Review of JLA: Crisis on Two Earths

Wherein I not only review a movie, I have a brief divergence on morality in comic books…

I greatly enjoyed JLA: Crisis on Two Earths. It seems very loosely based on Grant Morrison’s JLA: Earth 2. Even though the Crime Syndicate was around a long time before Morrison’s graphic novel, the movie clearly takes its cues or at least its jumping off point from that work, possibly also working in hints of Alan Moore’s lost proposal “Twilight.” The animation and colors look spectacular on Blu-Ray although the audio is quite lacking. The voice talent seemed perfectly cast to me, having not watched any DC animation in the past couple of decades I have no preconceived ideas about what the characters should sound like. James Woods in particular was standout as Owlman.

THAR BE SPOILERS AHEAD

Herein I take on some of the criticisms I have seen of the film on the web.

One of those criticisms is some questionable moral decisions that Batman makes at the end. Since I tend to take any kind of movie of characters as unique takes not beholden to comic continuity or exact characterization, how Batman (or any character) may respond in a comic is not how I necessarily (within certain fairly broad frames) expect him to respond in a movie (although Final Crisis did have Batman use a gun on Darkseid, as a last option, and although it received some criticism for this, most people exonerated Batman's decision here (or perhaps, more accurately, credited Grant Morrison's creative decision, given the general good will he's banked as a writer). Still, I don't find his decisions particularly out of step with Batman. Johnny Quick is warned (and Batman's silence is not necessarily an affirmation that he _knew_ what would happen (and, indeed, how would he?) and Owlman was committing a murder/suicide. If you stop a suicide-murderer from the murder portion of their plan, is it a lack of regard for human life on the hero's part? Is it murder on the hero's part then? I have a hard time saying it is.

If anything took me out of the movie, it was how it ended in a nice, tidy package. Unlike the more sophisticated Earth 2 book that ended with the heroes being unable to change the world, this had a more Speilberg-ian happy ending. I get why it does, particulary in this medium and it works fine in the context of this film, but it was such a difference from the work that helped or partially inspire it that it took me out of an otherwise highly satisfying film experience.
I will add that I greatly enjoyed the cameos of various second and third tier DC characters in their Earth-2 incarnations, particularly the Marvel crime family, as this is what specifically reminded me of Moore’s “Twilight” proposal (as did the entire Mafioso style organization set-up).

THE SPOILERS BE ENDED

The Spectre short, which everyone is raving about, certainly gets outstanding marks for mood and its style. It’s pretty flat on plot, however. I thought, “hey this could be a real murder mystery,” but that element is not even really tackled – the audience has no opportunity to guess about who did it, why, or much less care. Still, it is stylistically captivating and definitely a cool addition.

I wish there were some commentary or a making-of of the JLA movie although the documentary on how Didio steered the current DCU into a post-9/11 age is interesting, if not for what is said about how might positively conceptualize many plot and character developments that at least much of the internet fan base has seen asmostly negative than for what the people don’t say about it – how these events drive or are driven by marketing, if thinking about comics like TV episodes is a good or bad thing, how /why/should post-9/11 comics be different from post-WW II comics, among other topics.

Johanna Carlson Draper expresses her thoughts on how the modern direction of DC comics may be attributable to “New York overraction.” Although I am hesitant to call it that, since the trauma of any and all New Yorkers regarding that event must be huge compared to what any of us experienced, I do think that Didio has let his own shock impact how he has steered the comics. Regardless, I personally disagree with how 9/11 makes us think about heroes. If anything, 9/11 showed us that heroes don’t have to be mythic creatures who do things that the rest of us cannot. Heroes are (in reality) and can be everyday people do extraordinary things. 9/11 humanized heroism. It reminded us that being a hero is not somebody else’s job: it’s our job. And, yes, it’s usually about taking some kind of risk, but the risk is not always life threatening. Sometimes, it’s the risk of just doing the right thing that inspires us. I would argue that even or particularly in life-threatening situations, that the harm element only augments what is really inspiring us: doing the right thing.

