Sunday, 26 August 2012

On Grant Morrison & Chris Burnham's "Batman Incorporated" #3 (Part 2 of 2)

In which the blogger concludes a hearty huzzah for Batman Incorporated #3, the first part of which might be found here;

     
It's hard not to regard the first two issues of Batman Incorporated as being deliberately virtuosic performances. In the first, there's more than a suggestion that Grant Morrison was determined to re-establish himself in the modern-era's market-place, slamming through a sequence of action-saturated set-ups which never once lacked his characteristic wit and ingenuity. Demon Star was richly layered as well as kinetic, compassionate and good humoured in addition to being marked by a purposefully oh-no-they-haven't scene set in an abattoir. Common sense insists that a writer of Morrison's quality and achievements couldn't possibly have felt the need to reassert his preeminence. Yet it very much looked as if he was fiercely set on defining his work in contradiction to the dominant storytelling norms of the New 52. Whatever the culture of blokeish blood and shock could achieve, Morrison could too, and he could do so while spinning far richer and far more idiosyncratic tales than most - if hardly all - of his peers could ever aspire to.

Batman Incorporated #2 also seemed designed to vigorously establish that Morrison's work could do more than simply flourish in the here and now, and with all of its distinctive and contrary virtues intact as well. Elegantly weaving an entire issue from the long and complex back-story of Talia al Ghul, Morrison paraded his commitment to the heresy of judiciously bridled, richly-textured continuity. The opposing credo, which holds that the reader is inevitably alienated by the very presence of such, let alone by the sight of it being discussed in a detailed flashback, appeared to be thoroughly undermined by both the issue's sales and its many favourable reviews.
        
     
Given how distinct and discrepant both issues were in the light of the majority of today's super-books, it's impossible to believe that Morrison was unaware of at least how different a path he was taking.  If not a statement of independence and opposition, then at least a purposeful refusal to follow anyone's else's sense of the age but his own.

Yet what was missing in both issues was a sense that the reader might be trusted to collaborate in the storytelling process for at least a few moments in each chapter. So fierce and focused were the opening two episodes of Leviathan that it was hard for the audience to catch its breath and find the space to make their own sense of events. To be that controlling, that superbly directing, is to inevitably appear to be - no matter how brilliantly - manipulative too. It's a business that can leave a comic feeling somewhat cold even as its patently brilliantly done. In Batman Incorporated #3, Morrison and his artistic collaborator Chris Burnham have slowed the pace of their story, eased back on the fisti-cuffs and backstory, and given us the opportunity to take a look around the world that Batman and his allies are fighting to preserve. As such, we're suddenly shown not just the book's protagonists and antagonists, but something of the community that they're both fighting so fiercely to influence. From Gotham Central Station to the toughest of the city's schools, from police headquarters to courthouses and night-clubs, we're adroitly introduced to a life beyond Bat-Caves and super-villain compounds. It's a world that we can't help but recognise after its own absurd fashion, and so the possibility of its loss starts to surreptitiously add to the jeopardy of the piece as a whole.
      
       

In the book's opening three pages, Morrison and Burnham sketch out with brilliant economy how the Leviathan conspiracy has subverted the key institutions of Gotham herself. Our understanding of that process is created through a succession of scenes in which schools, social services, the police and the judiciary are all shown to have been subtly corrupted. Without a heroic succession of flights and fights to haul us through this introduction, we're trusted to side with the likes of a kidnapped teacher and a father furious at the indoctrination of his child. It's an encouragement to empathise as well as spectate which helps make the book feel warmer and more emotionally involving. As we begin to grasp just how fundamental Leviathan's hold upon the city is, and as we become aware of the typical citizens who're being menaced by its clandestine accumulation of power, the level of unease and menace in the book exponentially increases. A narrative with nothing but the welfare of Batman at its heart is likely - though not entirely damned - to be a relatively thin and uber-masculine one. The caped crusader is, after all, inevitably going to survive, and his fate will tend to ultimately depend on his capacity to outpunch his opponents. So far, so ultimately predictable. But none of the various Gothamites which we're briefly shown here have any such a guarantee of survival, and their vulnerability even in passing adds a charge of uncertainty to what might otherwise be a fundamentally foreseeable, if undoubtedly brilliantly presented, tale.

