Thanks to Charlie Horse 47 and Killdumpster for their sponsorship of this post, via the magic of Patreon.
***
I recently saw a Xeet on Elon Musk's swinging new social media site X which argued that Spider-Man and Batman have the best villains' galleries of any heroes.
To be honest, I wasn't convinced.
Spider-Man clearly has an awesome list of foes but, while Batman has plenty of enemies, I'm not convinced any of them are what you'd call top-notch. Even the Joker seems fairly second-rate when compared to Spidey's best antagonists.
But am I right?
There's only one way to find out.
And that's to look at the comic in which Batman's arch-nemesis gets to have adventures all on his own.
And that comic launches with The Joker #1 from way back in the sunny days of 1975.
Denny O'Neil's tale kicks off when a man called Señor Alvarez helps Two-Face escape from prison but leaves the Joker behind, on the grounds that he only wants the help of a top criminal, and the Joker doesn't qualify.
Not willing to take that snub lying down, the clown prince of crime organises his own escape, with the help of a helium-filled balloon and then sets out to prove he's a better criminal than Two-Face, by attacking his rival's not-so-secret hideout.
Sadly, this all results in him being knocked out and tied to a conveyor belt that's headed for a circular saw.
Thanks to his acid-powered buttonhole, the villain escapes and sets out to thwart Two-Face's plan to steal some old coins from a local museum. This intervention results in the dastardly duo knocking themselves out and being returned to the prison cells in which they belong.
I must be honest and admit I suspect that, even if I'd read this as an eleven-year-old, when it came out, I wouldn't exactly have been grabbed by the tale.
The first thing that strikes me is that, throughout it all, the Joker talks like Lost in Space's Dr Smith on cocaine which gets tiresome very quickly.
Secondly, as drawn by Irv Novick, he's so skinny that it's impossible for him to seem threatening in fight scenes. Admittedly, that's not totally Novick's fault. As far as I can remember, a pipe cleaner physique was bestowed upon the villain by all artists during this period. But I would say this issue takes the trend too far.
But the yarn's fatal flaw is that neither crook comes across as a master villain. They just come across as silly and so hamstrung by their own gimmicks that they become ineffectual; metaphorically shooting themselves in the foot every chance they get.
This is especially a problem for Two-Face whose insistence on everything he does incorporating the number 2 that it makes his every move totally predictable.
I would assume the two crooks knocking themselves out and being hauled off back to jail is down to the strictures of the Comics Code which doesn't want criminals to be seen getting away with wrongdoing. While that may be ethically admirable - and will, no doubt, protect all of us readers from having our minds warped - it does ultimately make the story feel futile and trivial.
All in all, I feel the whole thing pales when compared to Marvel's early 1970s Dr Doom series, in terms of art, mood, characters and writing. Also, neither of these silly ninnies would last more than two panels against Spider-Man.
That is, however, only my opinion, and others may think otherwise.
Others may think the Joker and Two-Face are among the greatest threats ever unleashed upon the comic book world.
They may think this is the greatest comic they've ever read.
If so, they are free to say so, below.
32 comments:
Scene: the Conveyor belt/buzz saw.
Two-Face: "No, Mr.Joker - I want you to die!"
Coins at museum = gold at Fort Knox.
Phillip
DC
I'm getting confused. It was Jonathan Creek's 'Black Canary' episode, that had a similar buzz saw dissection(happening to Hannah Gordon's character's twin sister.) Goldfinger used a laser.
Phillip
To be fair Phillip, iirc in that buzz saw scene the Joker does say something to Two-Face about how unoriginal he's being. Although I suppose a writer's winking acknowledgment of a cliche doesn't make it any less of one.
-sean
I've never felt like I missed anything by not reading DC comics.
Another great review, Steve.
Although while I wouldn't say the Joker was the greatest threat unleashed on the comic book world, I don't think he was as second-rate a villain as you suggest. Or at least, not always. But then I tend to the view that if any comic character is second-rate thats really down to the creative team working on them (so for instance, with Batman villains, someone like Alan Moore could make even Clay Face interesting).
Still, obviously The Joker #1 isn't going to help anyone make the case for him as a villain. The Killing Joke - or even The Joker's Five Way Revenge - it ain't.
Really, the story would have worked much better as a seven or eight page back up somewhere... and even then it would need more stylish artwork to be worthwhile. Maybe if it had been drawn by Garcia-Lopez? He inked the only other issue I've read - #3 - which was an improvement. Although still a pretty stupid story, with the Creeper (a second green haired character that laughs a lot was not what the series needed).
-sean
Steve! Excellent review comme d’habitude!
Charlie did buy this when it hit the spinner and thinks it is still in the long box possibly because he thinks it had resale value.
Funny thing comic villains: take an average, deranged human and stick flying wings or 4 mechanical arms or a rhino suit on him and you got a top tier villain in Marvel.
Colin, if you didn't read any DCs you missed Jack Kirby's best work. And Brother Power the Geek.
Not to mention Watchmen.
-sean
Colin, you also missed Neal Adams and Deny O'Neils Green Lantern and Batman. Mike Grells, Dave Cockrums and Keith Giffens Legion of Superheroes, Bernie Wrigntson (Nestor Redondo) and Len Weins Swamp Thing and some nice stuff by the likes of Alex Nino etc.
