BvS Jena Malone is in Batman v. Superman... Which role is she playing?

[godisawesome]

As someone who found Killing Joke more boring than insulting, I kind of hope they change it up. You can keep the villain monologue, since it's inarguably one of the best in comics, but the rest of the story is just a run of the mill Joker encounter where the biggest event with the coolest consequences was a fly by panel that could be easily improved by an action sequence and a Batgirl costume. Again, I'm arguing the original story's action is kind of pathetic on top of being another example of sexism in comics (maybe the event itself doesn't qualify, but yeah, when stacked with the dozens of similar events, it does reinforce the cliche).

Also, why not go for the best of both worlds in regards to Babs and her identities? Have her be Oracle now, but feature her going through strenuous and painful physical therapy to try and regain some mobility. Then eventually have her get enough back to use a suit with some reinforcements to become Batgirl again.

Because guys, the New 52 Batgirl started off, at least, as the weakest Batgirl compared to her peers because they kept the Killing Joke but got rid of the awesomeness of Oracle. OG Babsgirl was competing with the dynamic duo by herself back in the late Silver Age/early Bronze Age, and Cass and Steph both had Oracle in their ears (and that's a huge freakin' advantage considering her resources and skill level on top of her experience) alongside their own abilities, while New 52 Babs got her nose broke by Batwoman without getting some kind of equitable payback and had to use the freakin' library computer to do research for a case. She was kind of a pathetic 3rd stringer because they wanted a street level Batgril at the same time they were OPing the other Batfamily members. I hear she's improved now, but she's still not on par with what she should be.

I sometimes wonder if an Oracle-back-to-Batgirl launch in the New 52 would have been more successful; there's a pretty good argument to be made that the book's initial success had less to do with it's quality and more to do with the perfect selection of a strong fan-favorite writer, the publicity of the New 52 relaunch, and of course, the addictive excitement some fans have for (this next bit is a humorous, exaggerated take on my own views, don't take it seriously) inferior-cliched-regressive Silver Age characters.

 

[KillerWolf]

I never understood the problem some people had with this scene.
Joker is a villain and as such he does some ****ed up and disgusting things. Yes, he shot a woman, stripped her naked and took a pictures of her like that. The point was for it to be sick and ghastly. Unfortunately, there are sick and demented people like that, which do similar and worse things, in real life. Are comic writers supposed to ignore this altogether when writing their villains and make them more like ones from Disney cartoons instead? Why would they, to make them more likable? For most part, they are not supposed to be. In his long history, Joker has been written inside a spectrum that has him as an engaging, likable antagonist on one end and unnerving, repulsing psychopath, more akin to "villains" of our world, on the other.

Was the fact that Barbara was stripped naked act of sexism? Possibly. But the sexism in question does not come from the writer, but the character in the story - the Joker. Again, that was the point. It also serves the story, as it made that scene when he forces Jim Gordon to watch those pictures of his daughter all the worse and again - the act more disgusting and the scene more disturbing. Ahem, that was the point.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

I'm wondering, was the book as controversial back then as it seems now? Did this all start because of that variant cover with Batgirl and Joker? I just think it's very random and unnecessary that there's outrage over this one, old, fictional story. I thought it would have stopped after they pulled that variant cover but some people still want to get rid of the book altogether. The whole situation is odd.

 

[KillerWolf]

I've been wondering the same.

I'm sure it was shocking, it was intended to be, not just because of all that Joker did, but the fact that a regular, beloved character suffered such a fate and was changed forever as result. But was it really controversial back in the day...?

 

[Charlatan]

I've been wondering the same.

I'm sure it was shocking, it was intended to be, not just because of all that Joker did, but the fact that a regular, beloved character suffered such a fate and was changed forever as result. But was it really controversial back in the day...?

no, but only because there was no internet like today. the main communication of the fans back then was letters to the editors of the books themselves or Fanzines. And what was printed in the letter columns was dependent on those editors too.

