FRED Entertainment

August 29, 2003

Comics in Context #8: San Diego 2003 – Day Three: Gaiman, Groening and Bradbury

Filed under: Columns,Comics in Context — UncaScroogeMcD @ 1:21 am

comicsincontext4.jpg

Many reviews of The Matrix Reloaded asked what was the point of giving Agent Smith the ability to replicate himself over and over since his enemy, the film’s hero Neo, can and does just fly out of his multiple selves’ grasp. Well, certainly, but Agent Smith and X-Men‘s Madrox the Multiple Man would both be able to use their self-multiplication ability to attend every event at Comic-Con International.

I, on the other hand, could not, and Saturday was the day most heavily packed with stellar events. This, in fact, was the principal day for presentations on movies and television series. Those of you who are hoping for reports on Halle Berry’s appearance to promote her movie Gothika, or Anjelina Jolie’s to publicize the new Lara Croft flick, or Hugh Jackman’s to launch the buzz for the forthcoming Van Helsing film, or New Line’s preview of footage from the next Lord of the Rings movie, or even Sony’s premiere of film of actor Alfred Molina (there in person) as Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2, will not find them here. My interests led me to give other panels higher priority. (Moreover, according to one Con report I read, these panels were so crowded that unless I had arrived early, I would not have been able to get into them anyway.)

Then again, there were reports on various movie preview panels in the mainstream media; even Entertainment Tonight, I’ve been informed by a friend, ran a segment on this year’s Comic-Con. I suspect that major media news organizations that did not run reports on Comic-Con took notice of those that did, and that there may be considerably more mainstream coverage of next year’s Con.

As you may recall, I was traveling from far-off Alpine, California to San Diego each morning with my filmmaking companions in their rented car. And as the con progressed, they were growing more tired (whereas I, the oldest, who stayed up 43 hours only a few days before, was demonstrating surprising stamina) and wanted to sleep later.

So, I got to the Convention Center closer to noon than I would have liked. This left me too little time to try to locate some people who I knew were at the Con and wanted to locate. There were some people I never found, not even at the booths they were supposed to be sitting at. Hmm. Maybe they were hanging out at the even more unfindable Marvel booth.

You know, that’s not a bad idea. It reminds me of that Twilight Zone episode in which actor Billy Mumy (future co-writer of Marvel’s Comet Man ““ you see, it’s all linked!) makes people disappear by sending them to the “cornfield.” Perhaps people at Comic-Con similarly vanish by being sent to the Marvel booth. Yes, it makes a certain kind of sense.

NEILCON DAY 3

“Saturday afternoon at Comic-Con, and I’m already brain dead,” announced Neil Gaiman at the start of his 12 PM panel in Room 6A. The Comic-Con was certainly getting its money’s worth out of booking Gaiman as a special guest. Unlike the umpteen other panels he did, this one was not about an individual project, like MirrorMask, or an organization like Vertigo or the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. This was the “Spotlight on Neil Gaiman,” all about himself.

Gaiman apologetically explained that one might think that he would have prepared material in advance for an hour-long solo panel, but instead he had to write his keynote speech for last night’s Eisner Awards. “So,” he said, “I’ll leave it to you lot” for questions and answers.

The first was nearly a conversation-stopper: what does “your writing process” “look like”?

Gaiman hesitated an instant, apparently taken aback by the questioner’s seeming assumption there was some great mystery to plumb here, and fell back on a tried and true technique of humor, the overly literal interpretation. (See Anya in Buffy.) “My writing process looks like me sitting,” Gaiman began, either before a computer screen or a piece of paper, “looking rather like my head is going to explode.” Slowly warming to the topic, he continued, “unless I’m doing dialogue,” in which case he is “making facial expressions,” like the particularly grotesque one he made for our benefit, “which is why I prefer to write alone.” A sudden thought occurred. “I hope no one got a photo of that.” But no one, it seemed, did, either out of courtesy, or, more likely, an inability to aim the camera in time.

For films Gaiman said he likes FinalDraft, which he dubbed “a clever screenwriting program” that does the formatting for him. But for novels and short stories, he prefers writing in a notebook, and then will “feel virtuous doing a second draft, typing it all in” on the computer. As for comics, it’s “me and a piece of scrap paper, drawing pages.”

Next came the topic of Gaiman’s new series for Marvel, 1602. Although he had been working on it for eighteen months, neither Marvel nor Gaiman had said much about the project until recently. “The veil of secrecy is now lifted,” Gaiman ironically proclaimed, although his reasons for not saying much about it in the past were fairly mundane and practical.

For one thing, Gaiman did not want the concepts for the series discussed to death on the Internet far in advance. “The Internet exists in mayfly time, anyway,” Gaiman said. “You know, a half an hour on the Internet is like several years in the real world.” Gaiman decided that if he said much about the series in advance, “people will get tired of it” before the first issue even comes out.

Moreover, Gaiman said he disliked the fate of so many comics limited series, in which issue 1 and 2 come out “on time,” issue 3 is “six weeks late,” and issue 6 finally “comes out on the day everyone has given up on” the series ever being finished. So, Gaiman decided, “let’s get as much done so we are not late at the end.” Hence he spent “eighteen months just quietly working on things.”

And the plans for deep secrecy did not entirely work. Gaiman said that he would “get into taxis in foreign countries,” and the drivers would ask (Gaiman slipping into a generic foreign accent), “‘What is this 1602 about?'”

And, Gaiman went on, going back to the aforementioned humorous device, he replied, “It’ll be about 200 pages long.”

But actually, Gaiman explained, the story has its roots in the aftermath of the World Trade Center disaster.

Gaiman had agreed “to do a book for Marvel to fund Marvels and Miracles, to try to settle the Miracleman mess”: this is a fund which finances Gaiman’s legal battle with Todd McFarlane over the rights to the Miracleman series. A week after September 11, 2001, Gaiman took “one of the few planes that flew out of Minneapolis” on his journey to attend a fantasy festival in Trieste. Gaiman recalled a woman on the plane who looked nervously around at the other passengers, as if wondering “would they kill her?” and then threw up.

In the course of this trip, Gaiman found himself spending a day in Venice. (Taking cabs around the world and a stayover in Venice. You, gentle readers, like myself, may now be contemplating the disparity between our business trips and those taken by acclaimed fantasy authors.)

And there he thought about what he could write for Marvel in the wake of 9/11.

“There’s something about Marvel that automatically makes me think: New York and skyscrapers and people with guns and things that explode,” Gaiman explained. “I wanted to do something that had all of the fun of the Marvel Universe, but had no skyscrapers, no planes, nothing exploding and no guns.” And then came the big idea: “I thought, ‘Oh, I know what my story is,’ and 1602 was there in my head.”

cic-008-01.jpg“The premise of 1602 is as follows,” Gaiman stated; “It’s 400 years ago, and the Marvel Universe, for reasons that we do not know when we begin, has started occurring 400 years early.” He cautioned, “It’s not an Elseworlds.’ It’s not a What If,” referring to DC and Marvel series that present counterparts of familiar characters in alternate realities. “It’s actually happening and it will have some spillover into the real Marvel Universe.” By this I would guess that Gaiman means that the course of time has been altered in the Marvel Universe, with a large number of familiar present-day characters being somehow transposed to Elizabethan England, but we shall see as the series proceeds. Gaiman also noted that “some things are put back the way they were at the end” of the series, but “some things aren’t.”

So, as a result (and as the first issue reveals), “Sir Nicholas Fury was the head of Queen Elizabeth’s intelligence service. The court physician was a magician named Stephen Strange. Fury’s assistant is a young man named Peter Parquer sic, who has an obsession with spiders. His top agent is a man named Matthew Murdock, who is a blind Irish ballad singer who turns out to be this very mysterious figure of the night.” The latter is Daredevil, and next Gaiman describes 1602‘s version of the X-Men. “We have the Witchbreed, who are these persecuted kids with peculiar powers.” And operating behind the scenes, “There’s the mysterious hand of Count Otto von Doom, known as ‘the Handsome”; this would be 1602‘s version of Marvel’s preeminent villain, Doctor Victor von Doom, known for his scarred and ravaged face.

All of this, Gaiman summed up, “came from the initial decision not to be topical.” And yet, as Gaiman continued writing the series, 1602 nonetheless showed the influence of current events. “The initial vision was not to be topical, but by the time I’m writing issue number five, and have a number of people heading into a small European country to try and rescue potential weapons of mass destruction,” it was “getting topical” despite what he’s intended.

There is also a mysterious object in 1602 that “may be a treasure” or “may be a weapon” but “everyone wants it.” (My initial guess: the Cosmic Cube, which converts thought into reality.)

1602 was drawn by Andy Kubert, and Gaiman called it “enormous fun to write.” Indeed, working on 1602, Gaiman said, he “felt what it must have been like for Stan [Lee], Jack [Kirby], and Steve [Ditko]… at the beginning,” when they were creating the Marvel Universe.

As to how long 1602 will last, Gaiman asserted, “It’s definitely going to be eight issues, unless it’s nine.” The deciding factor turned out to be a surprise. Gaiman said that on the previous Wednesday he had met with Avi Arad, head of Marvel Studios, and Marvel editor in chief Joe Quesada, and they had discussed “the mysterious second project I agreed to do.” Gaiman recalled, “I could do something like this,” describing his idea to them but not to us, “and they went, ‘Ooh’.” Joe Quesada said it could come right out of 1602” and Gaiman replied, “Yes, you’re right.”

So there might be a ninth issue in order to set up the Mysterious Second Project, and, if so, the last issue may miss coming out on schedule after all. But Gaiman seemed resigned, saying that a late last issue is, after all, “a comics tradition.”

(As I write this week’s column, the first issue of 1602 has just come out, and be assured that I am planning to review the first issue or two in an upcoming column, after getting through the long slog of San Diego reports.)

The next question: did Gaiman plan to enter his A Short Film about John Bolton (described in one of my earlier Comic-Con reports) in film festivals?

“There is this huge problem I have,” Gaiman stated, “which is the limited number of bodies I have. . . I have only one and he’s busy.” I know how he feels. Gaiman said that his CAA agent (note: take it from me, Neil is not leading the life of a typical comics pro) had sent him a book listing the small film festivals in North America, but still, he never finds time to get around to submitting the film. “I never quite get to step zero.”

