Wednesday, June 1, 2005

The Horrible Truth About UFOs: Miracle Visitors by Ian Watson

I had never heard or read anything about Ian Watson and his novel Miracle Visitors until I found this entry on David Pringle's 100 Best Sci-Fi Novels List:

85. Ian Watson Miracle Visitors
1977 A serious look at UFO culture, with a red Thunderbird that flies to the Moon and Back. More serious than it sounds.


It didn't take too much googling to find out that Watson is, in fact, kind of a big deal in British Sci-Fi. I blame my ignorance on the blind spot I have towards Brit Sci-Fi, in general--something I'm currently trying to make up for by, well, reading stuff like Ian Watson's Miracle Visitors.

I tend to find UFO stories scary out of all proportion. For me, Little Grey Men-style UFOs, as a concept, are more frightening to me than Stephen King-style malevolent entities, Lovecraftian creepy-crawlies, or Hannibal Lecter-type serial killers. It's almost impossible for me to read more than a few pages of a UFO story without looking up to make sure there's not a little ovoid-headed, almond-eyed creature floating outside my window and staring at me. And so even though Miracle Visitors isn't meant to be a horror novel, I kinda/sorta experienced it as one.

However, I suppose the book would be better classified as "Metaphysical Sci-Fi": its real concerns are the nature of reality and of our consciousness of reality. It reads a lot like one of Philip K. Dick's "religious" books, although it's more coherent, probably because Watson, unlike the probably psychotic PKD, is able to maintain some objectivity towards the metaphysical model the novel proposes. It's also reminiscent of some of Robert Anton Wilson's books, sans gonzo grandstanding.

I have to admit that I probably would've been much more excited about the book if I had read it back when I was in college, but, since then, I've lost the taste for New Agey-expansion-of-consciousness-type stories. That said, Miracle Visitors is a pretty solid example of the genre: its ideas are interesting and clearly presented--although not, at this point in time, all that exciting or groundbreaking--and, more importantly, the story itself is quite good. The first two-thirds are filled with genuinely frightening moments, and, overall, the book is very well constructed (which is more than you can say about a lot of novels by Philip K. Dick and his heirs).

For me, the book raises an interesting problem: when it was first published, in 1978, I'm sure that its ideas did seem exciting and original. Now, they seem not so much dated as over familiar. On the one hand, this should be a problem that faces almost every "groundbreaking" sci-fi novel. However, I think this gets at what separates the merely good sci-fi novels, like Miracle Visitors, from the truly great ones: the great sci-fi novels make the ideas they're presenting seem exciting and groundbreaking, even if, in fact, they've been outpaced by history or become just another sci-fi cliche.

Take Theodore Sturgeon's 1953 novel More Than Human: not only has its take on evolution and mutation been superceded by actual scientific research, but its central idea--the conflict between superhuman mutants and regular humans--has become more than over familiar. Yet, while reading Sturgeon's story, none of that matters. He makes it all seem exciting and groundbreaking and fascinating. But I'm not really sure how he does it or why More Than Human still works in a way that Miracle Visitors doesn't. My guess is that Sturgeon does a better job of weaving his ideas into the story, so that our enjoyment of the story drives our excitement of the ideas, and vice versa. Perhaps part of the problem with Miracle Visitors is that it has too many sections which read like lectures and are less a compliment to the rest of the story than they are a commentary on it.

Nonetheless, I'd still recommend Miracle Visitors to people who like UFO books and fans of metaphysically-inclined sci-fi/genre writers like Philip K. Dick and Grant Morrison. And I'll probably end up trying out another one of Watson's books, soon enough.

Monday, May 30, 2005

Indy 500 Blogging

The big news in motorsports all this month was that for the first time ever a woman had a chance to win the Indy 500, and, on Sunday, she almost did. Danica Patrick's strong finish of 4th, ended up justifying the publicity blitz centered around her. She managed to live up to the hype, which is pretty amazing, since there hasn't been this much hype in the context of an Indy race in a long time.

It's kind of ironic, though, that the Indy Racing League and ABC Sports are trying to halt the declining viewership of the 500 by playing the diversity card. After all, its partly the "diversity" of the recent Indy 500 starting fields that has led to the declining ratings. But I guess the diversity brought in by an attractive, 23-year-old, American woman interests American TV-audiences more than the diversity brought in by Brit Dan Wheldon (who won yesterday) or Brazilian Helio Castroneves (who won in 2001 and 2002).

Although I was happy to see Danica do well, and while I understand that, in the context of the constructed media-spectacle-world of professional sports, her success at the big race is "historic", I was a little put off not so much by the amount of the hype but the kind of it. In the New York Times, Dave Caldwell writes:

Patrick, who has long black hair and weighs 100 pounds, has been marketed by the I.R.L. as an ingénue, posing her for more glamour media-guide photos than in her driving suit. But she can also drive fast.


And that's how she's come across in all her media appearances: she's attractive, young, stylish, etc.--the hot co-ed next door--which is fine, until you stop to think that Indy racing is dangerous. Bruno Junqueira is in surgery today because of a crash during yesterday's race--he "injured two vertebrae". And, in another crash, Larry Foyt fractured his spine. Ouch.

I got a little queasy at the thought of Danica--playing the lovely, spunky young heroine-of -a-feel-good-sports-movie role--getting a concussion, chipping her spine, or worse. It's one thing for the Indy Racing League and ABC to use Danica's sex appeal to sell a product, but it's another when the product that they're trying to sell could maim her (considerably hurting said sex appeal).

The IRL and ABC's pushing of the Danica-story wasn't the only thing about their broadcast that smelled of desperation. They opened the show with a 5 minutes video done in the style of the recent Sin City movie--black and white race footage with those trademarked red splotches thrown in, pseudo-hardboiled voice-overs introducing the drivers, Danica's sexy silhouette standing over a rain-drenched city skyline--that had me scratching my head. It was bizarre and kind of sad. Someone seems to have sold ABC on the idea that a Sin City homage would help the Indy 500 appeal to a young, hip audience. But it seems awfully wrongheaded to use a movie known mostly for sex and violence to introduce an event whose popularity has to do more with courage, excitement, family, and--the big one--tradition. It's as if they're trying to position the IRL as the hipper, sexier alternative to NASCAR. The whole thing was a striking example of the identity crisis that has really crippled Indy Racing's appeal to American audiences.

American open-wheel racing used to be considered much more prestigious than stock car racing, which was seen as being for southern rednecks only. But the big American open-wheel racing series--CART--did nothing to stop the best young American open-wheel drivers--like Jeff Gordon--from going to NASCAR, and filled their cars with Europeans and Latin Americans. Not surprisingly, while NASCAR's popularity grew, American open-wheel racing's fell. And the Indy 500, open-wheel's crown-jewel event, lost its former prestige. It was, after all, supposed to showcase the best race car drivers in America, but as soon as Jeff Gordon, America's best race car driver, decided not to participate in it, it lost a little of its luster. The Indy 500 now feels like an also ran to the Daytona 500, NASCAR's big event race.

Saturday, May 28, 2005

An Issues Issue

This is how David Edelstein starts off his review of Mad Hot Ballroom and A League of Ordinary Gentleman:

The documentary Spellbound was a masterpiece of pop sociology that broke through to a wide audience. Now, in its wake, distributors have been scouring the festivals for docs that build to similarly nail-biting climaxes. As copycat trends go, this is pretty exciting. Unlike their vacuous TV reality-show cousins, these indie documentaries not only catch you up in complicated human dramas, they weave in themes of class and cultural diversity.


I'm not that big of a fan of vacuous TV reality shows, but I know enough about them to see that Edelstein's criticism of them is unfair and untrue. At least half of it is: the staged events that drive the reality TV shows might not qualify as "complicated human drama", but many of them, including The Amazing Race, Wife Swap, and the last Apprentice season, are chock full of "themes of class and cultural diversity". And of course my favorite example of reality TV, which, because I am a big snob, is the British show Faking It, has a premise that is downright driven by "class issues".

I know Edelstein is using a standard critic's gambit--knock down something popular in order to prop up something more obscure (I know I do that on occasion and I'm not even a proper critic)--but it seems to me that he's making a rather silly assumption: because he doesn't like reality TV shows, there's no way they can deal with issues he cares about, like class and cultural diversity.

Now, I don't mean to say that Edelstein should become a big fan of reality TV shows: most of them do stink to high heaven and I'm sure that the two documentaries he's reviewing are a much more worthwhile way to spend your time. The real problem is that Edestein makes the kind of boneheaded mistake he's usually sharp enough to avoid: in this case equating "Dealing with Class/Cultural Issues"=GOOD and "Not Dealing with Class/Cultural Issues"=BAD.

The fact that many reality TV shows actually do deal with class and cultural issues doesn't, by itself, make them any good. And the fact that a well-meaning Spellbound-style documentary deals with class and cultural issues doesn't, by itself, make it any good either. And (for completeness's sake), the fact that a reality TV show and/or a well-meaning Spellbound-style documentary might not deal with class and cultural issues does not, by itself, make it bad.

Perhaps a better way for Edelstein to put it would be something like: "These documentaries explore class and cultural issues with more insight than you'd get in the average reality show." And a more honest way to put it might be: "These documentaries reach the same conclusions about class and cultural issues that I hold."

---

Later on in his review, Edelstein writes that

One reason I hate the fact that my just-7-year-old daughter watches American Idol (long story) is that I don't want her to think about competition yet. I don't want her to see people being judged—and in some cases, ripped apart. Yes, that sounds odd coming from a critic—but these are people who aren't rich and famous and in some cases are getting torn apart with a camera in their face.


Maybe he should check out the positive stuff Steve Sailer has to say about Idol:

One of the great things about "American Idol" is that you don't have to possess Madonna-like drive, assertiveness, and ruthlessness to do well, as you normally do in the music business. Natural talent will get you a lot farther on "American Idol" than in the real world of music, where whom you'll sleep with plays a big role. (Nobody much cared that judge Paula Abdul was exposed as sleeping with a male contestant a couple of years ago, but it would presumably destroy the show if one of the two male judges was caught in a scandal. A lot of judge Simon Cowell's appeal is that he'll tell pretty but talentless girls to get out of the business for their own good, which is not what powerful men in the music industry are known for always doing when confronted with hot babes desperate for a break.) For example, the first year's winner Kelly Clarkson had gone out to LA for a year, but had totally failed to get anywhere, so she went home discouraged to Texas. But she still had near-Whitney Houston / Mariah Carey quality pipes, so she triumphed on the show.


