This is the second time I have read Frank Miller’s, The Dark Knight Returns, and, as is common when reading something a second time, I noticed aspects of the novel which were not apparent the first time around – in particular, Batman’s relationship to key characters in the novel. Though I believe the writing of this novel is excellent, I found the character development of almost all “secondary” characters to be lacking.
Miller undoubtedly provides the reader an intimate knowledge of Bruce Wayne’s emotional evolution, revealing a side of Batman the reader has never seen. He also provides us a decent view of Carrie Kelly’s/Robin’s growth as a person. However, I would argue that Miller could have provided additional development for characters like Harvey Dent/Two-Face, The Joker, Commissioner Gordon, Alfred, and Superman. After all, these are pivotal characters in a story that is, ostensibly, concerned with the development of these characters over the years and though Miller does give us insight into their emotions, personalities, etc., he seems to tease us by laying a framework of character advancement which never seems fully resolved.
By the end of the novel, Miller shows us that Batman will, in fact, continue fighting crime; albeit he will do so in a completely new way. Miller provides us closure and an ability to anticipate a path Bruce’s life may take. He does not, however, give us the same foundation to anticipate the other characters futures. Instead, we seem to be left in a state of Limbo.
The Joker, who we are led to believe has an almost supernatural tie to Batman, is simply killed off without providing the reader any real sense of closure. In fact, Batman seems to be disturbed by him even in death, asking The Joker to “stop laughing” even as he watches him burn. There is an undertone which implies that Batman’s struggles with the Joker are not over…but how could that be? The same can be said about Harvey Dent/Two-Face. Miller shows us that Dent falls into an even deeper state of psychosis, only leaving us to wonder what will become of him. Commissioner Gordon is left in a similar state of uncertainty; will he continue to help fight crime in Gotham City (possibly as part of Batman’s new “underground” force) or does his story end here?
The most interesting character development (or lack thereof), in my opinion, seems to be Superman’s. In this novel, Superman has become a type of pawn for the Government; a role which both Batman and Superman seem uncomfortable with. Not only is this a strange role for Superman, but it is a role which causes more problems than solutions – According to Batman, Superman has even become “A Joke.” Though there seems to be a hint of change in Superman’s demeanor by the end of the novel, again, the reader is left to wonder if anything has really changed.
Without a doubt, it is the participation of these characters in the overall plot of the novel that makes this story so intriguing. However, by expanding upon the development of each character individually, Miller may have been able to escalate the prestige of his novel, and his writing, beyond what he already has achieved in The Dark Knight Returns.
I think one issue might be that those other characters (two-face, the joker, Gordon, et al) are meant to be more static. Gordon is always the cop who wants what’s best for the city, even if it means getting some help from Batman. Two-face is the fallen angel who once held hope for the city but fell victim to the very crime he once fought. The Joker is chaos and absolute chaos. Nothing else. In some other Batman editions you can see more development of these people, but for the most part, they serve as existing flat characters that are supposed to act a certain way in regards to the Batman story.
While I agree that it would be nice to see some change, I think for the comic to work, they need to remain pretty static.
I think one issue might be that those other characters (two-face, the joker, Gordon, et al) are meant to be more static. Gordon is always the cop who wants what’s best for the city, even if it means getting some help from Batman. Two-face is the fallen angel who once held hope for the city but fell victim to the very crime he once fought. The Joker is chaos and absolute chaos. Nothing else. In some other Batman editions you can see more development of these people, but for the most part, they serve as existing flat characters that are supposed to act a certain way in regards to the Batman story.
While I agree that it would be nice to see some change, I think for the comic to work, they need to remain pretty static.
Here’s a bit of character development you probably haven’t seen before–Batman by Dostoyevsky!
http://www.againwiththecomics.com/2007/08/batman-by-dostoyevsky.html
Here’s a bit of character development you probably haven’t seen before–Batman by Dostoyevsky!
http://www.againwiththecomics.com/2007/08/batman-by-dostoyevsky.html
I agree wholeheartedly with your post. This is my third or fourth time through “The Dark Knight Returns,” my first in a number of years, and I was a bit let down with the ‘climactic’ Superman-Batman showdown at the work’s end. The complete lack of a backstory for the Mutant Leader worked — Gotham has been overrun by the very worst aspects of the human condition in Batman’s absence — and Miller assumes that we have at least an inkling of the relationship between the Joker and Batman — though I would have preferred Harvey Dent’s very minor storyline to have been replaced with more Joker, especially as Miller’s text is meant to be ‘the final Batman story’ and it seems only fitting that the Joker, Batman’s most infamous villain, should have been given a bit more attention — but I feel an a massive opportunity was missed by not developing the relationship between a Superman who has come to begrudgingly understand that “Every year they grow smaller. Every year they hate us more” (DKR 129) and a Batman who feels he has been forced out of retirement to restore (Batman’s own sense of) order to Gotham.
Superman’s perspective is far wider than Batman’s — his concerns are global, as emphasized by his actions is Corto Maltese and by diverting the Coldbringer missile, where Batman’s focus doesn’t extend too far beyond the Gotham city limits. Superman continues on in the limited role he has agreed to because he feels that he can still be a force for good, even with the restrictions placed on him and the media. This is admirable; Clark Kent has sacrificed in order to continue on as a hero in the shadows. Batman’s return is far different, depicted as almost a nervous breakdown or psychotic break (DKR 26), and in complete disregard for the sacrifice that Superman made on behalf of all costumed heroes — “I gave them my obedience and my invisibility. They gave me a license and let us live” (139). While we aren’t necessarily meant to think what Superman did was right, there is something selfless in it, something that understands the way the world has changed and how the reaction to superheroes has changed. Batman also understands, he just does not care. Neither of these characters is entirely right, but that is what makes the conflict between them so interesting, and I feel this conflict deserved a little more attention than Miller gave it. I even feel that Miller missed a prime opportunity to convey much of Superman’s new role in the world with images on p. 84 — instead of having the American flag shift into the Superman logo, I feel it should have been the other way around: the once visible, hopeful Superman emblem engulfed by the American flag.