         
More intriguing yet, this great helpless mass of citizens now contain a telling minority of Leviathan operatives. The very people who have always existed to play defenceless victim for Batman to save are now in part in the service of Talia. Not only does this emphasise the impossible scale of the Batman's duties, but it marks the impossibility of them too. Gotham herself is now almost as much the Batman's enemy as it is his cowering, embattled responsibility, and our sense of the Dark Knight's power is suddenly diminished by our awareness of how many folks now stand against him. Seen against that backdrop, the various street-level criminals which Morrison and Burnham introduce to us in the Three Eyed Jacks nightclub suddenly seem ever more threatening and unpredictable. Where once it was possible to see Gotham as little but the backdrop to the warring between Batman International and Leviathan, now the city itself has emerged as a player of sorts. Though Bruce Wayne, in his alter ego as the petty player Matches Malone, seems supremely competent in the way in which he manipulates the likes of Small Fry and the Brothers Grimm, the fact is that the game has changed, and what once seemed like a relatively straight-forward business is now impossibly more complicated. Where we were once encouraged to believe that only a very few opponents could fool and harm the Batman, now any petty crook and one term circuit judge might be playing for the opposite side.
         
         
Morrison cunningly and quietly adds layers of ambiguity and unease to The Hanged Man in these sequences. The school-teacher in the service of Leviathan, for example, doesn't express simple-minded cult-speak, but rather hammers home a Occupy-friendly manifesto. With the enemy assuming the rhetoric of the 99%, the state that Leviathan's undermining suddenly doesn't seem to be so unambiguously aligned with the more noble political causes. Though we're used to Gotham being corrupt, this is a corruption of a far more insidious and widespread kind. The schools are rundown, the students disaffected and disobedient, the neighbourhood's one where "many of the students (are) more or less neglected by their parents". The city-state has already proven itself to be unworthy of our affection, and now we're faced with its over-throw by a conspiracy mouthing some enticingly radical views. Knowing what's worth rooting in this conflict is still a relatively easy business, and yet, not quite as easy as it once was. For this isn't a Gotham whose largely-blameless citizens live as bargaining chips in the endless war between the Bat-Family and their deeply damaged opponents. Instead, it's a complex, riven culture of individuals and interests, which leaves The Batman's role seeming far less simple and secure. Morrison skillfully keeps the contradictions largely out of sight and bubbling away in the sub-text, but then, this is a superhero comic. It doesn't need smothering in a great weight of relevancy and smug, look-at-the-writer polemics. What it does benefit from is the suggestion that the situation's considerably more nuanced than 100% good versus100% bad, uncompromised right faced with easily identifiable and sin-saturated wrong. Here, there's a great many other players standing between the Dark Knight and the mother of his troubled, if formidable, son, which suggests a fascinatingly chaotic system rather than a straight-forward Manichean confrontation between our man and their woman.

   
Burnham's decision to eschew the straight-jacket of butch'n'bleak comics pseudo-realism means that his panels are filled with beguilingly characterful individuals. Again, Gotham appears to be filling up not just with a few extra layers of complexity, but with recognisable human beings too. Even the scene set in the Bat-Cave is composed of fundamentally distinct types, each of which has been given a quite distinct and precise identity which plays with but never conforms entirely to superheroic norms. Obviously, Burnham lacks any fear when it comes to the matter of whether his work will be taken seriously or not. His Nightwing is wonderfully lithe, confident, and good-natured, his Damian a perpetually bad-tempered pre-pubescent who's forever threatening to tear his own forehead off with the force of the world's most ferocious scowling. There's such a confidence and ambition on display throughout Batman Incorporated #3, as if both creators are going to push the world of Batman as far as they can in the direction of the fondly absurd while simultaneously loadingup the text with as much tension and conflict as possible. The mole in Gordon's police force, for example, is given an expression of entirely unconvincing innocence which may be the funniest single panel not containing Bat-Cow so far this year. Others might have been tempted to portray him with a villain's air of maliciousness and guile, but Burnham and Morrison opt to show him as an unremarkable, if obviously devious, mole. It's a choice that suggests that Gotham's being overrun by a mass of profoundly commonplace individuals, by an entirely different order of tough-to-spot challenges to Batman's control of the city. This process of making sure that every character is as fascinating as they're individual even extends to the villainous bit-player Smallfry,  whose viciousness and then terror creates an alluring figure out of a generic knock-off. 

