Sin City
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections
"I feel traumatized, I feel embarrassed, I feel sick, I feel dirty. I've just seen Sin City, and I'm sorry."
--Excerpt from a voice recording I made on the way home from this film.
Three days later, I'm no longer sorry I saw Sin City. With Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, and Quentin Tarantino being some of my favorite writers/filmmakers, there's no way I could have missed it. But I think my comments above reflect how powerfully disturbing this film really is. I've never seen anything like it. I thought I had a strong stomach. I wanted to cheer after viewing Pulp Fiction for the first time. But even though I was a big Frank Miller fan growing up (he and Alan Moore are still two of my favorite writers), nothing I had read prepared me for this.
Sure, I knew all about the Sin City comics. Dismemberment, cannibalism, torture, murder, castration, suicide--this series has it all and then some. But there's something about seeing it up on the big screen that put me over the top. Maybe I'm not as tough as I like to believe.
That said, three days later the big question in my mind is still "Why?" Why push the limits so far? If this is the new mainstream, have we reached a new high or a new low? I know a number of people, including my fellow HJ reviewer Maurice Broaddus (whom I respect greatly) have sought to find the redemptive aspects of this film, noting how all three heroes in this function as Christ figures in their own twisted way. But it it takes more than a cross-shaped scar on your forehead to make you a Christ figure. As Peter Chattaway says in his review for Christianity Today, it's difficult to tell if the actions of Marv, Hardigan, and Dwight are actually redemptive or merely a fatalistic response to the inevitability of evil, as in "Kill or be killed." For example, Hardigan's death may buy Nancy some time--that is, it may save her from the villains who are pursuing her right now--but does he really think he can save her from Sin City itself? I don't think so. It's difficult to know if he is giving in or simply giving up.
Then there's Marv. Sure, he says the reason for his killing rampage is to avenge Goldie, a prostitute who gave him the best night of his life. He also appears to live by a strict moral code of sorts: "Before you kill someone, you have to be sure they're guilty." (Not much different than the State of California or any other state that allows capital punishment, now that I think of it.) But the amount of pleasure he derives from the blood and torture soon cast aspersions on the nobility of his quest. "It's the bad old days!" He says gleefully to his parole officer just before embarking on his unholy "crusade." Marv as a Christ figure? He's more like a bomb just itching for someone to set him off. Let's be serious: Does his death (and the numerous deaths he causes) really bring about redemption for anyone, least of all himself? I think his storyline serves better as a cautionary tale about how easily the quest for justice can turn into a hunt for vengeance. If Marv is Christ, I'll take door number two.
Dwight is a bit closer to the mark for me in that he actually tries to avoid killing anyone. He also has a nobility about him in that he risks his life to save others--particularly those whom most people in society view as the dregs: prostitutes. But even he capitulates to the "kill or be killed" fatalism in the end, helping his girlfriend mow down a group of criminals lest they upset the uneasy balance that allows the prostitutes in Old Town to conduct business independently. Even he is not pro-life.
So, let's not fool ourselves: Despite a veneer of redemption, Sin City is a film that glories in every blood-soaked moment of depravity it depicts. I'm still not sure why the film exists. To urge us not to trust authority and to think for ourselves? To showcase Rodriguez considerable artistic and technical ability? To remind us of the sinfulness and depravity at the core of every human soul? I'm for all of these things. However, this film makes me wonder at what point the desire to depict evil accurately begins to create a fascination--in the filmmakers and the audience--for the very evil they are trying to warn people against. As a case in point, three days ago I was traumatized. Three days later, I'd like to see Sin City again. Hmm... I wonder what that says about me...
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections
"I feel traumatized, I feel embarrassed, I feel sick, I feel dirty. I've just seen Sin City, and I'm sorry."
--Excerpt from a voice recording I made on the way home from this film.
Three days later, I'm no longer sorry I saw Sin City. With Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, and Quentin Tarantino being some of my favorite writers/filmmakers, there's no way I could have missed it. But I think my comments above reflect how powerfully disturbing this film really is. I've never seen anything like it. I thought I had a strong stomach. I wanted to cheer after viewing Pulp Fiction for the first time. But even though I was a big Frank Miller fan growing up (he and Alan Moore are still two of my favorite writers), nothing I had read prepared me for this.Sure, I knew all about the Sin City comics. Dismemberment, cannibalism, torture, murder, castration, suicide--this series has it all and then some. But there's something about seeing it up on the big screen that put me over the top. Maybe I'm not as tough as I like to believe.
That said, three days later the big question in my mind is still "Why?" Why push the limits so far? If this is the new mainstream, have we reached a new high or a new low? I know a number of people, including my fellow HJ reviewer Maurice Broaddus (whom I respect greatly) have sought to find the redemptive aspects of this film, noting how all three heroes in this function as Christ figures in their own twisted way. But it it takes more than a cross-shaped scar on your forehead to make you a Christ figure. As Peter Chattaway says in his review for Christianity Today, it's difficult to tell if the actions of Marv, Hardigan, and Dwight are actually redemptive or merely a fatalistic response to the inevitability of evil, as in "Kill or be killed." For example, Hardigan's death may buy Nancy some time--that is, it may save her from the villains who are pursuing her right now--but does he really think he can save her from Sin City itself? I don't think so. It's difficult to know if he is giving in or simply giving up.
Then there's Marv. Sure, he says the reason for his killing rampage is to avenge Goldie, a prostitute who gave him the best night of his life. He also appears to live by a strict moral code of sorts: "Before you kill someone, you have to be sure they're guilty." (Not much different than the State of California or any other state that allows capital punishment, now that I think of it.) But the amount of pleasure he derives from the blood and torture soon cast aspersions on the nobility of his quest. "It's the bad old days!" He says gleefully to his parole officer just before embarking on his unholy "crusade." Marv as a Christ figure? He's more like a bomb just itching for someone to set him off. Let's be serious: Does his death (and the numerous deaths he causes) really bring about redemption for anyone, least of all himself? I think his storyline serves better as a cautionary tale about how easily the quest for justice can turn into a hunt for vengeance. If Marv is Christ, I'll take door number two.
Dwight is a bit closer to the mark for me in that he actually tries to avoid killing anyone. He also has a nobility about him in that he risks his life to save others--particularly those whom most people in society view as the dregs: prostitutes. But even he capitulates to the "kill or be killed" fatalism in the end, helping his girlfriend mow down a group of criminals lest they upset the uneasy balance that allows the prostitutes in Old Town to conduct business independently. Even he is not pro-life.
So, let's not fool ourselves: Despite a veneer of redemption, Sin City is a film that glories in every blood-soaked moment of depravity it depicts. I'm still not sure why the film exists. To urge us not to trust authority and to think for ourselves? To showcase Rodriguez considerable artistic and technical ability? To remind us of the sinfulness and depravity at the core of every human soul? I'm for all of these things. However, this film makes me wonder at what point the desire to depict evil accurately begins to create a fascination--in the filmmakers and the audience--for the very evil they are trying to warn people against. As a case in point, three days ago I was traumatized. Three days later, I'd like to see Sin City again. Hmm... I wonder what that says about me...
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections
37 Comments:
I have posted this on Matthew Hill's Blog already, but here it just seemed more appropriate.
Without a doubt that Sin City is a landmark film. It is also very violent as much so or more than the Passion of the Christ. The story, the casts, and the direction is a pitch fork perfect ensemble, and yet I was drained by the end. Using B/W with color hinted in areas through out the film helped to mute out the gore, but continuous violence with shady characters, unlike The Passion of the Christ where the realistic portrait of a man tortured, in a moral consciousness thought process, my mind became numbing more as the film progressed.
The line of acceptance have been crossed, and the young eyes will not flinched in real life atrocity– instead, they will encourage it.
What started out as a good intention with the Passion of the Christ, from here on, secularist have an excuse to be more sadistic.
The filming industry, either independent or major studios are stuffing the envelope with more vile expression than palatable canvas. In term, Sin City is only the beginning of what's to come. Sin City is a great artistic rendered film, but the frame doesn't quite fit it.
Listen sunshine. You who wrote the review of this movie, not, it seems to me at a brief scan, daring to come out on either side of the fence as to whether you really liked it or not....
But it obviously WAS a "must see" movie for you... Why? Because your surname is Miller? What are you, some relation? Looks like it to me!!
Because, really, only someone who is either related to the guy, or an utter moron, could "grow up reading" all Frank Miller's manky comic books, of all types, including his ATROCIOUS BUTCHERING and diversion away from its original aims of "Batman", and as for "Sin City"... And the same goes for his supposedly (Gawd Almighty!) "lefty" mate Alan Moore, WHO I AM EXTREMELY ASHAMED IS BRITISH!!!!!!
If you - and some men DO - grew up to the accompaniment of comic books like THOSE - and LIKED 'EM - then this just goes to show that you are morons; and a disgrace to your sex; and all men like you and they deserve to die out. Which I sincerely hope they will!!
Now, I came to your review, which it is true, was one out of 3 possibles I picked out at a whim, from the associated (right-wing) site of HollywoodJesus.com, to which I was referred to by another site, this time, one of my left-wing favourites. I am a socialist.
However, I was sufficiently INCENSED by what I read about this new Hollywood "offering" on this other site, to look up a "Christian" site of the type which I would normally never look up. Very slick site, by the way, guys: David Bruce - but I abhor the content! I am SICK of the way you Americans are continually mixing religion and right-wing politics; and I know it will prove to be the downfall of your society. As will your now very corrupt entertainments industry.
I shall NOT be going to the movies to pay to watch "Sin City"; just like the "Kill Bills", it looks like drivel of the first water - without even the slightly "campy" approach that made the first Kill Bill mildly bearable, along with the visually interesting stick insect Uma Thurman, of course!!
Anyway, I don't have to - not now that the Internet has provided me with all the clips and sites like this have told me ALL I need to know about it....
I shall NEVER pay to watch such moronity - be there such a word - I have GLANCED at the comic books; and they were quite enough, as is most of the entirety of Frank Miller's opus - it's enough to make a dog sick. AS FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE TO SUBVERT TRADITIONAL COMICS AND THEIR CHARACTERS AWAY FROM 1940S ROOSEVELTIAN IDEALS - MAY THAT MAN BURN IN HELL FOR ALL OF ETERNITY AND BEYOND!!!
I can't state it strongly enough. Only I don't believe in Hell, that's the problem. Never mind. A few incarnations as a worm at the bottom of a sewage farm should just about do it for Miller.
By the way, David Bruce - you should be ashamed to promote such a movie as this on a "Christian" site - for you may be sure that he who preached the meek would inherit the earth would not have approved.
And as for when we REAL lefties get going.... Frank Miller and his cultural and "artistic" friends shall feel our wrath coming down on his head like a ton of bricks with a wagonload of Marx on top!!!!
His and his CIA friends' right-wing trash shall not rule our screens for too much longer. In fact, in Christian terms, you might even term his moment of glory and that of his disgusting quasi-fascist ideas the brief reign of the anti-Christ. Soon to be cast down into the abyss!!!
I would refer all you mugs who come to this site to a FAR more incisive article about the movie "Sin City", which however references this site, and it is to be found here: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/sinc-a13.shtml
I'm nothing formally to do with this site, wsws.org, and certainly don't write any of the stuff on it, as yet, but I must say I certainly can concur with David Walsh's statement at the end of his article: "In the future, looking back at the cultural landscape of our time, people will simply shake their heads."
Liz the Brit,
I would attempt to respond to your comment note-for-note, but I know I could never attain the same heights of vitrolic hyperbole. Kudos. I also live by the adage that anyone who calls me a moron upon first meeting me probably isn't interested in serious dialogue anyway. But I've been wrong before...
