Saturday, 26 May 2012
On "Grifter" #9 & "Cradlegrave": What's The Point Of An Establishing Shot? What's The Point Of A Story?
What's an establishing shot for? It does sound like the stupidest of questions. It's for establishing stuff, isn't it? Time, place, cast, situation; the establishing shot at even its most basic grounds the reader in the fundamentals of what's to come. There's an example of the most meagre type of scene-setting leading off Scott Clark and Dave Beaty's artwork for This Means War!, from Grifter # 9, where an extreme long shot lets us know that we're looking at a chain of snow-covered mountains. The location's defined by the caption at the top right of the frame - "The Swiss Alps" - and the action itself kicks off in the sketchy high-angle long-shot which follows. Clark's obviously as little concerned with the setting as Rob Liefeld, the story's plotter, is. Just as This Means War! uses this fascinatingly extreme environment as nothing more than a flatly generic stage-set to play out some moronically over-familiar sub-Bond low-jinks, so the art shows no curiosity at all about the world in which the coming by-the-numbers firefight will take place in. In short, Clark first tells us that we're looking at "snow" and "mountains" in the most general of senses, before giving us a super-bloke speeding across them while being followed by super-baddies, and that's all he tells us beyond implying what an awesomely cool dude Grifter is. What the scene might actually look like in any detail and specificity, what it might feel like to be there, what thoughts and emotions might be inspired from a smart-minded manipulation of the material on the page; these simply aren't things which Clark and Liefeld are concerned with.
It's not just that Clark seems to have no interest in the backdrops he's presenting, with their embarrassingly thin details apparently constructed from vague memories of Christmas wrapping paper and a postcard image generated in less than 0.33 seconds by Google. No, his fascination appears to lie solely with the secondary-art-market-friendly, full-figure posing money-shot which dominates his design to the degree to which we're not even shown Grifter's snow-board in the third panel, which is actually intended to show, yes, Grifter snowboarding. The heroic frown, the obsessive attention to the folds of the hero's trousers, his beautifully wind-tussled hair; these are the apparently vital issues which Clark frets over. All the while, the story itself appears to be something which the reader is expected to work at constructing for themselves from the few hints given on the page and whatever similar scenarios can be dredged from memories of other narratives from other fictions. Whatever, the establishing shot of this sequence doesn't just lay down the - very - basic context of what's to follow. It also summaries the scale of ambition and the sense of storytelling responsibility that Clark and Liefeld seem to share.
By contrast, Edmund Bagwell's establishing shots of the sink estate in Cradlegrave are so rich in information that the purposeful despair expressed in John Smith's script fairly radiates off of the page. Has there ever been a panel which could make a reader shudder at the inescapable, soul-corroding reek of a scene as that of the frame above? From the litter that's scattered across the landscape to the newspaper hoarding declaring "Refuse Collectors Strike Enters Fifth Week", from the dog pissing on the concrete bollard to the mass of folks going shirtless in the heatwave, everything about this scene evokes how terribly trapped the people of the Cradlegrave Estate are in this specific situation during these particular circumstances. It's a claustrophobic hopelessness that's set up perfectly by the narrow-cropped horizontal panel, within which we're denied the sight of the horizon or the broad arc of the sky, and by the quietly audacious use of a shattered concrete post as the focal point of the frame, and by the choice of a worm's eye camera angle to place the reader in the position of a powerless, crushed-down-to-the-ground onlooker. Without a word having to be used beyond the five presented on the hoarding, Bagwell and Smith establish far, far more than just a vague sense of where the reader is. Instead, they've delivered text and sub-text, emotion and sensory detail, a deeply political sense of outrage and a fundamentally respectful attitude towards the literacy and intelligence of their readers. In this single panel, Bagwell lays to rest whatever's left of the myth that comics art which involves computer-generated imagery can't be deeply soulful and moving.
Yet what's most notable and admirable about the panel is how it never allows the poverty of the sink estate to eradicate the reader's empathy with its inhabitants. Quite the opposite is true. It's the easiest thing in the world to achieve, whether accidentally or not, to present those living in squalor as either nothing but the welfare-robbing architects of their own impoverishment or the mindless culture/gene-scum who deserve nothing better. Yet this frame accentuates both the humanity of those it depicts and the constrictions of the landlocked world they're doomed to. Bagwell places his cast at the far edges of the frame, separated by the dead-hearted destitution of the scene as the eye sweeps from right to left. These are isolated, atomised clusters of individuals living at the margins of things, and that's where they're shown; the boys playing football while largely obscured by the news of political affairs way beyond their understanding or control, the two chatting adults seen only after the eye moves past the urinating hound.Yet each group are actively trying to make something better, something more human, of their situation. The boys are playing sport, the couple to the frame's right are talking together out in the sunshine as neighbours will. While Cradlegrave never under-estimates how humans conspire in their own ill-fortune, or skates over how they can act to drag others down with them, it's primarily a controlled howl of fury at the conditions under which we expect our fellow citizens to live. In Cradlegrave, the environment corrupts and human beings are often exceptionally corruptible, yet Smith and Bagwell are always driven to emphasise that their characters are, regardless of how they act, anything but the "animals" they're accused of being.
I'm not suggesting that the solution to the ineptness of Grifter #9 is a whole-hearted embrace of social realism on the part of Clark and Liefeld and their various collaborators. The very idea of a Liefeld-driven Grifter tale powered by the need to express a complex social agenda is of course as disturbing as it's entirely unlikely. Whether the man has any such convictions is beyond my knowledge, but the evidence of his work is that he lacks the chops to express even the boy's-own punch-ups which he specialises in. Nor am I suggesting that Bagwell's meticulous comics-realism is anything more than one of a thousand thousand different approaches to storytelling. But Cradlegrave is, for all its despair and anger, a fundamentally inspiring example of how comics can be created so as to exploit rather than ignore the possibilities of the medium, and its lessons can be applied, as so many examples in comics history will testify, to the action-adventure tale as much as to the psycho-drama. Why is it then, that so much of what's being sold to us is so pathetically malnourished when it comes to storytelling? Too many of today's books are being produced by creators who are either uninterested in anything but the most facile of tales, or, more disturbingly, shockingly ignorant of the fact that anything but is possible. The comic book can - of course - express so much more than just the barest details of plot spiced up with a stabbing and an energy blast or two. Indeed, a single brilliantly created establishing shot can suggest a whole world of experience and political conviction, just as an entire comic book can be nothing more than an expression of either cold-hearted take-the-money-and-run cynicism or disturbingly low self-expectations bordering on ignorance.
