The Dark Knight Returns

[Silver Nemesis]

Building on the To Hell's Kitchen and Back feature I wrote in 2016, I'd like to highlight some parallels between 'Last Hand' (Daredevil Vol 1 #181, April 1982) and 'Hunt the Dark Knight' (Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Vol 1 #3, August 1986), and this thread seems like as good a place as any to do it. The most obvious point to start with is the fact that both of these issues were produced by the same creative team: Frank Miller and Klaus Janson, with Denny O'Neil serving as editor. These two issues rank amongst the most acclaimed eighties stories produced by their respective publishers, and to an extent I see one as a reworking of the other.

Obviously there are as many differences as there are similarities between these two stories. 'Last Hand' fits into the broader 'Elektra Saga' and features subplots concerning the Punisher being sent to Ryker's Island, Bullseye figuring out Daredevil's secret identity and Matt dealing with the death of Elektra. 'Hunt the Dark Knight' fits into the broader TDKR narrative and contains subplots about Yindel assuming command of the GCPD, Superman's activities and the escalating conflict in Corto Maltese. However the central hero/villain narrative is structurally similar in both tales.

Both stories begin with the hero's incarcerated nemesis (Bullseye/Joker) restlessly obsessing over him in a place of solitary confinement.

This mass murdering criminal in granted a live television interview, during which he is permitted to don his familiar guise for the cameras.

The villain initially plays along with the interview and dispassionately answers a question concerning the suffering he's caused.

He soon reverts to form and massacres everyone present at the interview before making his escape. Bullseye spares the interviewer so he can use him as a hostage, but the Joker kills Dave Endocrine.

In both stories we're privy to the villain's thoughts as he channels them towards his nemesis. Note how he addresses his internal musings towards "you" – meaning Daredevil/Batman.

The villain in both stories is shown to smoke cigarettes.

The villain targets a former love interest of his arch enemy soon after his escape from custody. Bullseye hunts Elektra, while Joker goes after Selina Kyle.

Bullseye beats Elektra, slashes her throat and stabs her through the chest with her own sai, while Joker exploits and humiliates Selina using his mind-controlling lipstick.

The hero is enraged when he finds what the villain has done to his one-time love. In both stories the hero realises his enemy's recent actions have crossed a line and Matt/Bruce feels the weight of his opponent's victims bearing down on his conscience.

The story climaxes with the hero and villain engaging in an intense drawnout battle. The hero's tolerance towards the villain is exhausted and he now plans to end his foe's reign of terror once and for all. Midway through their fight, the villain wounds the hero in the abdomen. Bullseye stabs Daredevil with a sai, while Joker shoots and stabs Batman.

Both issues include a gory image of the hero being shot by the villain. 'Last Hand' begins with the image of Bullseye scoring a headshot on Daredevil as the former fantasises about murdering him, though Poindexter never actually accomplishes this feat in real life. Meanwhile Joker shoots Batman in the ribs during the hall of mirrors sequence in 'Hunt the Dark Knight'.

The fight ends with the hero pushing the boundaries of his moral code by breaking the villain's spine. Daredevil drops Bullseye from a cable suspended between two buildings, while Batman snaps the Joker's neck with his hands.

The villain miraculously survives but is now paralysed.

Bullseye remained paralysed until 1983, when his broken bones were mended with Adamantium and he came back stronger than ever. In TDKR Joker twists his broken neck in order to end his life and make it appear as though Batman has murdered him. Although the hero defeats the villain in both stories, there is nevertheless a melancholy note of failure for Matt/Bruce. 'Hunt the Dark Knight' ends with Batman being hunted by the police and reflecting that the world is "growing dark... and cold", while 'Last Hand' ends with Matt in a dark and cold place, both literally and figuratively, as he stands in mourning over Elektra's grave while snow falls around him.

Both of these stories are now regarded as classics and both proved very influential on later writers. Both issues also arguably changed the relationship between the hero and his arch enemy. Matt never forgave Bullseye for killing Elektra, nor did Poindexter forgive Daredevil for breaking his spine, and their future battles were forever shadowed by the trauma of these events. Joker would spend the next three decades trying to provoke Batman into breaking his 'Golden Rule', just as he did in TDKR, and Batman would consistently struggle against the powerful urge to do so. Before TDKR, Batman was typically portrayed as being at peace with letting the Joker live. There were one or two Bronze Age stories where his patience was tested, but it wasn't a prominent recurring theme like it is today. It was TDKR that widely popularised this particular trope, and the Batman comics arguably inherited it from the Daredevil comics via Frank Miller.