 

[Gee]

I'm wondering, was the book as controversial back then as it seems now? Did this all start because of that variant cover with Batgirl and Joker? I just think it's very random and unnecessary that there's outrage over this one, old, fictional story. I thought it would have stopped after they pulled that variant cover but some people still want to get rid of the book altogether. The whole situation is odd.

The flashback was shown/heard in Arkham Knight too.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

I've been wondering the same.

I'm sure it was shocking, it was intended to be, not just because of all that Joker did, but the fact that a regular, beloved character suffered such a fate and was changed forever as result. But was it really controversial back in the day...?

While the book is aggressive and shocking, I don't know why people are angry at it now? I liked the book. I don't want anything from it changed. I never finished reading it thinking, "Woah, what sexism," like some seem to believe. It's absolutely violent though. It really introduced the Joker to me in such a vivid way that has stayed with me. That book made me afraid of the Joker and made me truly hate him. It seems you could sympathize with most of Batman's rogues but not Joker, even when (in this book) he's got a back story you could sympathize with but he's just too much. Just a horror show. I don't wish his insanity and brutality to be leveled down because any beloved character suffered a terrible fate from him (And she bounced back for God's sake!). He's the Joker. Where's the outrage over him beating Jason Todd to death? That was another brutal story that's stayed with me too.

 

[wehofilmfan]

It was controversial back then, but without the Internet the complaints/controversy weren't as overt and fast to spread as nowadays. The complaint is that yes, the Joker "did it," but the writer chose to have him do it. Females being portrayed as victims -- and especially as victims whose own assault/death is primarily a tool to motivate other male characters -- is quite common in comics, and it rightly frustrates readers who want to see more positive and normal portrayals of women in comics. At the time, it was a much bigger problem than it is today, too.

And while it might be controversial to say so, Moore had a consistent problem with writing stories where women were raped and beaten, and often portraying the events or outcomes in controversial ways (in Watchmen, the rape victim falling in love with her rapist, for example, V's torture of Evey to "teach" her, and all of the obvious controversy over Lost Girls' sexualized portrayals of female characters). So some of the complaints pointed to Barbara's shooting and sexual assault (stripping her naked and photographing her is a sexual assault) as another case of this problematic portrayal of women. And Barbara was a strong hero character who then is terrified and portrayed quite differently in her reaction to the events than Jim Gordon is when the Joker assaults him and uses the attack on Barbara to traumatize Gordon. Gordon doesn't break, whereas it's portrayed as if Barbara seemingly did.

It's the selection of female characters for extreme victimization and sexualization, as a tool to motivate male characters, that has been a consistent problem in comics history, and in the 1980s this was still a pretty significant problem that few people even cared to complain about. Most male readers tended to shrug it off since it was all supposedly done on purpose to "appeal" to young male sensibilities. Which I'd argue should also upset male readers, since the implication is that writers assume male readers just see women as sexualized props to be abused as plot devices for male characters. I don't believe most guys think that way, and it's sad comics did frankly pander to that sort of false impression of what guys wanted.

 

[wehofilmfan]

There was actually a good amount of outcry about Jason Todd's beating death, not just that he died but also that it was so brutal. Imagine the outcry if Joker had stripped Jason naked and posed him for nude photos. I bet even readers who wanted the character gone would've complained about the sexualized implications and having it actually shown in the comic, even though it would've made just as much sense for Joker to do that to Jason in order to add to the horror of what he did to Jason by beating him to death.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

I agree with you that those are terrible things. I honestly get one thing out of those stories and it's that Joker is a sick ****. I guess I'm not so bothered by them when I deduce that. And it helps that they are also fictional.

 

[Dr.]

...some of the complaints pointed to Barbara's shooting and sexual assault (stripping her naked and photographing her is a sexual assault) as another case of this problematic portrayal of women. And Barbara was a strong hero character who then is terrified and portrayed quite differently in her reaction to the events than Jim Gordon is when the Joker assaults him and uses the attack on Barbara to traumatize Gordon. Gordon doesn't break, whereas it's portrayed as if Barbara seemingly did.

