Batman and the Justice League

 

I recently re-read Alex Ross, Jim Krueger, and Doug Braithwaite's Justice. Highly recommended for any DC fans who haven't read it.

*Spoiler Alert!*

Anyone else ever notice how Batman's secret files on the Justice League are always getting them into trouble? Here, the Riddler and the Legion of Doom stole the files and used them against the league. In Mark Waid's JLA arc "Rock of Ages" Ra's Al Ghul was behind it. Geoff Johns did it twice: first in Infinite Crisis when Batman's surveillance system Brother Eye became sentient under Maxwell Lord, unleashing hordes of OMACs on the world, and more recently in the New 52's "Trinity War" when "The Outsider" stole the contingency plans from the Batcave.

The perils of being paranoid...

Maybe Batman is actually the Justice League's worst enemy?!?

Man of Steel: Review (Spoilers)

The newest spin on America's First Superhero hit movie theaters this month, and I must say: for a movie about a flying man, it was actually very grounded. At first, I was wary of a more serious, modern take on Superman. Less color, less whimsy, no Lex Luthor, no Jimmy Olsen, and no underpants on the outside! For shame! And did we really need another origin reboot? But like any legend or folktale, whether it's told via oral tradition, serialized print, or hi tech filmmaking, Superman must change with the times. He must reflect the changing needs of both storytellers and audiences. The character's heart is so embedded in our collective consciousness that no matter how many details change, Superman will always remain, well, super.

In Man of Steel, we see an updated version of Superman's origin. Of course, all the familiar elements are still there: "Rocketed to Earth from the doomed planet Krypton, the baby Kal-El was found and raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent in Smallville, Kansas. Now an adult, Clark Kent fights for Truth, Justice & The American Way as... SUPERMAN!" Perhaps now we should just say he fights for "The Humanitarian Way," as this movie boldly asserts.

This particular film had a clear focus on Clark's conflict of identity. Is he a human or an alien? He was blessed to have two sets of parents who believed he could be the best of both worlds. However, he was not Krypton's only survivor, as the militant General Zod and his army also escaped Krypton's destruction by their imprisonment in the extra-dimensional Phantom Zone. Upon their escape, they set designs on Earth as the location for New Krypton, hoping to succeed where Clark had "failed"  in reconceiving the race by the use of their artificial birthing technology, the codex. As Clark discovers more and more of his alien roots, he is encouraged by his adoptive father to resist the overt demonstration of his superpowers, but Zod & company have no such moral imperatives, and their arrival on Earth forces Clark out of hiding. In a very dramatic fashion, this film positioned Clark as Earth's only line of defense against these powerful alien conquerors.

That Clark would choose to defend his adopted planet at the cost of resurrecting his homeworld spoke volumes to his character. Krypton seemed to represent an evolutionary dead end -- a highly advanced technological society undone by its own cold, prideful, and dominating ways. Does that sound like a meta-warning to anyone else? I thought it was ironic when the Kryptonian soldier Faeora said, "Evolution always wins," because the barbaric, impatient, demanding, forceful Kryptonians didn't strike me as too "evolved." I guess it depends on whether or not one subscribes to Charles Darwin's theory "survival of the fittest," or instead, Joseph Chilton Pearce's "The Biology of Transcendence." If they had truly "come in peace," Superman might have worked with them rather than against them. It might have taken a longer time for Earthlings and Kryptonians to learn to co-exist peacefully, but it was Zod's mania that stood in the way of his success.

It was clear from beginning to end that Clark/Kal-El was a man of great courage, strong morals and compassion for those around him. The whole plot revolved around Superman overcoming his almost pacifist, more specifically non-interventionist upbringing. In natural disasters, in accidents, in alien invasions, Clark couldn't help but use his natural abilities toward saving as many lives as possible. This may have made him a villain or an enemy to be feared in the eyes of some like Zod, but it is what makes him a hero to countless others. A defender of the weak, he's willing to earn people's trust. He knows the burden of responsibility, that a man with extraordinary power must also show extraordinary restraint. This Man of Steel truly has a Heart of Gold.