[thecolorsblend]

Amazing analysis. And it deepens my suspicion that, like Bullseye with Daredevil, the Joker knew (or at least suspected) Batman was Bruce. I like that because if the Joker is imitating/distorting Batman then it follows that if Bruce goes into retirement, the Joker will imitate that.

Miller's work is fine wine. And it ages like fine wine.

[Silver Nemesis]

I remember a time when comic fans used to debate who was the better writer: Frank Miller or Alan Moore? Nowadays many would scoff at those comparisons, since Miller's creative output for the past 20-25 years has bordered on self-parody. But back in his prime – from the late seventies through to the early nineties – Miller was a legend. His finest works from that period, such as Daredevil: Born Again and The Dark Knight Returns, rank alongside Moore's best writing IMO. But I would argue Miller had a more important impact on the comic industry during the eighties than Moore did.

When comic historians discuss the darkening tone of the super hero genre, they often highlight Watchmen or The Dark Knight Returns as the turning point. But the more I've thought about this over the years, the more convinced I've become that it was the Miller/Janson Daredevil run that forever changed things. I've already noted in this thread how Miller's work on Daredevil influenced his approach to TDKR, but I have a theory that his DD run also influenced another seminal comic of the eighties: Watchmen.

Bear with me on this.

We know for a fact that Alan Moore was familiar with Miller's DD run. Throughout 1983, Marvel UK reprinted those stories in a British comic titled Daredevils, along with original backup stories featuring Captain Britain. And who wrote the Captain Britain comics that supplemented the reprints of Miller's DD run? Alan Moore. Moore even wrote a four-page parody of Miller's DD titled 'Dourdevil, the Man Without a Sense of Humour' which was printed in Daredevils Vol 1 #8 (August 1983). We've got a thread about that here: https://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=3597.0

So Moore was definitely familiar with Miller's DD run. But how is its influence – if indeed it had any – reflected in Watchmen? Primarily in the depiction of masked heroes as flawed vigilantes whose violent actions and disregard for civil rights are driven by underlying hang-ups of a moral, psychological or sexual nature. Just look at Rorschach. There's a scene in 'Fearful Symmetry' (Watchmen Vol 1 #5, January 1987) where Rorschach sneaks into Edgar Jacobi's house and appears behind the old man as he is rummaging through his fridge. There's a very similar scene in Born Again where Daredevil sneaks into Nick Manolis' house at night and surprises him in his kitchen as he's going through his fridge.

Nowadays scenes like this are fairly common in superhero comics, but they weren't in the early eighties. Daredevil was using violence and intimidation to get answers out of criminals back when most superheroes were still relatively straight laced. Here's an example from 1971.

The idea of Daredevil trashing a bar full of criminals to procure information is a longstanding trope in the DD comics. Moore had Rorschach work the underworld bars in a similar manner in Watchmen.

Both Miller and Moore exploited this cliché to humorous effect.

The relationship between Daredevil and Elektra was by no means the first costumed love affair in comics, but it was one of the first mainstream romances in the genre to intentionally invoke a fetishistic interpretation; an idea that Moore would subsequently explore in Watchmen with the relationship between Dan Dreiberg and Laurie Juspeczyk. In 'Elektra' (Daredevil Vol 1 #168, January 1981) Miller shows Daredevil and Elektra kissing immediately after fighting off Eric Slaughter and his goons, suggesting their violent impulses have somehow transformed into sexual energy. In 'The Judge of All the Earth' (Watchmen Vol 1 #3, November 1986) there's a memorable scene where Dan and Laurie fight off a group of criminals in an alleyway. This is followed by an awkward moment in which their heavy breathing and averted gazes hint at a repressed sexual tension.

Miller revisited the correlation between violence and sex in more explicit terms in The Man Without Fear (1993-94) in which he showed Elektra becoming sexually aroused while massacring a gang of rapists in an alleyway. This scene has clear parallels with the alley fight in Watchmen, though in this instance Moore's comic predates Miller's. However the correlation between sex and violence was already present in Miller's earliest Elektra stories, so once again I'd say this is an idea that Miller explored before Moore did.