Therefore, I find Didio’s comment about needing to know that heroes put their lives on the life struck me as not just odd, but completely wrong. In comic books, I know that my heroes aren’t going to die; I’m not interested in seeing them “put their lives on the line.” I’m much more interested in how they solve the situation, the character developments, and the psychology of how do you navigate difficult situations – and navigate it by doing the right thing. And while the right thing may not be something everyone agrees on, it should be founded on a moral philosophy that we can at all least understand and makes sense with the character. Wonder Woman’s decision to kill Maxwell Lord is certainly a decision founded on utilitarian moral thought – and therefore has a legitimate moral basis – but is Wonder Woman a utilitarian? Even if she is, wouldn’t Wonder Woman think in a more morally creative fashion? How does killing a villain reconcile with the woman who can “stop a war with love?”

In summary, and coming back to the review in hand, even without a making-off documentary, there are some nice extras not mentioned above (including other JLA cartoon episodes as well as live-action pilots of the 70's Wonder Woman series, famously starring Linda Carter and the pilot for the much more recent Aquaman would-be series) and the movie is probably the best cartoon super-hero movie I've yet to see. (The best up to this point would either be the first Hellboy animated or the animated New Frontiers adaptation.) Some may consider this to be damning with faint praise, but this is truly an entertaining movie and a happy addition to my collection.

Crossing the Streams: Captain America doesn't want you teabagging

So rarely does my interest in comics and social interests overlap. From an article on Yahoo! news about a recent Captain America comic that includes a reference to the teabaggers, comes this quote:

In response to Marvel's explanation and apology, Tea Party Movement founder
Judson Phillips told Yahoo! News that it "sounds less like a genuine 'we're
sorry' than it does a 'we're sorry we got caught' statement."

"When I was a child in the '60s Captain America was my favorite superhero,"
he said. "It's really sad to see what has traditionally been a pro-America
figure being used to advance a political agenda."

Like most things with Teabaggers, facts don't get in the way of a good sound bite. In fact, Captain America had in his creation as anti-Nazi WWII propaganda. He fought Hitler, horrible German and Japanese stereotypes, advocated for war bonds, you name the type of propoganda, Cap was not just part of it, but a response to it. Later in the 70's, Cap has always struggled with his moral and political place in the world.

Captain America has almost always since his revival in the 60's asked himself which America he represented: does he represent the government, the people, or some American Ideal? He's struggled both figuratively and literally with comic-book stand-ins for Nixon and Reagan.

Captain America has always been and always probably will be political.

I also find the not uncommon implication that comic books shouldn't and/or can't deal with political or other serious materials to be, not surprisingly for a Teabagger, short sighted, uninformed, and narrow minded. I would suggest he go read some of the classics of sequential literature, but I'd hate to suggest he actually go read original and creative thought.

FCBD

Free Comic Book Day, an annual, national event for the promotion of comic books, was yesterday. Local and phenonmenal store Heroes Aren't Hard to Find always puts on a great party that includes reginal artists doing free sketches also. It really is incredible seeing all these talented people willing to put in their time and not charge for sometimes near-finished pieces. The amount of work and detail some of these individuals put in is incredible. And the Heroes owner, Shelton Drum, and his staff are always fantastic, even on such a crazy day for them .

I have a sketchbook that has the theme of "monsters." I just ask artists to draw a monster of their choosing (or sometimes if I have a specific monster in mind, of my choosing). Here are the cool sketches I got this year plus two from last year that I haven't had the opportunity to post. The other sketches in my book are posted in this entry my now-defunct blog The Silent Accomplice.

2009 Sketches

Jason Latour (The Expatriate, Loose Ends) was doing color pieces and did this great Gene Colan-esque version of Hammer Studios Dracula. He knew "it couldn't be Bela Legosi." So, you get a white-haired Christopher Lee-type version of the Count. There's so many things I love about this piece from the hand outreaching in a cool 3-D effect to the way the mouth gapes open to his use of colors, especially the blue shading.

Here's a neat comparison shot I found on the web later of Christopher Lee in Horror of Dracula. Just to reiterate, Jason didn't have any comparison shot when he drew the sketch (he was something of an Encylopedia Brown, as dubbed by Chris Brummer), so it's uncanny how well he captures the feel of this version.

