The REAL Meaning of The KILLING JOKE??? || Comic Misconceptions || NerdSync
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- Watch the entire KILLING JOKE playlist from the start! ▶ • KILLING JOKE: Did Batm...
So far, we've discussed the history of Batman: The Killing Joke, as well as some popular theories. But is there an objective meaning behind the iconic tale of Joker and the Dark Knight? What do Alan Moore and Brian Bolland have to say about the comic, and do their opinions even matter? How much weight should we as readers put into authorial intent? Does the comic book industry even allow us to put any weight into it? All these questions are answered and more on the third and final installment of The Killing Joke saga!
SUBSCRIBE for weekly comic book videos! ▶▶ nerdsyn.cc/_SUB...
Every Wednesday, Comic Misconceptions explores the incredible stories, fascinating ideas, and mind-blowing theories regarding comic books and the rich history and culture that surrounds them!
Hosted by Scott Niswander (@ScottNiswander)
-----RELATED VIDEOS-----
KILLING JOKE: Did Batman Kill Joker? (part 1)
▶ • KILLING JOKE: Did Batm...
THEORY: Killing Joke's Secret Ending REVEALED! (part 2)
▶ • THEORY: Killing Joke's...
How CAPTAIN AMERICA Demonstrates BRILLIANT Comic Book Lettering!
▶ • How CAPTAIN AMERICA De...
-------SOURCES-------
TV Tropes - Death of the Author
tvtropes.org/pm...
Death of the Author
www.tbook.const...
Reader-Response Essay
efford.weebly.c...
Julian Darius on Authorial Intent
sequart.org/mag...
Killing Joke script
/ killingjokescript
Was Superman a Spy
nerdsyn.cc/Supe...
John Green quote
• The Irrelevance of Aut...
Erik Larsen quote
www.cbr.com/265...
------SOCIAL MEDIA------
LISTEN to the NerdSync Podcast!
▶▶ nerdsyn.cc/podc...
BECOME a NerdSync Patron!
▶▶ / nerdsync
TWITTER: nerdsyn.cc/foll...
FACEBOOK: nerdsyn.cc/likeNS
SUBREDDIT: / nerdsync
The Killing Joke to me, means that even one bad day doesn't have to change the way you look at the world. Commissioner Gordon had probably the worst day of his life in that story, and even after going through all of Joker's sick and twisted punishment, he was still able to keep his sanity. He was still able to see the light.
Finally!!
Gordon was Strong and The Joker was Weak.
so tru
the Joker didn't try hard enough.
It helps that Gordon had a purpose for not going mad. He wanted to prove the Joker wrong. The Joker didn't have that same luxury. Gordons day simply wasn't traumatic enough. At the end of the day, his daughter was still alive.
The Jokers whole world shattered.
Going from trying his hardest to provide for his family while at the same time persuing his dreams only to fail. To never making people laugh. To feeling inadequate and undeserving of his wife. He then learns both his wife and child are randomly killed by a freak accident. An entirely devoid of meaning accident. Losing all sense of why he should go on after this only to be forced by thugs pretending to be his friends under the threat of death. Eventually witnessing his first ever deaths of people right in front of him. Returning to a factory that once gave him a job, bringing back memories of coldness of his old jobs atmosphere. Cold, dark, and empty.
To having complex psychological manifestations: Seeing everything in red only to see someone that he literally thought was a demon haunting him; Batman was new at this time. It's possible he never even heard of this vigilante that dresses like a bat. so to him, it was a total shock.
To really kick it home, he becomes horribly disfigured, psychologically representing the clown he subconsciously was viewing himself as being. He already had nothing to live for and now with his disfigurement, completely destroys his sense of hope of ever returning to life.
Just think of how tragic his experiences were... All of which randomly falling in place in a short period of time.
Gordon didn't experience the same level of trauma that the Joker did. They do not compare. Moore designed one of the worst possible sequence of random cruel events a person can be faced with.
This is partly why people thought Batman snapped and killed the Joker because the Batman suffered such an event but his childhood innocence may have saved him from going completely insane. As a child, he turned that trauma into anger and channelled that anger into ironclad willpower and an identity that can survive many hardships as a type of defense mechanism.
It's official - Batman keeps a tuna fish sandwich in his utility belt.
Head Canon accepted.
now that's the best tool ever
For who cat woman 👀😂
Yeah, I know Scott made the joke about tuna fish sandwiches, but I could completely accept that he keeps something less messy, granola bars, "energy bars", etc., in the belt or in some compartment of the Batmobile. 😎
Well I imagine he gets pretty hungry doing all that crime fighting and detective work :/
The entire point of reading is to make the reader think. If the reader forms their own opinions and ideas, then the author has truly succeeded.
Facts
Could not have said it better
True, but you have to have some ground to stand on, or else there's no end to the story
I always thought the lights in the rain throughout the last panels were police cars approaching. That was just my first interpretation.
And logical.
For me, The Killing Joke signified two foes who were both exhausted. The battle between them has worn them down to a point where they even halt their conflict for a moment to share a laugh at a pretty good joke. Batman's dialogue throughout the story supports this, especially in the scene where he's talking to Joker's decoy. In the scene, he basically lays out that he knows one of the two is going to kill the other eventually. This shows acceptance from experience. The lesson I got from this story was that even two sworn enemies aren't necessarily fighting out of hatred, but out of a sense of purpose. Thus, allowing for them to stop and share a laugh, even though we as the readers know under normal circumstances, they should be beating the crap out of each other.
This reminds me of meme. "What the Author meant vs What your English teacher thought the author meant. For instance: "The Curtain is Blue." What your teacher thinks: "The curtain represents his immense depression and lack of will to carry on." What The author Meant: "The curtains were fucking blue.""
But why is the curtain blue?
@@zainmudassir2964 Because Blue curtains are more common than Red curtains.
