Review: “Joker” HC one-shot
On October 22, DC will be releasing the hardcover graphic novel Joker (originally titled [[[Joker: The Dark Knight]]]), presented to you by writer Brian Azzarello and artist Lee Bermejo. This is the same creative team who were behind the mini-series [[[Lex Luthor: Man of Steel]]], which explored the mind-set of the Metropolis multi-millionaire and touched on his justifications for why he sees himself as the necessary anti-thesis to the Last Son of Krypton.
[[[Joker]]] is a story of roughly the same note, though not narrated by the villain as Lex Luthor: Man of Steel was. In this hardcover graphic novel, the story is narrated by Jonny Frost, a two-bit hood. In an interview with Newsarama, Azzarello said that the reason for this was because the Joker’s narration couldn’t be trusted, given that he was insane, and so it was important to see it from the point of view of someone close to him.
As the tale begins, the Joker has been in Arkham for some time now and has only just now been released, legally and by the book (though how is never explained). This book plays the Joker as a gangster rather than a mass murdering psycho constantly trying to prove there is no point to life. As such, one of the major plot elements is that the Joker had several criminal operations going on when he went in and now he’s found that they have been taken over by others. To regain his criminal power and his money, the Joker begins hunting down the Gotham mobsters who have dared to dip into his operations, telling them, “I want what’s mine back.”
To help him on this quest, he grabs Killer Croc and Harley Quinn (who seems to be a mute in this story), as well as new assistant Jonny Frost, our narrator, a small-timer who admires the Joker and wants to be just like him. As the story goes on, the Joker directly challenges Two-Face, who has taken control of Gotham’s underworld while the Clown Prince of Killers has been away. And with each passing day, Jonny Frost realizes that the Joker is not a person to admire at all.
Not a bad idea. How was the execution?
To be honest, I found it rather lackluster. It was a bit strange at first when I saw that this couldn’t fit into continuity. I didn’t realize this was going to be an Elseworlds. At least, I sincerely hope that was the intention. If it wasn’t, then I’m just confused. All of Gotham’s criminals are re-interpreted into gangsters with a gimmick. The Riddler, for instance, now has orange hair and question marks tattooed on his belly and is apparently a master-thief who mobsters hire when they need something big stolen. Two-Face is not a villain in hiding but a man of legal standing who operates openly out of his mansion and whom the police cannot connect to his criminal operations.
And the Joker keeps calling the Penguin “Abner”, which made me scratch my head since I know the man’s real name is Oswald Cobblepot. Was this supposed to be a joke? If so, I didn’t get it.
Re-interpreting characters for a story that isn’t bound by continuity is not necessarily a bad thing at all. Most recently, Grant Morrison did some wonderful stuff in [[[All-Star Superman]]]. But these particular re-interpretations seem to take away any special flavor the characters had. Killer Croc no longer seems like a super-human menace to be feared but comes off just as a hired thug, wearing gold chains and a nose ring while displaying a personality indistinguishable from stereo-typical ghetto-born muscle seen in various crime movies. Harley ‘s biggest scene is when she puts on a strip show for the Joker’s gang. And not once during the story does she ever speak or seem to have a persona outside of “helpful assistant.” Rather sad considering the most entertaining thing about Harley has always been her non-stop motormouth and bizarre view on reality.
And then there’s the Joker himself. This story is, essentially, a gangster getting some revenge on other gangsters. I’ve seen this done a million times before, both with and without costumed characters. There’s nothing particularly special about this particular version of the classic story. The Joker’s plans on how to get even with Gotham’s gangsters and defeat Two-Face are plausible, yes, but there’s no real style or flair to them, none of the genius manipulations I expect from Batman’s greatest enemy. The Joker here doesn’t kill as part of a grander scheme, he doesn’t try to show that people are corrupt at their heart or prove that the world is chaotic and God cannot possibly exist. Murder is just a means to an end and kind of fun. His crimes in this book are vicious, yes, but nothing about the deaths mark the Joker as different from any other spree killer.
At one point, the Joker decides he needs a place to rest. So he breaks into an old couple’s home, shoots them, and then lies down on the bed without moving the bodies. That’s not really the Joker to me, that’s Carnage from Spider-Man. In my mind, if the Joker is going to break into the home of two old people, he at least would have a little fun with them first. Or he would use their deaths to prove some fundamental point to Jonny Frost. If he cares so little about whom he kills and why, then that makes me care less about his motivations and world-view, which was actually the point of this story.
Jonny Frost says he admires the Joker and wants to be like him but there’s no real exploration of why he thinks this way. How much does he know about the Joker? What kind of person is he to find the man’s behavior admirable? I read the story twice and I’m still not sure.
