reason for keeping The Joker around is exactly as you say. But I think you make a good point about the narrative reason for keeping him around. It has long been clear to me that The Joker regards The Batman as his best friend. All of his crimes are just games to him, he simply wants to have fun and play with his best friend. It just so happens that The Joker's idea of fun is a little different to most people, so fortunately he has an equally (if not more) abnormal best friend who also wants to play with him. On one side we have The Batman - the eight year old boy in a man's body. On the other side there is The Joker - the crazy clown hosting the birthday party. And round and around they go. Funny, how in a way, The Joker has the more maturely developed viewpoint on the world than The Batman who sees justice through the eyes of a child.
I think The Batman knows that The Joker is the only one insane enough to truly understand him. He's known for years the Bruce Wayne IS Batman. He's probably known since A Death In The Family, for all we know he worked it out sooner. But why tell? Why ruin the fun? Take away The Batman, take away his entire reason for living. Concepts that have been explored very differently in A Dark Knight Returns, Going Sane, and Batgirl (1997 one shot). In Batgirl The Joker is truly saddened when he thinks he's finally killed his friend. To me, Going Sane is one of the most beautiful and tragic of all the Joker portrayals. Take away the insane incurable catalyst in his life that goes by the name The Batman, and The Joker is nothing more than a kind and caring man that only wants to love, and to be loved.
I like your argument. The Batman and The Joker both keep each other around out of necessity.
What I will add is this little concept: Let's say for argument someone blew up Arkham Asylum, but this time killed everyone inside. Without Joker, without Two-Face, without all these insane costumed lunatics. What happens when it's just the lunatic dressed as a bat hopping around? There's nobody left to make him look like the normal one. And if there's nobody he can convince himself is even more insane than him, what becomes of his horribly violent manifestations of his psychosis that he has been relying on for so long? I know Snipe hates Tenses; but I always loved this story for showing the sheer rage he has boiling up inside of him. Without people like The Joker as an outlet for this psychotic rage, what really would happen?... Ironic that this in turn has lead to the deaths of countless thousands. The Batman needs innocents to die because he needs his mission. If Bruce Wayne let himself bleed to death that night in his study this would be a really empty forum how many hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved?
But back to the point: Take away The Joker and The Batman would still be just as insane, perhaps even more so. Take away The Batman and The Joker stops his crimes entirely - Whether that be Miller's catatonic Joker, or J.M DeMatteis kind and loving man. Who's the more insane? My money is that it's not The Joker.
These themes were to a degree explored in Tim Burton's Batman. And despite the lack of The Joker in the sequel, themes that were expertly explored in Returns with Schreck, Penguin, and Catwoman all used to explore different aspects of a fractured psyche. "You're just jealous I'm a genuine freak and you have to wear a mask!" / "You might be right." Pretty much says it all.
I would say that the theme of why The Joker keeps Batman alive was rather clumsily illustrated in Nolan's The Dark Knight. And as discussed in the movie thread, the reverse as to Batman's no killing policy even more clumsily explored.
---
Good call on The Cult. Another Jim Starlin. I see a theme developing here. Must re-read that sometime, I absolutely loved the scene where Todd finds Batman laughing away on the mountain of rotting corpses in the sewer. Priceless.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 14th, 2011, 08:52am by Nick » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
Will
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 602
|
|
Re: When Heroes Kill
« Reply #8 on: Nov 25th, 2011, 10:14am » |
|
It's notable, isn't it, that the two ways this is approached is either through self-righteousness (denial) or through more realistic psychological structures; by the second standard, the result, eso- or exoteric, explicit or implicit, is almost(?) always the same: that Batman is largely as sick as the Joker.
I think the closest we get to a conflation of both standards is in Miller's work, particularly DKR. Even as Dr. Wolper is a liberal hypocrite, present to excuse the actions of monsters as those of another class of victim, the point made about Batman influencing people, and creating insanity, is undeniable: the Joker as catatonic David Bowie, then resurrected as Bette Davis in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, makes this perversely clear.
The Joker of Miller is sexualised constantly, as the feminine balance to Batman on those scales: the thrill of violent vigilantism versus anarchic mass-murder. The two are not only archetypal in a Apollonian/Dionysian dualism, but even more explicitly as male/female counterweights as far as sex&violence.
Miller's Batman is a primal alpha male, his psycho-sexual id thrills at being Batman rather than pretending it's strictly a burden.
His Joker takes the archetype and outline of discursive pleasure-seeking sociopath and explicates these values as purely feminine.
In that way, we can see Miller's worldview in miniature: the societal structure as misandry that must be swept away.
Miller's portrayal of a young Bruce Wayne as Travis Bickle in Year One, or a scene that recalls Bernie Goetz in Dark Knight. are more sympathetic to such a viewpoint than is palatable in today's Hollywood context, even as they line up to translate the material.
