Saturday, 30 July 2011

Comic Book Artist: Leinil Francis Yu

I haven’t done one of these posts – a collection of images and overviews of comic book artists I enjoy – for a long time now, but they seem to the source of many visits to this blog according to Google Analytics (although it’s mostly to download the images of comic book art; I guess I make it easy to find them with Google Image search, particularly the Chris Bachalo post I did). However, that is not the reason for me returning to this theme – with these posts, I’m still trying to find a way to talk about the comic book art I like from the perspective of someone who connects with stories and writers.


I first saw the art of Filipino comic book artist on the Wolverine story Not Dead Yet (Wolverine #119 – 122), written by Warren Ellis, back in 1998. He’d been working on Wolverine for six months before this, and it seems to be his first major work. What’s amazing is how good he is from the start: he’s a great storyteller with a style that is perfect for the modern age of comics – his art is slick but with a nice rough edge, it has some realism but with a comic book edge, it’s dynamic and, resorting to fanboy status, it’s just plain cool.

After a respectable run on Wolverine, Yu moved on to The X-Men – talk about a promotion (I haven’t seen any of the work; I’m going out on a limb and assuming that it was good). He worked on one of the top books in the industry for two years, and he’s barely started his career. Which makes it strange that he moves over to DC to work on a creator-owned series with Scott Lobdell set in World War II, High Roads. The story is unusual, but Yu’s art is still awesome – he draws all the craziness and sexiness involved with aplomb.

The next DC project is bigger; in fact, it’s the biggest yet – the new origin sequence for Superman, Superman: Birthright, written by Mark Waid. This 12-issue series is not only really good, it’s got fantastic art from Yu. He draws a noble Clark, a heroic Superman and a smart and sexy Lois Lane, and he’s one of those good artists who can handle the normal stuff as well as the exciting superhero stuff that is all the less talented artists care about.


Having pencilled DC’s greatest superhero in a definitive story, Yu seemingly decided he didn’t want to be pigeon-holed because his work afterwards jumps around on a couple of different books for different publishers before drawing Andy Diggle’s Silent Dragons, a creator-owned six-issue mini-series set in Tokyo in 2063, with futuristic violence and samurai cool. Yu is nothing if not eclectic.


In 2006, Yu signed an exclusive contract with Marvel, which he admits his more his spiritual home than DC. He starts drawing Ultimate Wolverine Vs. Hulk, written by Lost’s Damon Lindelof, which unfortunately goes way off schedule due to the author’s work schedule (comics will always get relegated when TV or movies come a-calling), although they do finish it eventually (over three years later, in the middle of 2009). Yu is a hot artist, in demand and evolving his style to one with more detail and intensity but still with his vibrant and slightly exotic edge. Since he was on contract, Marvel sensibly decided to use his time on something big: he was eventually put on New Avengers, where he fitted right in, providing some great art (and great covers – I love the Ronin being attacked cover).


If working on one of Marvel’s biggest books wasn’t enough, Yu then pencilled one of the big crossovers: Secret Invasion was an eight-issue mini-series that was a continuation of the Skrull storyline that had been part of the New Avengers for a while, and he excelled again at the big stuff (double-page spreads of heroes versus heroes and heroes versus Skrulls) as well as the intimate stuff that is part of the package of a Bendis book. There’s no stopping Yu now – he’s drawn Ultimate Comics: Avengers with Mark Millar, which led to Yu drawing Millar’s creator-owned Superior (which will be turned into a movie eventually) and he’ll be drawing Millar’s Supercrooks, which is also being turned into a movie. This means that we’re going to get a lot more of his beautiful artwork, which will continue to evolve and get better; you can check out his website on deviantart if you don't believe me.

Thursday, 28 July 2011

Comic Book Shops: Krypton Komics (Number 10 In A Series)

Blackhorse Road tube station, the penultimate stop at the northern end of the Victoria line, is one of those tube stops where there is nothing of note. It’s on the corner of a large and busy crossroads, with a pub and a few shops but no sign of anything else. If it hadn’t been for Krypton Komics, I would never have come here. After travelling nearly the entire length of the Victoria line, it had a lot to live up to. Fortunately, as its website says, the shop is a 2-minute walk from the station, so that helps.

I visited the shop’s original location – it used to be in Tottenham, up from Seven Sisters tube station – at some point in my past (possibly the late 1990s), but I don’t know when it moved to its current location. It seems out of place where it is now – if you use the street view on Google Maps, you’ll see that it is on a mainly residential road that has a fair amount of traffic passing it by. However, in some ways it adds to the charm of this little shop tucked away in a quiet spot.

The first notable aspect is gaining access to the shop – I have visited many comic book shops and this is the first time I’ve had to push an entry bell to be buzzed in to the shop. The man behind the till was a friendly chap (he blessed me when I sneezed) but he didn’t hassle me, probably because Krypton Komics is a back-issue haven, where the serious collector comes with his/her list to forage through the many boxes of old comics for a missing book in the collection. This is highlighted by the fact that you enter the shop into the middle of the back issues – the new comics are on shelves at the back of the shop. There are three tiers of comic book boxes all around the walls and in an aisle in the centre of the shop, although only the top box (at just above waist height) has labelled separators to indicate the alphabetical storage system. The only slight difference is the immediate right as you enter the shop – there are several boxes of 25p comics, some manga and then a couple of boxes of cheap second-hand trade paperbacks.