There was actually a good amount of outcry about Jason Todd's beating death, not just that he died but also that it was so brutal. Imagine the outcry if Joker had stripped Jason naked and posed him for nude photos. I bet even readers who wanted the character gone would've complained about the sexualized implications and having it actually shown in the comic, even though it would've made just as much sense for Joker to do that to Jason in order to add to the horror of what he did to Jason by beating him to death.

This is a good analysis. Heroes (and especially superheroes) are usually paragons of bravery. So even when the villain scores a decisive victory (a standard trope), there’s a defiance in defeat. I.e., our fearless protagonist may cry out in agony - but he doesn’t cry, cower or plead for mercy. And this idealization of heroism should apply just as much to the gals as the guys.

 

[Ryan1985]

There was actually a good amount of outcry about Jason Todd's beating death, not just that he died but also that it was so brutal. Imagine the outcry if Joker had stripped Jason naked and posed him for nude photos. I bet even readers who wanted the character gone would've complained about the sexualized implications and having it actually shown in the comic, even though it would've made just as much sense for Joker to do that to Jason in order to add to the horror of what he did to Jason by beating him to death.

Technically the explosion killed him...

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

I never understood the problem some people had with this scene.
Joker is a villain and as such he does some ****ed up and disgusting things. Yes, he shot a woman, stripped her naked and took a pictures of her like that. The point was for it to be sick and ghastly. Unfortunately, there are sick and demented people like that, which do similar and worse things, in real life. Are comic writers supposed to ignore this altogether when writing their villains and make them more like ones from Disney cartoons instead? Why would they, to make them more likable? For most part, they are not supposed to be. In his long history, Joker has been written inside a spectrum that has him as an engaging, likable antagonist on one end and unnerving, repulsing psychopath, more akin to "villains" of our world, on the other.

Was the fact that Barbara was stripped naked act of sexism? Possibly. But the sexism in question does not come from the writer, but the character in the story - the Joker. Again, that was the point. It also serves the story, as it made that scene when he forces Jim Gordon to watch those pictures of his daughter all the worse and again - the act more disgusting and the scene more disturbing. Ahem, that was the point.

While the book is aggressive and shocking, I don't know why people are angry at it now? I liked the book. I don't want anything from it changed. I never finished reading it thinking, "Woah, what sexism," like some seem to believe. It's absolutely violent though. It really introduced the Joker to me in such a vivid way that has stayed with me. That book made me afraid of the Joker and made me truly hate him. It seems you could sympathize with most of Batman's rogues but not Joker, even when (in this book) he's got a back story you could sympathize with but he's just too much. Just a horror show. I don't wish his insanity and brutality to be leveled down because any beloved character suffered a terrible fate from him (And she bounced back for God's sake!). He's the Joker. Where's the outrage over him beating Jason Todd to death? That was another brutal story that's stayed with me too.

Well said.

 

[KillerWolf]

It was controversial back then, but without the Internet the complaints/controversy weren't as overt and fast to spread as nowadays. The complaint is that yes, the Joker "did it," but the writer chose to have him do it. Females being portrayed as victims -- and especially as victims whose own assault/death is primarily a tool to motivate other male characters -- is quite common in comics, and it rightly frustrates readers who want to see more positive and normal portrayals of women in comics. At the time, it was a much bigger problem than it is today, too.

And while it might be controversial to say so, Moore had a consistent problem with writing stories where women were raped and beaten, and often portraying the events or outcomes in controversial ways (in Watchmen, the rape victim falling in love with her rapist, for example, V's torture of Evey to "teach" her, and all of the obvious controversy over Lost Girls' sexualized portrayals of female characters). So some of the complaints pointed to Barbara's shooting and sexual assault (stripping her naked and photographing her is a sexual assault) as another case of this problematic portrayal of women. And Barbara was a strong hero character who then is terrified and portrayed quite differently in her reaction to the events than Jim Gordon is when the Joker assaults him and uses the attack on Barbara to traumatize Gordon. Gordon doesn't break, whereas it's portrayed as if Barbara seemingly did.