Similarly, and returning to death as explicit theme, Bruce Wayne's obsession with a "good death" is rooted in both a sense of living for the thrill and honorably, with Miller marrying his Batman to vigilante killers and John Wayne.
I suppose the closest analog would be Charles Bronson in Death Wish.
There are other points you bring up that I want to go further into detail on, but I'll do that later.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 25th, 2011, 10:16am by Will » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 550
|
|
Re: When Heroes Kill
« Reply #9 on: Dec 6th, 2011, 12:03am » |
|
I've edited in Gotham Knights #74 to the original post. While it isn't ever 100% confirmed, really it seems the most likely possibility to me.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TurkeyMoose
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 150
|
|
Re: When Heroes Kill
« Reply #10 on: Dec 6th, 2011, 04:54am » |
|
Superman killed three genocidal alien beings in a story in the early 90s, which eventually lead to his self-imposed exile from Earth because of his guilt. Also, Superman killed Doomsday in The Death of Superman.
Chapter 7 of the 10-part Batman & Superman: World's Finest story is set shortly after Jason Todd has been killed and Superman has just come back from his exile, and Superman flies Batman out to Kansas and they have a deep conversation about when it might be okay to kill. Superman's battle with Doomsday is foreshadowed when Batman asks what he would do against such a destructive monster, and Superman admits that he would kill it, so he is conscious of this decision.
Here's an excerpt of the dialogue.
Superman: After Joker murdered Robin, and the two of you were fighting in that helicopter... you jumped out before it crashed, but you didn't take Joker with you. You wanted the crash to kill him, didn't you?
Batman: I barely got out myself. If I'd tried to save that grinning ghoul, we both would've died.
Superman: What if it was the other way around? What if you were certain you were going to die? One hand chained to a bomb about to explode. No way to escape... and in your other hand-- Joker. Do you let him go, so he can live and kill again... or do you hold onto him?
Batman: (pauses) It wouldn't happen. There's always a way out.
But since we're dealing with hypotheticals-- What if you were in a similar position...faced with a relentless, destructive force that annihilates everything and everyone in its path. Including you. The only way to stop it is to kill it. Do you?
Superman: If it was the only way? Yes. I'd bring it down with my last breath.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 6th, 2011, 9:34pm by TurkeyMoose » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
Will
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 602
|
|
Re: When Heroes Kill
« Reply #11 on: Dec 21st, 2011, 01:33am » |
|
RE: Joker/Batman dyad as inextricably tied.
The more I've thought about it, the more Miller's DKSA portrayal of Dick Grayson makes a certain amount of sense to me, as a meta statement on Batman's supporting cast.
Winick, like so many before him, also rips off the idea in mainline continuity with the atrocious Jason Todd idea.
And that is, the over-arcing obsession and subservience both Robins and the Joker feel in their relationship with Batman.
The homosexualized Grayson as the new Joker, then, makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Thrown aside, ignored by Wayne when he's done with him -- in an odd way, like a powerful man that prefers pre-teen girls, the Batman has to have a new, young sidekick every few years -- it becomes a media examination, as Miller is wont to do (the media as mode of narrative-construct, and reflected ridicule, is a major part of Miller's Batman work), and parody of both the genre and its critics (Wertham?).
In-narrative, as a continuity statement, I don't believe that Miller meant for Batman to be seen as a literal pederast or gay.
But Grayson's psychology certainly seems to lean that way. The point seems to be relevance. How can an older Robin be relevant to this Batman?
Now we understand Miller's point to the other side, at least. Is Robin a natural or relatable idea in a modern, harder-edged comic narrative? And if not, how could he re-ascend?
And in attempting to do that, does a writer ultimately de-evolve the character and even debase him?
Psychological needs become media-analysis, then, where we see Grayson as a Joker replacement because of the knowledge that this relationship -- of murder, mayhem and sado-masochism -- is more important to the main character than his sidekicks. Dick's only function is to be important or noticeable to his mentor. Becoming his greatest nemesis achieves the goal, both within character logic and with the paradigm of modern culture-as-media conflation.
Winick does the same thing, though in a far more destructive, sensationalistic and, thus, plainly recycled manner. Instead of becoming the Joker -- a character that cannot be replaced in regular continuity -- Jason Todd becomes his masked alter-ego.
While poorly-written between writers, and arguably by Winick himself, the character makes a bit of sense in his incoherency. Not just because of the psychological "damage" (the character should still be dead, you assholes), but also through his chosen mantle. The Red Hood is a tabula rasa figure. He's who the Joker was before, and we really have no idea who that is.
So, we have a soap resurrection to top all soap operas, and even most Marvel resurrections. It's pitiful and it's sanitized.