Miller always intended for Bullseye's penetration of Elektra with her sai in 'Last Hand' (Daredevil Vol 1 #181, April 1982) to have sexual connotations. The notion of Bullseye being a rapist was later confirmed during Anne Nocenti's run, but even in the early eighties Miller was already suggesting a connection between the sexuality and violent impulses of masked heroes and their costumed adversaries. In 'Spiked!' (Daredevil Vol 1 #179, February 1982) Miller uses what he describes as "some pretty vicious symbolism" during a scene where Elektra immobilises Daredevil by snaring his foot in a bear trap. Miller once described this fight as "what superhero sex would be like." So again, the Freudian subtext is apparently intentional.

The same is true of Watchmen, in which Moore uses some less-than-subtle symbolism to highlight the aphrodisiacal role costumes and violence play in the protagonists' sex lives. Dan and Laurie try consummating their relationship in 'A Brother to Dragons' (Watchmen Vol 1 #7, March 1987) but are unable to do so. It's only later in that issue, after they've donned their costumes and braved a tenement fire, that Dan is finally able to perform. The excitement of the costumes and near-death adventure are what gets him going. While Matt Murdock is torn between the fantasy of Elektra and the everywoman that is Heather Glenn, Laurie ultimately chooses the everyman that is Dan over the superman that is Doctor Manhattan. However it is only when Dan resumes his role of superhero that consummation becomes possible.

Miller and Moore both present the less glamorous love lives of ordinary supporting characters to contrast against the more exciting liaisons of their costumed heroes. Compare the scenes of Ben Urich and his wife Doris in Daredevil Vol 1 #179 with the scenes between Dr. Malcolm Long and his wife Gloria in 'The Abyss Gazes Also' (Watchmen Vol 1 #6, February 1987). Both depict the dysfunctional relationships of peripheral characters whose work life is negatively impacting their marriage.

Also compare the relationship between Foggy Nelson and Glorianna O'Breen in Born Again with Dan and Laurie's situation in Watchmen. In both stories the love interest of a superhero goes to stay with a male friend and quickly becomes romantically involved with him after her costumed beau neglects her needs. The point in highlighting these similarities is to show that while Miller was writing fantasy relationships between his costumed protagonists, he was also exploring more grounded relationships amongst the supporting cast, much as Moore would later do in Watchmen.

Miller was also the first comic writer (as far as I'm aware) to advance the viewpoint that Bruce Wayne's activities as Batman represented a sublimation of his sex drive. Note the infamous line in All-Star Batman & Robin, The Boy Wonder Vol 1 #7 (November 2007) where Batman says, "We keep our masks on. It's better that way" as he engages in costumed coitus with Black Canary. Moore explored the connections between sex, violence and costumed personas in greater depth in Watchmen. But Miller did it first in the Daredevil comics. There's even a hint of it in The Dark Knight Returns where Batman finds Selina Kyle trussed up in a Wonder Woman costume. In this scene, the WW costume takes on an explicitly sexual function. Miller, or rather the Joker, is immersing one costumed character (Catwoman) in the iconography of another (Wonder Woman) for role-playing purposes. Moore does something similar during Dan's dream sequence in Watchmen Vol 1 #7 where Nite Owl II fantasises about Twilight Lady before removing her costume to reveal Silk Spectre II underneath. Seldom have the outfits in mainstream comics been more overtly fetishistic than in these scenes.

It's no secret that Moore originally intended to use Charlton Comics characters in Watchmen, while many people have drawn parallels between the new characters he created and pre-existing players in the DC Universe: for example, Doctor Manhattan being analogous to Superman, or Nite Owl II resembling Batman. But if we're looking at Watchmen as a deconstruction of a genre, as well as a reflection of the cynical direction that genre was aligned with at the time, then I think it's important to acknowledge the influence of Miller's DD run. The Minutemen may superficially resemble the Charlton Comics characters, but when it comes to their morality, psychology and sexuality – which is where they really come to life – far more fruitful comparisons can be drawn with the likes of Daredevil, Elektra, Punisher, Bullseye and Kingpin.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to take anything away from Watchmen or claim that it's unduly derivative. I'm just pointing out that Moore's mature and sophisticated approach to the genre was an extension of what Frank Miller had already started doing during his Daredevil run. That's why, in my opinion, Miller's DD run – and especially Born Again – deserve to be revered on the same level as TDKR and Watchmen.