Next came Gaiman’s progress report on his legal war with Todd McFarlane over the Miracleman rights. Miracleman was originally Marvelman, a British superhero character of the 1950s evidently inspired by the original Captain Marvel. In the 1980s the great comics writer Alan Moore reworked the concept into a brilliant and darkly revisionist take on the super hero myth that explored what might happen to a man and his world if he gained godlike abilities. Marvel Comics’ lawyers claimed that Marvelman’s name violated their trademark, and so the character’s name was altered to “Miracleman” (and Marvel’s lawyers apparently remained unaware that Marvel has a copyrighted character by that name). Eclipse Comics published Moore’s Miracleman stories in the United States. Eventually Moore turned his part ownership of the character over to his successor on the series, Gaiman. Eclipse went bankrupt, and Todd McFarlane asserts that he bought the rights to “Miracleman.”

Subsequently, there has been legal turmoil between Gaiman and McFarlane that also involves the ownership of the character Angela in the Spawn comics series. According to Gaiman, his side has won on every count, but McFarlane is now appealing the decision. “Todd’s appeal goes like this,” Gaiman said. “Yes, I said to Neil that he was not signing away his copyright. No, there was no indication he was signing away his copyrights. He didn’t sign his copyrights away in 1993. Yes, in 1996 I falsely filed copyright papers claiming that I had written the Angela book and Spawn #9. But in the subsequent three years, the statute of limitations on copyrights, Neil didn’t find out that I had done this and so his winning the case should be thrown out.”

Gaiman observed that “I’m not a betting man but I would not put a lot of money on Todd’s appeal as he’s going with the ‘Aha! Tricked you!’ defense.” Moreover, Gaiman contends that with Eclipse’s bankruptcy, its rights to Miracleman actually reverted to British comics pros Gary Leach and Dez Skinn.

Gaiman said that he intends to get his Miracleman stories back into print. He called the Miracleman legal situation “perhaps the single most confused can of worms in comics” and said that Moore told him “If I’d known it was such a poisoned goblet, I wouldn’t have given it to you in the first place.” (I wish I could come up with dialogue like that!)

Next: does Gaiman intend to move into directing movies?

“If I don’t have the organizational skills to send film to film festivals,” Gaiman pointed out, he was not about to become “a producer or director.” He continued, “So instead I have Dave McKean direct something I write” (as with MirrorMask). Gaiman does intend to direct the long-gestating movie of his Vertigo miniseries Death: The High Cost of Living. But, he said, “I don’t want to spend the rest of my life directing movies.” And this was perhaps a surprise, inasmuch as one might expect a writer to take the opportunity to make a transition to a better-paid, more prestigious art form if he could. Instead, Gaiman said, he wanted to continue working in a variety of forms: movies, novels, comics, radio plays. “As long as I keep moving,” he said.

Now there was a question on an appropriate subject, the nature of the gathering at which we found ourselves. The questioner wanted to know if it was a comics convention that had inspired the serial killers’ convention that Gaiman memorably created for an issue of Sandman.

No, Gaiman replied, actually the inspiration was a World Science Fiction Convention. Gaiman said he thought, “We’ve all gone away for a weekend to be special together. I wonder if serial killers do that.” But, Gaiman said, in fact serial killers are not special: “And really they’re very normal and very boring and what they do is dull. . .dull, stupid and sad; it’s not clever.” Gaiman said that the “romance of the serial killer” in fiction “hadn’t happened yet, but you could see it coming,” and this story was his response to it.

Another questioner: Why do women like Sandman so much?

Whereupon a woman in audience, somewhere behind me, shouted: “Because Neil’s cute!” The audience laughed appreciatively, and Gaiman looked flustered, embarrassed and rather pleased.

Well, I’m of the wrong gender for judging this matter. But considering that Gaiman’s books don’t all contain photos of him (that audience member would have to find her own to use as bookmarks), there must be more too it than that.

Noting that it has been fifteen years since he began Sandman, Gaiman pointed out that “it isn’t a preadolescent male fantasy,” whereupon the audience burst into applause. He contended that “the great body of comics in 1997-1998” were exactly that. Gaiman said that in Sandman “the female characters were very odd characters, kind of like people,” whereas “other female characters in comics were men with big breasts and guns.”

So how did Gaiman manage to write women differently? He first commented that he had “this woman at home. Her in the attic,” an interesting reference to another Sandman story that the audience, laughing, appeared to get. Gaiman then simply said, “I have a trick to it. I write people. It seems to work.”

Looking back, Gaiman stated that in 1987-1988, every fan at his signings was male. By 1990, he estimated, thirty percent were women. Gaiman said “unwashed gentlemen in large T-shirts” would be “pumping my hand,” saying (as Gaiman slipped into yet another of his multiple voices), “Man, I gotta thank you; you brought women into my store.” By 1992, Gaiman asserted, the signing lines were divided 50-50 between male and female, and that ratio has stood ever since.

It’s interesting to hear the audience applaud Gaiman’s remark about “preadolescent male fantasy”: this was another audience with a knee-jerk negative reaction to superhero books. And, it would appear from Gaiman’s enthusiasm about 1602 and writing the classic Marvel superheroes, it is not a reaction that their hero, Gaiman himself, shares. To paraphrase John Byrne on another subject, one of the fun things about reading 1602 will be watching the heads of many of Gaiman’s fans explode.

Gaiman promoted various new projects: his new Vertigo collection of comics stories, Endless Nights: a new spoken-word CD Telling Tales; and a new children’s book from Harper Collins, illustrated by Dave McKean, The Wolves in the Walls.

“We’ve got another children’s book coming out in about a year, in theory, called Crazy Hair.” The “in theory” was there because “Dave thinks he can oversee all postproduction for MirrorMask and the costumes and production design for The Vampire Lestat musical” and illustrate this book, all at the same time. “I’d like to see him do it,” Gaiman observed, disbelievingly.

Since Gaiman had mentioned filmmaker and Monty Python co-founder Terry Gilliam at the previous day’s MirrorMask panel, a questioner now asked Gaiman more about their friendship. Gaiman replied that he had been friends with Gilliam since 1989. (Note how fast Neil’s career has moved: this was only two years after I first met him, which was before his Sandman #1 had come out!) This was the year that Gilliam had first attempted to acquire the movie rights to Good Omens, a farcical fantasy novel about the end of the world written by Gaiman and another celebrated author, Terry Pratchett. Gaiman said that Gilliam went through “hell” trying to get the film made, and co-wrote a great script, but that American studio executives had said, in Gaiman’s words, “We are scared of Terry Gilliam.” Moreover, Gaiman said, they did not understand how a film about the end of the world could be funny. (Gaiman did not mention this, but I will: Doctor Strangelove.)

Famously plagued by troubles trying to launch movie projects, Gilliam recently said, according to Gaiman, “If I don’t direct a film soon, I’m going to kill somebody.” Luckily, Gilliam is now directing The Brothers Grimm for Miramax, so we need not keep glancing over our shoulders, worrying whether he is looming behind us with a meat cleaver.

Next question (and notice how many of these deal with movies, not comics): what have been Gaiman’s best and worst experiences working with movie studios?

The best, Gaiman replied, was working with the Hensons on MirrorMask since they promised, in his words, “We won’t mess with you.” Somewhat wistfully, Gaiman said, “It’s hard to explain how unlikely that is,” and “how odd it is never to have sat in a room with people in suits.”

cic-008-02.jpgAs for the worst experience, that was an attempt to make a movie of the aforementioned Good Omens. In 1989 or 1990 Gaiman and Pratchett flew to Los Angeles to meet with studio executives. Pratchett, Gaiman recalled, suggested they have a “code word”: if either one of them uttered it during the meeting, they would walk out and fly back to England. It had to be a word neither of them would use in ordinary conversation, so they chose the name “Biggles,” a flying ace in British children’s books.

In walked the most important executive, a woman, Gaiman recounted, and he began imitating her voice, again proving himself to be Vertigo’s own version of Mel Blanc. The woman suggested Julia Roberts for a major role, and Tom Cruise to play the Witchfinder, and Gaiman said, Pratchett held out his arms and began imitating the motion of a plane. “That was probably the worst,” Gaiman concluded.

The next questioner from the audience returned to the subject of conventions. Gaiman said he “tried to do one or two small conventions a year” but he did “few conventions now.” I presume that his workload and travels (“I went around the world signing copies of Coraline,” he soon told us) are factors. But it appears the main reason is that the convention experience has grown less enjoyable as it has grown more crowded. Gaiman noted, not in a boastful tone but a somewhat saddened one, that “so many more people come” just to get his signature. But for him, a “Convention experience is where you can go to the bar and talk to people.”

As I have noted before, even finding people one knows is a major difficulty in today’s megacons. (They’re at the Marvel booth, I tell you.)

Next came an inquiry about Gaiman’s children’s books, like the recent Coraline. Gaiman said his next children’s book will be The Graveyard Book, which he compared to The Jungle Book, except in this case the boy is raised by dead people. “Probably like Coraline, it will be too scary for adults but children won’t mind it at all.”

The next questioner from the audience effusively praised Neil’s performances on panels and asked if he would consider doing “standup comedy.” “No!” Gaiman forcefully exclaimed, albeit with perfect timing and delivery, neither of which undercut the questioner’s premise. More calmly, Gaiman explained that, “I’m much less interesting than the work,” whereas standup comedy is about the comedian himself.

I understand Gaiman’s position. In the four panels in which he appeared at Comic-Con and which I attended, he never spoke about his family, and only once, I think, told an anecdote about his childhood. He was indeed talking about his work. But he was also telling anecdotes about his work ““ whether about himself and Dave McKean trying to get along writing in that chilly house, or about himself and Terry Pratchett facing the Hollywood philistines, or about how he came up with the idea for 1602 in Venice ““ and all of them are also about himself in his role as author.

I can see that a writer of stories might deep down want to be a performer, to act out the parts he writes, the characters who embody parts of himself, and to communicate in person with his audience. Writing is usually a solitary profession, requiring individuals to spend their working hours alone in a room in front of a computer, and one might expect that the field therefore attracts people with reclusive temperaments.

But not entirely. There are areas of writing that involve collaboration, including comics, wherein writers collaborate with artists. I have borne witness to the growth of a large community of comics professionals in the New York area, before much of it fell apart due to people moving away, getting fired, or just growing older and less social. Reading about the writers at Joss Whedon’s Mutant Enemy Productions, I get the same sense of a collection of like-minded creative spirits working together that I used to see in comics.

Before the 1970s, there was virtually no contact between comics creators and their audience. In fact, most comic book writers and artists were not even credited in the books until Stan Lee began regularly listing credits in Marvel books in the 1960s. As the field has evolved in subsequent decades, comics brings the creators face to face with the public: there are book signings, appearances at direct sales comics stores, and, of course, conventions. Since Comic-Con dates back to 1969, it is a pioneer in this transformation. Moreover, comics writers and artists give interviews to fanzines, both amateur and professional ones, and nowadays interact with their readers over the Internet.