But then, we know that. And yet the system still generates a critical mass of industry-shriveling, audience-alienating pap.
The next set of reviews in response to the second round of Reader's Roulette will follow soon. My thanks again to every one who nominated a comic.
.
Labels:
2009,
2012,
Cradlegrave,
DC Comics,
Edmund Bagwell,
Grifter,
John Smith,
Rob Liefeld,
Scott Clark
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)





Grifter is so badass-super-cool he can snowboard without a snowboard!
ReplyDelete- Charles RB
Hello Charles:- I know what my dear old art teacher Mr Brettingham would've called any homework which looked like that snowboarding/no-snowboarding scene. He'd have called it "cheating", and his frown of disdain and disappointment would've been a powerfully shaming thing.
DeleteHe'd have been right, too.
Although this is barely a defence, before I dropped Grifter like a hot plate it was really REALLY clear that the artist could only draw people. And even then, let's not go over board.
ReplyDeleteGeneric backgrounds, guns drawn not quite in the characters hands... really, if my experience with the Grifter book is anything to go on, the creators should be embarrassed about their product on this one.
Hello Isaac:- I'm sorry if I did go overboard here. My point, which I wish I'd expressed better, wasn't that the artist could only draw people or that the writer could only write pap, although that may be true. I was more concerned with the lack of thought that appears on the page, that deafening absence of ideas which leaves so many comics doomed as stories and product.
DeleteIn the end, I'm most frustrated with the powers-that-be that forever tell us we're being given innovative, value-for-money product when we're clearly not. It's like watching a ship down while the crew declare that the ship won't sink and anyway, there's enough life-boats for everybody. And yet, the ships sinking and a quick count of the lifeboats reveals far too few.
Heh. Go over "board". It's funny, because there's no snowboard.
DeleteHello Pete:- Yep, it's funny because it's not real.
DeleteCan DC hire Mr. Brettingham? Or maybe an old nun with a really big ruler?
ReplyDelete- Mike Loughlin
Hello Mike:- I wish Mr Brettingham was around for that to be suggested to Didio and chums. Mind you, I wish he was around just so I could belatedly say "thanks". It's amazing how certain people end up having far more influence than it seemed at the time they would have. A splendid man indeed.
DeleteBut the old nun with a really big ruler, or any similar figure that might just say, in a fair yet stern way, DO IT AGAIN!!! I'm up for that :)
So the Alps are blase but a council estate is like another planet?
ReplyDeleteYou know, there's such a thing as being too middle class, Colin...
Hello Brigonos:- Well, in my own experience, it's the other way round actually. I grew up on a housing estate in Balerno outside Edinburgh, moved to one near Heathrow Airport, and then returned to the joys of the council estate in the mid-nineties in Feltham, where my front lawn was soaked in petrol and set light to as part as a jape on the part of the chaps who used to partake of ye old substances outside my flat. By which I mean - in my best "some of my best friends are Martians" way - that council estates, for good or ill, aren't anything of another planet at all.
DeleteThe Alps, on the other, seem pretty science fiction to me. Just another reason to want to feel something rather than nothing about them, I reckon.
I'm certainly middle class by education and profession, Mr B, though I don't feel like unconditionally raising a banner for any class. As Depeche Mode once kindly taught us all, People are People, so why should it be .... But I can still haul out the housing estates stories when need calls ... :)
But people see the Alps all the time, Colin, on tv or in films or whatever - council estates, mind... generally speaking, they're where bad things happen and you only see them in crime dramas, news reports, or BBC sitcoms about oiks getting ideas above themselves. Bagwell always had a harder job ahead of him than the Grifter people and that's probably why his page looks a bit more like effort was involved. Also his page seems to actually be finished artwork - those black-clad chaps in Grifter look suspiciously like sketches that have been hit with a photoshop filter.
DeleteOne of the many, many reasons I will never work in comics is that I wouldn't have bothered drawing that Grifter page, I'd have just pasted a link to a Youtube video of the pre-title sequence of The Spy Who Loved Me, but in my head I see the script as reading like a stream of consciousness, IE:
Page one is the Alps and Grifter is snowboarding like fuck because there's these ninjas and he hasn't shaved in a few days, his pants don't fit, and now he is seriously angry he could shit, to the point it actually looks like he's squatting right down in the snow and laying a deuce he's so mad. The ninjas, they don't even know.
Page two, three and four, he finishes his dump and backflips off a cliff shooting ninjas while Carnage sneaks up on him and jumps out like "raaaaaah!"
And so it goes. I'm pretty sure they don't use full scripts at DC of late, so this may not be too far from the truth.
Hello Mr Brigonos:- Nice point. We do tend to recognise stock scenes from the media rather than the world around us, and that's especially true for the world which we know about but rarely if ever visit. With social mobility declining so drastically, and with a media and education system apparently uninterested in showing anything beyond more of the same, there's less of the "real world" out there. I've been spending some time reading old American newspaper strips from the 20s and 30s recently; even though the syndicates preferred not to have anything challenging on the page, it's still remarkable how much of the rural world and the Hoovervilles, the tenements and docks and factories there is on the page at times. And how much of the detail of a recognisable if sanitized version of everyday real life. It's enough to make feel distinctly melancholic ...
DeleteBagwell had one huge challenge before him on Cradlegrave, didn't he? And for my money he rose to it, he really did. But as you say, that Grifter issue is nothing other than cheating. It's so shockingly shoddy, and yet it's hardly untypical. And I agree, you can see the photoshop all over the comic.
You may not be up for illustrating a RL script, but I think that you ought to be hired to produce them. A ghost, if you will. Mind you, there's a touch too much depth, too much local colour and pathos in your description for a great many contemporary super-books, but if you could just lower the quality of your work a bit, a great career could be yours.
