More Reviews
Nov. 30th, 2019 10:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatNot getting a lot of work done on my novel, but I figure it will come when it comes.
Lovely day, but cold. I don't mind the cold though. I actually enjoy the shifts in seasons, also I spent a good portion of my adolescence and childhood in extreme climates. New York City is rather mild in comparison. I need snow, and to see the leaves change color, and watch the differences in sky and light as the seasons change one into the next. The blurs in color attract my painter's eye. Also, I happen to like sweaters, jackets, long-sleeved shirts, and turtle necks. Plus warm blankets and comforters. I'm not a fan of the hot temperatures though. And I couldn't live in the far North, any more the deep South. I'm a fan of moderation in all things.
Also, I'm getting very good at making chicken and vegetable soups. My body, it turns out, is rather fond of soup at the moment. Tonight's soup, had chopped up chicken that was stir-fried with oil, ginger, garlic, rosemary, curry, lemon, citris and some honey. Added to the chicken bone broth -- then added carrots, parsnips, turnips, parsely, onions, garlic, and mushrooms. Was quite good. With vegan cheese, that had no dairy, lactose, gluten -- I don't know what it was made of, but it tasted like cheddar. Had almond flour crackers -- from Simple Mills that were quite tasty. Oh, and I made my own almond milk today -- my brother showed me how to do it. All you need is about ten almonds, maybe less, not many at all. Water. Any flavors you want. I put vanilla, salt, and coconut oil to make it creamy. Blend it (I have a liquify setting on my blender). Then strain through a filter sack (that I got at a local health food store), and voila, almond milk. The residue can be used as almond flour -- although I didn't have enough and just threw it out. It tastes better than the store bought stuff -- no additives.
Anyhow..reviews:
1. The Killing Joke - an animated film adaptation of the Alan Moore and Brian Bollard comic of the same name. Bollard's graphics in the original comic were outstanding by the way, the animated film comes close but still no where near as good as the original. It's not an easy book to read, and the book is in some respects as problematic as the movie -- although the movie does attempt to give Barbara Gordon a certain amount of agency that the book didn't, including a back story.
The movie is mostly about Barbara and the Joker, with Batman and Commissioner Gordon in supporting roles. Depicting how both Barbara and the Joker dealt with maddening events, differently. The Joker's argument is anyone can be driven insane by a really bad day. That's what he wants to prove, that he's no different than anyone else. That he can drive Gordon and Barbara insane. (Although he doesn't really care about Barbara, she's just a means to an end. In fact neither Batman nor The Joker seem to really see Barbara. Nor to a degree does Gordon. And all three seem to underestimate her. But men do tend to underestimate and not see women, unless or as an extension of themselves -- this is a heavy theme in this film, which surprised me. The comic tends to use Barbara as a means to an end and doesn't seem to see her either, which is and has always been my problem with the comic and with Moore generally speaking.)
Interestingly enough, Moore is not credited, just the artist, usually it's the opposite. But Moore is notoriously nasty when it comes to adaptations of his work and doesn't want his name associated with most adaptations. He's an egotistical asshole -- as all comic fans who have read his work are quite aware. That said, he is also a very good noir comic book writer -- and besides Bob Kane, Frank Miller and Tim Sale, possibly among the few who got Batman. The writing however is Moore's or very close. Outside of the front bit regarding Batgirl, 95% of it is taken directly from Moore's comic and faithful to his story and script. (Which was why I found it odd he wasn't listed in the credits.)
It's important to watch the first part of the end credits -- since were given a clip on how Barbara handles her paralysis. The character of Barbara Gordon aka Batgirl is well drawn, and she's a strong female character who holds her own. Neither Batman, Paris Fronds, nor the Joker are able to disable her.