Although I guess that's still something a 7-year-old doesn't need to know about...

Friday, May 27, 2005

Food Blog Faves

This is my latest "favorite blog" and it should interest anyone who (a) likes to eat hamburgers, (b) lives in New York City, and/or (c) is a fan of Wimpy from Thimble Theater. My only concern/complaint is that they seem to like Blue 9 Burger way too much--that place isn't even close to being in the same league as In-N-Out. However, most of their reviews--like this one of the Shake Shack in Madison Square Park, which, for my money, serves the best burger in Manhattan--are right on.

The folks who put this blog together are the same ones who run the pizza blog Slice, which is also pretty good,but they haven't updated it very much since they started A Hamburger Today (not that I should really complain about people who don't update their blogs regularly).

My First (and Probably My Only) Attempt at "Link Blogging"

I'm having some fun playing around with the Firefox extension StumbleUpon, a "a collaborative surfing tool for browsing, reviewing and sharing great sites with like-minded people" that "helps you find interesting webpages you wouldn't think to search for." This is mildly amusing for me, since I don't really have the right kind of attention span for "websurfing".

So far I've stumbled upon:

-This page of trompe l'oeil street paintings, which reminded me of Timna Woollard's pieces in the John Boorman movie Where the Heart Is.

-A cheerful quote from Jerome K. Jerome: "The shy man does have some slight revenge upon society for the torture it inflicts upon him. He is able, to a certain extent, to communicate his misery. He frightens other people as much as they frighten him. He acts like a damper upon the whole room, and the most jovial spirits become, in his presence, depressed and nervous." (From this page.)

-A philosophy crib page that I would have loved to have had access to when I was in college.

-Some weird, cool web-art for fans of 70s rock album covers.

-Puppies.

-Sandcastles.

-Some fun with romance novel covers.

-A page of old-timey mapmakers and their maps.

In case anyone was wondering, this is why I really don't do "link" posts.

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Unhappy Endings

Was anyone else as unsatisfied with the last episode of Lost as I was?

Don't get me wrong: it was a great 2-hours of television--compelling, exciting, and moving--and it did a really good job of weaving all the different subplots together. But I really felt cheated that the finale refused to answer any of the show's central mysteries. I know the season needs to end on a cliffhanger, because that's now a convention of this kind of show, but the finale was more about setting up next season's stories rather than resolving the ones from this season.

The finale of Veronica Mars was more my style: Veronica solved the major mystery she had been investigating all season, but the show's creators still were able to set up possible plotlines for the next season and they managed to end it all with a kind of a cliffhanger.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but, as much as I liked Lost, I'm not sure I want to sit through another season without getting an answer to the series's big questions. The problem, of course, is that once Lost provides those answers, it might very well lose its whole raison d'etre. Back in December, I wrote that for TV serials

going on too long can be just as big a problem as stopping too soon. For example, I already have my doubts whether or not the people who make Lost can really drag their plane-crash-survivors-on-a-haunted-island story on to the end of this season, let alone the next one they’re presumably hoping for. (And even though I enjoyed the first two seasons of 24, it really seems like a premise that shouldn’t have been repeated).


Well, Lost make it to the end of the season, but I still have my doubts about next season. It seems the show's creators are either going to tread water for another season or, more likely, hit the reset button and start things all over again, with only minor variations.

I'm reminded of Chekhov's rule about guns: "If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there." If you start a TV season with a mystery, by the finale the mystery should be solved. Otherwise don't put it there. It would have been one thing if the Lost finale had solved one mystery, only to be left with a new, perhaps bigger one. But to end the season by building the suspense and then making the audience wait until season two for any resolution strikes me as a pretty cheap trick. I guess Lost is popular enough, though, that its creators feel like they can get away with it, and they're probably right.

American Gods by Neil Gaiman

I worked my way through all of Neil Gaiman's American Gods even though, almost from page one, it felt a little bit off. Now, I'm pretty sure I'm not Gaiman's ideal reader. I liked most of the Sandman comic book series and I remember enjoying Good Omens when I read it years ago, but Stardust really turned me off Gaiman for a while--I thought that book suffered from forced whimsy and a half-baked concept. However, American Gods looked more promising:

-It won both the Hugo and Nebula awards for best novel. Yes, I know that these kinds of awards don't usually go to the actual best novel in any given year, but they do usually indicate a wide critical consensus that the novel is pretty good. And I've more or less liked every joint Hugo/Nebula award-winning novel that I've read—even though only one ranks among my favorite sci-fi/fantasy books (Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War).

-Critics have compared it to books by writers I do like a lot—namely Stephen King, John Crowley, and Roger Zelazny. (Actually, Gaiman himself compares it to Zelazny's stuff, but other people have picked up on it).

-While I’m not a huge fan of Tolkien-inspired fantasy, there are two fantasy sub-genres that I tend to enjoy: Conan-style Sword & Sorcery and Modern Dress Fantasy. American Gods is an example of the latter. One of the reasons I like Modern Dress Fantasy is that its authors spend more time on telling a story and less time on "world building". Also, the characters in Tolkien-derived fantasy tend to have more ridiculous names.

Now, I certainly didn't mind reading American Gods, but I kept at it not because I was inspired by the story but because I was mildly interested in figuring out why the book wasn't quite working for me (and because my plane was delayed—twice). To be fair, I enjoyed some of the book--the interludes that are there to provide some color and background are like some of the good stand-alone issues of Gaiman's Sandman comic--but the main part of the story has some major flaws.

One of my big problems with Gaiman's fiction is that his protagonists tend to be pretty boring. I assume this is because he sees them as archetypal Quest Figures, but the thing about those old stories and folktales featuring archetypal Quest Figures is that they were all pretty short. You could probably cram about 30 archetypal quest stories into a 600-page book (like American Gods). Shadow, the hero of American Gods, is no exception. Shadow, is one of those creations that only exist in genre fiction. He is a sensitive, vulnerable, ex-con bodybuilder—a tough guy with a heart of gold. Honestly, the only thing I dislike more than seeing skinny geeks like Gaiman making their heroes hulking men-of-action, is when they make their heroes cute and cuddly hulking men-of-action. He's extremely dull, although I suppose he might be appealing to sensitive teenage misfits.

Now, because Shadow is a Quest Figure, Gaiman doesn't really feel the need to make Shadow's actions and motivations either consistent or penetrable. Shadow is always doing and/or saying things that come out of left field and make no sense, and Gaiman tries to explain these anomalies by suggesting that Shadow just "felt" he had to do/say those things. This "feeling" is never given an actual explanation--i.e., Shadow doesn’t have ESP or a guardian angel or brain lesion--but, rather, we're just supposed to accept these incongruous actions because, hey, Shadow is a Quest Figure on a Quest and those things have their own logic. It's true that the characters in folktales and fables often behave contrary to real world logic, but, again, there's a big difference between a folktale set in a kind of never-never land and a 600-page novel set in some kind of variation on "the real world".

American Gods falls into the trap that so many other mediocre fantasy stories fall into: things happen for completely arbitrary reasons and Gaiman tries to excuse the arbitrariness by pleading: "Hey, this is fantasy! This is myth! This is a Quest!" The villain's evil scheme--which sets all the action in motion--is the most arbitrary thing in the book. It all seems needlessly complicated, or, rather, the complications Gaiman introduces all seem forced: they may make sense on a symbolic-mythical-hero-with-a-hundred-faces level, but as stuff happening in the story they just don’t fit. Worst of all, one of the book's final revelations is that most of the hero’s "quest" has been nothing more than a big red herring. In retrospect, the entire story comes to look like one huge needless and arbitrary complication.

As often happens when I'm reading something that doesn't quite work, I started thinking about similar kinds of books that do work. In a successful piece of Modern Dress Fantasy, say, for example, Jonathan Carroll's novel Bones of the Moon or James P. Blaylock's The Paper Grail, the story works, first, because it manages to distinguish its real world aspect from its fantasy aspect, and, second, because it is able to gradually reveal the connections between the two. The process of revelation is as suspenseful as the unraveling of a good mystery. But the revelation is only really successful if there's a genuine difference between the fantastic and the mundane and there is some kind of consistency or logic underlying their interaction. Because of this consistency, there’s nothing arbitrary about the events that happen in these novels or the choices their protagonists make. No one does anything just because they happen to be Quest Figures: their actions all make sense based on what we know of their motivations and what we know of the often fantastical situations in which they find themselves.

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Next Week in Hoboken

This post at Peiratikos--the first part of an essay dealing with Spielberg's adaptation of Philip K. Dick's "Minority Report"--reminded me that I had never really gotten around to blogging my PKD Adaptation Theory.

As Steven Berg suggests, PKD's stories are all pretty sketchy. In most of his stories, PKD takes one, really compelling sci-fi idea (i.e., precognitive crimestopper or implanted memory "vacations"), draws out some of the obvious and not-so-obvious implactions of it, and ends with a little O. Henry/EC Comics twist. The plot, setting, and characters all take a backseat to PKD's conceptual noodling. (PKD's novels are only slightly less sketchy.)

PKD's stories are examples of low-rent sci-fi, and, while reading them, it's easier to visualize them being produced in a cheapo Twilight Zone or Outer Limits-style than it is to imagine them getting the huge big-budget Hollywood treatment. PKD's stories don't seem to be set in some weird, shiny far off World of the Future, but rather next week in Hoboken.

And this is where the Hollywood mentality comes into play. It is part of Hollywood Conventional Wisdom that a screenplay needs a "hook" in order for it to be sold. The cool sci-fi concepts at the center of PKD's stories provide great hooks on which Hollywood screenwriters can hang a big budget, special-effects-driven action movie. And in Hollywood, sci-fi=huge, big-budget FX-driven action movie.