I will admit, however, that my review of "Sin City" is mildly schizophrenic. On the one hand, I like and respect the filmmakers/writers behind this film. On the other hand, I have to confess that I see "Sin City," as nothing more than hyper-stylized pornography. So I attempted to write a review that expressed my true feelings without alienating the people behind the film or those who enjoyed it. If that's comprimise, then mark me a sell-out. But I prefer to call it diplomacy.
Kevin
Liz the Brit,
I would attempt to respond to your comment note-for-note, but I know I could never attain the same heights of vitrolic hyperbole. Kudos. I also live by the adage that anyone who calls me a moron upon first meeting me probably isn't interested in serious dialogue anyway. But I've been wrong before...
I will admit, however, that my review of "Sin City" is mildly schizophrenic. On the one hand, I like and respect the filmmakers/writers behind this film. On the other hand, I have to confess that I see "Sin City," as nothing more than hyper-stylized pornography. So I attempted to write a review that expressed my true feelings without alienating the people behind the film or those who enjoyed it. If that's comprimise, then mark me a sell-out. But I prefer to call it diplomacy.
Kevin
i think kevin's "schizophrenic" response to this movie only illustrates the dilemma that christians face when trying to be culturally relevant. he's trying to appreciate the artistic value of the movie while at the same time his conscience seems to be seared by the content.
i applaud his struggle.
in the end, i think it boils down to one simple sentiment: respect is not an endorsement. but respect is a bridge to further conversation. and kevin's all about conversation.
Oh, Kevin, Kevin, if you only KNEW... How much I had been bottling it up about Frank Miller for years before (because the main body of his opus, namely the Batmans, came out at a time when the Internet, certainly, in Britain, was a total nonstarter; and the World Wide Web was not with us until 1993 or 4, is that not so... Anyway, the problem was, I had NOWHERE to say what I wanted to say, back in those days... well, one comics trade magazine once grudgingly published a letter - but needless to say, THAT kind of publication is always going to be "in favour" of the industry, whatever asinine material it publishes! Anyway, I was disenfranchised - (well I still AM, because the comic book industry refuses to publish and encourage most of the stuff which I think it should publish - and it doesn't encourage women writers, or artists - and the "adult" side of the medium SO SADLY now unendingly fixates itself largely on - as I said to one of my other correspondents - a) Violent rubbish b) Porn.... so the theme of your article is quite apposite to my grievances!!)
And it was only this century, really, that Internet became cheap enough to be regularly accessible for me... and NOW, it's a problem - where to start? In my criticism of all the dreck that plagues modern popular culture in particular.
There are a few brighter spots in a few comics, mainly, I believe (because of course in rural England I have trouble in GETTING all but graphic novels!!) in some Marvel titles, the X-Men and so on, some stories which I am aware were written by that utter GENIUS of popular culture, and the Archangel Michael (or maybe Gabriel!) in my eyes to Frank Miller's fascist Satan - namely Joss Whedon.
But these few are not enough to redeem what has become a deeply corrupt, monochromatic and disappointing medium.
"Comics grown up"?? The **** they have. They've just gravitated towards pretentious psychopaths. Which is why, Kevin, I am all but honour bound, to call those who like them, "morons" and similar unflattering epithets!! Anyway, I swore many years ago a solemn oath against Frank Miller in particular and all who stand by him... so it's a matter of principle, not anything personal!! Sorry and all that, but there you are! (It was really all I could do to curb myself from swearing on a Christian site - and I didn't know if you had some of that software that automatically blanks it, or whether I might be deleted!)
Yes, you WERE wrong that I wasn't - necessarily - interested in serious dialogue! I will talk to anybody, even those whose ideas or tastes I detest, and those I call names as well! This sort of thing is just normal cut and thrust - and I went to a rough school as well, as a teenager - what can I say?? I believe in being honest.
I'm glad you feel you could never attain the same "heights of vitriolic hyperbole"! You know, Kevin, I don't think you could either. You don't have the passion. Anyway, vitriol was always one of my greatest talents, and is one I am justly proud of! So don't expect to be able to make me feel ashamed on that count - I know what a fighting asset it is!! (By the way - it seems amazing to me, that some blokes who revel in all these hyper-violent comic books - when it comes to it, they can't fight worth toffee, and they certainly shy back from a few angry words! Words! It's quite funny really!)
Yes, Kevin, I DO mark your "compromise" as a "sell-out"! My question would be - why would you want to be "diplomatic", (Rather than just admitting to a sneaking admiration for them) especially seeing as this is a Christian site, towards those who make the most UNChristian and INHUMANE comic books and films, namely, Miller, Rodriguez, and yes, even our Mr Tarantino. WHY CURRY FAVOUR TOWARDS THEM??? I mean, I could understand it, from your point of view, IF it were Mel Gibson, or I dunno, Billy Graham maybe or someone....
Maybe it really is the case, what that Walsh guy says in his article - you HAVE to read it, Kevin - it will be an eye-opener for you! Well, maybe what he implies is true - that many Christians, especially modern American ones, the fundies who run the White House, are in love with everything that is a) totally irrational and b) anti-humanity and anti the future of the world... so, basically, a suicide wish! Read the article on "Sin City" and see what you think!!
And, Maurice Broaddus, as for you.... One insult per blog is enough: I shall keep myself to that!
Well, as for "respect", and "trying to appreciate the artistic value of the movie" - suppose that it HAS none, other than slick production values, which are just capitalistic gloss! And HOW can you totally divorce a movie's artistic impact from that of its content and its message? Can't be done, from any holistic point of view.
OK - wait a minute - before I sign out (I haven't got a web page yet, not to do with these sorts of issues, but when I DO, you can be sure I'll be back to post the address!) I think I'll have a quick stab at explaining what I mean from a political point of view. Now, I understand American politics quite well, as I have been studying it over the Internet as long as I have been on-line! So you may rest assured that I know whereof I speak.
Now, I don't know what politics either of you are, but supposing you were Democrats. Kevin just might be! And supposing you're a committed Democrat, in America, and you're valiantly trying to defend progressive values from the liberal standpoint. Well, nowadays you're up against the most RABID conservative, quasi-fascist opponents, a whole rag-bag of them: the most "Taliban"-like elements of the Christian churches; more educated, yet no less zealot, neo-cons, who don't want there to be any welfare state, and in addition to that, most of the "elite" from Southern states, whose ancestors enthusiastically kept slaves, and many of whom still have racist allegiances through the CCC, the respectable wing of the KKK... Look it all up if you don't believe me!! wsws.org and salon.com and all the liberal blogs are good places to start!
So, my point is, that basically, the "well-meaning" Democrat has all THAT lot to contend with at elections and other times! And WHAT does he (Kerry) do? He caves!! He gives into them. Because he wants to be "polite"; he wants to show "respect" and have "conversations" and show "unity" - with the oppressors!! (It's really because he's afraid, isn't it?) So what happens? The fascists take over! It's Nazi Germany all over again; and they have no shortage of Goebbelses to help them.
Right, I'm off for now!!
Liz, I think I love you!
Kidding aside: You make a good point here, esp. in your last paragraph. I think the main challenge for someone in my position is to figure out when to affirm and when to challenge what is going on in the culture at large, and how to do so in a way that is intellectually and morally honest and yet does not alienate those I am seeking to reach. Otherwise we end up with something like the pro-choice/pro-life "debate" with each side demonizing the other and virtually no constructive dialogue about the issues taking place.
I see far too many Christians demonizing the culture at large and those responsible for creating it, merely because it does not agree with what they hold to be true. Sure, I realize Tarantino, Rodriguez, and Miller are responsible for creating a lot of crap. But I also see all three guys as extremely talented people. I believe their talent is God-given, and I want to encourage them to use their talent to its greatest potential, which, in my opinion, means creating works of art that address the deepest truths about the human condition, not just raping those same truths for a quick fix of sex and violence. But I don't think they'll listen to what I have to say if all I ever do is rag on them about how they failed to meet a moral standard they never set out to fulfill.
For many Christians, the only way to evaluate a film or any other cultural product is according to how much it agrees or disagrees with their faith. I find this repugnant and stupid. Thus, I have tried to take the opposite approach, seeking to appreciate films and filmmakers on their own terms and then trying to find points of dialogue and debate. That doesn’t mean I’m afraid to call a spade a spade. Check out my review of Team America, for instance, where I basically call Trey Parker and Matt Stone a pair of assholes—people who crap all over everyone else just for fun and spite. But, seeing as my approach to film criticism is still a work in progress, I am willing to consider that, in my reaction against conservative Evangelicals, perhaps I have gone too far in the opposite direction, conceding too much ground to those who oppose my beliefs. However, I still fail to see why I should get angry with someone for failing to hold to the same moral standards as I do. That’s an issue between them and God.
Finally, as for Miller’s take on Batman, I must say that for me, Miller’s approach to the Dark Knight is the only one that truly captures the spirit of this dark, conflicted character. I may not be as passionate as you, but I am definitely passionate about this point.
Er, yes, thanks, Kev!
I looked for your review of Team America, and couldn't find it! Where is it?
Have you read the David Walsh article on wsws.org that I referred you to, yet? What did you think of it?
Before I go any further, I'd like to say that yesterday and the day before, I explored this site a bit, and was quite impressed by some of what I found here... I take it back: it's not a completely "right-wing" site; though I think that the views of SOME of the people on here seem to display a willingness to "give in" to the demands of the Right; not so much the Christian Right, even, perhaps (that'd be too obvious for some of the "arty" types on here, now wouldn't it?) but the nihilistic Right. Eg. Frank Miller.
But anyway, I found some really good stuff on here about C S Lewis' Narnia books; kudos to the person(s) that wrote those! And also I think that it should be made more obvious on the homepage that this site tackles things like literature as well. It's really quite a serious site! I shall stick around here for a while!
Mmm.. I'm really not quite sure what you avowedly "non-Evangelical" Christians are trying to do/achieve.... As displayed in your remarks about "Sin City".
If you found that this this movie left you - as you first remark - "traumatised, embarrassed, sick and dirty" - why do you bend over backwards, afterwards, to defend it?? Would this be an attack of overdone Good-Samaritanism on your part?
(I mean, if someone causes me unpleasant feelings, I generally turn round and clobber them - or yell at them!)
But I never compared myself to Jesus and tried to "be like him". (He's a hero of mine, as I shall endeavour to explain elsewhere on this site - but I never tried to emulate him!!)
Anyway, even HE wasn't a complete wish-wash liberal; else he would have said "Nice moneylenders, go on exploiting people" to those in the temple - instead of losing his temper with them and driving them out!!
I can agree with traditional conservatives on at LEAST one point:
1) There is no such thing as value-neutral fiction!!
And I shall add other numerals as and when I come to them, to maybe make up a list!!
(Marxists can be terribly puritan! Now I'm not precisely a Marxist; not of the purest water! But I can see what THEY'RE getting at; and where they're trying to go... Whereas you liberal types... You just slide and slop about all over the place, don't you??)
But actually, I have ANOTHER feeling as to WHY you really try to defend people like Miller; no matter whether you feel he holds to the same moral standards as you do, or that you feel you shouldn't be angry for him for not doing so.... HOW far would you, by the way, take this "value-free" judgement, by the way, Kevin, I would be interested to know? WOULD you take it as far as saying, like, for example, serial killers (or abortionists, or terrorists, or WHATEVER! Whatever "unpopular" group) - that they shouldn't be condemned, certainly not by you, because "it's an issue between them and God"??
IF most Americans DID think THAT way - well, your nation certainly wouldn't have a death penalty, I can tell you that for free!!!!
But you do!! And most so-called "Christians" would appear to support it! So how hypocritical is that. Anyway.
The same goes for the issues relating to the non-criminal, NON-violent, but equally "unpopular" groups, such as gays. Obviously most politically active (and Christian) Americans DIDN'T think that gay marriage was "an issue between them and God".