While there's a warning of rape in the front material -- I didn't see it. It's just strongly suggested or hinted at. We're given the impression that the Joker raped Barbara after he shot and crippled her. But I just don't see how he could have without her dying, or getting any enjoyment out of it -- since, hello, paralyzed and bleeding out from a gunshot wound to the pelvis. I mean he basically shot her through her womb and pelvis or stomach. She'd be dead. It's a miracle she survived long enough to be disrobed, and have pictures taken of her nude and in pain. (I didn't see the rape in the comic either. It's not physically possible. Honestly, I'm not sure these writers understand anatomy? As an aside, someone in the Buffy fandom, a fanfic writer who was wee bit too proud about their colorful and varied sex life (in that they felt the need to brag about it incessantly) stated that if people couldn't write a good sex scene they clearly hadn't had any sex. Uhm no, there are people who have had a lot of sex that write horrible sex scenes, this woman included. (A lot of fanfic writers wrote horrible sex scenes. I read them, and think, really? I guess Buffy is working for the cirque de soleil in her spare time? Or is a contortionist.) No, they just don't understand anatomy. Skipped basic biology somewhere in there, I guess. Pick up an anatomy book folks, or better yet take a life drawing class. OR pick up the book "The Joy of Sex" which has full color drawings that depict what poses are anatomically possible and why. Direct experience trust me, is not required, when unless you lack an imagination and honestly, if you do, you have no business writing creatively to begin with.
So no, I don't think there was rape. I worried about it for a bit though. I can't watch rape sequences any longer. I also have issues with graphic torture. So, I didn't see it.
It's disturbing in places. And definitely adult. Very dark and very "classic" noir.
But, the Joker's back story is well-done, and remains a favorite. Moore created it and it has since been utilized in the film The Joker. (He's a failed comedian who lost his wife and baby when he was agreeing to do a deal to get more money. He had to wear a red hood to get a bunch of people through a chemical factory to another building, which they planned on robbing. He was basically being set up as the fall guy. Batman misreading the situation fights him, and inadvertently throws him into one of the chemical vats, and he gets shot out the other end. The chemicals along with everything else that transpired, not to mention his personality turn him into the Joker. No one knows who he was before -- because prior to becoming the Joker, he was a non-entity.
In a way, Batman had a hand in creating his greatest enemy or so the Joker believes.
Batman wants to help rehabilitate the Joker, but he tells him that it is too late for that. And then ends with a joke, about two escapees from the asylum -- who have to jump across to another building. The first one makes the leap. The second is to scared of heights to do it. The first states:" I'll shine my light beam across and you can walk it to the other side..." The second responds: "Do you think I'm crazy? I'll make it halfway and you'll turn off the light." Both laugh together at the shared joke. In a way the Joker and Batman are reflections of each other -- both somewhat insane.
The best villains in comics are the reflections of the hero's own insanity. If pushed too far, the hero could become that.
It's also an interesting depiction of both Gordon and Barbara, neither of which go insane, or become demented. Although at the end, Barbara becomes the Oracle, with her cyber tech world of surviellience, fighting crime through technology, safe in a room with her electronics. An echo of Paris Frods, who in the beginning states he'll win through technology -- her nemesis and the one she almost beats to a pulp, as he flirts with her -- telling her that she's not that much different from him.
Overall, not bad. The animation is Warner Brothers slick DC verse cartoon. Among the higher level of cartoon animation, yet not quite on the same par as anime (very little is), yet still better than computer generated -- which I don't like for human depictions. Also the voice work is for the most part top-notch. I never recognize the voices -- they sound more or less the same, except Hamil and Conroy are masters at differentiating theirs. And I'd have to say that Mark Hamil has the best Joker, and Conroy the Best Batman voice par none. Ray Wise wasn't a bad Gordon. Tara (can't remember her last name) did a decent Barbara Gordon. But the stars of the show were Hamil and Conroy.
[Saw it courtesy of HBO. I recommend for fans of Batman, WB cartoons, and can handle graphic violence in cartoon format. It is slow to start, but picks up speed after a bit. And it was better than I expected. I went in with low expectations.]
2. Oh Where Did you Go, Bernadette -- a lackluster effort from all involved. I had read the book in the Spring, and couldn't figure out how they were going to being to adapt a film from it. The book is rather gimmicky and what works with the book is the gimmick, what doesn't work is well the story, characters, and plot.
It's fun for the gimmick. And there's no way they can use the gimmick in a linear style film. The gimmick is that Bernadette disappears at the beginning of the book, so her daughter figures out where her mother went and why by digging through various emails, text messages, news letters, etc. Some of which has been shipped to her in a huge envelope by a neighbor. It's also a mystery at first where she gets the information from. We see everything through the daughter's point of view, and the information she gets from various emails, letters, and other bits of correspondence.
