TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Ask The Tropers

Go To

Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help. It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread for ongoing cleanup projects.

Ask the Tropers:

Trope Related Question:

Make Private (For security bugs or stuff only for moderators)

NubianSatyress Since: Mar, 2016
2016-08-03 09:55:13

If nothing else, it looks like an Implied Trope, in which case it wouldn't matter if he did or he didn't. If the prostitutes insinuate the possibility, then it's implied.

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
2016-08-03 11:12:29

Death of the Author does not make that a reasonable reading. That can go on WMG or Alternative Character Interpretation,

Also, regardless of that aspect, that's a massive shoehorn. Does that writeup describe Rape Discretion Shot at all?

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
HighCrate Since: Mar, 2015
2016-08-03 11:20:32

Considering that the audience is very much split on exactly what Joker did and didn't do to Barbara, Alternative Character Interpretation is a good fit, and we should certainly add an entry there about the fan controversy on the subject.

There's nothing "unreasonable" about the reading, though; it is very strongly supported within the text, Word of God to the contrary aside. From the description of Rape Discretion Shot: "Because the event is not completely shown, the audience can become confused as to whether the crime actually took place, and to what extent (i.e. whether the victim was also murdered)." That seems to pretty well describe what happens here: Joker removes her clothes, does something that leaves her extraordinarily traumatized, and a later line of dialogue strongly implies that he's been having sex with someone other than his usual prostitutes. Very suggestive, but just enough plausible deniability that audiences can choose to believe (or disbelieve) what they will.

Edited by HighCrate
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
2016-08-03 11:29:01

Except that's not a shot. That's just "maybe, at some point, a rape occurred off-screen."

Which is like saying Friends had a Rape Discretion Shot because they never showed a rape scene even though in a city of several million people there was probably one at some point.

And yes, I'm sorry. That's not an unreasonable reading... but it's not "main page material" for here. We take the facts of the work, not a guess. Implied tropes are tricky in the first place, but claiming an implied trope when Word of God says "no, it wasn't implied"? Not a chance that it should go on the main page.

Also Memetic Molester should go in there if it's not already.

Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
HighCrate Since: Mar, 2015
2016-08-03 11:51:53

You're right, the way it's written doesn't focus much on the shot itself, although I think that unbuttoning her blouse in a predatory manner right before the scene ends counts. That fact should be the centerpiece of the entry; the line with the prostitutes is a supporting detail, but that cutaway is the shot itself.

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
2016-08-03 12:02:52

The entry doesn't even mention the Joker removing her clothing in this adaptation in the slightest.

Now, if there's a scene of the Joker unbuttoning her blouse, then I'd say it should go in, since it's clear that some sort of sexual abuse is going on, even if it's unclear what it is. Tropes Are Flexible covers that much.

Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
HighCrate Since: Mar, 2015
2016-08-03 12:34:51

It says "Joker strips Barbara of her clothing before photographing her," but it doesn't say that that's when the scene ends. I think that's where the confusion is coming from.

supergod Since: Jun, 2012
2016-08-03 12:43:09

Well, the unbuttoning is because he strips her for the photograph. Whether he went any further than that or not is left ambiguous. If stripping her is enough to count, then it should go in.

I personally feel that if the author says something not actually shown on screen doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. It's not in the "film proper", since it's an interpretation. I'm not a fan of Death of the Author when it comes to determining canon though, so YMMV.

Edited by supergod For we shall slay evil with logic...
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
2016-08-03 12:46:22

It's not rape, but it's more than enough to qualify for sexual assault which should be covered by Tropes Are Flexible.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
ChaoticQueen Since: Mar, 2011
2016-08-03 12:51:29

Regardless, both tropers are guilty of taking part in an Edit War and should be suspended.

HighCrate Since: Mar, 2015
2016-08-03 13:02:21

Upon further Google-Fu, I'm not finding any source more definitive than "some guy on a forum says he remembers hearing somewhere" that either Alan Moore or Bruce Timm categorically denied that Joker raped Barbara, so unless someone can find one, we don't even really have Word of God to go on, just what's in the text.

Edit: I take that back; Bruce Timm has said that he doesn't believe Joker rapes Barbara and that he didn't intentionally add the bit with the prostitutes to support that reading. However, he doesn't frame that as the definitive canon, either, just as his reading of Alan Moore's story. He is quick to point out that it was Alan Moore who wrote the story and that his intention was to present it "warts and all," not to impose his own spin on it.

