Posted by std007
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
seen on TV @ TCM
5.11.12
Wow, where to begin with this one?
Let's start with the simple stuff. Folks, most people who choose to become a professional cartoonist do it for love, not money. It is not a career that puts its practitioners on Easy Street, and never has been, at least not without ancillary merchandise. There's a scene in How to Murder Your Wife where Jack Lemmon's character Stanley (Stan Lee?) talks to either his editor or his lawyer (I forget which) about merchandising, but this is long after the movie has established him - from the opening scene, no less! - as a jet-setting celebrity with a Manhattan town house, fancy clothes, and a friggin' butler. All of that was the result of his work on the strip alone? Are you kidding me?The hell of it is, Stanley didn't even need to be ridiculously wealthy for this story to work. Charles (as in Schulz?), the butler, could've easily been a next-door neighbor, or a brother. Stanley could still be a successful cartoonist while living in a comfortable apartment or even a small house in the suburbs and it wouldn't affect the story's premise. To suggest that a cartoonist in 1965 could be as affluent as Stanley without the benefit of ancillary merchandise really strains credulity - but let's accept it for now.
Stanley's commitment to fidelity in his "Bash Brannigan" strip is certainly commendable. I'm not certain how common it was for cartoonists in the mid 60s to use photo reference in their work, much less to shoot their own, costumes, props and all, but as someone who has studied commercial illustration, I can vouch for its importance. It's not cheating if you use it the right way; as a supplement, an aid, not as a substitute. (Here's Exhibit A on how not to use it.) Stanley takes his own pictures, so charges of plagiarism wouldn't apply in any case.Stanley marries off Bash after he himself gets married (accidentally), and the strip radically changes from an action-adventure piece into a semi-autobiographical domestic comedy. This sort of change isn't too far removed from what happened to Blondie (which gets briefly name-checked). Long before she became the prototypical suburban housewife in a domestic family strip, Blondie was a single 20's-style flapper girl, and Dagwood was a rich kid whose parents gave him crap for dating a "lower-class" girl. She used to be the funny one and Dagwood the straight man. After they got married, the strip changed into something closer to the version we know today.
As an artist, you have to be careful how much of your life you put into your work. I've done comics that were either completely or partially autobiographical, and once it came back to bite me - hard. With this blog, I make conscious choices about what to reveal about myself and what not to reveal. It's a fine line to walk.
I don't think Bash Brannigan started out as an avatar for Stanley, but he eventually becomes one. When I created City Mouse while living in Columbus, the reverse happened: he started out as a cartoon version of myself and evolved slightly apart from that into something seperate. He was still grounded in my experiences, however, my perspective as a big-city East Coast dude transplanted into a smaller, Midwestern town. And now, of course, he's crossed over into the film world as a result of this blog. He has a flexibility that Bash seems to have as well, and like City Mouse, Bash's experiences reflect that of his creator. I'm perhaps more willing than Stanley to let my character have more of his own life.
The remarkable thing about this shift in the Bash strip is that not only does it work, it's purely the result of the artist's whim, not subject to audience demands or editorial demands for anything different (e.g., giving a popular supporting character a bigger role). Editorially, Stanley has a great deal of creative control. To exercise such a change without much resistance from his syndicate is unusual. I mean, if you look at the older strips in your newspaper, you'll see that they tend to rely on predictable patterns, and have for years. It takes an outside perspective, like the "Garfield Minus Garfield" meme, to shake things up. But Stanley initiated the shake-up himself and it worked.
Also, it's unclear how much lead time Stanley provides himself. Usually, strips are made weeks in advance so that the artist has a "cushion" that he can lean on if he gets sick and can't draw for whatever reason. Stanley's Bash strips seem to go to print within days of their creation, which would make him a drawing machine - and that's in addition to shooting his own photo reference AND developing it himself AND still finding time to go to bachelor parties and meeting girls who pop out of cakes!
