Batman: The Killing Joke animated movie from Bruce Timm

[ancient]

I recently read the graphic novel, and I though the overall story was great, but the treatment of Barbara was absolutely atrocious.
It's worth keeping in mind that these kinds of stories tend to be saying something, and by completely ignoring Barbara's perspective on what happened, a lot of people see that as the story saying that what she experienced didn't matter. That is not right, in a situation like this, I would say that her experience and reaction to what happened to her is more important than Batman's or her fathers. By looking at it purely from their perpsectives, they are (probably unintentionally) making it look like she is just an extension of those characters rather than a character in her own right. At least that's the way I've always understood the complaints about these kinds of stories.

It's a perfectly valid complaint, I just don't like people putting so much weight on their own opinions, getting all dramatic about it, & claiming that a rushed plot point actually injured them. It's not a new argument, we have a rating system thanks to it. We don't need to add a Ministry of Harmful Ideas into the mix.

It's also a kind of complaint that happens more often (but not exclusively) with corporate properties. DC often puts out comics that are for small kids & comics for Adults Only that star the same characters. This causes a lot of whining in certain circles. It would be like if Nintendo put out an M-rated Mario game. The number of whining fanboys & clueless parents would be through the roof, even if it was literally the best piece of art ever made.

Comics don't have brand consistency, and a lot of people resisted the change to a dark tone. A lot of people still whine about the 90s too, which I'm personally tired of listening to.

 

[JD]

I'm not quite sure what any of that has to do with the fact that the comic treated a popular female character, who was a superhero in her own right, with fans of her own, like shit. Hell, Christopher has said that even the author regrets how he treated her in the comics, I think that kind of moves this beyond just being a few people's opinion.

 

[Christopher]

It's worth keeping in mind that these kinds of stories tend to be saying something, and by completely ignoring Barbara's perspective on what happened, a lot of people see that as the story saying that what she experienced didn't matter. That is not right, in a situation like this, I would say that her experience and reaction to what happened to her is more important than Batman's or her fathers. By looking at it purely from their perpsectives, they are (probably unintentionally) making it look like she is just an extension of those characters rather than a character in her own right. At least that's the way I've always understood the complaints about these kinds of stories.

Exactly. What I've hoped all along is that, if they included that part of the story at all (which they clearly are), they'd expand on it by giving Barbara a larger presence in the story and exploring it from her perspective. This is an event that changes her life forever, so it's only right that the story of that event be about her, be told in a way that identifies with her and treats her as a main character, rather than just a prop. And it looks like that's what they're trying to do, by adding a prologue that focuses on Batgirl. But it's a very delicate subject matter, and I'm uncertain how well these producers can pull it off, given their questionable track record with handling female characters.

 

[Kor]

I don't understand why there are twenty one reviews on Amazon when the movie won't even be released for another two and a half months.

Kor

 

[ichab]

Exactly. What I've hoped all along is that, if they included that part of the story at all (which they clearly are), they'd expand on it by giving Barbara a larger presence in the story and exploring it from her perspective. This is an event that changes her life forever, so it's only right that the story of that event be about her, be told in a way that identifies with her and treats her as a main character, rather than just a prop. And it looks like that's what they're trying to do, by adding a prologue that focuses on Batgirl. But it's a very delicate subject matter, and I'm uncertain how well these producers can pull it off, given their questionable track record with handling female characters.

This is a joker story, not a barbara gorden story. The focus needs to stay on that.

 

[Christopher]

This is a joker story, not a barbara gorden story. The focus needs to stay on that.