The Killing Joke is not the joke the Joker tells to Batman at the end of the story.
The Killing Joke is the one the Joker explains while Batman is going through the funhouse. It's the "One Bad Day" thesis. It's the idea that nothing matters -- that that "when [he] saw what a black, awful joke the world the world was, [he] went crazy as a coot," -- that "everything anybody has ever valued or struggled for is part of one monstrous, demented gag". It's nihilism. It's the thing the Joker realizes after his wife and child have died, he has bathed in disfiguring chemicals, and he sees a clown staring up at him from a puddle on the ground.
It's the one Batman DOESN'T laugh at. He's heard it before -- when his parents were killed, and it DIDN'T turn him into a monster.
Anyone who thinks it's the joke he tells at the end misses the entire point of the book.
true
Christ. Never heard a better explanation.
I like this explanation. Good Job. It resembles the Comedian's attitude in Watchmen.
Basically: "The life is a joke"
Yes I wanted to type that before but I got lazy I agree. Joker is a nihilist who thinks that he is in a comic and wants to show batman that life is meaningless. But batman knows that and he finds it sad but the joker finds it a joke.
The flexibility of author intent reminds me of the audio commentary by Doug Petrie on an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that he wrote, where he said that when fans pointed out all the lesbian subtext in the episode (Bad Girls) that he would tell them that it wasn't actually there, and that they were imagining it... but upon re-watching the episode for the audio commentary he realised that they were entirely right, that is was there, and that it was so strong that it bent the line between subtext and just plain text.
The problem with an artist interpreting his own work, is that creativity is largely subconscious. When we come up with an idea, we don’t always understand how we came up with it. Our brain is , making connections that we ourselves are not always aware of.
Well, here we are. The final part of our Killing Joke saga! Thanks for indulging me in this. It's been a ton of fun!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Any more Joker plans for the future?
Whoo that's a fun ride man thanks for the info
No, thank you! These Killing Joke video were fantastic
Can't wait for the crappy prequels and the reboot! :D
Woah, that is a very unflattering photo of Allen Moore!
Are there any flattering ones? The guy looks like Charles Manson.
+Christy me even Charles Manson had flattering photos
Yeah in over 30yrs of him being in the public eye I have never seen a flattering or even decent pic of the man! I think he likes it that way tbh! Lol
Langley M Neely Yeah probably!
+Langley ... or at least he extremely dislikes being photographed... that can have the same effect as intentionally making you look creepy... ;) When even the official photographer sent by your publisher doesn't get a proper shooting with you but has to sneak a photo around your disinterest, maybe even has to take the first shot he possibly could take without any chance for more attempts to get a better one... what do you expect.
And the rest could be explained by the Rockstar life of moores... Sex, Drugs and Tradepaperbacks ;) Mostly Drugs and weird philosophies / religious mumbo jumbo though.
I think when it comes to comics we have to take the intentions of the artist into account aswell, comics are not like regular books, there is not just the reader and the author, there is also the artist who plays a fundamental part in conveying the story and the general tone of the book.
Maybe Moore didnt intend for the book to mean anything, but maybe the same can not be said about the artist of the killing joke.
Interesting take.
Here's my idea,what matters is the joke,joker knows there's a way to bring him help but it would take a lot of work he realizes that if batman had started to help him"shine the light"he knows that batman would get tired of it or unwilling and give up"shut the light off" and in that time joker would've been half way helped to rehabilitation"half way across" so basically joker knows batman would give up and joker would be half way to being rehabilitated" and knows it would get worse if bats had given up to help him
But it wouldn't have mattered regardless because he can't walk across a beam of light, I think that plays a huge part.
@@Tiannadesirray also i like the symbolising of the end of the cycle as joker and batman stop laughing (one before the other) when the beam reflected across the puddle shut off and there was only rain
The titular killing joke is that Batman and the Joker are trapped together in a war that neither of them can do anything about, except laugh. Fate has destined that they battle until one of them kills the other. It's a stark statement of fatalism.
They are so destined to be enemies that there was a comic where batman was thought dead and joker dropped his villainy,got a job,changed his name to joseph kerr and lived his life. Then batman was alive and he was like
"Welp *drops child* time to go at it again"
Great analysis of the value of the interpretation on any text, Scott! Also about the human nature of rewriting previous versions. Great work.
I literally just finished watching this, and I’m not a big time comic book fan, but I will assume the basic story in the comic is the same. To me, The Killing Joke was about showing that Batman and The Joker are two sides of the same coin. They both looked into the abyss but came out different. Their relationship is what interested me most, and it’s my favourite depiction of the relationship between the two out of the ones I’ve seen so far. Batman kept mentioning that he thought that eventually one of them would kill the other. They are two opposing philosophies at war and each believes only one can come out on top; Surrender to the madness, or fight to keep it at bay. As for Commissioner Gordon, maybe his storyline was to show that not everyone is affected by just One Bad Day. Or, maybe just to show that even The Joker, crazy as he is, doesn’t understand what it is that drives people to madness. Nobody can understand what that One Bad Day will look like for anyone else. Not until it’s too late.
And in my mind, Batman was simply the last to stop laughing in an effort to show his own madness. They’re basically the two insane guys in the joke.
There's literally a card illustration of Batman and Joker both characters in opossite position on the comic back.
There's a difference between figuring out what a story means and figuring out what happened in the story. It's very difficult for me to listen to anyone who says something happens when the author says it didn't. It's not his/her interpretation, but his/her story.
Batman the Killing Joke was so legendary and profoundly influential that at the time during the development of Batman '89, Tim Burton literally burst into WB meetings with the comic in his hand going "This is what I want the movie to look like!" .