The little girl is the narrator.
The movie drops this completely, and focus switches from the little girl to Bernadette's point of view. We also, as a result, drop the subplots -- of which there are two, Sunlee, the husband's administrative assistant, and the nextdoor neighbor, who are going nuts in their own ways. The story -- as told through the little girl's eyes in the book, is also the story of these two other women, who are also having their own mid-life crisises. But the film drops their stories completely. The entire focus is on Bernadette and her quest to escape the hum-drum existence in Seattle and be an architect in Antartica.
The best part? The end credits -- where we see the Antartica creation come to life.
Unfortunately the shift in focus keeps what didn't quite work in the book, and lets go of the satirical bits that did. Which is why it didn't do very well, and was critically panned. We don't get her fight with the reality tv producer, who buys her creation only to demolish it -- and later goes bankrupt. Or the neighbor who goes through hell and in the process has an epithany and goes out of her way to help Bernadette, showing up at Bernadette's bathroom window and helping her escape. That's completely changed. Nor do we get Sunli's misguided romance and affair with Elgie that blows up in her face. Or Bea going off to boarding school only to discover how much she hates it, and becoming obsessed with finding her Mom. Bea takes off on her own to find her Mom, following in her footsteps, and Elgie tracks Bea down and together they continue on their hunt, somehow finding a way to reconnect in the process. All of this is gone. As is the satirical bits on MicroSoft, actually that is there, but not to as big a degree.
Nor are all the digs at Seattle, those are minimized as well.
I don't think the book is filmable. There are some books that just aren't. I don't know why people try, when there are so many other books out there that are?
Don't recommend. Rather flimsy and cutesy. Not much to it.
Lovely day, but cold. I don't mind the cold though. I actually enjoy the shifts in seasons, also I spent a good portion of my adolescence and childhood in extreme climates. New York City is rather mild in comparison. I need snow, and to see the leaves change color, and watch the differences in sky and light as the seasons change one into the next. The blurs in color attract my painter's eye. Also, I happen to like sweaters, jackets, long-sleeved shirts, and turtle necks. Plus warm blankets and comforters. I'm not a fan of the hot temperatures though. And I couldn't live in the far North, any more the deep South. I'm a fan of moderation in all things.
Also, I'm getting very good at making chicken and vegetable soups. My body, it turns out, is rather fond of soup at the moment. Tonight's soup, had chopped up chicken that was stir-fried with oil, ginger, garlic, rosemary, curry, lemon, citris and some honey. Added to the chicken bone broth -- then added carrots, parsnips, turnips, parsely, onions, garlic, and mushrooms. Was quite good. With vegan cheese, that had no dairy, lactose, gluten -- I don't know what it was made of, but it tasted like cheddar. Had almond flour crackers -- from Simple Mills that were quite tasty. Oh, and I made my own almond milk today -- my brother showed me how to do it. All you need is about ten almonds, maybe less, not many at all. Water. Any flavors you want. I put vanilla, salt, and coconut oil to make it creamy. Blend it (I have a liquify setting on my blender). Then strain through a filter sack (that I got at a local health food store), and voila, almond milk. The residue can be used as almond flour -- although I didn't have enough and just threw it out. It tastes better than the store bought stuff -- no additives.
Anyhow..reviews:
1. The Killing Joke - an animated film adaptation of the Alan Moore and Brian Bollard comic of the same name. Bollard's graphics in the original comic were outstanding by the way, the animated film comes close but still no where near as good as the original. It's not an easy book to read, and the book is in some respects as problematic as the movie -- although the movie does attempt to give Barbara Gordon a certain amount of agency that the book didn't, including a back story.
The movie is mostly about Barbara and the Joker, with Batman and Commissioner Gordon in supporting roles. Depicting how both Barbara and the Joker dealt with maddening events, differently. The Joker's argument is anyone can be driven insane by a really bad day. That's what he wants to prove, that he's no different than anyone else. That he can drive Gordon and Barbara insane. (Although he doesn't really care about Barbara, she's just a means to an end. In fact neither Batman nor The Joker seem to really see Barbara. Nor to a degree does Gordon. And all three seem to underestimate her. But men do tend to underestimate and not see women, unless or as an extension of themselves -- this is a heavy theme in this film, which surprised me. The comic tends to use Barbara as a means to an end and doesn't seem to see her either, which is and has always been my problem with the comic and with Moore generally speaking.)