Now about that marriage. The movie goes out of its way to sell us the idea that marriage in general is not all it's cracked up to be, framing this notion within the context of the eternal battle of the sexes. Well, if marriage ain't so great, then why do we as a society place so much value on it? Can it really be as simple as women hoodwinking men into it? God knows we men go to absurd lengths to impress women, but Murder would have you believe that we men value our freedom even more. Nothing in the film addresses this paradox head-on; it prefers to dance around the issue, or side-step it altogether. We never see Stanley struggle with his feelings for the Italian girl he marries. We never see him doubt his commitment to the bachelor life, which he upholds so stridently.
The misogynism gets packed on in such big heaping doses (funny doses, it must be said) that it's easy to write it all off as satire, a wild exaggeration of reality. But look at this: it's a recent article from the humor site Cracked called "5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women." Does this movie still seem like an exaggeration?
The Italian girl is never named. She conveniently starts off speaking only Italian. We never get inside her head. She leaves Stanley after she thinks he wants to kill her (he only did a storyline in the strip about it), but then mysteriously returns to him for no stated reason. And the one assertive female character gets publicly humiliated by her own husband in the film's climax. Non-PC humor is fine, but this is really pushing it!
There's a point in the climax where I thought Stanley would tear down the concept of marriage altogether and say that it's not and should not be for everyone, but it never happens. Too bad, because it's a message worth saying. Still, the question remains: is marriage worth all the trouble we go through for it?
There's an acquaintance of mine who's about to get married, but if her Twitter feed is any indication, the preparation for the wedding itself seems to be driving her nuts. I wonder: if she could choose to live with her man (whom she absolutely loves and adores) forever, without going through the motions of the marriage ceremony and the wedding and all that, would she? I suspect I already know the answer.
I think about the gay civil rights movement and the struggle for marriage equality (which President Obama has proudly shown his support for). There are legal benefits that come from marriage that are a vital part of this fight, but more than that, gays want the right to marry because they see that straight society places a high value on it and it's one that they're being systematically denied due to discrimination - and that makes them feel like second-class citizens. Again, we ascribed marriage with such a value, yet if Murder is any indication, it's almost as if we don't really believe in it ourselves.
And the movie doesn't even have the courage of its own convictions. In the end, Stanley gives in to married life right after making a big public speech denouncing it. I'd rather he remained unrepentant in his attitude than cop out so meekly, him and Charles both. (I looked for some sign of Ho Yay between the two of them - it would explain SOOOOO much - but didn't quite find any.) What would Will Ferrell or Zack Galifianakis do with this material, I wonder?
Posted by std007
Thursday, May 10, 2012
The Roaring Twentiesseen on TV @ TCM5.7.12
I've never thought of the drinking of alcohol as a vice. I remember my father letting me have a sip of his beer as a kid, every once in awhile. I thought it made me feel grown-up. (I think he drank Michelob, but I don't recall for sure.) My beer of choice is Heineken (sorry, Frank Booth), but I usually only drink on special occasions. I'm not a prude, I'm just not that into beer, which also means I'm not a regular bar-goer. Hand me a beer, though, I won't turn it down (especially after spending twenty hours on a train).
Same goes for wine and other spirits. When I traveled to Barcelona for a summer, I was only 21 and still learning about the rest of the world, so it took me a bit by surprise when I saw how commonly people over there drink wine. Either my first or my second night there, I tried some of the local vino. I can't say with any authority whether it was good or not because I was unused to the taste of wine in general. Suffice it to say it wasn't to my liking. I stuck to Coke and bottled water for the remainder of the vacation. And of course, I've had champagne on New Year's Eve, but that tastes even weirder.
I'm certain I've never been falling down drunk - and no, it's not a matter of "if I have been, I wouldn't remember," either. It takes longer for someone as big and tall as I am to get drunk. I have a few friends who are recovering alcoholics. Once, I was at a comics convention and I was crashing with one of those friends. We had come from a party in the hotel and were walking across the parking lot to her car. I was finishing off a beer. As we got into her car, she said to me, "Please don't drink that in my place," and I was quickly reminded that she was, indeed, still clean and sober. I hurriedly drained the bottle dry and stuffed it into my backpack, out of sight.