Then it shouldn't have included a life-changing event for Barbara at all. See, this is the unthinking sexism of the culture, the assumption that it's perfectly okay to destroy a woman's life as nothing more than an incidental plot point in a conflict between men, because women are not people in their own right but just props for men to play with and fight over. That marginalization of Barbara that you're championing is exactly the problem with including her at all. What the Joker did to her could've been left out completely without affecting the Joker-Commissioner Gordon story all that much (something less borderline-rapey could've been substituted) and without affecting the Joker-Batman story or the Joker-flashback story in any way at all. It's the cavalier, gratuitous nature of it that's the root of the problem. If you want to do a story that's about the Joker and Commissioner Gordon and Batman, then don't have a beloved, important superheroine casually violated and traumatized and paralyzed in a story that isn't even about her. But if you want to do a story that shows that happening to her, then it's unconscionable to deny her a voice in that story. That story has to be about her on some level, because it changes her life forever. Doing that to her and not exploring it from her perspective reduces her to an object instead of a human being.

 

[ichab]

Then it shouldn't have included a life-changing event for Barbara at all. See, this is the unthinking sexism of the culture, the assumption that it's perfectly okay to destroy a woman's life as nothing more than an incidental plot point in a conflict between men, because women are not people in their own right but just props for men to play with and fight over. That marginalization of Barbara that you're championing is exactly the problem with including her at all. What the Joker did to her could've been left out completely without affecting the Joker-Commissioner Gordon story all that much (something less borderline-rapey could've been substituted) and without affecting the Joker-Batman story or the Joker-flashback story in any way at all. It's the cavalier, gratuitous nature of it that's the root of the problem. If you want to do a story that's about the Joker and Commissioner Gordon and Batman, then don't have a beloved, important superheroine casually violated and traumatized and paralyzed in a story that isn't even about her. But if you want to do a story that shows that happening to her, then it's unconscionable to deny her a voice in that story. That story has to be about her on some level, because it changes her life forever. Doing that to her and not exploring it from her perspective reduces her to an object instead of a human being.

So.....would you have been okay with it being Robin shot and paralyzed?

 

[Kai "the spy"]

^Well, there was a story which was published that same year, where the Joker kills Robin. That story was all about Robin.

 

[ichab]

^Well, there was a story which was published that same year, where the Joker kills Robin. That story was all about Robin.

But the question was would it have been okay for robin to be shot and paralyzed in the Killing Joke?

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Well, I can't speak for Christopher, though from what I've read of his opinions I do believe he'd agree when I say:

No. Absolutely not. Robin is such an integral part of the Batman family, even the Jason Todd version, to have him shot and paralyzed on the side would feel unacceptable. And that so many people apparently have no such feelings about Barbara, the god-damned Batgirl, to be shot on paralyzed on the side - and it really is on the side, she's in this one scene and then in another in the hospital, she's not even seen as Batgirl in the story - is quite disturbing to me.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

The version of Killing Joke where Joker keys the Batmobile to drive Batman mad just wasn't quite the same.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

No. Absolutely not. Robin is such an integral part of the Batman family, even the Jason Todd version,

So integral he was killed off by a poll vote, and several of the votes to save him were made under the confused belief that he was Dick Grayson.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I tried to vote to save Jason Todd, but the telephone line was always busy. Personally, I think it was a conspiracy. They never intended to save Jason Todd.

 

[ichab]

Well, I can't speak for Christopher, though from what I've read of his opinions I do believe he'd agree when I say:

No. Absolutely not. Robin is such an integral part of the Batman family, even the Jason Todd version, to have him shot and paralyzed on the side would feel unacceptable. And that so many people apparently have no such feelings about Barbara, the god-damned Batgirl, to be shot on paralyzed on the side - and it really is on the side, she's in this one scene and then in another in the hospital, she's not even seen as Batgirl in the story - is quite disturbing to me.

I dont have feelings for fictional characters whether they are male or female. But if we changed art everytime someone took offense by it we'd be having to change them all.The scene is one of the most membered moments from the story and if you take it out or change it then your angering everyone who is a fan of the story. Remember when lucas decided 20 years later to make changes to Star Wars? How did that work out? Was he right to change it because he was the creator?

