Frank Miller Is Overrated

I write this with full knowledge and understanding that it will and may call down the wrath of every bloodthirsty fanboy (or girl) who may wander past this vastly unread blog. But then again these things are for expressing one's opinion without concern to censorship or public opinion, so here goes.

I fully understand that when Frank Miller "burst" on the scene with Daredevil #158 his style and storytelling seemed different and "new" to people when the big name comic companies forced artistic and writing formulas on their employees, forcing them to churn out Xeroxed imagery from one title to the next. Hell, Marvel even wrote a book about it, "Hot to Draw Comics The MARVEL Way," so that you could do it too. I disagree with the common interpretation of Miller's early Daredevil style as 'noir' though. It was definitely more 'hard boiled' in the fact that it was wrought it he over-the-top violence that has become a signifier of Miller's work, but there wasn't anything particularly shadowy about it.

I've read the entire Miller run of the Daredevil revival in which the infamous Elektra death scene takes place. I found the storytelling to be actually quite boring. The entire thing hinges on Daredevil's relationship with Elektra, her his one-time girlfriend and he not quite over her. The Kingpin is involved of course. He sets up political stooges, hires assassins (namely Bullseye) and basically wants Daredevil killed. The story itself seems confusing and very slowly told. I realize good things take time but I literally got bored with the title at this point. Finally the big "pay off", Bullseye gets a brain tumor and goes insane, and Elektra gets killed. Then it turns out she isn't dead. Big surprise.

Sin-City of course is Miller's opus of sorts. Considered to be his "finest". I'm not saying Miller is a bad writer, or a bad artist. But there certainly seems to be a difference in what Miller considers good storytelling and what others consider good storytelling. Many knee-jerk liberals will see a Michael Moore documentary which is all relentless evidence (however skewed its presentation is) against the Bush administration and consider that good storytelling because it helps back-up their already self-supported views. Perhaps a different person will see the movie "V: For Vendetta" and consider that the better of the two, when it comes to political discourse, because it presents political matters in a more even light and openly questions both sides of the argument. Each have their critics.

When Miller's idol Will Eisner penned "The Spirit" he made one thing clear: The Spirit aka Denny Colt was not going to triumph over evil with a smile and a flick of the wrist. The Spirit pounded his way through mobsters, bookies, cops and killers and often wound up in near critical condition himself. He took as many beatings as his enemies and sometimes he didn't win.

Miller obviously drew a lot of inspiration from Eisner for Sin City. The difference? The Spirit wouldn't take a hacksaw to somebody or graphically remove their limbs. This is all a penny in the well of course. Who cares what Eisner would have done, it's Miller's title, right? But all of Miller's storytelling seems to wander the same path. Sketchily drawn characters in over-the-top blood filled situations. Hell he had Batman take out the Joker's eye. He's like the Tarantino of comics. But where in lies the value? You can only see Miller's name on a cover before you assume that the characters within end up eviscerated and lying in a pool of blood, with the protagonist in not much better condition. It gets trite after a while. It's like reading, well I don't know if one can actually "read" a Todd McFarlane 'story' but if you could you'd get the same thing. Entrails, blood, tits and cursing.

How about some exposition? Try a story that is original, creative and doesn't rely on someone punching though someone's skull like an overripe watermelon or rehashing Kubrick's "The Killing" as a framing device. It's tired. It's the over-machismo frat boy way of doing things.

The newest Miller creation to hit the limelight is the film adaptation of his graphic novel 300, which in itself is an "adaptation" of the event that took place in 480 BC when Leonidas led 300 Spartans (as well as Thesbians and Thebans) against the advancing army of Persia at the Pass of Thermopylae and lost. Yes they lost. They fought for freedom from slavery and the Thebans and Thesbians joined them in battle (though according to Herodotus' book The History, the Thebans never actually wanted to be there and surrendered as soon as Leonidas was killed).

There are actually people debating whether or not this film is historically accurate! COME ON! First of all there are no definite first hand accounts of the war so NO ONE can be truly historically accurate. Secondly, whatever happened, it probably didn't look like a bondage fetish video with weird Hellraiser monsters populating the Persian army (which are clearly visible in the trailer). This is a worthy story to tell, but it's also another excuse for over the top gore, jingoistic storytelling and slow-motion blood splatter. He might as well just create a graphic novel called "People getting Killed" in which each panel consists of a different person being forced to meet their demise in a bloody graphic manner. No need for story, character or exposition.