How long after the comic was written before Moore stated his "meaning" behind creating it? Based on his works he is obviously very opinionated about the world we live in, and for him to say there was no meaning behind but super people do super things just sounds crazy to me. Perhaps he grew tired of hearing about this one comic over the years and just gave a cynical answer.
You know it's a good video when the main man wears a suit top.
He's probably Naked from the waste down or something...
+Afonso Lucas You'd like that wouldn't you? ;)
Alex 3107 EWWWWWW....
+Alex 3107 I wouldn't mind.
+Alex 3107 Oh My.
I miss oracle. to me Barbra becoming Oracle made her so much more then she could've ever been as Batgirl.
Eh. She was always a smart girl. But being both smart and physically active is better. But she was valuable as oracle
I think it's important to realize that each run of comics is sometimes independent from the last. It's themes and messages should be taken independently regardless of the last run. Like Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol, which is wayyyy different from the previous run on the team. What the last creative team did doesn't matter in regards to that run, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter at all. It's just that a specific run matters as is.
I will just say, there is ONE instance when authorial intent is the only intent that matters: allegory. Some people think Lord of the Rings is an allegory for Christianity or World War I, but it's not because Tolkein never INTENDED it to be allegory (however, those things did INFLUENCE Lord of the Rings), whereas Chronicles of Narnia is UNDENIABLY allegory, because C.S. Lewis INTENDED it to be translated as Christian life and dogma. that is all.
to me, the end with joker and batman laughing symbolizes not batman killing joker, or batman just laughing with him, but that batman finally understands the joker. he’s laughing at the fact that he hadn’t realized how similar they were, at the fact that they are almost the same person, but at the same time being completely different from one another. he finally realizes that the joker cannot be saved. and thus he stops trying to save him, he finally turns off the flashlight.
Indeed, the joke was about Batman, a millionare who dress up as a Bat and beats up criminal at night, trying to help a former comedian who wears a clown outfit and enjoys killing people for fun. Both guys are pretty much lunatics.
No way. The author's interpretation is the canonical interpretation.
That's what keep Spongebob from being Batman's dad.
_But it makes so much sense if you think about it!_
+Just Some Guy with a Mustache yea that's why batman can breathe under water for ages because when he was a baby SpongeBob sent him to the Waynes to look after him as Mr Krabs wanted to kill him.... wait holy shit Mr Krabs is the joker
I HIGHLY disagree. If they want to make something canon, put it in the publication. Case and point: The controversy over the "Dumbledore is gay" statement. It was not in the printed material and (IMO) only said to get attention. As such, it should hold the same status as fan-fics.
+noah schaefferkoetter While I'm with you, this guy is clearly joking.
Eugenideddis
I hope so, but I can never tell the difference between sarcasm and overemphasizing a point in this medium.
head canon: Batman is to everyone in the comic world what Joker is to us. For all we know Joker has a HQ like batcave and he makes plans there and puts on a performance when he's being the Joker. We just don't know his secret identity yet
I agree with this
yea in their world people wouldnt know Batman's intentions either as to us he is the obvious hero but to the public of the comic book world doesn't see everything
Looking for higher meaning and life lessons in a scene is far different from looking for physical attributes of the scene. People can learn whatever lessons they want from something because THAT is in the eye of the beholder. What the creator of a story says happened, however, is not up for "interpretation." If the creator says "This happened," then that's what happened. They are literally the person crafting that entire world and every scenario within it. Their say on something concrete and physical is absolute. It is not their personal opinion in such a situation.
For instance, if Batman had killed the Joker and the author had stated "Batman killed the Joker," then it would be the end of the story. You can take whatever lessons from this series of events that you want, but you cannot just say "Batman didn't kill the joker because I say so." As for the mention of how other authors can change things and contradict each other, that is also an entirely different scenario since readers making things up is not the same thing as authors contradicting each other. The reader's view on higher/abstract things is just as valid as the creator's, but the creator's view on concrete, physical things is undeniably and unarguably far above the reader's. One author being able to contradict another author's intentions does not in any way mean that readers can also contradict an author's intentions. What you're describing is simply "fanon," (a fan's own headcanon that goes against established canon), and your examples used to back your reasoning up describe entirely different scenarios.
Fun Fact: My friend's dad is in a band called "Killing Joke" and according to him this is the reason the comic changed its name to " *The* Killing Joke".
lmao obviously not
To add to the theory that Batman got poisoned by the needle I will say that Batman was wearing a glove. The needle may not have sunk all the way in to his hand, it may have just pricked him. This added to his training could be why he survived for so long afterwards.Also with your theory about Joker turning into R2D2 and leaving implies that R2D2 is Mark Hammil. This means that when Luke talks to R2D2 he is really talking to himself. This means Luke is insane so he became the Joker. Maybe after The Joker became R2D2 he went through a wormhole and travelled back in time (Star Wars is set long ago). Then maybe when Luke became Joker he waited out the days and went back to Earth where he became R2D2. This explains why barely anyone can understand R2D2 but Luke and why The Joker started bending over (to turn into R2D2) and why Batman was looking at his hand because he didn't want any blood or dirt on it because that's what he'd be eating his tuna sandwich with. To make the theory more interesting you can look at my name and profile picture.
Well said by Shady Doorags. Interpreting a work normally doesn't mean deciding what events happened, but what those events mean to the people that experience those events. That's the "human information" Moore mentions. The distinction is muddled in works like The Killing Joke where events themselves are ambiguous, but in my mind there's little of substance to learned by speculating about might have happened off-page. Literally nothing did happen, because once a fictional work comes to an end, it's a complete artifact, an ineffable, unalterable whole. Even new editions of the same pictures and text are essentially different works. The Killing Joke, in all its diverse forms, is a slice of frozen time. There are no hidden endings because no such ending was ever written, drawn and hidden. The meaning of the work is different for each individual reader, but the story itself belongs to its creators, and it doesn't matter in what directions subsequent creators take the characters from that story. Interpretations, derivations and adaptations can be good, bad, or indifferent. It doesn't change the essential completeness of the original. The thing is the thing is the thing. And that's great for comics! It means we can appreciate The Killing Joke even while Batgirl is running around on rooftops. There's no more validity to one interpretation of Batman or the Joker than any other, so no amount of retcons can ruin a past story we know and love.