The cataloguing system of Krypton Komics has to be praised – the website calls it ‘the latest bar-coded inventory control system’ and I’d have to agree. Each comic has an identifying sticker: the name and number of the comics (with the volume number if applicable), the condition of the book, the price clearly marked, as well as details of the shop and a bar code. Compared with the small price sticker seen on books in other shops, it’s impressive and certainly the most comprehensive I’ve ever seen. I thought the prices seemed a little high – perhaps based on a price guide – but I’m not running the business, so my opinions don’t matter that much.

There are some trades on the walls and some select old comics (there are also a few boxes specifically marked ‘Silver Age’) but no merchandise that I could see. There was a large selection of new books when you finally get into the back area, showing no particular preference for the big two, but I can only imagine that they are for the regulars and locals because the shop isn’t going to get any passers-by popping in unexpectedly. It’s an achievement that this shop can survive in the current economic climate, but I’m glad that it does – it is obviously a labour of love for the owner and the people who work there.

Wednesday, 27 July 2011

Notes On A Film: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 2

Not a review: these are the thoughts of a fan [see all my posts on Harry Potter] after he has seen the film (in 2D, of course, because I avoid money-grabbing 3D films that were filmed in 2D), and it assumes a detailed knowledge of both the books and films. You have been warned

This discussion of is belated but there is a reason. I couldn't write about the final film in the Harry Potter series because I was so emotionally bereft after viewing it. The film was great, a thoroughly satisfying conclusion to the series, and it made me cry in all the right places, but I was left with that strange feeling of loss that it was all over and I won't have new Potter films to anticipate. It had to come to an end – all good stories need to end, otherwise there's no point – and I don't need the comfort blanket of the continuing adventures of Harry Potter (although I would like a JK Rowling-written encyclopaedia that covers all the stuff that happened to the cast and the world afterwards), but I felt sad that I'd seen the last one at the same time as having enjoyed the film.

The film hit all the high points of the book and was exciting and moving, but it was odd that the first part of the Deathly Hallows was so long and leisurely in its telling of the story whereas the second part seemed to be rushed in comparison (apparently, it’s the shortest of the eight films). The book had to be condensed, even in two parts, but the concentrating of narrative beats seemed more acute in the second film. It was all about the climax, moving the characters towards the finale – gone is any of the background information about Albus Dumbledore and why he did what he did; the section about the Ravenclaw diadem Horcrux is condensed considerably, changing the subterfuge angle from the book in to a charging-in approach, and drastically reducing and altering the involvements of ghosts in the deduction of diadem's location (although I did enjoy Kelly MacDonald as The Grey Lady); any sections that involved people talking about what's going on (planning in the cottage, talking to Aberforth, accessing Hogwarts via the Room of Requirement) are reduced to the shortest time possible, in order to get to the action (and they omit the postscript in the headmaster's office; I would have liked to see the way Harry repaired his wand and removed the Elder Wand from the book, instead of the film's version) – but strangely, Yates has extended and expanded the actual final battle to something more dramatic and ‘cinematic’, although not necessarily better. The book contained the finale in the Great Hall, so that everyone was witness to the face-off between Harry and Voldemort; the film prefers the open landscape of the ravaged quad and has Harry and Voldemort jumping off the top of the clock tower and flying around fighting each other (I think Yates made a lot of tiny errors in this section due to the power going to his head: in a short interview, he talked about this flying scene being a eureka moment, but it seems rather silly; he also requested the dialogue that was seen in the trailer but excised in the final film ('Why do you live?' 'Because I've got something to live for') because he realised that the reason why screenwriter Steve Kloves didn't write it in the first place was because it was rubbish and that Voldemort wouldn't be a chatty type in a fight; he also has Harry and Voldemort fighting for longer than in the book which doesn't make any sense because it just provides more moments where it's obvious that Voldemort could easily kill Harry but doesn't because it says so in the plot.

These are quibbles, however, of a fan and of someone who has read the book. As Kloves put it, we kept the emotional core of what was happening, and they did a great job of putting the book on film. There were a lot of things I enjoyed in the film. Seeing Snape in charge of a Hogwarts where the students have been beaten into submission was powerful, the action scenes were exciting (I knew what was happening and even I had the enjoyable thrill of tension as I watched the film); it was great to see Professor McGonagall taking charge and leading the defence of Hogwarts. The explanatory quiet scenes were included and were powerful: the Pensieve scenes of Snape's memories was beautifully done (Rickman's face might have looked a little computer-enhanced in one scene, but the scene where he holds Lilly Potter's body was devastating) and seeing Dumbledore again in the King's Cross scene (tears were in my eyes when he says to Harry, ‘You wonderful boy. You brave, brave man.’) was nicely done. The scene with the Resurrection Stone had the tears really flowing, which is a perfect indicator that they had got the tone completely right; after that, I was an emotional wreck and even felt a lump in my throat at the moment when Harry, Ron and Hermione see each other for the first time after Voldemort's death and communicate so much with just facial expressions. To be fair, I had a lump in my throat when McGonagall said it was good to see him to Harry, so I don't know if I can be completely impartial.