Here I must mention two particularly gripping moments in the film. The death of Jonathan Kent, and the killing of General Zod. Pa Kent died when rescuing a dog from a deadly tornado. Clark could have publicly intervened, but Pa strongly refused. Was this brave? foolish? suicidal? I'd like to think that it was at least meaningful. Pa knew that the time was not yet right for Clark to reveal himself, and I guess one of the most valuable lessons he could teach Clark was that an honorable death is one of the greatest things a person (human or alien) could aspire to. This was a recurring theme. And although Clark has great salvific powers, even a Superman has limitations. Pa taught this god-like being humility, where any other man in his place might not have.

And so, Zod arrives, intent on using all his powers to destroy, and Superman has to take him down. Quite notably, this film saw Superman, for 75 years a pop culture paragon of virtue, break his no-killing code. I had heard about "the neck-snapping" beforehand so I was prepared for it. And honestly, I thought it was well handled. It was clearly a last resort, for it was established early on that nothing on Earth could imprison a Kryptonian; even Superman had disadvantages facing Zod in direct combat; and arguably, his artificial genetics defied redemption. But Superman has made this particular exception once before, in the 1988 comic book Superman v2 #22 - "The Price." It's a cultural discussion that we need to have in each generation, is it ever right to take someone's life or is there "always another way" as superheroes are wont to say? Many men are called to war at some point in their life, and for Superman, this was literally a battlefield decision, one that he will likely carry with him for the rest of his life. For most fans, this is sacrilege. For me, it's compelling drama to see Superman in truly compromising, "human" situations.

It's the symmetry and tragic irony of Kryptonian villains that fills this movie with drama and suspense, but perhaps to its detriment, the film hyper-accelerated and condensed key character developments that saw a much slower burn in other forms of media. I was not too distracted by its pacing, but it did seem to take a number of character beats for granted. For example, Jor-El's disembodied consciousness was very quick to presume that his son was ready to accept his heritage and duty. Forget the 12 years of study spent in the Fortress of Solitude in the Donner version. Also, Lois had a real knack for showing up in the right place at the right time with the perfect plot advancing device. Perhaps that's what makes her and Superman such a perfect match.

I loved how the movie really drew from the whole of the Superman mythos. I saw elements of the comics (specifically, New Krypton,  Superman: Birthright, Superman: Earth One, the New 52, and the aforementioned Superman #22) and the films (Superman: the Movie and Superman II; it even had some similarities in plot to the recent Avengers film). I should have known that director Zack Snyder would be reverential to the character after his closely detailed adaptation of Watchmen. The influence of Batman veterans Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer was also keenly felt with this more somber interpretation. Gone is the silliness of the Silver and Bronze age, here is the seriousness of the Modern age writ large. As it was in the beginning, these characters are equal parts dark and light. Tragedy and Hope.

The breadth of this film was surprisingly well done. It utilized some of the typical Messianic, Sun-God imagery juxtaposed with some very naturalistic settings and events,  but it also played to its more accessible sci-fi, action spectacle strengths. You go from an alien planet, to a farm, a school, a church, and an IHOP, to frozen tundra, military bases, and the great city of Metropolis.

I enjoyed the new, somewhat alternative cast. Red-headed Lois Lane and black Perry White are such superficial details at this point in time, it really didn't make a difference. Amy Adams and Laurence Fishburne are both great actors. The new Jor-El and Lara and Ma and Pa Kent all tugged at the heartstrings. It was cool seeing Superman let loose after Ma was threatened (Another sad irony: calling your adoptive parent "irreplacable"). I enjoyed Henry Cavill as Superman and if he can play up the more unassuming side of Clark Kent (as opposed to the so-painfully-obvious-it's-Superman side we saw at the end), then this franchise should do well going forward. While this film did retread some familiar ground, it ultimately succeeded in leaving its own stamp on the Superman brand, and I would definitely recommend this thoughtful and exciting film to anyone with an interest in superheroes.

X-Men and School Violence.

It recently occurred to me just how relevant Jason Aaron's X-Men comic books are these days. The schism between Wolverine and Cyclops and the establishment of the Jean Grey School and the new Xavier School have real world parallels in the current pedagogical debate over whether or not physical self-defense measures are necessary for students and/or faculty. Ideally, schools and students shouldn't be under threat; in reality, schools and students sometimes, but rarely, face some very grave and serious threats (VA Tech, Sandy Hook, Malala Yousafzai). My own high school faced bomb threats and had one student investigated for a shooting plot. An empty threat is nothing to be afraid of but the fear comes quickly with the threat proves real.

