Article from Film Threat

[Bubastis]

http://www.filmthreat.com/blog/?p=1244

While some in my family and all of my friends insist that I’ve already raised enough of a ruckus, I just can’t keep quiet about The Spirit movie any longer. Having been subjected to the new trailer in theaters twice now, I really have to voice my concern: in the hands of uber-ego Frank Miller, Will Eisner’s groundbreaking and inspiring character has been rendered parody. This isn’t a simple matter of artistic license or Hollywood insensitivity. This movie is shaping up to be nothing short of heresy.

Granted, I am judging this movie solely by the trailer and the two previous teasers that had already burned a hole in my gut. Perhaps it’s unfair to level criticism this early. But what are trailers for, anymore, but giving the audience a capsulated synopsis of an entire movie? Therefore, judging solely by the trailer, the movie’s title is an egregious irony—there is nothing about The Spirit movie to suggest that it has maintained “the spirit” of The Spirit.

Obviously, it’s no co-incidence that it took until the first full-length trailer for creator Will Eisner’s name to even be mentioned in connection with this Sin City-celebratory train wreck. I could easily see Will posthumously wanting his name removed from this movie.

Before any of you start shouting “it’s just a movie”, let me clear something up here: no, goddammit, it’s not. And before the comic fans and anti-comic fans start lining up on opposite sides of the battlefield, as they do before every comic-to-film adaptation is announced, allow me to go further. For readers growing up in the post-depression, pre- and post-WWII eras, The Spirit was a mainstay. An argument can be made that this weekly seven-page newspaper insert, the first of its kind, was among the first comic books to be considered art. The idea was brought to Eisner, who was already making money in the industry with his Eisner-Eiger company, by Everett M. “Busy” Arnold of Quality Comics with the idea of getting the newspaper industry into to the comics business. Eisner gave up his part of his successful company to do something that mattered to him. To Will, superheroes were already an old cliché. Superman and his immortal offspring and their superpowers meant little to him. When Arnold asked if Eisner’s creation could be a superhero, Eisner’s response was to draw a mask over his policeman character “John Law” and rename him “Denny Colt – aka ‘The Spirit’.”

The outrageous origin: young detective Colt goes up against the villainous “Dr. Cobra” and while victorious, is placed into a state of suspended animation where he appears dead. Mourned and buried, Colt “rises from the dead” metaphorically and chooses to remain dead and become an avenging spirit, aiding police in the capture of criminals who would attack the city (New York and “Central City” are interchangeable in the series).

Aside from that bit of science fiction, The Spirit only rarely ventured into the realm of comic book cliché. He went up against a rogue’s gallery of bad guys and bad girls both mundane and outrageous. And his only superpower was, in Will’s words, “having a harder head than those who were hitting him”. Over the course of many years, he was routinely shot, stabbed, blinded, beaten into a pulp, romanced, confounded, conned and dropped off of buildings. At least one famous story has the Spirit lying wounded and bleeding in an alley behind an urban tenement apartment, waiting for the urchins playing in the street to come find him. Often, he took no active role in a story, serving as little more than a narrator while we followed the exploits of a crook or, in the case of Gerhard Schnobble, a little nebbish who could fly and yearned to prove to the world that he was somebody.

The Spirit included a memorable and colorful cast of supporting characters. Most notorious was that of his sidekick and partner “Ebony White” (who Miller refers to as an “ugly, best-forgotten stereotype of an earlier age”), a cab driver and jazz musician (in the beginning) who, over time, evolved backwards somewhat into a younger school-age kid. Ebony was typical of the “minstral” caricatures of the time, with his Amos ‘n Andy diction and large white lips. But he was never an object of ridicule for his race and was often the hero of the stories. The hew and cry over Ebony that developed in the ‘60s came not from African Americans, but from liberal guilty whites. Eisner has, on occasion, apologized for his depiction of Ebony, but there was little need.