Another thing: if you've read the book, you realise that the whole story is told from Harry's perspective – events that occur to other people when he's not there have to be recounted to him in some way. So we saw Fred's death in the book (which is played differently in the film) but don't see Remus and Tonks die. When the film made the change of following Ron and Hermione into the Chamber of Secrets to see Hermione destroy the cup Horcrux (and the Ron–Hermione kiss), I hoped they would give Remus and Tonks their moment but it was not to be. I also thought we'd get more of the other characters in wizard duels in Hogwarts, but most characters only got brief bits (we did get Molly Weasley killing Bellatrix, which was pretty cool), which seemed odd because there could have been so much more spectacle to add to the more cinematic climax they were creating but didn’t. I’m so difficult to please.

What am I trying to say about the film? I thought it was a good film, a good conclusion to the series of films, with the story intact (more or less), everyone doing a good job on screen (although most of the adults barely get more than a few lines or scenes; it’s entirely about Harry) and behind it, it wasn’t perfect but it made me cry and I look forward to all the deleted scenes on the DVD.

Rating: DAVE

[Explanation of my updated film rating system]

Wednesday, 20 July 2011

Six-Month Report Card Part Two

In which I complete the cataloguing of my cinematic experiences for the past six months.

Submarine
A superb directorial debut from Richard Ayoade (Moss from The IT Crowd), adapting a coming-of-age novel set in Wales (in the recent past). Quirky, funny, moving, cinematic, individual, stylish, charming – Ayoade does a great job, with an interesting soundtrack (from Alex Turner) and good performances from the two young leads and support from Sally Hawkins, Noah Taylor and Paddy Considine (hilarious as a ridiculous self-help guru). DAVE

Limitless
An efficient thriller, with a dash of sci-fi in the form of a pill that makes the brain work better (the scenes demonstrating this are very good), but it prefers the thriller aspect to understanding the full implications of the concept they have used for the story. It is also made annoying if you have seen the trailer (and have a good memory) because there are scenes in the trailer not in the film and scenes in the trailer switched around to give a completely different interpretation from the film. DVD

Sucker Punch
I’m so sorry I saw this. Zack Snyder makes the ultimate YouTube mash-up – the fight scenes are beautifully shot cut-scenes from a computer game done as pop videos, where our cosplay heroines fight giant Japanese demons, clockwork/steam-powered World War I German zombies, killer robots, and orcs and dragons – but the gender politics and the implications of fantasy-within-fantasies being escapes from institutionalised rape make this a very disturbing film to watch, which you probably shouldn’t. DA

Source Code
A really good film that uses sci-fi ideas intelligently to make for an engaging, smart, emotional and gripping story. A good script, good direction (the second film from Duncan Jones, who made the excellent Moon), and good acting from Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Monaghan as the leads. DAVE

Thor
Already reviewed: see here.

The Extraordinary Adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec
Already reviewed: see here.

13 Assassins
An enjoyable samurai drama from the prolific Takashi Miike – it’s a long film, with a slow build, but then the last third is just pure action. It’s like a modern version of The Seven Samurai, as 13 samurai attempt to kill an evil lord (who is protected by loads of samurai), and it’s really good. DVD

Hanna
A curious but enjoyable B-movie actioner with poetic visuals by Joe Wright, director of Atonement and Pride And Prejudice, with Saoirse Ronan excellent as a girl raised by her father (Eric Bana) to be an assassin with no concept of the real world, chased by an evil queen figure (Cate Blanchett) in a film that parallels fairy tales but is its own thing. Some great supporting turns from Tom Hollander, Jason Flemyng and Olivia Williams. DVD

Attack The Block
Already reviewed: see here.

Blitz
Another curious film: an adaptation of a police detective book set in London about a cop killer that feels like a British Dirty Harry filtered through an American cinematic approach, with Jason Statham in the lead and a supporting cast of top British actors (David Morrissey, Aidan Gillen, Paddy Considine) in a film with an ending that really fit the preceding narrative. DVD

X-Men: First Class
Already reviewed: see here.

Kung Fu Panda 2
Beautiful visuals, a great voice cast (including Michelle Yeoh as a soothsaying sheep and Gary Oldman in fine form as the villain), and a moving story combine to make this an equal of the very enjoyable first film. The fight scenes might have been slightly better in the first film and this film misses the spark of the relationship between Po and Master Shifu, but it’s a great sequel that was equally ‘awesome’. DAVE

Green Lantern
Already reviewed: see here.

Bridesmaids
A very funny film that mixes gross-out humour with believable characters and a simple story, which just happens to be about women. Kristen Wiig stars in and co-writes a film that is full of laughter but without it resorting to the frat boy humour or characters having to shout the punchlines – everyone gets a look in and the film has an emotional resonance that rings true. DAVE

[Explanation of my updated film rating system]

Monday, 18 July 2011

Cinema Six-Month Report Card Part One

Despite not blogging regularly at all this past year (after a productive year in 2010) for various reasons, I have still been going to the cinema on a regular basis. I’ve reviewed a couple of the films I’ve seen, but the rest have been ignored, not even mentioned on Twitter. Therefore, to catch up and document somewhere the films I’ve seen in the past six months, I’ve decided to list the films in order of viewing, along with a few lines about each and my rating value, for what it’s worth.