But using PKD's ideas to prop up big budget action spectacles is just a little bit pretentious. The central idea of "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" doesn't really have anything to do with the ultraviolence and flashy special effects of Total Recall. Spielberg's efforts with Minority Report aren't so distasteful, but his movie still feels like a bloated mess--but that's what you get when you try to turn a short story into a 2 1/2 hour movie. (John Huston's version of James Joyce's "The Dead", a much weightier story than PKD's, clocks in at under 90 minutes).

Now, it's usually a bad idea to make any kind of judgment on a movie based only on the preview, but the trailer for Richard Linklater's version of A Scanner Darkly looks like it might have gotten it right. It doesn't seem like Linklater has made an action movie, but rather a philosophical thriller closer in spirit to his earlier animated feature Waking Life than to the other movies made from PKD's stories. Linklater's movie might turn out to be no good, but he at least seems to be trying to do justice to PKD's work rather than rummaging around in his stories for a saleable pitch.

A Star Wars Placeholder Until I Finish My Unified Geek Theory Essay

For now, all I have to say about the new Star Wars movie is that while Samuel Jackson managed to give really good performances in two Renny Harlin-directed movies, he's completely awful in Revenge of the Sith. As my friend said, if he lives to be 100 this will still be his worst performance.

Sunday, May 8, 2005

From the Archives: The 25 Comics I Like Best

#20: The Dark Knight Returns

by Frank Miller

Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns is one of my favorite comics, but it's almost easier for me to make a case against it than it is to explain why I like it so much. I mean, as far as 1980s revisionist super-hero comics go, Watchmen is more sophisticated and Marshal Law is funnier. As far as Batman comics go, The Killing Joke is more nuanced and psychologically satisfying and those old Bill Finger-Dick Sprang stories are more enjoyable. And as far as Frank Miller's own work goes, Sin City and 300 are broader in their subject matter and more interesting from a form/technique standpoint. Oh yeah: it's also a complete mess.

The philosophy of the comic is borderline incoherent, held together--loosely--by Miller's homebrewed proto-libertarianism. And Miller's political commentary takes place on a pretty low level: straw-man attacks on lefty-liberals are balanced by straw-man attacks on right-wingers. Miller's Gotham City is an overblown, paranoid version of American inner-cities. It's not too far away from the stylized New York City of Walter Hill's gloriously fake hip-hop movie The Warriors, but Miller seems to take his vision of urban decay seriously (this is not the tongue-in-cheek New Detroit of RoboCop). Miller’s Gotham has none of the Art Deco/Gothic beauty of Tim Burton's Batman movies. For Burton, Gotham is darkly beautiful--an appealing but dangerous playground for freaks and misfits. But Miller seems to fear and distrust the city: it's a chaotic cesspool that would surely degenerate into a dog-eat-dog Hobbesian state-of-nature without Batman to keep the peace.

Another possible point against the book is that Miller's characterization of the Dark Knight is not so much complex or ambiguous but jumbled. Is Batman a bad-ass vigilante, a dangerous psychopath, an exemplar of individual liberty, or a quasi-mystical father figure to all Gotham's orphans? Well, all of the above! But Miller hardly seems to acknowledge any of the contradictions he brings up, let alone resolve them.

"Punk" cartoonist James Kochalka* wrote something to the effect that Miller's sequel to TDKR--The Dark Knight Strikes Again--is a fourteen year-old boy's idea of a comic book masterpiece. This comment, like most of the criticism of DK2, could easily apply to TDKR: it's filled with the kind of pseudo-deep machismo that passes for insight into the human condition among attention-challenged adolescents.

BUT despite all this, TDKR remains one of my favorite comics, and not just because of nostalgia for the time I spent in the teenage wasteland. AND I'd add that out of all the attempts at super-hero revisionism--from The Squadron Supreme and Watchmen to Astro City and The Authority--TDKR towers above them all--the reigning champion of the genre.

Why?

TDKR is the least embarrassed and most honest of them all. In an earlier post I wrote that DK2 "represents everything Miller loves about super-hero comics--the garish circus-like atmosphere, the exaggerated moral struggles, the love of both meaningless and purposeful action--trying to beat the shit out of everything he hates about them--mainly, the corporate straight-jacketing that passes for editorial vision at major comic companies." And in the same post I wrote that, compared to Watchmen, TDKR "takes nothing apart, does not engage in self-reflexive analysis, and does not exit through the door marked Irony. TDKR builds on the super-hero comics that came before it, and Miller puts his often contradictory feelings towards them right on the page."

Perhaps my response comes out of my own ambivalence towards the whole project of super-hero revisionism. Deep down, it just feels like most of the revisionist books are written by and/or for people who feel they have risen above the pleasures of super-hero comics but still want their fix: they want to write/read stories about dudes in tights beating each other up, but they want the stories to be worthy subjects for literary analysis. TDKR, on the other hand, wallows in those pleasures. TDKR doesn't "get at" any of the issues of super-hero comics, it doesn't "explore" any of the genre's problems, and it certainly doesn't "deconstruct" the symbolism of the Batman comics. Rather, it serves up a feast of a Batman story, putting everything that was enjoyable or troubling about those comics right on the table.

*Kochalka meant what he wrote as a compliment, but his comment gets to the heart of a lot of the negative reaction to DK2.

Thursday, May 5, 2005

The Boundaries of Geekdom

David Fiore commented that he doesn’t think his favorite super-hero comics to “belong in a group with stuff like Star Wars, Kill Bill, Wu Tang, Lord of the Rings and Sin City...” And responding to Steven Berg, Sean Collins wonders how useful the term “fanboy” can be when it is used pejoratively to refer to everything from Kill Bill to Identity Crisis. I don’t necessarily disagree with them: there are differences between Gerry Conway’s Spider-Man comics and the Star Wars movies, and Kill Bill isn’t exactly the same kind of thing as Identity Crisis.

However, this seems to be a case of missing the forest for the trees. Your ability to differentiate between all these pieces of Geek Culture is directly related to how deeply you’re already into Geek Culture. And from a complete outsider’s point of view, say someone from The New Criterion, all of this Geek Culture stuff looks depressingly similar. Now, I’d never make the argument that Kill Bill is exactly like Identity Crisis, but I have enough sympathy with the outsider’s perspective that I can see their major similarity: they’re targeted at the same audience. It isn’t a coincidence that you can buy action figures of the characters in both Kill Bill and Identity Crisis. This would seem to separate Kill Bill in some way from all those movies that don’t have their own tie-in toys, i.e. the ones not made for fanboys—the ones made for actual grown-ups.

And this is why I don’t really buy David and Sean’s points. David wants to differentiate between certain super-hero comics and stuff like Star Wars because he sees an essential difference between their underlying philosophy and concerns. And Sean doesn’t think lumping this stuff together is very useful because some of it is good and some of it is crap. But I’m more inclined to argue that as an actually existing social and cultural phenomenon Geekdom can be a fairly meaningful, and therefore useful, concept. For example, I think Rosenbaum is right to point out that women’s roles in a lot of these geek movies—aimed at fanboys (i.e., arrested male adolescents)—is different from their roles in more “mainstream” pictures—aimed at men and women who are presumed to have adult sensibilities.

Here’s some relevant and insightful commentary from Steve Sailer, a nerd, in the sense that he seems to get a real kick out of crunching numbers, but not a geek, in the sense that he doesn’t seem to like comics, from his review of the Spider-Man movie (which, incidentally, I like a lot more than he did):

Lots of fellows these days complain about the "feminization of American culture." Perhaps that's actually happening, but movies have become increasingly masculinized, as shown by the enormous anticipation for "Spider-Man."

Compare two recent Angelina Jolie movies: last week's chick flick "Life or Something Like It" and last year's boy toy "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider." Being a guy, I certainly wouldn't go see "Life or Something" again, but, as I predicted, the women who saw it rated it warmly. Yet, not many saw it. It grossed less than $7 million in its first week. Because it's a film for females, it lacked buzz.

In contrast, Jolie's video game-based "Tomb Raider" earned almost $48 million during its first weekend, even though it's now widely derided as a dud.

So, which segment of the audience is obsessive enough to get on the Internet and beat the drums for unreleased movies? You guessed it -- the generally shy but extraordinarily opinionated fanboys who love comic book movies. The best known is Harry Knowles, founder of Ain't It Cool News, the movie preview website that has so much influence over what's thought hot, and, increasingly, what gets made.

Tuesday, May 3, 2005

Anti-Nerdism

A more charitable take on Sean Collins’s response to Ron Rosenbaum’s anti-Kill Bill piece might have focused less on Sean’s somewhat bizarre claim that Rosenbaum’s essay exhibited anti-white bias and more on Sean’s claim that Rosenbaum’s essay exhibited anti-nerd bias. Sean seems to have made up Rosenbaum’s prejudice against white people, but Rosenbaum’s uneasiness with geek culture—especially its entwined depiction of violence and women—seems to be the driving force of the essay.

I’m fairly ambivalent about the whole anti-nerd thing. Even though I really like a lot of geek culture stuff—sci-fi movies, super-hero comics, video games, etc.—I do find the amount of time and money the pop culture industry spends in catering to people with a 14-year-old fanboy’s sensibility a little depressing. (I also wonder about the way this sensibility is even colonizing parts of the “high art” world). And while I generally don’t care too much for the kind of internecine nerd battles that try to pass as commentary on geek culture (Rosenbaum’s essay is an only slightly more mainstream versions of this phenomenon, as is A.O. Scott’s pan of Sideways, for that matter), I find it hard to get too worked up over it anymore. After all, to paraphrase a character from Evan Dorkin’s “Eltingville” comics: “This is a great time to be a geek.” As a geek (or at least a geek fellow-traveler) myself, I really can’t complain if non-geeks (or people pretending to be non-geeks) feel a little overwhelmed huge importance the pop culture industry places on stuff like Star Wars, super-heroes, and The Lord of the Rings. I understand the backlash against and I can sympathize with anti-nerdists like Rosenbaum because, after all, for now at least the geeks have won. And not just in a money-industry-product sense: hip lit-fic writers like Jonathan Lethem and Michael Chabon are writing super-hero comics. It isn't surprising that Rosenbaum (not to mention genuine high culture warriors) have sour grapes.