So it is that comics creators get plenty of practice in expounding on their work, speaking in public, polishing anecdotes, and learning how to command the attention of an audience. I have been struck by how articulate most of the comics pros whom I’ve interviewed over the years have been. Rarely is there the hemming and hawing, or the reflexive reliance on “You know” to fill space (If I knew, I wouldn’t be asking) that one encounters so often when people talk. Most comics pros whom I interview even talk in complete sentences, and, if you study transcripts of most conversations, you will see how unusual that is.

In working on my documentary, I was very aware that I was “casting” interviewees, selecting people who I knew would be articulate and speak intelligently, people who were good storytellers in person as well as on the printed page, and Neil was one of them.

Certain guests at comics conventions are particularly good at commanding the audience’s interest. There’s Stan Lee, who makes his “surprise” cameos and steals the show. Joss Whedon, with his inexhaustible wit, more effusively American than Gaiman’s understated British style, is another crowd-pleaser. And Gaiman is clearly a master at talking with and entertaining convention audiences, and I hope that I am conveying some of this in my reports on his panels. That one woman in the audience said Gaiman is popular because he is cute; more to the point is that he has a charismatic presence as a public speaker, and I expect that audiences at conventions go to see him as much to be entertained by his anecdotes and witticisms as to learn what his next project is.

Panels at Comic-Con, at their best, are theater, and the most effective guests at Comic-Con are, in their own way, showmen.

And Gaiman, unexpectedly, got to make a rather theatrical exit. It was during Gaiman’s exchange with the man who wanted him to turn standup comic that I noticed that Klingons ““ aliens from Star Trek ““ were lined up against the wall behind the dais. But no, it was no hallucination. Gaiman saw them, too, did not ascribe them to being brain dead from exhaustion, but instead was delighted. “This is so cool. Haven’t you always wanted to leave behind a line of Klingons?”

And with that the panel was at its end, and Gaiman and the Klingons all left. And what the heck were the Klingons doing there? For the answer we would have to wait another day.

SPENDING ETERNITY IN SPRINGFIELD

The summer following The Simpsons‘ initial season, the San Diego Con held its first Simpsons panel, which I intended. The show’s creator, Matt Groening, who had been doing his underground-style comic strip Life in Hell, and was a longtime San Diego Con attendee, was enthusiastically welcomed by the audience: the comics pro who had made just good in the big time. The panel had a screening of one of the earliest episodes, “Bart the General,” about Bart’s war with the now familiar bully Nelson.

This year, at 1 PM in the now familiar Room 6CDEF, was another Simpsons panel, once again with Groening, joined by the show’s longtime writer and current show runner Al Jean, writers Tim Long, Don Payne, Kevin Curran, and early Simpsons director David Silverman. Another past episode was screened, this time the episode, written by Curran, in which Lisa enters the “Spellympics,” in a longer cut than the one shown on the air. (This episode takes on new relevance now that there is a successful indie documentary, Spellbound, about a national spelling bee.) But now (and here I am feeling old again) the show was going into its fifteenth season this fall, which, I believe, makes it the longest running situation comedy in American television history. The “Spellympics” show from last season was the 301st episode, and we were informed that they had just finished the 330th.

What else did we find out? That an upcoming episode will introduce the father of Professor Frink, who is voiced by Hank Azaria as an imitation of Jerry Lewis, and that the elder Frink was actually played by Jerry Lewis, thrilling Azaria. That another episode will cast the Simpsons as historical figures, such as Homer as Henry VIII. A musical episode will parody Evita with Lisa running for class president. In yet another episode, the Simpsons travel to London. (I already knew about this: this is the episode with Ian McKellen and J. K. Rowling playing themselves.) I also knew another thing that Groening told us: that Bullwinkle, which worked on different levels for children and adults, was a major influence on the Simpsons writers.

Groening said he would like to do a movie version of his other animated TV series, Futurama (which had its own panel earlier today), but so far, he said, that is only a “dream”; he said it is more possible they will get to do new TV episodes. Eventually there will be a Simpsons movie, but they are too busy doing the TV Simpsons for the foreseeable future. “We hope to have a Simpsons movie for your children,” a panelist said.

It was asked, “How do you continue to come up with new and fresh ideas?” A panelist pointed out that the show has fifty regular characters that stories can be done about. But there must be more to it than that. Whereas so many series seem to run out of steam as the years pass, The Simpsons has somehow managed to retain its high level of energy and creativity. Perhaps the show is unusually good at finding a steady supply of writers with fresh ideas.

Groening spoke not only of how The Simpsons proved that animation could be successful on prime time television, but also how it enabled people to become more accepting of different graphic styles in animated series. “The Simpsons kicked off the prime time animation explosion of the early ’90s,” he said, “And now cartoons all over TV look like nothing else,” singling out “unique visions” including Spongebob Squarepants, Samurai Jack, King of the Hill, and Family Guy.

cic-008-03.jpgI think one of The Simpsons‘ greatest achievements is that it has won a great battle for the cause of cartoon art. I never read or hear any condescending references to The Simpsons: because it is a cartoon show. Indeed, it seems universally acknowledged to be one of the best and most intelligently written shows for adults on television. Before The Simpsons went on the air, this was unheard of. The conventional wisdom was that any animated TV series was entirely or primarily for kids. Now it is not a surprise when, say, King of the Hill or South Park are reviewed as shows of interest for discerning adults, though the American adult audience still seems more willing to accept comedy in the cartoon medium than other genres.

I’m a little puzzled, though glad, that The Simpsons has run for so long. The usual rule is that a series needs to run five seasons to be successful in syndication. I recall that during recent rounds of negotiations on renewing Friends for yet another season, some articles pointed out that television stations carrying the show in syndication were not obliged to buy another season. Hence there was a question as to whether it would be financially viable to produce another season. The Simpsons has been running years longer and has nearly three times the usual number of episodes needed for syndication. But the show keeps going. If Fox is willing to spend the money, I’m not complaining.

During the panel Groening was asked about a report that he had written the final episode of The Simpsons. “No,” he said, “I had an idea for the last episode of The Simpsons. But there will be no final episode of The Simpsons.”

And, you know, he might be right. At this point it seems hard to believe that The Simpsons will ever be cancelled, although I know that at some point, inevitably, it must stop. But even if The Simpsons comes to a stop as a weekly series, I wonder if the characters have by now become perennials, like Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny, and if they will therefore continue to appear in new material in one format or another for the rest of our lives and even beyond.

And finally, how did Groening feel about his two shows, Futurama and The Simpsons, competing with each other for the Emmy as best animated series? “No matter what wins,” he said with a strangely cynical satisfaction, “you still get to be bitter.”

DUCK, TITANS, DUCK!

In Buster Keaton’s silent comedy Seven Chances, two scene transitions are achieved thus: Buster sits in his car, and instead of the car moving from one place to another, the background fades from one setting into the next.

This is like my afternoon at Comic-Con. I simply remained seated in Room 6CDEF after the Simpsons panel ends, and at 2 PM another animation panel began: “Cartoon Network: Duck Dodgers and Teen Titans.”

This was the animation network’s presentation on two of its newest series, both of which have premiered by the time this column appears.

In fact, this was two panels in one. First up was the group that discussed the Duck Dodgers series. Among its participants were Sam Register, Cartoon Network’s senior vice president of original animation; Tony Cervone and Spike Brandt, the supervising producers for Duck Dodgers; writer/producers Paul Dini and Tom Minton; and voice actors Joe Alaskey and Bob Bergen.

How times change. Two decades ago, Paul Dini and I were working on the fanzine Comics Feature: I was associate editor, writing a column “The Enchanted Drawing” that is the forebear of this one, and Paul was assistant editor, low man on the totem pole. And now I’m an underemployed comics historian looking in vain for a day job, while Paul became not only an Emmy-winning writer/producer, but is now (imagine Daffy pointing to the heavens while glowing with energy) PAUL DINI IN THE TWENTY-FOURTH AND A HALF CEN–TURY!!

This show was inspired by Chuck Jones’s space opera parody Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2 Century, which stars Daffy Duck in the role of space adventurer Duck Dodgers, accompanied by Porky Pig as his “eager young space cadet,” doing battle against Jones’s milquetoast-voiced alien marauder Marvin the Martian. One of his greatest cartoons, it has become an obligatory component of any Chuck Jones retrospective.

Register declared that at Cartoon Network “we are purists. Doing anything with Looney Tunes characters scares us. They were originally done so well by geniuses, why go there?” Register had just rejected a proposal for another show based on Looney Tunes, which, perhaps mercifully, was not described, and asked for what was termed “non-crap ideas.”

cic-008-04.jpg

A new Duck Dodgers project had been pitched several times before. Tony Cervone and Spike Brandt had done an “animatic” trailer for a nonexistent Duck Dodgers feature film, and this eventually got the new series greenlighted. Some of this trailer turns up in the new show’s opening credit sequence, which was screened for us.The opening credit sequence is also the only part of the show that acknowledges the framing device. The credits bill Daffy as playing Duck Dodgers and Porky as the Eager Young Space Cadet, but the episodes themselves never acknowledge that the characters are actors playing roles.

Joe Alaskey and Bob Bergen performed a brief Duck Dodgers: script clearly done as a piece d’occasion for the con, with Alaskey doing the voices of Daffy and Marvin and Bergen doing Porky. It was actually a lame script, though helped by the actors’ ad-libs, but I was entranced. Listening to voice actors ““ these living humans speaking in the voices of familiar animated characters ““ is like watching magic being performed. It’s as if Alaskey and Bergen were channeling the spirits of Daffy and Porky, as if, when he was alive, Mel Blanc was the medium through which they spoke, and now these guys are. (It is an old piece of animation lore that Blanc’s voice was speeded up electronically to make Daffy and Porky’s voices sound so high, and that in fact Daffy’s voice, unenhanced, was the same as Sylvester’s. But Alaskey and Bergen duplicated the familiar sounds right before our ears. Years ago, at one of Mark Evanier’s voice actor panels, I heard Alaskey dispute the story about Blanc and explain that in fact, Daffy was a “head voice” and Sylvester was a “chest voice,” whereupon he demonstrated both.)

Other voice actors on the show include Star Trek‘s Michael Dorn as the voice of all the many robots who will be wrecked in battle, and Tia Carrere as the Martian Queen. (Wait, can’t she be shown in live action instead?)

The panel pointed out that Chuck Jones had based the original Duck Dodgers cartoons on the Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon serials; the new show will likewise reference them, but also draw on the “last fifty years in science fiction,” and parody Star Trek, Star Wars, and many others.