Interestingly enough, Moore is not credited, just the artist, usually it's the opposite. But Moore is notoriously nasty when it comes to adaptations of his work and doesn't want his name associated with most adaptations. He's an egotistical asshole -- as all comic fans who have read his work are quite aware. That said, he is also a very good noir comic book writer -- and besides Bob Kane, Frank Miller and Tim Sale, possibly among the few who got Batman. The writing however is Moore's or very close. Outside of the front bit regarding Batgirl, 95% of it is taken directly from Moore's comic and faithful to his story and script. (Which was why I found it odd he wasn't listed in the credits.)
It's important to watch the first part of the end credits -- since were given a clip on how Barbara handles her paralysis. The character of Barbara Gordon aka Batgirl is well drawn, and she's a strong female character who holds her own. Neither Batman, Paris Fronds, nor the Joker are able to disable her.
While there's a warning of rape in the front material -- I didn't see it. It's just strongly suggested or hinted at. We're given the impression that the Joker raped Barbara after he shot and crippled her. But I just don't see how he could have without her dying, or getting any enjoyment out of it -- since, hello, paralyzed and bleeding out from a gunshot wound to the pelvis. I mean he basically shot her through her womb and pelvis or stomach. She'd be dead. It's a miracle she survived long enough to be disrobed, and have pictures taken of her nude and in pain. (I didn't see the rape in the comic either. It's not physically possible. Honestly, I'm not sure these writers understand anatomy? As an aside, someone in the Buffy fandom, a fanfic writer who was wee bit too proud about their colorful and varied sex life (in that they felt the need to brag about it incessantly) stated that if people couldn't write a good sex scene they clearly hadn't had any sex. Uhm no, there are people who have had a lot of sex that write horrible sex scenes, this woman included. (A lot of fanfic writers wrote horrible sex scenes. I read them, and think, really? I guess Buffy is working for the cirque de soleil in her spare time? Or is a contortionist.) No, they just don't understand anatomy. Skipped basic biology somewhere in there, I guess. Pick up an anatomy book folks, or better yet take a life drawing class. OR pick up the book "The Joy of Sex" which has full color drawings that depict what poses are anatomically possible and why. Direct experience trust me, is not required, when unless you lack an imagination and honestly, if you do, you have no business writing creatively to begin with.
So no, I don't think there was rape. I worried about it for a bit though. I can't watch rape sequences any longer. I also have issues with graphic torture. So, I didn't see it.
It's disturbing in places. And definitely adult. Very dark and very "classic" noir.
But, the Joker's back story is well-done, and remains a favorite. Moore created it and it has since been utilized in the film The Joker. (He's a failed comedian who lost his wife and baby when he was agreeing to do a deal to get more money. He had to wear a red hood to get a bunch of people through a chemical factory to another building, which they planned on robbing. He was basically being set up as the fall guy. Batman misreading the situation fights him, and inadvertently throws him into one of the chemical vats, and he gets shot out the other end. The chemicals along with everything else that transpired, not to mention his personality turn him into the Joker. No one knows who he was before -- because prior to becoming the Joker, he was a non-entity.
In a way, Batman had a hand in creating his greatest enemy or so the Joker believes.
Batman wants to help rehabilitate the Joker, but he tells him that it is too late for that. And then ends with a joke, about two escapees from the asylum -- who have to jump across to another building. The first one makes the leap. The second is to scared of heights to do it. The first states:" I'll shine my light beam across and you can walk it to the other side..." The second responds: "Do you think I'm crazy? I'll make it halfway and you'll turn off the light." Both laugh together at the shared joke. In a way the Joker and Batman are reflections of each other -- both somewhat insane.
The best villains in comics are the reflections of the hero's own insanity. If pushed too far, the hero could become that.
It's also an interesting depiction of both Gordon and Barbara, neither of which go insane, or become demented. Although at the end, Barbara becomes the Oracle, with her cyber tech world of surviellience, fighting crime through technology, safe in a room with her electronics. An echo of Paris Frods, who in the beginning states he'll win through technology -- her nemesis and the one she almost beats to a pulp, as he flirts with her -- telling her that she's not that much different from him.
