In Defence of Batgirl in The Killing Joke (2016)

The Thorny Portrayal of Batgirl

in Batman: The Killing Joke (2016)

While I agree that the first 28 minutes of the animated adaptation of Alan Moore's The Killing Joke (1988) are tonally different to what follows, I also feel that it isn't as bad as many reports proclaim it to be. It may even have more in play than it gets credit for, and the gut-reaction of naysayers could, at least partially, be unfair and unwarranted.

With that in mind, I decided to give it a fair crack of the whip and discovered it's not the worst thing the Batman animated universe has shat out - that award goes to Batman and Harley Quinn (2017), from the selection that I've seen, to date. If there's a worse feature than that, I don't want to see it.

In order to properly discuss the story and Batgirl's controversial role in it, I'll need to include spoilers, including revealing the ending. If that wasn't explicit enough, expect UNRESERVED SPOILERS from here on.

If you're still reading, you've either seen the movie or don't care about spoilers. It isn't enough to have just read the book. Most of what I refer to is movie-specific. And it's a pretty long post.

It's easy for an experienced critic to isolate a short scene that they feel illustrates the point they want to get across and present it in a contextually revised and/or biased manner, but to get a more accurate overview of what's happening, you need to assess the Batgirl section as a whole.

What needs to be remembered at all times is that she's attracted to the danger of the lifestyle. By her own admission, "There was a time when capes and cowls and fighting crime really was exciting." (The past-tense in that sentence is because it's a v/o from a future time.)

Batgirl's opening v/o does seem like an apology of sorts, but some backstory for the character is crucial. If the original text was followed verbatim, we wouldn't see Barbara Gordon in action as Batgirl at all. The argument that 'everyone knows Barb was Batgirl' is nonsense. Not everyone has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the franchise, and I'm willing to bet that there's at least one person who watched the movie, perhaps with a partner or a friend, who didn't know Barbara's night-time alter ego and who therefore benefitted from the prologue's establishing of such. [1]

To such a newcomer, there'd be no understanding of how Joker's brutal assault impacts the world beyond the victim and her father. I'm not suggesting that the attack is any less heinous in the text, but without showing her as Batgirl prior to the event, the greater implications would be absent - and indeed the greater dramatic irony; i.e., that Joker didn't really know who he was shooting. Not only was he purposefully crippling an innocent daughter, he was unknowingly doing the same to part of Batman's support bubble, too. (I know she had 'quit' the nightlife by that stage, but Joker would have no way of knowing that, so the argument is valid still.) Ergo, some kind of establishing Batgirl prologue was essential to the story, if not to every viewer.

It's established that she's attracted to the danger, so it follows that she might also be attracted to the person who's the paragon of that role. The duo had been fighting alongside each other for almost three years before the rooftop sex happens, so it's clearly not a 'schoolgirl crush'.

The claim that the character was little more than cheap sex appeal, or that she somehow failed in her role because she allowed herself to be 'objectified' by the males are two points of contention that I have issues with. The story did indeed draw attention to her gender and in some ways 'sexualised' her in the male gaze, but that ties into the 'overwhelming male pride' subtext that's a part of the story. If her gender had no impact whatsoever, then the prologue itself would've been little more than the lengthy introduction of a supporting character. As it is, it's more than that.

Moreover, the comics medium has sexualised female heroes for decades. A large percentage of modern superhero books feature women with impossible proportions doing unfeasible things in clothing that offers zero tactical advantage. The ubiquitous nature of it doesn't make it right, but for a true comparison of how The Killing Joke handles it, set the movie's Batgirl next to the outrageous standards set by the mainstream comic book medium. She's nothing like them.

She has a number of relatable human flaws — she's not the first young person to confuse feelings of admiration with love, and I don't think it's fair that she should be so heavily criticized for doing so — but she's not defined by her waist size like many other comic book characters are.

Batman clearly recognises her value to the cause for which he fights. He contacts her as soon as he leaves Commissioner Gordon, when their conversation about the robbery has come to an end. The resultant chase sees them working apart but with the same goal in mind, an assault on two fronts. After the chase is done, we get an interesting scene that hints at a key point.