This was clear in the Duck Dodgers footage that was screened for us. Some of it was an excerpt from an episode called “The Green Loon-tern,” in which Daffy/Dodgers becomes a member of DC Comics’ Green Lantern Corps. Then there was a complete episode, “The Fowl Friend,” which spoofed the animated film The Iron Giant: Daffy/Dodgers gets a robot friend, gets jealous of him, and tries to get rid of him.

We were also told during the panel that Cartoon Network did not want to make a Looney Tunes-derived show that would be compared to the classic Warners cartoons, so the Duck Dodgers show was to be “very different from classic Looney Tunes.” But look, everyone who loved the original Duck Dodgers cartoon is going to want the TV series to capture the same look and feel, justifiably so, and there is no getting around it.

I’ll be reviewing Duck Dodgers in a later column, but for now I’ll say that “The Fowl Friend” was surprisingly uneven. Here was an audience ready to laugh at a Daffy Duck cartoon, but which remained silent for the whole first half. This is not good, but an inventive slapstick sequence halfway through (with Dodgers trying in vain to dispose of a bomb) started the laughs coming, and the parody of Iron Giant‘s climax was likewise well received.

What strikes me most about this episode is that it’s very different from the usual run of American comedy, in which the lead characters must be basically positive, moral, likable figures. In contrast, British comedy often spotlights flawed lead characters, ranging from the drunken, self-deluded leads of Absolutely Fabulous to Basil Fawlty, with his rage management issues, to the Blackadder family, who will even engage in murder. Daffy Duck has traditionally been, as he openly acknowledges, a greedy, conniving little coward. And seeing Duck Dodgers plot and plan against the robotic rival who considers him a friend, get rid of him, and get away with it, was like a breath of comedic fresh air. There seems to be a little of one of Seinfeld‘s comic axioms here: No hugging allowed.

The Duck Dodgers crew stepped down from the dais (while Register remained) and the team behind the new Teen Titans animated series took their places. Among the latter were producer Glen Murakami; story editor David Slack; Khary Payton, the actor who voices Cyborg; and Yumi, the Japanese woman who composed the series’ catchy theme song, who spoke through a translator.

Register, the executive producer of Teen Titans, opened by saying that “Cartoon Network needed a superhero show for young kids,” that they wanted to get kids “to watch superheroes again.”

Now there’s an eye-opener. Has it really come to this: that the superhero genre over the years has evolved almost entirely into material for teenagers and adults? That there are no superhero shows for pre-teens anymore?

Is this really true? Cartoon Network does have The Powerpuff Girls, who are superhero tots, but I can see that little boys might think the show is only for girls. But Cartoon Network has Justice League and reruns of the 1990s Batman and Superman series. These shows are intelligent and visually inventive enough for discerning adult audiences. But aren’t they appealing and accessible to kids, too? They were originally run on Saturday mornings and weekday afternoons!

Murakami said that for Teen Titans they wanted a “different story structure” and “different look than Superman and Batman.” Register said that “Bruce” ““ Bruce Timm, character designer for Superman and Batman ““ “is the man!” but that it was time to “move in a different direction” and “try something completely different.”

Murakami said that many of the people working on the Teen Titans show were “into old school anime,” Japanese animated film. Register said that “Everyone grew up on Battle of the Planets.” (I didn’t. Feeling old again.) Register dubbed the look of Teen Titans “Americanime”; it is not true Japanese anime, but a style in which what Register said they “make anime our own.”

I did not stay much longer, but I did get to see a screening of Teen Titans‘ opening title sequence, and the Japanese-style theme song is indeed fun. Since the Con, I’ve watched several Teen Titans episodes, which I’ll review in a future column, but for now I’ll just say that I’ve grown fonder of the “Americanime” style of the series with each episode. But if they do a Batman series in this style, I will not be happy.

And I’ll also say this. The Teen Titans show is clearly based on The New Teen Titans, created by Marv Wolfman and George Perez: it’s got Titans Tower, as well as three members they created ““ Cyborg, Raven and Starfire ““ and, when you watch the show, plenty of villains they created, too. Voice actor Payton even recalled on the panel how he read The New Teen Titans as a kid. (I’m feeling old yet again; this has become an occupational hazard of attending Comic-Con.) And I spotted Marv Wolfman sitting in the panel’s audience. Shouldn’t he have been up on stage?

THREE TRUE LIFE TITANS

Just before 3 PM, as the Titans panel continued, I asked the family seated near me to hold my seat, and I would be back in fifteen minutes. They agreed, and I headed out the door and down the corridor to Room 6A, for the start (somewhat delayed) of “Forry, Julie and Ray,” a joint appearance by three nearly lifelong friends who are also giant and venerable figures of the world of science fiction.

There was Forrest J. Ackerman, longtime editor of the magazine Famous Monsters of Filmland, and renowned expert on science fiction and horror.

There was Julius Schwartz, co-founder of the first science fiction fanzine, The Time Traveler, who subsequently became the first literary agent specializing in science fiction, and in these capacities worked with many of the great names of the genre in the 1930s and early 1940s. But he had an even longer career from the 1940s into the 1980s as an editor at DC Comics, where he led the great Silver Age revival of the super hero genre in the 1950s, and revitalized both Batman and Superman in the next two decades. It was in reaction to Schwartz’s success that Stan Lee co-created “The Fantastic Four,” launching the modern Marvel line. Hence, one might well wonder if there would be a comics industry in America today if not for Schwartz.

And there was Ray Bradbury, whom Schwartz discovered and represented in the former’s early career, who is surely America’s greatest living author of science fiction.

The moderator was once again Mark Evanier, who appeared to be more awed by the trio gathered here than by the guests at any of the numerable other panels he hosted at this Con. Bradbury was confined to a wheelchair, as a result of suffering strokes some years back. There was supposed to be a ramp so that he could get up to the dais, but in a rare screwup at this professionally run convention, the ramp had been sent to the wrong room. So Bradbury remained in his wheelchair in front of the dais, and Evanier sat with him, holding a microphone. Bradbury worried that the large audience would be unable to see him. But we could all hear him, and were glad we did.

cic-008-05.jpgAfter Schwartz told an introductory story about how he first met Ackerman and Bradbury, Evanier turned to Bradbury, who told us why coming to the Comic-Con was important to him. As a child he too was a comics collector, but what he collected was the “Buck Rogers” strip. As a result, Bradbury said, other kids made fun of him, even made him cry, and he threw his collection away. But afterwards, he changed his mind and started collecting “Buck Rogers” once more. He decided to “travel to the future,” Bradbury said, and he “never came back.” It was a simple story, movingly told, with a profound moral, to follow one’s own interests regardless of the ridicule and incomprehension of others. And the audience warmly applauded this tale of a man who had begun like all of them, had followed his passion for the fantastic, and had risen to become a major literary figure.

Yet as soon as Bradbury had finished his tale, I had to leave to get a seat for the start of another panel. This was the toughest choice I made between competing panels at this Comic-Con. According to Mark Evanier’s later account on his website, Bradbury continued to amaze the audience, at one point urging each writer among them not to let anyone tell him or her how to write, but to follow his or her own vision. (As a beleaguered comics critic/historian, that’s advice I wish I had heard in person. And you should all check it out in the July entries for Evanier’s blog at http://www.newsfromme.com.) Yet there was another major figure in fantasy and science fiction whom I had come to Comic-Con to hear, and whose panel was about to begin. And you’ll find out who that was in my next column.

-Copyright 2003 Peter Sanderson

August 22, 2003

Comics in Context #7: San Diego 2003: Day Two – From Henson to Hamill

Filed under: Columns,Comics in Context — UncaScroogeMcD @ 1:09 am

comicsincontext4.jpg

As the captions used to say in The Phantom comic strip, for those who came in late, I am recounting my lengthy experiences at this year’s Comic-Con International in San Diego. I pick up the story as the American Splendor movie panel has just ended and I remained in my seat, waiting for the next panel to begin.

NEILCON DAY 2: MIRRORMASK

I have made the observation numerous times in the past that of all comics professionals, Neil Gaiman has the most distinctive costume ““ black leather jacket, dark glasses, et al ““ since Wendy Pini and Frank Thorne used to do their Red Sonja and the Wizard show at conventions. And here he was, in full regalia, on the panel “Henson Presents Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean’s MirrorMask” beginning at 4:30 PM in the large Room 6CDEF. As Gaiman told another person at the panel’s start, “You can’t make eye contact with me; I’m wearing the shades.” Indeed.

Earlier in the day I mentioned the MirrorMask panel to my filmmaking cohort Constantine Valhouli, who began chuckling, and insisted that the title must be a pun on “Miramax.” I don’t know about that (though Gaiman has worked for Miramax on the English language adaptation of the Japanese animated film Princess Mononoke). There actually is a mirrored mask in MirrorMask, which is a new film, part live action, and part computer animated, directed by comics artist Dave McKean, co-written by McKean and his longtime collaborator Gaiman, and produced by the Jim Henson organization, home of the Muppets, for TriStar Pictures. The film’s executive producers, Jane Henson, president of Jim Henson Pictures and daughter of the late master Muppeteer Jim Henson, and Michael Polis, who also executive produced the recent Kermit’s Swamp Years, were present on the panel along with Gaiman and McKean. Kevin Kelly, MirrorMask‘s story editor, introduced the panel.

cic-007-01.jpg

In another indication of Comic-Con’s growing importance to the movie business, Polis and McKean said that it was at the 2001 Comic-Con that they had first discussed doing the movie.Gaiman continued the story, saying, “For me the whole thing started with a phone call from Lisa. She said that TriStar had noticed that The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth” ““ Jim Henson’s previous fantasy adventure films using puppets ““ “far from being the financial failures that they were commonly perceived to be, actually had become these rock-solid perennial sellers that people bought on video and bought on DVD. She said it was sort of good news and bad news. They’ve noticed this, which is really good, and they like the idea of making something else like that with Henson. The bad news was they were offering $4 million to make it with.”

Lisa Henson explained that The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth had each “cost more than $40 million twenty years ago. That would maybe be a $100 million dollar movie today. So now could we do it for one twentieth of the budget?”

“So,” Gaiman said, pausing, “it’s five minutes long.” (No, not really.)

Henson already knew Gaiman from previous work together, and though she had not met Dave McKean, she was a fan of his work. Henson and Gaiman discussed a short film that McKean had made, called “The Week Before.” “It’s a very wonderful short film that Dave made for nothing in his mum’s barn and on her pond,” Gaiman told us. “It looks absolutely amazing, and she said, ‘Do you think we could get Dave McKean to direct the film for no money if we promise him that, basically, it’s being made on so little money that you can actually do something really cool and creative?'”

