christopher cocca

I just read Part 2 of “Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?” by Neil Gaiman and Andy Kubert. My reaction to Detective Comics 853 (with spoilers, as it were) follows.

I loved this book. Maybe it’s because I tend to be an emotional reader of comics as shared myths, maybe it’s because I’m a parent. It’s partly because of how Gaiman lets you connect his paean to the continuity of Final Crisis (if you’re concerned about that) and also because of how you don’t have to. You don’t have to have read Final Crisis or know what the Omega Sanction is for this arc to work or move you.   It’s partly because Gaiman lets you put the entirely of Batman’s 70-plus-year history into continuity if you want, and also because he doesn’t force the issue.  This story stands on its own as well as any great two-shot. It’s partly visceral: the images and the story boarding are compelling and evocative. It’s really all of these things and the catharsis of them taken together: the funeral, the eternal return (or is it a near-death experience?), the Goodnight Book motif, Bruce’s mother as his spirit guide.

I don’t know that I’ve ever read a comic book with this kind of catharsis.  In the last few years there have been several great, cathartic arcs (they made me care about Ted Kord, for example) in the DC mythos, but this is different.  It’s probably different because it’s Batman.  If you’re a Batman fan, you have a particular perspective on what that means, on what he means as a character, an archetype, a mythos-ethos form.  You know him, expect things from him, learn from him.  Batman is a folk hero in ways that run deeper than even Superman’s noble, selfless deigning.   Yes, they’re both ink and paper, but in our consciousness, Batman is flesh and blood, Superman etheral.  Batman is maybe something we could maybe be; Superman is God The Father, Batman is Incarnation.  Batman is Empathy.  He’s a symbol, to be sure, but his quest and his suffering are almost like our own.  We can see ourselves in them, anyway.

What really did it for me was how Gaiman expressed these things through Bruce’s relationship with his parents and heretofore unknown subtilties of his childhood.  The happy years with the Goodnight Book, his father’s penchant for heorics,  his mother reading him to sleep with the same goodnight motif and the touchstones of his life as Batman filling in for moon and stars, and then, of course, the end.  Even if you saw it coming, it was beautiful.   Like I said, part of my reaction is spefically because I’m a parent.  And so were the Waynes.  Parenthood — family — is the crucible of the Batman’s story.  Always has been.  This was brilliant.

Congratulate the writers of “Batman: The Brave and The Bold” for being the team to finally come up with a believable, enjoyable, heroic characterization for Aquaman, and voice actor John Di Maggio for executing it perfectly. 

Boo to all the haters that don’t get that this series isn’t supposed to be about Frank Miller’s Batman.  There are nods to many interpretations, but it’s a decidedly heroic take.  It’s also wry without dripping with camp or irony.  If you appreciate a long view of DC’s characters (and if you don’t, what’s the point of even following DC?), you should like this show.  The deft handling of Aquaman is really just one example of the overall editorial ethos of the show: I usually don’t use the word “clever” as a compliment, but the interpretations of the in-show universe and the heroes that inhabit it show great ingenuity. And Aquaman is awesome.

Someone found their way to this blog yesterday by searching for “batman singularity.”   I’ve written about Batman and about the singularity, but not until now have I considered The Batman Singularity.  Sounds like the title of a “The Big Bang Theory” episode.

Earlier today I read the first installment of “Whatever Happened To the Caped Crusader?” (Batman #686) by Neil Gaiman and Andy Kubert.  That could be seen as something of Batman Singularity.  So far, it’s good.  If you like metafiction and archetype stuff (I know many readers of this blog do), you should check it out.  Also, it’s Batman.

If something as awesome, wearable, and useful as this device is produceable now, why would anyone want to pursue meshing this kind of technology with human biology (as referenced in the last paragraph of the linked article)?   Put it into a watch or a phone and leave it at that.  I get the “next stage of human evolution” argument, but I don’t really understand the purpose.  And I don’t think it’s same as Pacemakers or other things that, you know, keep otherwise healthy people alive.  This seems like augmentation for the sake of augmentation.  Didn’t any of these people read Batman comics or watch “Gargoyles” in the 90s?  Come on, now. Then again, everyone working on smarter-than-human AI has probably seen The Matrix.  Smile for the singularity, kids. 

I’m not dissing people working on or interested in AI, by the way, (CH, NR, others) and I understand that I am collapsing differences between the augmentation and AI fields.  That said, assuming the singularity comes and doesn’t kill us, what would an ethic of augmentation even look like?  In a world where people die for want of food and inexpensive medicines, it’s probably not a good idea to dole out superpowers (that’s really what we’re talking about) to the people who can afford them.   Again, cautionary tales abound in the morality plays of narrative culture.

Spoilers follow.

So, great movie.  Here’s the thing.  I was thinking this would be great in the way that “The Godfather Part II” is great.  It’s not that, but maybe that’s not a fair comparison.  

“The Dark Knight” is much more a character-driven crime drama than a superhero movie, so comparisons to “Iron Man” or “The Incredible Hulk” or whatever don’t make much sense.  It’s definitely in it’s own league when it comes to movies based on comic book characters; indeed, this isn’t a comic book movie.  It’s not something you eat popcorn to.   This is sophisticated and textured and has real depth. 

Quick thoughts for now:

was hoping for a little more noir, and I was expecting the Joker’s reign to be longer and more menacing to the general populace.  

Heat Ledger did a great job, but I don’t think it was an Oscar kind of performance.  I also thought he sounded a lot like Richard Dreyfuss.  But he was really, really good.

Aaron Eckhart was a perfect Harvey Dent.  I really sympathized with his plight and could understand why Bruce did too.  I was rooting for him and really bought into his character. 

Gary Oldman was perfect as well.   The showdown scene with Gordon, Batman and Harvey/Two-Face was dead on.  Great acting by all three but Gordon and Eckhart stood out here and in other places.

I knew Jim’s death was a set up and I love how and when he showed back up.  I hated that Harvey and Rachel got caught and I was bothered that after apprehending the Joker, no one made damn sure that the DA and the assistant DA weren’t safe.

Some great lines from Dent, Bruce, Alfred, and Jim.  

I think the scene with the Joker falling and Batman saving him was a conscious thing by Nolan to right the wrong of the Batman sort of letting the Joker bite it in Burton’s first Batman (an amazing and truly revolutionary movie). 

Interesting use of the “prisoner’s dilemma.”

Was surprised that Rachel didn’t make it.

Hospital scene with Dent and Joker was classic. 

The disappearing pencil set the tone for the whole movie;  I would have liked to see more examples of that kind of thing, although I’m also glad I didn’t have to. 

“The Dark Knight” definitely transcended genre and engaged us on a ton of levels.  Well done. 

time for bed for now.

oh, also, I got chills during the “Watchmen” preview. Yeah, there’s a Watchmen preview.  And it was set to a Billy Corgan remake of the SP song from “Batman and Robin” which was even cooler.

Will review upon my return. Expecting transcendence.