That was a very interesting insight about establishing shots and these particular comic books.
ReplyDeleteI'm really enjoying Bagwell's work.
Cheers,
www.artbyarion.blogspot.com
Hello Arion:- thank you for your generous words.
DeleteI would say the quality of Cradlegrave is self evident over something as effortless as Grifter. It may be a lot of photo-reference was used for Cradlegrave, I don't know for sure, but truth is everyone knows what an estate looks and feels like so an artist working off photo's is irrelevent. Even if it was based on some photo reference the thought gone into selecting the shots and considering the detail and effect each picture/panel will give is an enourmous credit to both artist and writer. There's nothing in there that looks or feels artificial and unnatural, unlike say a typical Greg Land piece.
ReplyDeleteAmerican mainstream comics (ie DC and Marvel) do most definitely have a problem tuning their books into reality like this, it used to be you'd occasionally get a writer or run on a book that took that character from the cosy fantasy world he'd been living in and plant him firmly into a very real and recognisable world for a few issues or more. Gerard Jones' initial run of Green Lantern did this, as did Frank Miller with 'Born Again'. There has been a gradual shift over the years however to make characters less distinctive, I think the piece you wrote on John Stewart a few months back showcased it in a very blunt way, you could have applied a similar sort of analysis to Guy Gardner who has gone from being extreme right wing nutter to establishments prefect.
Characters at Marvel or DC aren't really allowed to stand out and seriously question the status quo of life, or heaven forbid maybe offend someone in the process... Just look at what they've done to poor Oliver Queen for a fine example of this policy.
Regards, Dave Mullen.
Hello Dave:- I'd highly recommend the TPB of Cradlegrave if you don't already have it. It's a brilliant work, and if it isn't perfect in every respect, it's ambitious and smart and moving and, well, just about everything Grifter isn't. And at the back of the book there are some examples of the computer work Bagwell did for the book. Yet the difference between his backdrops in their raw form and the way they appear on the page is remarkable. As you suggest, he really does bring the work to life in a way that the wretched Land, for example, makes to effort to.
DeleteIt's a catastrophic mistake, isn't it, for the super-book to have so removed itself from any aspects of what we might regard as "real life". A whole fictional universe so often removed from anything which we might recognise as everyday just isn't going to appeal to anyone beyond the hardcore fan. So much of the best superhero fiction, as you say, has been grounded by aspects of the everyday. Of course, some books don't require that, but the idea that just about all of them don't ... is a remarkably dysfunctional one.
I'm trying to stay away from Green Arrow. From what I've seen, and from what you're implying, it's better than I know no more than I do :(
Pah.
A great read, Colin, as most of your thoughts on this blog are. I've just come to appreciate it recently and now visit here frequently, so I thought I'd just let you know that I'll keep reading. I do regularly find myself in relative opposition to your opinions because I'm a) fairly new to monthly comic books and b) enjoying about 12-14 of the New 52 titles, some of whom you have written quite scathing things about. I'm even eagerly anticipating them each month and think you are sometimes doing them wrong by expecting them to conform to the way you like your stories to be told. There are people who think that Lost is a dumb and nonsensical series because they tuned in to two and a half episodes of season 4 and didn't get who all these people were and why these apparently silly supernatural things were happening without being properly explained. I don't take this as a very valid opinion and I think you do make a mistake by looking at, say, BoP #5 and complaing about Choke not being introduced or scenes between Starling and her lover or Katana and her husband/sword not resonating. You read the 5th chapter of a 7 part story and wrote a review on it, complaining that what happened in chapters 3 and 4 wasn't repeated. I get what you're saying about this type of serialized storytelling alienating new readers but in my personal reading experience I'm actually glad that the writers respect me enough to expect that I remember chapter 3.
DeleteAs for Grifter, I don't mind a short generic action scene as much as you do. What I do mind is a while generic direction for the character. Grifter as the chosen one to lead a rebellion against the daemonites invasion? If there was one thing that made this title, it was the espionage feeling where a simple human (well, a charismatic con artist with Jason Bourne memory loss snydrome) had to fight these aliens alone and from the underdog position. Now we're in for a bold new vision in which Grifter is the holy one from some ancient prophecy? That shows a total misunderstanding of what the appeal of Grifter was. Also, even though this approach has worked will with one Jesus Christ, it's overused and lame.
I guess now that you've mentioned Green Arrow above there is absolutely no chance for some anonymous guy like me to get you to look at the first three issues of the Ann Nocenti run? I actually thought about those quite often while browsing through some of your posts such as this one. It would be fascinating to get your surely well thought out and articulated take on the fever dream colours, the strange choice of angles and viewpoints, the Shakespeare references, the ecology theme, the "Yeah, these three things really all happened off panel between issues and I'm referencing them just in passing, now deal with it and pay attention, I've got more layers of subtext to add here" storytelling...there is so much ambition in these three issues that I can understand some people rejecting them completely and calling them pretentious nonsense, despite loving them myself. I'd actually give quite a lot to know what you think about the arc that is Green Arrow #7-9, so if you ever have a little time, I honestly think this new take on Oliver Queen is worth it.
Hello there:- Thank you for your generous words, as well as the civil and insightful you disagree with me too :) If I answer your points, I hope I won’t seem defensive or in any way irritated. I’m really not. I just think you raise some good points and I’d like to clarify my own responses to them.
Delete“ I'm even eagerly anticipating them each month and think you are sometimes doing them wrong by expecting them to conform to the way you like your stories to be told.”
I’d argue passionately that it isn’t my job to do anything other than argue from my own perspective. I’m always upfront about the reasons why I say a story is good or bad, and I always accentuate that my opinions are nothing more than that. (The exception would be some political issues, where I reference principles that I think are far more important that my own subjective pov.) So, if I write that I don’t like a particular comic for this or that reason, I’m not being unfair. I’m doing my job. There is, as you say, no objective way to review comics. I don’t have any time for “critics”, amateur or not, who try to give an opinion which doesn’t offend, which pleases everyone, which recognises everyone’s point of view. What I’m doing here is saying “This Is What I Think”. In doing so, folks can pop in and enjoy that on its own terms, or get off on disagreeing, or use to sharpen their own ideas, or whatever. But I can’t be unfair to your opinion, or anyone else, because that’s not what I’m trying to represent. I think we get very confused about criticism at times. It isn’t about being objective. It can’t be. Being fair is about nothing more or less than saying “This Is What I Appreciate” and then “This Is How The Comics Measures Up To That”. I’m not trying to give The Answer. There is no answer! There’s your truth and mine.