To me the Killing Joke is asking us a question, What is your Killing Joke? What has to happen to you in order to turn you in someone like The Joker. What does your "One bad day" look like. It's a very deep, existential and dark story and message in my opinion.
I don't agree with Alan Moore, it is insane to me that he created this book and simply writes it off as "Not important". Even if it's not the best thing he thinks he's done there is no denying the impact and importance that this book has had on readers everywhere.
Also I would like to say that I truly love and can't get enough of you guys at NerdSync! These are some of the coolest videos on RUclips, Keep up the amazing work!!
why is moore so opposed to his own story? he seems so hostile
To understand Alan Moore you would have to be as insane as Alan Moore.
And have to be willing to worship an ancient roman snake god.
He thought he would get the rights to the characters in Watchmen and never did because he told too good a story and DC never let it go out of print.
How are we to understand the inner machinations of a cave-dwelling wizard?
I'm not sure if he truly likes ANYTHING he ever has made. And he definitely never was satisfied with any transformation of his comics into movies or TV productions. Sometimes it feels as if he starts to hate the things he wrote once they start to become successful. Maybe starving as a failed poet would be more of his thing IDK... but the quote itself is nothing unusual for AM.
I'm finding this raises more questions for me about intent and context. The Oracle back story only has context with the killing joke, but killing joke only has context with in itself and what came before. The authors intent and lexicon, as well as the artists, will not have the same semantic lexicon as those interpreting it; and in this the problem seems to be, as the if you go looking for "X" you will at some point find it. If killing in comedy means that a joke or series of jokes really impacted the audience, but others view killing in terms of actual violence. Issues like these are where arguments like the ones put forth in Wertham's "Seduction of the Innocent" seem to stem from. Looking at applying concepts of interpretation beyond the killing joke, and it may lead to not much more than chasing ones intellectual tail round and round.
5:33
That took me a second. My tired brain managed to mishear Skrull as Squirrel and I was very confused.
One of the most touching comic book stories I've ever read was Infinity Inc #27. It's about a character, Lyta who's parents, the Golden Age Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor, had just been wiped from existence by the Crisis. She's trying to reconcile her childhood memories with the new world order.
Maybe the writers don't have to think of the readers when they change everything, but maybe they should think of the Characters. They have rights, don't they?
Thank you Dylan and Scott for adding my tweet in the video, you guys are awesome, keep up the great work.
Really enjoyed this video, great conversation about interpretation whether it being in comics or other literature... appreciate it!
Your job deserves more subs man. Very very nice videos!
Oddly enough, I was just today reading about the Bee Gees' song 'I Started A Joke', which Robin Gibb revealed to mean - whatever the listener wanted it to. It was almost written to be interpreted openly, nearly a parody of songs with hidden meaning.
I've seen Ben Grimm cured countless times, and countless times seen him turned into the Thing 'forever'. I've seen the major villains' POV make sense to me, and I've seen them turn absolutely vicious just because. A good story will always stand, but in essence declaring all story arcs as effective stand alones takes something away.
Moore is very meticulous, and a perfectionist. As a lowly fic writer, I can say I stare back at my very best stuff and say 'Damn! That could have gone so much better.' About the only adaptation of his stuff he likes is the JLU version of 'For The Man Who Has Everything'. I say, take his dismissal with a salt mine or three.
I always thought with comics like TKJ, that maybe the authors word does hold more weight than people think
It's still a major part of Batman to this day and is leading to major stuff rn with Three Joker's
"There is no fixed physical reality, no single perception of the world, just numerous ways of interpreting world views as dictated by one's nervous system and the specific environment of our planetary existence." - Deepak Chopra
At the end of the day one's individual perception is his reality, despite (and sometimes in spite of) evidence to the contrary.
I didn't care for the killing joke.
Before everyone starts hailing down on me with hate, let me speak my piece: growing up, I interpreted Joker as the most dangerous mind anyone would be too afraid to confront. The Killing Joke, kind of didn't follow that for me, because even though in the story he commits deplorable acts, he still elicits empathy. Rather than a monster, we are shown a victim. We see his backstory about how everything in his life went wrong and the final cherry on top finally made him go nuts.
It appears the entire plot is his messed-up way of trying to be understood. I.E to show how everyone is susceptible to insanity, thus not leaving him the odd man out. If instead, the goal of his act was worldwide total psychological disintegration, by manipulating the populace into questioning their own psychological consistency, thus creating a mass panic and dischord and chaos in the streets, yada yada yada, ....I can see that. He is a calculating, resourceful and manipulative criminal mastermind who is driven by a grand design that he is compelled to carve into the world. His "masterpiece", if you will. But a true psychopath, the real monstrosity, wouldn't be driven by the reaction of others. That would denote a sense of empathy. If the analogy was to place him as a painter, he wouldn't be making the masterpiece for anybody else's enjoyment other than his own. So then if all of Gotham City were suddenly to have a change of heart towards him, he truly would care less.
So the ending, when Joker finally caves in to defeat at the hands of his foe, that feels arrhythmic. Sure, I can understand Batman's motivation, to want to feel like he's exhausted every conceivable option before he might be forced to kill him; but the fact that Joker directly connects with Batman ("No, sorry. It's too late for me.") feels like it falls out of character for him. Perhaps if he were luring Batman into a fast one ("haha, PSYCHE, dumbass!") that would feel better. I wonder if Mark Hamill ever brought this up.