Above all, The Spirit became zeitgeist because of Will’s visual acrobatics and constant vigilance for experimentation in the manner of graphic storytelling. Birds’ eye views of the city buildings spelling out the strip’s title, an entire story told literally through the eyes of a killer, or told silently, depicted solely by images and sound effects. These were the innovations that Eisner brought to comics and every comic artist and writer working today owes a debt of gratitude, in one way or another, to Will Eisner.

Frank Miller, not only included and admittedly, but especially. Beyond his clumsy, sticky Mickey Spillane-slapdash scripting central to his Sin City series, you can see where Miller learned at the graphical feet of Eisner with his use of perspective and character introduction. But Miller never absorbed Eisner’s sense of humor, or wit, or grasp of character. Where those in Eisner’s world, even the bit players, are invariably well-rounded people, Miller’s are, invariably, two-dimensional beings that live solely in Miller’s head, unrecognizable (physically, emotionally, or pictorially) as real human beings. Eisner’s villains could be understood, even redeemed. Only the hulking, psychotic Marv of Miller’s “The Hard Goodbye”, has any perceivable depth. Take a minute; let that sink in.

And it’s this misanthropy of Miller’s that underlines my complete outrage at what he’s doing to The Spirit. Denny Colt, Ellen, Dolan—they don’t live in Sin City. They never went up against tattooed clowns with machine guns more at home in Schumacher’s Gotham than Central City. The Spirit’s arch-enemy, the shadowy and never-seen Octopus, was not a flashy, loud, flamboyant lunatic with heavy-artillery and “eight of everything” as portrayed by Samuel L. Jackson, who seems to be wearing the flayed skins of both Siegfried and Roy in this new trailer.

‘But, Mike, you *beep* movies always update the sources, to make them more accessible to the audience! That’s why Spider-Man has organic webshooters and Batman wears body armor. That’s why the Joker has facial scars and Electra was played by an actress not even remotely Greek. Stop being a comic nerd.’

Trust me: I have no problem with updating. Miller wants to make The Spirit “timeless” by setting Central City down into his unmistakable Sin City chronological anachronistic setting, fine. Whatever. Have The Spirit answer a cell phone. Who cares?

But with so many over the years—Miller included—concerned that Hollywood would ruin Eisner’s creation (a fear held by Eisner himself, who had a disappointing—but thematically sincere—brush with the Sam J. Jones made-for-TV adaptation in the mid-‘80s), why would Miller allow his own ego to take control and stomp all over something that so many revere?

Denny Colt was not, ever, the brooding “What am I? My city screams” angsty, naval-gazing, self-righteous prick that Gabriel Macht seems to be playing. Where is that growling voice-over coming from? The Spirit, for over 50 years, was a highly-ethical boyscout, usually seen with a smile on his face and with both lipstick and bruises smeared across his kisser. He was the guy who swung into open windows to break up jewel heists and kidnappings. He didn’t dive from rooftops—more often than not, he was thrown off of them.

I’ve heard the arguments: “Audiences aren’t that familiar with the character any more.” No one knows that more than I do. I’ve been boring my circle of friends for months now, and few of them have any frame of reference for what I obviously hold so dear. But this is how you introduce the new to the classic?

“Audiences need more glitz. More glamour! It needs to be bigger!” Then do something else. Do a Sin City pastiche with a similar character. Alan Moore had no trouble reimagining The Spirit as “Greyshirt”. Do your own thing.

“But it’s a recognizable property!” Which invalidates argument number one, doesn’t it? Why alienate the people who do recognize it when the people who don’t will likely go anyway? Why?

“It’s Frank’s vision and we respect Frank’s vision.” No. It’s Will Eisner’s vision. This is Frank Miller’s ego and his sexual fantasies run through CGI processors.

I’m gonna get personal here:

I know you took pages from specific issues to use as storyboards. Good for you. But you missed the whole point, Frank. People didn’t love The Spirit just because of Will’s art. They loved The Spirit because of its spirit.