The X-Men are dumb because their current dispute (in the titles of All-New X-Men, Uncanny X-Men, and Wolverine and the X-Men) distracts them from the real threats they face: Mystique's new Brotherhood on one side, and the Hellfire Club and their Sentinels on the other. What are our real-world enemies that we lose sight of in our political debates? As we take sides over gun-safety legislation, who's really got us marked for termination? Do we even want to know? All the bitterness in the X-Men comics just proves that while an enemy can only hurt you, only a friend can betray you... and apparently, both can kill you. Unless you are practically unkillable like Wolverine.

R.I.P. Professor X. I wonder how long you'll stay dead this time around.

Late-Night Musings - Seeking Serenity

I need to reconcile a few thoughts that have been swirling around in my head in response to this past week.

Firstly, the Boston Bombing and the proceeding news coverage has been yet another blow to the collective consciousness. It disturbs me that most media voices claim that we've handled the situation well. Even more disturbing to me are the comparisons I've heard made to 9/11. This pathetic attempt at a "terrorist attack" was nowhere near as devastating, and I'm ashamed that we as Americans are so quick to demand justice for fragile bourgeoisie types, yet we are so disdainfully slow at working justice for the disenfranchised and poor. Worse bombings than this have been happening with much more frequency in the middle east and no one gives a damn. But when it happens on our own land we freak out. Worse crimes are committed daily by powerful people in our own country and we turn a blind eye. This manhunt we arranged for the suspect, a scared 19 year old boy, speaks volumes about the way we neglect our obligation to raise a generation in love instead of in constant fear, hatred and paranoia. What's more dangerous: a kid with weapons or a society that teaches kids no better way?

Poverty is a deadly state. Not only material poverty, but also intellectual and spiritual poverty. All of these are compounded by the fact that we are in so many ways afraid or unwilling to share with our neighbors. We may live in one of the richest nations in the world, but our spiritual poverty is our undoing.

Thankfully, there are many places in America and the world at large where there is Spirit in abundance. Where love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control are not only high-minded ideals, but tangible realities. If you don't know where these places are, all I can say is look for them. Intently. And if you can't find them, insist upon them in your own life. It's my wish that we could maximize these states of being, and minimize our preoccupation with unending strife.

I saw a episode of an HBO program called Vice this past evening. There were some heart-rending images of babies born with birth defects in war-torn countries. Excuse me for saying so, but this is my only frame of reference for something like this: they looked like mutants from a comic-book. Except this was real.

Real Death. Real Suffering.  It's not hard to find... except in some ways, it kind of is. It makes me realize how sheltered my life has been, that although I've seen dead people, I've never seen anyone die or be killed in person, never seen any truly disturbing sicknesses up close, never been involved in any sort of brutal violence, never really wanted for anything as I've always had more than basic food, shelter and clothing.

It's a curious position to be in, as I am neither seeking these experiences, nor running from them. As I see it, I am simply living life as it has been granted to me. I'm learning not to feel guilty because of such privilege, but also not to give in to complacent, entitled attitudes. I want to make choices that I can be proud of, living as meaningfully as I know how and relating to others as lovingly as I possibly can, all the while knowing that I am only a human being and we all have to make the most of our frustrating limitations.

It creates a painful disconnect in me to be bombarded with images of people in terrible suffering on a daily basis, yet to be so powerless to do anything about most of it. Then I realize I have the power to turn the TV off, or go offline, but is that just being willfully (or blissfully) ignorant? After ages of civilization, why have we not figured out an answer for this problem? Must social advancement always come hand in hand with social devastation?

I've read how in Buddhist thought, nothing is more real than the present world around you. And yet, life is merely an illusion. The illusion of suffering, bondage, or more specifically, Samsara. If we can only Awaken, as the Buddha did, to the moment, by the awareness of impermanence and the practice of non-attachment, then we will find Enlightenment.

I write of this, not to deny the suffering of others, but rather to affirm the non-suffering in my own life at this present moment, and, hopefully, to share this affirmation with someone else. If someone has the spare time to read this post, the digital/electronic means to receive it, and the awareness that such a connection between persons is a blessing, then maybe we can make more and more similar connections with the people around us (both physically and in cyberspace). We can choose better ways; we can turn away from destructive things and lean instead toward constructive ones, moment by moment, step by step. So often we wallow in endless miseries, wandering from one shocking tragedy to the next as if the depravity of man were something new and novel. If only the whole world could start consciously affirming non-suffering, not by denying suffering, or worse, condemning one another to needless suffering, but by embracing suffering as a pathway to peace, by envisioning the inevitable transformation of suffering into something better...

