Category: Week 3 – Watchmen

The question of “evil” and what exactly we as society and as individuals are supposed to do about it is one that has haunted everyday conversations for quite some time now. In a post-911 world, replete with hooded POWs having their heads hacked off and humiliated Abu Ghraib prisoners having their genitals shocked, the Jack Bauer–fueled belief that “the ends justify the means” has never been more hotly debated.

Or has it? In truth, it was a bit of a shock to read Batman Begins for the first time this past spring and realize it was first published in 1986. An atta-boy president who loves his ranch? Check. Escalating class tensions? Check. And above all else, a constantly prattling, fear-mongering media? Definitely a check there.

It’s easy to see why the Batman franchise of the ‘80s was practically screaming for yet another big screen adaptation some twenty years later.

And yet, at the risk of sounding like some stuffy censorship bureau critic, I can’t help but wonder at the message that’s being discussed through our society’s current fondness for all things Batman.

But wait! I just uttered the dreaded “m” word. As much as postmodernists may want to distance themselves from the loaded term, “discussion” simply doesn’t do justice to the vigilantism-loving scenarios that Miller puts forth in Batman. Sure, Bruce Wayne’s a flawed hero, and both Miller and Nolan show us that he has to pay a heavy price for his actions. Sure, each facet of the story is supposed to convey at least some spectrum of moral ambiguity (the conventionally horrific appearance of many of the graphic novel’s villains aside, that is).

But at the end of the day, I can’t help but observe that the masses are titillated by the arc of blood streaming from the mutants’ bloody nose at the end of Book 1, fascinated by the gorgeous bokeh twinkling behind Ledger’s grease-painted face rapturously speeding down the city’s nighttime street…and rather powerfully seduced by the siren call of what Miller calls “the forceful, violent aspect of the will.”

Does that bother you? It bothers me.

Of course, we’re meant to be disturbed, on one level or another. (Sorry Heath, it was just the “price” you had to pay for our collective admiration, apparently). But in all seriousness, is it enough to just acknowledge the demons inside of us and herald the occasional flawed, po-mo hero who “sublimates” said banshees? Despite agreeing with Miller’s assertion that “we’re at our best when we’re autonomous,” when I look at today’s world, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with how easily that can lead to the worst kinds of endsjustifymeans excesses. I’m not even convinced that the average movie-goer (or graphic novel reader, for that matter) even processes the “thickness” of that discussion.

Should they? At point do we move the locus of responsibility from the audience to the artist? To the medium? Should we ever?

Miller certainly gives the reader a lot to discuss in The Dark Knight Returns, but one aspect of the work that especially interested me was his ongoing use of modern television media as a plot device.  While the constant flashing to Lola Chong and countless talking heads serves an expository purpose by giving the reader enough information to frame the story moving forward, there’s also a scathing undertone of social criticism.  The eyewitness interview accounts, along with the over-the-top behavioral commentators, point to the weakness, anger, and growing “smallness” of the public (as Superman describes it in Book 3). 

One of the reasons Miller’s use of the media really stuck with me is because I’m troubled by just how accurate his warped, sensationalist view of television news seems to be today, almost 25 years later.  While CNN was around in 1986, DKR was written in the days before the Internet and a multitude of cable news stations helped bring about the 24-hour media/spin cycle.  And while open access to information is obviously a good thing, I think Miller may have been keenly aware of the dangers we see in media today – when information is already so processed, manufactured, and commented on that it takes away all need for analysis or critical thinking on the part of the news consumer.  Who needs to go through the hardship of thinking about something for ourselves when we have Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, and everybody under the sun willing to tell us all we need to know? (Just my own two cents on how modern media may be contributing to our growing “smallness.”) 

Changing gears somewhat, I also really liked Miller’s recurrent use of the teenage gangs in Gotham.  What makes them so disaffected/alienated that they are willing to latch on to just about anything or anyone to create a sense of identity (the mutant leader, Batman, the Joker)?  Carrie’s leftover hippie parents are obviously not portrayed in a positive light, but that’s about the only insight the reader is shown into any problematic parenting.  Do the changing attitudes towards “heroes” that Miller portrays somehow take away from a collective societal identity?  Whatever the case, it’s clear that such extreme youth behavior is symptomatic of the troubled world Miller presents.    

John