[thecolorsblend]

Excellent analysis. And I remember those Moore vs. Miller debates. It seems odd now but I consider stuff like that to be a bit of a testament of how important both writers were in their respective primes. Something people tend to forget is that Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow?, TDKR #04 and Watchmen #01 all hit the stands in the same month. I have wished many times to have been a fly on the wall in comic book stores across the county for the next year or so as hardcore comic book fans had opportunities to absorb and debate those stories in their LCS. I have long assumed that some of the debates would have been fascinating.

Still, I have usually preferred Miller's heyday over Moore's heyday. And I think the big reason for that is because Miller's work, oddly enough, lends itself to superficial enjoyment, textual enjoyment and subtextual enjoyment. His Daredevil stuff can be entertaining (though superior) adventure stories, sophomoric "grim and gritty" fun or else relatively complex and realistic analysis of adults who would engage in such extreme, anti-social behavior as adopting secret identities, bizarre costumes, etc. It works as fantasy adventure fare or grounded, rather dark commentary. The Daredevil stuff can be read for pleasure but that's not the only way of looking at it.

And the thing is, I don't get that as much with Watchmen. The story of Watchmen is inseparable from how that story is told. The deeper meaning is inescapable. The story and characters demand to be analyzed because otherwise the comic book has to be dismissed as neurotic and incomprehensible. Watchmen does not function on the superficial level or even the juvenile level. Only on the adult level. In other words, you don't read Watchmen for pleasure. You read it to be amazed or to think.

As you say, that's no swipe at Watchmen. Just an explanation about why Miller's Daredevil stuff ultimately does more for me than virtually anything Moore has ever written.

[Silver Nemesis]

Something people tend to forget is that Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow?, TDKR #04 and Watchmen #01 all hit the stands in the same month.

I hadn't realised this myself until now. Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? is another good example of the mature storytelling sensibility I was trying to illustrate in my previous post. While the superpower action is occurring outside the Fortress of Solitude, Moore at one point narrows his focus to the relationship between Perry and Alice; drawing the reader's attention away from the fantastic and redirecting it towards a pedestrian human relationship. He's more interested in how his human characters are reacting to the crisis than he is in the spectacle of the crisis itself.

At the end of the book, in a scene that mirrors Dan and Laurie's final scene in Watchmen, we see Superman relinquish his superhuman status to live the life of an ordinary husband and father. This almost seems to imply that superheroism is an adolescent phase in his protagonists' development, and that the natural progression beyond that stage is for the heroes to hang up their costumes and take on the everyday responsibilities of grownups (i.e. real jobs, marriage, kids, etc). The Dark Knight Returns ends on a similar note, with Bruce faking his own death, hanging up the cowl and settling into his new role as father to Carrie and the juvenile delinquents comprising the Sons of Batman.

Still, I have usually preferred Miller's heyday over Moore's heyday. And I think the big reason for that is because Miller's work, oddly enough, lends itself to superficial enjoyment, textual enjoyment and subtextual enjoyment. His Daredevil stuff can be entertaining (though superior) adventure stories, sophomoric "grim and gritty" fun or else relatively complex and realistic analysis of adults who would engage in such extreme, anti-social behavior as adopting secret identities, bizarre costumes, etc. It works as fantasy adventure fare or grounded, rather dark commentary. The Daredevil stuff can be read for pleasure but that's not the only way of looking at it.

And the thing is, I don't get that as much with Watchmen. The story of Watchmen is inseparable from how that story is told. The deeper meaning is inescapable. The story and characters demand to be analyzed because otherwise the comic book has to be dismissed as neurotic and incomprehensible. Watchmen does not function on the superficial level or even the juvenile level. Only on the adult level. In other words, you don't read Watchmen for pleasure. You read it to be amazed or to think.

I've been trying to figure out why Miller's work has proven more suitable to screen adaptation than Moore's, and I think you just nailed the reason. With Miller you can translate the surface level components without the subtext necessarily carrying over, and you still end up with an entertaining film. But Moore's content is less concerned with subtext than supertext – every detail, every double entendre, every visual motif or recurring line of dialogue, is conducive to the overall effect. The way he tells the story, playing to the strengths of the comic book medium, is as important as the story itself. Describe The Dark Knight Returns to someone who hasn't read it, and you'd probably begin with the plot. Describe The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and you'd be less likely to describe the plot than the central concept of mixing characters from classic literature.