And ripped off from Frank Miller sequel of questionable quality. Still, dumbing it down.
But thanks to the pedigree -- even if it only took the sado-masochistic violence from Miller's original, eschewing other ideas -- it at least makes a bit of sense.
It's up for the award of "worst idea ever" in modern Batman continuity, yes. But it makes a bit more sense to me now.
And from this revelation, I think I have less respect for Winick.
Hack, hack, hack! It's flu season.
Of note is that Miller was making fun of many of the people that copied his style -- poorly -- after TDKR in DKSA. Winick's response? To earnestly steal from that sequel, never understanding the irony within or without.
So far as death. Jason should be dead, but while he isn't this is the only consistent character-trait provided: his purer vigilante bent, as an avatar of death-through-killing. Did we really have to see one of the most iconic stories in post-Crisis continuity undone for another modern Punisher contrast?
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 21st, 2011, 01:58am by Will » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 550
|
|
Re: When Heroes Kill
« Reply #12 on: Dec 21st, 2011, 09:51am » |
|
While this is the only site I post on, I regularly look around a multitude of different sites looking for new information and seeing new opinions. One that really bothers me is seeing that an ever growing number of people are praising the resurrection of Jason Todd and calling him things like greatest character ever... I suspect this adoration comes from people that are (relatively) new to the Batman DCU world. People seem to think the vigilante who kills VS the vigilante who (supposedly) wont is some sort of amazing original plot. The list of these stories, even within the Batman line, is nigh on endless. I would go so far to say that even the much maligned Year Two did this concept significantly better, because at least that had the added pathos of Joe Chill and Batman having Chill's parent killing gun strapped to his chest throughout. Sensationalist? Yes. Unnecessary? Totally. But it's still more believable and intelligent than bring back Jason Todd.
on Dec 21st, 2011, 01:33am, Will wrote:| It's up for the award of "worst idea ever" in modern Batman continuity, yes. |
|
Certainly is. While I wouldn't outright call it "worst idea ever", because I think there are a few other things we could put forward for that as well. It certainly is up there with them! And it may seal the deal simply because it has had some of the most long lasting and impactful effects on the stories. Even Grant Morrison went there... And even he couldn't make Jason Todd anything more than a diversion on the way to getting back to the real plot. The aim of the three issues was to get Grayson to throw the Darkseid Cloned Wayne into a Lazarus Pit. That idea could have easily been acheived without Jason Todd, and with Morrison he could probably have done it in a much more interesting way. There was a lot to like in those issues, but it was all panels that didn't involve Todd. Hell, the one bit of Todd I liked was him complaining about his hair.
I hope you haven't read Winick's three issue arc in Post-Morrison Batman & Robin. If you haven't, save yourself the misery.
"It would be a really sleazy stunt to bring him back." - Denny O'Neil. You know what Denny? That line has never got any less true.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 550
|
|
Re: When Heroes Kill
« Reply #13 on: Dec 22nd, 2011, 9:05pm » |
|
Personally I wouldn't class Batman: Jekyll & Hyde as a Continuity piece. However, if anybody wishes to argue its case then we must mention that Batman kills Dr Pierre Rousse via electrocution. In the same book it looks like Batman kills two Two-Face Henchmen, (especially by causing one to blow a whole in his crotch with his own gun which would no doubt cause death by blood loss), but remarkably they show up later, albeit dying, and are killed finally by Two-Face and his other henchman.
Also, in Lethiathan Strikes, the art isn't clear, but the writing pretty explicitly states than Damian gets another kill. I'll leave that deliberately vague for a bit to avoid spoilers and add it into the main post in future.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 22nd, 2011, 9:10pm by Nick » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
Will
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 602
|
|
Re: When Heroes Kill
« Reply #14 on: Dec 23rd, 2011, 01:29am » |
|
on Dec 21st, 2011, 09:51am, Nick wrote:| While this is the only site I post on, I regularly look around a multitude of different sites looking for new information and seeing new opinions. One that really bothers me is seeing that an ever growing number of people are praising the resurrection of Jason Todd and calling him things like greatest character ever... I suspect this adoration comes from people that are (relatively) new to the Batman DCU world. |
|
Jason Todd is a Bad Idea, Poorly Executed. From a narrative-construct standpoint, he's a disaster.
And, conversely, he's pointless.
The only 'other hand' is the thought that DC has new readers. The problem is, I don't see much evidence that their aggregate yields have improved, nor that they've expanded their demographics greatly.
I don't think these things are necessarily good for storytelling -- or established readers, like us -- anyway, but the biggest problem I have with DC is that the brand is not improving artistically, and commercially is so low that it's a triumph to have stagnation.
No good is coming from Lee/Didio.
