Archive for category comics
Superman Saves The Day. (Really.)
Recently in The Stranger – a Seattle newspaper that itself sounds like a mysterious vigilante – Paul Constant railed against the phenomenon of so-called ‘real life superheroes’. You know: those who dress up and wander the streets, claiming to prevent crime. Constant writes that they’re “attention whores who will stop at nothing to get a couple inches of print”.
Why do these ‘heroes’ seem more interested in press coverage than helping those in need? What happened to following a good deed with a quick, humble disappearance? Don’t these guys remember the theme song to the old Spider-Man TV show? “Action is his reward”!
I’ve written before about the one thing Superman – the perfect, original superhero – says he cannot do. He laments that he can’t cross into our world, our reality, to save the day when we need him most. And if these men (yeah, pretty much just men) are the best we can do when it comes to real life superheroes, we’re doomed if we’re attacked by anything worse than an evil costume party.
In a rare burst of optimism, here are three examples I’ve found to prove Superman wrong about his limited abilities in the real world.
You might remember a story from last year about a family, facing foreclosure, who were packing up their belongings when they found a copy of Action Comics #1 in their basement. That happens to be the first appearance of Superman from 1938, and it’s worth a frightening amount of money. Here Superman was, 70-something years later, appearing again to save the day.
New York suffered an infamous blackout in 1977: 3,400 arrested, 558 cops injured, 851 fires, and $1 billion in damage. Those statistics come from the New York Daily News – the newspaper that managed to go to print during the blackout. How? Because Richard Donner’s Superman: The Movie was shooting its Daily Planet scenes in the building, and the newspaper borrowed the film crew’s generators. “The newsroom was bathed in generator-powered klieg lights,” as the New York Times described it, “which made it more difficult than usual to distinguish between fantasy and reality.”
(Like I’ve mentioned earlier: it’s not just that Clark Kent happens to be a reporter. It’s that Superman is “the mighty newspaper”.)
One more? In Joe Kubert’s award-winning graphic memoir Fax from Sarajevo, he mentions the cars that served as volunteer ambulances during the Serbian siege. They needed to carry the critically wounded through sniper-filled streets of Sarajevo to a makeshift hospital, not far away, but far too far. The inside of the cars were lined with comic books – because “two or three copies can stop a bullet or a bomb splinter.”
I don’t know the details of that family’s near-foreclosure; maybe it was too perfect a story to fact check too thoroughly. And maybe getting a newspaper out during a crisis isn’t exactly a miracle on par with flying around the earth so fast that time turns backwards.
Look closely, though, and you can see that Kubert’s drawn Superman on the covers of the comic books that served as ambulance armour. I hope the Man of Steel stopped a sniper’s bullet by letting it burrow deep into his paper chest.
The Superhero Curse
There is no Superman Curse.
Yes, TV Superman George Reeves was found dead by gunshot in 1959, whether from suicide or murder. And okay, fine, movie Superman Christopher Reeve was paralysed from the neck down after being thrown from a horse in 1995. But a curse? In his book Our Hero: Superman on Earth, Tom De Haven puts it like this:
For terrifying examples of the Curse of Superman, though, that’s about it. A lot of different actors have played the character over the past seventy-plus years, including Bud Collyer, who played him more often and longer than anyone, on radio and several different animated cartoon series, and he did just fine, becoming a famously affable network game-show host, died at a ripe old age.
There is no Batman Curse, either, no matter what the Daily Mail might’ve said during the filming of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight – even though many happily implied it was his role as the psychotic Joker that resulted in Heath Ledger’s death.
Cue ambiguous quote from an earlier Joker, Jack Nicholson: “I warned him.”
And now we have the ongoing parade of accidents in Broadway’s Spider-Man musical, awkwardly titled Turn Off the Dark. One performer was rushed to hospital after a thirty foot fall; the lead actress portraying the villain quit with the show still in previews; and other Broadway actors have made online statements like “DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO DIE?” Of course, there is no Spider-Man Curse. It’s ridiculous.
And yet.
And yet I can’t stop thinking of these accidents as modern echoes of ancient stories; myths of mortals impersonating gods and facing tragic consequences.
In comic books, ordinary mortals embodying superheroic abilities often ends badly. Taking the illegal, power-granting drug Mutant Growth Hormone can make your heart explode. In the collected manga Batman: Child of Dreams, ordinary people are transformed into Batman’s greatest foes like the Joker and the Penguin, but they can’t handle the strain. They burn out from the inside, weeping, physical falling to pieces. The “basic elevator pitch” of T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents? “You get kickass superpowers for 365 days, and then you die.”
When super-team The Authority crashed into our reality – in Grant Morrison and Gene Ha’s short-lived, two-issue run of 2007 – the heroes were shocked to find that no one here had powers. What’s worse was they worried just being here would be too much for our fragile earth. As their team shaman explained: “Even in our weakened state, we’re still too strong for this place. We may as well be monsters, trampling over the laws of nature until they break.”
We can wear the costumes, and strike the poses, and say the lines. We can hope our CGI doppelgangers do most of the spectacular stuntwork for us and that we aren’t left, terrified, tangled high over the orchestra pit. There is no Superhero Curse.
But what if Spider-Man’s skill, Superman’s strength, or the Joker’s psychosis are too much, too big, to be safely captured in mortal bodies and brains? What if comic book characters are described as ‘larger than life’ for a reason?
Motion Comics: It’s Moving! It’s Moving!