Finally, there’s the lack of Batman’s presence. I don’t mean he should have been a big star in the story. This is, indeed, a Joker tale. But I felt that his presence should have been felt more throughout the story. The Joker mentions he feels [[[Batman]]] watching him, but otherwise our guy doesn’t show up until Two-Face asks him for help. This is Gotham. As soon as the Joker is out and saying he wants to cause some damage, wouldn’t everyone make sure to first ask “What about Batman?” None of the villains or gangsters in the story seem worried about the Bat and that just feels odd. Also, a major part of the Joker’s villainy is specifically his relationship to Batman. Why was that not touched on more in a story that’s supposed to explain the Joker’s evil? Lex Luthor: Man of Steel had Luthor constantly speak about his relationship to the Man of Tomorrow and why they were opposite ends of the spectrum, so the lack of such character exploration in this tale surprised me.
This is not a terrible story. There are some fun lines and I particularly liked Batman’s snide remark to the Joker during their confrontation at the end. Also, Bermejo’s art is fantastic. There’s a rich, colorful feel to it yet at the same time he captures the gritty, urban spirit of Gotham’s underworld. All of the characters have distinctive looks and their facial expressions are able to convey quite a bit even without dialogue. Excellent work on that part.
However, for a story that carries a price of $19.99, this just didn’t feel worth it. And there was nothing about it that made me think “only the Joker would think of that.” The villain could have been replaced with an entirely new gangster character and there would be no need to change the story at all. And that’s disappointing. Sorry, guys.
Alan “Sizzler” Kistler will shoot anyone who tries to make Terra III a clone or a time-displaced person or an alternative universe “equivalent twin.” He has been recognized by Warner Bros. Pictures and mainstream media outlets such as the New York Daily News as a comic book historian, and can be seen in the “Special Features” sections of the Adventures of Aquaman and Justice League: New Frontier DVDs. His personal website can be found at: http://KistlerUniverse.com. One of these days he’d love to write for DC, Marvel or Doctor Who.
One of my favourite stories involving the Joker was in Catwoman during Devin Grayson's run; i don't recall all that much about it, it was just the set-up: Joker puts somekind of tracker on Selina and follows her everywhere she goes … and kills everyone around her.Doesn't sound all that enthralling told like that, but reading it, i really delt as if this was truly the Joker of Killing Joke and other great Joker stories. My second favourite tale of the Joker is one that features him as a secondary character – Mad Love, the story pf Harley Quinn and how she became what she is. With a last line that'll make you flesh creep doubly so if you're familiar with an obscure Goffin & King song…This one, i'd say, is one i can skip.
You know, while I was looking at this story's mute version of Harley and watching how her biggest scene was when she took off her clothes, my first thought was "Mad Love" was better. :-)
sigh.You've confirmed all my worst fears about this comic. I haven't written it off yet, but this and the scans I've seen do not inspire best hope. While I can't compare your comments about the graphic novel yet as I haven't read it, I agree very much with your sentiments on Joker – he's unique and he should stand out as more than just a bully and a slasher. I was deeply afraid this story was only going to go for shock value with lots of brutality and in doing so, forget the core essence of what makes the Joker – well, the Joker.And don't even get me started on Harley. I utterly adore this character and her twisted relationship with her Puddin', as well as love her for her own merits – and it seems that in this book she does not get her dues at all.
She absolutely doesn't. I mean, I almost wasn't sure this was the real Harley. I'm inclined to believe that the Joker just replaced her in this story with a stripper in the costume.And I'm glad to hear I'm not just being picky about the Joker. For me, sure, the Joker can occasionally just want money. But even then, his crimes have to have a certain flair and uniqueness to them. He is a showman at heart, which is why even his tamest crimes are still considered zany and memorable compared to those of others (like having his face carved into a mountain). This, seriously, you could have had the story starring Black Mask and not need to change a damn thing.
…and it probably would have been better.
That's just… depressing.I mean, I'm a HUGE Joker fan, and I assert that one of the key things that has made him the enduring character he is is just how flamboyantly, fragrantly different he is.I agree, Joker would not just shoot people and take over their home. He'd make a game of it. First of all cos he's a sadistic creep, and second of all – because he'd consider it his duty.You should never be able to interchange another character with the Joker. The force and history of the character himself should drag a writer out of the ordinary unless the writer is concertedly going for the ordinary – which, unfortunately, those who are trying too hard to be different may unwittingly do.Joker has no limits; there is no act too perverse or cruel for him. But he prides himself on his style. Therefore what he chooses to do should align to this artistic ethic. Having him do Really Bad Things just because he's OMG the Joker, does not a good Joker story make and it certainly is not good characterisation.As for Harley – well, I don't really have an issue with the stripper thing, mainly cos I AM a stripper! BUT, it's not really Harley, you know? It'd be far more Harley if she stripped to reveal a tank top saying 'naughty, naughty' and then revealed their chairs were booby-trapped in an uncomfortably crippling fashion. Opinions are diverse but as a really huge fan of her I have long seen how she asserts herself within the relationship. What has enabled her to survive this long by Joker's side is how different she is to the average gangster's moll as well. A theatrical character like the Joker could never tolerate somebody simply pretty and ordinary. Harley has proven time and again she stands out and this is part of the reason she holds his interest. Also, while she may be abused she is not silent and she is certainly not devoid of her own personality.The relationship is complex and dynamic; this is why it has captured people's imaginations. Turning it into the boring, bland and very frankly cliche gangster/moll dynamic just robs it of everything that made it unique, just as eliminating Joker's showmanship and comedic schtick turns him into a common thug.
