Batman: The Dark Knight 0

Today, Patrick and (guest writer) Joe Picek are discussing Batman: The Dark Knight 0, originally released September 26, 2012. Batman: The Dark Knight 0 is part of the line-wide Zero Month.

Patrick: Batman’s origin is well known. So well known, in fact, that at this point, writers, artists and filmmakers should be able to assume their audience has a passing familiarity with the story. Even the details come readily to anyone that’s seen an action movie in the last couple decades. The string of pearls, the Monarch Theatre, Joe Chill – all pieces in a story we know by heart. Why, then, retell this story? Hm? I’ve seen this story more times than I can count; as evidenced by this review, I just read it again this week. And I suspect that this won’t be the last time, either.

The issue opens on Bruce partaking in his favorite pastime: ruminating on his parents’ murder. It’s a week after his folks were killed, so naturally, he’s able to slip past Alfred and return to the scene of the crime. In the alley, Bruce meets a homeless man with a Cloudy Eye. Bruce presses Cloudy Eye for information, but the vagrant steals Thomas Wayne’s watch and plants a dangerous idea in Bruce’s head: “everyone that powerful makes enemies.” It’s an idea that stays with him through the next eight years as Bruce goes to school, develops his physical prowess and continues to investigate his parents’ murder. But all that investigation turns up fuck-all, so Bruce returns to the alley, his shoulder’s broader and his collar popped. The years have not been as kind to Cloudy Eye, who gives up the name “Joe Chill” before Bruce demands his watch back. (That’s right, he sorta robs the guy.) Convinced this is the lead that will blow the case WIDE OPEN, Bruce tracks down Joe Chill. But Chill isn’t a criminal mastermind or a hitman or a gangster – he’s a junkie. No matter how much Bruce needed to think that his parents’ death meant something, the crime was senseless.

There are a few things about Gregg Hurwitz’ retelling of the origin that strain credibility. Most glaring of which is the 8-year time-lapse. I’m guessing “eight” here, because I think Bruce is supposed to be ten when he was orphaned, and I can only assume he’s 18 when he graduates from high school. In those eight years, that cloudy-eyed homeless man stays remarkably consistent. First of all, he’s alive – no mean feat for a homeless man in Gotham City. But he also still remembers the night Thomas and Martha Wayne were shot. Not only that, but he knew the name of the guy that shot them – it’s a pretty tight-knit community there in the alley behind the Monarch? Also, why would Cloudy Eye have made the suggestion that there was some larger plan at play all those years ago if he knew full-well what had happened? Just to fuck with the kid? You ever talk to a homeless person? They will say the nicest things to you to try to get your money – yes, sometimes it’s CREEPY AS FUCK, but they generally don’t imply that your life is part of some criminal conspiracy. But the most impossible thing about this pair of encounters is Thomas’ watch. Cloudy Eye wouldn’t have that thing 8 years later, he would have sold it.

It’s that spirit of “eh, he still has the watch because I said he still has the watch” that bugs me most. It doesn’t make any sense, but there it is anyway. Here’s another example: here’s this weird bit of graffiti outside of Chill’s apartment building that looks like a clown, and as it melts in the rain, it begins to resemble the Joker.

This wall wasn’t displaying this graphic on his way in, and it’s presented totally without context. And then… what the hell happens to it in the rain? I live in LA, and while we don’t get a lot of rain, we do get a shit-ton of graffiti. This isn’t what happens to graffiti when it gets wet. Also, I don’t get the point of alluding to this character here. Bruce’s voice-over talks about chaos and the meaninglessness of the crime – doesn’t it seemly openly contradictory to invoke the Joker’s name at this time?

Joe, are you reading Batman? (You should be – YOU ALL SHOULD BE.) This first year of the series had Bruce dealing with The Court of the Owls, and their attempt to assert their control over Gotham (through murder, of course). Issue 4 included a flashback to about this time in Bruce’s life, when he assumed the Court had something to do with his family’s deaths. He turns up nothing conclusive, and eventually convinces himself there is no such thing as Owls. It’s a powerful sequence – mostly because of how it informs the present-day story of the Owls reemerging. In Bruce’s studies in this issue of The Dark Knight, artists Mico Suayan and Juan Jose Ryp include a little Easter Egg – a sketch of a Talon (a Court of Owls assassin) on Bruce’s wall.

It’s a fun reference to spot, but it does contradict Batman #4. Bruce won’t encounter a Talon (and even then doesn’t believe that’s what he’s encountering) until decades later.

I also don’t know what to make of the hyper-explicit literary references Hurwitz drops in the middle of the issue. Bruce has an American Lit 101 class, where the teacher bring up both Emerson and Poe, presenting their ideas as somehow fundamentally different. Never mind that those two particular writers make a bizarre point of comparison (as one writes almost exclusively non-fiction essays on transcendentalism and the other invented the modern detective story), what’s the value in bringing up either one of them?

Joe, you’re an absurdly smart individual, do you see those references as dots for readers to connect to some pseudo-intellectual posturing? 