In thinking about Prohibition, I can't help but be reminded of the so-called "war" on drugs. Without getting into a big political debate, let me just say that curtailing vice through legislation seems to create more problems than it solves. I think the most you can do is make it harder for people to engage in, as opposed to eliminating it altogether. Here in New York, laws have recently been passed banning smoking not only from bars, but also from parks, beaches and pedestrian plazas. I still see people lighting up, though - and cigarettes haven't gotten any cheaper either.
The Roaring Twenties plays kinda like a documentary in that the narrative is sprinkled with voice-over montages describing what Prohibition was like in the 1920s, how people profited from the liquor bootlegging business, and how the law combated it. I'm sure this movie was meant to be as much cautionary tale as entertainment; after all, Prohibition was still within recent memory. It's unsubtle, yet interesting to watch, and doesn't detract much from the main narrative.
Jimmy Cagney's in fine form, as always. I really felt for his character as he goes through his rise and fall. It was odd at first to see Humphrey Bogart in a supporting role, but there's no mistaking his presence - and he shares some great scenes with Cagney.
Posted by std007
Monday, May 7, 2012
The Avengers (2012)seen @ UA Kaufman Studios Cinema 14, Long Island City, Queens, NY5.4.12The truth is, I don't ever recall being ostracized for reading comic books as a kid. I remember certain friends I shared them with, though those weren't many. My parents were never opposed to them; in fact, my father used to drive me to the comic shop on Saturdays at one point. I never felt protective of my level of fandom as a child. I never had to justify it in any way, and I suppose in that I was lucky.
At some point along the way, when I got older, I picked up the notion that comics fandom was a kind of secret society, and while I didn't necessarily think reading comics was nerdy, I did kinda like thinking that knowing the minutia of comics in general and superhero comics in particular was specialized, arcane knowledge. When I started reading non-superhero comics, that lore became even more specialized - they're not as big sellers as superheroes, which is insane, but that's for another post - making me, in a way, a deeper level of geek. It's the difference between knowing all the different colors of Kryptonite and what they do, and knowing some obscure mini-comic made on a shoestring budget out of some guy's bedroom.
Of course, the current renaissance in comic book movies has had a great deal to do with that - and let's be clear: this includes non-superhero comic book movies like American Splendor or Road to Perdition as well as the men in tights. I've been out of the comics game for awhile, so I don't know how all these movies have translated into sales of actual comics, but I figure if nothing else, awareness has been raised and knowledge has increased. It's been a fanboy fantasy for many years that movie adaptations of popular comics would mean more people would buy comics, but of course, it's not as simple as that. I won't go into the reasons why, though; perhaps another time.
And so we come to the movie adaptation of The Avengers, the pinnacle of a path of progression that arguably began in 1998 with the surprise hit Blade and continued with X-Men and Spider-Man back to back. (Actually, partial credit should also be given to The Matrix. Though not based on a superhero comic, it has the look and feel of one, and it was probably the reason why the X-Men wore black leather in their movie debut.) I knew that all I had to do was to pick a multiplex, any multiplex, and Avengers would probably be playing there. So I picked the Kaufman.
It was a late afternoon on opening day. I knew I had to see it opening day because I needed to see it with a big crowd, even if it meant paying the full thirteen bucks, even if it meant seeing it with unruly audience members, even if it meant waiting on ridiculously-long lines just to get in, because this picture meant something. (As it turned out, my audience was a relatively well-behaved one. There was one guy with a bright cellphone light in the beginning and a mother with a crying baby, who left about a third of the way in, but other than that it was alright. I lucked out.)