It looks like an episode of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys (bad, loud acting included) with the props man from Dawn of the Dead (by the way the director is Zack Snyder, the DOTD remake director.)

So that aside, I think that Miller brought some fresh blood (pun intended) to the genre. He stirred things up when they definitely needed to be. But at the same time it seems that something different was labeled something genius just because it was different, with out any real dissection of the attributes. I enjoyed Sin City somewhat; the Daredevil run was a tad boring, but still entertaining. But you won't find me in line to watch 300 or championing the return of the floppy-haired girl Robin.

Hollywood doesn't get comic books

Now I will be honest; the majority of movies based on comic books are sub-par, do not follow the source material really well, and are too dumbed down for audiences due to a need to be overly generalized. Movie studios are too scared to invest time, effort, and heart into projects which could truly play out as our own modern mythology. People look at comic books and sneer as if this a juvenile form of entertainment without any literary value or merit. These tales are far more than simple entertainment. They are tales of action, adventure, and when written with respect for both the character and the content, capable of deep, emotionally rich stories. They can be progressive, such as X-Men, which symbolized racism and its harmful effects on society, and Daredevil, a comic which presented the ability of the blind to function in and contribute to society. They can be introspective, such as the brooding Batman or the alcoholic Tony Stark of Iron Man. They can be about the nobility of the human spirit, such as Superman and 300. And they can be about the darker side of man (Sin City, V for Vengeance).

Comic books are morality plays, insight into modern culture, views into human nature, and larger than life epics that help to make it all palatable because it attempts to prove to us the nobility of man. Like the tales of Greek gods and heroes, Celtic myth such as Beowulf, and the olden tales of Arthur and his knights, comics are our modern day legends.

The problem with the current studio system is that it does not recognize these tales for the rich characters and tales they have to tell. These are merely stories with explosions, excessive violence, over the top villains, and quirky jokes. The studios have glossed over the material and understood only the outlying plot but not the theme to what makes comic books such an endurable part of American, as well as world, entertainment.

One fine example is what became of the Spider-Man franchise. Whereas the first two movies did well in capturing the heart of the Spider-Man series, Peter Parker struggling to do what was right in a world that didn't always appreciate his efforts as he attempts to discover his place in it, the third movie simply crapped on story for more violence and mindless plot that served on to cram as many characters as possible into an already overburdened cast. Juvenile humor was used to deal with serious plot threads, such as how power can ultimately corrupt an individual (Parker with the symbiote which would eventually become Venom). Rather than show the inner turmoil of a character whose actions never seem capable of ever totally solving all of his problems (the more he helps the city the more he drives MJ away, whereas the more attention he spends on MJ and his own life the more the city suffers), they make it seem as if Peter's life is simple as can be. Having a full-time job in a precarious position as a photographer, attending college, trying to carry on a relationship, and being the sole champion of a city shouldn't come easily to anyone. Spider-Man 2 did well in showing how difficult it is to carry on so many responsibilities and the sacrifices that generally accompany having to make such choices of public service: when do the good of the many outweigh the good of the few. Spider-Man 3 completely crapped all over that dilemma by removing it and making being a superhero seem so easy. To put oneself consistently in harm's way, to sacrifice oneself for so many: to make it seem so easy is to completely undermine the heroic nature of being a superhero. Spider-Man 3 could have been about how the stress of doing so much finally led Peter into a gray zone where he began to take shortcuts (becoming violent, taking advantage of his powers to improve his own life versus those of others, etc.). Instead it became another mindless popcorn flick as Sony freaked over its declining profits and wanted to ensure its economic security.

Comic books are about the possibilities that lie within all of us. There is a reason the early heroes costumes were under there clothes, why these heroes were separate identities from who they really were. A hero can be anyone, anywhere, at any time. That possibility lies within all of us. It is not who we are but we we do, our actions, that define us as heroes. The real us is not important. It is the ideal, the hero that we seek to become, that is the truly super part about being a superhero. Likewise, the infamy that all of us are capable of, how readily we may slip into the abyss beneath that thin line we walk everyday are ready fodder for comic book tales.

Comic books are rich material. They are more than a child's early steps into novels. They are visual tales that captivate and illuminate the world around us. They are living, breathing art. They are us magnified. If only studios could realize this and put that heart into their translations to the big screen one could just imagine the amazing tale they could tell.