         
It's telling that Batman Incorporated #3 feels at its most satisfying when its admittedly fine action scenes are being delayed by moments of character and exposition. Few creators can make their most prosaic scenes feel more entertaining and substantial than their well-worked, adrenalin-triggering set-pieces. Morrison and Burnham's impressive command of their craft, and their refusal to accept a narrow definition of how it ought to be used, even extends to what seems like a powerful echo of Will Eisner's Spirit tales in the scene of Lumina Lux's singing. Just as there's an impressive command of the deep history of craft here, there's also a mastery of today's conventions too. The Hanged Man's third page is constructed from nothing but the same ubiquitous horizontal panels which are so often poorly used in the work of his contemporaries. Yet in The Hanged Man, they've been constructed with such precision and flair, with such an attention to the rule of thirds, that they work as a rich, involving sequence. If the first few issues of Batman International established the book as one which can be both fearsomely action-packed and steeped in a complex mythos, then the most recent in the series declares something perhaps more radical yet. Comics, it seems to insist, can be fascinating when they're paying no attention to shock and blood at all.
    There'll undoubtedly be folks who'll tell you they didn't like Grant Morrison and Chris Burnham's Batman Incorporated #3. A few of them may even have read the issue. In matters of taste, of course, there's no disputing. But they are still quite wrong.

    .

    26 comments:

    1. Matt Finch ‏- @booksadventures on Twitter" - said;

      Batman as "playful conspiracy against the underworld...anything but invulnerable"

      A perceptive review

      ReplyDelete
    2. Chris Burnham - ‏@TheBurnham on Twitter - said;

      Really interesting two-part review of Batman Inc #3. (The reviewer didn't like #1 but loved this issue. Go figure!)

      ReplyDelete
    3. For the sake of contrast there's the OTHER Bat-conspiracy, the Court of Owls, an illuminati whose membership includes, if the drawings are to be accepted as fact, creepy little girls.

      I assume the court of owls places a high value on creepiness, since that little girl was privy to the gamesmanship of killing Batman by degrees in a mindbending maze, a maze which I'm SURE has many other practical applications for evil.

      Leviathan, on the other hand, may just have a philosophy behind it (almost certainly a version of the long standing exo-terrorism of Rhas Al Ghul) and though they aren't above recruiting little girls at school, it's for the sake of a new generation of followers. Even the relatively useful cogs in the evil machine (corrupt judges, cops, etc.) are still, yes, cogs, and don't get the seat at the big boys table of evil, privy to all the plans Leviathan has in store for Batman.

      I'm just immensely frustrated by the acclaim Court of Owls has been getting when maybe we could have been getting Batman Inc. stuff for this past year.

      I was at the DC panel yesterday at the Toronto fanexpo, and it seemed I had fallen into the rabbit hole.

      (As an aside, David Finch seemed like a really sweet guy, to the extent that I kinda want to root for him to do well, and I feel bad that I have really disliked his artwork so much... but then I remember that he's been working on his own Batman book, numerous cover illustrations, and, I just learned, will be the artist on the upcoming Justice League of America book- Finch is doing just fine with or without my well wishes!)

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Hello Isaac:- The fact that DC should have two such conspiracies at the same time is, shall we say, unfortunate. I know that the word is that Grant Morrison is pretty much allowed to do what he wants - which is a good thing - and yet the Bat-books must have known what he was doing in BI; why duplicate what another book is already doing? Still, the Owl books have sold very well indeed as well, so I guess we know that the market can bear two similar tales. If it can, and it charges up creators and the market, then why not?