But sometimes I get the sense that Sean (and others who share his anti-anti-nerd stance) won’t be satisfied until the kind of stuff he loves—the Wu Tang and Kill Bill and Brian Michael Bendis’s Daredevil—is warmly embraced and praised to high heaven by every cultural commentator/critic from The New York Observer to The Comics Journal to The New York Times to The New Criterion. But this just isn’t going to happen. And, as far as I’m concerned, that’s a pretty good thing, too. Because most of geek culture is made up of junk whose primary feature is that it references a lot of other junk, creating a kind of huge interconnected junk labyrinth. In the big scheme of things, it may not be a bad place to spend a few hours a week, but too many of its fans get lost in it.

I think Pauline Kael got it right when she defended trash culture back in the 60s: sometimes trashy stuff is more vibrant and connects more honestly with an audience than stuffy, self-conscious works of “serious art”. But trash culture’s positives are also its negatives: its vibrancy and up-to-the-second relevancy leave it disposable and unable to provide substantial cultural nourishment.

The Anti-White Bias of Kill Bill's Critics?

I was mildly puzzled by Sean Collins’s response to Ron Rosenbaum’s anti-Kill Bill and Sin City essay from the New York Observer (via Tom Spurgeon). Rosenbaum’s main point is that having loads of pop culture references does not necessarily make for a good movie:

I’ve heard so many defenses of Kill Bill that depend on the apparently marvelous and unheard-of-before wonder of its referentiality. Dude, just because you make a reference—or many references—doesn’t make it meaningful or worth four hours of our time.

Repeat after me, Kill Bill fans: Referentiality itself is not an intrinsic aesthetic value. Empty referentiality, going through the motions, doesn’t make a motion picture, give cinema the gift of sight—or insight.


Although, I’m not sure that “empty displays of filmmaking technique” or “empty indie movie posturing” or “empty anything else” are really any better than “empty referentiality”, in the context of disarming Kill Bill’s defenders it makes sense.

But Sean makes the truly bizarre claim that Rosenbaum isn’t making this argument because he thinks Kill Bill is a bad movie, but rather because he’s prejudiced against white guys:

The ultimate crime of Kill Bill and Sin City, Rosenbaum half-states/half-implies, is that they were made by middle-class heterosexual white American men who were immersed in nerd culture as teenagers.


Sean’s evidence for this? Well, he doesn’t really have any but he just can’t “imagine [Rosenbaum] deploying this same line of criticism against, say, the just as referential--and in regards to the same sources!--work of the Wu-Tang Clan?” And why can’t Sean imagine this? Because the Wu Tang Clan’s work “is so self-evidently brilliant, and its referentiality is part and parcel of that brilliance.” Now, I really don’t mean to sound patronizing, but in a world where the merits of Jackson Pollock’s paintings are still argued over the Wu Tang Clan does not get a free pass. Personally, I have no trouble imagining Rosenbaum dismissing both Kill Bill and the Wu Tang’s music, because I don’t like Kill Bill or the Wu Tang’s music.

The weirdest thing is that while Sean has no real basis for accusing Rosenbaum of anti-white bias—Sean is at best reading between the lines and at worst just making shit up—he claims that Rosenbaum’s (invented) anti-white bias isn’t even deployed accurately against Sin City and Kill Bill because Robert Rodriguez, Sin City’s, director is Hispanic and a lot of Chinese people worked on Kill Bill. So first Sean attacks Rosenbaum for having a fictional prejudice and then he attacks him for not being consistent with his fictional prejudice. Huh? It's not at all surprising that Rosenbaum does not consistently show the signs of a prejudice he does not actually seem to have.

Overall, though, I wasn’t wild about Rosenbaum’s essay either. I liked parts of it. For example, I was glad to see that not everyone buys into the movie’s “strong women characters” line of B.S.:

And I really like Uma Thurman and Daryl Hannah, but all the talk about "Isn’t it great that they get to play strong women in Kill Bill?" is a little meretricious. They get to play strong cartoon characters who are made to say stupid things by men (the screenwriters) who don’t have respect enough for them not to make them silly caricatures. They’re made to sound not like women, but like male Tarantino thugs.


This reminded me of Steve Sailer’s comments on The Powerpuff Girl movie’s place in the recent babes-kicking-butt genre:

"The Powerpuff Girls" is another example of a broad trend in current culture: pseudo-feminist male fantasies about violent females, as in "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider," "Charlie's Angels," and Jennifer Lopez's recent "Enough." The nerdier the fellow, the bigger the charge he seems to get from watching girls whomp guys.

Deep down, male chauvinism stems from a fear not that females will act like males, but that they won't. Orthodox feminists and schoolboy sexists share two convictions: both want all females (with the exception of their own personal Moms) socialized to be aggressive, while fearing that most girls would really prefer to be gentle and loving. In fact, an appreciation for "stereotypical" femininity would appear to be a sign of relative maturity in the male sex.

But Rosenbaum’s piece has two big problems:

First, Sin City is similar to Kill Bill in many ways—its violence, its stylization, its over-the-top pulpiness—but its really not at all “referential” in the same way. Each scene of Kill Bill is chock full of specific references to other pieces of junk culture, but Sin City is a pretty standard noir pastiche, with fewer references than a lot of other examples of neo-noir—Robert Crais’s Elvis Cole novels or the Coen Brothers’ The Big Lebowski, for example.

Second, the way these kinds of essays usually work, the writer will heap scorn on a handful of popular movies and then switch gears and praise some lesser known movies that do the same thing that the popular ones but do it better. For example, if I were to write an essay like this I’d probably blast Kung Fu Hustle for being not nearly as much as advertised and then point my readers to the absurd Andy Lau comedy Running on Karma. But Rosenbaum tries to bury Kill Bill and Sin City in order to praise a group of films he describes as being part of the “L.A. Collage School”. I suppose there’s nothing wrong with him doing this except that (a) it seems pretty arbitrary, as these films have nothing whatsoever to do with anything else in the essay, and (b) he seems to have just invented the idea of the “L.A. Collage School”. (I have always referred to the movies that Rosenbaum places in the category as “Movies Set in L.A.” but I suppose that doesn’t sound French enough). I guess Rosenbaum just likes these movies, and wanted to write about them, but they really don't fit in with the rest of what he’s writing about. It would have made more sense if he had offered up some examples of movies that make use of meaningful referentiality—like Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s A Very Long Engagement, which contains many references to the classics of French cinema in every scene, or the aforementioned The Big Lebowski and its predecessor The Long Goodbye.

Monday, May 2, 2005

Random Thoughts on Starship Troopers

I have quite a few friends who are fans of Paul Verhoeven’s film Starship Troopers. All of them saw the movie before they read the original Robert Heinlein novel—or any of Heinlein’s other books, for that matter. After they had seen the movie, they tried to read the book, but none of them could get into it. They all made the same complaint: the book wasn’t funny like the movie was. Unfortunately, the experience seems to have turned them off Heinlein for good. Whenever I’ve recommended that they give one of his other books a try, they’ve demurred, citing their disappointment with Starship Troopers.

Now, though I’ve liked everything I’ve ever read by Heinlein and would consider him one of my favorite science fiction writers—even one of my favorite “genre” writers—I really don’t rate hardcore Heinlein fan status because I haven’t read his two most famous (and most controversial) books: Stranger in a Strange Land and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I’ve avoided reading them partly because I love Heinlein’s straightforward no-nonsense storytelling, and both the fans and the detractors of these books seem to agree that this is where Heinlein starts to get serious and/or pretentious. I suppose I will get around to reading them soon enough, but I am not looking forward to them as much as I am to Citizen of the Galaxy (one of the few of Heinlein’s “juvenile” novels that I haven’t read yet).

But to get back to my friends: I’m mildly peeved that Verhoeven’s movie has spoiled Heinlein for them. I’m also kind of curious because they all had exactly the same reaction to Heinlein’s novel. Of course, if this were only about me and my friends that really wouldn’t be that interesting or informative for anyone else. But looking at the customer reviews from the movie’s Amazon page, it seems my friends aren’t alone. Though there seem to be a few people who appreciate both the book and the movie, most of the movie’s fans either did not read the book or were as disappointed with it as my friends were.

Like my friends, I saw the movie before I read the book, and, again like my friends, I enjoyed the movie. However, I read a bunch of other Heinlein stuff before getting around to the Starship Troopers novel, so when I did read it I was already on Heinlein’s wavelength and didn't have to struggle against preconceptions the movie might've spawned. After reading Starship Troopers, my appreciation for Verhoeven’s film version waned, although I still think it’s a fairly enjoyable tongue-in-cheek action movie along the lines of Verhoeven’s RoboCop. But it really doesn’t hold a candle to the novel, which has its humorous moments, but is essentially a pretty serious story. I can understand why a lot of Heinlein’s fans really dislike the movie and consider it a genuine travesty. Verhoeven claimed that he and the screenwriter were trying to satirize Heinlein’s novel, but the movie is more of a campy send-up of the book then a satire, partly because it ignores the major point of the book and overlooks its subtleties. If anything, Verhoeven’s movie satirizes gung-ho action flicks like Rambo and Top Gun.

Now, the negative reaction many fans of certain novels have towards film adaptations of those novels is common enough to have become a kind of clichĂ©. (I was tempted to write “fans of certain sci-fi, fantasy, or cult novels”, but while these kinds of fans now have the loudest internet presence, this phenomenon originated when educated people started complaining that Hollywood was dumbing down the classics.) I wouldn’t have to spend too much time Googling in order to find Douglas Adams fans who are appalled by the recent film version of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. However, I think it’s fairly rare to encounter the opposite phenomenon—as in the case of my friends and Starship Troopers: partisans of the movie who actively dislike the original novel to such an extent that they won’t touch the author’s other books. (Incidentally, this is a different group from that of “fans of the movie who have never read the original novel and have no intention to do so.”) Though I can imagine that someone who was a fan of Robert Altman and Leigh Brackett’s updated version of The Long Goodbye not digging Raymond Chandler’s original novel and its brethren, I don’t actual know anyone for whom this is the case.