And so, I really did think that Lost was, as you write, “dumb and nonsensical”. What I saw was tosh in the terms of my opinion. But that’s just my opinion. I mean, I don’t think much of my opinion, and I don’t ask anyone to. As far as I can see, if my writing practise here is any use to anyone else, it’s to help fill a second or two when waiting for a train or killing a minute of dead time at work. Beyond that, it may be that my take allows someone else to sharpen there’s. Terrific! I don’t care if folks disagree, though I am interested. I don’t mind if I’m wrong. I’m just adding to the babble, but doing so honestly. I state my beliefs and I argue according. I don’t try to twist things so that I look better and the product looks worse. I’m not trying to make either me or my opinions look great. In fact, I get endless stick here and elsewhere for my opinions, so I’d be doing a bad job if I were trying to be anything than subjective and honest.
cont
cont
DeleteWell, sometimes it feels like endless stick. A little stick. On occasion :)
And so, you believe that modern-era comics should be written for customers who turn up over the long-term. And I believe that that alienates everyone but the hard-core customer, and I also believe that talented writers find ways of filling in new readers which don’t, as you rightly fear, alienate the long-standing reader. So, we disagree! I find your case difficult to engage with fully because it’s not mine, and vice versa. But that’s not why we’re here. I’m not here to convince you of my opinion or to represent yours. I’m here to chat as best I can with anyone kind enough to turn up. If I can help kill a moment, if I can help sharpen someone else’s position, brilliant. But I’m not here to represent you, or the truth, or even my own fixed opinion, since it changes over time.
I was only meaning to focus on that one aspect of Grifter, and I should say that I don’t mind some meaningless genre fun either :) I mind it when it’s badly, lazily, shoddily done, as Grifter was. And you and I are completely in agreement with that chosen one nonsense! Honestly, a few ideas cribbed from JC and Stargate and wherever else, cobbled together and superimposed over fourth-rate storytelling. Dear me, but it’s poor. I have read several comics where I’ve enjoyed the character of Grifter, even if it must be obvious that the character’s hardly my cup of tea. The JLA/Wildcats team-up from the late 90s is certainly one of those stories. This wasn’t a patch on that.
Oh, I must say, I find your case for Ann Nocenti very interesting. OK, I will try to catch up with it. What I’ve seen of the title has disappointed me, but I always try to follow the enthusiasms of good folks who drop in and let me know what they’re finding. (As I hope is obvious. From Orc Country to Batman Inc, much of this year’s posts have been suggested by visitors. I can’t afford to get stuck in the mud.) So, I have a considerable backlog to work through, but I will, I do assure you, look out for those issues and I’ll do my best to find a way to work them in. Not because I’m trying to play the good bloke, and I hope it doesn’t seem that way, but because I am intrigued. Thank you :)
Colin, thank you so much for answering to me in such a lengthy post. I might just have to get a Disqus account one of these days because I am really enjoying the conversation, even if I constantly tell myself that I’m already spending too much time reading about comics online. And if, in my reply, I might ever sound irritated or even rude, please be assured it’s also not intentional. Every time I think that my English is pretty great, I get into an intelligent conversation with a native speaker and realize that I’m missing just about all finesse and nuances and constantly failing to get humour across. I hope you’ll see past that and chalk it up to something about “bloody germans” in general.
DeleteYou really mention a pet peeve of mine, one with which I often drive other people nuts, whether it be in an aesthetics seminar or in a pub at three in the morning. I won’t accept the notion that there is no “objective” way of reviewing something. I think you are completely right in that you should not try to include everyone’s point of view. You should however always offer more than a variation of “not my cup of tea”. Well, I guess that depends on the context – you are fully justified in going the “not my cup of tea” route in the aforementioned pub among friends, which is why my friends think of me as being so annoying when I just won’t let it go. But when trying to have serious discussion about art, the “art is subjective/this is simply not for me” excuse just kills the whole thing dead. It is our obligation in a discourse to lay out certain criteria that we can agree on that enable us to have a real discussion in the first place.
I won’t claim that I don’t have an agenda in this – I simply don’t want to live in a world where I have to agree with somebody that Dan Brown is just as good as Dostojewski because it’s “subjective”, everything is “relative” and you can’t argue about “taste”. No, I want a world in which it is possible for someone who has read quite a lot and has acquired a certain expertise to deduce that Dan Brown is rubbish, Dostojewski is great and Stephen King is somewhere in the middle, leaning more towards Dostojewski. In this world, the job of a reviewer would be to judge a piece of writing by whether or not it succeeded in what the author set out to do. I suggest for example that we criticize a zombie story which merely wants to be thrilling by whether it achieves just that, while reviewing a drama which tries to deal with all of the conditio humana in a totally different way. So, even if you’re totally in the Dostojewski camp, you should be able to give a positive review of a zombie story that is well done, because you’re responsibility as a reviewer in this case outweighs your personal dislike for zombie stories. Martin Gray has pointed out on his blog that while the Wonder Woman of Brian Azzarello is not the version he would prefer, it is undeniably a terrific story. That is a nice small example of how I think reviews and discussions should operate.