Gaiman continued, “Then Lisa said, ‘Obviously we couldn’t afford you to write it, but maybe you could come up with a story and we’d go and find a writer.'” Another pause, allowing the audience to anticipate Gaiman’s reaction to this. “And I said that if Dave was going to direct it, then I was going to be writing it, and we weren’t going to talk about that bit any more.” And with that McKean interjected, somewhat plaintively, “You just assumed I’m free.”

So, the deal was made, Gaiman recounted, and they were “on the one hand being promised complete creative freedom, and on the other hand very little budget. I can say that smiling, because I haven’t just had to make a $100 million movie for $4 million” ““ in fact, McKean finished shooting the live action only the Friday before the Con, and was about to begin a year of work on the computer animation ““ “but Dave was about three foot taller than he is now.”

“With a full head of hair,” observed the balding McKean.

Gaiman then went on to describe the counterintuitive choice of a place to write the movie. Gaiman now lives in the United States, but, “In February, eighteen months ago, when it was really, really nasty and wet and cold in England, I went to England to write the film with Dave.” They were put up at the Henson family home in Hempstead. “It was in the spirit of saving money right from the beginning,” Henson said: “No hotel rooms!” McKean ensconced himself on the house’s second floor, where there was a grand piano and lots of light, whereas Gaiman chose the first floor “where it could get slightly warmer” in this British winter. (Henson confessed, laughing, that “They shamed us into renovating and gutting the house.”)

“Each of us had half an idea,” Gaiman said, “and it seemed [each] could be part of the same idea.” I should add at this point that the panelists intended to show visuals for the movie, projected on a screen from McKean’s Mac laptop, but the Mac was misbehaving, and McKean was busy at his keyboard trying to correct the problem. Continuing the saga of the writing process, Gaiman mentioned a “big pad of paper” on which they wrote ideas, causing McKean to look up. “You’re behind the computer. You’ve lost now,” Gaiman declared. “My version is official.” (So, gentle readers, take this as a warning on reading this not-so-secret secret origin of the MirrorMask project. It’s a figurative hall of mirrors, I suppose, or perhaps the Gaiman-McKean remake of Rashomon.)

Though Gaiman and McKean have been working together since 1986, they had never worked physically together before, and this initially led to problems. “We frowned a lot,” reported Gaiman. “We glowered at each other a lot.”

Apparently feeling the need to add his own perspective to the story Gaiman was telling us, McKean spoke up. “We have completely different ways of working,” he said. “I’m a completely structured guy.” McKean said he likes to arrange “little pieces of paper” with story ideas on the floor. “You see patterns appear.” Turning to Gaiman, McKean asked, “How can you know what to write without the little pieces of paper?” Gaiman, in contrast, prefers to just start writing without planning ahead, and seeing where the story and the characters take him. “How do you know what they’re going to do unless you start to write it?” Gaiman asked McKean.

Although I don’t doubt there was tension at the time, and a little of it seemed to spill into this little debate on working methods, basically these reminiscences came across as semi-serious, semi-joking bantering between two people who are not about to let this get in the way of their collaboration or friendship. Indeed, as Gaiman recalled, going back to that week of writing, “On Day 3 we developed a working relationship.”

“On Day 4,” he continued, the filmmaker “Terry Gilliam came around for lunch, and he took one look at our piece of paper and said ‘Oh, that looks like a movie.’ This gave us more confidence.”

In fact, Gaiman and McKean writing in the same house proved useful in holding down the movie’s budget. Gaiman recalled that he would write scenes like one set in a classroom with lots of schoolchildren, and McKean would then point out the expense of finding the location, shooting there, and hiring all the kids. “Just do something cheap,” Gaiman claimed McKean would say, “like a city that crumples up like a piece of paper,” which, it turns out, can be realized inexpensively through CGI.

By the end of the first week McKean and Gaiman had completed the first draft of the screenplay, and TriStar okayed the duo’s second draft.

At this point the audience was shown what was termed “a five minute behind-the-scenes thingy” with an annoying rock soundtrack, mostly showing one of the actors being swung through the air on wires before a blank background. In other words, it was of dubious interest, but the audience applauded happily nonetheless.

It was revealed that apart from a small amount of location shooting for real world settings, most of the live-action footage was shot in front of a blue screen. McKean explained that “the bulk of the film” involves “a computer-generated city and characters” in another realm. These ““ city, people, costumes, strange animals, this whole world ““ are designed by McKean. It was pointed out that whereas for The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth the creatures and settings all had to be constructed in reality, in MirrorMask they are instead created via computer imagery. With the Mac now back on track, McKean showed images of various strange creatures and costumed characters onscreen.

Gaiman delineated the film’s story. “There’s a girl called Helena. Helena is played by a wonderful actress named Stephanie Leonidas. She’s fifteen going on sixteen. She’s part of a circus family, the Campbell Family Circus.” Helena “juggles” and “sells popcorn” and “She doesn’t really want to be part of the family circus. She would more like to run away and join real life.”

Helena argues with her mother (played by Gina McKee of Notting Hill) about it, and during a subsequent performance, the mother falls ill, and as a result the tiny circus is forced to close down. Helena blames herself, thinking the argument triggered her mother’s collapse. Helena’s father is no help, “falling apart” himself, and she finds herself living with “a mad aunt.” Then, on the night that her mother is undergoing an operation, “Helena has a dream,” Gaiman said, “or maybe not a dream, in which she gets to try and sort everything out for herself in her own way.”

Helena finds herself in another world, divided into the light kingdom and dark kingdom, ruled respectively by the Light Queen and Dark Queen (each played by McKee). The Light Queen has fallen into a sleep from which no one has been able to wake her, and her kingdom has falling into ruin. “In this world everyone wears masks except Helena,” Gaiman said, and all the masks are designed by McKean. Helena must go on a quest to the dark kingdom to find one special mask, the MirrorMask that will awaken the Light Queen. Along the way “Helena wonders why everyone thinks she is a princess.”

Accompanying Helena is a masked figure named Valentine (played by Jason Berry), whom Gaiman described as “an unreliable jester.” Gaiman also said that Valentine “is utterly feckless. No feck of any kind in this character,” and described him as “terribly funny” but “out for number one,” hence, I suppose, the unreliability.

cic-007-02.jpgMcKee plays not only Helena’s mother but also the Light Queen and the Dark Queen, obviously fantasy representations of the mother’s positive and negative aspects. Speaking of the Dark Queen, Gaiman said, “You think she’ll be evil in a Cruella DeVil way,” but “instead she’s like your mom, only worse,” whereupon Gaiman imitated a woman feigning sympathy for her child. More Wizard of Oz-style doubling goes on with actor Rob Brydon, who plays both Helena’s father and the mayor of the light city. Leonidas herself plays both Helena and the “Anti-Helena,” and, it would appear the film raises the question, as with the White King in “Through the Looking Glass,” as to whether Helena is dreaming the Anti-Helena, or whether the “real” Helena is merely part of the Anti-Helena’s dream.

Among the creatures McKean designed for the film is what Gaiman calls “a griffin who poses riddles badly” and giants who speak with exasperating slowness (whom Gaiman imitated vocally, in yet another example of his untapped potential for being an animation voice actor). There are the “monkeybirds,” all of whom, Gaiman said, are named Bob except for the one named Malcolm. And then there are small sphinxes, which live with a woman named Mrs. Bagwell. “She seems to be a cat lady,” Gaiman said. “She took in a couple, except in her case they’re little sphinxes, with incredibly sharp teeth and human faces, that destroy things. As Mrs. Bagwell explains, ‘Mr. Bagwell didn’t like them very much, but they loved him, and after he disappeared mysteriously, they wouldn’t eat anything for a week.'”

Here’s an odd paradox: it would be too expensive to hire an established SFX company to do the special effects for MirrorMask, so McKean is forming his own company to do them instead. But McKean thinks that this strategy will prove to be “the wave of the future.” He wants there to be a new era of “imaginative films, fantastical films” done with “manageable budgets” using “desktop solutions,” coming up with CGI effects that “look cool” but would be inexpensive to create.

Indeed the designs that McKean showed us onscreen were very striking, though I have no idea at this point how they will work in combination with the live action figures. Will there be too great a disparity between the real people and the highly stylized world and creatures around them? Or will they meld together into a whole? Moreover, as one might expect from much of McKean’s past work, the creatures and costumes do not look at all warm and cuddly. Will this fantasy world and its masked denizens look too bizarre and off-putting to attract a family audience? Is the real audience for this film older fantasy fans looking for a darker, edgier sort of fantasy world? Or will this film prove fascinating enough to intrigue viewers from the very young to artistically sophisticated adults?

Could this be the breakthrough for Gaiman and McKean into wider recognition, beyond the audience for comics and fantasy novels? The film medium is taken far more seriously by today’s cultural opinion makers than comics. If MirrorMask is a critical success, then there will be interviews with McKean and Gaiman in the mainstream press, and perhaps that will direct new interest to their extraordinary body of work in comics.

(For those of you who may be interested: it was at this point that my computer blanked out thanks to the Blackout of 2003. But, amazingly, I lost no data whatsoever, and the article resumes.)

Yet, either because I missed hearing it or because it was not made clear, not until I got back from San Diego did I learn that MirrorMask is actually intended to go direct to video in 2004 without theatrical distribution. That means that the majority of film critics will probably end up ignoring it or being oblivious to its existence. [Editor’s Note: Currently the release plan involves opening it small theatrically in major US markets.]

Well, I would hope that MirrorMask does get to the big screen, at least at film festivals (and not just animation festivals, either) and, even better, through theatrical release in major cities to test its audience appeal. This will clearly be a significant work from two important creative figures, and I hope it gets its shot at gaining the critical attention it will surely deserve. (A half decade ago, I would have joked that if Gaiman and McKean became successful filmmakers, they’d become too “big” to go to comic conventions anymore. But now that Comic-Con has become a center for promoting fantasy films, that is no
longer the case.)

And back to the subject of costumes. Towards the latter part of the panel, I noticed Gaiman looking towards a bright light, shielding his eyes with his hand. A strange large, glowing blue dot appeared in each of the lenses of his dark glasses, as if his eyes were glowing with an eerie blue light. He has his own kind of mirror mask, it would appear.

I next wandered about a bit on the convention’s main floor before heading into the next panel. Breaks like these can be necessary for getting food from the snack bars along one long wall of the exhibit wall. I take note that in the last five years prices for food sold here have risen to match the exorbitant levels one encounters buying snacks at multiplex theaters, which likewise have captive hungry audiences.

So let’s take a break here and ask ourselves the question, what if Casablanca had been set at Comic-Con International?