Sez Miller in Entertainment Weekly: “The character has a terrifying side to him. This is a man who’s died and come back to life.” No, Frank, he doesn’t have a terrifying side to him. He’s a guy in a mask trying to make the world better. Not because he’s driven to revenge and not because he has a God complex (that, apparently, would be you). Because he feels it’s the right thing to do. When did doing the right thing become something cliché and taboo? What is this need to put everything into a shadow or to make it ugly? Who hurt you, Frank? “This is a scarier Spirit than you’re used to.” I don’t want a scarier Spirit, Frank. Nobody else really does, either. Check that, the jittery Red Bull addicts who yearn for “cool” above all other things of substance, I’m sure they’re on your side. But as soon as they discover real girls, you’re going to lose allies.

And what’s scarier than crime, Frank? What’s scarier than a gun shoved in your face? Someone invading your home, stealing your possessions, trying—succeeding—in killing or raping the people you love? Most of the criminals in The Spirit were just ordinary bad guys, some misdirected, some screwed over by poverty and society—only the larger than life ones were actually evil. But, oh yeah, Hollywood kissed your ass when Sin City came out, so you had to make everything bigger, darker, louder. Problem is, Frank, Will had nuance to his work. Maybe his messages were a bit heavy-handed—crime doesn’t pay, be nice to people, don’t judge—but he was a product of his own times. (What times created you, though?) And Frank, you have no nuance. You’re stuck in adolescence. You see only big guns, big ****, big *****.

You want to make the Octopus into a maniacal carnival show? Well, you’re the one who hired Samuel L. Jackson, what choice did you have in the portrayal? But Frank, I’ll say it again, “The Spirit” does not live in Sin City. More people live in Central City than your trussed-up prostitutes and your Mike Hammer uber-males. The Spirit lived in Will’s New York and he represented “the spirit” of the city. Half the time, New York was barely aware of The Spirit’s existence. You turned him into the city’s protector. The innocent lemmings who live there can’t exist without him. “My city screams for me.” Do you really, really believe that’s the voice of Will’s “Spirit”?

I can list more outrages—are we supposed to believe that Denny Colt is the Crow now? That he has healing powers ala Wolverine, taking away the idea that any of us could be Denny Colt, should we don the mask and hat and embrace a strong moral code of right and wrong? You took away the everyman boy scout that was The Spirit, and yet you left out Ebony because “he was too controversial”? Did you really give The Spirit superpowers?

Frank, if the trailer is any indication, you spit on your own mentor and basically lied to him all these years. You weren’t his friend. You only cared about your own ego and took something that represents good and hope—something we so desperately need right now more than another grumpy, shadowy, self-righteous narcissist vigilante—and threw him into your Sin City cesspool. (And please, don’t get me wrong. I loved the Sin City movie, but for its visceral rush, not for its depth and its narrative or its single-minded characters.) Your ego kicked Will to the curb. And I have this deep, cynical hunch that this is all revenge for the way Will treated you and your fine Ronin in front of a room full of your fans at the Art Students League in New York, as dramatized in your blog of 4/29. “He won most of the arguments,” you write in that same blog. “[he] won not each and every one of them, but most.” And this seems to be your final word on the ones that he did.

Now, back to the rest of you:

Back issues of The Spirit are not that hard to find. The Kitchen Sink issues are easily had at comic book stores and they don’t run that much. Try to avoid the new series, at least until you’ve had a chance to savor Will’s original work. (At the absolute very least, go here to Will’s own site and check out the samples there.) If you find it old or stale, fine. We’ll agree to disagree, but don’t go into this movie blind. Don’t go because you think it looks cool. Have some history to back up your decision to plunk down the money at the box office. I have no doubt that it will be dazzling and fantastic and thrilling. But my terror, based, again, on the trailer, is that it will not be The Spirit.

I desperately, desperately hope that I’m misinterpreting what I keep seeing. That the Octopus and his machine guns are all a joke, made just for the trailer. That Macht doesn’t actually say, in full Spirit regalia, “I’m going to kill you all kinds of dead!” I’m dying to be wrong. I’m dying that “Somebody get me a tie—and it sure as hell had better be red!” isn’t the height of wit to be found in the dialogue. I hope and hope and hope—let me be wrong.

