Frank Miller's Sin City (the movie)

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

You can't think of it as just film noir. It's a comic book done in a film noir style. Of course it's tacky and bloated...it's a comic book.

Fair enough. Perhaps my problem is, instead, that I don't like the comic book medium. Though I've read comic books that didn't seem so terribly pleased with their own coolness. That didn't seem so "by fanboys, for fanboys." Such things, like fanfiction, sometimes seem puzzling to outsiders.

I prefer that one idea or concept or story is adapted from one medium to another, I want it to be using that medium for a reason. If it's a play adapted to a film, I want it to use what film has to offer; I don't want it to seem too much like a play. I guess the same goes for Graphic Novels. This didn't do it for me. But, hey, strokes/folks.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Comic books are created by artists and writers who are well aware that they are working within a medium that is considered to be outsider art and marginal. I suppose that there is an aura of coolness one might effect as a result of being left of center, or even an aura of superiority that may come from feeling like you *get* something that other people just don’t *get*, and maybe you label those people *uncool* and yourself *cool*. I don’t know. I don’t get that from the majority of the books, I read. They’re just people wanting to tell a story with words and pictures. There are certainly contain cool elements, and some are even about being cool, I think it’s an element of the subject matter, and not just a bunch of “fanboys” getting each other off. Many of the writers and artists are actually intellectuals. Some are in it just to entertain. Not so different from the average painter, writer, and so forth, I’d imagine. Without doubt, some of the most daring fiction comes out of this medium, as a result of being marginalized, particularly the writing. There are certainly comic books I'm not a huge fan of, and certain genres within the medium I prefer over others, but to say "I've read comic books that didn't seem to terribly pleased with their own coolness" is to imply that most do, and that's just not the case. Frankly, I don't think you've read enough of them to make such a generalization. I realize I sound defensive, but I think comic books are an exceptional art form, and with all works of art, there's some good, some bad. You’re also approaching them with an air of condescension in this post that’s been absent during in person conversations we’ve had, so I’m a bit thrown.

Your opinion of the movie is completely valid. Or finding it puzzling because you're not familiar with the source material is also a very valid criticism. I don't know how I would have felt about the movie if I wasn't familiar with the source material, though I'm guessing I would still have liked it for a variety of reasons. The movie’s not for you. The movie’s for me. Whaddeva.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Well, being entirely unfamiliar with the source material, I suppose I can shed some light on that subject. I certainly enjoyed it, with no prior knowledge. And I think I even garnered some idea of what the source material IS like. It seems like it is a series of mostly self contained stories of tragic but heroic individuals, linked only by their common residence and therefore occasional shared acquaintances. These individuals often (always? I hesitate to say that, 'cause Dwight survives the movie...) die for their troubles.

Do I have the right idea?

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I think one of the problems comics have in the "world" is that everyone seems to think they're geeky little stories that are for novice readers who sit in their parents basement memorizing panel after panel. Granted that was me, but it made me understand that its more than what people generally think and made me want to be part of it, which I have been for a while now. But, that's another rant.

I think the problem with "Comic book" movies, for the most part, is that they are created by folks who believe that stereotype and believe that they can't find solid stories in comics. So failures like Elektra, Catwoman, X-Men or The Hulk can't be laid on the grounds of being a comic book but being on the grounds of creators (Directors, producers, etc.) who don't respect the original work and 90% of comic book films are treated as such. Rarely we get films that translate from book to film and from Comic to film. How many times have we read books, then saw the film and were dissapointed? The same thing happens with comics adaptations. Then sometimes you're pleased: look at Lord of the Rings. For comic adaptations: look at "The Road to Perdition", "Superman I & II", Spider Man", "THe Crow" just to name a few that actually were close to their source material. The one previously mentioned, X-Men, Hulk, Catwoman, etc. don't come close to their source material. There are many, many comics or Graphic Novels that would make AMAZING films and are story wise, better than many films and novels of considerable note. The medium of of film and books separately can not do what they can do together and that's called a comic book or Graphic Novel.

Oh, and add whatever Eliza said...

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

You’re also approaching them with an air of condescension in this post that’s been absent during in person conversations we’ve had, so I’m a bit thrown.

I didn't mean to condescend, especially because I don't feel condescension towards comic book as genre. I wasn't trying to imply that I don't think the genre is an art form or valid fiction. It certainly is.

