Batman, Duality and The Deal
"See, there were these two guys in a lunatic asylum... and one night, one night they decide they don't like living in an asylum any more. They decide they're going to escape! So, like, they get up onto the roof, and there, just across this narrow gap, they see the rooftops of the town, stretching away in the moon light... stretching away to freedom. Now, the first guy, he jumps right across with no problem. But his friend, his friend didn't dare make the leap. Y'see... Y'see, he's afraid of falling. So then, the first guy has an idea... He says "Hey! I have my flashlight with me! I'll shine it across the gap between the buildings. You can walk along the beam and join me!" B-but the second guy just shakes his head. He suh-says... He says "Wh-what do you think I am? Crazy? You'd turn it off when I was half way across!” - The Joker
Regardless of whether you subscribe to the Joker origin story presented in The Killing Joke, an important concept in that comic is that both characters were born out of tragedy. Batman responds to the death of his parents through adoption of a militant-Christian role, embodying the classical Greek values of prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude as well as the theological virtues; faith, hope and charity. Batman is incorruptible, immutable and absolute. Conversely, Joker loses faith in the world and begins to act as an emissary of sorts for the corruption, inconsistency and chaos he sees around him. The Joker stands for uncertainty, uncomfortable questions and the issues raised by attempts to express pure intentions through impure action.
The Joker is nothing if not reliable
The Deal, a Batman fan-comic written by Gerardo Preciado, broaches duality as a core theme once again in its bid to tell the 'final' Batman story. Right off the bat (heh), there are a lot of hoops to jump through when it comes to concluding Batman; the balance between Batman and the Joker is a delicate one, held in place only by the formulaic nature of their confrontations, the timelessness of them. If one side ever truly managed to defeat the other, it would serve as proof that – at least, in the Batman universe – the winning side’s ideals were representative of the metaphysical truth. Such a black-and-white outcome would, in many ways, ruin the depth offered by the conflict and contrast of justice and anarchy, and order and chaos. Given how well-established the Batman-Joker relationship is, analysis of The Deal is essentially an exercise in adherence to formula and, perhaps more importantly, deviance from it.
It’s clear from the outset that the chips are down, we’re immediately given the impression that this is the last act of an unseen Batman story. Commissioner Gordon lies dead and bloodied against the comic’s title, and a dismembered Alfred somewhat faithfully re-enacts the climax of Se7en. The caped crusader’s face is veiled by shadow, so the reader’s attention is held through the suspense of seeing his reaction to the unprecedented carnage around him. The Joker’s note, “To Bruce with love xoxo”, is suitably morbid and subtly heightens the drama by revealing that the Joker is savvy to Batman’s secret identity.
We’re honestly off to a promising start; a story that attempts to ‘end’ Batman really has no choice but to raise the stakes higher than they've ever been raised before, but I can’t shake the feeling that Preciado is flying too close to the sun. It can be easy to mistake grit for depth, or to let characters die dramatically in lieu of nuanced character and story development.
Unfortunately, things begin to fall apart at the turn of a page (or, more accurately, the scroll of a mouse). The second page can be best described as cruel; while artist Daniel Bayliss’ panelling is frankly phenomenal, it’s attached to the ball and chain of a Batman story with a protagonist who is clearly not Batman. All teeth and dried lips and grit – this mock “Batman” is a poor substitute for the genuine article, and the generic dialogue he’s been slapped with doesn't do him any favours. With regard to the idea that an artist can interpret popular characters however they like in a fan work, I don’t get a sense of any type of respect for the source material. On a less critical note, the fly on Alfred’s eye initially resembles a macabre cliché, but the panel in question demonstrates a sort-of self-aware comic exaggeration that’s reflected throughout the comic. Neat touch!
Cut to an admittedly very cool Joker-themed blimp hovering over Gotham; the sense of height is conveyed expertly and serves as a subtle Chekhov’s Gun for the impending fight sequence. Our eyes are instructed to follow the laughter to a gleeful Joker as Batman breaks his bonds. Our first close-up of the Joker reveals a pretty interesting character design reminiscent of Caesar Romero’s interpretation, whose visage is quickly bloodied when faux-Batman engages in a rather one-sided brawl with him. Batman beating up the Joker is routine for the characters by this point, but the raised stakes and well-illustrated action panels turn what would otherwise be a simple matter of playing the trope straight into a more enthralling sequence. As an aside, it’s always nice to see comic action in a more ‘serious’ fan work; it shows a genuine appreciation of what makes the superhero genre, and an awareness that there is more to these characters than the "cool" psychological oddities.
The scenario plays out like clockwork, with Joker matching Batman’s brawn through sheer verbosity, but playing it straight proves less effective this time around as poor, unnatural dialogue stands in the way of any attempt at holding dramatic tension.