Just having different creative teams doesn't automatically have to mean uneven characterization, IF there is firm editorial input/control.
Then, occasionally everything shifts. I remember when DC gave Superman to John Byrne for story and art (yeah, I am that old.). Clark Kent in casual clothes, with longer hair, sipping wine with Lois. If I remember correctly he jettisoned the closet of Clark/Superman robots in the apartment. The glasses at least got a frame update. However, it was, in essence, the same character; he just let his hair down more (literally). There were even a few news stories on the new direction/look. Yep, the "Death of Superman" was not the first time the character made national news. For some reason they all mentioned the wine and Brie.
There were only three networks back then and they all talked about the cheese. It was odd. (Probably in the original DC press release.)
The point is that comics do tend to get uneven after enough years.
I'm too late to your channel to really enjoy your Wil Weaton Era.
Good video, as always!
i understand the deep philosophical interpretations of the joke " joker is crazy , he has no hope of rehabilitation etc " i like the theory that the actual killing joke was the one that joker said in the funhouse about how his wife and kid died and he fell into the vat and when he came to there was a clown staring up at him in his reflection . that's the killing joke , he had good intentions , he wanted a better life for his family . that was the motivation for everything he did , but that that hope he held onto , that's what made him a clown . life is hopeless and one bad day will prove that . that's what batman was telling batgirl in the beginning about the abyss . the point when you realize everything is hopeless , you stop caring that's the abyss . he lost hope with joker as well . he didn't want to kill joker , he had hope that joker could be rehabilitated . and joker turned him down . batman lost hope . that's the killing joke as well , batman and joker are different sides of the same coin . they're both insane , the hopelessness of life made them that way . however , it's a play on words . the joke at the end of the movie actually made batman laugh bc it was an actually funny joke . i feel like most people don't even get the joke at the end , they're too busy thinking deep . batman understood the joke literally and figuratively that's why he "died laughing " he is joker
Erik Larsen's thoughts epitomize why I don't read major Marvel or DC comics anymore. Everything can be undone. It makes it hard for me to become emotionally invested in the story or characters. It's also why I enjoy tv shows and movies based off the same characters: things can change in that little tv world and it will eventually end.
It's like when people relate so much with a song and then the artist says that the lyrics are just a bunch of crap that they came up with to fill the song.
Why do I always come to this channel I come out with my brain exploded?
I wish you had touched on Modernism, Post Modernism and Post Post Modernism. In the Modernism movement, the Artist's intent was law. They dictated the meaning of the art and the audience had no say. in Post Modernism that was flipped. The Audience was given all the power to define their own individual meanings, regardless of the artist's intent, even going so far as the artist not even stating their intent so the public had no choice but to bring meaning to the work themselves.
In Post-Post-Modernism however, it is all valid. Both the Artist and the Audience can lend validity and meaning to the art and no one's views are any more legitimate than anyone else's. In this day in age, we are still in this PPM phase (at least according to last semesters art history class) and so in that light, both Moore and Bolland AND the Audience have equal weight in determining what this comic truly means. It's a living paradox that is both a superficial story with no humanity, and it is a human tale of love and loss or whatever else the audience takes away from it.
In my view, It had a weak ending, but the art (even the non-recolored version) is simply amazing.
No death of the author is representative of a failure of communication, on the part of the receiver. If I tell you to buy some apples, and you throw yourself off a bridge, am I supposed to say "that's valid interpretation of what I said."
Makes me think that this is like a paradox that at some point joker and batman will go through so much together they'll literally change their character over a lifetime till they just become new characters/ new individual interpretations far different than the original pair and they do all the things they done before all over again with this new pair and just keep repeating on and on with new personalities and sane plots.
The killing joke film was the first time i had seen either a villain or a hero extend and olive branch other than when the flash tried to help the joker type villain (forgot his name) in the justice league cartoon.
for me, seeing that olive branch extended at the end of the cartoon was so indicative of the chaos of the time we live in. with so much overt darkness in the modern media/world we, like batman, have to come to some sort of deciding or resolution about "us or them" or in this case the effort of "us AND them". Though the joker had paralyzed Batmans lover and tormented his dear friend he still had the capacity to reach out his hand and say he wanted to help the joker. This of course is the ultimate in clear expression of what it means to be a hero.
I think a perfect example of authorial intent is George Lucas revamping the original trilogy. now we practically have a movement called 'Han shot first!' with people insulted by Lucas' changes. Why? Because it takes away or changes evidence people had for the meaning of the story while Lucas tried so hard to make HIS intentions more well known and the 'true' meaning.
A Work can be Interpreted many different ways because you are the Reader.
I always thought the lesson was to have compassion for your enemies and no matter how bad things get to hold onto your sanity.
i would say that if the author wanted to send a specific message to his audience, that core message should be taken in as THE interpretation FIRST then if the way a phrase was written or the way a word was used to make you think about something deeper then i would say it is okay to start having fun looking down different rabbit holes.
The sound quality on this video is amazing,
props to you.
you should do a video about The Shadow. he is one of my favourite superheroes and he's really cool and I'd love to see an episode on it.
I think the fact that The Killing Joke had/has no real intended meaning is the perfect proof of Joker's point, which ironically gives it a perfectly appropriate message.
"It's all a joke! Everything anybody has ever valued or struggled for- it's all one monstrously demented gag."- if you subscribe to the theory that the Joker is a self-aware character, as some do, you may interpret this as Joker trying to tell Batman nothing in their lives matters, and that any attempt to find value or meaning in their lives is pointless.