Sadly, a lot of complaints about comics amount to nothing more than “But I liked earlier Catwoman better, that was MY Catwoman”. Which is really no argument at all. An artist has to answer to no one. No matter how many fans still complain about Metallica never recording a second “Master Of Puppets”, opting to explore more introspective paths instead and to “go from a lyrical preoccupation with killing other people to a lyrical preoccupation with killing themselves”, as Chuck Klosterman once put it - your hurt feelings as a longtime Metallica fan really don’t constitute an argument. Neither does your disappointment as a longtime fan of Catwoman or Wonder Woman or Grifter.
cont
cont
DeleteI’m not trying to be cynical, I’m really not. I feel for everyone who cared for something which is now lost. I have loved things in popular culture in my life that I no longer follow because of certain changes that are made. However, I am in no position to demand from my favorite band that they not change their style to free jazz just because I personally do not want to listen to free jazz. They are the artists, they should have no limits and they have every right to explore whatever they want to explore. If Judd Winick wants to write a Catwoman story exploring a deeply dysfunctional relationship between her and Batman, culminating in a fight scene in #6 that eerily mirrors the sex scene in #1, judge him on whether or not he succeeds in telling that story the wants to tell that has sex and violence as focal points, not on your personal opinion on whether there should be sex and violence in a Catwoman comic.
I would certainly not say that I have any passionate belief about “modern-era comics” at all. I’m just a guy who heard of this relaunch last year, who had previously basically only read Sandman, collected Preacher and owned a few scattered Batman TPBs. Initially I simply thought it might be cool to have a #1 of Detective Comics and…well, here we are 9 months later, and I’m enjoying this comics stuff way more than I ever thought possible. I had no problem at all getting into the storytelling, despite never having followed monthly comics in the 27 years of my life ever before. If DC were to simply include a recap page of what previously happened, that might help, but I sincerely doubt that there are thousands of people out there who would just love to buy comic books if not for these stories spanning more than one issue. Then again, this is all hypothetical, so maybe you are right and I am misjudging people’s willingness to commit to something long-term. And still, Lost was not only a ridiculously complex story, juggling more than 20 different characters, well rounded personalities, a most unusual narrative structure and mysteries that sometimes stood unsolved for three whole seasons…but it was also a massive success, even gaining viewers who surely had to buy a DVD set of what came before to catch up. I know that’s the way I got into the show because I was really late to that party. I think it’s proven to be possible to get people, lots of people, to spend years following something that actually challenges their attention span. The harder part is actually to gain awareness in the first place.
Whew. So much for not spending too much time discussing comics. Thank you again for your insight. I’ll be sure to check back if you ever do a take on the adventures of the Green Arrow, the villainous Leer and his three daughters. And, please, do watch Lost from the beginning. Surely I can’t be the first person to tell you that it’s just about the third greatest thing ever produced by mankind. Your opinion of “tosh” really saddens me…though it is one of those awesome words you British tend to use. I guess I like “twaddle” even more and I’ll be forever jealous not to have a first language this funny myself.
Hello there:- You know, I wish I'd twigged that you were using a second language, because it really wasn't obvious. I am very poor at languages - visitors to the blog may nod and agree - and I'm always impressed when others don't. So it is possible that I've not taken into consideration that, and if so, I apologise.
DeleteI do try to engage with the creator's purpose, but I would never pretend that I can view a product from the creator's POV. I'm just not a fan of that kind of adversarial criticism. My favourite critics are people who are up front and admit that they're biased. I am. I have my own principles, I try to make them clear, and they do guide what I write. Now, when I review material for Q, I have another hat on, and I do things in a somewhat different way. But on the blog, I'm sorry, but I guess I'm going to disappoint. But at least I'm owning up to a lack of objectivity!
Having said that, I've never read Catwoman past the first few issues. I thought it was a poor book, but if I were to pick up the collection and have the smarts to notice the parallels that you mention, then I would give that credit. I'm at something of a loss here, in that I do always try to recognise strengths as well as weaknesses. But I guess again we're back to our different takes on the critics role.
I wouldn't dream of gain-saying your experience, and believe me I will chew over what you're saying. I do want to state again that I'm not saying that if I don't like a book that anyone else shouldn't. My opinion doesn't matter. It's there for the reasons we've discussed before. And we obviously have different tastes. I will admit, that makes me curious, because when differences are aired in this kind of civil manner, I always find myself picking up on things which I didn't previously understand. So, should I seem to be being unfair to a New 52 book which you like, PLEASE do come in and tell me. Seriously.
You're not the first person to say that Lost is splendid. I give you my word, when it's next in rotation on British TV, I'll set the box and record it from the start. I would love to be proven wrong. Heck, when I was a teenager, I used to hate Dr Who! By which I mean, I have been wrong before :)
There are wonderful words in English, though there are wonderful words in every language. But there is a silliness in English which I do treasure. "Tosh" and "twaddle" are fine words. Thank you for saying you think English is a funny language. It may not be anything else, and all languages have their strengths, but English often sounds hilarious to me. (I can say that because I'm a Scot. We share the language, most of us, but we don't really like it being "English".)
Ouch. Sorry, I really meant no disrespect. From what I understand, mistaking a Scot for a Brit is a pretty serious offence. Please excuse my non-existing sensibilities in this particular field. I can assure you, though, in my own experiences with people from Scotland (or Wales for that matter) I also thought that whatever they were speaking, it could not possibly have been English. Then again, people in certain areas of Austria think that they're speaking German, which as far as I'm concerned is also a blatant lie.
DeleteAnyways, thanks for chewing on my opinion, I hope you don't do that too long and hard. When it comes to our differences in approaching comics, I am certainly grateful for your insight in how you think panels should be used and how you think modern comics don't really use the medium correctly. Having not nearly enough experience with comics, my focus lies more on looking for great characterization and for the pleasure I take in deciphering Freudian and other subtexts from popular culture. I mean, great art is great, see Batwoman for example, yet if it's only servicable as in BOP but I still do care for these women and their journey, then I'll still be on board and I won't mind...well, maybe I should mind. Still thinking about that after reading your very convincing comments. Like you said, there's alyways something you didn't understand that someome else did.
Have you read the most insightful takes that this good dude over at popmatters offers? Sometimes he seems to be overreaching, as really it must always appear when you suggest that a simple comic book "uses this inverted Freudian triangle to meditate on the post-militaristic condition existing after 9-11" or that "Judd Winick’s Catwoman is as much of a surprise as David Lynch’s A Straight Story after his wrapping Twin Peaks, as much of a surprise as David Cronenberg’s Spider, right after eXistenZ". I do think, however, that the reviewer is right more often than not and I appreciate that he puts things into a larger cultural context. You may find these positive takes on New 52 books a great read, whether you choose to agree or disagree:
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/156119-the-far-darker-justice-of-a-love-set-free-catwoman-6/
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/155957-how-ann-nocenti-captures-an-outlaw-superhero-in-green-arrow/
Hello There:- No disrespect of any kind was taken :) And since I was brought up for a great deal of my youth, I have an English accent, which means that I'm taken for an Englishman when I return to my own country.