I think this is a good time for "The Serenity Prayer" by Reinhold Niebuhr.

God grant me the Serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
and Wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.

Smash-ing in Exile

This much maligned NBC series made its death-march to the shameful Saturday slot tonight. I watched in solidarity.  Everyone is forecasting the end of this show, but I have to say, I honestly do not get what all the Smash-hate is about. I only started watching it this season, and then I went back and watched the first season. True, it's not a perfect show, perhaps a little too melodramatic and soapy, but it does stand apart from a lot of the other shows out there by its subject matter alone. As a Broadway fan, I'm inclined to like it, but I guess the majority of Americans simply aren't interested.

In my opinion, this show has more going for it than it's nearest competition, Glee (which I also like). Glee may have more musical performances per episode, but Smash performs more original music and they've proved with this season that they can explore the NY theatre community at-large instead of just remaining focused on one production like in the first season. If they are serious about the fictional musicals they are developing, they could easily translate those works to the real world. Would people like it more if it was less about the behind-the-scenes fictional drama, and instead more of a showcase for talent, new and old? A place for thespians to go when it's not Tony season?

Tonight's episode alone featured Megan Hilty, Christian Borle, Jesse L. Martin, Daphne Rubin-Vega, and Miz Liza Minelli herself. Theatre people are coming out of the woodwork to support (or at least, guest-star on) this show. Actual composers and songwriters such as Shaiman & Wittman, Pasek & Paul, and Andrew McMahon are creating the music. I don't understand why a show with so much talent is failing. I thought America loved talent shows?

Maybe it's Broadway's fault. As much as there is a hunger for good new material, there's also a perpetual, self-defeating nostalgia for old works. And for too long, live theatre has had trouble competing with filmed entertainment. That's why I think it would be cool if the two could work together in bringing theatre to the masses. Don't tell me there's room in pop culture for Les Mis, but not for Miz Liza?

Scooby-Doo, My Thanks to You!

Today, the final episodes of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated aired on Cartoon Network. Never before has a Scooby-Doo series or movie shown so much intelligence, drama, and style. Since the first season, I have been praising SD!MI to anyone who would listen. If you haven't seen this show, stop reading right now and go watch the first episode, "Beware the Beast from Below." I promise you, you will be hooked. Or, at least, intrigued.

In 1969, Hanna-Barbera's original Scooby-Doo, Where Are You? cartoon won over audiences with it's silly humor and non-threatening monster mysteries, but even with its great character designs by Iwao Takamoto, its spooky backgrounds, and its memorable music (not to mention a theme song absolutely embedded in today's pop culture consciousness), ...Where Are You? was never lauded for being a high-quality program. The plots were formulaic and the animation was often sub-par, but there was something intangible and indescribable about the gang of meddling teenagers and their talking dog that captured the imagination. Perhaps it was the show's simplicity that added to its charm. It became so successful that H-B's later attempts to duplicate that magic formula with shows like Jabberjaw and The Funky Phantom were failures by comparison. And to be frank, even the later Scooby-Doo cartoons and movies failed to fully capture the essence of the original series.

Out of the subsequent iterations, every fan has his or her favorites. When I was coming along (I'm 24 now), I liked the live-action movies and the VHS tapes I had of Scooby-Doo and the Reluctant Werewolf, ...Zombie Island, ...the Witch's Ghost, ...the Alien Invaders. I even had a couple of entertaining Scooby-Doo Nintendo video games. But as the direct-to-video releases became progressively worse and each new cartoon series disappointed, my interest waned. I would seek out the episodes of the older series, but they never fully satisfied. They would either ditch members of the original gang, or add annoying new ones (like Scrappy-Doo and Flim Flam), or turn them all into kids (A Pup Named Scooby-Doo), or feature guest stars who are now old or dead (Sonny & Cher?).