Grant Morrison is Grant Morrison. Much the way his run is now separate from DC's plans or continuity, the fact is that his presence is not a microcosm or pointer of Didio's ability, but instead an outlier of real talent in an industry full of hacks.
It's like Tarantino and grindhouse product.
Quote:| People seem to think the vigilante who kills VS the vigilante who (supposedly) wont is some sort of amazing original plot. |
|
Well, it's not just an issue of readership not being well-read -- either in a classical sense, or as far as modern comic books -- but that the creative people aren't.
Further, it's beyond repetition. Beneath a question of originality.
There are compounding problems that are anything but complementary.
The first problem is not only that of redundancy, but that it's an idea that's rarely been played out in a more lacking fashion, or with a character that has so little potential that the first thought is always "hey, why isn't he dead?"
There's a rubicon. They crossed it long ago. And the reasons for going back were so weak that it only creates an ongoing problem with continuity, rather than new and exciting story opportunities.
The second problem is discordant, but absolutely -- intrinsically -- a creation of the first, and the endemic reaction is likewise entropic. It's an idea that is undone by the very nature of the character to one side, and yet the character in totality is nothing more than that weak idea.
What am I on about? Just that we have an cypher in Jason Todd, resurrected from death (a gimmick so badly narrated, that there have already been multiple explanations as to the "how"), that is therefore obsessed with it.
He's beyond death, right? No. And yet, yes.
It's the most important death in the Batman universe that we've seen in real-time, relative to plotting structure, and it was undone with little care for continuity logic, cohesion from the vantage of both the past and future. It was just an idea to throw out there immediately, without care of consequence.
But from that, two problems arise. We have a character that is based around the Big Idea of vigilantism and murder, yet his existence is a statement of the capricious and even meaningless nature of such a concept.
Killing is such a huge question as far as Batman and his world, yet Jason Todd -- even as he's supposed to heighten this element and conflict -- simply undoes it. There's no there there. No seriousness. No cause & effect.
He's a character that's been murdered. Yet still lives.
And no one at DC appears bright enough to get this irony.
Which leads to the secondary point of this sub-strata. DC's marketing and editorial rhetoric constantly obsesses over continuity. Meanwhile, no one shows any respect for it.
DC 52 is just another lie in a long line of them. It has no meaning, really, because of the jokers involved.
The resurrection of Jason Todd was really the first step in murdering continuity. The reboot-that-isn't, of course, does nothing to fix such problems -- that is, allowing for real consequences long-form in an ongoing continuity -- but merely exacerbates them.
Sorry. Same polemic, different thread.
Quote:| I would go so far to say that even the much maligned Year Two did this concept significantly better, |
|
Year Two is, at worst, and maybe at best, a harmless story.
It's looking better in contrast.
Certainly, it has far more plot-logic on its side. The Jason Todd resurrection makes no sense, outside of shock value.
Quote:| Sensationalist? Yes. Unnecessary? Totally. But it's still more believable and intelligent than bring back Jason Todd. |
|
Sorry about repeating your points. Mea culpa.
Quote:| Even Grant Morrison went there... And even he couldn't make Jason Todd anything more than a diversion on the way to getting back to the real plot. |
|
Maybe that's his triumph.
I'm always curious as to how much even a creator like Morrison is at the mercy of editorial edict.
I wouldn't doubt the word came down that they wanted more stories to feature Jason Todd, as an attempt to make him both a fixture and a popular antagonist.
Quote:| Hell, the one bit of Todd I liked was him complaining about his hair. |
|
Thinking about it, that's as close as DC gets to honestly considering Cause and Effect, as well as continuity (redundant, I know).
Quote:| I hope you haven't read Winick's three issue arc in Post-Morrison Batman & Robin. |
|
I'm still catching up on Morrison's stuff.
It's the only Batman comic product, at least from the monthlies, that I'll bother to pay for.
Quote:| If you haven't, save yourself the misery. |
|
So far as modern, serialized art, the only thing I felt mildly miserable about recently was the season-ender to Boardwalk Empire -- itself a marker on dishonest storytelling and wasted potential that has the potential to prematurely cannibalize itself.
What DC has done, now, for so long is make a mess then come up with a 'fix' that is even costlier.
Winick? He outraged me by bringing Todd back. But his monthly writing is a mix of weak and laughable.
The only way he could ever be of consequence was through something so stupid. What a putz.
Quote:| "It would be a really sleazy stunt to bring him back." - Denny O'Neil. You know what Denny? That line has never got any less true. |
|
Denny's biggest flaw was also a saving grace: he's a company man, through and through.
During a large portion of his reign as Batman Editor, this meant that Jason was banned from the Batman books.
For a long time I thought that was cowardly. Now? I see just how wise it was.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 23rd, 2011, 01:37am by Will » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