Love and Other Drugs
A manipulative romcom with at least some genuine chemistry between the leads, Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway, but it didn’t make me believe the ending. DA

Tron: Legacy
Boring but beautiful (within The Grid, the only part that needed the 3D): I liked Jeff Bridges (cool as the Tron Jedi in the bar scene); Clu didn’t quite work, especially when he talked; Michael Sheen seemed to be doing an impression of David Bowie as the White Duke, and as if he was in a different movie. DVD

The King's Speech
Very good indeed; Colin Firth deserved his Oscar as he really did a great job with the stammer. Uplifting and enjoyable, with excellent support from Helena Bonham Carter and Geoffrey Rush. DAVE

127 Hours
Danny Boyle does a great job about making a film about the real-life story of an overconfident man (James Franco) who trapped his arm under a boulder in Blue John Canyon and (spoiler) has to cut off his arm to escape. It’s cinematic and Franco is excellent and THAT moment is incredible and will make you squirm. Despite the premise, it is actually an uplifting film. DAVE

Season of the Witch
Oh dear. I’d hoped for some B-movie fun but Ghost Rider and Hellboy fighting with swords in the 14th century is boring and silly, with an obsession with killing witches because of the church but the reading of a holy book saving the day at the end. Strangest part was seeing Robert Sheehan from Misfits in the film and having to adjust. DA

Blue Valentine
A vanity project for the actors – Ryan Gosling plucking his hair to a receding bald patch and Michelle Williams playing a woman coping with lots of emotions – about the start of the end of a relationship. They are good but, as executive producers as well, the film doesn’t feel like a story, more like an acting workshop. DVD

Black Swan
Totally deranged but in a good way: loud and excessively melodramatic, with a good performance by Natalie Portman (probably her best since Leon) as the good dancer going crazy playing the dangerous Black Swan. She is ably supported by Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey (very creepy as Portman’s mother) and Mila Kunis, and Darren Aronofsky directs with brio and intensity, but it’s Portman’s show and she really makes you believe in her dancing and her madness. DAVE

Barney's Version
An adaptation of a book that probably worked better as a novel – Paul Giamatti, very good as the central character, seems too unlikable a person to be married to Minnie Driver and then Rosamund Pike – but it still has its charms, including Dustin Hoffman as Giamatti’s father. DVD

The Fighter
A film that doesn’t break new ground for the boxing film but it is very enjoyable nonetheless. Mark Wahlberg plays it straight and low-key as the lead, allowing Christian Bale to act up a storm as his junkie brother and worthy of his Oscar. I didn’t think that Melissa Leo’s performance as mother of the clan warranted an Oscar, but you will be left with a good feeling at the end of the film so you won’t really care. DAVE

Animal Kingdom
Excellent crime drama from Australia, showing grim and gritty life in Melbourne, with Guy Pearce in a supporting role (presumably to help get the film made) and terrific performances all round, but particularly from Jacki Weaver as the mother of the criminals – she is truly terrifying and deserved her Oscar nomination. DAVE

Adjustment Bureau
Already reviewed: see here.

True Grit
A really, really good Western: Jeff Bridges is good as always (although occasionally unintelligible), Matt Damon is good in a sidekick role but the standout is Hailee Steinfield as the young girl who shows true grit when she employ’s Bridges Rooster Cogburn to hunt down the man who killed her father. It feels authentic and gritty and harsh, and not what I expected from the Coen brothers, but in a good way. DAVE

Never Let Me Go
Muted, slow, pensive, composed, uneventful – this adaptation of a novel is a strange little film that always feels like it made for a better book. This isn't to say that it's a bad film – the script by Alex Garland deftly handles an unusual concept as the basis for a doomed love story, the three leads (Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, Andrew Garfield) are all very good, and Mark Romanek directs with an attention to Britishness that is rather eerie. However, the story-with-a-sci-fi-kink is very slow, sometimes distancing the viewer from the characters because the drama is so internalised. DVD

Paul
Already reviewed: see here.

I Am Number Four
A film that is mostly drippy and chaste teen romance hiding behind the mask of sci-fi trappings, which completely wastes Timothy Olyphant in the mentor role, and only gets going in the last third, which is fortunately all action and aliens using their psychic powers, sorry I mean ‘Legacies’, to beat down the very silly looking bad guys. I don’t think the plainly hoped-for sequel will be forthcoming. DVD

Battle: Los Angeles
Another film that uses sci-fi trappings to mask another type of film; in this instance, a straightforward war film, along with all the clichés that this involves, with a better-than-necessary performance from Aaron Eckhart and some pretty amazing special effects to bring an alien invasion to Earth. It’s certainly impressive to look at but the story and characters don’t hold water. DA

Part Two to follow and bring me up to date.

[Explanation of my updated film rating system]

Friday, 8 July 2011

Book: Have You Seen…? By David Thomson

I am under no illusion that my writing about film is worth reading to anyone apart from me, but I still like capturing my thoughts about films. However, after reading the writing about film of David Thomson, my feelings of inadequacy have multiplied a million-fold and I never want to write about film, or anything else, ever again (which is one of the many reasons why I haven’t been writing a lot of film reviews in the past 6 months).