It's the selection of female characters for extreme victimization and sexualization, as a tool to motivate male characters, that has been a consistent problem in comics history, and in the 1980s this was still a pretty significant problem that few people even cared to complain about. Most male readers tended to shrug it off since it was all supposedly done on purpose to "appeal" to young male sensibilities. Which I'd argue should also upset male readers, since the implication is that writers assume male readers just see women as sexualized props to be abused as plot devices for male characters. I don't believe most guys think that way, and it's sad comics did frankly pander to that sort of false impression of what guys wanted.

While I agree with the overall point made in your post about sexism in comics, there are two things I disagree with:

1. Alan Moore didn't write only female characters being tortured and raped - for example, in "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" Mr. Hyde breaks Invisible Man's leg, then rapes him in a similar manner like in that scene with Comedian and original Silk Spectre in "The Watchmen" and finally kills him - one can say that Moore has a penchant for breaking characters he writes and putting them through quite ****ed up ordeals.

2. I don't see how was Barbara terrified and has broken easily. Before she had time to react, she got a bullet in her spine. What was she supposed to do? Any male character would also writhe in pain on the floor in the same situation.

Finally, while I can see where people that complain about this might be coming from, given the tendency of comics to indeed quite often sexualize female characters, I don't see anything substantial for such a complaint in this particular comic. She was behaving as any other character would in that situation and her being stripped naked served the story that was being told.

In comparison, I find these particular panels to be sexist:

Here is a scene of a young woman that has been tortured to death lying on the ground and for some reason the artist decided to draw her in a blatant erotic pose.

Now look at the panel where Barbara ends up on the ground after being shot and you'll see that something like this is nowhere to be seen. She just lies there, like any person would. Even if it would appear in those photographs we see glimpses of that during her writhing in agony she makes a pose one could associate with sex, it would make sense in a story, as her own father is being forced to watch these photos and it would further emphasize how disturbing the whole thing is and how disgusting the Joker is. With Stephanie Brown, there is no reason at all storywise for the panel we can see above.

What I am saying is - the story comes first. Moore wanted to make a brutal and impactful story about the Joker and also one that puts one of Batman's closest allies through a hell of a ordeal - which in the end only made the character stronger, as, like Mrs. Wayne already mentioned, she bounced back and returned to crimefighting, becoming more effective than ever before.

 

[Mad Ones]

Barbara is an object in the story while all of the men are subjects. It's sexist that one of the few female superheroes, one of the few female members of the Bat-family, undergoes a radical status quo change through violence in a story that isn't about her.

 

[Charlatan]

Barbara is an object in the story while all of the men are subjects. It's sexist that one of the few female superheroes, one of the few female members of the Bat-family, undergoes a radical status quo change through violence in a story that isn't about her.

so we're not outraged that the Joker is a sadistic killer but that he's sexist too? lol and sorry but the story was about her. While she was not the main character throughout it very much was about her and what happened to her.

 

[Mad Ones]

so we're not outraged that the Joker is a sadistic killer but that he's sexist too? lol

The Joker didn't do anything. He's a fictional character. The story being told is a product of a sexist industry. Male writers writing male characters for what they perceived to be male readers. Of course the one female character is going to be a prop for the men under those conditions.

Edit: I see you edited your post, Charlatan. The story was certainly not about her at all. At most it was about how much pain her attack caused Jim Gordon. Not about how much pain it caused Barbara. She never got developed through her suffering and we never saw her perspective. I've seen a lot of fans debate whether or not TKJ was about Jim, Joker, or Batman, but never about Barbara even though she faces the biggest status quo change.

How often do you see male superheroes brutalized in a domestic space, outside of their superhero costume, unexpectedly, without defending themselves?

 

[KillerWolf]

The Joker didn't do anything. He's a fictional character. The story being told is a product of a sexist industry. Male writers writing male characters for what they perceived to be male readers. Of course the one female character is going to be a prop for the men under those conditions.