Over at Bookslut this month, I’m talking about what I love about comic books. Buried in the middle, though, is a rant about ‘motion comics’. Here it is again:
More and more, comic companies are hoping to supplement sales by offering digital versions of their titles with limited animation and voice acting that sounds like a first take at best. They think it’s just adding a gimmick to an existing story, like, say, slapping 3D on an old film.
What they don’t understand is that forcing this motion onto sequential art actually breaks something fundamental about comic book storytelling. It suggests a group of executives throwing a comic on the ground and poking at it with sticks. “Look!” they say, jabbing at the page. “It’s moving! It’s moving!”
Every time I see another attempt at selling motion comics, I’m surprised at how many ways they find to fail. First there’s the dialogue. A lot of what sits happily in word balloons sounds utterly ridiculous when spoken out loud by even the best actors – and the quality of actors featured on these animations is, uh, variable. Yes, let’s be polite and say “variable”.
There’s also the problem with redundancy, as illustrated by the Watchmen motion comic. It has an actor speaking the narration and dialogue – at the same time as the words are appearing on screen. Transmedia theorist Geoffrey Long points out that this could be because one narrator is doing all the voices, much as they would in an audio book, and the visual component “thus gives viewers a sense of who’s talking”. That’s true – but unless it’s a children’s read-along affair, you don’t usually read a book while also listening to its audio equivalent at once.
(Geoffrey Long’s piece is a much more even-handed survey of motion comics than this one, so go read the whole thing. Now back to my ranting…)
Problems like these are secondary to something much more problematic. In Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics, he declares that if you want to paint a world full of motion, “then be prepared to paint motion!” And sequential art has developed an astonishing number of techniques to imply motion, both within a single panel and between them. Not just the closure required by two panels in sequence, but speed lines, dialogue placement, panel size, and endless others. (For the academically-inclined, I wrote more about this last year for Animation: an Interdisciplinary Journal.)
Introducing literal moments of motion into these panels somehow doesn’t add to these techniques – it just replaces them. Look, I’ve clocked up so many years of comic reading that I’m as conditioned to the idiosyncrasies of sequential art as anyone. And yet the moment I see art creak into motion, something inside me feels like when Homer Simpson saw someone in a wheelchair:
“Hey, they have chairs with wheels and here I am using my legs like a sucker!”
It might not be rational, but there it is: if the pictures can move on their own, why am I bothering to turn stillness into motion in my mind’s eye?
Anyway, Marvel’s Astonishing X-Men motion comic is the most ‘animated’ I’ve seen. It loses the speech-and-text redundancy and makes much more effort to find cinematic segues. It’s almost a cartoon, but it’s still less effective than any fully-fledged, traditionally animated TV episode. At best, it is still – as comic commentator Chris Sims recently put it – “a comic for people who will do anything they possibly can to avoid reading”.
Hollywood is still learning the hard way that comic art doesn’t function as easy storyboards; now animators need to discover sequential art doesn’t provide instant keyframes. And I agree wholeheartedly with Long when he says that “while motion comics may offer interesting differences from both animated shorts and actual comics, they arguably offer real advantages over neither.”
If nothing else, motion comics should try a new name. ‘Motion’ only draws attention to something they do rather unconvincingly. And ‘comics’? Once they move, I’m not sure they’re comics at all.
The Hulk as Hamlet
“I look at it as my generation’s Hamlet.”
That’s Mark Ruffalo on playing The Hulk. He’ll be the third actor to embody the character – or, more accurately, the Hulk’s puny alter ego Bruce Banner – in just three films. First there was Eric Bana in Ang Lee’s misunderstood masterpiece Hulk in 2003. (Yes. You heard me. “Masterpiece”.)
Bana was replaced five years later by Edward Norton in The Incredible Hulk, a fairly terrible film I once reviewed as resembling “a panto acted out by action figures”.
Now, in Joss Whedon’s upcoming Avengers movie, Mark Ruffalo will step into the role. He’s a great choice, I think, but that’s not really the point. Some fans are annoyed – there are even online petitions demanding Norton return to the role.
No one seems to be questioning Ruffalo’s acting. The objection is simply to changing an actor mid-franchise. (Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to apply to supporting casts. Poor Katie Holmes was replaced between Nolan’s Batman Begins and Dark Knight and no one seemed to mind.)
It comes down to this: Bruce Banner should look the same in each movie, right?
Frankly, I’m not sure why.
It expects a visual continuity that comic books don’t possess. Look at these random examples, above and below. Does Kelly Jones’ Bruce Wayne really look anything like Denys Cowan’s Bruce Wayne? We might feel a discontinuity if the art shifts mid-comic, but radically different styles sit quite closely in other issues, other series, and it goes unnoticed.
The rules do shift once human actors embody these characters. I’ve written before about what celebrity logic does to these heroic alter egos. It makes the secret identity as famous as the costumed one, and results in heroes whipping off their masks at the slightest provocation.
Nevertheless, I think Ruffalo is right. The Hulk is Hamlet – or, at least, he should be.
Masks, costumes, and an obsession with alternate identities mean that if any screen characters can be played by multiple actors, it’s these superheroes. It’s not like replacing Michael J. Fox between Back To The Future sequels.
And just like I’d prefer more radical, auteuristic movie adaptations – Burton’s Batman, Lee’s Hulk, whatever – instead of a generic ‘house style’, I’m happy to see different actors coming to these roles. The many faces of multiple actors don’t make the heroes’ interchangeable. They make them less human, and more mythic.
A weird question for you: are comic readers willing to accept shifting facial features because we instinctually think they’re only different artistic interpretations of the one, concrete, real-world face? A ‘secret identity’ that we’ll never actually get to see?