But if I’m right, and the trailer is faithful to Miller’s “vision” and “interpretation”—“not a rusty, dusty old monument to the work of my beloved Mentor” sez Frank (in the blog of 5/30)—of this fifty-year-plus body of work that stood for decency and the idea of a virtuous hero in a world that was basically good but took wrong turns on occasion, then I will do nothing short of standing on the rooftops and call for all comic and movie geeks alike to rise up, in a single body –and slay Frank Miller.

It’s apparently what his Spirit would do. And if Central City is Miller’s now, I see no high road to take.

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

Another satisfied customer.

It's amazing... the way he worded that is everything I already felt and knew... but he worded it so well that I actually despise Miller for wrecking this film even more, now.

"Frank, you have no nuance. You’re stuck in adolescence. You see only big guns, big ****, big *****. "

Crass, yet beautiful in its delivery.

 

[Bubastis]

Yeah, in addition to being an incredibly satisfying middle finger to Frank Miller and what he's created, it's an incredibly well-written essay.

 

[:-}]

Longest post I have ever read... ever...

This is no new news to us though we all know miller took the spirit and raped it and now hes throwing it back out to us.

this is no spirit this is man-****e who calls himself spirit.

 

[theMan-Bat]

It's amazing... the way he worded that is everything I already felt and knew... but he worded it so well that I actually despise Miller for wrecking this film even more, now.

So you won't be seeing this "wrecked film" in the theater?

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

At this point, probably not. I had been willing to overlook a lot of the self-stroking that Miller was loading this film up with, but the closer we get, the less it looks and sounds like Eisner... and I like Eisner too much to support a film that is basically Frank Miller *********ing.

The latest interview that came out on the front page of SHH had Jackson saying, "This film is all his [Miller]. No one else could have done this movie".

If someone cared enough to translate Eisner to the screen, they could have done it, and it wouldn't take the "genius" of Miller, alone, to accomplish it.

Apparently, there is something in this film that only Miller could do... which is make it a Frank Miller film.

I'm glad you like him.

He's not for me, anymore. I have no interest in the one dimensional world of bigger guns, bigger breasts, bigger violence, every single member of the Justice League saying "Damn you" to each other, repeatedly, etc.

"I'm gonna kill you all kinds of dead" about sums up the IQ level I will be missing out on. Honestly, what finally did it for me was when I rewatched the clip where "tough, angry" Denny says "Someone get me a tie, and it sure as hell better be red" or whatever cliched Miller wording was used. It just shows no understanding of the character. At all.

I hope for Miller fans that it's great as a Miller movie, and you all have a fun time at the theatre. For Eisner fans, it's not worth supporting with money or time.

 

[Mercurius]

It is a very good text on the many absurd mistakes Miller has done in his The Spino. Kudos for the guy who wrote it, and I'm sure many others like this will follow.

I don't agree with the personal part where he says Miller's characters have no depth: maybe in the last 15 years or so, ok, but we must remember his take on Batman, Daredevil, for instance.

Those stories are among the best, anytime.

Miller's mistake now is: he wanted badly to play Hollywood, and chose to play it with a masterpiece of his so-called "master" that he is transforming in a pile of crap of his own clichés.

 

[Octoberist]

This is my take on it:

Remember 'Batman & Robin', and how it sucked as a movie?

The biggest victim of BR was the character of Mr. Freeze.

Joe Public didn't know Mr. Freeze too well, and that movie tainted him. It destroyed what Paul Dini and Bruce Timm has done to Mr. Freeze in the animated series. Because of BR, Joe Public thinks that Mr. Freeze is a third rate villain and that stigma hasn't changed too much since 97.

Even in the comics, he is misused probably because of Batman and Robin.

So my point being, is that movies are the gateway to the source material. Since not a whole lot of people know the Spirit, they will think that the comics will be like the movie. If the movie sucks then...well, Joe Public will think the comics are a joke.