 

[urbandefault]

I dont have feelings for fictional characters whether they are male or female. But if we changed art everytime someone took offense by it we'd be having to change them all.The scene is one of the most membered moments from the story and if you take it out or change it then your angering everyone who is a fan of the story. Remember when lucas decided 20 years later to make changes to Star Wars? How did that work out? Was he right to change it because he was the creator?

Is that called "writer's remorse"?

"If I'd-a known I'd hafta play this song the rest of my life, I'd-a wrote somethin' different." -Joe Walsh

 

[Kai "the spy"]

So integral he was killed off by a poll vote, and several of the votes to save him were made under the confused belief that he was Dick Grayson.

But, as I mentioned in my earlier post, he was killed off in a story that was all about him. And even then, they had the poll to let the readers decide, so they obviously weren't as nonchalant about killing Robin as they were with paralyzing Barbara Gordon.

My complaint isn't that they paralyzed her in such a traumatic way, it's that they did it not to actually change her character (that later character development in the monthly books surely went a long way to save this particular decision), they did it to make an effect on the male characters of Gordon and Batman. It's not that it happened, it's how it was handled.

I dont have feelings for fictional characters whether they are male or female. But if we changed art everytime someone took offense by it we'd be having to change them all.The scene is one of the most membered moments from the story and if you take it out or change it then your angering everyone who is a fan of the story. Remember when lucas decided 20 years later to make changes to Star Wars? How did that work out? Was he right to change it because he was the creator?

And I don't even think Christopher advocated actually changing the comic book. But one should be able to recognize this as a weakness of the work, it's something even Alan Moore recognized as a weakness of the story, and it's something the movie team seems to try and change by adding more scenes for Barbara.

 

[ichab]

And I don't even think Christopher advocated actually changing the comic book.

He's advocated changing the scene for the movie as well as changing the cover. I understand people dont like it. There are many forms of art I dont like. But you dont see me asking for them to be changed just to fit my moral sensibilities.

 

[ancient]

Then it shouldn't have included a life-changing event for Barbara at all.

It served its purpose in the story just fine.

See, this is the unthinking sexism of the culture, the assumption that it's perfectly okay to destroy a woman's life as nothing more than an incidental plot point in a conflict between men,

This is complete BS. It is perfectly fine to cripple a woman...in a work of fiction. You seem to be using an argument that conflates fiction & non-fiction. No one is harmed by fiction.

because women are not people in their own right but just props for men to play with and fight over.

Well I suppose with that kind of catastrophic thinking you can get upset over anything.

That marginalization of Barbara that you're championing is exactly the problem with including her at all.

So not including her would be less "marginalizing". What. Come on man.

What the Joker did to her could've been left out completely without affecting the Joker-Commissioner Gordon story all that much (something less borderline-rapey could've been substituted)

There is also nothing wrong with rape...in a work of fiction.

It's the cavalier, gratuitous nature of it that's the root of the problem. If you want to do a story that's about the Joker and Commissioner Gordon and Batman, then don't have a beloved, important superheroine casually violated and traumatized and paralyzed in a story that isn't even about her. But if you want to do a story that shows that happening to her, then it's unconscionable to deny her a voice in that story. That story has to be about her on some level, because it changes her life forever. Doing that to her and not exploring it from her perspective reduces her to an object instead of a human being.

She isn't a human being, she's a fictional character, and it is the right of the artist to use her as he pleases, full stop. I understand not liking the story, personally I hated the Oracle years and was glad when it was written out. But enough with this implication that it's immoral to write certain stories, you are taking it too far and I also think you happen to be in a severe minority with this opinion about AKJ.

 

[ichab]

To be honest, I find this type of hysteria over an almost thirty year old piece of fictional work fascinating. Then again there were people who once wanted to censor classics like "Huckleberry Finn" so at this point it shouldn't surprise me

 

[Tosk]

Hell, Christopher has said that even the author regrets how he treated her in the comics, I think that kind of moves this beyond just being a few people's opinion.

Artists change their minds sometimes. It doesn't make the original choices wrong, just different. Otherwise everyone would love the Star Wars special editions more than "those old versions".