And doubtless the ones that did, such as perhaps, yourself, refused to go to their aid, ie upbraid the conservatives for their unChristian uncharitableness - because, that, likewise, that attitude on THEIR parts, was "an issue between them and God".
You see where your sort of reasoning gets people? Nowhere!!!
(Anyway, I know most of you DON'T think that way - especially the majority of American Christians, as I've said - so all this is posing and rot!)
By the way, as I've said: I think I can see the underlying reasons WHY you feel you have to defend someone such as the revolting Miller; it is because some part of you, however suppressed by your more civilized urges, LIKES that sort of thing - now doesn't it, m'dear?
And I quote from Miller's magnum opus:
Marv thinks to himself: “When I find out who did it, it won’t be quick or quiet like it was with you. No, it’ll be loud and nasty, my kind of kill. I’ll stare the bastard in the face and laugh as he screams to God and I’ll laugh harder when he whimpers like a baby.�
Charming!! (And such a "clever" name for the "main protagonist", as well, the "leading man" - "Marv"!!! (Why not "Hank" or "Butch"?? Har-dee-har-har!)
Yup. There must be something terribly repressed about all these New-York-Times reading "liberals", Christian ones included. They must be SO longing for ANY form of sensation - that they will want to imbibe it from the trashiest sources!!
I refer again to the conclusions of David Walsh's essay, particularly those remarks he wrote in response to Matthew Hill's review of "Sin City".
".....That we all need a knight in shining armor. That we all need God. As such, Sin City is a great movie to rip apart, bare hands bloodied, and look at from the inside-out—a metaphor that I hope would make Rodriguez and Miller proud.� [writes Hill.]
God is the spiritual name for this “knight on shining armor,� but there are other, more earthly names for the figure who will make the trains run on time. There is truly a whiff of authoritarianism and fascism about such films. [comments Walsh.]
What else is one to make of a work that includes repeated and loving descriptions of torture?"
Quite. Indeed - and absolutely!!!
I'll return to your comments on Miller's take on Batman, some time soon when I have a little time on hand; I have to switch off the computer and go out now!! Don't worry, now that I've calmed down, I'll have some quite interesting things to say.
By the way: I think that we need a Batman page - seeing as you say that you feel so passionately about it, Kevin, you can be first contributor! I've seen another page on this site dealing with comic books, it mentioned two reference works that I have put on my to-read list... but as yet no Batman page! (A site that's serious about both myth and popular culture shouldn't be without one!!!)
I said this in Maurice's blog. I'll say it here:
If Jesus were here, He would have seen this movie with the rest of the crowd (probably on opening night). Then He would have broke down the whole darn thing in a way to tie together what was seen in the film with the life that He has to offer the world. Then the whole darn theatre probably would have given their lives to Him. Anyone who TRULY knows Him knows I'm telling the truth!
But Jesus is not here (physically). Instead, He has sent us the Holy Spirit to lead us to live as He would live, to walk as He would walk, to minister as He would minister. And that's what Maurice, Kevin, Ed and Matthew have done with their reviews. They have done the WWJD concept to a different level much deeper than wearing a knitted bracelet on their wrists. They, collectively, have broken this film down piece by piece to tie together what we see in this movie (as well as other movies) with the life that Jesus offers us.
That is what we do at Hollywood Jesus...and that's why we've reviewed this film. If you're looking for sin-hunting reviews, go elsewhere. We will continue to review this and other films like this to declare the rightful glory of Christ in this world. You don't have to agree with us or support us...you don't even have to understand. Jesus does. It's WWJ(would have)D!!
A RESPONSE TO "LIZ THE BRIT":
Er, yes, thanks, Kev!
SORRY 'BOUT THAT, LIZ. I JUST LOVE YOUR ENERGY.
I looked for your review of Team America, and couldn't find it! Where is it? CHECK OUT THE LIST OF REVIEWS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF MY BLOG.
Have you read the David Walsh article on wsws.org that I referred you to, yet? What did you think of it? I THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT. HE MADE SOME EXCELLENT POINTS. AS A WHOLE, BOTH YOU AND HE HAVE BEEN A GOOD GOAD IN THE RIBS TO MAKE ME THINK HARDER ABOUT WHAT I'M DOING HERE AND WHY. IT'S MAKING ME BETTER, I HOPE.
Before I go any further, I'd like to say that yesterday and the day before, I explored this site a bit, and was quite impressed by some of what I found here... I take it back: it's not a completely "right-wing" site; though I think that the views of SOME of the people on here seem to display a willingness to "give in" to the demands of the Right; not so much the Christian Right, even, perhaps (that'd be too obvious for some of the "arty" types on here, now wouldn't it?) but the nihilistic Right. Eg. Frank Miller. NIHILISTIC RIGHT. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT BEFORE.
But anyway, I found some really good stuff on here about C S Lewis' Narnia books; kudos to the person(s) that wrote those! I'LL TELL THEM. And also I think that it should be made more obvious on the homepage that this site tackles things like literature as well. It's really quite a serious site! I shall stick around here for a while! GREAT!
Mmm.. I'm really not quite sure what you avowedly "non-Evangelical" Christians are trying to do/achieve.... As displayed in your remarks about "Sin City".
If you found that this this movie left you - as you first remark - "traumatised, embarrassed, sick and dirty" - why do you bend over backwards, afterwards, to defend it?? Would this be an attack of overdone Good-Samaritanism on your part? UM, LIZ, HOLD BACK THE VERBIAGE FOR A MOMENT: I HAD TO RE-READ MY REVIEW AFTER READING YOUR COMMENTS HERE JUST TO CONFIRM THAT I'M NOT GOING CRAZY. AT WHAT POINT DO I BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO DEFEND THIS FILM? I THOUGHT MY REVIEW DID A FAIRLY THOROUGH JOB OF STATING THAT I SAW VIRTUALLY NOTHING REDEMPTIVE ABOUT THIS FILM WHATSOEVER, THAT IT WAS MERELY HIGHLY STYLIZED TRASH. I WASN'T THAT BLUNT, BUT THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY. PERHAPS I NEED A STRONGER DOZE OF LIZ-WIT. FOR THE RECORD: THE REASON WHY I WAS NO LONGER SORRY THAT I HAD SEEN THE FILM IS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I COULD HAVE LIVED WITHOUT SEEING IT. MY CURIOSITY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE BETTER OF ME. IT WAS JUST TOO SIGNIFICANT A CULTURAL LANDMARK TO MISS, EVEN IF IT WAS MORE LIKE A CAR CRASH THAN A MONUMENT TO THE GREATNESS OF HUMANKIND. I HAD TO RUBBERNECK IT.
(I mean, if someone causes me unpleasant feelings, I generally turn round and clobber them - or yell at them!) WHAT ABOUT TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK? :)
But I never compared myself to Jesus and tried to "be like him". (He's a hero of mine, as I shall endeavour to explain elsewhere on this site - but I never tried to emulate him!!) HOW CAN HE BE YOUR HERO IF YOU DON'T TRY TO EMULATE HIM? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Anyway, even HE wasn't a complete wish-wash liberal; else he would have said "Nice moneylenders, go on exploiting people" to those in the temple - instead of losing his temper with them and driving them out!! WISH-WASH LIBERAL! WE'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT TALK AROUND HERE. ONCE AGAIN, CHECK OUT MY TEAM AMERICA REVIEW. I THINK YOU HAVE ME CONFUSED WITH SOMEONE ELSE.
I can agree with traditional conservatives on at LEAST one point:
1) There is no such thing as value-neutral fiction!! TRUE, TRUE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS VALUE-NEUTRAL NON-FICTION EITHER.
And I shall add other numerals as and when I come to them, to maybe make up a list!!
(Marxists can be terribly puritan! Now I'm not precisely a Marxist; not of the purest water! But I can see what THEY'RE getting at; and where they're trying to go... Whereas you liberal types... You just slide and slop about all over the place, don't you??) WAIT A SECOND, ARE WE LEFT OR RIGHT WING? I'M CONFUSED... OR MAYBE I JUST THINK I'M CONFUSED...
But actually, I have ANOTHER feeling as to WHY you really try to defend people like Miller; no matter whether you feel he holds to the same moral standards as you do, or that you feel you shouldn't be angry for him for not doing so.... HOW far would you, by the way, take this "value-free" judgement, by the way, Kevin, I would be interested to know? WOULD you take it as far as saying, like, for example, serial killers (or abortionists, or terrorists, or WHATEVER! Whatever "unpopular" group) - that they shouldn't be condemned, certainly not by you, because "it's an issue between them and God"?? I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT CONDEMN THEM TO DEATH. I THINK THE ISSUE YOU RAISE IS A GOOD ONE THOUGH. MY KNEE-JERK RESPONSE IS TO SAY THE LINE IS DRAWN WHEN WHAT THEY DO BEGINS TO HARM OTHERS. BUT THEN WHEN I THINK HOW "SIN CITY" AFFECTED ME, I REALIZE THAT HARM WAS DONE IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER. ALSO, I THINK OF MY BROTHER, WHO IS SOMEWHAT OF A LOST SOUL, WHO HAS ALREADY SEEN THIS MOVIE TWICE AND CAN'T WAIT TO SEE IT AGAIN. THAT MAKES ME SAD. WHEN I CONFESSED TO WANTING TO SEE IT AGAIN, I WAS ALLUDING TO THE FACT THAT I AM NOT IMMUNE TO THE BLOODLUST CLEARLY EXHIBITED BY THE PRODUCERS OF THIS FILM. I WAS NOT CELEBRATING THAT FACT, MERELY NOTING THE SAD REALITY OF IT. SO, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I'M NOT SURE. THE OLDER I GET, THE MORE I REALIZE THAT LINES DRAWN IN THE SAND ARE QUICKLY ERASED BY THE WINDS OF TIME AND CHANGE. FOR ME, IT'S A MATTER OF STICKING CLOSE TO GOD AND LISTENING TO HIS TAKE ON THINGS. A GOOD REMINDER FOR ME TO DO THAT MORE OFTEN.
IF most Americans DID think THAT way - well, your nation certainly wouldn't have a death penalty, I can tell you that for free!!!! I'M CANADIAN, ACTUALLY, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY, AND I, FOR ONE, AM "DEAD" AGAINST IT. I'M AGAINST THE TAKING OF ANY HUMAN LIFE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, PERIOD. FOR SOME MORE INFO ON THAT SORT OF THING, CHECK OUT A WEB SITE THAT I OPERATE: WWW.CLARION-JOURNAL.CA.
But you do!! And most so-called "Christians" would appear to support it! So how hypocritical is that. Anyway. YES, IT IS HYPOCRITICAL WHEN CHRISTIANS SUPPORT DEATH. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT EITHER. NOT ONLY DO MANY CHRISTIANS SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY, THEY ALSO SUPPORT WAR AND ALL SORTS OF OTHER ATROCITIES. A FAR CRY FROM THE WORDS OF OUR LEADER, WHO SAID, "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, AND DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HURT YOU."
The same goes for the issues relating to the non-criminal, NON-violent, but equally "unpopular" groups, such as gays. Obviously most politically active (and Christian) Americans DIDN'T think that gay marriage was "an issue between them and God". ONCE AGAIN, I AGREE. UNFORTUNATELY, THE WORDS AND ACTIONS OF MANY CHRISTIANS REGARDING THIS ISSUE ARE AN EXAMPLE OF HATE, NOT LOVE.
And doubtless the ones that did, such as perhaps, yourself, refused to go to their aid, ie upbraid the conservatives for their unChristian uncharitableness - because, that, likewise, that attitude on THEIR parts, was "an issue between them and God". HEY, DON'T ASSUME THINGS. MY PERSONAL OPINION IS, FAITHFULNESS IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF GOD. THEREFORE, IF HOMOSEXUALS WANT TO PRACTICE FAITHFULNESS IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS, WHO AM I TO STOP THEM? SHOULDN'T I SUPPORT THEIR DESIRES INSTEAD? YES, I SHOULD, AND I DO.