And THAT's the joke- absolutely nothing matters, but everyone thinks there's a point or purpose behind existence. We're all just the result of some cosmic accident that nobody could cause or control, but we've invented this idea that we're here for a reason. An idea that has spawned the concepts of morality and belief, what's right and what's wrong, what we must do and what we should never do- all in pursuit of the answer to a question that we made up ourselves. And The Killing Joke on a whole reflects that perfectly, because once again we're looking for purpose and meaning where there isn't any to find. We're trying to find meaning in a fictional story that the writers themselves say was poorly written and sloppily executed, despite it being [as many consider] the quintessential Joker story and one of the greatest DC stories of all time, and at the end of the day there isn't any message at all.
It's exactly the same as what the art community did with the Mona Lisa. Leonardo da Vinci considered it the worst painting he ever created, nothing more than a bit of meaningless practice that he was never happy with. And yet everyone and their mothers have all tried to figure out why Mona's smiling or IF she's smiling at all- as if just because it's a Da Vinci means that it has some grand hidden message nobody can see. Why the yellow hues, the brown overtones, why this kind of fabric in the canvas, who was he painting, who is she looking at, is her nose meant to be that size- all he was doing was practising painting portraits and he messed up with the mouth, that is all!
But over-analysing renaissance doodles aside- the 'meaning behind The Killing Joke' is that there isn't one, but we have given it meaning just by looking for one regardless.
It’s really a testament to Moore that the work he thinks is just table scraps at best is beloved and revered by all
Most writers are like that
the mention of r2-d2 and a tuna sandwich reminds me of the herring sandwich experiments from the Hitchhiker's Guide
My interpretation is that Joker's joke "kills" the misunderstanding between Batman and Joker. Throughout the movie batman talks about how after years of conflict he still doesn't know understand the joker and this might be why the movie puts so much emphasis on his backstory. The light going out in the comic mirrors the flashlight in the joke. Batman has given up trying to help the joker. If commissioner Gordon hadn't told him to "do it by the book" batman would have killed him then and there. Instead he shares a laugh with the joker, knowing that his years of fruitless pursuit (a joke) has come to an end (been killed) . He made his genuine attempt to help the joker but it not going to happen. He laughs with the joker while waiting for police to come, knowing that their final chapter is nearing and that things are to truly become serious (no more jokes).
Arthur miller wrote the best essays on his own work than any one English critic
Scott I was wondering if u could do 2 things 1 is do a Green Lantern video and y i'm asking that is because i think... the last Green Lantern video was ur first 2 videos of the channel. The 2nd is can u bring back the Weekly Trivia Challenge and I know that u stoped it because most people left the video then but I want it back... and I think most people would agree with me is that u always say u do ur channel to make people grow smarter through comics and when people did the Weekly Trivia Challenge it was a way for viewers to make other viewers grow smarter through comics. So could u plzzz do those 2 things
Very interesting video!
I would compare it to songs. Like an artist makes a song, maybe meaning something for him/her, hopefully. The lyrics say something about them, their life, something theyve heard or read and felt the need to make a song about. But the meaning of the song may not always be clear, in fact the best songs in my personal (humble) opinion are those that make you think and relate and compare it to your own life, see similarities and feel a connection.
Some part of the lyrics or the musical atmosphere or maybe also when and where you heard it has impact on what you make of it and what it "MEANS" to you.
There are countless examples of "misunderstood" song lyrics, and in some cases music snobs will correct you and say "thats not what the song is about". But I would say it should always be up for interpretetion. And some artists even encourage it, saying its up to the listener to make something out of the song. In the ear of the beholder or whatever. That might be why songs, or in this case comics can be relatable for so many diffrent people. It means diffrent things to us all.
And the comparison could be made also about diffrent authors writing for the same charachter - "Fixing" mistakes they feel the OG author made. Like cover-songs. A new rendition of a song could improve, be worse or just be diffrent and give the song a new meaning. Take Johnny Cash¨s cover of NINs Hurt for example. That song means (to me at least) diffrent things depending on what version is played.. For NIN its about hurting people close to you, not living up to what people think of you etc. And with Cash its more like an old man reminiscing about his life, the people he met and what he will leave behind..
At least, that is how I feel about that song and cover. Wich is my point. It could mean anything to someone else, and thats fine. Acctually thats great.
Great video Scott, got me thinking!
I think Alan Moore is a genius but a crazy genius that's why he says crazy stuff like that
I watched a Parks and Rec episode where Ron Swanson said his favorite book is Moby Dick because it's a man vs a whale, no frufru symbolism. that could be open to debate, since the two lead characters are based on biblical characters as well. I got from the Killing Joke that life sucks, and we all have bad days. It is what we do after those bad days that defines us. Bruce became Batman, a comedian became the Joker, Barbra became Oracle, and Jim chose to remain himself. The least drastic changes are Barbra and Jim, Barbra still wants to fight crime in a vigilante manner and reinvents herself because of her injuries. Jim continues to work for the Gotham PD. Both cling on to something they know can work to prevent other people their one bad days. Jim doesn't go vigilante (well for a good long while) and Barbra does not give up. The endure to continue the good fight.
i think you are partially right in your argument but there is a major problem in it, this Death of the author argument has been argued against and i really suggest you read some as they don't say the author is the be all end all, but that the authors intent does matter as what you interpret from a piece of work is an interpretation of the authors intent, and if the author intent was different then so would the work and the same with the meaning we derive from the work.
What I felt was the meaning, of the "joke" was that Joker may see the world in black and white, a good person can turn bad with the right trauma, and Batman (and Gordon) see the world in a shade of grey, that "yes people who are traumatize can have a phycodic break down" it happens all the time, but "People can take that horrible event and make a positive change, or effect on themselves and/ or others"
A small example; a set of identical twins are born, they are very much alike, and have a normal, good, and loveing upbringing, but one day at the same time, one is raped toruchered and left for dead, the other one is injured in a mild car accident.
We are going to assume that the one who was raped had it worst than the other who wrecked the car, right?
(I think we all can agree that the first twin had it worst than the other)
But the second one starts on a self destructive life (drug use, stealing, fighting, etc...)