All these superficial changes kept the franchise alive, but did little to advance the mythology of the characters. For years, certain mysteries hung over the original premise. Where exactly did these kids live? Coolsville, or elsewhere? Did they have parents? How come they never had to go to school? Were Fred and Daphne a couple? And what about Shaggy and Velma, for that matter? How was Scooby able to talk and why did everyone accept it as normal?

For years, I had been a Scooby-Doo fan who felt like the franchise had not yet fully lived up to its potential by avoiding these questions. And all too often, Scooby-Doo was cursed by the hand of network censors, forced into being extra cute and kid-friendly (Shaggy & Scooby Doo Get A Clue!). Any sense of peril or emotional drama was usually axed. Even as a kid, I never liked being talked down to like that. The versions of Scooby-Doo I always enjoyed most had that alluring dark atmosphere, tempered only by the innocence and heart of the main characters. Scooby-Doo! Mystery Inc. embraced that and took it to the next level by establishing a real setting and supporting cast, allowing for some romance, crafting an overarching mystery behind the old done-in-one-episode format, regularly homaging popular horror films, exploring both the rational and the supernatural, and mixing all of the classic Scooby-Doo elements into the show it was always meant to be.

This was the Scooby-Doo show that I always wanted and I'm so glad that it is now exists in its entirety. It not only began with high quality, but it maintained it throughout its 52 episode run. It respected the history of the characters, while gently ribbing them with self-aware, tongue-in-cheek humor. It culminated in a fantastic, expansive mystery, although from the very beginning all the clues were laid, pointing toward its inevitable end. It also gave the characters some very emotional and appropriate send-offs. This show is the ouroboros of Scooby-Doo: everything came full circle, and in that completion it finds eternity (or at least, syndication :-P). How many other shows end in such a way as to take you back to the very beginning?

It's a shame that Cartoon Network treated this series so shabbily during its run with fleeting air schedules and poor promotion. Even the finale was billed as "Another new episode, airing NOW" instead of something important. Maybe it's a blessing that it turned out to be more of a sleeper hit than a really popular series. No noticeable story meddling from the powers that be.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge Frank Welker, the only remaining original cast member in his role as Fred Jones, who also inherited the role of Scooby-Doo--the star, himself (made famous, of course, by the late Don Messick). Legend has it, Scooby-Doo was the role he first auditioned for all those years ago, but he got the part of Fred instead. Over time, he became the highest grossing Hollywood actor (next to only Samuel L. Jackson) by doing numerous human and animal voices, and now he's filled the role of Freddy and Scooby with much aplomb. He truly is a Voice Artist Supreme. An honorable mention also goes to Casey Kasem, the original Shaggy, who in this series played Shaggy's Dad. This series has employed an amazing voice cast, including the stellar work of Grey DeLisle (Daphne), Mindy Cohn (Velma), and live-action Scooby alumni Matthew Lillard (Shaggy) and Linda Cardellini (Hot Dog Water/Marcy), not to mention many surprising guest voices, like Lewis Black, Vivica A. Fox, and Harlan Ellison.

That's enough for this retrospective. I'm thinking about posting some specific episode reviews soon.
Thanks Scooby-Doo! Mystery Inc. for being totally awesome from start to finish! And thanks Scooby Gang for teaching us to always be curious and to be brave in the face of danger (even if we might be a little afraid at first!)

Shaggy: "Whoa! This place is, like, mega-creepy and scary! Is it too late to turn back?"
Scooby-Doo: "Yes! Way too late."
~"Through the Curtain"

Come what may, there's always another mystery to be solved. Who better to solve them with than our best friends?

Batman: Death of the Family (Review & Spoilers)

I will admit to having a Grant Morrison bias. I honestly love everything about his Batman run. (See my previous post on Batman, Inc.) I only read "Death of the Family" to see what all the hype was about. I read Batman #13-17 in one sitting. I've gotta say, it felt very empty and meaningless as I was reading it, and now that I've taken it all in, I find it particularly perverse and over-the-top ridiculous. That said, I can't tell if it's a bad Batman story, or a really good Joker story.

People complain about Morrison writing "Batgod," I have to call out Scott Snyder for writing "Jokerdevil." This version of the Joker has transcended regular human levels of villainy. He's become extraordinarily capable at committing crimes and yet he remains entirely elusive, like some sort of pale ghost demon. He lives in a delusion where the only thing that matters is his relationship with Batman; everyone else is peripheral, or even worse, disposable--a means to the end of making Batman notice him.

