Brian Azzarello's "The Joker"

[phantom stranger]

With the exception of the short-lived Luke Cage book,  I've never really been a fan of Brian's work; although I have yet to read his acclaimed "100 Bullets." Still, I was curious on this new Ledger-inspired take on the Clown Prince of Crime. Unfortunately, I was pretty disappointed with it. The book has some interesting plot threads, but they're never really developed. He has a new take on some classic Bat-villains but anyone can do that. Making Killer Croc an African-American isn't actually an innovative literary device, IMHO. To make things worse, the book is from the perspective of a new character that I didn't really care about. It had some nice art but it's no "Killing Joke."

Anyone else check this out yet?   

[zDBZ]

This book's been getting good reviews at BOF and other places I've gone, so it's nice to find someone else who wasn't crazy about it.

I ended up despising Joker, actually. I didn't care for anything in it. The artwork and design weren't appealing in the slightest, the story was nothing unique, and the characterisation of most of the characters was far from my liking. I've heard it said that anyone who loved Heath in The Dark Knight should love Joker; I loved Heath and I hated the way the Joker was played in this book. IMO, this is what we might have gotten in The Dark Knight had Heath not brought so much to the part. This Joker is nothing but a commom murderer, a psychopathic terrorist with no humour or charm or even menace about him. I was neither entertained nor terrified; I was bored.

[Azrael]

I admit it also left a sour taste in my mouth.

Interesting, a hell of a lot interesting to read with some impressive artwork by Lee Bermejo (the painting-like renderings in particular), but somewhat lacking in scope, and I didn't particularly like the design for Joker himself. "For every Joker, there is a Batman" it says. What is this supposed to mean? The Killing Joke (a vastly superior work) had a point - even a simple one. "Joker" simply serves as an exercise in how violent a Batman story can be (remember the flayed man), a showcase for a more "brutal" Joker, a totally deadly and dangerous Harley Quinn, and some "realistic" re-imaginings of some villains. I liked the Riddler, I could imagine Johnny Depp playing this Riddler with a Jack Sparrow accent.

[The Joker]

"For every Joker, there is a Batman" it says. What is this supposed to mean?

That line reminded me of what Mark Waid wrote in "The Greatest Joker Stories Ever Told: Expanded Edition" which was, "As long as there is a Batman, there will be a Joker for him to fight."

As far as Joker goes, I liked it alright. Going in, I wasnt really expecting to be blown away by it despite the book being much talked about, but ultimately I found parts in the graphic novel to be amusing, and enjoyed it for what it was. The appearances by Two-Face, Harley Quinn, The Riddler, Killer Croc, and The Penguin are a welcome addition to the book, some of the interpretations works, some didnt for me, however I felt that these characters are interesting only in the way the Joker interacts with them.

[Silver Nemesis]

I was underwhelmed. The whole thing felt like a series of disparate set pieces designed to shock and offend. It reeked of the gratuitous Sin City sleaze that dominated ?adult? comics back in the 90s, and I was saddened to see a character like Harley Quinn reduced to a mute pole dancer for the sake of making the book seem ?edgy?.

From a dramatic perspective, the narrative was all over the place. I never felt there was any kind of structure beyond the author?s predilection for arbitrary gore. I imagine the creative process must have been not unlike that for a horror film; namely sitting down and making a list of brutal set pieces, then creating a vague narrative to accommodate them.

?Let?s have the Joker randomly stab a guy in the face with a bottle/ rape his henchman?s wife/ butcher a vulnerable old couple with a razor, etc - just to show how nasty and amoral he is.?

Don?t get me wrong, I?ve no aversion to gore in comics or movies. Provided it serves some kind of function within the narrative. When the gore becomes a substitute for narrative and the material relies solely on shock value for its impact, that?s when it becomes problematic.

The quality of the artwork was impressive, although I wasn?t mad on the actual style of representation. Dave McKean?s artwork for Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth was of an extremely high level of quality, but at the same time managed to capture the Batman feel. This was something that the visuals in Joker lacked for me.

Most of the characters just came off as shallow one-dimensional caricatures lacking any sense of well developed motivation. Jonny Frost, the central narrator, was just an unsympathetic Henry Hill-clone, and the way he, Croc and the other characters are shown drinking, relaxing, popping pills and going to strip bars with the Joker completely contradicts the loner we were presented with in TDK.

   ?He must have friends.?
   ?Friends? Have you met this guy??