The closest counterpart I can come up with is Blade Runner, another movie based on a novel by a cult sci-fi writer. But Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner is an even looser adaptation of its source novel than Verhoeven’s movie. The people who made Blade Runner do what just about everyone does when they make a movie based on a Philip K. Dick story does—they pick out one of Dick’s ideas from the story and build a big sci-fi movie around it that really doesn’t have all that much to do with the original story. The cyberpunk noir aspects of Blade Runner’s mood and design, i.e. the movie’s most distinctive feature, are nowhere to be found in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, which is much more of a metaphysical meditation than a detective story. However, while I know people who prefer Blade Runner to the original novel, I don’t know of anyone who ended up completely writing off Philip K. Dick because of that preference. (This might be because Dick is currently a much bigger deal in hipster/geek circles than Heinlein is. Heinlein’s books are still popular, but his star has dimmed when it comes to his status as a cult sci-fi author: among folks from my generation he’s nowhere near as well received as Dick or Kurt Vonnegut.)

But the thing is—and this is the closest this post is going to get to having a point—I think my friends, and probably a lot of other people who enjoyed the movie of Starship Troopers, would really dig Heinlein’s other books. Starship Troopers, the novel, just isn’t very good place to start. (Incidentally, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? isn’t a very good starting place to develop an appreciation for Philip K. Dick, and this I know from personal experience.) I’ve come across quite a few lists on the web recommending the best Heinlein books to start with, but especially for people who liked the Starship Troopers movie but were turned off by the novel I’d recommend the ur-body snatchers novel The Puppet Masters for its wicked sense of humor. A good follow up is Double Star, which is slightly dated—not because of its science or its ideas, but because of its depiction of the acting profession. And if those books don’t do anything for you, then Heinlein is probably just not for you, no matter what your feelings towards Verhoeven’s movie.

Friday, April 8, 2005

From the Archives: The 25 Comics I Like Best

#21: Calvin and Hobbes

by Bill Watterson

In the greatest modern variation on Don Quixote, Sancho Panza is a cynical stuffed tiger and the Don is a hyperactive young American boy.

Like Cervantes' knight, Calvin knows the difference between fantasy and reality, and, like Cervantes' knight, he is wise enough see the folly in the dogged pursuit of the merely real. Like the knight's faithful squire, Hobbes questions the prudence of unrestrained flights of fancy, and, like the knight's faithful squire, he ends up going along for the ride anyway.

Calvin is an idealist and a visionary. Thankfully, for the sake of his audience if not his parents, Calvin is also a complete pain in the ass. Hobbes is a pragmatic, down-to-earth realist. Thankfully, for the sake of his audience if not Calvin, he has a gleefully sadistic streak. Hobbes is, after all, a tiger.

One of my favorite of Kafka's paragraph-long parables, "The Truth About Sancho Panza", imagines that Don Quixote is actually an aspect of Sancho Panza that has been projected into the real world. In Calvin & Hobbes, the conceit, of course, is the opposite: Calvin, the monomanical demon, imbues his toy tiger with life, as if he was projecting his practical conscience--his super-ego, for you Freudians--into Hobbes.

Yet actually reading the comic belies this conceit: following Kafka, Calvin does seem more like Hobbes' "demon" unleashed on the world. But returning to Cervantes from Kafka, I'd argue both that Hobbes and Calvin are equally "real." It is impossible to read Hobbes as merely a figment of Calvin's overactive imagination: Hobbes is his own agent, his own entity, brought to life not by Calvin himself but by Calvin's belief in a kind of magic that is bigger than himself.

Calvin & Hobbes is not in the line of comics that try to paint a "realistic" picture of childhood. Calvin is far less like actual children than Crockett Johnson's Barnaby or the characters in John Stanley's Little Lulu. Watterson uses Calvin to do what Charles Schulz uses Charlie Brown and the gang to do in Peanuts. Schulz and Watterson use their children to externalize and dramatize the internal struggles of the human (adult) condition. (Johnson and Stanley, on the other hand, get at their truths by recreating the internal and external concerns of childhood.) This is what makes Peanuts and Calvin & Hobbes the most popular comic strips in University philosophy departments.

But while Schulz turned his brand of everyday, Mid-Western, coffee mug philosophy into bittersweet poetry, Watterson takes the syllabus of Philosophy 101 and sets it to the rhythms of farce. Watterson's greatest achievement doesn't have to do with his ideas, per se, but rather with the way he presents them. What places Watterson in the category of world-class cartoonist is his handling of farce. He is, hands-down, the greatest farceur in the comics since Carl Barks was in his prime. Everything else in the strip--its philosophical play, deft characterization, formal experimentation, kinetic line--works to serve the pursuit of its farce. It's hard to think of any other writer or artist who's managed to make metaphysical farce as enjoyable and compelling as, for example, the episode where Calvin tries to use his time machine to avoid doing homework. Watterson isn't quite Borges, but he comes as close as any other popular artist of the last 50 years.

But what really makes Calvin & Hobbes one of my favorite comics of all time is its depcition of the relationship between the boy and his tiger. There are few relationships in comics as nuanced, as compelling, or as believable as the one between Calvin and Hobbes. Watterson has made a comic that is a celebration of imagination, courage, philosophy, and exploration. Most importantly and most centrally, however, it is a celebration of friendship.

(You can read the beautiful final strip, one of my favorites, here.)

Tuesday, March 8, 2005

From the Archives: The 25 Comics I Like Best

#22: The Dr. Strange stories in Strange Tales

by Steve Ditko and Stan Lee

Since Dr. Strange is the first super-hero to make an appearance on this list, I'd like to take a few moments to discuss super-hero comics in general.

Very few comics fans have a moderate opinion of this genre. Supporters tend to make outrageous claims for it, throwing around words like "allegory" and "archetype" and "mythic", dropping the names of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. Detractors make similarly vague points about "adolescent power fantasies" and "fascism," and many lay the blame on the childish super-hero for the more general stigma against comics. Both groups are guilty of generalizations that ignore the specific flaws and merits of the super-hero: the former generalize because of a need to rationalize nostalgic pleasure, the latter generalize because of a need to hoist their cherished art form out of the spandex gutters to the heighs of literature and art.

Further distorting most of the critical takes on super-heroes is the fact that writing about all comics tends to focus more on the writing than the drawing, and while this isn't a fatal flaw when the subject is Harold Gray or Harvey Pekar, ever since Joe Shuster drew a picture of a dude in tights lifting a car above his head, the appeal of the super-hero comic has been primarily visual.

I'll have to save my post on Alan Moore and the folly of the through-written super-hero story for a later date, but 15+ years after Watchmen I'm convinced more than ever that Stan Lee's approach to super-heroes is the best. We don't go to see a Verdi opera for the story, but to hear the music. We don't read a Kirby comic for the words, but to look at the pictures. Working with Kirby and Steve Ditko, Stan Lee proved himself the finest super-hero librettist the comics world has produced. Fans who find humanistic, novelistic depth in the stories in The Fantastic Four are as wrong-headed as critics who attack what they see as these stories' superficiality and simplemindedness.

The logos-centric approach to super-hero criticism generally obscures the traditions the genre springs from. Jules Feiffer, in his book The Great Comic Book Heroes, is one of the few people to get it right. Feiffer points to Alex Raymond's figure drawing, Roy Crane's action-packed cartooning, the visual motifs of the circus, and the crudity of pulp art as the major influences on the super-hero artists. Furthermore, Feiffer acknowledges the priority of the art over the writing as the primary appeal of the super-hero comics.

Of course, Feiffer dismissed these comics as junk, and, for the most part, that's what they were (and are). Vital and compelling junk, to be sure, but junk nonetheless. I still get a kick out of the Dick Sprang-Bill Finger Batman stories or the Mike Sekowsky-Gardner Fox Justice League, but no one should mistake them for art - pop, mass, folk, or otherwise.

A handful of super-hero comics, however, do deserve to be called art (or something very much like it), not because their creators have transcended the genre, or, even worse, deconstructed it, but because the genre's peculiar constraints and freedoms gave certain artists an expansive visual vocabulary, enriched by the lively mixture of junk traditions, to express an idiosyncratic world view which would be otherwise inexpressible. The perfect fit between genre and creator has happened only a few times, but whenever it has, the results have been felt far outside the hermetic world of super-hero fandom.

Steve Ditko and Stan Lee's Dr. Strange stories are a perfect example of what super-hero comics can be at their best. As I've already implied, Lee had an important but definitely supporting role in the collaboration: Ditko's own unique style and sensibility gave the comic its life.

Although they come relatively early in Ditko's career (which continues to this day), the Dr. Strange stories already focus on what would become his favorite theme: the tension between abstract ideals and specific actions. Dr. Strange's mission is to protect our dimension from invasion by the totalitarian chaos of the astral plane. Ditko renders the spirit relam as a fantastic jungle of overwhelming abstract shapes and designs, where any objectivity of perspective is constantly under attack. Ditko plays out the clash between destructive relativism and heroic objectivity completely through the visuals. Because of this, the Dr. Strange stories are somewhat unique among Ditko's work for featuring a hero with a face and faceless villains, rather than the other way around. Spider-Man, for example, wears a full face mask that hides his features, while the bad guys he fights, like the Vulture, the Sandman, and Doctor Octopus, are almost as distinctive as the criminals in Dick Tracy or Dick Sprang's Batman. Later Ditko heroes, like the Question and Mr. A, are completely faceless.

Of course, what makes these great super-hero comics is that Ditko never forces any of this on the reader. They can be appreciated as art in spire of themselves. They showcase the power that the visual freedom the genre allows when its limitations are also respected. Nothing is being reinvented here, and no one makes any labored attempts to set up any allegories. The big meanings that reside in the comic come effortlessly from Ditko and Lee pursuing much smaller ends.