She uses suggestive analogies in her talk of vigilante work: "The night's still young." But he replies with, "I'm gonna need some alone time." To refer back to what I said above, that scene in isolation, and out of context, could be used to show him in a negative light, as an egomaniac who wants her gone. I don't believe that was the intent. I see it as the first proper inkling that Batman wants to protect her from the violence that fills his world.

At the risk of opening an inadvertent can of worms, I think the fundamental difference between my interpretation of the prologue and the feminist readings that sprang up almost instantly after it was released is related to how we each perceive the dominant personality and, as a result of that, where our sympathies lie. When viewing fiction, I'm concerned primarily with storytelling and the tools a writer used to get from A to B. Whereas, given what I've read elsewhere, some of the movie's detractors seem to have had a more passionate and/or political agenda to satisfy.

That dominant personality is, of course, Batman, who exists in a state of consciousness that's been cultivated and fed nightly for a decade or more in his role as the Dark Knight. Let's not forget, one of the Killing Joke's themes is to show the similarity between him and his nemesis, a device that works as well as it does because Batman is a deeply flawed character; that's arguably what makes him interesting. The readings that accuse him of purposeful misogyny seem to me to be assuming that he's completely in control of his world and his feelings. I don't think he is, at all. I think he wants to be, and so paints a picture of a world in which he's one step away from that being achieved — he can't have it fully realised, lest his reason for being is erased — but deep down he's as broken and neurotic as the villains that he chases. He's a withdrawn individual hiding behind a mask. I'd posit also that his daytime duties as Bruce Wayne are him operating behind a different kind of mask, but I'm not getting into that here. His treatment of Batgirl therefore speaks more to his broken nature than to any acquiescent traits that she may have.

Yes, she's female, and yes she sees the world differently to how Batman does, but her feelings and decisions are no less valid or important - and she's arguably less fucked-up than him.

To expand on that, I don't view Batgirl as being a needy submissive. She's simply more in touch with her emotions and therefore more sympathetic to others. That's not a weakness - that's a strength. And wanting to be accepted by our peers, to be praised for doing good, to have our work acknowledged by those that we respect, etc, is not the same as seeking justification in the eyes of others, whatever their gender. To confuse those things is to muddle the argument.

It should be remembered also that it was her that initiated sex. The notion that he chose to not make contact afterwards doesn't automatically imply that he used her and tossed her aside like a costumed toy. It could just as easily mean that he was wholly incapable of dealing with the emotions that she stirred in him, so he instead chose to hide from them. Batman is a special kind of sociopath, after all. In that second scenario she's the stronger personality because she dared to acknowledge the encounter in both practical and emotional terms. There's always more than one way to view a situation, and what's 'true' for any given observer may itself be mutable. [2]

Likewise, Mr Grumpy-ass ordering her not to participate could be for many different reasons; because he's an ego-driven narcissist is only one such option. Maybe it's his way of keeping her from harm because he cares; or because he's afraid to care; or because in his role as mentor he doubts his own ability to watch her back when things get out of control, which they often do when a vigilante in a bat suit jumps into a heated situation. I don't for one second accept that it's simply a case of him exerting male superiority over a female - he'd probably be just as harsh to Robin or Nightwing and assert that they're "partners, not equals" too. The concept of pushing away the ones close to you in order to protect them isn't a new thing in Batman stories.

Her response to the attentions of Paris Franz is loaded with symbolism and parallels to the rest of her life. She conceived a third persona in order to keep her dual identity secret from her daytime co-workers, so any responses that her male co-worker offers are themselves based on that invented version of Barbara. Paris sees her more as she sees herself, as Batgirl on a mission. His attentions are more direct. He's a sadist and a narcissist, who turns the fight into a flirtation to throw her off balance and gain an advantage. She's flattered by it, to a degree, but not to the point of losing focus. Instead, she sees an opportunity to use it to her advantage. He doesn't know her as well as he thinks he does. By using Paris' attraction to her as a lure to capture him, she plays up to the role – just as she plays up to cowl role, which was exciting to her. [3]

Batman's refusal to accept the idea isn't ego-driven. It ties directly into his long-held ethos about costumed crime-fighting, that the enemy must fear you, lest you lose the pre-emptive advantage, and adds another notch to a revealing concern for her safety.