DeleteThank you for the links to the reviews of Popmatters. They're both idiosyncratic and ambitious, which is always an interesting business. There are some very good writers on Popmatters. It's always a site worth the visiting, and the second link will allow me to gain a better insight into why folks think well of the current Green Arrow too.
A little late to the party because of... life, but better late than never.
ReplyDeleteThere are whole layers of meaning there in the Cradlegrave establishing shot - breaking a concrete bollard is a difficult thing to manage but it can be seen on most rough estates. It hints at joy riders, crushing impacts and council neglect. The graffiti on the house suggests there are weak occupants under siege from spraycan-wielding youths
"But Cradlegrave is, for all its despair and anger, a fundamentally inspiring example of how comics can be created so as to exploit rather than ignore the possibilities of the medium"
What struck me about Cradlegrave is the way they manage to invoke that feeling of clammy heat - the kind I remember from the 80s where the tarmac would shimmer with heat haze, white dog turds were everywhere and orangeade lollies looked like a waste product of the nuclear industry. John managed to do something similar in the Devlin Waugh story "Fetish" but was assisted by the rich reds of Siku's African landscapes. He also brings us smells (tramps in sweetshops) and intimations of looming horror that are most obvious when you re-read it knowing what is yet to come.
Now I am a big believer that Cradlegrave would translate nicely to the silver screen but it would clearly not just be a simple matter of using the panels as storyboards, because Cradlegrave captures so many things that only the addition of text to pictures can. You could have the character narrating his internal monologue but that might feel a little forced in film. Of course, they can show the heat haze rising off a pavement and sweat dribbling down the crack of a brickie's arse, so they shouldn't struggle.
Also great use of captions there. I've learned a lot from studying John's captions, from the Fortean whitenoise of his Sirius Devlin Waugh series (where they left out some captions from the trade but it wasn't that noticeable) to their impressive use in stories like Tyranny Rex "Dues Ex Machina" (where they are held back before swooping in to describe the unillustratable) to the stripped-back captioning in Strange & Darke (he has said he tries to pick a style that works for each story). Cradlegrave is somewhere in the middle, letting the art and characters tell the story as much as possible and then coming in to complement it as well as introduce senses and feelings you'd not be able to get otherwise. It is attention to such things that would really have helped certain series, naming no names (OK I'm thinking of the first run of Age of the Wolf amongst other things).
Hello Emperor:- In 1997, I lived in a rented house on an estate near Heathrow where four steps from the front door took you not to a deliberately shattered bollard, but a purposefully destroyed concrete blob containing a street light. Very ambient, very gentle, very caring, very difficult to smash. But smashed it was. It was not a good place to live, but needs demanded. And as the .... unpleasantness increased, so did the need to escape from the estate.
DeleteI'm entirely with you on the question of how comics can be used to inspire films. Even if the panel in question appears to mimic the form of a typical widescreen storyboard, the function of one and the other is likely to be different. Well, it will be if the artist is trying to create comics using the medium's own language rather than mindlessly lifting the form of the storyboard.
And while it's true that film has its own considerable merits, I wonder if it could present the torpor of a heatwave in a sink estate as well as Cradlegrave did. Film by its very nature moves, it lends a measure of dynamism to everything it shows. It's not that there aren't a thousand examples of stillness being wonderfully portrayed in film, but comics have a real advantage there.
As I know you wouldn't disagree :)
I believe you recommended Cradlegrave to me quite a while ago. I'm really pleased that I had that extra incentive to pick the book up, because that can make all the difference between thinking "yes, I must get that that" and actually doing so. It's a fine, fine work, and repays, as you say, a great deal of attention to the fine detail of both creator's craftmanship.
And to the tune of "Prince Charming"; "Text captions are nothing to be scared of!"
"four steps from the front door took you not to a deliberately shattered bollard, but a purposefully destroyed concrete blob containing a street light."
DeleteYeah the other thing it speaks of is kids being able to wail on the bollard with lengths of scaffolding pole without anyone coming along and telling them off. A subtle flag that something has gone wrong here on a lot of fronts.
"And while it's true that film has its own considerable merits, I wonder if it could present the torpor of a heatwave in a sink estate as well as Cradlegrave did."
Indeed, but a good filmmaker should be able to bring over tricks to the table which comics can - the key, as always, is play to the strengths of your medium.
"I believe you recommended Cradlegrave to me quite a while ago."
Oh I don't doubt it, I've been recommending it to anyone who would stay still long enough for me to buttonhole them. John Smith is a Marmite writer and there is a small group of readers who are turned off by his style but I thought it'd be of interest to you from a number of angles. Appears I was proved right. :)
Hello Emperor:- I take your point about John Smith being a "Marmite writer". And I know something of how much you admire and enjoy his work. Yet I find it hard to grasp that he's that much of an acquired taste. Devlin Waugh, for example, had me won over by the end of the first page I've ever read.
DeleteIt's always hard to grasp why creative work which is always compelling to us appears to be excluding to others. Until, of course, we think of other people's taste ... :)
Yeah I get where you're coming from - some people have awful taste ;)
DeleteIf I had to guess, it is because some some people have been put off the more... literate approach (not the right right phrase but hang in there with me) by some of the excesses of the early 90s Vertigo "style." I tried to read Ann Nocenti's Kid Eternity run recently and just wanted to punch the comic in its smug face. When done wrong these Vertigo-style comics are over-written and pretentious but when done right they can be whip-smart and not afraid to draw on sources beyond comics (Morrison's Doom Patrol, Gaiman's Sandman, etc.). I suspect what happened was an aspect of the larger problem of early 90s comics, where people saw the success of Watchmen and DKR but failed to understand why they worked so well and went for the grim and gritty angle. At Vertigo people seem to have thought the key to the early successes was to cram as much text in and make as many esoteric allusions as they could, either because they missed the point or they didn't have the chops to make it work for themselves (the latter being my explanation for the Dark Age of Comics - even if they could have worked out what made Watchmen work, they didn't have the skill to use similar techniques for themselves - then again this is Alan Moore we are talking about, who does have that level of skill?).