Overall, not bad. The animation is Warner Brothers slick DC verse cartoon. Among the higher level of cartoon animation, yet not quite on the same par as anime (very little is), yet still better than computer generated -- which I don't like for human depictions. Also the voice work is for the most part top-notch. I never recognize the voices -- they sound more or less the same, except Hamil and Conroy are masters at differentiating theirs. And I'd have to say that Mark Hamil has the best Joker, and Conroy the Best Batman voice par none. Ray Wise wasn't a bad Gordon. Tara (can't remember her last name) did a decent Barbara Gordon. But the stars of the show were Hamil and Conroy.
[Saw it courtesy of HBO. I recommend for fans of Batman, WB cartoons, and can handle graphic violence in cartoon format. It is slow to start, but picks up speed after a bit. And it was better than I expected. I went in with low expectations.]
2. Oh Where Did you Go, Bernadette -- a lackluster effort from all involved. I had read the book in the Spring, and couldn't figure out how they were going to being to adapt a film from it. The book is rather gimmicky and what works with the book is the gimmick, what doesn't work is well the story, characters, and plot.
It's fun for the gimmick. And there's no way they can use the gimmick in a linear style film. The gimmick is that Bernadette disappears at the beginning of the book, so her daughter figures out where her mother went and why by digging through various emails, text messages, news letters, etc. Some of which has been shipped to her in a huge envelope by a neighbor. It's also a mystery at first where she gets the information from. We see everything through the daughter's point of view, and the information she gets from various emails, letters, and other bits of correspondence.
The little girl is the narrator.
The movie drops this completely, and focus switches from the little girl to Bernadette's point of view. We also, as a result, drop the subplots -- of which there are two, Sunlee, the husband's administrative assistant, and the nextdoor neighbor, who are going nuts in their own ways. The story -- as told through the little girl's eyes in the book, is also the story of these two other women, who are also having their own mid-life crisises. But the film drops their stories completely. The entire focus is on Bernadette and her quest to escape the hum-drum existence in Seattle and be an architect in Antartica.
The best part? The end credits -- where we see the Antartica creation come to life.
Unfortunately the shift in focus keeps what didn't quite work in the book, and lets go of the satirical bits that did. Which is why it didn't do very well, and was critically panned. We don't get her fight with the reality tv producer, who buys her creation only to demolish it -- and later goes bankrupt. Or the neighbor who goes through hell and in the process has an epithany and goes out of her way to help Bernadette, showing up at Bernadette's bathroom window and helping her escape. That's completely changed. Nor do we get Sunli's misguided romance and affair with Elgie that blows up in her face. Or Bea going off to boarding school only to discover how much she hates it, and becoming obsessed with finding her Mom. Bea takes off on her own to find her Mom, following in her footsteps, and Elgie tracks Bea down and together they continue on their hunt, somehow finding a way to reconnect in the process. All of this is gone. As is the satirical bits on MicroSoft, actually that is there, but not to as big a degree.
Nor are all the digs at Seattle, those are minimized as well.
I don't think the book is filmable. There are some books that just aren't. I don't know why people try, when there are so many other books out there that are?
Don't recommend. Rather flimsy and cutesy. Not much to it.
no subject
Date: 2019-12-01 10:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-12-01 01:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-12-01 02:58 pm (UTC)The prologue with Batgirl still infuriates me. Barbara, flummoxed by some third rate hood who would have been taken down in two seconds on B:TAS; commiserating with a stereotypical gay coworker imported from a romcom; and the Bat-sex--I can't even begin to list the things wrong with that scene.
The prologue barely tied into the main story at all. It missed an opportunity to explore her relationship with her dad, which would have added some extra kick to the tragedy later on.
The one good thing about the new material was the epilogue, with Barbara taking control despite the circumstances and starting her new life as Oracle. But even that's been kind of ruined for me, since the comics have retconned Oracle out of existence, and Barbara is happily Batgirling away again.
The Killing Joke part? That was great. Hamill always delivers as the Joker, and the story was as faithful to Moore as anything on the screen.