Colin - whilst researching Mikes Amazing World of Comics for SDC “50 years ago” i noticed that in these months i bought as many, if not more, DCs. To be clear, i was buying a fair few of their war titles which Marvel had no equivalent: Haunted Tank, The Losers, The Unknown Soldier. Kirby’s Losers is superior stuff!
Sean- you aren’t going to mention Dingbats??? Sacrilege!!!
I did read some Batman, Wonder Woman and New Teen Titans comics around 1982-83.
I've also read Watchmen in trade paperback format.
Anonymous (presumably Charlie) - how did you miss the bit where I wrote 'Jack Kirby's best work'?
-sean
You did though.
Granted, Sean - in "the business", the technical term for winking cliche acknowledgement's "hanging a lamp on it" (or "hanging a light on it"?), if I remember correctly. For example, discarded night club matchbooks, broken watches indicating the crime time, or telephone notepads bearing an imprint of the last number, all followed by: "I thought that only worked in the movies!"
Generally, Marvel's villains are massively better. That being said, in Daredevil the Jester was clearly a Joker rip-off (or "homage", if you prefer), whilst the Owl's not completely dissimilar to Penguin. Also, at the risk of stating the obvious, there's Darkseid & Thanos. For Batman, to my mind, Nocturna was better, despite her melodramatic turn of phrase.
In the tv series, Gotham, DC made Batman's classic villains more credible, to an extent.
The daftest DC villain I can think of (at least name-wise) is "Granny Goodness". Although didn't Luke Cage once face a morbidly obese female villain, too?
DC excelled at surrealism & the fantastical, more generally. That's its "high ground", not the creation of incredibly believable villains.
Phillip
"Incredibly believable" - an unintentional oxymoron!
Phillip
Hey - was that Jonathan Creek episode referencing Ollie's female side-kick? Probably not!
Phillip
Yes, The Joker’s short-lived solo series was tepid, silly and utterly disposable.
Much of DC’s output seemed quaint and out of touch with the times as late as the mid-1980s. But as others here have said, they definitely had lots of worthwhile books as well.
b.t.
Phillip, I'm not sure about villains being intrinsically 'massively better' or not. Like, with Daredevil I was much more interested in whether an issue was by, say, Steve Gerber & Gene Colan, or - later - Frank Miller, than if Bullseye, the Gladiator or whoever turned up (although admittedly I would always check out a Stilt Man appearance).
The thing about the Joker is that he's a hard character to do well, especially for writers. Which is a big problem as he appears so regularly!
He should be used sparingly. When Denny O'Neil & Neal Adams revived the Joker in Batman #251 - I guess we'll get to the 5 Way Revenge in the 50 Year Ago feature pretty soon (ooh Steve you cunning northern devil, is that why you did this review?) - he hadn't appeared for quite a while. And DC probably should have left it as long before using him again.
Instead, they churned out a series like this.
In the 80s you get a couple of definitive updates of the Joker from Frank Miller, and Alan Moore & Brian Bolland... He'd be a much more stylish villain if that had been it for the decade imo.
And don't even get me started on screen Jokers. Why even have any, after Cesar Romero?
-sean
For me the best version of the Joker was hands down by Paul Dini and Bruce Timm in "Mad Love". I bought that first issues the Joker back in the day and even then it was awful but it is probably worth a bit of momey (sadly I gave it away years ago).
Sean - i have to agree that Joker, and perhaps psychopaths/ sociopaths in general should be used sparingly. “Gotham” is one of those few Netflix series i really enjoyed. But the last-ish season i truly tired of the psycopath schtick. Lock him up or kill him off…
Psychopaths/sociopaths have been a media plague for quite a while now, especially since Silence of the Lambs. They're all brilliant, mad genius anti-heroes who can easily escape maximum security prisons and run rings around armies of cops while effortlessly serially killing people in imaginative ways and quoting Nietzsche.
-sean
Cesar Romero refused to shave off his moustache when he played the Joker so they had to apply the make-up on top of it.
Is Twitter officially known as X now or is it just a change of logo?
I'm sure we've all encountered our share of psychopaths and/or sociopaths. I'm not too clear on the difference. Maybe there's a spectrum.
My sense of it is, psychopaths tend to wind up in prison, sooner or later. They often lack impulse control. They're easier to spot.
On the other hand sociopaths can function quite well, most of the time. They can walk around in sunlight without exploding.
Even reach the highest echelons of power...
M.P.
Colin, I believe it's officially known as X now, even though its URL is still twitter.com.
MP, a psychopath is born that way, their brain inherently lacking the ability to feel empathy or strong emotion. A sociopath has a normally structured brain but learns to behave that way, due to their upbringing.
According to M.P.'s definition, Morbius is more of a sociopath, whereas Dracula's more psychopathic! Happy Yorkshire Day! (Where's that coat of mine?)
Phillip
Morbius = roams in sunlight.
Drac = Doesn't, & spends most nights confined in a coffin (almost imprisoned, if you will!)
Phillip
Well, Steve, that explains Trump.
But the Joker, if he hadn't fallen in that vat of...acid, or whatever it was, would he have found a different line of work?
M.P.
Steve, given that X is still @ twitter.com the rebrand does seem a bit half-hearted. I like the idea that Elon Musk should have gone for a transitional name, and called it TwiX.
-sean
Sean - Musk might raise a two-fingered Twix logo, to Zuckerberg, as an Agincourt salute!
Phillip
In a severe case of Nadine Dorries syndrome, I see those two still haven't sorted out holding their tech bro cage fight yet, Phillip. Very disappointing.
-sean
Post a Comment