Nowadays, most discussions about Ditko by comics fans revolve around his politics. Ditko's objectivist philosophy, dormant in his work for Marvel in the 60s, became the focus of much of his later work, starting with The Question for Charlton and continuing on into the didactic strips in his Avenging World collection. And even though I'm somewhat sympathetic to Ditko's objectivism (I don't, for example, believe that every objectivist suffers from some kind of pathological disorder), these later comics suffer because, for all his visual brilliance, the man can't write dialogue to save his life. Ditko needed Stan Lee far more than Jack Kirby did. As much as I enjoy Ditko's recent work, mainly for the ways in which Ditko has mastered the formal aspects of writing essays in comics form, the Dr. Strange stories are far better realized, far more rewarding, than almost anything he's done since.

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Best Lists

Ever since graduating from college, I’ve gotten together with my film professor and a group of his other film-buff students for an annual “List Party.” We eat a big dinner and then share our top-ten movie lists of the past year (here's one of them from this year). Some people might think that this is anal, obsessive, pretentious, or boring, but, for me at least, it’s a hell of a lot of fun. Most importantly I get to spend an evening with some of my best friends, whom I don’t see often enough. But, added to that, our lists are a catalyst for wide-ranging and free-wheeling discussions about movies in particular and art in general.

Now, I know some people balk at the very idea of “Top-Ten Lists”. They may be philosophically opposed to making the kind of hierarchical value judgments these lists imply. They might feel that, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, these lists are useless and basically arbitrary. Or they might simply find the whole “Best List” genre uninteresting.

Over the years, I’ve seen many paid movie critics preface their best lists with a preemptive defense to these various anti-list arguments. I’m not really sure that this kind of apologia is really necessary, since most people like reading these kinds of lists, even if they recognize (on some level) that “Best Lists” are, by their nature, somewhat arbitrary and incomplete. But if I had to defend the whole list-making process, I’d say that you should approach a list as the starting place of a discussion and not as the final say on the matter. As an analogy, saying about a movie that “Roger Ebert liked it” might be a fun way to start a conversation about the movie’s merits, but it would be a very lame way to try to end one.

But what about writing a best list? I mean, while it might make sense for a professional paid movie critic to make up these kinds of lists, why would someone like me spend time on one? An inflated sense of self-importance? Some kind of compulsive disorder? Well, maybe, but, even if that’s so, these would still be my rationalizations:

1. In the context of the annual “List Party”, I like writing up a “Best List” for social reasons. I have fun arguing about movies with my film buff friends. For me, part of the whole “art experience” will always include the conversations that it generates.

2. From a practical standpoint, my “Best List” makes it really easy to recommend movies to friends and relatives. This may sound kind of pompous, but because I (a) was a cinema studies student and (b) watch a lot of movies people who know me often (1) ask me which movies they should see or (2) ask me what I think of their most recent favorite. (After (2) happens enough, they usually stop with the (1)).

3. I like making a “Best List” because it gives me a kind of snapshot of my take on movies, and, more generally, art, at a specific time.


Even though it sounds pretty hokey, looking at all the yearly best lists I’ve made gives me some idea of how I’ve “grown” as an amateur/academic film critic. It lets me see not only how my taste has changed, but, more importantly, how I’ve become a lot more comfortable with expressing my own likes and dislikes.
When I first got out of college, I tried too hard to measure movies against an objective standard, and I ended up putting movies on my list that I really didn’t like, but thought that I should. And when I was in grad school, I tended to make up abstract principles to support my preferences. (For example, when I was going through my “Manny Farber” phase, I claimed that the movies I liked “explored spatial issues in an interesting way”).

Now, I just make a list of the movies I enjoyed the most during the year, and I try to rank them based more on how much pleasure I get from watching them rather than on how well they live up to an idealized standard or illustrate a theoretical idea about film. Another way to put it is that the rules I use when making up a list have become a lot more ad-hoc than they used to be. I still put a lot of thought into how to best go about ranking movies, but I’ve decided that it isn’t a problem that I really need to solve. (Maybe Aaron Haspel will come up with an equation for it, once he’s done explaining the human condition). I’ve settled on a basic rule of thumb, though: the less dread I have of seeing a movie again and the more psyched I get about recommending it to a friend the higher I’ll rank it. Mostly I just try to be honest.

It might be that I’m projecting my own flaws onto other people, but one of my big problems with lots of “Best Lists” by professional and semi-professional movie critics is that they hardly ever seem like a truly honest catalogue of the critic’s favorite movies. Too much of the time, these lists read like they were made up to appeal to a certain audience or to make a point. It seems to me that a lot of movies end up on these lists not because critics liked them, but because they feel the movies are worthy in some way.

A movie’s “worthiness factor” is not necessarily dependent on its having an uplifting theme (although this is a favorite among mainstream critics): it might be that the movie has the right politics or takes a courageous stand on a cultural issue, or the movie might be seen as “artistically” worthy because it pushes the boundaries of the medium, or its worthiness could be related to insider Hollywood industry issues.

A close relative to the “worthy” movies that show up on a lot of these lists are the admirable movies. “Admirable” movies tend to look pretty good from a purely intellectual point-of-view, but are almost completely devoid of any pleasurable moments. These movies very often make interesting discussion pieces, but you’re likely to get passionate about them.

Finally, there’s the impressive movies. These are the ones whose technical achievement is praiseworthy, but are neither pleasurable nor interesting.

Of course, a counter-argument to my carping might be that the critic isn’t supposed to simply make a list of favorite movies, but is supposed to make a list of the “best” movies. In that case, the problem isn’t that these critics aren’t being honest with their list-making, but are trying to make up their list based on some semi-objective standards of worthiness, admirableness, and impressiveness. And, though this is a completely personal judgment call, I prefer an honest list of likes and dislikes to a list that tries to hew to everyone else’s idea of what makes a good movie.

Anyway, all this is really just an excuse to post my own best list for the past year. It is not an official “Top Ten” list because it has 14 movies on it, which was a completely arbitrary choice on my part. I could have easily expanded it to 15 or I could have cut it off after the tenth slot. If you are a purist, you can scroll down past the first four entries. This list was a little harder to make than most of my previous ones. I only saw two movies that really, truly blew me away, and they easily earned the top spots. However, I saw a lot of movies that I thought were very fine, and so the rest of the movies on the list are ranked somewhat arbitrarily. If you don’t enjoy reading this list, then I hope you will at least have fun chuckling at some of my choices.

The Forager’s Fourteen Favorite Films for ‘04

14. The Dreamers: This movie has a lot going against it: it features an incestuous love triangle, it romanticizes “the Sixties” (specifically, Paris in 1968), and, perhaps most damning, it is not only “about” movies but also “about” people who love movies. Actually, I’ve never really had a problem with movies about movies, but for some reason whenever someone makes a movie about movies there will always be a bunch of critics who complain that there are too many movies about movies and that filmmakers should just stop it. (Literary critics often make similar complaints about writers, i.e., that writers should never write about writing because only other writers will find it interesting. I think both these rules are bunk. While it might be true that there are people who are bored by movies about movies or writing about writing, your average movie about movies or writing about writing is not likely to be much worse than your average movie about something other than movies or writing about something other than writing.) But to get back to The Dreamers, despite its flaws, I thought it was pretty sexy and that Bernardo Bertolucci’s direction was nice and lively. Most of all, I liked how Gilbert Adair’s screenplay played an Ibsenian twist on the innocent abroad genre. (Spoiler: In this case, it’s the decadent but still innocent Parisian twins whose idyllic life is shattered by the more down-to-earth, commonsensical American). Unfortunately, though the young actors all look very nice, none of them gives much of a performance. The movie is probably a little too silly for most critics to take seriously, but that didn’t stop me from enjoying it.

13. Before Sunset: Perfectly structured and perfectly acted, this was one of my favorite “relationship” movies of last year. However, most of my film buff friends seemed to rate this movie a lot higher than I did: at our “List Party” three people had it in the number one slot and two others had it right up near the top. I liked it a lot, but found it a little, I don’t know, narrow. Perhaps a better way to put it is that this movie felt like a perfect short story and my own preference/prejudice is for the more “novelistic”.

12. Shaun of the Dead: I absolutely love zombie movies and I thought this parody/satire was spot on. A lot of people have interpreted the original Dawn of the Dead as a satire on consumerism. The problem, as my friend Mark Dellelo has said, is that if it is a satire, it isn’t funny. At all. Actually, I think the anti-consumerist reading of Dawn of the Dead is pretty thin. Even if that is what George Romero intended, what gives the movie its juice is the feeling of being under siege in what should be a completely sterile, non-threatening environment. Shaun of the Dead not only conveys this feeling, but adds on a satire of contemporary middle class life, and, more importantly, makes it all funny. The movie’s also kind of moving in a standard Hollywood learn-to-face-your-fears-and-become-a-better-person way. Many critics have said that the movie runs itself into a corner and makes a mistake by turning into “straight” zombie movie by the end, but I had no problem with this because, like I said, I absolutely love zombie movies.

11. Spartan: The Bourne Supremacy was a better made political thriller, but I liked Spartan better because it’s really a caper movie masquerading as a political thriller. If I were in a pretentious mood, I might write that Spartan suggests that politics is really a matter of hiding capers from the public. Actually, that might be what writer/director David Mamet thinks, and though that strikes me as bullshit policy analysis, it makes for a pretty good movie. Anyway, Spartan has capers coming out the wazoo. The bad guys are trying to pull off their capers, the good guys are trying to pull off their capers, and the ambiguous thought-they-were-good-but-oops-looks-like-they’re-not guys are trying to pull off their capers. There’re lots of scenes of tough guys planning capers and lots of scenes of tough guys pulling off capers and lots of scenes of tough guys reacting to their capers going all FUBAR. I’m almost tempted to say that the movie’s only problem is that it lacks a sense of humor, but after repeated viewings I think that even if David Mamet script and direction are a little too serious, Val Kilmer’s performance—especially his line readings—has moments of near absurd black comedy. Some day, I hope that someone will turn one of the great Richard Stark (aka Donald Westlake) “Parker” novels into a great movie. Until then, I’m willing to settle for stuff like Spartan, which has almost all the pieces.