Soooooo this might explain why some people don't seem to like the Smithian , because they've been burnt by poorly-handled work and can't separate the quality from the dross. Of course, it might just be that isn't there cup of tea but it seems a diverse table of offerings. Can't say I care too much really, they're the ones who are missing out on some of the best quality comics 2000AD has published in the last couple of decades. They are also in the minority and the various chief helpers to Tharg over the years aren't in it (when the new helper comes in there is often a culling of talent and change of emphasis but John Smith seems to sail through,* a quite remarkable set of circumstances considering John Wagner and Alan Grant were sent to the Outer Darkness in the early 90s, a period when it was just Smith who kept me from walking away from the prog, and Pat Mills has had his run ins with editors in the late 90s and early noughties). So, while he hasn't flourished on the other side of the Pond he has found a home that seems to overwhelmingly supportive. Now if only he was a faster writer ;)
Oh and I will be sending the link on to John and Edmund, the main complaint I hear from comics creators over this side of the Pond** (from small press upwards) is the lack of quality feedback, good or bad, and you do supply the quality. ;)
* Although A Love Like Blood rather took a hit from Andy Diggle's peddle-to-the-floor policy but it wasn't the only story to suffer.
** Seems you can get your work reviewed much more easily if it comes from a US publisher. 2000AD has been making great strides to help raise its profile on the big comics sites and Mark Millar guarantees CLiNT gets a mention (even if it doesn't get a lot of in-depth coverage), so perhaps the tide might change. Hopefully, Strips move to the newsagents might benefit from this.
cont:
Deleteon your thoughts re: writing style et al;
There’s definitely been a change in the culture of the US super-book where the taste for a degree of complexity in a comic is concerned, and I see it as one of the reasons why the super-book has continued to decline. I think it’s a process best seen in the context of the aftermath of Crisis when creators were sought to reboot the company’s books. Given what would seem to be in today’s terms a considerable degree of freedom, Green Arrow went to Mike Grell, Hawkman to Tim Truman and then John Ostrander, Wonder Woman to George Perez , the JLA to the bwah-hahers, and so on. The ambition was to create smart, smart books, but it wasn’t an ambition that lasted. Within three years, DC was trying to produce a line of pseudo-Image comics and it was left to a heroic rearguard of the likes of Waid and Morrison to try to hold the line. Now there seems to be such a resistance to the thought of complexity and demands upon the reader's concentration that all we can do is be glad for the likes of Journey Into Mystery etc
One of the saddest mis-steps in the 90s was the division of DC into Vertigo – arty – and super-books – sub-Image. It was often as if two qualities which should always have been associated one with the other had been stupidly torn apart. The vulgarity and vigor of the genre book was bled out of a great deal of Vertigo even as it produced one genre book after another, while the cleverness and ambition which makes for the best superhero tales was allowed to largely disappear from that side of the company's products. In that, the example of all the best of DC’s work in the 80s was allowed to largely fade away. From Swamp Thing to The Dark Knight, from Sandman to Suicide Squad, what counted was the mixing up of smart and gleeful, pop and clever thinking. The joy drained from one end of the range, the ambition from the other, and I don’t think that the industry has ever truly recovered as a whole, though there have obviously been many fine books since. (Indeed, Vertigo is currently publishing some very good comics indeed. It always did, and yet the bleak writerly stuff really did drag the brand down.)
Yet one of the joys of 2000AD is how, over the past year, it’s gone from strength to strength, and done so with strips which are often not just enjoyable, but very smart indeed. The comic has always done that, but now it's positively flying with terrific work with a foot in both camps. I’d suggest that the comic is currently as good as it ever was in over-all quality, and that what’s been lost in the sheer raw punk invention of the highlights of the early issues has been – almost – compensated for in terms of quality and consistency. That Mr Smith retains a berth in the comic is a reflection of the good taste of the comic’s editorial staff.
Re: British comics coverage not getting much love - it is odd as, for the population size, British comics tend to punch above their weight. Even on raw numbers some of the Big Two's lower-selling titles would have been overjoyed with the numbers something like Panini was getting for their Marvel comics. It is a pity that sales on both sides of the Pond have dropped to the point that they are an order of magnitude less than they were.
ReplyDeleteRe: Vertigo - it's a good point. Alan Moore and Grant Morrison were demonstrating that you could tell smart, powerful and innovative stories with characters from a shared, superhero universe, so they split them off to their own imprint... Now it possibly might have made some sense at the time (and it helped Vertigo grow and establish itself as a strong unique engine for better comics) but with hindsight it seems like a very poor idea because it took out what could have made comics better in order to chase big dumb stories (Death of Superman?) that proved to only stoke the speculator bubble that nearly took the industry down (and it is still feeling the effects). In some ways this makes The New 52 look like a partial return to where things should have been in the early 90s with the return of the DC characters from Vertigo but perhaps it is too little too late? The creators who could have kept innovating have largely moved on or been moved on (Titanomachy?) until they only really return like strange distant Old Gods spreading discord and confusion. Only Grant Morrison kept the flame alive trying new and different things with New X-Men, Marvel Boy, Seven Soldiers, Final Crisis, All-Star Superman, etc. but all the ideas he span out have been busily buried by those following along behind him. I suppose the big question is whether the new writers have the chops and (while I am tradewaiting the ones I want to check out) it does seem like they have taken risks with Scott Snyder and, especially, Jeff Lemire which have been paying off. However, I do think they need to try harder and it might be a new British Invasion could do the trick, I'd love to see Al Ewing get a spin on something over there and clearly as we are talking about John Smith it'd be interesting to give him something to play with, perhaps Challengers of the Unknown is a little too obvious but what about Creeper, Edmund even does a decent Ditko but also has Kirbyesque flourishes in Indigo Prime, or perhaps Ragman* (getting China Mieville onboard is a good sign even if he hasn't given us both barrels yet, oddly I think John wouldn't have minded a crack at this too especially as you can misdial it as HORROR). Oddly the move that was a surprise but I thought also had a lot of potential, the integration of WildStorm, seems to have been the part that hasn't worked well at all. At one point it was WildStorm who seemed to have picked up the old Vertigo baton and run with it, getting Moore, Warren Ellis and Joe Casey in to revamp the line in 1997 something that they'd keep doing with the launch of The Authority, Planetary, Brubaker/Philips on Point Blank and Sleeper, Ian Edginton on The Establishment, Doselle Young's The Monarchy (perhaps the most Vertigo of the Wildstorm Universe comics?), etc. Unfortunately, as well as trying to hammer the Wildstorm square pegs into DC round holes, they seem to have largely brought the pre-1997 Wildstorm feel, in fact it seems to go back to the pre-bubble era with Jim Lee in charge, Rob Liefeld all over the place (take that whatever way you like but if your view of Grifter is anything to go by...) joined by Scott Lobdell another blast from the less than glorious past. So ups and downs but there is definitely promise there - DC are prepared to take chances and are for giving a whole slew of their characters an airing. Which is why it seems like they are going in the right direction, they just need to take more risks.