That's not to say that Miller doesn't tell his stories with panache, because his best writing is stylistically top notch. But Moore's writing is like a house of cards, where if you remove just one piece of the structure the whole thing collapses. That's not the case with Miller. Batman Begins is essentially Batman: Year One, and even though it doesn't follow the comic to a T it nevertheless captures the essence of the story. The same is true of Born Again and Daredevil season 3. But unless adaptations of Moore's work stick extremely close to the source material – as in the case of Snyder's Watchmen movie – then they usually end up failing both dramatically and thematically. Hence why there are so many bad Alan Moore adaptations.

As you say, that's no swipe at Watchmen. Just an explanation about why Miller's Daredevil stuff ultimately does more for me than virtually anything Moore has ever written.

Same here.

[thecolorsblend]

Batman Begins is essentially Batman: Year One, and even though it doesn't follow the comic to a T it nevertheless captures the essence of the story.

In a strange way, that's actually a testament to how good BY1 is. Because the name of the story is Batman- Year One. And yet, Batman himself has relatively few extended appearances in the story. And the longest of which is probably the bit in the tenement where he's pinned down and the cops have him on the ropes. From there, it's otherwise Gordon's story.

That recipe makes for a great comic book but I don't think it would make for a great film.

The same is true of Born Again and Daredevil season 3. But unless adaptations of Moore's work stick extremely close to the source material – as in the case of Snyder's Watchmen movie – then they usually end up failing both dramatically and thematically. Hence why there are so many bad Alan Moore adaptations.

Also true. For some reason, I thought of Steve Jobs as I read the bit about Moore. Jobs also created brilliant things that discouraged outsiders mucking around with his creations. Because doing so would've ruined the artistic aspect of what he was up to.

At the same time, the first Sin City film was rather slavishly devoted to the comics. And I think that works to the film's benefit. The narration, the stylization, it all fits together to create a bizarre non-reality which I, for one, can never get enough of. I find it interesting that Miller's work can be engrossing whether the adaptation is note-perfect or a bit more flexible. He's kind of unique in that regard.

[The Dark Knight]

I like the comic more than the film (which is brilliant) because it shows the positives and negatives of Batman's presence. Just having the positives is sugar-coating reality. Wins are rarely clean. Life is complex, people are dangerous, and real fights usually cause damage to both sides. Showing all aspects and not just a narrow view is always the best option. The negative aspects allow the talk show hosts to have more merit in their arguments as well, which makes things more interesting. TDK Returns is my Batman bible and always will be. It has everything I like in one package, but it's time to let it rest. That doesn't mean I stop watching the movie, reading the comic or listening to the soundtrack.

[thecolorsblend]

Cartoonist Kayfabe did a special about TDKR several months ago. Watching it now and digging it. They tend to have very analytical viewpoints but they're also capable of nerding out about the subject matter at hand. That approach works particularly well for TDKR, I'd say.

[The Dark Knight]

The treatment of Selina Kyle is poor, so say some critics. I say they miss the point of the story and need to have the right perspective. One of the themes is that no one can escape mortality. Bruce comes close to dying, along with Superman. The Joker does die, as does Alfred. Therefore I like the way the comic depicts a sexpot of yesteryear becoming lonely and washed up. It's not glamorous but time does different things to different people. It's what I'm all about seeing: where things lead in the long term, whether that be BETTER OR WORSE. Bravo to Frank Miller for having the guts to go there.

[The Dark Knight]

I've seen people saying Batman would stand with "mostly peaceful" rioters who loot and burn their communities, which is the worst take ever. Batman is all about maintaining law and order.

In TDK Returns, the power goes out and the situation is exploited by those who seek to raze Gotham. Batman doesn't just throw his arms up in the air and let it happen - he rides in and sorts it out. "Thanks to Batman and his vigilante gang, Gotham's streets are safe, unless you try to commit a crime."

The lesson: if you don't assert control EARLY you lose control. Mob rule and lawlessness are unacceptable. 

In 2020, left wing extremists have taken over part of a major city and anointed a 'warlord' to run it. Arkham City is now a reality. A fear of the mainstream media and being called 'brutal fascists' allows this to happen.

If Police are not allowed to engage criminals they may as well not exist. Why would you be an officer if it means being a punching bag? They should resign. Which leaves things up to the decent common man.

"Like the Gestapo, they moved in on us – Batman and that brat army of his, you'd have thought we were criminals'.

Sitting back as the world burns is shameful. Don't fear a street war, fear passivity.