You see where your sort of reasoning gets people? Nowhere!!! SEE MY RESPONSE ABOVE.
(Anyway, I know most of you DON'T think that way - especially the majority of American Christians, as I've said - so all this is posing and rot!) ROT AWAY! IT'S STILL FUN TO HASH OUT.
By the way, as I've said: I think I can see the underlying reasons WHY you feel you have to defend someone such as the revolting Miller; it is because some part of you, however suppressed by your more civilized urges, LIKES that sort of thing - now doesn't it, m'dear? YES, SOME PART OF ME DOES, AS I ALLUDED TO AT THE END OF MY REVIEW. THAT'S NOT TO SAY I LIKE THAT PART OF ME, BUT IT IS THERE. THAT SAID, EVERY CONSCIOUS PART OF ME WAS REVOLTED BY CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THIS FILM--THE MUTILATION AND TORTURE, IN PARTICULAR.
And I quote from Miller's magnum opus:
Marv thinks to himself: “When I find out who did it, it won’t be quick or quiet like it was with you. No, it’ll be loud and nasty, my kind of kill. I’ll stare the bastard in the face and laugh as he screams to God and I’ll laugh harder when he whimpers like a baby.�
Charming!! (And such a "clever" name for the "main protagonist", as well, the "leading man" - "Marv"!!! (Why not "Hank" or "Butch"?? Har-dee-har-har!)
Yup. There must be something terribly repressed about all these New-York-Times reading "liberals", Christian ones included. They must be SO longing for ANY form of sensation - that they will want to imbibe it from the trashiest sources!!
I refer again to the conclusions of David Walsh's essay, particularly those remarks he wrote in response to Matthew Hill's review of "Sin City".
".....That we all need a knight in shining armor. That we all need God. As such, Sin City is a great movie to rip apart, bare hands bloodied, and look at from the inside-out—a metaphor that I hope would make Rodriguez and Miller proud.� [writes Hill.]
God is the spiritual name for this “knight on shining armor,� but there are other, more earthly names for the figure who will make the trains run on time. There is truly a whiff of authoritarianism and fascism about such films. [comments Walsh.]
What else is one to make of a work that includes repeated and loving descriptions of torture?"
Quite. Indeed - and absolutely!!!
I'll return to your comments on Miller's take on Batman, some time soon when I have a little time on hand; I have to switch off the computer and go out now!! Don't worry, now that I've calmed down, I'll have some quite interesting things to say. I HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. YES, PLEASE STICK AROUND! YOU'RE THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO HOLLYWOOD JESUS IN A LONG TIME.
By the way: I think that we need a Batman page - seeing as you say that you feel so passionately about it, Kevin, you can be first contributor! GREAT IDEA. WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN WORKING AT CREATING A COMIC BOOK/GRAPHIC NOVEL SECTION FOR THE SITE. MAURICE AND I IN PARTICULAR HAVE AN INTEREST IN THESE SORTS OF THINGS, BOTH OF US BEING CLOSET COMIC BOOK NERDS AND ALL. I've seen another page on this site dealing with comic books, it mentioned two reference works that I have put on my to-read list... but as yet no Batman page! (A site that's serious about both myth and popular culture shouldn't be without one!!!) YOU ARE SO RIGHT.
GREAT IDEA. WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN WORKING AT CREATING A COMIC BOOK/GRAPHIC NOVEL SECTION FOR THE SITE. MAURICE AND I IN PARTICULAR HAVE AN INTEREST IN THESE SORTS OF THINGS, BOTH OF US BEING CLOSET COMIC BOOK NERDS AND ALL.
Yes! This would be great. There's so much out there to discuss, read, mull over, and enjoy.
And attack!!
Back in a bit, Kevin - I see I have some clarification to do! "Best thing to happen to this site in a long time" - what, li'l ol me??
I shall shortly be providing an e-mail address for further private discussion - if we are serious about this comic book page!! (I'll even reveal my real identity!)
Glad some people liked the idea of a page on comic books/graphic novels/Batman for this site.
Hello! Back again! I tried to leave a comment about your review of "Team America", but it didn't come out - so never mind! Try again later. (You didn't say what month it was to be found under!)
[Now. I don't want to irritate the owner of this site by leaving too long comments, or by repeating posts too much; but I think I will have to "repeat some of your repeats" in order to respond clearly to some of your posts!
By the way, Mr Bruce/site owner: I think this is a very clever way to put a site together; to have some main pages, and then tie it all together and allow people to leave comments at the end of each page using the "Blogger" software! I didn't know it was possible to put a site together in that way; but obviously it is, and someone has thought the format out quite well.
Right now:- Pity no colour text on this blog; new remarks in square brackets, then!
Er, yes, thanks, Kev!
SORRY 'BOUT THAT, LIZ. I JUST LOVE YOUR ENERGY.
[S'OK, Kevin! I like the odd nice comment sometimes!]
I looked for your review of Team America, and couldn't find it! Where is it? CHECK OUT THE LIST OF REVIEWS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF MY BLOG. [Did - and it took me ages to find it!]
Have you read the David Walsh article on wsws.org that I referred you to, yet? What did you think of it? I THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT. HE MADE SOME EXCELLENT POINTS. AS A WHOLE, BOTH YOU AND HE HAVE BEEN A GOOD GOAD IN THE RIBS TO MAKE ME THINK HARDER ABOUT WHAT I'M DOING HERE AND WHY. IT'S MAKING ME BETTER, I HOPE.
Before I go any further, I'd like to say that yesterday and the day before, I explored this site a bit, and was quite impressed by some of what I found here... I take it back: it's not a completely "right-wing" site; though I think that the views of SOME of the people on here seem to display a willingness to "give in" to the demands of the Right; not so much the Christian Right, even, perhaps (that'd be too obvious for some of the "arty" types on here, now wouldn't it?) but the nihilistic Right. Eg. Frank Miller. NIHILISTIC RIGHT. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT BEFORE.
[Oh - but THAT's exactly what so many of the Right are! Many of them ARE, indeed, nihilists - Miller included and at the top of the list, in my estimation. Others are right-wing anarchists - NOT to be confused with the left-wing sort!! Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski are/were prime examples of this latter type.
Anyway, there's something deep inside the psyches of the far Right, of all descriptions, including far right conservatives, that tends towards nihilism. And death. I mean, think about it: they're repressive, they take no joy in sex (again, like Miller and his characters!!), they're a bunch of drug addicts (like Dubya), they believe in the evil of human nature, not in the "perfectibility of mankind", as my fave socialist sites put it... Think of Heinrich Himmler and his Waffen SS and their funereal black uniforms with deaths-head insignia. THAT epitomises the TRUE outlook of the Right. Death and oblivion. (Very yin!!! But in a nasty macho way.)]
But anyway, I found some really good stuff on here about C S Lewis' Narnia books; kudos to the person(s) that wrote those! I'LL TELL THEM. And also I think that it should be made more obvious on the homepage that this site tackles things like literature as well. It's really quite a serious site! I shall stick around here for a while! GREAT!
[Glad you think so!]
Mmm.. I'm really not quite sure what you avowedly "non-Evangelical" Christians are trying to do/achieve.... As displayed in your remarks about "Sin City".
If you found that this this movie left you - as you first remark - "traumatised, embarrassed, sick and dirty" - why do you bend over backwards, afterwards, to defend it?? Would this be an attack of overdone Good-Samaritanism on your part? UM, LIZ, HOLD BACK THE VERBIAGE FOR A MOMENT: I HAD TO RE-READ MY REVIEW AFTER READING YOUR COMMENTS HERE JUST TO CONFIRM THAT I'M NOT GOING CRAZY. AT WHAT POINT DO I BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO DEFEND THIS FILM?
[Uh, yeah. What I REALLY should have said is that all of the reviews of it on this site TENDED towards defending "Sin City" at all costs - especially Matthew Hill's and Maurice Broaddus' reviews. Yours WAS more of the dissenting note! But then you had to go and spoil it a bit towards the end!]
I THOUGHT MY REVIEW DID A FAIRLY THOROUGH JOB OF STATING THAT I SAW VIRTUALLY NOTHING REDEMPTIVE ABOUT THIS FILM WHATSOEVER, THAT IT WAS MERELY HIGHLY STYLIZED TRASH. I WASN'T THAT BLUNT, BUT THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY. PERHAPS I NEED A STRONGER DOZE OF LIZ-WIT. FOR THE RECORD: THE REASON WHY I WAS NO LONGER SORRY THAT I HAD SEEN THE FILM IS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I COULD HAVE LIVED WITHOUT SEEING IT. MY CURIOSITY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE BETTER OF ME. IT WAS JUST TOO SIGNIFICANT A CULTURAL LANDMARK TO MISS, EVEN IF IT WAS MORE LIKE A CAR CRASH THAN A MONUMENT TO THE GREATNESS OF HUMANKIND. I HAD TO RUBBERNECK IT.
[Good way of putting it. But I'm going to wait till it comes out on DVD/video rental!]
(I mean, if someone causes me unpleasant feelings, I generally turn round and clobber them - or yell at them!) WHAT ABOUT TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK? :)
[Don't have to go for that myself! I am not (no longer) a Christian! My membership has definitely lapsed!!! I AM FREE!!]
But I never compared myself to Jesus and tried to "be like him". (He's a hero of mine, as I shall endeavour to explain elsewhere on this site - but I never tried to emulate him!!) HOW CAN HE BE YOUR HERO IF YOU DON'T TRY TO EMULATE HIM? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
[OK.... I shall!! Though to do that properly, I'd need another page - a whole new site!!
Briefly to start with: There may be people - they may be, for example, sports stars, or Mother Theresa types, or even one's teachers as a child, who one admires the pants off, but would never try to emulate!! In the case of the sports stars (in my case!) utter non-ability; in the case of admiring tireless charity workers, the admission that one is not cut out for that sort of thing oneself, and in the teachers - well, they're just God, aren't they? To a nine-year-old!!
Anyway, the sensible hero-worshipper, even the child, often instinctively knows that BEING in the "heroic" role, particularly if that is an "authority" role is NOT necessarily the fun thing, at ALL: too much like hard work, for one thing! Too much responsibility!!
You are obviously not quite privy to these little secrets! So I'm going to tell you another! You should know that I was always very fond of the Batman villains and strongly identified with them - in fact, THAT must surely, if it is given chance for fruition, be the crux of the contribution I am readying myself to make on this postulated page.... Well, I don't think this is totally a unique "take" on it, by the way: I believe that the attitude I am about to describe is shared by virtually every mischievous schoolkid: that was, in the days when these comics were actually read by schoolkids, and were not hijacked to serve as horror fiction to jaded adult male slasher-movie fans.
Well, anyway, I know these comic book characters very well, believe you me - which is, again, why Miller and his efforts can never inspire anything but contempt in me; his take on EVERYTHING, including vintage comics, is VERY superficial, and is all done from the outside, imposing all sorts of rubbish on it, not organically "adultizing" it from the inside, which is what I would have done!! (Maybe still will, if I get a chance, and Miller drops dead!! I shall have to ask a good witch...)
Anyway, to get to my point in this section without further ado: What nobody these days seems to realize, is that if you asked some of the Batman villains - well, if their psychiatrists asked them - well, sooner or later, they'd have to admit that the Batman was their hero, too!!!
But one who they would NEVER want to copy, despite all their adulation!
Miller NEARLY touches on this - but he cheapens and mixes it all up with homosexual innuendo - and he can't even do THAT properly; because he is the most homophobic writer I have ever yet encountered!!!