All in all, it felt to me like a piece of Dark Knight fan fiction rather than a proper self contained graphic novel like The Killing Joke. That?s not to say that it?s a faithful continuation of The Dark Knight?s legacy, because I don?t think it is. It was clearly influenced by that film?s aesthetic properties, but apparently not so much by its writing and characterisation. You could replace the Joker in this book with Clarence Boddicker from Robocop and it would make little difference. I found myself loathing the eponymous character in this book. He had none of the class, wit, skill or intelligence that makes the real Joker so engaging.

As a non-canonical Elseworlds story, I think this book will cash in on the success of The Dark Knight and a lot of people will get a thrill out of reading it. But I can?t imagine anyone will remember it 20 years from now and I certainly can?t see it taking a place amongst the truly great Joker stories, as IGN?s review claims it will.

[Joker81]

This Joker is nothing but a commom murderer, a psychopathic terrorist with no humour or charm or even menace about him. I was neither entertained nor terrified; I was bored.

No offence, but is that not what Heaths Joker was???

[zDBZ]

This Joker is nothing but a commom murderer, a psychopathic terrorist with no humour or charm or even menace about him. I was neither entertained nor terrified; I was bored.

No offence, but is that not what Heaths Joker was???

I don't think so. I found Heath's Joker very funny, very charming, and a talented showman. He was also scary as hell, and I think the best Joker stories always play both sides.

Heath's Joker was also someone who I believe would actually be sent to Arkham; the Joker in Joker would never be committed to an institution. He'd be locked up like Lecter or given the chair.

Something else that was mentioned on another site (I think BOF) about this book that caught my attention was how the "freaks" in this story aren't really freaks. I would never believe that this was the group of colourful psychotics who overthrew the Mob in The Long Halloween; these are the type of scum that the Mob would ostracise and use.

[Azrael]

Three years plus since the last reply. LOL

First, I think Silver Nemesis' well written review should be posted in a "reviews" section when the timing is right, alongside some other comic reviews.

I realised my biggest problem with Joker was a piece of dialogue.

"To mock you"

Don't know if I'm wrong, but this is one of the most "un-Batman" things Batman ever said. Totally out of character. No matter the contempt he feels for criminals in general, and the Joker in particular (to whom this piece of dialogue is directed), I can't picture him talk like an arrogant bully. He'll threaten and beat guys up if he has to extract information etc, but he'll never make a comment in reference to his obviously superior status, his wealth, his good looks etc. Imagine Batman saying to the Penguin "ha, I'm taller than you". This is what this sounds like. His intelligence and his morals, as well as his trauma, would never allow petty arrogance. I try to recall a similar moment in some other stories that are more fresh in my mind (Long Halloween, Dark Victory, Knightfall, No Man's Land), and can't find any.

Here, he simply taunts a villain with an atitude more fitting to Wolverine or Al Simmons (who are more assassins than heroes), and the outcome is well known to those that read the graphic novel.

[thecolorsblend]

I don't think it's my business to defend this book but I think I could somewhat No Prize that line by saying the Joker, who thinks he's a comedian and is always obsessed with The Joke, would be inflamed by that remark. Batman would want to psychologically undermine the Joker if he could in order to gain the upper hand.

Of course, the logical argument there is (A) nothing about the Joker's depiction in this book is really representative of his demented sense of humor and (B) even if Batman wanted to tick him off to take him off his game, he wouldn't take the risk in a hostage situation like that. And if that's the answer you want to run with... I got nuthin.

As to the book... I long ago accepted that the Ledger Joker has a broad appeal to a demographic that just isn't me. I like his performance but it pains me that it was done in the context of the Joker because (A) that isn't the Joker and (B) external media have a long, demonstrable history of influencing the comics... as this book demonstrates. Of course, everything that made the Ledger Joker work in TDK is utterly absent here, which is salt in the wound.

But I guess the worst criticism I can offer is that it's forgettable. Even the gore and excessive violence. I didn't even remember enough of the story to write that stuff up there. I had to flip through the thing to jog my memory. And once I did, I thought "oh, THAT'S why I never bothered rereading this thing... and that... and that... and that..."

[Azrael]

True, this Joker basically acts like a mobster. A big contradiction between TDK's and this version is money: in TDK the Joker burns a few millions, he needs money only as a means for creating chaos, while in "Joker" the first thing he does after being released from Arkham is to reclaim his territory. I remember an interview with the comic's creators saying they envisioned Joker as a Chris Walken-type of character (probably King of NY, need to google it for exact quote). Their version comes off more like a psychopathic criminal with "rational" motivations, like money.