There's a whole lot on the line here, espcailly with Mr. Eisner's legacy.

 

[Bubastis]

You're absolutely right. The people who know about the spirit (at least in my area) know him as "that guy from that trailer who's a pimp with the flapping red tie and he kills Samuel L Jackson and it's a sequel to sin city"

I keep hearing people say that we haven't seen the movie and should reserve judgment. I respect that idea, but the problem is that those clips could not be in a movie that respects and understands what Will Eisner set out to do.

 

[Comic Book Boy]

Wait so...Ebony isn't in the movie?

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

Wait so...Ebony isn't in the movie?

No. Miller said the character of Ebony is a mistake, racist, and basically a bad idea on Eisner's part.

And, no one knows Eisner's characters better than Miller. Including Eisner, himself, if you ask Miller.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Frank Miller said, "Ebony’s gone. Ebony was simply a bad idea. Will Eisner was a genius, but even geniuses have their bad days."

 

[mego joe]

Frank Miller said, "Ebony’s gone. Ebony was simply a bad idea. Will Eisner was a genius, but even geniuses have their bad days."

Yeah, Miller's had a couple of bad decades.

If Ebony was only a racist stereotype then he is a mistake. But if you only see him that way you are missing part of Eisner's genius and are blind to the substance of the character. Darwyn Cooke did a great job with him, certainly not a mistake. JUst another example of Miller not being able to grasp something essential about the Spirit.

 

[Octoberist]

exactly, there's always ways around it.

I don't want to bash Frank's Spirit left and right, but I'm not getting the vibe that "Ohhh..Frank's got it!" Throughout the entire project, I was skeptical.

Let me point out Terminator Salvation: I was skeptical at first, but now I'm warming up to it.

But with The SPirit, that hasn't happened yet, and the movie is due next month.

 

[Mercurius]

Yeah, Miller's had a couple of bad decades.

If Ebony was only a racist stereotype then he is a mistake. But if you only see him that way you are missing part of Eisner's genius and are blind to the substance of the character. Darwyn Cooke did a great job with him, certainly not a mistake. JUst another example of Miller not being able to grasp something essential about the Spirit.

Ebony wasn't a mistake. The guy who wrote the article is right.

Or you could also say that the representation Eisner gives of women is prejudiced too.

I'm sure feminists hate it.

Fiction is fiction. And to my understanding, Eisner puts a great dignity in that character, that no other character in his Spirit series has.

But Miller had to give an excuse to take out Ebony, that he can't handle because of the character's inner goodness.

It's just one more Miller excuse to put on the pile of his nonsense about this movie.

 

[Bubastis]

No. Miller said the character of Ebony is a mistake, racist, and basically a bad idea on Eisner's part.

And, no one knows Eisner's characters better than Miller. Including Eisner, himself, if you ask Miller.

I lol'd

 

[That-Guy]

I'm not opposed to Frank excluding Ebony for two reasons: 1. I do agree that the concept of the character is racist, or has its roots in racism and 2. including a sidekick in part one of a superhero story makes it feel cluttered, particularly ones that also feature a slew of other characters. If you remember Dick Tracy, one of the (many) problems in that film was TOO many characters. You had Dick, the Kid, two love interests and about a hundred villains. The result was a film where the title character oftentimes not only felt unimportant but also wasn't all that interesting compared to everybody else.

That being said, I agree with pretty much everything else this reviewer said. The film looks like a disaster... a Day of Infamy for the superhero films. If Ghost Rider didn't knock the genre back down to the Batman and Robin days, this film will. I'd like to be completely wrong, but something tells me that I'm not.

 

[Bubastis]

Darwyn Cooke prooved you wrong, dude. One, the idea of ebony wasn't racist. The way he was drawn was racist as hell, but the character in and of himself wasn't. Actually, having a black character of that magnitude in the depression era was progressive. Besides, when he looks differently, he's really useful for the Spirit. The hero having somebody to talk to/confide in/explain plans to is an incredibly useful plot device. They wouldn't even have to give him an origin. The audience sees a black kid driving a cab, they get the idea pretty quickly.
I also loved the way Cooke wrote him. He was like a really level-headed, down-to-earth version of Short-Round from Temple of Doom. He bounced off Denny so well.