Nat Jones is known for his horror comics work with Steve Niles, on Spawn, and Frank Franzetta's Death Dealer, so it was a no-brainer to ask for a sketch of a monster from him, which resulted in this muck-encrusted mockery of man. Pretty dern creepy and a great add.

Chris Brummer (Gotham Central, Loose Ends) struggled for a moment to think of a suitable monster before coming up with this wonderful rendition of Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 movie
(Gary Oldman) Dracula. Clicking on the image will make it larger where you can see the wonderful detail in the chalice and the face of Dracula. What you won't be able to see, unfortunately, is the slight color of silver color in his eyes, giving the actual drawing another depth of eerieness. I think the serpentine depiction of the shadow does a great job of both evoking the scene in the movie as well as freshly and somewhat differently representing the predatory and evil nature of this seemingly harmless old man.

2008 FCBD Sketches

Tony Shasteen did this wonderfully detailed werewolf. My favorite part of this drawing is the eyes, which contain some wonderful fine details that make the picture almost seem alive.


Brian Stelfreeze surprised me somewhat coming up with this great Bride of Frankenstine. He began sketching and I had no idea what he was doing - I thought maybe Medusa or a harpie but when he got to that famous shock of hair I knew he had taken inspiration from the previous page's Frankenstein's monster to create this beauty that you can also hear screaming.

Cool Gay Comic

I recently tripped across Boy Meets Hero. It's been an online comic about same-sex super-hero love, but is about to be published as a graphic novel! How cool is that? If you want to order it, please visit their site and order through them so they can earn a little credit for it! As a seriously nerdy collector, I'll be ordering the deluxe version in May.

Above is a recent promo mini-strip (not part of the main comic) that I found extremely funny.

Comics and Politics? Has the World Gone Mad?

On the comics weblog The Savage Critics, Jeff Lester impressively uses comic lingo and the Sandman storyline as pretty spot-on political commentary. Go read his entry and come back to see my response to his excellent post:

I think that the way to tie it back into Sandman is that the entire work is that we create our own story, even when we insist that fate or forces outside of our control has driven us down a particular path not of our choosing (and for Morpheus, perhaps like Clinton, that path was to get out of the job). Like Morpheus, Clinton has to some degree had her narrative disrupted (historic change) by an outside force, but what has she done with that? She has gone defensive and negative largely, becoming more insular (like Morpheus), only showing hints of personality and likeability (are the lessons of Al Gore, a man supposedly charming, but deadly cold and humorless during his presidential bid, so soon forgotten?)

Some psychological research shows that positive candidates win. The more positive you authentically are and your message genuinely is (optimism can only be faked in short bursts), the more likely you are to be elected. I think this is where she has fallen down: Obama has stayed "above the fray" for the most part. Yes, he responds to attacks and does himself attack from time to time, but the delivery doesn't sound venomous like it does from Clinton. Hope may be the defining characteristic of leadership and Obama, less experience or not, seems more hopeful. People want to mock this (and Hillary did herself a huge disservice making fun of this, I think) but I think it's incredibly powerful.

I think you see this in Bush I v. Clinton I. Bush became sour and cynical and it hurt him. He became less personable, likeable, and optimistic.You are also right about the way information and news impacted the Clinton/Bush fight. The excellent book The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 talks in-depth about the "freak show" the bloggers and the rise of Matt Drudge as a watershed movement that changed not just the way information about candidates was shared, but what kind of information was shared, and what was considered suitable information to share. TV news has since largely followed suit and some print news media as well. Certainly now a million politcal blogs and sites exist catering to everything from political gossip and speculation to partisan talking points to (rarely) balanced, informed information or analysis. Clinton, the book correctly is the best to handle the freak show (as is McCain on the other side).

It's a real potential weakness for Obama, the furies on his heels that he must learn to deal with without having his kingdom crumble around him. I think he has the potential to handle it okay, but am concerned for him in this respect unless he receives good guidance from the Clintons, should he be the nominee. (I don't think we'll still know this until convention, unless by some miracle he takes both Ohio and Texas, which doesn't seem likely at this point - maybe Texas).

As a running mate, Clinton would do well to pick Obama, but the reverse is not true. Running as a change agent, Obama would seem hypocritical picking Clinton (not that I think she would accept if offered). She would also alienate those independents that like Obama but hate her - Clinton is strongly polarizing in a way neither McCain or Obama is.A Veep Obama would help smooth out Clinton, however, an unify Democrats and draw some independents. I would be fearful that our society is not yet progressive enough, however, to vote in a woman-black man ticket.