Major Strasser: Why did you come to the San Diego Con?

Rick: I came here for the Marvel booth.

Major Strasser; But there is no Marvel booth at the San Diego Con.

Rick: I was misinformed.

The next event on the schedule I’d planned for myself does not start till 7 PM, so I decide to drop back into Room 6CDEF and catch the second half hour of the panel “Cartoon Network: Clone Wars.” This spotlights a new animated Star Wars series that is set between Episode II, the last movie to be released, and the forthcoming Episode III, to be released in 2005. The most unusual aspect of this series is that each of its episodes is a mere three minutes in length, and, it would appear, Cartoon Network either has not quite figured out how to place these vignettes into a schedule designed for half-hour and hour-long programs, or simply hasn’t told the panelists yet how it is to be done. We do know that the series debuts on Friday, November 10.

It strikes me that this is a very clever, if expensive, way to promote the next movie: a series of three-minute stories that effectively act as a series of commercials, long enough to whet audience interest but so short that a Star Wars story longer than a few minutes on film remains a special occasion.

The panel was headed by Genndy Tartakovsky, a major figure at Cartoon Network, inasmuch as he is the creator of Dexter’s Laboratory and Samurai Jack and supervisor on Craig McCracken’s The Powerpuff Girls, three of its signature series. Now he is producer and director of Star Wars: Clone Wars, too. Accompanying him on stage were art directors Paul Rudish and Scott Wills and storyboard artists Bryan and Mark Andrews.

The new series deals with the Clone Wars, the civil war in the galactic Republic in which the Jedi Knights, including Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker, Mace Windu and Yoda, lead the Clone Army in combat against the separatists led by Count Dooku. The panelists said that Lucasfilm had given them considerable creative freedom in devising stories, with the important exception that they were not to advance the romance storyline involving newlyweds Anakin and Amidala in any way.

cic-007-03.jpgThe panelists discussed how they attempted to keep the look of the Clone Wars animated episodes as close as they could to the distinctive visual style of the live-action Star Wars films: for example, the use of “wipes” to indicate scene transitions.

At one point one panelist asked the audience if they would like to see the first Clone Wars episode again and, not unexpectedly, was met with an enthusiastic yes. This was fine with me, since, having come in late, I missed the initial screening at the panel’s beginning.

Now, the Clone Wars creative team does indeed imitate the visual style of the Star Wars films in many ways, but there is one considerable difference. Not only is Clone Wars an animated series, but it does not strive for a realistic look. Nor, I suppose, should one expect that from the creator of the brilliant visual stylization of Samurai Jack. Yet I think one of the predominant visual traits of the Star Wars movies is their efforts to make the fantastic look realistic, from the lived-in, “hunk of junk” look of the Millennium Falcon to the CGI creatures and backgrounds that blend seamlessly into the live action footage of the most recent two movies.

So it took me a while to accept the stylized look of this first Clone Wars episode. The starships and cityscapes are not a problem, but the characters were. Count Dooku was decidedly a caricature of his portrayer in the films, Christopher Lee. One questioner from the audience perceptively commented that the animated Amidala (who appears in a silent cameo in the first Clone Wars) looked like Cindy Lou Who (from Dr. Seuss’s The Grinch Who Stole Christmas).

But I found myself adjusting to the stylization quickly (it was only three minutes long) and admiring this initial episode. I don’t know whether stories of such brief length can be more than vignettes that establish mood: this first one was really no more than the depiction of the Jedi and a vast space fleet taking off for the war, but I look forward to the rest of the series nonetheless.

Oddly, the only cast member from Episode II who contributes his voice to the Clone Wars series is Anthony Daniels as C-3PO. Otherwise, what the panelists called “soundalikes” are used. And the “soundalike” voices for Yoda and Obi-Wan in this first installment were quite good.

But I wonder why the other actors would not do these cartoons. Not enough time (but how long could recording for three-minute installments take)? Not enough money? (But wouldn’t it relatively be plenty of money for very little time spent working?) A feeling that people who work on major movies should not stoop to doing a small TV project? Or was it a certain condescension towards animation voice acting? (That would be surprising, considering that Samuel L. Jackson, who portrays Mace Windu in the movies, is very publicly a comics enthusiast, and Frank Oz, the voice of Yoda in the movies, is a famous puppeteer. So now, with the Con two days old, I’ve heard two different dead-on impersonations of Yoda’s voice, one in Clone Wars and the other in the 30-minute Star Wars play. Were I Mr. Oz, I wouldn’t want it to get around that doing Yoda’s voice is not a unique talent.)

Perhaps that’s it. Yes, major actors continually turn up doing voices in The Simpsons or voicing the lead characters in full-length animated films: the Brad Pitt is Sinbad syndrome. And yet, even for a fairly high profile project like Clone Wars, is it possible that leading actors still look down on voice acting? And that leads us to our next stop, as I take my leave of the Clone Wars panel, which still has a half hour to go, and head next door to Room 6B.

COMIC BOOK: THE CONVENTION PANEL

I nearly made it to last year’s Comic-Con, where we hoped to shoot some footage for our documentary, but the plans fell through at virtually the last minute. As it turned out, another, bigger movie was being filmed there instead that year: Creative Light Entertainment’s Comic Book: The Movie, to be released November 11 direct to DVD by Miramax. There was even a long panel last year during which the climax of the movie was filmed, with the attending fans in the role of the audience. Not only that, but the participating actors kept the audience entertained for over four hours, telling anecdotes, singing songs, and more, in what appears to have been a highlight of last year’s Comic-Con.

The director of the movie and its lead actor was Mark Hamill, not only an icon at Comic-Con for playing Luke Skywalker in Star Wars, but an enthusiastic fan, advocate and sometime writer of comic books. What is truly unusual about the movie is that most of its cast are animation voice actors, many of whose characters are famous but whose own faces are unknown to the vast public they entertain.

Now Hamill and many of the cast members were back for the panel “Mark Hamill Wants to Give you a Sneak Peek at Comic Book: The Movie,” running from 7 to 9 PM in Room 6B. A show of hands demonstrated that a majority of people in the audience for this year’s panel had been at last year’s filming. So perhaps it should be no surprise that this was the other panel that drew what I considered overly fannish reactions: rather too exuberant for my taste. But that is not to say I didn’t find this panel as entertaining as I’d hoped.

At a Comic-Con years ago I had had a great time at a voice actors’ panel organized and moderated by the ubiquitous Mark Evanier, who is not only an animation writer but has directed voice casts for cartoons as well. This year I was amazed to see how frequently voice actors appeared on the Comic-Con’s schedule of events: not only on the Comic Book: The Movie panel, but in another Evanier voice acting panel, a voice acting workshop, and numerous panels spotlighting specific animated films and series.

When first brought onstage, and again towards the panel’s end, each of the voice actors performed one or more of his or her specialty voices, and so we got to hear Billy West do Stimpy, Jess Harnell speak as Animaniacs‘ Wakko (as well as, whenever he had an excuse, impersonating Austin Powers), Rob Paulsen doing Wakko’s bother Yakko as well as Pinky from Pinky and the Brain, Debbi Derryberry (who has an appropriate name for someone who plays animated characters) as Nickelodeon’s Jimmy Neutron, and Jim Cummings shifting from the voice of Winnie the Pooh into Tigger’s.

(Here’s another sign of getting older. I’m from the generation who grew up listening to the late Sterling Holloway voice Winnie the Pooh for Disney. Cummings is an example of a second generation of voice actors who has taken over doing voices created by their great predecessors. Cummings also treated us to his rendition of the Tasmanian Devil, a voice originally created by the late Mel Blanc. Listening to the audience’s reaction to the actors doing voices, I wondered if many of these fans were twentysomethings who had grown up watching latter-day shows like Animaniacs!)

After bringing on many of his fellow voice actors, Roger Rose, the voice of Cartoon Network’s Johnny Bravo, introduced the man he called “Elvis, the King!” And this was not an inappropriate estimation of the next guest’s importance to the world of comics. Out walked Stan Lee, making another of his surprise cameo appearances, and the audience rose in a standing ovation. (Lee still has no theme music, though, for accompanying these star entrances. What should it be? The original Spider-Man TV theme song with different words, perhaps: “Stan the Man, Stan the Man”/”Writes whatever a genius can”?)

Another member of the cast who was called up to the dais was Donna D’Errico, who is not a voice actress, but unlike with the voice actors, people do know what she looks like from her work on Baywatch.

Finally Rose introduced “a man who is truly one of us, who really loves comic books ““ our director: Mark Hamill,” who entered to another standing ovation.

Speaking of Stan Lee, Hamill said, “I think what Stan gave us in our childhood is something that even your parents couldn’t give you in a way. It was a special covenant and he made you feel like part of the team.” That is exactly right. Stan Lee’s Bullpen Bulletins, letter pages, and avuncular asides to the readers reached out to his audience. (Just how long has it been since the Bullpen Bulletins pages disappeared from the comics?)

cic-007-04.jpgStan Lee was on the panel because he makes a cameo appearance in Comic Book: The Movie. But I suspect that for him being in this movie was basically just one more item in his crowded schedule of media appearances, and he knew little about it apart from that. “Have you ever had to talk about something you know nothing about?’ he asked the crowd.

But there was one element of this panel that particularly intrigued him. In all the panels I saw at this Con, this was the only one that had a woman standing on the side of the podium translating what was being said into sign language. Many of the voice actors, comedians by nature, had been interacting with her, trying to see how she could adapt to the vocal tricks they can play, but she coped admirably.

Stan Lee enthused, “I keep looking at her because she’s so much more interesting than what I’m saying, and what I’m saying looks so glamorous when she does the signs. I want her with me all the time!” Stan was on a roll, and finally the truth came out: “What a wonderful person ““ and you’re detracting from me!” he exclaimed in (partly?) mock outrage.

Returning to his previous topic of his own lack of information on the subject at hand, Lee said that people ask him what’s going on in comics nowadays, but “I don’t know what’s happening in comic books. I’ve been out of them for years. I know less about the movie than you, ’cause I can’t face the screen!” And it’s true, the screens were behind him and the dais of guests.

So Stan turned to a different topic, the signing lady, once more: “Wonder if I can talk too fast for her to go,” Stan said, whereupon Marvel’s fast-talking Founding Father went at top speed, and lo and behold, the highly capable signing lady kept up with him the entire time.

Hamill undertook explaining the origin and making of Comic Book: The Movie. Except for D’Errico, Hamill had worked with every one of the actors on the dais before, as a voice actor himself, and says he found himself calling people he had done plays with years ago. Hamill called it the “cinematic equivalent of looking for change in the cushions. We don’t have anything to pay them, “but we can give you lots of credit.” (Sounds familiar to me.)