As for the wording of the entry, how's this:

  • Rape Discretion Shot: After shooting Barbara, the Joker unbuttons her blouse in a predatory manner just before the scene ends. She is later found by the police in a "state of undress." In a scene added in the adaptation, a group of prostitutes tell Batman that the Joker usually seeks out their services shortly after escaping from Arkham but hasn't this time around and speculate that he's "found himself another girl."

I also suggest an Alternate Character Interpretation entry under YMMV to cover the question of just how much Joker did, something like,

  • Alternate Character Interpretation: Readers of the original graphic novel have always been split on the question of whether Joker raped Barbara Gordon or "merely" crippled her, stripped her naked, and took photographs of her to use to torment her father. This adaptation adds fuel to the fire by adding a scene in which a group of prostitutes tell Batman that the Joker usually seeks out their services shortly after escaping from Arkham but hasn't this time around and speculate that he's "found himself another girl."

Edited by HighCrate
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
2016-08-03 13:14:02

I'd sooner axe the prostitute speculation entirely. We're speculating on the meaning of characters' speculation. What we do know is that sexual assault in some form happened, that the scene ended before the fact, and our guesses as to what happened precisely are just guesses.

ACI is fine

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
HighCrate Since: Mar, 2015
2016-08-03 13:17:07

I have no problem with that. That would make the entry read:

  • Rape Discretion Shot: After shooting Barbara, the Joker unbuttons her blouse in a predatory manner just before the scene ends. She is later found by the police in a "state of undress."

@Chaotic Queen - That's for the mods to sort out. I'm less interested in getting people punished and more interested in reaching consensus on this rather than letting it escalate.

Edited by HighCrate
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
2016-08-03 13:29:46

Word.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
NubianSatyress Since: Mar, 2016
2016-08-03 14:29:13

Just so that I'm clear on this and how everything works, how is this not an Implied Trope?

Edited by NubianSatyress
HighCrate Since: Mar, 2015
2016-08-03 14:57:29

Implied Trope strikes me as kind of redundant for a trope that's already about implication.

war877 Since: Dec, 2015
2016-08-03 16:40:01

What is going on here?

#1 Why is stuff that happened in a book, being used in a trope example in an animation?

#2 It's not called maybe rape discretion shot. Its called rape discretion shot. If it might not have happened, you are imposing an interpretation. Which is only allowed in YMMV.

Edited by war877
HighCrate Since: Mar, 2015
2016-08-03 18:12:36

1.) Because the film is a direct adaptation of the comic book. The same scene happens in both, and then an additional scene happens in the adaptation. The fact that that scene has been added is relevant because it lends further support to one side of an Alternate Character Interpretation debate that pre-dates the film's release.

2.) This has already been discussed. From Rape Discretion Shot: "In works with more gritty realism, violence will be depicted (hitting the victim, knocking her down), and perhaps some of the victim's clothing may be seen torn and/or removed before the action leaves the scene. ... Because the event is not completely shown, the audience can become confused as to whether the crime actually took place, and to what extent." That's what Rape Discretion Shot is: it becomes clear from context that a sexual assault is about to happen, and then the camera cuts away instead of actually showing it. You can try to argue that Joker didn't perform penetrative intercourse with her, but even if we assume that he didn't, it's still a sexual assault. Tropes Are Flexible, and this one applies. There is no ambiguity about whether he sexually assaulted her. He shot her in the stomach, removed her clothes, and took photos, all without her consent. Not much room for interpretation about any of that.

Edited by HighCrate
NubianSatyress Since: Mar, 2016
2016-08-03 18:44:28

Gotta say, I agree with High Crate 100% here.

war877 Since: Dec, 2015
2016-08-03 21:54:34

If the exact same scene happens in the movie, why does the example reference the book in the first place?

Uhhh... Tropes are not that flexible. If you confuse assault for rape, I am calling shoehorning. It is also not an example in that case as there was no discretion shot. The assault happened on camera.

PaulA Since: Jan, 2010
2016-08-04 00:58:23

Whatever you might think about Death of the Author in general, the specific trope Rape Discretion Shot is defined in terms of the author's intentions: if the creator didn't intend the scene to be read as an implied rape, no discretion is involved in the fact that no rape is explicitly depicted.