On a metafictional level, this book satisfied little more than the typical horror fan's desire to gaze into the dark abyss yet from a safe distance where he or she can walk away unscathed, save some slight emotional trauma, just like all the main characters at the end. Their skins weren't saved by the efforts of their own heroism, surprisingly it was thanks to the mercy given from the Joker himself. Not only his mercy, but also his deep-seated fear of pushing Batman too close to the breaking point. The story undermined itself, concluding that no matter how homicidal and torturous the Joker becomes, the Bat-Family and their secrets are off limits because in some warped way he needs their (and especially Batman's) "loving" attention.

It's an interesting story conceit that a man so completely criminal and deranged would have the wherewithal to drive so much of the plot. In a way, he earned the mechanic's outfit he wore in this arc with his workman-like ability to craft and commit so many crimes. I still find it bizarre that DC would decide that the New 52 Joker should display a greater fondness for grotesqueries, and yet continue to assault Batman with little more than empty threats, cheap stunts, and outlandish bluffs like in the Silver Age. Either he's a legitimate threat, or he's not--Snyder can't have it both ways. I almost hate to admit it, but I appreciate the Joker more when his actions have more serious consequences (like in The Killing Joke, A Death in the Family, and Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker). Very often, he proves that he's more than just an ineffectual clown, but unfortunately that's what he's ultimately revealed as here.


 
We all know the reasons (both fictional and realistic) why Batman can't kill him, but it makes absolutely no sense that no one else would (or could). In real life, somebody would have killed him after his first crime spree. Look at what happened in the news recently to madman Christopher Dorner... I just realized how much this story makes me appreciate what happened in the opening pages of Grant Morrison's first arc (when the cop impersonating Batman shoots Joker in the head). The Joker may be one of the greatest comic book villains of all time, and I'm no fan of capital punishment, but it's hard for me to suspend my disbelief that Batman and Gotham City would continue to tolerate his existence. 

In fact, the most unsettling aspect of the story for me was the reveal that Batman finds himself literally captivated by the Joker's personality, enabling him to resurface time and time again. The last page of issue 15's main story said it all, and his talks with the sidekicks and Alfred made it even more explicit. He keeps playing right into the Joker's hand as he tries to understand him. He doesn't realize that the more he chases the Joker, the more he validates the Joker's sado-masochistic fantasies. Is this the secret that has slightly alienated Batman's allies? The Batman himself has some strong delusions and blind spot that tends to allow the King of Chaos enough power and freedom to establish his rule. The Joker may pretend be the jester of Batman's court, but it's all just a ruse to make King Batman play the fool.

In the end, Batman caught on to the Joker's devices and turned them on him by bluffing back. Bruce doesn't really know who the Joker used to be and probably never will. The real ironic twist is that the Joker is more afraid of having his secret identity exposed than Batman is. His new face-cutting hobby was little more than elaborate misdirection--a literal metaphor exposing Joker's actual face as his true mask. When Batman finally gave the Joker the undivided attention he kept begging for, he couldn't handle it, once again letting himself fall into oblivion. Thus we have the dramatic reveal that the Joker actually has little to no interest in Batman's "secret" identity, while Batman remains haunted by the fact that the ghost clown seems to have entirely forsaken not only his former identity, but even more-so his fundamental humanity.

 
For the most part, I found this story too disaffecting, but it wasn't completely without merit. Greg Capullo's art definitely deserves a mention. It was appropriately dark and disturbing, but with a cartoonish sensibility that really fit. I'm not sure I'll ever be a fan of deadface!Joker, but I'm almost convinced that Snyder does indeed 'get' who the Joker is, even if it seems to be on a more subconscious level, considering how much of this storyline lacked substance. I mean that literally; the Joker in this story ended up being much more of a psychological threat than a physical threat. Usually, I would not complain about a psychological Batman story because he and his villains have always been largely psychological characters, but in this case it totally worked against the plausibility of the plot. Still, this was one of the more memorable Joker stories in recent history, and it borrowed enough classic elements to make it noteworthy. I guess the creepy clown was about due for a major spotlight in the funny books. I can deal with the gratuitous facelift because I'm certain his face won't be floppy forever. He reinvents himself far too often to stay that way.

Look forward to my future post, "Batman vs. Joker: A Homophobic Fantasy?"