His main fault - as is that of all the posers who try their hand at mythology in comics, so far as I can see - Mr Moore, Mr Gaiman; you bunch of tossers the lot of you - IS HE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE NOTION OF ARCHETYPES!
Which is essential! To understand anything, about Story!
I don't want to go too far into it here... But has nobody, apart from me, ever noticed? What is the Batman archetypally, apart from an uber-parent, and that too is important... What does he do, what does he allow? He allows all sorts of "nasty" people to take a swing at him; and yet comes to no harm..... And causes no harm in return! Jesus-like, no, TRULY, at his best?? (Rather than "flawed" or "imperfect" - but who wants "perfect" out of a human, anyway?)
Yes, but this archetype is in truth FAR older; it goes back to John Barleycorn and to Osiris: it is that of the Dying (or nearly!) and Rising God; also the Invincible Hero.... All that all good comic book heroes are made of!!
TRULY understand mythology and Story, and all shall be revealed to you!!
But basically: It IS better to have a hero who you NEVER try to emulate!!
Ah the Bat! We DO love him!! That's what the villains really would say.... Especially the most brazen... Like the Joker! They don't want to kill him in truth; what nonsense. He's too fun to play with! That was EVER the real message, of the old comics! (Which were very playful.) And, FYI Kevin, he's NO MORE SCARY than (but just as awe-and-crush-inspiring as) my old schoolteachers!!!]
Anyway, even HE [Jesus!] wasn't a complete wish-wash liberal; else he would have said "Nice moneylenders, go on exploiting people" to those in the temple - instead of losing his temper with them and driving them out!! WISH-WASH LIBERAL! WE'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT TALK AROUND HERE. ONCE AGAIN, CHECK OUT MY TEAM AMERICA REVIEW. I THINK YOU HAVE ME CONFUSED WITH SOMEONE ELSE. [OK - so what kind of liberal do you call yourself??]
I can agree with traditional conservatives on at LEAST one point:
1) There is no such thing as value-neutral fiction!! TRUE, TRUE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS VALUE-NEUTRAL NON-FICTION EITHER.
[True!!!]
And I shall add other numerals as and when I come to them, to maybe make up a list!!
(Marxists can be terribly puritan! Now I'm not precisely a Marxist; not of the purest water! But I can see what THEY'RE getting at; and where they're trying to go... Whereas you liberal types... You just slide and slop about all over the place, don't you??) WAIT A SECOND, ARE WE LEFT OR RIGHT WING? I'M CONFUSED... OR MAYBE I JUST THINK I'M CONFUSED...
[Yes, I think you think you are... I'm a socialist. Not a Marxist. It's a bit like saying you're a Christian, but not a Catholic. (Or a Calvinist or a whatever.) It's actually quite HARD to be a Marxist; and I would never call myself one, unless I lived by and subscribed to all the doctrines.... But basically, apparently, from what I have learned from the Trotskists, to be a true Marxist, it is necessary a) to not be a Stalinist or any kind of dictator-sympathiser! b) to be totally committed to the doctrine of materialism, which of course includes atheism c) to NOT be a "post-modernist" or to have truck with it - and to be honest, I don't see HOW; I think we ALL are, since the Thirties and certainly since the Sixties.....
See, Marxism's a faith, too! With its own restrictive requirements. I am more interested in being me at the moment!
As for defining your own political position: let's hear it!!]
But actually, I have ANOTHER feeling as to WHY you really try to defend people like Miller; no matter whether you feel he holds to the same moral standards as you do, or that you feel you shouldn't be angry for him for not doing so.... HOW far would you, by the way, take this "value-free" judgement, by the way, Kevin, I would be interested to know? WOULD you take it as far as saying, like, for example, serial killers (or abortionists, or terrorists, or WHATEVER! Whatever "unpopular" group) - that they shouldn't be condemned, certainly not by you, because "it's an issue between them and God"?? I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT CONDEMN THEM TO DEATH. I THINK THE ISSUE YOU RAISE IS A GOOD ONE THOUGH. MY KNEE-JERK RESPONSE IS TO SAY THE LINE IS DRAWN WHEN WHAT THEY DO BEGINS TO HARM OTHERS. BUT THEN WHEN I THINK HOW "SIN CITY" AFFECTED ME, I REALIZE THAT HARM WAS DONE IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER. ALSO, I THINK OF MY BROTHER, WHO IS SOMEWHAT OF A LOST SOUL, WHO HAS ALREADY SEEN THIS MOVIE TWICE AND CAN'T WAIT TO SEE IT AGAIN. THAT MAKES ME SAD. WHEN I CONFESSED TO WANTING TO SEE IT AGAIN, I WAS ALLUDING TO THE FACT THAT I AM NOT IMMUNE TO THE BLOODLUST CLEARLY EXHIBITED BY THE PRODUCERS OF THIS FILM. I WAS NOT CELEBRATING THAT FACT, MERELY NOTING THE SAD REALITY OF IT. SO, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I'M NOT SURE. THE OLDER I GET, THE MORE I REALIZE THAT LINES DRAWN IN THE SAND ARE QUICKLY ERASED BY THE WINDS OF TIME AND CHANGE. FOR ME, IT'S A MATTER OF STICKING CLOSE TO GOD AND LISTENING TO HIS TAKE ON THINGS. A GOOD REMINDER FOR ME TO DO THAT MORE OFTEN.
[Yes, your brother DOES sound like "a lost soul" - and you see what movies like that do to such people!! I think they're deliberately concocted by some shadowy elite, something to do with the American CIA, to do just that... And I don't think I'm exaggerating!! I know all the conspiracy theories too... I have an idea about everything!]
IF most Americans DID think THAT way - well, your nation certainly wouldn't have a death penalty, I can tell you that for free!!!! I'M CANADIAN, ACTUALLY, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY, AND I, FOR ONE, AM "DEAD" AGAINST IT. I'M AGAINST THE TAKING OF ANY HUMAN LIFE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, PERIOD. FOR SOME MORE INFO ON THAT SORT OF THING, CHECK OUT A WEB SITE THAT I OPERATE: WWW.CLARION-JOURNAL.CA.
[Oh great!!!]
But you do!! And most so-called "Christians" would appear to support it! So how hypocritical is that. Anyway. YES, IT IS HYPOCRITICAL WHEN CHRISTIANS SUPPORT DEATH. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT EITHER. NOT ONLY DO MANY CHRISTIANS SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY, THEY ALSO SUPPORT WAR AND ALL SORTS OF OTHER ATROCITIES. A FAR CRY FROM THE WORDS OF OUR LEADER, WHO SAID, "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, AND DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HURT YOU."
[Hear hear!]
The same goes for the issues relating to the non-criminal, NON-violent, but equally "unpopular" groups, such as gays. Obviously most politically active (and Christian) Americans DIDN'T think that gay marriage was "an issue between them and God". ONCE
Hello! Back again! I tried to leave a comment about your review of "Team America", but it didn't come out - so never mind! Try again later. (You didn't say what month it was to be found under!)
[Now. I don't want to irritate the owner of this site by leaving too long comments, or by repeating posts too much; but I think I will have to "repeat some of your repeats" in order to respond clearly to some of your posts!
By the way, Mr Bruce/site owner: I think this is a very clever way to put a site together; to have some main pages, and then tie it all together and allow people to leave comments at the end of each page using the "Blogger" software! I didn't know it was possible to put a site together in that way; but obviously it is, and someone has thought the format out quite well.
Right now:- Pity no colour text on this blog; new remarks in square brackets, then!
Er, yes, thanks, Kev!
SORRY 'BOUT THAT, LIZ. I JUST LOVE YOUR ENERGY.
[S'OK, Kevin! I like the odd nice comment sometimes!]
I looked for your review of Team America, and couldn't find it! Where is it? CHECK OUT THE LIST OF REVIEWS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF MY BLOG. [Did - and it took me ages to find it!]
Have you read the David Walsh article on wsws.org that I referred you to, yet? What did you think of it? I THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT. HE MADE SOME EXCELLENT POINTS. AS A WHOLE, BOTH YOU AND HE HAVE BEEN A GOOD GOAD IN THE RIBS TO MAKE ME THINK HARDER ABOUT WHAT I'M DOING HERE AND WHY. IT'S MAKING ME BETTER, I HOPE.
Before I go any further, I'd like to say that yesterday and the day before, I explored this site a bit, and was quite impressed by some of what I found here... I take it back: it's not a completely "right-wing" site; though I think that the views of SOME of the people on here seem to display a willingness to "give in" to the demands of the Right; not so much the Christian Right, even, perhaps (that'd be too obvious for some of the "arty" types on here, now wouldn't it?) but the nihilistic Right. Eg. Frank Miller. NIHILISTIC RIGHT. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT BEFORE.
[Oh - but THAT's exactly what so many of the Right are! Many of them ARE, indeed, nihilists - Miller included and at the top of the list, in my estimation. Others are right-wing anarchists - NOT to be confused with the left-wing sort!! Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski are/were prime examples of this latter type.
Anyway, there's something deep inside the psyches of the far Right, of all descriptions, including far right conservatives, that tends towards nihilism. And death. I mean, think about it: they're repressive, they take no joy in sex (again, like Miller and his characters!!), they're a bunch of drug addicts (like Dubya), they believe in the evil of human nature, not in the "perfectibility of mankind", as my fave socialist sites put it... Think of Heinrich Himmler and his Waffen SS and their funereal black uniforms with deaths-head insignia. THAT epitomises the TRUE outlook of the Right. Death and oblivion. (Very yin!!! But in a nasty macho way.)]
But anyway, I found some really good stuff on here about C S Lewis' Narnia books; kudos to the person(s) that wrote those! I'LL TELL THEM. And also I think that it should be made more obvious on the homepage that this site tackles things like literature as well. It's really quite a serious site! I shall stick around here for a while! GREAT!
[Glad you think so!]
Mmm.. I'm really not quite sure what you avowedly "non-Evangelical" Christians are trying to do/achieve.... As displayed in your remarks about "Sin City".
If you found that this this movie left you - as you first remark - "traumatised, embarrassed, sick and dirty" - why do you bend over backwards, afterwards, to defend it?? Would this be an attack of overdone Good-Samaritanism on your part? UM, LIZ, HOLD BACK THE VERBIAGE FOR A MOMEN
Hello! Back again! I tried to leave a comment about your review of "Team America", but it didn't come out - so never mind! Try again later. (You didn't say what month it was to be found under!)
[Now. I don't want to irritate the owner of this site by leaving too long comments, or by repeating posts too much; but I think I will have to "repeat some of your repeats" in order to respond clearly to some of your posts!
By the way, Mr Bruce/site owner: I think this is a very clever way to put a site together; to have some main pages, and then tie it all together and allow people to leave comments at the end of each page using the "Blogger" software! I didn't know it was possible to put a site together in that way; but obviously it is, and someone has thought the format out quite well.
Right now:- Pity no colour text on this blog; new remarks in square brackets, then!
Er, yes, thanks, Kev!
SORRY 'BOUT THAT, LIZ. I JUST LOVE YOUR ENERGY.
[S'OK, Kevin! I like the odd nice comment sometimes!]
I looked for your review of Team America, and couldn't find it! Where is it? CHECK OUT THE LIST OF REVIEWS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF MY BLOG. [Did - and it took me ages to find it!]
Have you read the David Walsh article on wsws.org that I referred you to, yet? What did you think of it? I THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT. HE MADE SOME EXCELLENT POINTS. AS A WHOLE, BOTH YOU AND HE HAVE BEEN A GOOD GOAD IN THE RIBS TO MAKE ME THINK HARDER ABOUT WHAT I'M DOING HERE AND WHY. IT'S MAKING ME BETTER, I HOPE.