        As you'll know, I've not been enjoying the Batman books beyond Batgirl, the earlier Batwoman issues and now - I am a convert! - Batman Incorporated. Yet if BI is selling despite the fact that it overlaps in certain plot points while differing so much in terms of pretty much everything else, then perhaps we can hope for some more diversity in the market. I'm happy for the fans of butch'n'butchering to have as many grim books as they like. (Which is of course good of me, isn't it?) But it would be heartening if we might have some other super-titles which were less typical, just as Batman Incorporated is. Yes, there are a few of them, but only a few. Let a thousand flowers bloom etc etc

        I'm sure Mr Finch is a top bloke. He always seems enthusiastic about his work and that's always endearing. And I feel rotten about everyone whose work I ever spoken negatively about, and that includes DF as much as anyone else. Yet as you say, he's doing exceptionally well in the New 52, and I doubt that a negative review on my part could deny him a single sale.

        So if a good reason arises, I guess I'd just evaluate his work for what it is. It would certainly be a heartening business - for whatever little it's worth - to be able to give a thumbs up for something he's done :)

        Delete
      2. I was interested by the idea of the Court of Owls at first, but getting a whole sprawling crossover devoted to them after the first arc in Batman was about them felt like overkill on a fairly limited concept (a Gotham secret society so secret Batman's never heard of them! And now he has!). And Nightwing's first arc was a stealth tie-in to the prelude that culminated in an issue where both Scott Snyder and Kyle Higgins got to write a scene where Bruce cold-cocks Dick for...I dunno...drama? I ended up dropping the few Bat-books I bought until Batman, Inc. came back.

        Delete
      3. Hello Andrew:- I wouldn't ever argue that the Court Of Owls has been a genuine sales-winner for DC. But I'm with you on finding it thin fare. As you say, they were a secret, and now they're not! A secret society so secret that the bloke in the pointy-mask hasn't twigged their existence is an interesting idea, but by the same token, it does make him look abit of a berk. I'm all for humanising the character, but that may be taking him far too far in the direction in the likes of me.

        Which of course just underlines the fact that DC might care to consider producing books which might be bought into by folks who aren't from their target audience. I buy very few DC books every month, and indeed, relatively few cape'n'chest-insignia comics at all. The blog has that bias, but my reading - as the recent New Golden Age posts will hopefully testify - is far wider. As such, I'd rather like to see a few more fine super-people books added to my I'd-like-to-read-that-list.

        More super-cows, perhaps. Green Cow, Cow Of The Avengers, the Incredible Cow, and so on ...

        Delete
      4. You know, while I can accept the logic behind the argument that Tiny Titans was too busy being a love letter to DC History to make as effective an all-ages book as it wanted to be, one has to admit it was never lacking in super-cows. There's an issue in particular--#45--that not only features them teaming up to form a football team, but also features an appearance by the Tiny Secret Six and all the Batgirls, which make it one of my favorite single issues to come out in the past three years.

        Delete
      5. Hello Ian:- "one has to admit it was never lacking in super-cows". Your enthusiasm has quite won me over, and I will be tracking down #45 - it sounds beguiling.

        Delete
    4. Wait...there are people who DON'T like this book? How...odd!

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Hello Sally:- We have to assume that statistically there must be people who even dislike the very idea of Bat-Cow.

        Ted Nugent, for example ...

        Delete
      2. Hi Colin, I'm with Sally, bemused at the idea that any Batman-interested wouldn't enjoy this issue. Statistical probabilities aside, have you come across any?

        (The Ted Nugent reference is over my heid!)

        Anyway, ta for a fine review, with some lovely turns of phrase.

        Delete
      3. Hello Martin;- I just did a quick Google and I did find somebody that had only given the comic 4.5 out of 5 stars. That seems to the worst review so far! I'm curious to see if there's a rumper's board somewhere that folks are moaning that there's not enough torture going on ...

        Ted Nugent. Not a man fascinated by heavy metal and - by Brit standards - out-there right wing politics then?

        Thanks for your kind words. I hope the Fringe-hopping is going well.