I didn't have a problem with her being a stripper in and of itself, just that, as you said, it's not Harley. It's like if I saw a comic where Kyle Rayner was doing the JLA's taxes, my first thought would be "he doesn't do that, he's a graphic artist."Harley can strip for the Joker, absolutely. For his gang, I don't think so. And even if she decided she was fine with that, that shouldn't be the only thing she brings to the table (aside from a gun). If Harley's stripping, I want her to be singing off-key and doing a really bad Marylin Monroe impression, saying "Happy Birthday, Mistah J!" THAT would have made it work. Here, she was just his girl.
As i said when i reviewed Mad Love, Harley is in some ways scarier than "Puddin'"Possibly her scene ever is in one of the "Adventures" titles, where Joker is helpless at her feet and she's kicking him, remembering all that she's taken from him, and it's only by Nightwing's intervention that she doesn't bash in his skull with a typewriter – "…and this," shs snarls, tears of rage running down her cheeks, lifting the typewriter as high as she can to smash it down, "This is because you never really loved me!"But, like all too many abused women…
I'd steer clear of generalising about a group of people whose issues are often trivialised at best and fetishised at worst… the dynamics that go into abusive relationships are many and complex. The reason someone would choose to stay in one may be unfathomable, but the capacity to choose still exists and is better off not pathologised lest we cease to listen to those we purport to 'pity'. The JokerxHarley relationship exemplifies this better than most media representations of abusive relationships. The issue of whether or not he loves her is highly debatable and probably best left aside – but while the relationship is most definitely abusive it operates on other levels too as there is clearly a sadomasochistic interaction at work and both participants demonstrate free will in their engagement with the other. I think there's arguement for the idea Harley is not quite as manipulated or victimised as she is often made out to be and this shows itself in the times she retaliates – very violently and ruthlessly, as you've pointed out – against him. There are clearly acceptable parameters they both work within and the abuse seems to be one of them. When he transgresses those boundaries, she attacks and the result is – pretty scary.
The issue of whether or not he loves her is highly debatable and probably best left aside – but while the relationship is most definitely abusive it operates on other levels too as there is clearly a sadomasochistic interaction at work and both participants demonstrate free will in their engagement with the other. I think there's arguement for the idea Harley is not quite as manipulated or victimised as she is often made out to be and this shows itself in the times she retaliates – very violently and ruthlessly, as you've pointed out – against him. There are clearly acceptable parameters they both work within and the abuse seems to be one of them. When he transgresses those boundaries, she attacks and the result is – pretty scary.I've known women (and men) who were abused and thought that they deserved it. If you haven't read "Mad Love", it shows exactly how the Joker manipulated Dr Harleen Quinzel into believing he loved her – and how, in a fit of rage, because she had embarrassed her in front of the Batman, threw her out a fourth-story window.In my first cmment, i mentioned that "Mad Love" ends with Harley quoting an obscure Goffin & King song. Back in the Brill Building, they were waiting for Little Eva to come in and listen to some new songs – and they noticed she had a black eye. She said her boyfriend had beat her up; and that it wasn't the first time.Carol King asked her why she didn't leave him.She said "He only does it because he loves me."And so they wrote a song, in which the girl knows her boyfriend truly loves her because she can make him mad enough to hit her.And Harley's final line in "Mad Love", in response when someone asks her, as she's wheeled back into her Arkham cell, splinted, stitched and bandaged, what it was like when Joker did this to her…And she quotes from the title of that song: "It felt like a kiss."I did a blog post that has some of the panels form that {among other things): http://mog.com/fairportfan/blog/192806To be honest, i think Harley's more truly in love with Poison Ivy, and i think Pammie returns at least some of her affection – but Ivy exploits that love ruthlessly from time to time. Both of Harley's relatonships involve stron elements of co-dependency, and, as the old, somewhat sick, sad (and pretty much true) joke says:Q: What's the difference between a co-dependent and a toilet?A: A toilet doesn't follow you around when you're not using it.
incidentally – if you haven't read "Mad Love" – unless someone you know has a copy, or your library does – forget it.Three copies are offered used on amazon, starting at $114.