And indeed, there was something in the air that day, something that made you wanna linger long after the movie ended. The area outside the Kaufman and the immediate intersection of streets felt alive with activity, lots of people coming and going. The Applebee's across the street had a sign announcing a contest in which you could come dressed as your favorite hero or villain, and apparently the staff would be in costume too. (I did not see anyone on the streets in costume.) Outside the theater's entrance was a dude with a table selling comics. He had several boxes full of old and recent comics, with an emphasis on Avengers, of course, plus Avengers posters and pin-ups and related paraphernalia. A few people lingered idly around the table as I entered the theater.
It was about a half-hour before showtime and the line to enter the auditorium was longer than I expected. The concession stand was packed with people buying popcorn and soda. The video game section was a cacophony of electronic sound. Life-sized displays for Avengers and other movies adorned the lobby.
People were everywhere, young and old, especially young. There were plenty of little kids running around. I saw one little kid talking to an usher wearing Hulk Hands. Several other kids floated around the Amazing Spider-Man display as if before a shrine. One of them took its picture. Behind me, on line, a Latino father slumped down against the wall while engaging his son in conversation.
The auditorium's house lights were out, and while it wasn't as dark as it was at the Jackson when I saw Think Like a Man, it was almost as difficult to find a good seat. I had to move up to the rear. I settled on one seat, then changed my mind and picked a different one, off to the left side. The top of the railing to the stairway bulged slightly into my field of vision, but only slightly. All I had to do was lean forward a little and I wouldn't see it. Eventually the house lights came on (to scattered applause) and I stood up, hoping to find a better seat down towards the front, but it would mean sitting amidst a bunch of bratty kids, so I opted to stay where I was.
There were no trailers; the movie started right away.
It was good. There are things I could criticize, of course, both as a movie fan (how convenient it was that aliens invade Manhattan and they confine themselves to Park Avenue South) and as a comics fan (why was Loki not a magic-user?), but it was fun and funny as well.
One big criticism I have is with Thor. I see now why I passed on seeing his movie; making a character like him work in this context, with 21st-century people in a modern sci-fi setting, felt weird. It's not all Chris Hemsworth's fault, either. He seemed like he was making a genuine effort with an unusual role. The problem, I believe, is similar to that which I had with Sin City: you can get away with certain unusual speech patterns in a comic, but when you have to say them out loud, it's different. Still, it didn't bug me that much.
A word or two about Joss Whedon. I never bowed down at his feet like many fanboys. I saw the first couple of seasons of Buffy (hell, I saw the original Buffy movie!), but it never really stuck for whatever reason, and as a result, I never saw any of the spin-offs, or Firefly, or anything else of his. I did read some of his X-Men comics. They weren't bad, but with a comic like that, after awhile you feel like you've seen everything that can be done with it a dozen times at least. I wouldn't have gone quite so far as to say he was overrated, but I definitely did not think he was the man for the job of writing and directing an Avengers movie.
I stand corrected. Credit where credit's due: Whedon understood that it would be difficult to bring together a group of such disparate, alpha-male personalities, and having them bicker as much as they did was smart. As a comics fan, I'm used to seeing Captain America and Thor and Iron Man work together for so long, that it's odd to see them bickering, and I suppose the old cliche of "they meet, they fight, they team up" was inevitable, but I think it made for a better movie.
From a different angle: Vija was writing about Avengers on Facebook this morning. Seems she saw it with her boyfriend and his young grandson. She noted how violent it was, which is true, there's no getting around that, but from an older woman who normally doesn't seek out movies like this, the connotation is different. She's not a prude; she can certainly deal with violence in films, but I think she thought this was just mindless violence and little more. Which of course, is the point of most summer action movies! I suspect, though, that she was a good sport about it all, as she always is. At least she won't have to worry about Sam Jackson coming after her on Twitter.
--------------------------Related:Five Avengers I'd like to see in future movies'Avengers' will be a fanboy's dream come trueCaptain America
Posted by std007
Monday, April 16, 2012
 |
| Bob Marley, poet and a prophet |
Back during my days as a summer camp counselor in Massachusetts, there was this guy named Nick. He was one of the counselors, and he was a good guy; very laid-back. Nick played guitar, and his bag was world music. I remember him teaching me about some Brazilian music that I really dug. Nick played guitar, and all summer long he tried to get the kids into reggae music. There were two songs in particular he loved playing most. "Pressure Drop" by Toots and the Maytals was one; the other was "Redemption Song" by Bob Marley.