        Delete
    5. I was thinking the same thing as Isaac about the similarities to the Night of Owls Batman event. Of course, I'm just going on hearsay, because I'm not planning on reading Batman (unless I can find it at the library) despite Capullo's art, and I'm tradewaiting Batman Inc. And your review makes doing so hard, but I'm almost two years into forgoing the singles and buying exclusively collections, so I'm used to the wait by now.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Hello Joe:- I can quite understand why you'd be concentrating on the collected versions of the books you enjoy. And yet, Batman Incorporated is one of those books which really works as a monthly. It's good to note comics which work both in their own monthly form and as collected editions. For too long, readers were snowed with stories which only made sense when collected.

        Part of me envies you the fun you'll have when DC puts this out in hb/tpb. Part of me is glad I lack the discipline to wait.

        Delete
    6. Thank goodness. I was beginning to think I was alone in believing that the Court of Owls was thin gruel compared to Batman Inc, and deeply unfortunate in its timing. And I say this as someone who loves what Snyder did in Gates of Gotham, despite the equally unfortunate cutting short of Dick's tenure in the cowl.

      Also, I'm not buying the coolness of Batman knowing nothing about the Court. If Batman RIP happened, how is it that an event of that magnitude - a conspiracy through time that both creates and tries to unmake Batman simultaneously - would not see the Court take a stand? Especially as both conspiracies hinge on someone who claims to be a close relation of the Wayne family: wouldn't the long-lost brother be a little interested in the appearance of other "evil Waynes"?

      And if Batman is so smart, could he not just read all the published material on the Court that's been floating around since the days of All-Star Western? Amadeus Arkham knew all about them, as did the Penguin's ancestor. Ridiculous even on its own terms.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Hello Cory:- Oh, I do know exactly what you mean. It does seem unlikely that the Court of Owls could have kept their existence so wonderfully quiet. In fact, it seems impossible, and as you say, the All-Star material just compounds the problem. I've never been able to buy into the specifics of the Court. It is a great idea, although as we've been discussing, it's far too close to Leviathan to be being pushed out into the marketplace at this moment. I couldn't ever deny that a great many readers have loved it, as I tried to sign up in the comments above. Yet I can't help but feel that a great deal of the legwork for the idea simply wasn't done. It's all very well to focus on a fantastic conspiracy. But if it's not convincing, then there's a hollow taste to be had. It's a great idea that just hasn't been made convincing.

        Or at least, that's what a few consumers feel. I keep reminding myself that thousands of readers have bought into the Court and found it entirely convincing. Good for them. The industry can't be harmed by enthusiastic readers, of course! It'd be interesting to see whether those readers who enjoyed the Owls material also enjoy Leviathan.

        Delete
    7. It's the difference between simply saying, "Super secret! Nobody knew!" and actually showing what happens when a series of small people in small positions become, in aggregate, a conspiracy in which such secrecy can be maintained. It's the oldest narrative rule: show, don't tell. "Court of Owls" told us there was an ancient, secret society; "Batman Inc" painstakingly showed us how an identical society was created and maintained.

      It's very similar to the ending of Wonder Woman 12: Of course Orion was a complete surprise, it wasn't remotely set up. There were no clues, nothing you could look back on with pleasure and realize you missed. It is easy to surprise when you don't give the reader anything.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Hello Cory:- It's hard to avoid the sense that the New 52 is often - though not exclusively - founded in the belief that spectacle and shock are the only way to grab the audience's attention. Wonder Woman is a prime example of that. The conclusion to the first arc made no sense at all, for example. Given the absurd nature of the super-hero, a compelling story actually needs care spent on it in order to make the ludicrous aspects shine rather than seem stupid. Ground a tale of Amazon warrior-women and men in bat-suits in flash and no substance and everything falls to pieces for all but the hardest of hard-core fans.

        Delete
      2. As you might recall, I've generally enjoyed - that may be the wrong word, more like "been intrigued by" - the new Wonder Woman. The social/political issues some scenes have raised are good given the general inability of the modern superhero narrative to even ask serious questions, and Chiang's art is great. But we agree, I think, that the unguessable surprise is a cheap narrative trick. It's all about setting up the next arc, and was for me a fundamental misfire (on the narrative level, rather than the political misfire of the now infamous Amazon rape scene).