What I was trying to say is that if I'm supposed to accept that a Noir-inspired film is bloated and tacky *because* it's derived from a comic book, then I don't like what that says about comic books. But I went on to say (in what seems to have been a garbled way) that I'd read comic books that didn't seem bloated or tacky at all. And just to clarify, I haven't come across a one that seemed very intent on its coolness. If it was cool, it just was. That part of my statement wasn't a slam against all comic books, but an attempted acknowledgement that, in fact, circlejerkery *isn't* the kind of thing I note in the comic books I've read.

But something about Rodriguez's film rubbed me the wrong way. It *did* seem intent on its coolness. It came across as very self-admiring-- it's Rodriguez and Miller's fanboy-on-fanboy action that bothers me, not the wrighting of graphic art and novels in general. If I participated in Sin City geekery, I may not have noted it within this film.

But I am not a part of that geekery. I don't enjoy gratuitous violence. What I like about the aged cheddar you get in a Noir all comes from cleverness-- of the characters, of the dialogue, of the way it is filmed. What I saw in Sin City didn't seem like cleverness. Rather, a depiction of brute and sex-as-commodity. Which is well and good if that kind of thing interests you.

But that's not the kind of thing that interests me... so watching that brand of geekery celebrated left me cold.

I *so* did not mean to belittle the comic book genre. I just didn't enjoy this particular sector of it.

[mousepod]

Sin City (the comic and the movie) is certainly not for all people. Personally, I would have preferred an adaptation of Frank Miller's 'Hard-Boiled', but I was happy with what I got.

I'm glad that a parallel conversation has sprouted here about the nature of comics. For people like LSPE and other non-fans who dip into the world of comics from time to time, I'd like to recommend these two books:



They're both fascinating reads and go a hell of a long way in "explaining" what comics are all about.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Glad I misunderstood your inital post then. Thanks for clarifying.

As for the books this movie is based on, they're less bloated because they're serial, and not forced into a 2 hour film. I enjoyed the frenzied energy, which is what made the transition from panel to film work for me, as it allows the movie to be its own thing. They used the books as the movie's storyboard, but the film still managed to move beyond the panels to become its own thing. I understand why others would find it to be more is more, and more ain't better. But I've found myself a fan of this filmmaking style, loving both parts of Kill Bill as well.

I stand by <i>Sin City</i> as being Noir, though certainly a different brand of. It's punk rock, for sure. And though the violence and sexualization of the characters were more pornographic than, let's say, <i>The Big Sleep</i>, older noir films certainly were violent and the type of woman Bacall played certainly was classy, but she was also a man's idea of what classy and sexy are. Not that I'm complaining. But I like Bacall's dames *and* the brand of mad bitch dame realized by Rosario Dawson. That, and I also think Miller's dialogue is very clever pulp fiction writing.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Do I have the right idea?

Yah do.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by mousepod

Sin City (the comic and the movie) is certainly not for all people. Personally, I would have preferred an adaptation of Frank Miller's 'Hard-Boiled', but I was happy with what I got.

Ah, I love and own the McCloud book. But haven't read the other.

You know, I'm not sure I could stomach Hard Boiled as a film. Might be too Legend of the Overfiend for me, in some ways. Then again, ROBOTS!

Wait, I liked Legend of the Overfiend...

Well, maybe liked isn't the right word. I remember watching it for the first time with my then boyfriend. We watched it with our mouths agape, and sometimes with uncomfortable giggles and wide-eyed stares at each other. After the movie was over, we were quiet for about 30 seconds before we both looked at each other and I said, "Yeah. Totally fvcked up. Disgusting. And yet..."

"Yeah, and yet..."

"Are you aroused? Cause I'm kind of aroused."

"Yeah. Should we be? That's disturbing."

"Yeah, disturbing. But."

"But."

At least, that's pretty much how I remember that conversation going.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

I understand why others would find it to be more is more, and more ain't better. But I've found myself a fan of this filmmaking style, loving both parts of Kill Bill as well.

I think we've hit upon our basic difference in taste in this realm. Remember how I walked out of Kill Bill the First kind of nauseated? It's not violence that bothers me, it's graphic violence, even if it's cartoonish. I dig a subtler shade of shadows-and-light-theatre, forties pictures are delicious to me, while the yanking of testicles? Not so much.