Have I read Mad Love? Yes, I have. I'm actually the webmistress of http://www.harley-quinn.com so I promise you, I'm up with all of Harley's history. :)I've also been an abused woman and have had intimate relationships and engagements with other abused people so I do have some authority on which I speak.Given the underlying kinky sadomasochistic tones of the relationship, there is credence to the idea expressions of violence can align with feelings of love. No, it's not healthy or right or sane – but neither are these characters.I feel Harley's one-true-love is Joker but there is definitely feelings for Ivy there. And yes both characters abuse and use her – I've even written a bit of a fan-geek essay on the abusiveness in the HxI relationship – but they also have their own twisted affection for her. Thing is, they're all three both incredibly insane and wicked and so they can't be expected to conform to our 'sane' standards of appropriate behaviour in relationships.Yes the last line of Mad Love is chilling, but I also find it resonates with me. Perhaps because I've not only walked in Harley's shoes but because, as a kinky person, I see where it aligns with aforementioned sadomasochism. There is more going on than simply abuser/abused and victimiser/victim.
There is more going on than simply abuser/abused and victimiser/victim.Agreed. And, as i said in my review of "Mad Love", that's why i often find Harley scarier than the Joker himself.
You see this? This interesting conversation going on right here? This debate of motivation, personality and very, very real psychology?That's what I was missing from this story.
hahaha… don't get me started, Alan. Ask John. I can go for hours… ;)
After seeing your impressive web-site, I have no doubt of that. :-)
Word to all your points, but especially this:"There is more going on than simply abuser/abused and victimiser/victim."And this is exactly the point that so many people seem to miss when it comes to the Joker and Harley. We cannot apply our sane-person ideals to their relationship. There's a whole hell of a lot more going on there. Great review, Alan. I'm still gonna buy it for the creative team and for Harvey, because… well, you know me. It at least sounds like an interesting take on the poor guy. But I'm deeply heartened to read a review that isn't glowingly jizztasting, OMG IT'S THE NEW KILLING JOKE blah blah blah. I want to approach this book the way I do Morrison's ARKHAM ASYLUM, as a standalone interpretation that can be enjoyed on its own merits and nothing else. Certainly not as a true example of what makes the Joker work as a character, much less anything close to a definitive take.
Erm, that was meant to reply to "Princess Bee." Accursed first time registration.
I don't think it's an interesting new take at all, it actually came off as a dull look at an old take that has never resonated as well. The Joker as gangster? This version wasn't even entertaining as Jack Nicholson when HE did that interpretation.But if you wanna buy it, no one's stopping ya. As for Arkham Asylum, which actually has been referenced in the mainstream Batman titles and so isn't really standalone, i wouldn't put this in the same category at all since that book was all about psychology and metaphor and super-context and reflections of the personality in the actions of others. This was a generic "they took my money" gangland story.
There are no Elsewhere stories. All stories are part of continuity, but several are on alternate earths. As there are 51 separate earths, anything that is written can be valid, but doesn't affect the main earth.
If there are only 52 worlds, you realize that can't account for every Elseworlds, yes? :-)Though on a side-note, I would LOOOOOVE to re-visit the world of Batman: Holy Terror.
I wouldn't.Its basic concept is hugely flawed – the theocracy that rules the Commonwealth(? Was that it? It's been years…) is obviously based on Catholicism or Very Very High Church Anglicism, but proceeds from an alternate history in which Cromwell didn't die, defeated the Cavaliers and founded a theocratic state.Except that Cromwell was anti-Catholic; he was a Puritan.Any state that came from *him* would be rather different…
All stories are part of continuity, but several are on alternate earths.When did they change that? Originally, Elseworlds stories (as i recall) were specifically not part of any continuity – like the old "Imaginary Stories".
Just in the last 3-4 years. That's one of the reasons why they have brought back the multiple universe meme. Many of the new earths/universes have yet to be defined.
Coil w/horns: You idiot! It's Elseworlds!Coil w/halo: Oops. I made a mistake.Coil w/horns: It's because yer so old!Coil w/halo: That's kinda harsh. I'd like to get a second opinion.Coil w/horns: Okay, yer ugly, too!
>Also, Bermejo's art is fantastic. There's a rich, colorful feel to it_______________________________________Probably because Patricia Mulvihill coloured it. And Mick Gray inked it.
Alan, since I enjoyed your review and the discussion around it, I thought you might enjoy mine. I'm largely in agreement with you, but have a few different thoughts.http://lovedatjoker.livejournal.com/24643.html
I know this is a bit tardy but…I'm really rather torn on this book. It could have been so much better than it was. I don't regret buying it, because it looks kind of nice, and I like some of the interpretations, to an extent. But the "Abner" thing bugged the hell out of me, too.