I'm not saying you can't read the scene as an implied rape (I haven't seen it, I have no opinion). I'm just saying there's got to be a better trope to say so with, instead of shoehorning it into this one.

NubianSatyress Since: Mar, 2016
2016-08-04 04:53:54

^^ ...um, as he said, it's sexual assault either way. Her clothes were removed, her body exposed and pictures taken specifically to cause her torment.

On this case, even the maker of the film isn't sure what happened. He said his interpretation is that it didn't, but he presented the story as faithfully to the original as he could. It's not really Death of the Author, IMO, since he ISN'T the author. At best, it's Word of Dante and/or Shrug of God.

supergod Since: Jun, 2012
2016-08-04 05:39:11

"It is also not an example in that case as there was no discretion shot. The assault happened on camera." - Yeah, I didn't even think of that. If we consider the stripping to be enough, it's not a discretion shot because we're shown plainly that she was being stripped and photographed, even if they don't show the entire scene explicitly (being a cartoon and all).

"On this case, even the maker of the film isn't sure what happened. He said his interpretation is that it didn't, but he presented the story as faithfully to the original as he could." - Alan Moore (the author of the original comic) has also said that Joker didn't rape Barbara.

Edited by supergod For we shall slay evil with logic...
NubianSatyress Since: Mar, 2016
2016-08-04 05:51:02

Did he? I may be wrong about that part, then.

supergod Since: Jun, 2012
2016-08-04 06:15:47

Actually, I can't find a direct quote to support that, but I'd seen it mentioned on forums before, and just accepted it s true. Maybe I'm wrong.

It was originally meant to be an explicit rape scene in the comics, but they decided to change it.

Edited by supergod For we shall slay evil with logic...
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
2016-08-04 06:27:58

because we're shown plainly that she was being stripped and photographed, even if they don't show the entire scene explicitly (being a cartoon and all).

... isn't that the point? We know unambiguously what happened, but the scene ends before it gets further than unbuttoning.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
supergod Since: Jun, 2012
2016-08-04 07:02:09

I think I misunderstood the trope. I thought that it didn't count if we're explicitly told what happened. I thought it was about cases where only enough hints are given that the audience can figure it out.

Anyway, I read the examples on the page, and it seems like all of them are about actual rape, so I'm not sure if Tropes Are Flexible applies here, or if it does, this would be the first exception.

For we shall slay evil with logic...
HighCrate Since: Mar, 2015
2016-08-04 07:07:19

Lot of points to cover:

1.) The edit war on the page is continuing. I've left a note in the edit history asking folks to join us here.

2.) @Paul A - If we're limiting Rape Discretion Shot examples to those in which dialogue or clear Word of God confirm that penetrative rape absolutely happened with no room for ambiguity about the exact nature of the assault, then roughly 90% of the examples will need to be deleted or reworked. I mean, in The Shawshank Redemption, at no point does the narration state, "...and then the Sisters took turns forcefully penetrating Andy Dufresne's anus with their penises." It uses euphemisms like "sometimes he fought them off, and sometimes he didn't" and trusts the audience to be smart enough to put two and two together about what happened the times he didn't. Again: that's what Rape Discretion Shot is; the beginning of an assault is shown, and then the camera or narration or what have you turns away and trusts the audience to put the pieces together.

3.) @supergod - The assault is not shown clearly on-screen. The shooting is, and then he unbuttons one button, and then the scene changes, and later we're shown some of the aftermath in the form of the photographs. Even then, the photographs are shown such that the most graphic portions are visible only to Jim Gordon and not to the viewer. It's a textbook example of Rape Discretion Shot: the audience is shown enough to clearly establish that a violent and sexual crime is about to happen, then the camera cuts away.

Edited by HighCrate
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
2016-08-04 07:08:28

See, that opens up the can of worms of us defining exactly what "rape" is. The legal definition of which changes from country to country and even year to year. Way I see it, this is a crime that would be handled by Law And Order SVU so it seems close enough for me, but we may want a mod's opinion.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
HighCrate Since: Mar, 2015
2016-08-04 07:14:50

Also, since there doesn't seem to be any disagreement about the Alternate Character Interpretation entry, I'm going ahead and adding it to the film's YMMV page.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
2016-08-04 07:27:23

Edit: nevermind

Edited by KingZeal
PaulA Since: Jan, 2010
2016-08-04 07:52:49

HighCrate: "If we're limiting Rape Discretion Shot examples to those in which dialogue or clear Word of God confirm that penetrative rape absolutely happened"

That would be, as you're obviously aware, a foolish restriction that would defeat the point of the trope — and it's not what I meant.

