Book: All-Star Batman & Robin, The Boy Wonder by Frank Miller and Jim Lee

[woodwardiocom]

This was . . . interesting. Frank Miller, of The Dark Knight Returns and Sin City fame, was given the opportunity to write a new Bat-book without being restrained by continuity. The result is the self-parodic excesses of Sin City welded to the DC Universe.

In this world, in order to become a superhero, you apparently have to be completely deranged. Some events from this book: Wonder Woman, on her way to a Justice League meeting where they're going to decide what to do about the psychotic vigilante in Gotham, tells a random pedestrian, "Out of my way, sperm bank." Later, she tells Superman he makes her sick, spits on him, then grabs him for a room-shaking kiss. Black Canary starts out as a bartender, before the drunken flirtations of her patrons causes her to go over the edge and start breaking their jaws. Robin (Robin!), pretty much unprovoked, hits Green Lantern in the throat so hard that Batman needs to trache' him to save his life.

And Bats, of course, kidnaps Dick Grayson from the scene of his parents' murder, slaps him around, and when Robin asks him who he is, utters the immortal line, "Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think I am? I'm the goddamn Batman."

(The phrase "the goddamn Batman" quickly becomes a running gag.)

Oh, and everyone is oversexed. Batman and Canary totally get it on. On the docks, in costume, surrounded by unconscious, bleeding thugs. Catwoman is back to being a prostitute. Wonder Woman, like I said, can't resist the S. The Joker gets a sex life. The opening scene is Vicki Vale waltzing around her penthouse in her underwear. Heck, Alfred (Alfred!) is presented as sexy; he spends half the book with his shirt off, exposing his wiry muscles. I mean, good for him, but it's not business as usual.

The verdict? . . . If you accept the basic premise, that you have to be a lunatic to dress up in tights and fight crime, the rest of the book follows from that. You have a lot of damaged people trying to dish out justice. Ergo, they make a lot of serious mistakes along the way. This is actually an interesting conceit, and worth exploring. (No, really!) Miller's writing style is utterly over-the-top, but then, so was Stan Lee's, just in a different direction.

So, if you're willing to accept that this is in no way Your Father's DC Universe, I'd actually recommend this. It's insane, it's over-the-top, it's violent . . . but then, so's the whole idea of Batman.

Comments

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

No thanks. Not my style of humor. I've seen comics where the characters act like a bunch of player characters created by sixteen-year-old boys; the joke's gotten old. It was old after the first issue of Rick Veitch's Brat Pack, as far as I'm concerned.

[zonemind.livejournal.com]

Rare moment of COMPLETE AGREEMENT!

[scholargipsy.livejournal.com]

It's funny: I used to worship Frank Miller's Batman work (and his Daredevil and Elektra, and Ronin) when I was about 15-16 years old. Something about the idea of being unhinged, anarchic, and yet somehow morally in the right attracted me a great deal as a moody, broody teen. Hardly surprising, really.

As I've aged into adulthood, though, I've had much less patience for that style of superheroism. For one thing, it's boringly one-note -- I'm really starting to believe that Miller has a very limited set of visual and narrative shticks. For another, I simply have trouble admiring characters with that degree of amoral disregard for human life.

As an adult, what appeals to me about Batman (mind you, it's been forever since I read a new Batman book) is the deliberate self-restraint many writers depict him to be capable of. Sure, Batman could break your neck, could shatter your sanity by carrying you unconscious to the top of a Gothic skyscraper and letting you open your eyes on sheer vertigo, could be a boorish, bellicose, foul-mouthed law unto himself. But to my mind, in the best Batman stories he isn't. He may want to do these things, but his rational, moral self prohibits it -- usually, at least. He knows that letting that rage loose makes him just another criminal.

It's my feeling that Frank Miller has little use for Bruce Wayne, that philanthropic, socially competent alter egos only get in the way of the throat-punching. But I think Batman is much more interesting as a duality: vengeful rage, yes, and a willingness to go beyond the law for justice, but also a fine, refined mind and a wide capacity for moral self-critique.

I think the definitive Batman moment actually comes courtesy of Jim Gordon in The Killing Joke: Gordon, his daughter violated and paralyzed by The Joker, he himself pushed almost over the lip of sanity, nonetheless affirms restraint when speaking to his costumed ally: "I want him brought in by the book. We have to show him that our way works." Our way -- Batman's as well. And then when you follow that up with Batman's shared wild laughter with the Joker, you see both of those halves of his personality in tension: discipline and dementia. It works.

He may be the Dark Knight, but he's a Knight, goddammit. Tortured, full of righteous anger, but also full of righteousness. Miller doesn't seem interested in the latter, and that's a shame from my point of view.

You describe Batman as "insane, over-the-top, and violent...but then, so's the whole idea of Batman." Respectfully, I disagree: the whole idea includes something human and humane, as well.