10. Spider-Man 2: I don’t really have too much to say about this movie, partly because it has already been praised up and down the blogosphere. This was my favorite of the big budget American adventure movies, although I also enjoyed The Incredibles, Hellboy, and National Treasure. I liked this better than the Harry Potter movie, too, although, from a purely “objective”-analytical standpoint I can see how Prisoner of Azkaban is the better made film. For me, the choice between a flawed Spider-Man movie and a near perfect Harry Potter movie really rests on the fact that I’m a huge Spider-Man fan and I don’t really care about Harry Potter. I’m sure this violates some kind of rule of film criticism, i.e. the critic must treat each movie on its own terms and as its own creature, but I’ve often had trouble doing this. For example, one of my favorite movies of the past few years is Michael Winterbottom’s 24 Hour Party People. However, I know that people who don’t know and/or care too much about the Manchester music scene of the 1980s aren’t likely to find the movie all that comprehensible, let alone enjoyable. Luckily, this is my list and the only place it will be published is on my blog, and, since I am an adult, I get to make up all my own rules: so Spider-Man 2 gets spot #10 and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban appears not at all.

9. Dawn of the Dead: Did I mention I absolutely love zombie movies? And though this might be considered sacrilegious in certain hardcore horror movie buff circles, I have to admit that I prefer this remake to Romero’s original. Don’t get me wrong: I think George Romero is just great. Night of the Living Dead is completely worthy of its classic status, Day of the Dead has one of the greatest single shots in the history of horror films, and his low rent vampire movie Martin, which feels like it’s a collaboration between Val Lewton and Flannery O’Connor, might be my all time favorite fright flick. However, Romero’s Dawn has always struck me as having two major flaws: it is too long and it is pretty badly acted. Actually, neither one of those flaws would be a problem by itself, but the combination is a real killer. This remake solves those problems: the script by James Gunn is a lot sharper and the cast does terrific ensemble work. Some people might complain that the remake “Hollywoodizes” the original—they might miss the original’s sparseness and low key creepiness. They might find the remake too revved up and gimmicky. That’s a fair enough criticism—the remake is pushy and insistent in a way that the original isn’t—but the remake adds a whole lot more nuance and, in general, better explores the central issue of all zombie movies, which is: can a given group of people manage to get their act together after the arrival of the zombies has triggered an apocalyptic breakdown of social rules or will they lose their shit and get eaten? No movie more thoroughly answers this question than the remake of Dawn of the Dead.

8. Infernal Affairs: Despite what aficionados of Asian Cinema will tell you, Hong Kong movies are no better than Hollywood movies. In fact, the average Hong Kong movie is probably worse than the average Hollywood movie, for two reasons: (1) Hong Kong movies tend to be made on the cheap and (2) Hong Kong movies tend to be made really quickly. This might sound funny to someone who thinks all Hollywood movies are garbage, but the truth is that Hollywood has better quality control than the Hong Kong film industry. However, Hong Kong has Hollywood beat, hands down, when it comes to one important factor: they’ve got better movie stars over there. Real movie stars—not the pretty boys and cutesy girls-next-door who’d look right at home in a shampoo ad that we’ve got in America, but honest-to-God, pack-‘em-in-the-seats-and-watch-their-jaws-drop movie stars. And Infernal Affairs has two of Hong Kong best movie stars in dueling lead roles, but it also gives them something you hardly ever find in a Hong Kong movie: a really terrific screenplay.

7. The Aviator: On paper, this is one of those movies that looks like it shouldn’t even be able to get off the ground, weighed down by its own big-time biopic ambitions. But somehow, Martin Scorsese makes it fly. And fly it does: this was the shortest three hours I’ve spent at the movies in a long time. This is one of those movies that is more than the sum of its parts, especially because, on close inspection, those parts don’t look so great. For example, scene-by-scene, John Logan’s screenplay is full of shit, but its overall structure, weaving all the disparate strands of Howard Hughes’s life together, manages to solve one of the biggest problems facing anyone writing a biopic. And, scene-by-scene, I don’t think I once bought Leonardo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes, but I thought the movie needed Leo’s light touch a lot more than some kind of weighty Sean Penn-esque method performance. Mostly, this is a tribute to Martin Scorsese, who seemed to make the whole thing work by magic.

6. Son Frere: Son Frere is the kind of movie that a lot of movie critics praise for its “intimacy” but don’t hold that against it. The set-up is straightforward: a man dying of a rare blood disease asks his estranged brother to help care for him during his final days and the two end up having the confrontation that they had been avoiding for so long. This is a “what has dying taught us about living” movie, but its extremely low-key and not at all insistent—very Claire Denis. And the actors give my favorite type of performances—the ones where they never seem to be doing anything, but you can’t help believing completely in what their characters are going through. Son Frere has the best naturalistic filmmaking I saw all year.

5. Hotel Rwanda: I don’t give a movie points just for tackling a difficult subject, but when a movie comes along that does tackle a difficult subject and manages to pull it off it can be a lot more stunning than other movies which are, perhaps, better from an aesthetic point-of-view. Hotel Rwanda is that kind of movie: the filmmaking isn’t spectacular by any means and the screenplay is far from perfect, but, by telling Paul Rusesabagina’s (amazing) story in a straightforward way, Terry George made the most devastating movie of the year. There’s certainly stuff in the movie that I could quibble about: there’re two particular badly written “blame Whitey” scenes and I don’t buy the screenplay’s overall argument. But those things are easily ignored and, anyway, are pretty minor compared to what the movie does achieve: an honest, eye-level view of the horrors of the Rwandan genocide, that, for the most part, doesn’t get preachy or try to hold your hand.

4. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Charlie Kaufman managed to write the greatest Philip K. Dick movie ever, even though it’s not actually based on something Dick wrote. Most of the “official” Dick movies take one of his clever ideas and try to build a huge action movie monstrosity around it. The Dick idea seems to be there mainly to give the filmmakers a nice story hook for their pitch meeting and so that they can tell people that their movie is “about” some kind of pseudo-intellectual-sounding theme. But Eternal Sunshine, like Dick’s best work, is thoroughly low-rent. In Dick’s stories the future doesn’t look like Tomorrowland at Disneyworld—it looks like Hoboken (or, more appropriately, one of those California suburbs I’ve never been to). Now, I don’t think that this is a profound movie, but I do think that (a) Kaufman’s screenplay is cleverly put together, smart about relationships, and, most importantly, very touching, (b) Michel Gondry hits exactly the right tone of subdued melancholy, and (c) the actors all give performances that fit perfectly into the rest of the movie. Oh yeah, it’s also one of the best movies about the messiness and pain of building a relationship after the falling-in-love part is over.

3. Sideways: Sideways was this year’s critics’ darling, so it’s no surprise that it turned into a target for critical backlash. I think backlash can be a very useful, and, in this case, I think the backlash was warranted (even if most of it was essentially wrongheaded, not to mention, a little extreme). Why? Because although I really liked Sideways—liked it so much, that it is, in fact, my third favorite movie of 2004—I think it is a modest, no-big-deal kind of movie, that isn’t likely to appeal to everyone (my grandmother didn’t like it, for example). Sideways isn’t a knock-your-socks-off experience: it has lots of little pleasures, but it really doesn’t have any huge, defining moments. (This is kind of what I felt about the movie year in general: lots of things I liked, but not much that I was blown away by). However, I would like to address what I think is a particularly strange aspect of the Sideways backlash: A.O. Scott’s claim that movie critics overpraised the movie because these critics really related to the schlubby, somewhat elitist main character. Well, first of all, what’s wrong with that? Aren’t we supposed to respond to art that we can relate to? Everyday moviegoers certainly tend to like movies that have characters they can relate to, why should critics be immune? A.O. Scott’s criticism seems to rely on there being some kind of objective movie critic standard, which, if it does exist, serves only to make film criticism uniform and boring. Plus, it’s not like there’s all that many films being made that have heroes we schlubby, elitist-types can really identify with. Why shouldn’t we heap praise on one when it comes around? And secondly, the movie doesn’t exactly celebrate the schlubby, elitist main character (in fact, the movie makes him look pretty schlubby, not to mention elitist) and it isn’t like the movie has some big triumph-of-the-nerds-type moment or is secretly a Spider-Man-type power fantasy. Anyways, for whatever the reasons, I’m glad that Sideways got all that critical acclaim for the purely selfish reason that I’d really like to see more movies like it.

2. House of Flying Daggers: I enjoyed the first half of Hero, but then it lost me. I thought that the fight scenes were amazingly made, but that the plot just wasn’t that interesting and engaging. A friend of mine claims that the plot Hero works on an allegorical level, which might be true, but (a) I wasn’t interested in finding it and (b) I don’t much like formalistic, allegorical movies to begin with. Nonetheless, I thought that Hero was probably the most beautifully shot and designed movie I saw all year. I went into House of Flying Daggers expecting the same thing: a distanced but perfectly designed martial arts movie that I would be impressed but left cold by. My expectations, as they often are, were completely thwarted. House of Flying Daggers may not be as impressive as Hero, but it is pretty damn close. More importantly, it has what Hero lacked: an abundance of passion. Hero felt like an exercise in how to stage beautiful fight scenes. House of Flying Daggers also has beautiful fight scenes, but they grow out of and are used to dramatize the relationships between the characters. Hero had a twisty, convoluted plotline, which seemed to exist as a kind of intellectual puzzle, not related to any of the characters. But in House of Flying Daggers, the twists and turns grow out of the characters’ conflicting drives, and there’s an operatic intensity to the whole affair. House of Flying Daggers is wuxia at its finest.