The first twin who was raped and left for dead, does something positive in life helps others who were hurt, blah blah blah blah (you get it).
We are all wired differently, we all deal with trauma differently, how can we "says my life is worst than yours"
But no matter how bad life is or how your life sucks, if we hurt others there's no excuse, they should be held accountable for those actions.
That was the what i beleave Gordon learned, that Batman even though he saves countless lives shouldn't beat the crap out of every thug, even though it scares the criminals to stop ....
"Humans live on a razors edge of good and evil, it doesn't take much to tip the scales."
I'm sure many people have said very similar comment but that's mine.
At the end I think the both of them laughing at the corny joke was a way to show that they are not much different and the relationship (as fatal as it is)is still a relationship....
P.s. the theory of Batman poisning the Joker with his own stuff,
I always heard that the laughing poison was made from the same chemicals that he fell into with his own blood twicked to be fatal to everyone but himself, because being exposed to high amounts when he changed to the Joker.
Am I right? Let me know if I'm wrong....
Thanks for listening,
Nicholas
I watched the movie for the very first time and as it ended, my first thought was to search more answers. There is so much things you can cling on to, but what is the real purpose of the whole killing joke? I think it has too many ways to end so that everyone is happy and the authors regret it afterwards, just my speculation 🤷🏻♂️
He definitely turned into R2D2 and beepbooped away while Batman ate his BatTuna Sandwich
the quote at 5:34 onwards got me scared for starwars viii . . i hope they acknowledge jj's work
my siblings and I love comic book movies. we like to speculate about the universe they live in regardless of what the writers intended. like head canon of the whole world.
On the one hand, I'd argue that the audience can interpret a fictional story any way it wants. There's no real restriction on what one's imagination can lead oneself to.
On the other hand, I don't see the point of the audience to ignore author's intent. Why would you pay attention to all the details the author lays out for you, but disregard the author's conclusion? It just seems like a strange practice to me.
The meaning of the Jokers joke in the Killing Joke:
The joke the joker tells is saying that the two guys on the rooftop represent batman and joker. Batman can be seen as the guy who shines the flashlight on the beam so joker can get across, its symbolic of him getting across the steps of rehabilitation, but he's scared and says you'll just turn off the flashlight when I'm halfway across, meaning that batman will stop helping and just abandon him halfway through rehabilitation.
I wrote one piece of poetry many people liked. It was about how one has to use violence on himself in order to get out of dark times of the life, it featured a guy tortured by some mad surgeon, but in the end he thanks and gives a present to the doctor.
When some people heard it, they were almost certain it was about nazist experiments in concentration camps, even though that never crossed my mind.
A story is made by 3 parts, the author, the medium and the viewer. Change one of the former, you change the whole thing. Everyone's story is different.
hey scott in the book you know on how joker poked batmans eyes and pulled his mask down batman used his right hand to put it back in place thus making it look like batman looks at his hand
The Killing Joke was originally a one-off story and that's how I'm viewing it. Batman killing the Joker makes sense due to the fact (besides the title and details of the final panels) that the Joker was the real winner in the end. Joker's goal was to break Gordon, when in actuality he was able to to break Batman. Batman broke his one rule and killed the Joker. Batman laughing at the end was him being overwhelmed at the fact that he has resulted in having to kill the Joker, who he also sympathizes with now, now knowing that the Joker is aware that he is a lost cause. The story is way more impactful if Batman kills the Joker.
What if the author leaves no room for interpretation? What if it's cut and dry? You can still take away what you'd like but it won't change what the author has put down.
My biggest question with the film is "Is this Bruce Timm's middle finger to Warner for suspending him years ago?" I can understand - hell, expect - them to focus new material on who Barbara is. But I think we expected backstory, montage of origin story, maybe point-counterpoint of her worldview vs. Joker's presented in some expository way. Definitely expected to a coda where she reinvents herself.
We did not expect a sex scene based on the one between Bats and Black Canary in All Star Batman and Robin, a mob story that makes no sense even unto itself. Also, we did not expect this to not be about Joker.
Joker wanted to prove insanity works and makes his argument. Joker was revealed to have something that made him tick. He is a performance artist wanting to prove through his art that insanity works. It also shows he is a threat. This set up the Joker from the films, the killing of Jason Todd, and his portrayal in Arkham Asylum by Morrison.
Moore always is full of pretentious misdirection when he is questioned. He wanted a psychology for Joker and Joker is the one character who seemed to fit Moore's aesthetic of brutal, primal, inhumanity that runs throughout his work.
This is neither argument or interpretation, this is consensus. So, where was the film based on consensus?
This is the best part of the Batman series: it's almost never about the actions themselves but how we perceive them. When we read we bring our own thoughts and past experiences to it as well and this is a good thing. We all grow but hearing and learning about other opinions and where they come from, this gives us new experiences to bring the next time we read a comic or just have a discussion.
Now I like many thought this was noncannon and that Batman killed the Joker with the jokers' joke being a duel metaphor for both, joker fell and literally dies while Batman's morals die as he now deemed Jokers death nessacary. Even their laughs at the end of the page mimicked it with Joker's laugh, "WEeeeeEeeee" can also be linked to falling down, while Batman's laugh copies Jokers first laugh when he snapped from reality.
But now I'm not sure how to take it. But that is the point of literature, to make the readers think, to put us into situations and think "how would I do this? how would person x do this?" Regardless of its original purpose the world is better from all the theories and interpretations of it.
