ALSO: I only casually read mainstream comics. I am not an expert. There.)
The Spirit.Look at this fantastic drawing of The Spirit kicking down a door. Look how beautiful Will Eisner drew. He was clearly a master in pen and ink and washes and perspective and body position and even how the folds of the clothes "feel" and the manner in which the door is getting smashed. Eisner clearly knew what he was doing.
So, why couldn't Hollyweird procure a director who ALSO knew what they were doing?
This subject is very, very old. The reason being that I absolutely refused to have any part in giving what I knew was a soul-stabbing adventure any of my bills. It wasn't until the Boyfriend managed to get a copy that, okay, at least I'll just be wasting my time, and not money.
Here are some things that struck me while watching:
-Obviously, first and foremost, it's painfully-stab-me-in-the-eye-and-then-stab-my-left-ear bad. I'm all about bad movies, but this was nearly unbearable. I came to a decision: There's such a thing as too much camp. I never thought I'd say it, but camp apparently must be measured, like a fine baking recipe. The Boyfriend disagrees on this point, and had a blast laughing something fierce at it, but he was also able to handle PrototypeX29A, a movie that I had to turn off halfway.
I guess the Spirit taught me that while my Bad Movie Resistance is great, it ain't infallible.
-The dialogue. I have to admit, I never was the biggest Frank Miller fan. His older work is great (I got to read Dark Knight Triumphant and The Dark Knight Returns pretty damned early in my childhood because my uncle had a stash of comics in our basement), and he can pull off some really lovely inks when he wants to.
I've only read a couple of Sin City books and 300. And really, that's plenty. There's inherent sexism in the work (as if that wasn't obvious, but more on that later) and the dialogue almost sounds like a glorified romance novel. It doesn't hold my attention.
But this. Even with my limited Sin City knowledge, I know some of the lines in the movie were lifted directly from his books. The Boyfriend noticed the same. I highly doubt this was accidental, so was it a tribute to Miller's own work? Call me crazy, but if I were to be making a piece in honor of someone else's work, I'd most likely keep, you know, direct lines from my work out of it. Where does the self-gratification end and the commendation begin? (I haven't read much of The Spirit either, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Something tells me I'm not.)
-Weird spots of color. The Spirit's tie. And his shoes. Why? The red tie was kind of cool, but polarizing his Converse sneakers to solid black and white looked very off. Not to mention it looked like they just dropped their color spots whenever they felt like it. Okay, maybe it wouldn't be plausible to carry it throughout the entire movie, but maybe that should have been put into consideration. People are going to notice when it gets dropped from one scene to the next. And when things aren't monochromatic anymore.
-The CGI. I'm not a CGI expert by any means, but man. Why did the movie look like it was made ca. 1995? Movies don't have to be all flashy to get my attention, but if they're going to make brazen attempts to do ridiculous computer imagery, I do expect a fair level of competence. Actually, throughout the whole film, I kept thinking how much it reminded me of Batman Forever, which is definitely not a good thing.
-Nazi references. Like Hitler, you've already lost the argument if you bring it up. As much as Japan would like you to believe otherwise, Nazis aren't cool. Just read lots of manga! You'll get what I mean.
-Ass-photocopying. Okay, what the hell? Using the ass-copy as positive ID really took the cake. I'm surprised they didn't use the opportunity to write "I'd know that ass anywhere" into the dialogue.
-While I'm at it, let's talk about the gender dynamics in this film. Which is to say, there were none.
One of my biggest issues with Miller's writing is his lack of feminine empathy. I'm not spouting exciting and new ideas when I talk about this, but I am going to reiterate: How am I, as an avid comics fan who also happens to be a young lady, supposed to relate to stories that entail all, or nearly all of the female characters be fickle, self-conscious, frivolous, boy-crazy, shallow, dependent, and willing to flash boobs when provoked? Miller's writing almost always has a "horny 13-year-old boy" feel to them.
Of course, while I'm going off on the writing, I'm neglecting to mention the actresses who looked at the script and thought, "This will work nicely!" Money is tight and all, and I'm sure I'm being overly-simplistic to imply every one of them saw the script and saw nothing wrong, but I also like to think I live in a world where basic standards of diginity apply. I'm by no means telling all the ladies out there to wear turtlenecks, or that every woman in every film must be strong, or sexless, or generous. But when women in film are EVERY feminine stereotype (positive or negative) at once? Come on. I've known many women in my day, and I'm happy to say that not one of them are that predictable. Get with the program, Hollyweird.
-Besides that: what's with every lady in the film fawning over Gabriel Macht? Dude barely even had a personality. Snorefest. Again, I think SOMEONE'S (I won't name names...) wet dreams are talking.