That's a rather bizarre way of looking it. So you pretty much dismiss the idea of fictional work having its own life and its own organic development in the course of narrative? As I said, it is bizarre and goes completely against what many great and famous writers quite often talked about when describing their writing process.

 

[Mad Ones]

That's a rather bizarre way of looking it. So you pretty much dismiss the idea of fictional work having its own life and its own organic development in the course of narrative? As I said, it is bizarre and goes completely against what many great and famous writers quite often talked about when describing their writing process.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. My point is that it doesn't matter what the Joker did/didn't do or how the joker feels. He's a villain. What matters is the story and how its told. The Joker does brutal things. But the story is about the pain and development the men feel because of the Joker's brutal things, while the character with the biggest status quo change isn't developed at all because she's a woman.

Characters are always shaped by their writers.

 

[Snow Queen]

I never understood the problem some people had with this scene.
Joker is a villain and as such he does some ****ed up and disgusting things. Yes, he shot a woman, stripped her naked and took a pictures of her like that. The point was for it to be sick and ghastly. Unfortunately, there are sick and demented people like that, which do similar and worse things, in real life. Are comic writers supposed to ignore this altogether when writing their villains and make them more like ones from Disney cartoons instead? Why would they, to make them more likable? For most part, they are not supposed to be. In his long history, Joker has been written inside a spectrum that has him as an engaging, likable antagonist on one end and unnerving, repulsing psychopath, more akin to "villains" of our world, on the other.

Was the fact that Barbara was stripped naked act of sexism? Possibly. But the sexism in question does not come from the writer, but the character in the story - the Joker. Again, that was the point. It also serves the story, as it made that scene when he forces Jim Gordon to watch those pictures of his daughter all the worse and again - the act more disgusting and the scene more disturbing. Ahem, that was the point.

Personally speaking, my issue comes down to a lack of agency. As a stand-alone story, I feel she as a character really really gets the short end of the stick writing wise. A rewrite of the hospital scene a bit (though I'm going off memory on that part, it's been a while) and at least some kind of character for her would perhaps have fixed that issue. With it in the larger universe, I feel it just would be more interesting if it was about her as a character instead of being about someone else. If we got a story about her being paralyzed where she was the subject of the story, rather than being essentially a footnote and getting no agency. It's one of the reasons I don't like them keeping it in continuity and wish the New 52 had just ignored it and had her just be starting as Batgirl, keep in the role for a few years and then did a story where she got paralyzed in her own book with her as the protagonist. I love her as Oracle and I'm totally onboard with it happening, I just don't quite like how it happens.

 

[KillerWolf]

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. My point is that it doesn't matter what the Joker did/didn't do or how the joker feels. He's a villain. What matters is the story and how its told. The Joker does brutal things. But the story is about the pain and development the men feel because of the Joker's brutal things, while the character with the biggest status quo change isn't developed at all because she's a woman.

Characters are always shaped by their writers.

Personally speaking, my issue comes down to a lack of agency. As a stand-alone story, I feel she as a character really really gets the short end of the stick writing wise. A rewrite of the hospital scene a bit (though I'm going off memory on that part, it's been a while) and at least some kind of character for her would perhaps have fixed that issue. With it in the larger universe, I feel it just would be more interesting if it was about her as a character instead of being about someone else. If we got a story about her being paralyzed where she was the subject of the story, rather than being essentially a footnote and getting no agency. It's one of the reasons I don't like them keeping it in continuity and wish the New 52 had just ignored it and had her just be starting as Batgirl, keep in the role for a few years and then did a story where she got paralyzed in her own book with her as the protagonist. I love her as Oracle and I'm totally onboard with it happening, I just don't quite like how it happens.

Okay, I believe I understand now what is the issue you guys have with this. And to an extent I agree. She does get a short end of the stick, but the thing is - story is about the Joker and his little experiment he conducts on Jim Gordon, so it makes sense that the focus is on him and Gordon's struggle alone, while Barbara as character, being Gordon's daughter, serves only for purpose of emotional impact on another character - her father.