This enormous tome contains 1,000 one-page essays on films (and the occasional television series, such as Monty Python's Flying Circus and The Sopranos) that mean something to Thomson. Just writing that amount on films is an achievement – most lists of 1,000 films to watch only have a few short paragraphs to accompany a photograph, and from many contributors. However, it’s even more impressive when you actually read the lucid, warm, intelligent, well-informed, effortless prose that flows of each page.

Thomson has seen a LOT of films, has strong opinions on them, but he is also well-read both inside and outside of cinema, something he brings to each piece, which makes the entire book more than merely film reviews. It’s erudite without being dry, passionate without sounding fanatical, and an excellent guide to a wide selection of films from cinema history.

Thomson does prefer films from the distant past over the recent past: fewer than 180 entries for 1980–2007, with the 1940s and 1950s accounting for 40% of the book. However, he isn’t a fuddy-duddy who only likes ‘old’ films – his selection is eclectic and diverse: he includes the likes of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Aliens, The Big Lebowski and The Matrix, in addition to the usual suspects (which is also included).

I have to confess that I didn’t read all of the entries – there are a thousand, for goodness sake. They are listed alphabetically, so you can dip in and out (I had a preference for films I have seen or at least heard about), which is perhaps the best approach. The beauty of the writing keeps you coming back for more; his description of a film can make you see things in it you never noticed before, and his turn of phrase can be enchanting. When talking about Belleville Rendez-Vous (or The Triplets of Belleville, the American title as used in this book), he describes the art style as ‘often a little like Toulouse Lautrec dating Betty Boop over an absinthe sorbet’, which is just one example of the delightful language that peppers the essays.

This is an impressive book, and Thomson is an incredible writer on film. Just don’t read it if you ever want to write about film yourself.

Wednesday, 6 July 2011

Author Appearance: Grant Morrison at Foyles

Grant Morrison participated in a Q&A in Foyles on Charing Cross Road on Tuesday evening to promote his new book, Supergods. Because we were not allowed to photograph or record the Q&A, these are my long and rambling recollections of the hour.

I was lucky to get tickets for this event – The Gallery on the third floor of Foyles on Charing Cross Road was full of Grant Morrison fans (all seats were taken, people were standing up; among the crowd, I spotted the new chap from Gosh!, and Bleeding Cool's Rich Johnston was present of course, and there was a chap who had some original artwork from Grant Morrison’s Animal Man, which I assume he was going to have signed afterwards). I had a nervous moment when the woman with the clipboard of power had to flip to the third page before she found my name on the list, but find it she did and I took my seat in the third row on the left of a small aisle in the main bulk of seats. This was a good choice – it meant that I had a perfect view of the God of All Comics.

Grant Morrison was looking in good shape – no shiny white suit, rather a dark blazer, a dark t-shirt with a design and slogan on it and shiny black trousers, to contrast his bright shaven head – and he seemed happy and comfortable as he sat down to begin the hour of Q&A to promote his new book, Supergods. As he drunk from his glass, he commented how much it looked like a urine sample: ‘Mmm, Neil Armstrong.’ Laughter would be a regular background noise throughout. After the clip-on microphones had to be replaced with an old-fashioned microphone (Morrison started crooning Strangers In The Night when it was passed to him), things were got underway. He explained how the book came about: an editor friend suggested compiling his interviews (great, thought Morrison, 500 pages and I don’t have to do anything); Morrison’s agent suggested he write a new introduction; when the agent read the introduction, he said, ‘This is good, why don’t you write a book?’ This was at a time when Morrison was in the middle of Final Crisis and Batman: RIP, so it’s not as if he wasn’t busy enough already. However, he couldn’t turn down the opportunity to create a ‘cultural artefact’ when given the opportunity; 18 months later, he wasn’t feeling the same way – he described clinging to his desk, having worked ridiculously long hours and avoiding friends, leading to what he called a ‘businessman’s breakdown’, where he would stop because he simply couldn’t continue but 15 minutes later would knuckle down and get back to work because he ‘had to’. Despite this, he’s very happy with how it turned out and that it exists.

(My recall of the specific timeline of questions and answers after this first round of discussion is a little hazy, and the phrasing might not match the exact words used by Morrison, so please allow for some interpretation.)

Morrison talked about the ‘superheroes as archetypes’ idea (Superman is Zeus, Batman is Hades) but he expanded on it – Flash is Hermes and the Egyptian Isis and the Babylonian Nabu (god of wisdom and writing), but now Flash represents more than just that: he is the idea of modernity, of modern-day communication, of fashion, of transformation. Morrison’s depth of understanding and his ability to explain it is quite breath-taking – he is a smart man who has obviously thought about this a great deal and what it means to him personally. The point of archetypes is more than just the superheroes, it’s about ideas – he talked about the idea of love existing throughout human existence (we all hope to experience it at some stage, but the idea of love remains whether we do or not), or the idea of anger (which was represented as the ultimate form of anger in gods of war), or the idea of being 16 (we all experience it but only for a year, but there is always someone somewhere who is intense feeling of being 16). I was smiling just listening him drop knowledge bombs on his attentive audience.