Before I go any further, I'd like to say that yesterday and the day before, I explored this site a bit, and was quite impressed by some of what I found here... I take it back: it's not a completely "right-wing" site; though I think that the views of SOME of the people on here seem to display a willingness to "give in" to the demands of the Right; not so much the Christian Right, even, perhaps (that'd be too obvious for some of the "arty" types on here, now wouldn't it?) but the nihilistic Right. Eg. Frank Miller. NIHILISTIC RIGHT. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT BEFORE.
[Oh - but THAT's exactly what so many of the Right are! Many of them ARE, indeed, nihilists - Miller included and at the top of the list, in my estimation. Others are right-wing anarchists - NOT to be confused with the left-wing sort!! Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski are/were prime examples of this latter type.
Anyway, there's something deep inside the psyches of the far Right, of all descriptions, including far right conservatives, that tends towards nihilism. And death. I mean, think about it: they're repressive, they take no joy in sex (again, like Miller and his characters!!), they're a bunch of drug addicts (like Dubya), they believe in the evil of human nature, not in the "perfectibility of mankind", as my fave socialist sites put it... Think of Heinrich Himmler and his Waffen SS and their funereal black uniforms with deaths-head insignia. THAT epitomises the TRUE outlook of the Right. Death and oblivion. (Very yin!!! But in a nasty macho way.)]
But anyway, I found some really good stuff on here about C S Lewis' Narnia books; kudos to the person(s) that wrote those! I'LL TELL THEM. And also I think that it should be made more obvious on the homepage that this site tackles things like literature as well. It's really quite a serious site! I shall stick around here for a while! GREAT!
[Glad you think so!]
Mmm.. I'm really not quite sure what you avowedly "non-Evangelical" Christians are trying to do/achieve.... As displayed in your remarks about "Sin City".
If you found that this this movie left you - as you first remark - "traumatised, embarrassed, sick and dirty" - why do you bend over backwards, afterwards, to defend it?? Would this be an attack of overdone Good-Samaritanism on your part? UM, LIZ, HOLD BACK THE VERBIAGE FOR A MOMEN
Hello! Back again! I tried to leave a comment about your review of "Team America", but it didn't come out - so never mind! Try again later. (You didn't say what month it was to be found under!)
[Now. I don't want to irritate the owner of this site by leaving too long comments, or by repeating posts too much; but I think I will have to "repeat some of your repeats" in order to respond clearly to some of your posts!
By the way, Mr Bruce/site owner: I think this is a very clever way to put a site together; to have some main pages, and then tie it all together and allow people to leave comments at the end of each page using the "Blogger" software! I didn't know it was possible to put a site together in that way; but obviously it is, and someone has thought the format out quite well.
Right now:- Pity no colour text on this blog; new remarks in square brackets, then!
Er, yes, thanks, Kev!
SORRY 'BOUT THAT, LIZ. I JUST LOVE YOUR ENERGY.
[S'OK, Kevin! I like the odd nice comment sometimes!]
I looked for your review of Team America, and couldn't find it! Where is it? CHECK OUT THE LIST OF REVIEWS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF MY BLOG. [Did - and it took me ages to find it!]
Have you read the
Hi, I'd like to just add a quick thought about Sin City for further discussion.
I enjoyed the movie and thought it was creative and original in its artistic format. Kind of reminded me of the movie version of Heavy Metal with all its violence and nudity.
Anyway, here's my comment: I think the 2nd story, with the prostitutes fighting the re-balance the power scheme, had an interesting ethical issue in it that the movie started to address and them glossed over and forgot about. Just before the prostitutes kill off the car full of criminal-type guys by using swords and guns, the main male character (Dwight?) sees the mass killing in preparation and he says something like "wait! These men have not actually killed anyone!" That was a good point, criminal as they were, they had not killed or even hurt anyone! He (Dwight?) steps forward almost in shock and to stop it and then Rosario Dawson's character says "not yet" and then the killing begins. I think that was a fascinating ethical dilemma that they "almost" delved into. Should the main male character defend these obvious scum-bags from murder? The script seemed to hint that he as disturbed by this, but then once they all got killed off that ethical dilemma disappeared. Any reactions to why that aspect of the story, small as it was, was in the script?
Hello Kevin: Liz here, back again after a little while... I was despairing a week or so ago, because I had just typed in a long series of "responses to your comments", in square brackets, as I said I would - and tried to post them - and the software wouldn't/couldn't cope with it, on this blog! So I tried again - and it didn't seem to come out - so I just left it!!
But now I revisit the site and I find that my posts have actually made it on here - in triplicate, it seems!
I'm sure I didn't try to put it on here that many times! Sorry if I've messed up the look of this blog!... I think the redundant posts need editing off - can you tell me how to do that? I know which ones they are: they are the ones which start "Anonymous" - but they're from me - and end in a truncated fashion, halfway through one of your repeated remarks!!
Tell me how to get them off the blog!!
But anyway, I'm glad that the first of my explanatory posts - the non-lopped-off one, made it on there, because it means that I don't have to repeat myself. I've clarified my views about Marxism and mentioned one or two things about the Batman comics, which I was really hoping to save for your new comics page - but I don't see it yet!
I was going to post my e-mail address too - but I know that spambots trawl the net for those, so I suppose I will have to go back to my Yahoo account and create a "temporary".
Well, at least I've said it - and I don't seem to have got a response from you over the last couple of the weeks - was it all the mess, or was it something I said??
Yes. Again that would be something for the dedicated "Batman page", or at least a comic book page, but, well, since everybody on here seems to want to see Christian messages in vile characters such as those invented in Sin City by Frank Miller - I mean, to me, you might as well try to see Christian messages in "A Nightmare on Elm Street", or something... Well, hasn't anyone tried it with TRADITIONAL comic book characters, yet?? (I know you have, a little bit, with your reviews of books about comics on this site.)
But - how about trying to see Christian elements in a character such as the Batman?? He's the one I'd pick - the villains are always so creatively mean to him - and yet he doesn't hate them, not really!!!
And how about analyzing the PAGAN elements in it? In this and all (imaginative) superheroes; which would mean mostly the pre-1980s-invented ones!! Well... don't people - comic book fans - geeks or whatever you want to call yourselves, I was always a lifelong fantasy/sci fi fan, but I never read everything, I had other interests, so that's probably why I never called myself a geek...
But don't you chaps see the pagan references and archetypes in what seems like very post-industrial invented mythology??
(I suppose one has to be a folklorist, which I am, as best I can.)
It's not THAT obvious... but I mean... all these heroes with animal names, costumes, and references... Has anybody actually realised that's an old shamanistic tradition - dressing up as the animals?? ANY Native American medicine man or African shaman would see immediately the rationale behind a Bat-Man, a Spider-Man or any other kinda animal-man!!! It finds its way into European fairy tales too.
THAT's one of the things I'm eager to discuss on your flaming page, Kevin. More eager than you can ever know!!
And I want the archetypes recognised! I want this holy word to be mentioned and given respect!!
This site says it welcomes pagans and Wiccans. Well - am I one, not formally, as yet. But I want recognition for paganism, even of a very academic sort, and for archetypes. Only those have the key for it all! Miller does not say the word "archetype". (And he never would, it being poison to such as he!) Neil Gaiman mentions it not. Grant Morrison wrote an EXTREMELY pretentious exposition of the Batman characters in his "Arkham Asylum" which he tried to make look "artistic", "New Age", what have you... but the magic words were not mentioned! They know them not my friends: which is why they write such rubbish.
ARCHETYPE ARCHETYPE ARCHETYPE ARCHETYPE!!!
There, I've said it now. Has anyone anything cogent to comment - do they know this word?
And no, I don't think there are any archetypes in Sin City (I'm not watching it till it comes out on DVD), unless it be the archetypes of morons and fascists: not the kind which we good neo-pagans want!
Anyway, if anyone doesn't want discussion of Batman or comic books on THIS particular page - you know what you have to do! Lobby Kevin and friends for another one to get me off onto there!!
My response to the true "Anonymous" (the post before my previous one.)
Yes, Anonymous, I suppose that's a very cogent point, as regards the movie. Which, as I have told others here, I am NOT going to exert myself to see, until it comes out for rental.
But I think that you would be completely off the mark, were you to believe that movies such as Sin City (or any of the other action movies starring Bruce Willis, or similar stars, for that matter - eg Die Hard) had as their objective to seriously discuss moral points!!
They're just made to titillate members of the public in a far more obvious and less serious way...
Most of modern Hollywood is not serious with its entertainment, come on... Apart from the odd very RARE gem of a movie such as "Gosford Park", which I know is chalk to cheese, as it's a realistic period drama... But a movie like THAT has layer upon layer of character and subplot, whereas Miller... God knows why anybody in the world ever thought he was a good writer!! (And it's true - people in the pulp/sci-fi world, people steeped in its traditions, who should have known FAR better, praised him, "oh, isn't he good", etc etc... No he ain't!!
The bit about the prostitutes killing the carful of criminal-type guys who haven't actually hurt anyone - I can imagine that scene, though I haven't seen it. It just seems to me to be typical of Frank Miller's shallow "vigilante" fiction - Dark Knight, Robocop, whatever. He writes the same old rubbish all the time. Of course there are ethical dilemmas in that situation: he doesn't see them, and he doesn't really want to discuss them, and I bet that if this scene was in the comic books - I'm not a "geek" so I don't know them well enough; hate his rubbish anyway - it's not resolved there, either!
No, Frank Miller THINKS that his version of the Batman rolling in tanks all over gang members, shooting rubber bullets at them, sticking glass in their arms and threatening to bleed them to death - and then recruiting the remainder of the gang as his own vigilante gang, to go out and kill other criminals - Frank Miller obviously thinks that all these, plus his above opus, are very moral plots, with a huge amount to say to humanity!
WELL I DON'T.
Where Anonymous makes his mistake is that he thinks that these writers actually CARE about what they are writing, about what it SAYS... particularly its ethical ramifications! They DON'T. Any more than Tarantino cares about the "message" of something like "Kill Bill 1 and 2". It is all careless, cynical, entertainment-oriented (but not truly entertaining) ROT, my friends. And anybody past 30 should be able to see that!
Yes. I have some more stuff to say to Kevin. Firstly - I don't think I've posted my apology to my assumption that you were American as opposed to Canadian, yet: if I tried, it didn't make it on!! Yes. I think you can see that it was a natural assumption. But I know it's probably like the difference between English and Scottish, and you guys hate people getting it wrong!
So there's that. I shall get out of the habit of "repeating" other's posts: this blog doesn't really seem to allow for that, and I think it's better to copy sections out and respond like that, if necessary.
Yes - you must tell me what you think of the archetypes, and what you, Matthew et al are doing about the "Batman page"!
Even if you DO like Miller's version, or Moore's, or any other I find objectionable, this will at least give me the opportunity to ask someone, a "mature" comics fan such as yourself (!) why? I've never been able to ask that question, and get a sensible, non "how dare you criticise Alan Moore et al" response!! (I got that off sections of the British comics industry/fan bureaucracy in the 1990s!!)
And once, when I asked a young American lad at university, what he saw in things like that (I wasn't being very critical at the time, because I was too young and shy and I was just interested: it was the late 80s so I hadn't yet had the "luxury" of a decade and more to get THOROUGHLY fed up with the American comics industry!!)
...Well, he didn't evince any great admiration for the Miller Dark Knight, which he didn't like that much, I think because it was not very pleasing to look at... But he went into RAPTURES over a couple of other late 80s glossy Batman graphic novels, and he quite enjoyed the execrable "Killing Joke" for what I believe were the same reasons - ie, glossy production values! (You guys are all seduced by glossy production values, and no content!!)
Whereas the depravity (and the unlikelihood!) of Moore's rather sick story (which I would VERY much like to discuss on this forum which you are promising!) seemed to entirely pass my young Yank Uni friend by... Only there was one interesting thing: this young guy (being a guy!) pointed out (in the summer of '88 - I remember it well!) something which to that date had escaped ME, namely that HE thought that the implied plot of "KJ" was that the Joker had in fact RAPED (or otherwise sexually interfered with) Barbara Gordon!! (Well he does take her clothes off, in Moore's "improving" story!)