Indeed, Jess Harnell later talked about the big name actors hired nowadays to do voices for animated movies, and how there was a social distance between them and full-time voice actors like himself. But Harnell said that he and his associates regarded Hamill, who works regularly as a voice actor, as “one of them. He’s in the club.”

Hamill said he wants the movie to serve as “a souvenir of the Con,” in effect to capture a sense of what it is like and celebrate the Con. Originally his idea was to make the movie about a filmmaker going to the San Diego Con to make a documentary. “We gotta get Comic-Con on film. It’s just too wonderful not to put on film. It’s a wonderful backdrop for something to happen.”

Eventually Hamill decided that “to be a real voice for comic books,” he couldn’t play a director in the film. He did not want a lead character from the jaded worlds of New York or Los Angeles; instead he thought of the “nice, genuine people” he had met while working once in Wisconsin. (Hey, that’s the home of the late Mark Gruenwald!) “I have to be a true comic book fan who goes into the world of Hollywood.”

Hence Hamill evolved the character of Don Swann, a high school teacher from Wisconsin who is a comics historian on the side. The character was “modeled after Roy Thomas,” perhaps the greatest expert on comics’ Golden Age, who started out as an English teacher before turning comics professional. To dissuade viewers of the film from identifying him with Luke Skywalker, Hamill grew a beard for his new part.

As Harnell outlined the plot, “Hollywood options this character from the Golden Age of comic books, but they try to take it from being this very patriotic character with a sidekick named Liberty Lad … and turn it into Codename: Courage, who’s a guy in a black Kevlar jumpsuit with two Uzis and a chick in a rubber suit with him.

“The fans have an issue with this, so the studio decides to hire the world’s greatest authority on the old character, to sort of buy credibility with you guys for this big movie.” And that is the character Hamill plays, Don Swann.

(Hey, wait! I’m a former bearded teacher who is a leading authority on comics history. Hamill is unintentionally playing me! And this comics historian is paid, presumably big bucks, to act as a consultant to the makers of the Commander Courage movie. Do movie companies really hire comics historians? And none of them have hired ME?!? Where have I been?)

Now, actually, the movie company intends to ignore all of Swann’s advice. (Yep, that is indeed credible.) “They hire the advisor to co-opt him, so people won’t talk on the Internet about it.” (In other words, Comic Book: The Movie is actually acknowledging the growing power that comics fan opinion has in Hollywood.)

cic-007-05.jpg“What they don’t know,” Harnell said, “is this guy is the most subversive fan of all,” who proceeds to sabotage the Codename: Courage movie, bringing about “the unmaking of a major motion picture.”

The voice actors in the cast perform various roles onscreen. For example, Billy West plays a sheet metal worker, “sort of dopey,” from upstate New York, who happens to be the grandson of the creator of Commander Courage. Attending the San Diego Con, he finds himself a center of attention, and “has to reinvent himself in four days” to fit into his new role as comics world celebrity, only to end up going “from being a sweet guy to a total Hollywood scumbag,” Harnell said. West also did the music for the movie, writing songs with Harnell, one of which they performed onstage, the rather sweet and wistful “Four Color World.”

In addition various real life guests at the 2002 Comic-Con appear in the film, including J. J. Abrams, creator of Alias; actor Ron Perlman; Comic Buyer’s Guide editor Maggie Thompson; Simpsons creator Matt Groening; sci-fi movie favorite Bruce Campbell, and the inevitable and omnipresent Kevin Smith. Surprisingly, the cast also includes legendary comedians Sid Caesar and Jonathan Winters, appearing together in a film, it was noted, for the first time since It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

One might wonder when Christopher Guest will get around to adding comic conventions to his list of “mockumentaries”: such as the recent A Mighty Wind. Perhaps Hamill’s movie has preempted the subject. Hamill told the audience he dislikes the word “mockumentary” and that he is not “mocking” something in his movie. He says this is the “first story about a fan made by a fan for fans” and that “We come off as real people with varied tastes.” “I’m not here to do a Trekkies thing,” he said, presumably referring to the documentary about obsessive Star Trek fans; “It’s not arch.”

The makers of Comic Book: The Movie are intent on attacking the Hollywood mindset that insists on altering the letter and spirit of comic book properties that it adapts into movies and television, and to advocate that great comics properties be adapted faithfully to the screen. (Of course, the Batman animated series of the 1990s, in which Hamill plays the Joker, is a superb example of faithfully, intelligently, and entertainingly translating the spirit of a comics series and its characters to another medium.) Hamill was saying all the right things on the panel, saying his movie is out to celebrate the San Diego Con and the people who attend it. This gets my hopes up for the movie.

But the trailer for Comic Book: The Movie that we were shown makes me worry. We saw people in costumes on the convention floor; Donna D’Errico, apparently impersonating a stereotypical fan, asking dopey questions with an affected lisp of Daffy Duck dimensions; an actor portraying Commander Courage speaking in a self-parodying stentorian voice.

I worry that if Comic Book: The Movie spends too much time having fun with comics fan stereotypes, it will just reinforce the prejudices of mainstream reviewers who write about the film. And there are plenty of the close-minded out there. Last time I praised Daily Variety‘s preview of this year’s Comic-Con; recently I saw an article in Variety‘s weekly edition following the Con that characterized it as a place where Hollywood representatives “get chic with the geeks.” I expect these particular two writers are delighted with their little rhyme, which sours the effect of Variety‘s discerning preview of the Con the previous week.

What I’d love to see, though, is if Comic Book: The Movie, by parodying stereotypical fan behavior, draws in the mainstream critics who condescend to comics, and then succeeds in persuading them that the comics themselves are indeed worth taking seriously. Now that would be truly subversive.

Stan Lee departed the panel before its close (Elvis had left the building), and towards the end, some of the actors did more of their famous voices. Hamill was persuaded to perform what was called “a full Joker rip,” a loud, long burst of laughter directly into the microphone. Jim Cummings charged up the audience by energetically performing the over-the-top introductory narration of Disney’s mock-superheroic Darkwing Duck as the title character.

Encoring from last year’s panel, Rob Paulsen performed Yakko’s rapid-fire Animaniacs patter song listing virtually all the nations on Earth, and at long last, after meeting so many challenges, the signing lady finally had to surrender. The audience, though, kept clapping along in time, and stood and cheered when Paulsen finished. Paulsen then spoke of “getting paid essentially for what used to get me in trouble in seventh grade.” he went on, “If you’re fortunate enough to find something you love, you’re blessed -especially if you get paid for it.” Paulsen also noted that since voice acting is such “an anonymous profession,” he wanted to thank the crowd “for paying attention.”

And that, ideally, is what Comic Book: The Movie will be about: paying attention to voice actors, to the Comic-Con, and to the comics medium itself. I hope the filmmakers pull it off.

AWARDS AFTERMATH

While I was being regaled by the goings-on at Mark Hamill’s panel, the annual Will Eisner Comics Industry Awards started at 8:30 PM in the enormous Ballroom 20.

I have never yet attended the Eisner Awards, and I didn’t get to them this year, either. This is because I had a bad experience at a San Diego Con awards ceremony back in the 1980s. Every year the San Diego Con itself presents the Inkpots, which, no, are not a Motown singing group, but awards that the Con presents to various individuals, most of whom are comics professionals invited by the Convention committee that year to be special guests. (And , hence, it is said that it was strongly recommended to various special guests to make sure to attend the Inkpots ceremony.)

One year I decided I should attend the evening award ceremony to see what it was like since it was an Important Thing to Do. As I’d heard, people dressed up for the ceremony, and people sat at large round tables before a podium, and it all seemed very much a formal, prestigious event. And it was boring and seemed interminable. I recall that the only thing in the ceremony that stirred my interest was glancing over to the bare shoulders of two strikingly dressed female comics pros sitting at different tables than mine. (No, I am not going to tell you who they were.) And I decided, never again.

Later in the 1980s the Kirby Awards were inaugurated. A panel nominated contenders for the awards, for which comics professionals could vote, and the winners were announced during a daytime ceremony at the Con, which could be attended by pros and fans alike. Jack Kirby, after whom the awards were named, sat alongside the presenter as the winners were announced. This was not at all a formal event, people were dressed casually (continuing a theme, I remember one female comics pro making her acceptance speech looking good in shorts; I’m not saying who she was, either), and it was a pleasure to be there.

Soon, however, there was a schism among the organizers of the Kirby Awards, and the Kirby Awards were supplanted by two rival ceremonies, the Eisners, which continued to be presented at San Diego, and the Kurtzmans (named after another comics legend, Harvey Kurtzman, creator of MAD), which were held at another Con. Jack Kirby no longer had anything to do with either set of awards, and it seems a shame that in effect he lost the honor of having comics industry awards named after him.

But I wonder now if, considering the evolution of the awards, whether it makes more sense to have them named after Eisner and Kurtzman, who are associated with alternative comics, rather than Kirby, who is the greatest artist of the comics mainstream. (As fate would have it, Kirby passed away nine years ago whereas his contemporary, Will Eisner, still presides over the award ceremony.)

The Comic-Con program book hails the Eisners as “the Oscars of the comics industry,” but they strike me as being more like the Independent Spirit Awards, which are given out the day before the annual Academy Awards ceremony. The Oscars celebrate mainstream Hollywood; the Independent Spirit Awards honor alternative and independent cinema.

Both the Eisners and the Harveys likewise primarily concern themselves with alternative comics, and, invariably, there is a large percentage of nominees that I’ve never heard of. Come to think of it, since I have heard about most Independent Spirit award nominees each year, perhaps I’d be better off comparing the Eisners to, say, the Village Voice movie critics’ annual Ten Best lists, a genuine exercise in elevating the relatively obscure and esoteric.

In past years the Eisners were presented at the same nighttime ceremonies as the Inkpots, and, I was told, people still dressed up to attend, there was a big party afterwards, and the ceremony itself was still boring as hell. So I skipped it year after year, though at times I would encounter a friend who expressed shock that I would duck such an important event (and then who would admit that it was boring).

I intended to look in on the Eisners this year, and I knew that the ceremony had been streamlined: the Inkpots were now given out at the recipients’ panels during the Con. But, first, the Comic Book: The Movie panel looked as if it would be more entertaining, and more than lived up to my expectations. This panel ended at 9, only half an hour into the Eisners, which began at 8:30 PM. So, I told myself, I’d miss Neil Gaiman’s keynote speech, but could still see most of the awards (and seeing one Gaiman convention event a day does seem sufficient).