He had mixed success. Nick was popular and well-liked by both campers and staff, so it wasn't anything to do with his personality. He was a decent singer, so it wasn't that. I suppose some songs connect with kids more than others.
Every now and then I think of Nick whenever I hear reggae music, and in my neighborhood, I hear it almost as often as I do hip-hop. To be honest, reggae has always been difficult for me to get into. A lot of the time, I can barely understand what the singers are saying, partially because of the thick Jamaican accents, partly because of the cadence of their singing. "Pop" reggae stars like Shaggy and Sean Paul are different, naturally, though I imagine most reggae fans would probably turn their noses up at those guys. And then there's someone like Matisyahu, who is perhaps in a league of his own.
 |
| Bob Marley taught me how to off it |
Still, when you talk about reggae music, sooner or later you have to come to Bob Marley, because in practical terms he was the Elvis of reggae. No one in the field has the following he does, even long after his death, because over the course of his brief life he grew to become much more than a singer. Like John Lennon, he was an icon for peace.
The forthcoming documentary Marley captures his life and music beautifully, including interviews with members of his band, The Wailers, plus family, friends, and business associates, and of course, lots of news and concert footage.
The film goes into the singer's conversion to the Rastafarian religion, but it doesn't go that deep into the faith's basic tenets. We do see quite a bit of discussion on the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie, who's revered as some sort of reincarnation or direct descendant of Christ or something, like Linda Fiorentino's character in Dogma, but we don't really find out how he got that way. Rastafarianism is such an integral part of Marley's music; it would've been nice to have gone a little more into it, I thought.
And then there's the political aspects of Marley's life. We see the opposing political parties in Jamaica during Marley's time, his involvement, the attempt on his life during a concert in Jamaica, as well as the subsequent concert, years later, that the country practically begged him to do in order to restore peace between the factions.
Seeing all of this reminded me of the activism in pop music that I grew up witnessing in the 80s. Whether it was to fight drugs, or South African apartheid, or hunger in Ethiopia, I don't recall ever questioning its place, even if I didn't always understand what the cause was about. Take apartheid, for example. I vaguely remember learning a little about it in school, but I probably learned more about it from singers like Peter Gabriel than anything else. It's an aspect of 80s music that's rarely discussed. People sometimes mock 80s music, but for all its synthesized sound and big hair and heavy makeup, it was also a period of great activism, and that activism was front and center in the mainstream.
 |
| Bob Marley, walk it like he talk it |
Marley, though... imagine an entire country looking to a singer to quell civil unrest and inspire hope and freedom amongst the populace. And not just in Jamaica, either; the doc also shows him in a concert in Zimbabwe on the eve of that nation's independence. (Of course, no one knew at the time what their leader, Robert Mugabe, would turn out to be like, but hey.)Perhaps the only contemporary musician comparable to Marley in terms of combining popularity and politics might be Bono, but even he doesn't come close to the reverence many people felt, and still feel, for Marley. There was no one quite like him.
Marley the doc was screened last Thursday at a club called the Knitting Factory in Brooklyn. This was my first time there. The bar/lounge area is surrounded with paintings of musical stars, like Debbie Harry, Iggy Pop, and Johnny Cash. In one corner there was a video game console where people were playing Tetris. I played it for a bit before we were all let into what would normally be the concert hall for bands. There were folding chairs all around in front of the screen on the stage. I sat up in the front row for a change.
The audience was a diverse one, and it soon became clear to me that some people knew Marley's history better than others. A woman in the row behind me periodically responded to salient points on Marley's history with knowing "um hmms" in recognition. She talked to her friends quite a bit, but it never quite reached the point where I felt I had to shush her.
Marley will be released April 20 (Four-Twenty, of course).
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)