At the time, I demurred and said things like: "I don't think so, I hope not", and also thought to myself: "It's a bleeding cheek for, on the one hand, Miller to say that the guy is f***ing gay, and THEN for this so-called friend of the other writer's, to come up with some kind of crap that he's a woman-hating rapist! Neah, can't be what was meant..."
But of course then, I was not as sophisticated, as cynical, and as knowledgeable about the ways and warped psychologies of the Right, as I am now, and I know NOW, that the homophobia exhibited by the American Right (in particular) whether religious or otherwise, demands a whole BUNCH of calumnies against gay men in particular (why not? They're betraying the "team", after all, of all Stupid White Men, as my fave, the TRUE genius Moore, MICHAEL Moore, puts it!!)
And of course, gay men in particular, have to be hit with every particular stick and libel that ever there was, they get it worse than blacks - they really DO, Maurice, if you're reading!
Well, anyway - they get called child-abusers, child-killers, misogynists (why - because they don't stick it to women?? Het males' "logic" is sometimes beyond me!). Women-beaters, you name it, gay men get called it. And I'm not even going to discuss gay women here! I couldn't anyway - not from experience!
Serial killers - you name it. All the above labels have at some time been stuck to gay males in the popular fiction of the last couple of decades; even the better stuff, such as the works of Thomas Harris.
And they're VERY evident in DC's latterday comic books, especially those that involve the character of the Joker! (I have a note of every little bit!)And THAT is what I am rearing to discuss on this new blog that we mooted!!
Anyway. It was this young US student that put me onto this possible subtext in this "delightful" work of Alan Moore's... And the more I thought about it, though on the whole I tried not to, at the time, it went round and round in my head, and I thought, "Yeah, that's really what Alan wanted to PUT down, if he could... Only he had to censor himself a little bit and be circumspect... But look at that REVOLTING drawing that he's got Brian Bolland to do for the cover (the one that appeared on most versions).. what is the Joker supposed to be leering at like that? Its implication is pornographic... It's a rape comic!" (Even I wasn't quite born yesterday, or I was coming NOT to be, at that age, and I had already heard of what some Japanese comics creators got away with...)
BUT, couple of years later, when I put that very idea (which, as I have admitted, wasn't originally my observation: it took a guy to point it out! Use his imagination to draw those sorts of conclusions!) to some British comics "biwig" - well really he was the secretary or something of some poxy little organisation over here - he went BALLISTIC!! (Partly because I'd criticised Alan Moore for it, as well.) And he accused me - l'il ME - of being "prurient", for even raising the idea!!
And soon after, he refused to discuss comics any more with me. I did try some others in the industry "establishment" over here; but got either much the same overreaction, or total disinterest.
Hence my utter cynicism about the industry and its "fandom" to this very day!! (I seem to have finally found some ones who will TALK, actually! Thank the God and Goddess!!)
But anyway, my basic reaction to the entirely of "Killing Joke" is the following:-
1) It's utter tosh.
2) The Joker is innocent!
(Of THAT little lot at least, my friends!) For there are plenty of other things he'd do, as the original old comics prove, but never THAT! Or, come to think of it, what Frank Miller portrays him as doing - none of it makes any SENSE you see - and ever so ironically, that is what is TOTALLY lacking in modern comic book villains of the DC/Miller sort especially - NAMELY: MOTIVATION! Whereas in the old days, they had it aplenty, even if their motivations were wacky! Still if comics WILL move away from entertainment, to a land of I-don't-know-what, garbage, I reckon...
Other pop fiction isn't of course immune... I mean, WHEN did you last read a detective or murder story (not a police procedure novel! Or realistic lowlife crime fiction, eg. Elmore Leonard) that was, unless it was historical, about anything other than a serial killer/killers? (It's the current bourgeois obsession!) If there's a killer in the story, which there is in most, it has to be a serial killer. Bang goes your motivation. It's lazy and right-wing writing. Because of course right-wingers aren't interested what other people/countries/religions think and what makes them tick. (Ask Perle; ask Rumsfeld!) They just don't care. There are so many ramifications to all this...
I know all the tricks of the Right now; I have read SO much since then, and I have an insight into practically EVERYTHING; and I accuse DC Comics in particular of having become, in opposition to Marvel, a thoroughly and hypocritically right-wing organisation.
Phew! I had to type that down and post it quickly before it either got too long or disappeared from me!
But anyway; though I fully intended a post when I got up this morning, that's not what I intended to put! If only it didn't take so long to fire up.. Maybe I should have got to it sooner!!
Mm yes, Kevin: the problem is, I really could write a book about this... Tell me, how do you get - you're a couple of years younger than me, actually - well, how did you get to be a "freelance writer, editor and educator"? You obviously are one, and have done or edited (have you also written entire books?) over 30 of the things, and raised what sounds like rather a nice little family on the strength of it all!
I'll come clean and say I wouldn't at all mind to be married to a man like you - you sound like a good sort! But of course we would have too many personality clashes!
Well, to cut this short, I've never yet made any proper money on the back of my writing. It's not that I've written whole books and had them rejected for publication - because I haven't, yet.
I've long wanted to be a journalist, and in fact have trained (had basic training as one, it is very hard to do it as a university subject over here, or at least it WAS when I was that age!)
But journalistic opportunities, particularly anywhere outside London, in my country, are, were and are, totally pathetic/nonexistent. In my experience.
Basically, you have to have contacts and/or (preferably!) be really middle-class, which I'm not. I don't trust the upper middle classes, especially not over here, because they're always hogging all the good jobs that there are, and saving them for people from their own class/families/caste. If you haven't been to the right schools (it's not so much the accent; I can fake up a posh accent any day!) you're not in!
I hate them. I don't even like upper-middle-class lefties, for that reason. (Eg Tony Blair!) I mean, I'd talk to them at parties. But I don't trust 'em! Aristocrats, on the other hand, I have always found fun! Have I met any? No, but I've seen Lord Bath on TV a lot, and liked him! (He's the guy with the safari park and the lions and the hippy gear.) And I met some top-drawer girls at Uni and liked 'em; they were nice; unlike certain nasty little petty bourgeois Tories I was forced to associate with...
Have I been "burnt by the church"? No, just by society, by the world, and by the only thing I ever trusted... popular culture. (Of course, it's not the same people making it now; it used to be working class liberals, for want of a better word: now it's horrible geeky right-wingers and people who are just entirely selfish and have too much good opinion of themselves...)
So how did you get your jobs, then? If you really want to tell me, then I will do as I have been promising, and provide correspondence details!
My parents were TERRIBLY impractical in certain ways, you see! They couldn't tell me how to get a career in something I would enjoy and be good at - (school) teaching was their original idea for me; and by my teens I KNEW that I would not enjoy it!! I might be good at it; but could not stand it long term! I don't believe in forcing children to learn, full stop, I suppose!
And my parents failed to marry me off!! To suitable and compatible gentleman!(Really I feel that they did fail me a bit, not entirely, they left me a house..) But it wasn't their fault as actually they were both foreign, and I don't think with hindsight, that they ever fully understood the (class) society they "marooned" me in! Anyway, they both died relatively young and while I was still too young... but death is no respecter of persons!
And now THAT, Kevin, dovetails nicely, at last, into something you were saying before about admiring or whatever word it was, the "troubled" portrayal of the Batman!
Well, tell me: WHAT does the Batman/Bruce Wayne as is his true name, HAVE to be troubled about??
He lost his parents as a kid - but so do a lot of people, even in the West!
He had the trauma of seeing his parents violently dispatched in front of him - but so do LOTS of kids, in the Third World!!
And afterwards, what was his fate? Not a cruel orphanage, thankfully, nor a "home" full of child-abusing priests, or something! But a large fortune and a name and position and influence in society!!
YEAH THAT GUY WAS REALLY UNLUCKY!!!
He never has to worry about finding a job; where his next sov. will come from and so on!
Very unlucky! Very troubled!
It's not that I don't like the guy, Kevin: I do, I just don't see why I should feel sorry for him, instead of feeling that mixture of admiration and envy for a toff!!
(And I don't see why we the viewers of a movie/video such as "Batman Forever" were obviously supposed to feel this sympathy that you too evince for the "poor little rich kid" - when I felt a lot sorrier for Edward Nygma!!)
THAT's something you can explain on your upcoming Batman blog - let's see it!!
Anyway, how did you get into freelance writing and editing? Maybe you can give me a tip! You're North American so you probably won't begrudge it to me. (I know one thing North Americans don't hate is to see other people progress. Well, as long at they're not in other nations with oil you want!)
And who do you educate? Do you give evening classes, or something?
Anyway, what was I originally going to say, when I got up this morning?
Yes - where's that new page? Or I shall swamp this blog with every comment about Batman that's been bursting to get out to public view for the last fifteen years!
Mm I think I've covered most of it... What I think of Alan Moore's supposedly "sympathetic" version of the comics' characters - rubbish! What I think of Frank Miller you already know! What Jim Starlin under the connivance (that being the word, my friends!) of Dennis O'Neil did in the "regular" title in 1988 was unforgivable... People blame it all now on Max Allan Collins but it wasn't him... how could it be? It was all Frank Miller's manipulation and Collins was used and Starlin even more so, but by his own connivance - and I know what really happened with the whole thing! Most details of the truth. For Gaia told me! Call it feminine intution. But I know. And I'll put it all on your page if you'll let me - I am such a mine of speculation and gossip, you could not imagine!
Yes. The whole subject brings back annoying memories for me. For example, I remember being asked by that "secretary" Chairman Mao of the British Comics Party, shall we call him?.. Who asked me something like: "Well, if you don't like Moore's version, or Miller's, which version of the Batman comics DO you like?"
I endeavoured to explain to him at the time, that it was a stupid question, but probably failed, because I think I lacked the words... "Well, all of them, really, as long as they were BEFORE that date," I said: "Before when Miller started messing it up and everybody started copying him!"
But I don't think this guy really understood the sea change that had taken place in comics, between when they WERE comics, and since stupid pretentious blokes had started trying to make "graphic novels" out of them.. Not that I think you can't make novels out of comics, because funnily enough, in my mid-teens, I had exactly the same idea... I think after I had seen the glossier kind of French comics!! BDs. But I wouldn't have effing done it the way those toerags done it! That's all I can say!
I think this guy got too hung up on me liking the 20th-century Fox TV series, which I did, especially as a 9-10-year-old! (Whereas you weren't supposed to admit that, in the late 80s, because it was "unfashionable" - so unfashionable, that when they reran it in the breakfast slot in Britain when the TV technicians went on strike, it became a hit all over again - which goes to show you, you should NEVER believe what comics "fans", "writers" and other related wiseacres to do with the industry tell you, because they're all pretentious gits!)
Yeah, but anyway, I KNEW that was a spoof, and it was meant to be a spoof: but the point WAS, it was actually an ACCURATE spoof, of the earlier comics (up to the mid-Sixties), as I was later able to confirm! FAR more accurate than were most of the later movie portrayals, which were COMPLETELY OFF-BEAM, out of the ballpark, whatever you lot call it. Nowhere near the mark, anyway.
Just shows you that people base hardly any of their opinions on facts - unless they're me!
But, well, I'd love to have a collection of 1940s comics, but I don't! Only I have a few reprints... and in the early 90s I found this gem of an encyclopedia about a thousand pages thick written in the 1970s, which was ENTIRELY devoted to Batman, and it had other volumes too, devoted to Superman and Wonder Woman, but I never got to read those... One day!