Joe: I’ve never been sure if I loved or hated the Batman origin story. I love Batman, but the reason I, and I assume most people, love Batman is the machinations of conspirators behind closed doors. The deaths of the Waynes explains why someone would dedicate their life to fighting crime, but not why they would fight organized crime. Some alternative origin stories, like the Court of the Owls in Batman give this motivation more meaning, since the Court of Owls gives a possible sinister meaning to the Waynes’ deaths.

I’m not sure about Hurwitz’s use of Emerson and Poe. Honestly, I found it a bit jarring and kinda glossed over the college scenes. Emerson never gave a Myth of America that portrayed the world to be beautiful and bright. Emerson was very grim in his assessment of the world, since most of what people knew was being uprooted and thrown into chaos and sooty darkness in the industrial revolution. Since the world kinda sucks, that’s why you have to look into yourself and find meaning apart from society in nature and yourself. Poe, on the other hand, didn’t just see chaos in the world. Poe never inverted this image of the world (or Hurwitz’s mistaken image). Not sure he even would have thought about it. So, I guess the references are exactly what I’d expect a student to get out of Lit 101…

I’m a little more bothered by the whole arch of the story. The extended focus on Bruce Wayne as a child seems almost self-critical of Batman’s motivations. His wallowing in self-misery, searching for a meaning to his pain, and a sense of powerlessness occupy almost half of the issue. Bruce Wayne seems to skip right over the development we all take for granted. His soul remains forever that of a wounded child, grasping desperately for meaning where the universe has only the void.

The dissolving clown mural was simplistic and unnecessary. However, the image of the Joker on the final page amid an inner monologue of chaos and nihilism gives us the point of the story in unambiguous terms (as to your point about graffiti, I wouldn’t doubt that it rains acetone in Gotham, though that would just make the cloudy eyed beggar’s survival more problematic…). Somehow, Bruce Wayne misses the message, saying, “I can’t help but wonder what else [the big bad world] has waiting in its dark alleys, peering out with glinting eyes and a bullet in the chamber.” The story tells us that we cannot know. The world is senseless and chaotic. Nothing about the origin story Hurwitz gave us would motivate someone to find the secret machinations behind closed doors. You don’t battle chaos with logic. You merely try to deal with it.

Also, a dueling pistol? Really? That was your plan?

Joe Picek is a graduate student in Davis, California. When statistics and data sets start to fry his brain, he heads for the hills and spends any free time hiking, biking, running, and generally enjoying all the outdoors Northern California has to offer.

For a complete list of what we’re reading, head on over to our Pull List page.  Whenever possible, buy your comics from your local mom and pop comic bookstore.  If you want to rock digital copies, head on over to DC’s website and download issues there.  There’s no need to pirate, right?

5 comments on “Batman: The Dark Knight 0

  1. I think the thing that really bugs me about this origin is that it doesn’t actually create Batman. If Bruce is driven to solve only one crime, he doesn’t need the panoply of skills he’s known for — just a very limited set. Take, for example, that scene where he’s pouring over Gotham history. For someone only trying to solve that crime, that kind of single-mindedness is appropriate, but how do you explain Bruce also being an excellent student? How does he graduate if he’s so preoccupied with a pointedly non-academic pursuit? Why is he even interested in going to school? He doesn’t need to pass (or even take) Lit 101 to track down his parent’s killer, SO WHY THE FUCK IS HE DOING IT? The explanations are either A) he was just innately good at everything, or B) he wasn’t so single-minded after all, either of which is way less compelling than someone devoting every waking moment of their lives to fighting all crime. Sure, it makes Bruce more ambitious, but it also makes him more selfless — he’s not just looking for closure for a crime that affected him personally, he’s trying to prevent other people from becoming victims. Maybe that’s not the first thing he comes up with. Maybe he aims for revenge first, but I think he has to make the decision to be the best at everything pretty early in order to actually carry it out. That Bruce sacrifices his childhood for all of Gotham is a pretty key element of that myth.

  2. I’ve been enjoying (for the most part) what Hurwitz has been doing so far, but this issue was unnecessary. Patrick’s right. How many times do we need to see Batman’s origin? I would have loved a James Gordon origin instead.

    • How has Hurwitz’ run been? Having only read this and his zero for DetCom, I’m not impressed, but I can totally appreciate that these aren’t the best indicator for what a writer can do. Is it worth checking out?

      • I’m really kind of torn. I LOVED his Penguin book and I was enjoying his TDK run at first but then the story kind of went downhill a little bit. It wasn’t terrible but I’m starting to get the feeling that Hurwitz is a one note kind of guy. Everything he does has been dark and twisted which is appropriate for Batman but sometimes it feels Hurwitz is making things darker just to make things darker. For instance, he wrote Thomas Wayne as a completely uncaring jerk for no reason. It’s like Hurwitz thinks NOTHING in Bruce’s life can be good. While I think that logic works great for Batman’s rogues, it isn’t entirely appropriate for Bruce.

        Patrick, a big part about his Scarecrow arch was exploring his past, and I felt it was the most successful/entertaining part of the story.

What you got?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s