The book examines the relevance of the lightning symbol in the development of the comic book, and Morrison discussed some aspects of it. The lightning bolt is present throughout the ages of comics, from Captain Marvel in the Golden Age, through the Flash in the Silver Age, Alan Moore’s Marvelman (a version of Captain Marvel, don’t forget) in what Morrison terms the Dark Age (from the mid-1970s to the early 1990s), and the Flash again in Mark Waid’s run on the character, which Morrison sees as the start of the current renaissance of comics. In the book, he links this to the Kabbalah (the original version, not the string-wearing modern silliness) and the magician’s path – the jagged structure from right to left (which is the reverse in the Reverse Flash, which reflects the dark magician’s path) – and he tried to put this structure into the book itself

He talked about the notorious alien abduction episode – where he was taken up by aliens on a higher dimension and they reassured him about the state of the world – about the different branes of reality, describing it terms of how we can see lives represented in 2D in comics, so what if there are beings on a dimension who can see us in the same manner of higher dimensions because they can see five dimensions, including time, so they can read us in the same way we read comics, seeing us at all points of our life at the same time. He also says that, regarding the abduction, he doesn’t believe it, but he does (with a cheeky grin on his face) – it’s a fiction but a really positive fiction

One topic that recurred was the concept of the reality of superhero comics. For example, Superman is more real than us – he’s been around for longer, he will be around long after we are dead, more people know who he is than will ever know. Morrison talked about how adults (a pejorative term for people who have closed minds who can’t enjoy themselves) don’t get fiction, particularly superheroes – they can’t enjoy the comics because they let reality intrude (how can Bruce Wayne run a billion-dollar business during the day and be the Batman at night? It’s not possible. To which Grant responds, with an unbelieving smirk on his lips, ‘because he’s not real’). In contrast, children understand the difference between fiction and reality, despite what adults think, and don’t believe that a cartoon of a crab is the same thing as an actual crab and don’t expect them to start singing and dancing.

Another facet of this the participation of the real world in comic books: the original Superman and Batman were realistic superheroes – they were responses to world around them, facing foes from headlines – whereas Captain Marvel was the first magical hero, with the mythic origin. He expanded on this by providing his thoughts on the types of writers of superheroes. He believes there are two types: the Missionary and the Anthropologist. The Missionary comes along and imposes his reality on a character: in real life, the missionary arrives at a new civilisation and says, ‘you’re naked, here’s a Bible, you’re doing everything wrong’ (despite the fact that the civilisation was fine before they came along); in his analogy, this leads to comics that are realistic and dependent on the outside world to impose rules on the stories. In contrast, the Anthropologist takes a different approach: when an anthropologist meets a new society, he strips down, paints his face, eats food he shouldn’t, blends in, gets stuck in and accepts their customs; his Anthropologist writer accepts the rules and limitless imagination of superheroes and works with them to come up with something new. Obviously, Morrison sees himself as the Anthropologist, who believes in the unreal reality of the superhero and enjoys it and celebrates it and doesn’t impose the real world on the superhero (or, as he put it, ‘Batman has never pissed EVER because he’s not real’ – take that, Kevin Smith). Saying that, he did state, ‘Watchmen is a beautifully written piece of work, you can’t take anything away from it’, despite it being an obvious example of the reality-based superhero story.

I can’t remember the context for the next answer but it had a lovely feel to it: for Morrison, writing superhero comics is like twelve-bar blues – there is a basic structure to it but with that you can do anything you want as long as you stay within the parameters of the rules. The analogy of someone who knows what he is doing and talking about.

Morrison was specifically asked about Action Comics, his new book about Superman in the new DC universe in September – in the book, Morrison wants to address certain issues that ‘adults’ have about the character, but he’s not allowed to say anything about it because of signed NDAs.

After 30 minutes, the Q&A was opened up to questions from the audience. I captured some of them, although I can’t always remember the questions. There is more Seaguy coming (Morrison thinks it is the best thing he’s written). When asked about the conspiracy stuff of his Invisibles, he agrees that there are no lizards running everything because we humans are not smart enough yet, so the world is all chaos. When asked about his first experience with superheroes, he said that he learned to read at three years old (thanks to his mother), and that his first comic was a story where Marvelman meets Baron Munchausen (which obviously influenced everything he’s done since, because it is the story of a magical superhero meeting a complete liar). He talked about how his parents were anti-bomb activists, which affected him a lot as a kid, not helped by the family friends would sing songs about the bomb, so he was really worried about the bomb. The arrival of superheroes was exactly what he needed because these characters could defy the bomb and diffuse his fears.

When asked about the contradiction between believing in the reality of the DC universe, which exists outside the people who have created it, and the reality of the fact the DC universe is owned by a corporation, he said that nobody owns superheroes – we do, everybody does, like Robin Hood or King Arthur – and that they will probably soon be open source soon and we will all be writing these characters. On a related note, he said that he doesn’t have carte blanche at DC, he is just allowed to do his stuff because his comics sell. When talking about comic books in general, he professed that he mostly loves superheroes rather than comics as a medium – he isn’t interested in, say, a comic from a bloke in Iran. Related to his Missionary/Anthropologist analogy, he explained quite succinctly the difference between stories that are relevant to the world around us and those from the imagination – he wants stories that are ripped from the neurones, not the headlines.