Yes, it is somewhat odd to use one of the more popular and more important characters of this universe like this, but the way I see it - it works for the story, as it is not supposed to be about her, it simply shouldn't be about Barbara and her coping with what she went through. Focusing on this in this one short standalone issue would most probably detract from main story and its theme regarding Joker and Gordon, an insane man and sane one and thin or perhaps not so thin line that separates them.

And surely, they have shown Barbara coping with being paralyzed in later issues, didn't they?

 

[MrsKent26]

Both sides of this debate make sense to me.

On one hand, I can see why people think there's some sexism in that scene. People need to remember that a lot of sexism complaints related to violence like this or skimpy costumes/sexualization arise out the frequency of these occurrences. Women in comics being used to motivate or cause angst in male characters is a common trope. If this scene was the only one of its kind, it likely wouldn't bring about the same ire. The same is true for people who complain about over-sexualization. If just one or a couple of female characters had skimpy costumes, people would probably write if off as a component of that female's characterization. But...it happens frequently to almost all female comic characters at some point. That's why it's a problem. It's something that singles out female characters and deals them a certain hand because they're women, either intentionally or subconsciously.

I doubt many authors these days are thinking "Gee, I'm gonna write a sexist story" though. Considering these types of stories are focused on male characters, this trope probably comes about because the female characters are afterthoughts. They become objects to further the subject's character or plot progression. Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 examples of this: Lois in the Injustice series is killed off in a violent manner so superman can go nuts, MJ in the Raimi Spidey movies is repeatedly used as a source of drama or a victim to garner sympathy for Peter, and in TDK, the main function of Rachel Dawes was to be blown up so Harvey goes rouge. Again, I don't think any of these works aimed to give poor portrayals of women, but they did participate in the trope of using females to motivate males.

On the other hand, what happened with the Joker and Babs is entirely in character for him. Terrible things like that can and do happen in real life and people can grow and move on. She can certainly be written to do that and be an interesting character. If they choose to use her in BvS or the batman solo, the incident doesn't have to happen exactly like it did in the comic and even if it does, her sole function doesn't have to be to motivate batman. That will probably always be one component of it, but they can still focus on her character and her healing as well. Having the character played by a charismatic and spunky actress like Malone is an opportunity for them to create a likable and inspiring side character. So, for that reason, I'd be ok with them using the Joker tragedy in a movie, despite the trope (and let's be honest, the psycho Joker we glimpsed in the SS trailer would likely commit that sort of atrocity). They just need to write her with some care to avoid making her more of a object/plot device than a character.

 

[KillerWolf]

Perfectly put.

 

[Snow Queen]

Okay, I believe I understand now what is the issue you guys have with this. And to an extent I agree. She does get a short end of the stick, but the thing is - story is about the Joker and his little experiment he conducts on Jim Gordon, so it makes sense that the focus is on him and Gordon's struggle alone, while Barbara as character, being Gordon's daughter, serves only for purpose of emotional impact on another character - her father.

Yes, it is somewhat odd to use one of the more popular and more important characters of this universe like this, but the way I see it - it works for the story, as it is not supposed to be about her, it simply shouldn't be about Barbara and her coping with what she went through. Focusing on this in this one short standalone issue would most probably detract from main story and its theme regarding Joker and Gordon, an insane man and sane one and thin or perhaps not so thin line that separates them.

And surely, they have shown Barbara coping with being paralyzed in later issues, didn't they?

Yeah, other writers did great things with it and, as I said, I love her as Oracle, but it doesn't change my view on the book itself. I don't feel it does her as a character any justice, essentially making her a lamp instead of a character. It's easier to stomach as a one shot for me but once that's in the larger universe, it especially bothers me because I don't like how something so major happens to her in a story she's not really a character in, especially considering she's one of my favourite characters. Other writers can do great things, but it doesn't change my issues with it's presence in the DCU.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Perfectly put.

Indeed. I think this might be one of the most incisive discussions I've ever read on the subject -- interesting and valid points on both sides.