The final battle between a weakened Superman and a well-prepared Batman should have been this epic struggle between Superman’s ‘compromise for the greater good’ and Batman’s refusal to compromise. (It’s interesting how this is reflected at the end of Moore’s “Watchmen” as well, especially as these two works were written around the same time.) Instead, I felt that it was just a ‘boss fight’ at the end of a video game — little more than two superheroes slugging it out when it could have easily been two ideals embodied by superheroes slugging it out.
One of my favorite little touches in this graphic novel is Superman’s knowing wink at the end, suggesting that Miller doesn’t necessarily see Superman as only a super-powered Boy Scout as Batman himself does, but that moment could have been so much more profound had Superman’s character, sacrifice, and ideals been fleshed out a little more. Hell, I could have even stomached an awkward dinner scene between Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent midway through the text had some of these aspects been further explored.
And I’m also disappointed with the Joker-Batman conflict in “The Dark Knight Returns.” As Nolan’s version of the Joker says at the end of “The Dark Knight”: “This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. […] I think you and I are destined to do this forever.” That is part of the fabric of the Batman myth, this unending conflict between Batman/order and the Joker/chaos, a cycle that Batman cannot stop because of his refusal to kill the Joker. Perhaps the death of the Joker, no matter how it was manifested, would always be somewhat anti-climactic, but I feel Miller could have done much more with this event than he did. It should have been a major turning point for Batman, almost a death of part of himself, but instead it feels as if the Joker’s death only serves to add murder to the laundry list of criminal charges against Batman and to bring on the final Superman-Batman fight, which also should have been “what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object,” not just physically, but ideologically.
I agree wholeheartedly with your post. This is my third or fourth time through “The Dark Knight Returns,” my first in a number of years, and I was a bit let down with the ‘climactic’ Superman-Batman showdown at the work’s end. The complete lack of a backstory for the Mutant Leader worked — Gotham has been overrun by the very worst aspects of the human condition in Batman’s absence — and Miller assumes that we have at least an inkling of the relationship between the Joker and Batman — though I would have preferred Harvey Dent’s very minor storyline to have been replaced with more Joker, especially as Miller’s text is meant to be ‘the final Batman story’ and it seems only fitting that the Joker, Batman’s most infamous villain, should have been given a bit more attention — but I feel an a massive opportunity was missed by not developing the relationship between a Superman who has come to begrudgingly understand that “Every year they grow smaller. Every year they hate us more” (DKR 129) and a Batman who feels he has been forced out of retirement to restore (Batman’s own sense of) order to Gotham.
Superman’s perspective is far wider than Batman’s — his concerns are global, as emphasized by his actions is Corto Maltese and by diverting the Coldbringer missile, where Batman’s focus doesn’t extend too far beyond the Gotham city limits. Superman continues on in the limited role he has agreed to because he feels that he can still be a force for good, even with the restrictions placed on him and the media. This is admirable; Clark Kent has sacrificed in order to continue on as a hero in the shadows. Batman’s return is far different, depicted as almost a nervous breakdown or psychotic break (DKR 26), and in complete disregard for the sacrifice that Superman made on behalf of all costumed heroes — “I gave them my obedience and my invisibility. They gave me a license and let us live” (139). While we aren’t necessarily meant to think what Superman did was right, there is something selfless in it, something that understands the way the world has changed and how the reaction to superheroes has changed. Batman also understands, he just does not care. Neither of these characters is entirely right, but that is what makes the conflict between them so interesting, and I feel this conflict deserved a little more attention than Miller gave it. I even feel that Miller missed a prime opportunity to convey much of Superman’s new role in the world with images on p. 84 — instead of having the American flag shift into the Superman logo, I feel it should have been the other way around: the once visible, hopeful Superman emblem engulfed by the American flag.
The final battle between a weakened Superman and a well-prepared Batman should have been this epic struggle between Superman’s ‘compromise for the greater good’ and Batman’s refusal to compromise. (It’s interesting how this is reflected at the end of Moore’s “Watchmen” as well, especially as these two works were written around the same time.) Instead, I felt that it was just a ‘boss fight’ at the end of a video game — little more than two superheroes slugging it out when it could have easily been two ideals embodied by superheroes slugging it out.
One of my favorite little touches in this graphic novel is Superman’s knowing wink at the end, suggesting that Miller doesn’t necessarily see Superman as only a super-powered Boy Scout as Batman himself does, but that moment could have been so much more profound had Superman’s character, sacrifice, and ideals been fleshed out a little more. Hell, I could have even stomached an awkward dinner scene between Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent midway through the text had some of these aspects been further explored.
And I’m also disappointed with the Joker-Batman conflict in “The Dark Knight Returns.” As Nolan’s version of the Joker says at the end of “The Dark Knight”: “This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. […] I think you and I are destined to do this forever.” That is part of the fabric of the Batman myth, this unending conflict between Batman/order and the Joker/chaos, a cycle that Batman cannot stop because of his refusal to kill the Joker. Perhaps the death of the Joker, no matter how it was manifested, would always be somewhat anti-climactic, but I feel Miller could have done much more with this event than he did. It should have been a major turning point for Batman, almost a death of part of himself, but instead it feels as if the Joker’s death only serves to add murder to the laundry list of criminal charges against Batman and to bring on the final Superman-Batman fight, which also should have been “what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object,” not just physically, but ideologically.