 

[Angelus_Darko]

No, wait. The guy behind 300 excluding a character because it's racist?

...

 

[theMan-Bat]

At this point, probably not. I had been willing to overlook a lot of the self-stroking that Miller was loading this film up with, but the closer we get, the less it looks and sounds like Eisner... and I like Eisner too much to support a film that is basically Frank Miller *********ing.

Literally? I'm certain Miller isn't *********ing in this film. Lionsgate wouldn't allow it. Luckly for us.

The latest interview that came out on the front page of SHH had Jackson saying, "This film is all his [Miller]. No one else could have done this movie".

If someone cared enough to translate Eisner to the screen, they could have done it, and it wouldn't take the "genius" of Miller, alone, to accomplish it.

Apparently, there is something in this film that only Miller could do... which is make it a Frank Miller film.

I'm glad you like him.

He's not for me, anymore. I have no interest in the one dimensional world of bigger guns, bigger breasts, bigger violence, every single member of the Justice League saying "Damn you" to each other, repeatedly, etc.

I feel like I am reading about three-dimensional flawed people when I read Miller's writing. The bigger guns was Samual L. Jackson's idea just for fun, big breasts get no complaints from me, and big violence can be entertaining, every single member of the Justice League didn't say "Damn you" to each other, repeatedly. It's not like that. Superman said "Damn you, Diana. Damn you and your Amazon arrogance" to Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman said the word damn but not "damn you." Their not written as one-dimensional cardboard characters interchangeable with each other like in the Superfriends. They each have their own personality and different point of view and do not agree with each other.

"I'm gonna kill you all kinds of dead" about sums up the IQ level I will be missing out on. Honestly, what finally did it for me was when I rewatched the clip where "tough, angry" Denny says "Someone get me a tie, and it sure as hell better be red" or whatever cliched Miller wording was used. It just shows no understanding of the character. At all.

I hope for Miller fans that it's great as a Miller movie, and you all have a fun time at the theatre. For Eisner fans, it's not worth supporting with money or time.

"I'm gonna kill you all kinds of dead" and "Somebody get me a tie, and it sure as hell better be red" are examples of the humor in the film. Made me laugh. You can't sum up the IQ level of a film by it's trailer.

 

[Mercurius]

Superman said "Damn you, Diana. Damn you and your Amazon arrogance" to Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman said the word damn but not "damn you." Their not written as one-dimensional cardboard characters interchangeable with each other like in the Superfriends. They each have their own personality and different point of view and do not agree with each other.

This isn't, by any means, good writing, nor "three-dimensioned".

This is just out of character.

And very poor art, also. If you were trying to prove something with it...

Ouch! "The world only seems to quake" is as corny as it gets.

I just can't understand how could you choose this altogether flat writing trying to prove otherwise with it.

 

[theMan-Bat]

That's okay if you don't like it, Mercurius. Plenty of readers enjoy it, but to each his own.

As to the characterizations...Jim Lee explains it very well here...

 

[Mercurius]

That's okay if you don't like it, Mercurius. Plenty of readers enjoy it, but to each his own.

I didn't say "I don't like it". What this or other readers enjoy is not the point here.

I said it is bad writing, and even had to type that incredibly corny line, yikes!

Plus: if you have to explain characterization...

 

[theMan-Bat]

If you feel it's "bad," and "incredibly corny" then it's safe to say you dislike it.

Plus: if you have to explain characterization...

Just trying to help you out. t:

 

[Mercurius]

If you feel it's "bad," and "incredibly corny" then it's safe to say you dislike it.

Just trying to help you out. t:

Yeah, but the point is not my liking or disliking: is it being bad. Or you will tell me you don't find that a corny line?

Yeah, and if characterization of such well-known characters must have that, it is because they're out of character.

Man, I have to explain everything in detail!