In Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Frank Miller’s thrilling portrayal of the aging Batman at near-insanity expands on the mythology of the superhero without completely rewriting the character. However, one mistake that seems to have been glossed over disrupts the narrative: Batman kills a criminal with a gun. On pages 64-65, Batman uses a machine gun and faded blood is splattered behind the criminal holding a baby captive, depicting a death that is more expected of a police officer or gang member. While this may seem overly critical and justified (he does save a baby), this small act goes against a primary pedestal of Batman’s character, as well as the evolving narrative of the story, and should have either been addressed in a larger fashion or avoided.
Bruce Wayne’s dislike for guns is well justified in his backstory. In the defining moment of his life, Bruce vividly recalls the mugger’s gun and how quick he kills his parents with it. He pledges to put a stop to this criminal violence without taking the lives of people, a rule that separates him from the average Gotham police officer. Batman’s stubbornness and unwillingness to compromise his morals make up his superhero persona, almost as if they are his superpowers. Batman has always had the power to remain true to his morals, to take on the sins of Gotham City, and to ultimately decide to deliver justice no matter whose side of the law he is on. To have him nonchalantly step across his steel boundaries and gun down a criminal is extremely against the spirit of the character.
Whenever a writer decides to give a primary character a contradiction, there is an immense opportunity for plot/character development. If Miller wanted to force Batman to kill a criminal in order to save a citizen, he should have addressed the issue with more impact to Batman and the evolution of his story. The way that the killing takes place and then is forgotten adds inconsistency to the character. The reader feels lied to and becomes skeptical of the writer and the integrity of the piece. Superheroes can change, especially in graphic novel forms where their backstory may be slightly altered or they can be killed off due to the conclusive nature that comic book series do not have. However, the writer must inform the reader of the changes in order to carry the audience seamlessly through his story.
Miller’s inconsistency extends deeper than just between his graphic novel and the outside history of Batman. There is inconsistency within the novel itself. During Book Two, Batman uses a machine gun to save a baby. During Book Three, on page 149 when dueling the Joker, Batman proclaims, “A gun…is a coward’s weapon. A liar’s weapon. We kill… too often… because we’ve made it easy”. This quote is brilliant writing in the development of Batman; however, the reader is left confused due to the loose use of the weapon earlier in the novel. Not only does Miller not address the use of a gun to kill after the event, he goes out of his way later to make Batman condemn the use of guns. An opportunity for an interesting internal conflict is not taken here. Batman could have addressed his forced hypocrisy due to Gotham’s criminals going to such extremes as threatening to kill a baby, and the themes of compromising and morality could have been deepened.
This issue points out a potential problem with any serialized fiction. When writing stories in parts, whether it is a novel, play, or comic, the author must be careful to have a common thread throughout. When dealing with any popular iconic figure such as Batman, a writer has to make his own bold choices to suit what message he is trying to get across. The problem here is that Miller’s message is unclear to the reader due to a very simple solution used to get out of a dilemma. The violence depicted from and against the criminals in Book Two is not taken with nearly as much seriousness as the violence depicted in Book Three, with constant allusions to the number of people being killed. The segmented parts of the story fit together under many clear themes and well-constructed plot arcs, but allowing Batman to kill a villain with a gun is against a commandment of any Batman story. It goes beyond a fan boy complaining about secondary or tertiary characters not being true to their obscure backstory. Batman’s refusal of guns is essential to the superhero. If a writer needs a hero that can shoot people, then he should write a different story.
We are currently seeking Batman contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Batman contributor, click here.
9 Comments
thank you for pointing this out.as much as i enjoyed this tale of batman and respect frank miller,i am tired of this elseworlds story Always praised as the best story of batman.its good and shocking for its time but its not the definitve batman at all in my hmo.
A few things to consider about this idea that Batman kills a villain with a gun:
Where did he shoot the mutant hostage taker? On the page, the blood smear on the mutant’s body is around the stomach area – by no means a killshot. But it could be anywhere in the lower half of the body. In the recent animation adaptation, Batman shoots the hand holding the gun to the kid’s head, the mutant’s hand drops to her body and we see the smear on her stomach area. That scenario is plausible and gives consistency to Batman’s feelings about taking a life, even Joker’s, in the third chapter.
This version of Batman is an Elseworlds story. Elseworlds is a series of “what if?” stories set outside of established canon, allowing writers and artists to play with the figure of Batman and have him do things he wouldn’t normally do. This fits in with the idea of Batman using guns.
The very thought that Batman would put even firing a gun over the life of an innocent is questionable at best – is he so blindly slavish to his rule that he would risk a child’s life so that he can claim never to have used a gun in his career as a vigilante or is he more pragmatic and simply using the tools available to him in the moment, whether he likes them or not?
Batman using a gun could also be seen as a plot device to highlight the increased (and increasing) tension of the story. The situation in Gotham is becoming so desperate even Batman is forced into breaking personal rules to contain the rising tide of crime effectively. The stakes rise higher with each passing issue until the climactic showdown between the Dark Knight and the Man of Steel, two heroes battling to the death! Clearly something is rotten in the state of Gotham and Bats using a gun is one more sign of this rot.
Anyway, just a few ideas of that scene but Miller made it ambiguous enough so that some readers could read it a couple of different ways – but it is by no means certain that Batman kills someone with a gun.
What I disliked most about Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns (Okay, I cheated: I haven’t yet read the graphic novel, but I did buy and have watched the two-part DC Universe Animated Original Movie on Blu-ray) is that they essentially turned Superman into a government tool. The Superman I know (and I know several of them – Christopher Reeve from the late ’70s and ’80s live-action films, Tim Daly’s voiceover role as Supes from the ’90s Superman The Animated Series, as well as others) fights for truth, justice, and the American way. He is not so stupid(?) as to blindly follow the government just because that’s what they tell him to do. Now admittedly, this is an Elseworlds story, and as such anything goes, and this plot point was likely a means to the Batman vs. Superman end, but still….
I think that, unless he was under some sort of mind control (either via Kryptonite, Brainiac, or one of Lex Luthor’s LexCorp devices), Batman would use a gun – as a very last resort, mind you – to stop a villain and safe a life before Superman would retire his moral code to become a blind tool for the government.
You kind of answered your own question, J. “Superman fights for truth, justice and the American Way”. The story is set in the 80s during the Cold War and a war between the US and the USSR, as happens in the book, shows Superman taking the side of the US Govt. As soon as Superman makes this choice then why would he stop doing what the Govt wants him to do, when he’s clearly chosen to neutralise every threat to the American Way, which is something Batman’s essentially become by the end of this book?
“The American Way” does not, by any means, mean the government way. The American Way is the way of the people. The way of those that Superman protects. Superman is not a puppet for the American government to control.
Just like when Captain America rebels against the Superhuman Registration Act in Marvel’s Civil War. He rebels against the government because he fights for the American “Way”, not government.
Superman, in this, is the way he is because A) the government is blackmailing him by holding his daughter and friends hostage and the bottled city of Kandor.
And B) because it’s a Frank Miller story.
Kyronic: But the government is elected by the people, for the people, so it could be argued that, by extension, the American Way in your definition is the government way.
That’s the first time I’ve heard about the government blackmailing him because his daughter, friends, and Kandor are being held captive by them – where in the book does it say this?
It doesnt but in Dark knight Strikes Again Lex Luthor is holding them hostage. By no means does the first novel suggest this in any way and likely wasnt the case at the time.
i have thought about this point before but glaze over it considering theres a babies life on the line. No matter what batman’s morales are, he’ll kill violently to save a baby as anyone would.
batman is really a good hero he usually kills a villain with a gun-