Morrison loves the ways comics engage both sides of the brain simultaneously, and he is undecided about digital comics – at the moment, he thinks they are like early cinema trying to recreate theatre, that they are just replicating comic books on another medium, even as far as having you flip the pages – and is waiting to see the development because of its potential; he’d like to see digital comics where you can press on a character and the entire history of the character would pop up, or press on another part of the page and you could play a related game. Asked about the way that Batman is being reset to only Bruce Wayne in the new DC and how he felt about DC ignoring his Batman stories, he said he knew it was never going to last, which is why he always tries to write a complete story in his entire run on a book (such as on Batman and New X-Men) that reflects his passions and affection for the characters, because the characters will always be reverted to the status quo.

Morrison talked about something he discusses in his book, which is the superhero history in terms of a life: Golden Age is like a child, with its simplicity and bright colours and black and white viewpoint; Silver Age is 12 years old, the age of transformation, as puberty hits and there are lots of changes (such as Superman becoming fat/multiple/small, or Flash and his large head/gorilla, or Jimmy Olsen and his many changes); Dark Age is adolescence, with its anger towards the previous way of doing things, making things more serious; current Age is adult, intelligent and knowing but also playful (he used Warren Ellis’ work as an example, and as an example of good comics). In the book, he parallels these ages of comics with his own life (he was 12 when the Silver Age ended, he was an adolescence at start of Dark Age). He was embarrassed at the ‘cringeworthy’ memoir aspect (memoirs make him sound like he’s 86), but he thought it would mean that people other than comic book fans would read it because it was cached in an acceptable literary format.

Comics are wish fulfilment, in response to question about superheroes being used as propaganda (specifically, Captain America punching Hitler) – this would have been great for soldiers at the time, most of whom would have joined up just so they could punch Hitler on the nose, ignoring the occupied territory and huge army in the way of achieving the goal. He’s sure that Holy Terror will be cathartic for some Americans but it’s not his thing. When asked if he had a final Superman story, Morrison brought up Alan Moore’s Mr Majestic ‘Big Chill’ story (from Wildstorm Spotlight #1), calling it the best thing Moore’s ever done (Morrison would like to write something about it one day), and also thinks it’s the best Superman story. He reckons that if it was drawn by someone like Jim Lee (and not Carlos D’Anda), it would be considered a classic. One answer to a question involved him talking about Socratic Dialogue and then Ronald McDonald and referencing his own conversation with Animal Man in the classic issue where Morrison meets the character. Wonderfully bizarre.

It wasn’t all comic book talk. When talking about the current evolution of human society (we have the database of human knowledge at our fingertips, we are making new connections in a new way now, but we’re too close to it to understand how fast it is happening and what it will do, but it is having an impact), he talked about the phone as an organism that has evolved with us, adapting to our needs – ‘machines don’t want to kill us, they want to fuck us, like we want to fuck them.’ Morrison talked about film: he thinks that in the future, we’ll wonder why we paid Tom Cruise to be the hero in films when we will soon be the heroes in our own entertainment – he thinks everything will be video games 20 years down the line. Saying that, he has just finished writing the script for Barry Sonnenfeld – Dinosaurs Vs Aliens – and really enjoyed it; he laughingly said he wanted to do more – particularly Dinosaurs Vs Quakers. He also talked about some heavy stuff, when talk of how superhero always come back led into how your mum/dad won’t come back to life, and talk of how he’s getting older and how hard it is to see his mother, a strong feminist, not as able to think as she could. He said that he wanted to go the same way as the magician in Captain Marvel’s origin – a concrete block falling on him and crushing him. The phrase that also stuck with me was, ‘Being human is hardcore’, meaning that it’s scary on the small scale. Although, after talking about some heavy stuff to do with human society and progress, he said, ‘I don’t know, I’m not a fucking guru’ with a laugh

It was such a shame that we weren’t allowed to photograph or record – I wanted a transcript just to capture a record of his thoughts on everything. He expressed himself so well and eloquently and passionately. An hour wasn’t enough, as he said when he finished answering the last question, ‘I was enjoying that’ with a smile on his face. He was doing a signing afterwards, but only if you bought a copy of the book – I almost wish I bought hardbacks. The book sounds like it’s going to be amazing, and I can’t wait to read it. Listening to him talk, I was enthused about comic books again and their possibilities, and I wanted to read all Morrison’s books all over again.

Monday, 4 July 2011

From A Library – The Sandman: The Dream Hunters

By Neil Gaiman and P Craig Russell

Neil Gaiman’s Sandman was a very important book in my development as a comic book fan, but I never really kept up with any of the spin-offs or extras that came out after the series itself ended. I read the last Gaiman-written Sandman stories (Endless Nights) via a book from the library, and I never even read the original prose novella (with illustrations by Yoshitaka Amano), or bothered to seek it out. I didn’t even know that the story had been adapted into a four-issue comic book series by P Craig Russell; when I saw it in the library, I had to pick it up because I was so surprised by its existence, and because Russell is a fantastic artist and adapter of other people’s work.

In the afterword, Gaiman says something pertinent to my reading this: ‘What I did not expect was the strange feeling that comes from reading a new Sandman comic. … It was magical.’ Not having read much of the other material, I came to this quite anew and it was exactly like reading a new Sandman comic, and it was magical. It is not a vital story about Morpheus – he is a supporting character in this – but it is an enchanting and exquisite tale, marrying Gaiman’s beautiful prose with Russell’s gorgeous art. Set in Japan sometime in the distant past, it tells of a Buddhist monk who looks after a small temple on the side of a mountain and a fox spirit that starts out trying to evict him (in a wager with a badger spirit), only for emotions to get involved and a plot by a Kyoto civil servant (who deals in magic) to kill him through dreams. It is a story of hubris, tragedy, love, sacrifice, revenge and, of course, dreams, and it leaves you both sad and happy in the way that a good Sandman comic can. There are appearances from the Three Witches, Cain and Abel, and Matthew the raven, and Morpheus appears in human form but also in the form of a large black fox, which looks absolutely fabulous.