* Suggesting Scarab might get me punched.
Hello Emperor:- The split of Vertigo from DC was to my mind indeed a terrible decision. It wasn’t that there shouldn’t be a Vertigo imprint, but it was that once again “mainstream” comics preceded on the basis that you can’t have multiple and radically different versions of a character even when they were flooding the marketplace with exactly that. What Vertigo did was mark out intellectual aspiration as well as certain characters as “not mainstream”, which left the mainstream defined as “not intellectual”. Of course there were creators who paid no attention to that and who were always producing good and challenging work. (Waid, Morrison, Brennert etc) And the influence of Vertigo was only part of the reason why this lack of intellectual ambition permeated the mainstream. But I believe it was an important influence. When you look at the DC reboot material following Crisis, it’s often as sharp as heck. Look at the same line just 6 years later and it’s as dumb as a flying fox with perhaps 3 or 4 exceptions. The Big Two just lost their bottle, got scared of Image and – it seems – also saw a product reflected in the likes of Youngblood which could be easily replicated. The collapse of DC and Marvel into Image-light in the early 90s was a terrible problem. (Well, Marvel was in many ways almost there anyway, but things just got even worse.) There was a terrific chance in the 90s to build on the Third Wave indy titles, TDKR and Watchman etc, and the superbook bottled it. The results were plain. With the exception of a very few books, the industry was moribund in 1999.
ReplyDeleteCoincidently, the 90s was a period in which the artist was god and spectacle mixed with soap and little else was seen as the superbook’s purpose. The sales fell and fell and the spectacle got more and more faux-spectacular, the soap more and more soapy. The mid-Eighties was a time marked by writers and writer-artists. Would I love to see the likes of Al Ewing and John Smith helping the usual and sadly small cast of splendid folks keep the superbook alive? I certainly would. Yet I fear that the industry remains unconvinced of the virtues of any more than a small number of even slightly-out there books. I also worry that the storytelling orthodoxy actively mitigates against good storytelling in general. There’s still such a focus on spectacle and soap and a general absence of the kind of craft which grounds good ideas in well-wrought stories, which means that good intentions and often fascinating projects dribble away in a lack of focus and control.
I do try to not give up on the Big Two. There are of course many good people there and much good– even excellent – work being done. Yet in the end, there’s such a widespread lack of control of the basics of the craft that it’s like trying to listening to music where the instruments are clearly out of tune. If that’s done for a specific purpose, then fine. But if it’s done because folks just don’t grasp that those purposeless double-page spreads and so on are poor, alienating techniques, then it’s impossible to care. I’m grateful to the craftswomen and men who’ve studied their craft and honed it. But generally I’m appalled by the piffle. I’ve just re-read an issue by a Brit writer of a now-cancelled super-book and the script was fantastic. It was clearly written to fit the editorial preconceptions of a particular big two editor, but it was disciplined, smart and fascinating too. The artwork was so terrible, so inappropriate, that it was almost impossible to see how good the script was. No wonder the book was cancelled.
cont
cont
ReplyDeletey point? All the good writers in the world can’t turn an industry which has largely convinced itself that piffle is gold, and which is predominantly aimed at satisfying an audience of supposed piffle-cravers. I read an interview in which a Big Two editor lauded a specific comic as the thing they were most proud of. It’s a rubbish book on a technical level. Take taste out of an evaluation of it as much as is possible and it’s a terrible book in terms of the fundamentals of making sense, constructing beats and acts sensibly etc etc. Thin, sloppy, shallow, dull; when a critical mass of gatekeepers think that way, then what can you do? When even a huge crossover like AvX quite literally doesn’t make sense because nobody cared enough to make sure the tie-ins and the main book were telling the same story, what does it matter?
I’m grateful to the Gillens and Cornells and Simones and Williams, and to all their kin – here I’m obviously focusing on writers - but to read the George Perez interview recently which explains how editorial runs most of the New 52 is to see why so much of the industry is – to be polite – underperforming.
This is a very good article and I agree with you about the horrific grifter art. However, the graphic conent of Cradlegrave is so heavily photo-referenced and computer-generated that I wouldn't even call it art at all. I won't deny its obvious effect - the book looks to be an incredible read - but it is no more than that - a highly skilled manipulation of various visual machinery (cameras, computers). - I would equate it with the work of a highly skilled craftsman - say a carpenter , a photographer, or a chef. But not art, because it lacks the key ingredient - the communication of a unique personal vision. Cradlegrave is the work of a machine, not a man.
ReplyDeleteHello Taki:- My own feeling is that Cradlegrave really does reflect a personal vision, as I've tried to express above, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that my view could or should trump yours. Your argument is a wholly logical one within the context of your taste and I fully understand your points. If I couldn't convince you with the above, then I'll not insult you by repeating those points. I think it's a terrific work, you say it's machine-like;
DeleteYou like potato and I like potahto,
You like tomato and I like tomahto,
Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7sYNptYjsE