Later, when Batgirl is beating on Paris Franz, she glimpses the abyss that Batman spoke of previously. The sight of Paris' blood and the knowledge that an ally is nearby helps her find the strength to pull back from the brink. In that moment of comprehensibility she understands a little of why the emotional detachment is so important to Batman's persona, and of how much he sacrifices in order to maintain it. In short, she perceives a little of why he treats people like he does. It's an opportune time for viewers to look beneath the surface and realise that any 'misogynist' actions of the characters shouldn't be confused with the goal of the filmmakers.

That same scene also made me wonder if her presence could've did the same for him at the end, during his confrontation with Joker. But, of course, she wasn't there because she'd quit the lifestyle and had a tragic run in with Joker herself earlier in the night. If she hadn't hung up her cowl, she might not have been in the apartment that night and therefore could've avoided the bullet, and have been available to perhaps stop Batman from falling into the abyss completely - if indeed that's what he did. The layers of consequence that arose from Batman's response may have driven from his life the one thing that was able to save him in his moment of ultimate weakness. In that respect, his precious isolation was, in part, instrumental in his undoing.

It may be a minority view, but I liked the prologue more than I liked the actual Killing Joke part of the movie. If I want to experience the titular story again, I'd prefer to read the book, which is the medium the story was intended for. The Batgirl section, however, is original, which is something that's in short supply these days in DC animations. If you're of the opposite view and hate the Batgirl section, the simple solution is to skip 28 minutes into the running time and watch it from there. If the prologue offends or disappoints you, you can choose not to watch it.

While you may not agree with all, or even any, of what I've written, I hope that I've at least managed to convey how the much-maligned prologue is more multifaceted than it may at first appear to be, and all one needs to do in order to see that is to look beyond the preconceptions.

If you turned off as the credits rolled, you missed an important scene showing that Barbara wasn't out of the game just yet. It's been suggested elsewhere that it illustrates how she's only now able to succeed, when confined to a chair, distanced from the male world. It made me sad to read such clutching of straws. Categorising her as a victim during such a momentous personal victory is a huge disservice to her achievement. In an attempt to add weight to the 'misogynist film' argument, they reduce her to an example and make her a victim of political agenda.

It's a disheartening fact of modern life that I now feel I've to clarify that I'm not anti-feminist and any thoughts to the contrary by anyone who makes it this far down the page won't alter that, though they're welcome to think whatever they like. If I made any comments that suggest otherwise, then I've failed in my task, which was simply to add another individual voice to the choppy pool of existing responses to a movie that features two beloved heroes.

I know the gender divide is real, and more often than not women get the short end of the stick both inside and outside of fiction, but it's important to remember that not everything is black and white in either case; it can be as grey as the world we've regrettably made for ourselves.

[1] Prior to Joker's assault in the book she's visible in a single 'Bat-family' photograph on Batman's desk, but she's in costume, so that too requires prior knowledge of the daytime/night-time connection that viewers of the film wouldn't have without the prologue.

[2] There was no proper place to put this, so it sits as a slightly related footnote: the insinuation that Joker violated Barbara after shooting her is perhaps the reason it got an R (15) certificate. It's certainly the part that's most likely to upset or cause offence to viewers, more than any other element. I'm surprised it was included, but it has a part to play within the narrative. It's genuinely shocking, but objectively it adds a further level of comparison between the two main characters, i.e.; both men had sex with her, but only one such action was with mutual consent. The wider relatedness of that shouldn't need to be expanded on, given what else was said above.

[3] There are a number of interesting parallels between Paris and Bruce that highlight the similarities and differences between them, but it would've made the relevant paragraph too long to add them. For those that are curious, however, here are just a few: the fact that both he and Bruce inherited their fortune from deceased parents, and that while Paris very much embraces the rich playboy lifestyle, Bruce only pretends to be one in order to draw attention away from his actual night-time activities. Paris hires a hooker and asks her to wear a Batgirl-esque mask, whereas Batgirl removes her cowl before she sleeps with Batman, who, it seems, keeps his cowl on (concerned with his secret identity, perhaps, as he should be).