The Killing Joke: A-
"Supplementary" Material: D
no subject
Date: 2019-12-01 03:57 pm (UTC)I had a very different reaction to the supplementary material -- possibly because I don't watch/am unfamiliar with the cartoons, and not following the comics at all. So really was oblivious to some of the stuff you mentioned in the series. Also the supplementary material gave Batgirl agency and she wasn't just an extension of Gordon or Batman, defined solely by her relationships to them -- which was a HUGE failing of The Killing Joke - the objectification of Batgirl, and why the book had a lot of negative criticism regarding it.
Also, I didn't see Frods as a two-bit thug, but a seriously dangerous psychopath, who'd taken out his uncle and managed to run an underground smuggling ring. Batman defines him as a sociopath who is obsessed with Batgirl and the sort that will charm you, and carve you up with a smile on his face. Granted he's not as flamboyant as the Joker, but in some respects he's smarter. For a while, I was worried they had changed it and were making him out to be the Joker and was relieved he wasn't.
What the supplementary material does is show it from Batgirl's perspective and explain why she was Batgirl -- that's the reason we get the conversation with the librarian friend. Also the library references and her love of surviellence -- lend credence to what she'd become later. It gives us insight as to why she was doing it -- which had nothing to do with Batman. The sex with Batman hammers home the point that Batgirl isn't in love with him, and was mainly turned on in the heat of the moment and Batman (assuming he's even capable of love) isn't in love with Batgirl and felt disturbed by having sex with someone he'd relegated to sidekick. He never sees her as his equal. Neither Gordon nor Batman see her as a person separate from them. Here she is given that separate identity -- she's a crime fighter. She goes out on her own to investigate the guy and she does take him down eventually. Batgirl saves Batman on the docks and takes down Frods. And almost beats him too death -- that's why she stops being Batgirl, not because of Batman, but because she came too close to the abyss and didn't want to become that person. (It's a reference to Heart of Darkness -- if you look into the abyss make sure it doesn't look into you. It's also why Batman pulls back from pursuing a relationship with Batgirl and doesn't see her as his equal -- because he sees her as innocent, she hasn't dived into the abyss.)
This theme is carried throughout. Without the supplementary material it's just another story about the Joker and Batman, using some female superhero's trauma to give them a male bonding moment. With the supplementary material -- it's a story about how different people handle the darkness. It has depth and texture.
And yes, I have read the original comic and always had issues with it, the supplementary material in the movie helped lessen those issues.
no subject
Date: 2019-12-01 05:17 pm (UTC)And perhaps this is just me, but I don't see Bruce and Barbara having sex for any reason at this point. I know that in Batman Beyond, Bruce and Barbara did have a sexual relationship, and it caused a rift between Bruce and Dick Grayson. But I always thought it was much farther along, when Barbara was older and perhaps already on her way to replacing Jim as police commissioner (in that tineline).
It struck me as "off" because Bruce's sexual relationships have always been with women. Vicki Vale, Silver St. Cloud (from the Englehart/Rodgers era), Talia Al-ghul and Selina Kyle are all mature women with distinct identities and individual goals. I'm not saying that these relationships are necessarily healthy (this IS Batman we're talking about, after all), but the idea that Bruce would screw the barely-out-of-her-teens daughter of one of his best friends just seems way OOC.
JMO.
no subject
Date: 2019-12-01 09:15 pm (UTC)And I've noticed that it is really hard to objectively view a piece of art, film, book, whatever -- when you come into it with your own storyline or expectations in your head regarding it.
I went in more or less blind. I don't even remember the comic in which it was originally based all that well, except that as well written as it was, it was controversial and a lot of people hated it. I remember reading a long discussion of it a few years back on LJ between Londonkds and someone else about the problematic nature of the comic.
It struck me as "off" because Bruce's sexual relationships have always been with women. Vicki Vale, Silver St. Cloud (from the Englehart/Rodgers era), Talia Al-ghul and Selina Kyle are all mature women with distinct identities and individual goals. I'm not saying that these relationships are necessarily healthy (this IS Batman we're talking about, after all), but the idea that Bruce would screw the barely-out-of-her-teens daughter of one of his best friends just seems way OOC.
That's my problem with the comic and Batgirl and the cartoons. It's also why so many people have issues with the Batman cartoons. The infantizalition of Batgirl. She's not a girl. She's not barely out of her teens. She's over the age of 21. She's a full grown woman. Did you call Batman - Batboy when he was playing vigilante in his 20s? Of course not.