1. A Very Long Engagement: The only, truly knock-out, gut-wrenching, and eye-popping movie experience I had all year was at Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s A Very Long Engagement. As with House of Flying Dagger, I had low expectations for this one based on my cool response to Jeunet’s last film. I thought that Amelie was like the proverbial Buick swatting the proverbial fly: a movie where Jeunet had used just about every possible filmmaking technique that has ever existed in order to tell a very slight story that was just too whimsical for its own good. Though it doesn’t exactly fit into my definition of a “One Note Wonder”, Amelie is a movie that I would have enjoyed quite a bit had it been only 10 minutes long. After watching two hours of it, though, I had overdosed on cute. My fear that A very Long Engagement would be worse: not only cute, but trying to be cute and whimsical about the First World War, which sounded like a very awful idea. But I knew my expectations were completely off-base seconds into the movie: the opening scenes set in the trenches of the Western Front are simply stunning, both from a technical standpoint and in their emotional impact. What truly impressed me about the movie was that not only were the war scenes amazing, but everything else in the movie is equally well done: the romance, the rustic comedy, the mystery. Jeunet’s great achievement is to create a truly unified whole out of so many incommensurate elements. In fact, if the movie has one flaw it is that there are simply too many great things in it: the movie was already at its next jaw-dropping scene before I had fully recovered from the last one. A Very Long Engagement does have its whimsical moments, but these are balanced by its moments of true horror and despair. The only other movie I can really compare it to is Night of the Shooting Stars, which is also a kind of fairy tale set during wartime and also weaves together whimsy with horror. Jeunet’s movie isn’t quite in the same league—it’s a little too busy and a little too satisfied with its own cleverness—but it’s close. For me, A Very Long Engagement is the filmmaking achievement of the year, not just because of its technical brilliance, but because this brilliance is put to use to tell a complex and emotionally engaging story. Nothing else this year really came close to reaching these heights.

Tuesday, February 8, 2005

From the Archives: The 25 Comics I Like Best

#23: Dick Tracy

by Chester Gould

I've said this before and, before I'm through I'll say it again, but it's always a bad idea to a judge a comic by the shadow it casts into the larger realm of pop culture. Just as the actual pages of RAW and Hate! were obscured by their emblematic status, Chester Gould's hard boiled comic strip has disappeared behind a pageant of camp imagery. Today Dick Tracy is remembered mainly for one thing: the title character's two-way wristwatch TV.

Reading Gould's original is a real eye-opener: it's a fast-paced, violent, no-nonsense police procedural that has more in common with Brian De Palma and David Mamet's version of The Untouchables than the lame Warren Beatty movie based on the strip itself.

Gould's Dick Tracy is the ultimate B-picture, with scenes of unrestrained sadism that would make Anthony Mann proud. Acid, whips, and shards of glass join bullets and knives in the arsenal of the criminals who prey on the public and each other. Dick Tracy himself is always willing to shoot first and ask questions later if the situation calls for it.

The strip indulges Gould's fascination with police science and criminology. Tracy uses the most up-to-date techniques to snare the criminals he goes up against: fingerprinting, plaster casts, ballistic tests. Gould spends the time in between action scenes describing these newfangled methods of investigation step-by-step. It's the kind of documentary work that Jules Dassin would be praised for in Riffifi, and, to a certain extent, would characterize procedural dramas like Dragnet and Law & Order.

But the violence and the police work are just part of the mechanics necessary to keep a strip going day after day. What makes Dick Tracy one of the best comics I've ever read is the rightness of Gould's style. Not the master draughtsman that Milt Caniff was, Gould instead concentrated on the more theatrical aspects of comic strips: bold staging and bold caricatures. Each panel looks like it could've been taken from the storyboard of the greatest back-lot Warner's Brother gangster picture ever made.

Gould was one of the great American artists of the street, of the scars the city leaves on those not strong enough to survive there. And though Gould could be sentimental, he was never a romantic, which helps to keep the strip grounded in its own grimy sense of reality. Dick Tracy is the greatest crime comic ever, and I doubt that it'll ever be seriously challenged for that honor (no matter how much Frank Miller tries).

Sunday, January 30, 2005

One Note Wonders

There is a group of filmmakers popular among cinephile audiences in America that I now classify as One Note Wonders.

Films made by One Note Wonders have a distinctive style and sensibility—imprinted on every single frame of every single film they make—that is immediately and recognizably different from mainstream Hollywood movies. The major problem with these filmmakers is that their distinctive style and sensibility is really all they bring to the table—shot after shot, movie after movie—and, unfortunately, what was fresh, new, and interesting about their style goes stale after about 5 minutes, let alone 5 movies.

Whether or not they went to film school, One Note Wonders tend to make movies that have a film school aesthetic. In order to get noticed at film school, an aspiring filmmaker needs to do more than show that he’s a solid, anonymous craftsman: he has to make an impression and make it stick. There are a couple of ways to make this kind of impression. One involves spending a lot of money on the production. Another requires coming up with a really great story idea. But the most impressive (and often the best) film school films are made by filmmakers who are talented enough to develop their own unique style. A short film is the perfect showcase for a young filmmaker’s style, partly because there’s not too much else a short film by a young filmmaker can do.

The One Note Wonders make feature length versions of the kind film school films made by talented young filmmakers. Most movies made by One Note Wonders would be a lot better if they were only 10 minutes long. These filmmakers are “Wonders” because they tend to be more visually gifted than straightforward storytelling filmmakers, but they’re “One Note” because they’re able to use their talent to do only one thing, over and over.

The One Note Wonders are celebrated by filmgoers who place a high priority on seeing “something different” from most Hollywood movies. At the same time, the One Note Wonders are able to build a small audience of fans who want to see them do the same kind of “something different” in movie after movie. It’s a kind of branding that should be familiar to anyone who follows the modern art or indie music scenes.

Before I name names, I’d like to emphasize that I do think that these filmmakers are talented—in each movie made by a One Note Wonder there’s usually a scene that, on its own, is kind of magical—and I do understand why people are drawn to their work—a lot of cinephiles feel that film art exists in opposition to or in tension with the kind of straightforward storytelling that I value so much. Part of my argument is simply that these filmmakers aren’t really served all that well by the feature format and that their gifts are better suited to making short films (which is of course completely impractical for any working filmmaker).

Here’s a few of the most prominent One Note Wonders:

Jim Jarmusch is the Godfather of the One Note Wonders—the King of Quirkiness, the Popularizer (if not the inventor) of American Indie Minimalism. Jarmusch’s movies are filled with beautiful, yet low-key visuals, and there’s quite a few frames in them that would make wonderful still photographs in the tradition of Cindy Sherman’s “Untitled Film Stills” or Robert Frank’s The Americans, not to mention one image—of Johnny Depp on a train in the beginning of Dead Man—that’s as striking as any shot in a Murnau film.

However, any emotion and feeling evoked by these images is drained away by the movies’ hipster affectations—their deadpan acting and their glacial pacing and their wearying, droning irony. But what truly makes Jarmusch a One Note Wonder is that in scene after scene, movie after movie, these affectations don’t change. It’s more than simply revisiting the same material over and over—in fact, Jarmusch has “branched out” in the sense that he’s made a western and a gangster movie: it’s that Jarmusch hasn’t changed the way he’s treated what he’s filming since Stranger Than Paradise.

Wes Anderson is perhaps the most popular of the contemporary One Note Wonders, as his audience reaches beyond die hard film buffs. Anderson is a gifted visual stylist and his movies have a unique tone of half-serious, half-ironic melancholy. But that’s really Anderson’s only trick. It’s not a bad trick, necessarily, and when it works, like in the pool scene in Rushmore it can be quite affecting, but it’s hardly something to build a career on.

One of the things I’ve always found exciting about watching movies made by talented young directors is the inventiveness they bring to their filmmaking. Citizen Kane, The 400 Blows, Before the Revolution, and Mean Streets aren’t perfect movies by any means (Citizen Kane is the most superficial of the great movies and The 400 Blows too readily and uncritically embraces its adolescent protagonists point-of-view), but part of what makes them so wonderful is that they were made by guys who wanted to try out everything they thought they knew about filmmaking, who were still young enough not to care about doing it the “right” way, and who were talented enough to actually pull it off. These movies are overflowing with their filmmakers’ inventiveness—so much so that they’re almost overwhelming to watch and the technique they’re made with often overwhelms the slight stories they’re trying to tell. But Wes Anderson’s one trick, by itself, isn’t enough to impress an audience for more than a few minutes—which leaves nothing but the slight story and Anderson’s disaffected adolescent’s worldview.

Wes Anderson’s movies would be better off if they were made “straight”—without Anderson’s quirky, off-balance style. The script to The Royal Tenenbaums seemed like it was made up of trimmings from a conventional comedy of manners—its scenes stopped right before they’d start in most movies. This was certainly an intentional choice, but there’s nothing inherently impressive or interesting in choosing unconventionality for its own sake. And watching The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, I couldn’t help feeling the material would have made a lot more sense if a solid craftsman like Ron Shelton had filmed it like an elegiac Howard Hawks-like action comedy.

And then there’s Guy Maddin, the filmmaker who’s One Note Wonder status most annoys me. That’s because, as a big silent film buff, I really want to like his features, but, in practice, I can hardly bear to sit through them. In fact, I think his 6 minute film The Heart of the World is a kind of masterpiece, but his longer movies all seem to have the same weakness: his perfectly executed mock-early film style simply doesn’t redeem his movie’s arbitrary quirkiness and weirdness-for-weirdness’s sake. His movies are filled with non sequiturs masquerading as meaningful symbolism. You could probably cut up all his features into individual scenes and rearrange them in any order and the result would make as much sense as any of his actual movies. The best you can say about them is that they work like Rorschach Tests, but the problem is that they fulfill that function just fine in under 10 minutes—after 90 minutes the surrealism just gets tedious. (David Lynch was smart enough to make Eraserhead just once).

Luckily, Maddin continues to make short films, which are often featured on the DVDs of his longer ones. But this leads to an interesting question: what are talented and visually gifted filmmakers who just aren’t suited for or interested in making narrative feature-length films to do in today’s moviemaking world? Fiction writers who don’t have a novel in them can always turn to the short story and still find an audience. But few makers of short films are able to find an audience apart from the festival circuit.

Of course, there are more One Note Wonders, but Jarmusch, Anderson, and Maddin are three of the more interesting and enlightening examples. You’d never mistake a frame of one of their movies for one from anyone else’s, and their distinctive styles have allowed them to build up dedicated audiences and to attract talented people to work with them. In some ways, they remind me of Pop Artists like Robert Rauschenberg and Andy Warhol, but at least those guys switched the one note they were playing every few years.