Anyway, I photocopied half the blooming encylopedia - I'm going to buy it second-hand whenever I can... (I think it's very rare now: but I know where my library ordered the copy from, that I got to borrow!) And on the strength of THAT, me hearties, and especially if I get those other volumes, I will be able to declare myself the biggest expert on vintage DC comics that there is around - I am very nearly, already, certainly on Batman, because I'm a Batman scholar, it's the only word for it - operating under great constraints, but nevertheless knowledgeable! - because the fact is, that most people who seem to write on the topic, including on the comics, seem to know practically nothing of the ins and the outs of the history of their own subject! I mean look at Alan Moore; he totally misinterprets the Joker's 1951 origins story, which he does seem to know (but so did everybody who knew those comics at all, during the earlier 1980s!), but he only does the half of it, puts in a lot of other rubbish that wasn't there.... Usual Alan Moore inaccuracy!
(Well seeing as that PRAT reckons Captain Nemo is an Asian Indian, and he reckons that the inspector after Jack the Ripper was a youngish drug addict: he was NOT, he was an older rose growing fanatic!!... Well all I'm saying is, that with historical distortions like THAT, I'm not surprised! Can we have a "let's slag off Alan Moore" page! He's such a git, I'm sure you'll get some other contributions to it!)
And most 1990s comics encyclopedias and works, especially that one on Batman by Mark Cotta Vaz, are a lot of rubbish and propaganda!
(Didn't I tell you I was a traditionalist?)
I think the difference between the "geek" and the scholar is that the geek is a cringing fan; whereas the scholar (me) is critical! Fiercely so!
I'm not out to over-romanticize Golden Age comics... but they were good! Little, undiscovered, underground (as far as intellectual society was concerned!) gems; just like that 1970s comics encyclopedist found out! (He was a Jew; which most people working in or near the medium aren't, these days, for obvious reasons!)
And of course there were other eras when the Batman comics reached a peak - actually there were good examples, as far as I can see, from every decade - before Frank Miller started with his ideology...
Now, I know I would actually have LOVED earlier 70s Batman comics, but I was actually born a bit too late to appreciate them first time around! (When I was an infant my parents didn't allow me any American comics, only Disney and the British ones, because they thought the American were violent!!)
And they were right! They were! Including "Batman"!
I think it is true, that historically speaking, Dennis O'Neil, when he became chief writer (there's always one person, isn't there, in later decades, who shapes the comics for one or two decades), made the "Batman" comics more violent, than they had hitherto been... Largely through the character of the Joker! Who was always a bit - unpredictable, shall we say - but not quite so graphically so! (Except, I believe, for one or two stories in early 1940s comics - the character first appeared in 1940 - which the then editors thought were not such a good line to pursue... they were probably right, at the time...)
But anyway, there was one O'Neil story, which I've only ever read as a reprint, first of all in German, funnily enough (they love/d the OLD Batman comics over there - goodness knows what they think of the Miller rubbish - nothing, I reckon; it's probably only skinheads that read it over there, if anybody!)..
Well anyway. This particular O'Neil comic, first published 1973, I think, was, as I later found out, regarded by others as a classic, too: and its proper title is "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge", and in it, the Joker goes on an utter revenge and murder rampage... by the standards of those days, of course, which were more "Kojak" than I don't know what, Hannibal...
But the story is perfect! And the dialogue; the lines... it's flaming funny in German - it improves once you read it in the original English, is all I can say!!
Shall I go on - or do you want me to save this for your page - IF it ever appears??
Anyway, there's not a false note in it. The Joker escapes "from the prison's psychiatric wing" (or whatever it is - O'Neil doesn't bother putting in Arkham; though I know for a fact that the asylum was in the comics by name by the mid-sixties - can anyone tell me what date/issue it first appeared? That's the only thing my enclyclopedia never told me!)
Well anyway, the Joker escapes, is seen in a presumably stolen car at the beginning of the story (he's also in a beautiful suit, actually, but I think that's in later panels - the most outrageous, Cuban-heeled, snazzy 1970s version of his usual costume)... And the whole story is about how he plans savage revenge on ALL the members of his former gang for grassing him up, as we Brits call it - "snitching"??
And he gets each one of them in turn, by various gruesome means! Except by the end, he wants to kill the last one, who is by this time a pensioner in a retirement home (merciless I know - but I understood he had to go through with it!) Well of course, he kidnaps the latter, uses him as bait to torment, entice and entrap the Batman, etc, throws the Batman to a shark in a tank after some marvellously witty remarks (he ALWAYS gives the Batman a - realistic - chance to escape though, without fail... in old comics these characters are always fair, WITHIN THEIR OWN TERMS AND BY THEIR OWN RULES, which is what I always admired), which the Batman does, and Bats manages to save the last ex-con (with hindsight, I wonder if that was what the Joker actually wanted? But of course the Batman has to struggle for the desired result! He gets nothing without struggling; which too, is fun!)
But the Joker - if one reads between the lines, which I learnt to do, with most fiction, by my teens - obviously KNEW that the Batman WOULD escape the trap, because Joker has an escape vehicle with sand tires ready (they're in a building on a beach) with the engine running! He runs away and laughs as per usual, thinking to make good his escape... But the Batman gets him because he slips on oil pollution!!
All in all it was a marvellous story; and greatly entertaining - even, dare I say especially, to a girl in her later teens!! Mmm yes; especially the "sexual" subtext; elegant androgynous clowns teasing and tormenting muscular becloaked supermen was JUST my sort of thing!
The Joker won my undying admiration for this story, which I read in my later teens... Before this, and other stories which I read around that time, I had always liked the Batman characters, but had never (say as a child) picked out a PARTICULAR villain - it was always the villains - who I would want to BE. From that day on my choice was sealed. It was the Joker. He was my archetypal comics idol. (He fitted very well with what I knew to be my classical archetype as well, not to be discussed at this juncture!)
I went on to "scare" a psychological counsellor with that very story, and thought myself the bees knees!! Still you've got to be horrible to survive - horrible in the OLD sense, I mean!
(Ah, it's wonderful to be young and playful - which is probably why comics don't enjoy enough sales among young people today - because they're not! They're for boring older yuppies!)
TRULY. This was indeed a CLASSIC post-Golden-Age Batman story; and probably the best one by O'Neil I have ever read!
Pity he ran out of steam in ensuing years; copied himself too much; and ended up throwing his lot in with every "ing fascist in comics he could find!
(After that wonderfully witty and hip 1970s tale of murder and revenge and a bit of sadistic gay undertone, all very funny and worthy of a reincarnated Oscar Wilde in a nasty mood! It SO suited my own mood as a teenager I can't tell you! I was already fed up with the world at that juncture, was feeling very aggressive and actively wanted to see tales of revenge - but mildly realistic (and witty) revenge, not the out-Heroding Herod that Miller and his emulators attempt with their crass characters... Mind you, EVERYBODY does this sort of thing now; it started with tasteless horror movies in the early 1980s, one recent letter-writer to wsws.org says, and I think he's right...
THAT was a revenge story! "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge". And it was FUNNY! And anything inhumane in it was done by the VILLAIN, not the hero: and we the readers knew that the villain was a nut from a nuthatch (however achingly talented, and you are, Joker my poor lad!) who would be back in the nuthatch by the next morning... and no-one would give him a job as president of the country, defence minister or general at Abu Ghraib, if you take my meaning!
And no-one would have WANTED a hero, like what Miller postulates, back then... Seventies and early Eighties American TV was much nicer... I remember it all from my own youth... The rot started with Reagan, PARTICULARLY in his second term, when the right-wingers realised they could get away with anything and just remain uncriticised and unchallenged... They're the real villains, not Mr J.... Only I don't think comics have ever really pointed this out. Except a few braver excursions by Marvel. And even those are about history, not about NOW.
Anyway. There you have it. Another thing to mention/discuss about this story, would be that IN it, both of the chief characters are faithfully following their own code(s), as they both see themselves as moral members, each of their own kind of society! The Batman is following the superhero code to the letter: the Joker for his part is following the supervillain code (which means, basically, you play cat and mouse with the hero and give him a chance to escape), AND, nor is he doing ANYTHING wrong at all, by the harsh rules of his OWN social group, the criminal underworld, in this story - and they should know it, and having read plenty about convicted (albeit British!) robbers since, I also know this to be a fact and not just a fiction cliche: snitching, grassing, lagging or whatever you call it - is under the criminals' code, punishable by death! (And this applies in most subcultures that operate under the nose of authority.)
So the Joker's no monster. Not in the old stories. He is, as we would say in British Cockney jail slang: "a staunch blagger".
I know all this. Because I've had the time to read all the books which tell me so!
So the real interest in the story, is the clash of moral codes, isn't it, in the final analysis?
But Dennis O'Neil would never have said back then that it was OK for the hero to start acting like the robber.
That's another point for all you lot to think about.
I have so much more to say about these comics, Kevin, where/when is the page going to be??
I can do you proper essay-contributions. In fact I think I should. I've also got ideas for a couple of other areas of the site, but leave it at that for now!
Liz,
Ah, it's nothing but weariness that has kept me from responding to your post. I apologize. I'm sure you've been told this before, but you are a handful! Thanks for not giving up on me. Now let's see if I can attempt a somewhat coherent response to some of what you've said:
First off, I'm not sure if I have ever read the "Killing Joke." I may have when it first came out, but I'm not sure. All I have is a vague sense that I either did not like it or was warned off it by a friend. So, unfortunately, I can't go to town with you on that topic.
As for what I like about Frank Miller's version of the Dark Knight, I would like to save the majority of my comments for the comics section of this site (if and when it finally materializes). But for now, I can say off the cuff that what struck me immediately about these books--and I was hooked from the first page, I was only 15 at the time--was the gritty reality of the world Miller had created. I was discovering things like Metallica at around the same time, and something in me was looking for a hardcore approach to all aspects of life. It just seemed like Miller finally captured the spirit of his world. Up until then, most of the superhero comic books I had read were pretty tame by comparison. Some of my favorites at the time were Teen Titans, Superman, Ambush Bug (Does anyone remember Ambush Bug?) Crisis on Infinite Earths, Swamp Thing, etc. So when Miller, and, shortly afterwards, Moore broke onto the scene (at least onto my scene) I was stunned. This was the real deal! No candy coating.
So, perhaps the series simply titillated my teenage bloodlust. I don't know. I've yet to go back and do a solid read of the Dark Knight mini-series to see what is really going on there on a philosophical level. However, you have really spurred me on to do that. Perhaps I have been clinging to the series simply because it had such a strong influence on me attempting to write my own stuff. (I've just had psychological thriller script I co-wrote turned into a movie.) But I'm not willing to give up in Miller yet. Another of his mini-series that I would like to review for this site is his original Elektra Assassin series. Now there's some challenging, ultra-violent stuff. But at the same time, it was sophisticated, in the same way Dark Knight is sophisticated--when you compare it to most other DC or Marvel titles of the time.
As for archetypes, I know all about that word. I actually teach an online writing course on the topic called "Writing the Hero's Journey." Check it out at coffeehouseforwriters.com. The day I discovered archetypes was one of the main turning points of my writing career. I've been fascinated by them ever since.
On a final note, I wonder if you might not want to cut Tarantino a bit of slack when it comes to message. Let me preface that by saying I was not a big fan of the Kill Bill films. I thought they were over-indulgent trype. However, the more I think about Pulp Fiction, the more I realize how profound that film really is. To get a better sense of the archetypal storylines and characters in that film, check out Christopher Vogler's analysis in the back of "The Writer's Journey."
And on a final, final note: I'm pretty fed up with serial killer storylines myself. It reminds me of the old Marvel days when virtually every character, hero or villain, was a mutant. No need for a complicated back story about they got their special powers or abilities. They're just a mutant, and that's that. The whole serial killer thing has a lot of problems, something I'd like to write an article on sometime.
Kevin