I feel like the comic was more about the joker than it was Batman. It was about the joker having to cope with the fact that he was wrong about people, and his view on people was complete bias to what he had witnessed in life. He thought that, in his words "One bad day can make anyone go insane" because, in his flashbacks, one bad day is all it took for this family man to go from trying to help his wife and upcoming baby to a life of crime. And he even theorized, and correctly stated, that something similar happened to Batman that made him go off the deep end. But after seeing that he couldn't crack Jim, he started to fall apart in his philosophy. He realized that batman was right, and that it's possible that he is just weak. He continued to try to run from these thoughts by doing the very thing he wanted Jim to do: Turn to insanity in order to forget about the harsh reality of the world. He wanted to escape the reality that he was wrong, so he kept trying to kill Batman. What really drives this home is when Batman offered to help him, the Joker didn't just say no and keep attacking, the Joker said no, it's too late for that. It's far too late for that. I interpret this as showing that Joker (at least this version of the joke) still had some sanity left in him, and only used it to escape his harsh reality. But now, it has come to a point where he was coming back to sanity, and wanted to take batmans offer. But then, why doesn't he? Well, now that he's sane, he sees all of the things he's done to wrong people, including what he had just done to Jim and Barbra. He's right, no matter what happens now, he can't change what he has done. It isn't that he can't get better, it's that he can't cope with his actions. This wasn't him telling batman that he was insane and couldn't be helped, it was him telling batman he had to remain insane in order to cope with reality. If he keeps hiding in insanity, then he doesn't have to face what a horrible person he has become, but if he allows batman to help him, and "take him back to sanity", then he will have to face his demons. I think that's what was supposed to be shown here, and the Joke he tells at the end isn't "the killing joke" because batman kills him at the end, I think it's the killing joke because this is joker's way to sign off of reality forever now. After coming back, even if only for a moment, he has decided to forget about it completely, killing his sane side for good. The first inmate in the joke is obviously batman, and the flashlight represents his various ways that he has tried to help the joker. The second inmate saying "Do you think I'm crazy? I know you'd just shut it off when I get half way there" is a way for the joker to show his fear of batman's help failing, or batman giving up, or even the Joker succumbing to some kind of depression when facing his actions and falling off while they are making progress with him if he were to get help. Well, that's what I think anyway, Idk if I'm right.
I might get crucified, but I kind of agree with Moore. It's a fun and not-badly written story, but it's not the best of Moore's work and it's also not the best Batman and Joker story ever told. It's a fine comic, but if you take off the nostalgia lenses, it isn't that amazing.
I think the problem with Moore's statement is that HE didn't think it was interesting... probably because HE is ok dancing on the edge of the abyss :P. Most people don't think about how easy it would be to be tipped over the edge. And this is what is at the heart of his story: are we all really "one bad day" away from giving up on the social contract we depend on? When you really consider it, the story brings out a point that is very rarely considered.
A prime example of author vs. reader would be when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle decided to kill off his character 'Sherlock Holmes' by having him plummet in a deathlock with Prof. Moriarty from the Reichenbach Falls. Doyle had grown tired of writing those stories, and wanted to move on to creating other literary works. Unfortunately for him, the Sherlock character had taken on a life of its own. Many readers were outraged, and wanted the stories to continue. Doyle acquiesced and returned to writing Sherlock stories for another 25 years. From then to the present, countless writers have modified Sherlock to their own liking.
the singer Seal states in the liner notes of an album that he doesn't include lyrics in his liners, in case seeing them in print might ruin someone's personal interpretation of his songs.
Two things:
1. I'm so glad my Twitter quote is in this episode.
2. I just bought a rare 9th printing of K.J., and the colors are SO different!
The message I get from The Killing joke is about accepting futility. As hard as Batman tries, Joker will not stop doing what he does.
i finally came to a conclusion on the ending. Batman strangles Joker into unconsciousness and walks away, leaving him for the cops. this is why his laughter is cut off so suddenly, and the light goes out.
'There's always some wiggle room' is now a phrase that I would like to live by.
“You live in a world created by committee. Someone else writes your life when you’re with the Justice League. Hadn’t you noticed?”
-Grant Morrison speaking to Animal Man.
Why don't we have three part videos for watchmen or v for vendetta
Ending to Killing Joke is sorta similar to the ending of the Sopranos. Good Videos (1, 2 & 3)
What I find, well, interesting about Moore's opinion about the comic is the fact that he doesn't state that the story isn't saying anything, just that he doesn't think it was INTERESTING. And something being interesting is open to a huge amount of personal bias, and if you look at the rest of his work you can see how Moore might not find any story where he is limited to the world of Batman, Moore thinks that his stories are grand things and that he is a intellectual. While some could argue that his stories are nothing more than the deranged writings of a paranoid man. One could read something like "Watchmen" or "V for Vendetta" and find nothing interesting in them, if you don't think the status quo that those stories is arguing against is a bad thing or if you don't feel the world will head towards a world that that they show.
I do believe that the author's intention matters. Hopefully those were good intentions of a story they wanted to tell. It is (hopefully) what influenced that writer to create that work. But at the end of the day who's opinion matters the most is your own. You are the only person who will enjoy it or not. And that is all that really matters. It doesn't matter if the writer thinks if it is good or not. If you enjoy it that is all that matters.
Its such an Iconic story of Batman that in Lego Batman The Video game had a version of Joker in his vacation outfit. LEGO.
I thought the Joker stuck Batman with the venom and that's why bats couldn't stop laughing
Hey Nerdsync love your Chanel!!!! I have a question about the killing joke could you please explain the end of the killing joke? I'm talking about the scene where a guy wearing glasses decides to kill Batman who is this guy??? Plz answer as soon as possible thank you ;)
Great video! nerdsync is the best comic channel on youtube!
I thought I was the only one who subscribed to the R2-D2 tuna fish theory. Thanks Scott for shining a light on this very important socio-ecological message!
2:19 I really like the needle theory from the last video, but I always thought Bats' hand was positioned that way because he had just straightened his cowl after the Joker pulled it eschew. I love all these ideas. Makes me miss college papers!