The art is ridiculously beautiful – Russell talks about the three influences in this work: Japanese woodblock prints, European Art Noveau and, bizarrely, Disney – and it all shows in the precise detail and composition. A clear line, with visuals playing off each other from panel to panel, while some hark back to Japanese prints in the scene-setting panels (mountain vistas in tall vertical panels, or waves in the sea echoing Hokusai); then there is the playfulness of the fox and the badger and Morpheus-fox, or the charming facial expressions that speak volumes, which are then contrasted by the huge majesty of the strange and beautiful places the monk passes through to enter Dream’s palace. Russell has done his usual outstanding job, and I’m glad that he persuaded Gaiman to let him adapt the story into this comic book, and I would recommend it to anybody who enjoyed the original Sandman series.

Friday, 1 July 2011

Notes On A Film: Green Lantern

Pity poor Green Lantern – despite the recent successful revival by Geoff Johns, he’s always been a B-lister; now that he’s in cinemas, it seems that the entire weight of comic book movies is resting on his shoulders and he’s taking the blame for it all. All for a film that isn’t as bad as everyone seems to be saying it is, but which isn’t a good film either. The fact is that the film just sits there, not achieving the enjoyable levels of Iron Man or Thor but not sinking to the awful lows of Steel or Catwoman or Batman and Robin. There are some good bits but it never sings, it never flies (if you’ll pardon the punning metaphor).

The problem appears to be a dichotomy between the two halves of the film, and the script can’t seem to make up its mind which side it wants to favour. Favouring the Marvel Studio approach to bring the comic book characters to the silver screen, the film spends half of its time on Earth with Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) and his interaction with humans – he’s a test pilot with Ferris Aircraft who screws things up for his colleagues, he’s had former romantic interaction with Carol Ferris (Blake Lively), there’s a sub-plot involving Senator Hammond (Tim Robbins) and his scientist son Hector (Peter Sarsgaard) – but the film starts out with a voiceover explanation of the Guardians of Oa and the Green Lantern Corps, and sends Jordan out into space and to Oa receive induction from Tomar-Re (voiced by Geoffrey Rush) and training from Kilowog (voiced by Michael Clarke Duncan), which only lasts two minutes before Sinestro (Mark Strong) steps in to make Jordan feel inadequate and want to leave the Corps. There is also the threat of Parallax, this huge entity of fear who destroys planets – why have both the small Earth-bound story of Jordan handling his fear and fighting the Parallax-infected Hector Hammond when you’ve got the prospect of the entire galaxy and thousands of alien Green Lanterns at your disposal?

I wanted the aliens and outer space – the CGI for Tomar-Re and Kilowog was impressive, and it was wonderful to see such scope in a blockbuster film, including the presence of so many different aliens and the vista of the home planet of the slightly creepy Guardians. I wanted more of the Green Lanterns fighting Parallax in space, and I wanted the development of the Sinestro–yellow ring storyline that was hinted at in the mid-credits sequence (and I have to agree with everyone that the way this was played in the film made no sense whatsoever, and ignored the character development for Sinestro in the rest of the movie). The ‘Hal has to overcome his fears to become the Green Lantern’ storyline seemed so small and minor in comparison, despite the best efforts of Reynolds, who delivers some of the comedy lines very effectively. This section could have been dealt with quickly and then we could have got more action. A prime example of the smallness hobbling the ability of the film to soar is the way that the Carol Ferris is used as the reason to have a fight between Hector Hammond and Hal Jordan – Hector’s unrequited love was really silly and rather sad to see it used as a device in the plot. This lack of logical narrative was also a problem – see this post at Topless Robot for the best snarky dissection of the storyline of the film – as if the filmmakers thought that people would understand and accept the way the narrative develops because they do the same in the comics (why exactly does Hector get telepathy and telekinesis because he’s been infected by Parallax?), and no amount of spectacle could compensate.

It’s not all awful – the actors are mostly good in their roles (Mark Strong is always good value), there are some funny lines, it’s nice to see that Carol recognises Jordan when he’s in his Green Lantern costume and mask (the CGI costume wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be based on the trailer – well, in the 2D version I saw; I’ve no idea what it looks like in 3D – but the mask never works in the film), and it’s great just to have a big blockbuster about the Green Lanterns. However, the film lacks visual flair and energy – Martin Campbell might have done good jobs on The Mask Of Zorro and Casino Royale, but he does a workman-like job here; this lack of imagination is evident in the manifesting of the Green Lantern energy through the ring, particularly the scene where Hal saves the crashing helicopter by constructing a race track to save it. This means that Green Lantern the film is a very flat experience, which is sad because I would really like to see the sequel where Hal Jordan and the Green Lanterns fight the Sinestro Corps in a great big CGI war in space.

Rating: DA

[Explanation of my updated film rating system]