“That was the deal”, claims a beaten Joker. Faux-Batman doesn't seem to appreciate the Joker’s playful elusiveness, as he continues to lay down a beating. While I lauded the comic for its recognition and use of formula on the previous page, “angry tough guy beating up smiling, card-holding, vague-line-spouting villain” is certainly a cliché by this point; so to have the Joker continue taunting both faux-Bats (just to drive home this point: the real Batman would never say "I'm gonna send you to hell.") and the reader without actually saying anything meaningful is milking the scenario for more than its worth. Sadly, Batman’s insistence that he’s “done with” the Joker doesn't actually herald any sort of climax, and The Deal starts to hide behind this tired format, dancing around the core theme not in an effort to be subtle, but because it doesn't really know what it’s trying to say - I'll expand on this when we get to the Joker's soliloquy. I find myself compelled to praise Bayliss' art once again, as his panelling makes this fight sequence a feast for the eyes.
[contented sigh]. Faux-Batman’s redeeming moment. His instinctual decision to save the Joker from plummeting to his death, even given how far the latter has gone this time, is so very pleasantly in character. With the Joker dangling, and the blimp giving out under the force of gravity, it's apparent that we're nearing the end of the comic. Ladies and gentlemen, you're in for a ride.
This is as good a time as any to point out that some of the dialogue is actually pretty good; the little exchange on page 9 with a hungry, waiting Gotham below it is framed and executed pretty nicely. The following page reminds us that the Joker is, infuriatingly enough, still trying to maintain his air of vagueness. Finally, he coughs up something resembling an answer:
"Because I love you."
Hm. Sorry, I'm not fooled. Obviously the Joker isn't talking about any kind of physical intimacy when he professes his love, but just because we're meant to look past that first definition, doesn't mean there's anything hidden behind it. Quite the opposite; there is nothing behind it, equating a dualistic relationship with love and calling it a day, is nothing but lazy, dishonest writing. Batman tries to fill the gaps left by Joker's vacuous dribble, but with only generic one-liners in his arsenal, there's little he can do.
Oh lord. I suddenly feel bad for describing the Joker's dialogue on the previous page as "vacuous dribble". This is vacuous dribble - I'm even tempted to invoke Poe's law right now; this page honestly hits all the same notes as a work of satire. The Joker is basically using this page to showcase his understanding of the greater connection he has with Batman; their effigial relationship. However, merely pointing out that such a connection exists, and then expressing that same sentiment several more times in increasingly pseudo-poetic, metaphysical terms isn't exactly profound...
...Which makes Batman's dramatic response to the Joker's words come off as frankly ridiculous. Batman has shown his own awareness of how similar he is to the Joker several times in the past, it forms a large part of his resolve, so a more fitting response than "I know" might've been "Yeah, so?". The question of whether Batman would forfeit his ideals and 'give in' when faced with extreme circumstances is certainly one worth asking, but it's not an easy one to answer, leaving little room for clumsy execution.
As Batman releases his grip, Gotham City rushes up to meet the pair, their descent framed by a quote from nineties comedian/cynicist Bill Hicks. "The world is like a ride" is how Hicks usually opted to end his shows, and while I personally found the bit a little confused in its own context, it makes even less sense in the context of The Deal. Hicks straddles the line between hippy-esque motivational idealism a la John Lennon's Imagine and nihilism (a line that I'm not sure even exists), and it bothers me that he uses "nothing really matters" to play to the edgy philosopher in us before shoe-horning in a moralistic plea to "take all the money we spend on weapons and defence and instead spend it on feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world" - not that I disagree with the sentiment, it's just a disingenuous way of expressing it. That's not the real problem with the quote, however; the real problem is how far you would have to stretch to relate the quote to The Deal beyond the vague notion that, again, "nothing really matters". The pretentious insertion doesn't do the conceptually-awesome "falling" scene and the bat-shaped blood splatter any justice, and the comic really could've used - nay, needed - a more powerful ending.
While I respect what Preciado was attempting, part of me feels like he'd shot himself in the foot before he'd even begun. To work off of the assumption that Batman and the Joker are akin to yin and yang is to not recognise the 'human' element present in all of the best Batman stories. Even if duality is an intrinsic force of nature, we're still seeing the story through a human filter; ergo duality can be nothing more than an interpretation of their relationship, a perspective. Stories that work off of concrete notions of 'right' and 'wrong', 'what is' and 'what isn't'... They're children's stories. Depth is achieved not through taking one idea to the extreme, but through the interplay between ideas.
I'm left unsure of whether it's even possible to successfully 'end' Batman on terms like these, but it's nice to know that there are creative, talented people out there pushing boundaries and attempting stories like this - for better or worse.
-----
Batman: The Deal
Moonhead Press on Facebook
Moonhead Press on Twitter