She's not considered a woman by little boys, because she's not male eye-candy like the big breasted sex symbols Vicki Vale, Silver St. Cloud, Talia Al-ghul and Selina Kyle, often with their low cut dresses. Batgirl is an ordinary woman, who is smart. She initiates sex with Batman not the other way around. She's on top. She leaps on him. And she beats up the thug. She doesn't wear slinky dresses or flutter her lashes with a husky voice.
Today, I watched the far superior Batwoman series which is about Kate Kane, Batman's cousin. She trained with the military and overseas. And is a lesbian. Better yet - the actress isn't male eye-candy. For the first time we have a female superhero who isn't into men, and isn't appealing to the male gaze. No big boobs, curvy ass, or fluttering lashes. No slinky dresses and down to here necklines. Yippee. And, and, she's called Batwoman. The story focuses on women, the main villain is female. The men are regulated to the sidelines. Such a nice palate cleanser to the chauvinistic Batman verse...which is so 20th Century. We're finally getting past all of that.
no subject
Date: 2019-12-02 02:42 am (UTC)**********
I totally agree that comics have tended to infantilize its superheroines, calling them "girls" far past the expiration date. Susan Storm Richards, after 50 years of marriage, two children, turning evil multiple times, dying multiple times, and fighting battles on a cosmic scale, finally got promoted to Invisible "Woman." (It kind of encapsulates the whole problem.)
But this movie is a bit more of a grey area. Yes, Barbara is a young professional; yes, she's out of college and on her own; but she's feeling around for certainty here, unsure of her path. She's still the junior crime fighter alongside the pro, and Batman is still this massive, intimidating figure. She still hasn't grown out of "Batgirl."
The "Batboy" analogy is interesting, because that's what happened with Dick Grayson. He was Robin (the Boy Wonder) long past his boyhood, because he hadn't broken free of his apprenticeship. Once he declared his independence from Bruce, he went out on his own as Nightwing.
I get what they were trying to do here. This was supposed to be Barbara's Independence Day. I just wish they did it better.
no subject
Date: 2019-12-02 03:01 am (UTC)This is actually a more interesting question that I've been pondering for quite some time now.
What you see on screen has a great deal to do with what you've watched prior or read prior to it. For example, a viewer with no memory of the comics, and having never seen the cartoons, won't view the film the same way you did. They may very well like the film better or worse depending on what their attitude going into it is.
This makes reviews highly circumspect.
The Killing Joke was advertised as a stand-a-lone. No where in the description did it state that you had to have seen the cartoon series or that it was part of that series. It was a movie set apart from it. Sure it had the same creative team, and people involved, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was meant to be an episode of the series or intended as such. It's possible to view it as it's own entity, much as the Alan Moore comic was its own entity apart from the series as a whole.
As to Barbara Gordon - in the comic book she is seen as an adult who has grown past "Batgirl" and is pursuing an adult life. And Joker pulls her back in, and uses her to hurt Batman and Gordon -- this is maintained in the film.
So, I came at the film from the perspective of someone who had only read the original comic but doesn't follow the cartoons at all. And as such, I disagree with your take. I don't know if I would agree with it if I saw the cartoon series and was an avid follower of it or not? I know I don't care about the cartoon series and have no desire to view it. So, the question is -- would someone who came at the film, blind as I did, with only knowledge of the comic, have the same take? And did your knowledge of the cartoon verse taint your viewing of the film, or would someone else see it the same way? And how would someone who had no knowledge of either the series or the comic view it?
David Bowie (and my brother) believe art changes depending on who interacts with it. That it is often defined in the interaction and that we take from the art what we choose to put into it. And each time we view it, we see something different and are changed in a different way. That art isn't art until we interact with it and see it, and change it as we look at it.
I think to some extent this is true. We both saw the same film, at different periods, and with different knowledge bases -- and different experiences, so in effect we didn't see the same film at all. We also both brought our experiences as a man or a woman into it. A woman will view this film very differently than a man, that stands to reason -- since the gender politics in the film are so divisive and in your face. Also a woman who works in a male workplace and in a traditional male role will view it differently than a woman who has spent her life in a traditional female role and in a female workplace.
We saw different films -- even though the film didn't change externally, when we interacted with it we focused on different aspects of it, and created a new film individual to ourselves in our heads.