So
apparently Joss Whedon wants to use his Batgirl movie to “explore
the damage” that made her become a vigilante. I kind of wanted to
set out a reasoned and calm counterpoint to this but it just sort of
came out as a rant so here we go!
No. No no no
no no. We do not need this. The DCEU does not need this. No one needs
Barbara Gordon of all characters reduced to another showcase of
trauma fetish like Batman has been stuck as for seven decades and
counting.
You want the
story of why Barbara put on the suit? Here's a quick run down of the
best version there ever was: she was too shirt to be a cop. Her
father was a cop and as a kid she wanted to be a cop, she saw it as
the noblest form of public service and public service was what she
wanted to do with her life. Unfortunately, she didn't meet the GCPD's
physical requirements even though she was more than academically
qualified.
Then one day
she does to a costume party, a big political thing her father had
been invited to, and she's sort of pissed with her dad over something
and she wants to show him up a bit. Her big plan for needling her
father? She makes her own Batman costume and she's going to turn up
to this party, the daughter of the police commissioner dressed up as
the police department's dirty little secret.
And then
someone takes the party hostage and its just her in a Batman costume
and she's really smart and has enough bsic self-defence to get by and
she manages to rescue everyone but before she can tell her dad who
she is everyone is taking pictures of “the Batgirl” and suddenly
there's a new vigilante in Gotham. She sees her way into public
service, a way to do right when the official channels of law and
order don't want her, she decides she'll become the Batgirl for real.
She tries things, screws up, takes advice here and there, meets Dick
and starts the whole on-off relationship thing, and over time she
earns enough respect from Batman that she becomes the first costume
in Gotham he “allows” to operate in the city outside of his
immediate operation (a cool tradition of the female Gotham heroes is
that, Cass Cain aside, they tend to be independent operators outside
of Bruce's strict control).
Its as
simple as that. There's no great damage or trauma there. Barbara
Gordon wanted to do good and the Bat allowed her to do that when
doing it the socially acceptable way wasn't possible. That's
Barbara's story. For that matter, its Kate Kane's story, too. Not
every superhero needs to be wedded to GRAND SUFFERING and
ETERNAL TRAUMA just because untreated mental illness is the only
motivating factor that seems to work for DC's marketing people.
Its
not like Barbara is without pain or eternal conflict. Depending on
the version you're reading she blames herself for Jason Bard's
shooting and the end of his GCPD career; the end of her relationship
with Dick is a source of eternal mixed feelings; and, to be frank,
being the daughter of the police commissioner and a vigilante is one
hell of a line to walk and you're going to end up with issues. The
thing is that this doesn't totally define her the way the death of
his parents defines Bruce or her cashiering from the military defines
Kate's journey to the costume. Even when she loses the use of her
legs and becomes Oracle that trauma does not define her. Its
ever-present, as it should be, but again it isn't her soul motivating
factor.
One
might almost call her very varied set of emotions and motivations...
complex? As if she were, to coin a phrase DC seems to not be aware
of, a “complex character”?
Just
a thought.