        Delete
      3. Hello Cory:- I do recall that we had a friendly debate about the virtues of Wonder Woman. And we still disagree, though the manner in which we do so is something which I find heartening. Having said that, it was that tendency towards effect rather than substance - that's my reading, of course - which ultimately concerned me. As such, the New Gods issue which you mention surprises me not at all. A shame that he hasn't dealt with the Amazon scenes he wrote in for #7. Actually, far worse than a shame. If he was going to play with those tropes, then they ought one way or another to be placed into context.

        Delete
    8. Though you may suspect I'm being too hard on the Snyder/Capullo team, I'd warrant the success of the recent Batman series has less to do with them and more to do with a "Batman #1".

      I could easily be wrong though...

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Hello Isaac:- Did you follow the recent Rob Liefeld twittercatastrophe on his leaving DC? His falling out with Scott Synder there left me feeling remarkably sympathetic to the latter. I will agree, my suspicion is that the new Batman is nowhere near as good as its supporters would have it. To me, it's a Rumpish book which has abandoned any hope of reaching anything but a Rumpish audience, and given that I'm not into all shock'n'blood, it appeals not at all.

        Yet Mr Synder also expressed such enthusiasm and conviction that, as with other prominent creators at the moment, I'd like to believe otherwise.

        Delete
      2. Although Liefeld is the one making the point about the Rump here: Batman sells regardless of quality, which is almost certainly true.

        Delete
      3. Hello Cory:- It's true that Batman sells. But I come from a time when that wasn't so. When I was still in single figures, the Batman book was constantly on the edge of cancellation, saved only by a quick and swiftly declining burst of TV camp. Then right the way through the early Seventies I seem to recall Detective Comics being bi-monthly for a fair degree of the period. By which I mean, I remember when Batman was the rump of the litter, and I suspect that if not handled properly, it might - as all properties have the capacity to - return back to failure. The X-Men are the force they were, Superman isn't what he ought to be, 90s stars like the Punisher are seemingly out-of-synch with the times. I think keeping the Bat-Franchise at the front of the pack is an acheivement in itself. That doesn't mean that I personally like many of the Bat-books. It doesn't mean that I think that some of what's being lauded is even particularly competent in key ways. But I do suspect that it's pretty easy to loose the momentum of a line-leading franchise.

        Delete
    9. Ha, no, I've heard about this twitter brouhaha, but I haven't read much of the specifics. I guess Liefeld made a similar charge towards Snyder, that a Bat book is an inherent boost? If that was said, classy move or not, I think one does have to concede that Hawkman and Deathstroke are indeed at a disadvantage.

      Of course the other question is when you decide to reboot your universe and can only have 52 comics, both Hawkman and Deathstroke get their own slots?? That does seem to be pushing your luck. (Full disclosure- I haven't read any of those series, even in their pre-Liefeldian days).

      In Snyder's defence (from my own attack) I feel certain that he's been allowed to run wild, editorially speaking, since his debut earned him such accolades. To use one of my favourite Bane quotes from the movie, "victory has defeated you!"

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Hello Isaac:- That public quarrel between RL and ... the world was deeply disturbing, actually. I think we all have moments when we regret words we say in public. To read that fight was to be reminded of every hot-headed moment and every insensitive sulk that's now a source of deep regret. I read the summaries without thinking. I wish I hadn't.

        It is true that Hawkman and Deathstroke are tough sells compared to Batman. Telling that RL did raise sales on both titles too. In truth, all of the books RL was given were poorly conceived. I have no idea how anyone ever thought they'd prosper beyond the presence of some superstar creator, who was of course unlikely to take control of such thin fare.

        I was rather excited to see so many second, third and fourth string titles in the New 52. Mt favourite moments in comics history where the Big Two are concerned are those in which a fair number of very good, out-there, and less-obvious titles are in the market-place. I think the problems with HW and DS aren't the characters, but the poor show that's been made of reframing them for today.

        I share your concerns about Mr Synder's scripts. But I think his success with the character will run and run. There are elements of his work which seem to touch on contemporary concerns, especially within the comics marketplace. I wish he'd fuse that approach with some other, more traditional virtues, but I think he'll be able to do exceptionally well without my approval!

        Delete