The Wonder Year

What's wrong with this picture? (Not Safe For Work)

Much is being said about the fetishization of Wonder Woman here in Playboy, and there is some worthwhile discussion on this topic that I'd encourage you to read up on if you're so inclined.

Former Wonder Woman scribe Greg Rucka offers a brief opinion. And another.

One feminist's (Ragnell) perspective on this: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Another feminist perspective (Rachel)

Related: A look at the creation of Wonder Woman

I'm very interested in Rucka's implication that this issue was timed for release in a way to undermine feminine power and authority. With Hillary Clinton a strong contender for the presidential nomination, Playboy releasing this issue where perhaps THE modern iconic pop-culture representation of female power is literally laid bare, made an object for the enjoyment of men does seem tantilizingly subversive. Of course, calling Playboy subversive is probably far too much credit due them, but even discounting any intent here, the timing is curious.

Wonder Woman is a very well-known pop culture figure; likely a vast majority of Americans know her as the female equivalent of Superman. To strip her literally and figuratively of her symbolic power in the most widely-distributed and well-known porn magazine at the same time a woman is running for the highest office does reinforce societal misogynistic messages, particularly: even the most powerful of women are only valuable relative to the sexual pleasure they bring to men.

A related argument going around the comic blogosphere is that Wonder Woman was created as a fetishistic character. Her early stories frequently revolved around themes of bondage, domination, and similar kink. Some are arguing that given her origins and the fact that in comics she is already hyper-sexualized, and that since that's what she's primarily known for (her toned body and skimpy outfit), any outrage over this Playboy spread is manufactured.

I'm not outraged; I think it's a very poor use of the Wonder Woman character and hypocritical of Warner/DC to sanction this since the DC publisher has previously stated that mainstream DC characters (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc.) need to be kid-friendly and accessible and have gone after an artist depicting a sexualized and homosexual Batman and Robin. I'm sure other porn magazines have used WW-like model shoots previously, but likely none of them were DC-sanctioned. Personally, I'm waiting on my Batman PlayGirl spread any day now (and please let it be Christian Bale...woof!). Of course that's not going to happen because there is a clear double standard in place here and that's part of the problem also. To some degree any comic superhero is hyper-sexualized, at least to the point that they have exaggerated anatomy, although I'd point out that most male superheroes seem not to carry that exaggeration between their legs, although female heroes certainly do on their chests. So, the double standard is a problem. Perhaps the biggest problem is that here in Playboy, the character of Wonder Woman, which is does carry with it certain important symbols and significances, is subsumed to the object. Wonder Woman, already sexy, doesn't become more sexy, she becomes sex.

Further, I'd argue that even with her hyper-sexualization in comics and somewhat in TV, that festishism associated with her origins or sexuality does not translate to younger fans. What translate is the symbol, the empowerment, the goodness. While I'm sure young female viewers and readers looked up to the character, I personally know many gay men, including myself, who did. We looked to Wonder Woman as the empowered female and we saw something in her that made us feel good about our own power and possibilities. I frequently use the quote, "homophobia is a room in the greater house of misogyny." I think even as young queers, we subconciously and instinctively understand this. If a woman can have this power and defeat evil men, then us sissies can do it too.

To see an icon of power and hope prostituted in this manner is sad for many of us. Who wants to see their hero put up on display. Although the model has never been associated with the character, the distinctive costume carries the symbol as easily as if it had been Linda Carter doing the shoot. It's not about sex being involved either; sex is fun, positive, and healthy. It's about subversion of the symbol.

It's analogous to the villian finally winning: Wonder Woman is finally stripped of her power and independence, she's just a plaything for men. Her abilities are valueless unless she can arouse a man. The reaction here is related, I think, to the outcry over her recent characterization in Infinite Crisis, where she felt cornered into killing a man. Readers reacted because the symbol that is Wonder Woman was not upheld; it was distorted for what people perceived as a cheap trick to build sales; the main difference here is, it's a cheap thrill rather than a cheap trick.