What I meant is that we should be limiting Rape Discretion Shot examples to those in which dialogue or clear Word of God don't deny that rape happened — it having been established right at the beginning of this discussion that in this case Word of God has made such a denial.

NubianSatyress Since: Mar, 2016
2016-08-04 07:56:06

I think the key words in High Crate's statement was "penetrative rape".

His argument is that what Joker did was rape, even if he never penetrated her.

HighCrate Since: Mar, 2015
2016-08-04 08:06:15

"What I meant is that we should be limiting Rape Discretion Shot examples to those in which dialogue or clear Word of God don't deny that rape happened — it having been established right at the beginning of this discussion that in this case Word of God has made such a denial."

Word of God could also say that aliens abducted Joker and Barbara and then returned them to Earth after implanting false memories of rape, and that would be an interesting statement that would deserve an entry under the Word of God trope, but it wouldn't make it any less an example of Rape Discretion Shot, because what's in the work is what's in the work. What's in this work is a clear example of Rape Discretion Shot.

But that doesn't matter, because so far, no one has produced clear Word of God on this particular example with a source more authoritative than "some guy on a forum remembers hearing somewhere that Alan Moore said this one time that Joker totes didn't rape Barbara." Without a direct quote or authoritative source, that's Word of Dante, not Word of God.

Bruce Timm, who is the producer of this adaptation but not the writer of either the original story (that's Alan Moore) or the film adaptation (that's Brian Azzarello), has stated that it is not his interpretation that Joker raped Barbara, but that's Word of Saint Paul at best.

Edited by HighCrate
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
2016-08-04 09:27:16

This is getting excessively long, but I'm not sure where we should move it to.

If our hang up is "Rape vs. Sexual Assault" we should go to Trope Talk.

If the hang up is "does the scene count as rape based on audiences' interpretations" then we should go to the works' discussion page.

But this is getting unwieldy for ATT.

Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
supergod Since: Jun, 2012
2016-08-04 09:59:45

No one is denying it's a sexual violation, but I think the difference between stripping someone and rape (in the sense of "having sex with someone without their explicit consent") is the difference between punching an innocent bystander in the face and shooting them in the head. They're both wrong, but you wouldn't have the face punching on a murder trope.

Like if there was a scene in a film where an office clerk is clearly implied, but not explicitly shown, to have touched his coworker inappropriately without consent, it's an example of sexual assault, but would it count as a Rape Discretion Shot?

So, it all comes down to whether the stripping and photographing is enough for the trope, because it's not clear that Joker went any further than that (or this discussion wouldn't be happening). And a random prostitute saying that maybe he found another girl isn't enough evidence of anything. For all we know Joker not visiting the prostitutes could just mean that he was busy with whatever his plans are. It's reasonable to assume that the Joker simply stripped her for the purposes of humiliating her and torturing her father. so it's not a clear-cut case of rape (going by the "forced sex" definition, but not limiting "sex" to coitus).

Also, this should probably be taken to this thread, since I think it's been going on for too long over here and burying other topics.

Edit: Larkmann got to it before me. Sorry for bumping it up again.

Edited by supergod For we shall slay evil with logic...
NubianSatyress Since: Mar, 2016
2016-08-04 10:34:24

That analogy doesn't work because physical assault and murder are two different types of crimes. However, the definition of rape is contentious and subject to a LOT of debate, with many stating that unauthorized groping/touching should count as rape.

If I were to use a better analogy for your punch/shooting comparison, let us look at Gory Discretion Shot, a similarly-named trope. What matters here is the impact of the situation. Does it matter if the person was punched and gore resulted, or shot in the head, and gore resulted? No. The severity of the act itself is irrelevant—what matters is that the results of the act was cut out of the scene. Same here. Regardless of what literal definition of "rape" we use, the point is that there was a sexual assault the movie deemed not to on film, whether because it's more disturbing that way, or because it would have been too uncomfortable.

HighCrate Since: Mar, 2015
2016-08-04 11:01:49

I've posted a summary of this conversation in the Is This An Example? thread. I move that we continue this discussion over there.

Top