But as soon as the Comic Book: The Movie panel ended, I was tapped on the shoulder by another member of the audience, Peter Coogan, co-organizer of the academic Comic Arts Conference held every year at Comic-Con. And we ended up walking over to the entrance of Ballroom 20 and talking animatedly on a variety of subjects, while the Eisners ensued within. In time we were joined in conversation by some professorial ladies who were also attending the Conference. And so I had a good time standing at the threshold of the Eisners, but not actually going in. (Maybe next year.)

I was still interested in the post-Eisners party I’d heard about over the years, so I and the others wandered into the Ballroom after the award presentations were over. Despite what I’d heard about people dressing up, I don’t recall seeing any man under sixty wearing a suit in there, although there were more well-dressed younger women. If there had been a post-Eisners party in past years, there was not one now. As one of the aforementioned well-dressed women, Colleen Doran (looking sleek and glamorous in a green suit), aptly commented to me, the party, such as it was this year, consisted of “milling about.”

But by now it was closing in on 11 PM, I had found Constantine and the rest of our filmmaking crew, and with the end of Friday’s convention I was quickly growing too tired to engage in much post-Eisners shmoozing. Luckily, so were they, and eventually we were back off to Alpine and our hotel.

It was interesting to learn afterwards that Myatt Murphy, one of the interviewees in our film, had received an Eisner as Most Promising Newcomer. When Constantine told me he had interviewed Murphy for the film and presented it to me as a fait accompli, I had no idea who he was. It’s a pleasure to find out that Murphy is indeed a newcomer of stature.

And another thought. These awards ceremonies are clearly bids by the comics industry for greater respect through honoring its own for artistic achievement. But several years ago, I finally caught up with the movie Boogie Nights, and was surprised to find that it depicted an (apparently actual) convention for porn moviemakers with its own award ceremony. Now that, for me, undercut the idea that an awards ceremony necessarily connotes respectability more than Gaiman’s serial killers’ convention in Sandman did!

EPIPHANY

So here I am, halfway through this year’s Comic-Con. Looking back over Friday’s events, I recall one particularly unusual incident. Noting my registration badge, veteran comics writer Len Wein asked me if I was here representing Marvel. Well, no, I’m here as an (alas, as yet) unpaid writer for Constantine Valhouli’s Prince Street Films. But, looking at my badge, I see that it’s true: it reads “Peter Sanderson, Marvel.” Since I was working for Marvel on each of my many past trips to San Diego, the Comic-Con computer labeled me as a Marvel representative yet again.

But wait, if there is no Marvel booth, and if Marvel is not an exhibitor at Comic-Con, then has the Comic-Con computer designated me as the default Marvel representative? Or is there something more at work that I don’t know about? Have I been chosen by unknown parties as a member of a Marvel shadow government in exile, lurking at Comic-Con while waiting for our time to come again? The mystery deepens, perhaps to be solved in the next column and Day Three of Comic-Con International 2003.

-Copyright 2003 Peter Sanderson

August 15, 2003

Comics in Context #6: San Diego 2003 – Day Two

Filed under: Columns,Comics in Context — UncaScroogeMcD @ 11:12 pm
comicsincontext4.jpg

I’m sorry: I tried and I tried, but there’s just too much to deal with! I intended to devote a single installment of this column to each of my four days at Comic-Con International last month, but I attended so many panels on Friday and Saturday, seven on each day, that it’s going to take longer to cover everything in this column than I had anticipated. What a surprise that all of these notes that I scribbled onto a tiny pad at those panels end up taking up so many pages when transcribed onto my computer. (Note to self: All these panelists talk too fast. Next time, bring a tape recorder.)

My hope is that devoting more columns to the Con is a blessing in disguise, for the majority of you who did not attend the Con, for those of you who did go but did not attend the same panels I did, and even for those of you who did attend some of these panels, and whose memories of what was said might already be getting fuzzy. In my columns on Comic-Con, I am first of all reporting what I saw and heard, but I’m not just out to deliver the simple facts; I’m also offering commentary when appropriate, and hoping to convey a sense of the speakers’ personalities and what it felt like being in attendance. Most of these panels also served as previews of forthcoming movies, TV shows and comics I intend to review in future installments of this column.

To recap, for those who came in late, I was attending this year’s Comic-Con primarily to be present at the screening of the documentary I worked on, Sex, Lies and Superheroes, along with director/producer Constantine Valhouli, cameraman/editor Ben Jackendorf, and Lyman the intern. After we all arrived on Friday, and the others got their registration badges, I began by showing the rest of my filmmaking colleagues around the convention’s main floor, pointing out the various exhibitors’ booths. I wanted to show them the Marvel booth, since surely it would be the biggest and the best, but none of them could see the Marvel booth any more than I could.

But it makes no sense for Marvel not to have a booth here in American comic books’ leading trade show. One person discussing the absence of a Marvel booth said, “How could Marvel show that little respect to the rest of the comics industry?” The other person replied, “How could Marvel show that little respect to its audience?”

To look for the Marvel booth at Comic-Con nowadays is to get a sense of what it must be like looking for those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Just like with the WMDs in Iraq, we all know that the San Diego Marvel booth USED to be there years ago. So where is it now? But now it was 11:30 AM, and those who wanted to celebrate one of the men most responsible for the greatness in Marvel’s long history gathered in Room 8 for an annual tribute.

LEGENDS OF THE KING

“The Annual Jack Kirby Tribute Panel” honors the man who was the most important and most influential artist in mainstream American comic books, and surely the most creative figure in the history of the super hero genre. Kirby was the co-creator of the Fantastic Four, the Hulk, the X-Men, Thor, the Avengers, and so many more Marvel characters; in effect he and Stan Lee were the principal co-creators of the Marvel Universe. (And it was a pleasure to see “Created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby” in the Hulk movie, even if it was buried in the closing credits. Now, X-Men movie producers, what’s your excuse for not doing the same?) Moreover, Kirby was sole creator of Marvel’s Silver Surfer, Darkseid and the New Gods for DC, and a host of more characters. In his own lifetime, then, Kirby was a legend, and he was a legend that one could meet. He was a fixture at the San Diego Comic-Con for its first twenty-four years, given special guest status year after year.

The highlight of all my years of attending the San Diego Comic-Con must certainly be the surprise party given for Kirby one year, packed with comics professionals wishing him well. The sense of a community united in good feelings was so palpable that my fellow comics commentator Heidi MacDonald aptly called the event “a comics Woodstock.”

As Kirby’s former assistant and longtime friend Mark Evanier said at the start of this year’s tribute panel, next year Jack Kirby will have been dead ten years. Since his passing, Evanier has presented tribute panels to Kirby virtually every year at the San Diego Con, and sometimes takes the show on the road to other conventions around the country as well. I recall that one year the Powers That Be at Comic-Con decreed no Kirby panel; this was a mistake, corrected the following year, and the Kirby panel is now an annual tradition.

I was struck at this year’s panel, the first I’ve attended in a half decade, how the stories about Kirby continue to accumulate. Some express admiration and awe of the man’s achievements; others are humorous and humanizing, yet reinforce the legend in their own way. By all accounts I’ve read and heard, Kirby was a genuinely good man, just as one would hope that a man whose work provided such happiness and wonder to so many of us growing up would prove to be in reality.

The panelists on the dais included Wendy Pini, co-creator of the comics series Elfquest, marking its 25th anniversary this year; Michael Chabon, author of The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about the early days of American comic books; Kirby’s longtime inker Mike Royer; artist Stan Goldberg, who colored most of Kirby’s work at Marvel in the 1960s; Sal Buscema, longtime Marvel artist who never met Kirby but was greatly influenced by his work; and Larry Lieber, who scripted much of Kirby’s early 1960s Marvel work, including monster stories like Fin Fan Foom and the earliest Thor tales.

Evanier began “Every single person who went to Jack Kirby with artwork got encouragement.” But, Evanier continued, Kirby would indicate privately to him that some people whose work he saw were better artists than most people who came to him to show art. Evanier then reintroduced Wendy Pini as a member of that upper echelon. But Kirby did not make his higher regard for her work clear when they first met, and thereby hangs a tale.

Wendy said she considers Kirby to be “my first mentor in comics, though he didn’t know it”: she studied his work on Fantastic Four to incorporate “more solidity” and “more masculinity” into her art.

She actually first met her unknowing mentor when she was 18 or 19 and a college student, working on an animated film based on the work of fantasy writer Michael Moorcock. On meeting Kirby she showed him watercolors she had done for the project. Wendy said that Kirby, was clearly “not a misogynist,” pointing to his creation of Big Barda, the woman warrior who was the female lead in his Mister Miracle series. Nonetheless, Kirby told Wendy, “Kid, if I ever catch you in comics, I’m going to spank you,” in what she called “his Ben Grimm voice” (referring to Kirby’s comically grumpy character, the Thing, in Fantastic Four).

Wendy didn’t get out of comics, turned professional, and years later attended a comics convention, where her table was next to Kirby’s. She kidded him, saying, “Jack, I’m still waiting for my spanking,” and, she recalled, “He blushed.”

But there’s more to this story of the empowered woman artist tweaking the dominant male. Wendy recounted that someone brought her carnations, so she stuck one behind Kirby’s ear while his concentration was focused on advising someone about his artwork. For the next fifteen minutes, Wendy recalled, Kirby wondered why people around him were laughing, until her husband Richard finally pointed to what had happened. Wendy said Kirby “whipped around and said, ‘I’ll kill you.'”

Wendy told the story in a delightful manner, beaming merrily at the audience, so clearly her practical joke had no serious effects on her relationship with her “mentor.” After her story was done, Evanier explained that the “spank” comment was really Kirby’s way of telling her that her artwork was so good. Wendy agreed, and went further, saying she thought Kirby felt that comics artwork should be “down and dirty,” for boys, whereas hers was more in the style of “fine art.”

Moreover, Evanier said that at that time, in 1969, Kirby was “down on comics as a way to make a living” and was in his way telling her, “don’t make a career in comics.” Wendy happily replied she was glad she “didn’t listen.” (1969 was around the time he left Marvel, so, I presume, he was pessimistic about the stability of a comics career. This reminds me of a remark that Evanier made in introducing the panel: that as he gets “older and older,” he understands more of the things that Kirby used to tell him in decades past.)

Acknowledging Kirby’s strong influence, Wendy declared that the “power” and “force” in her work “comes from him,” and she pronounced him “a true mythic visualizer.” She called Kirby “a mythmaker of Joseph Campbell proportions,” saying that he “always had a larger vision,” and that “He saw Valhalla while the rest of us see Sunset Boulevard.”

Michael Chabon was next, whose story began around the same time that Wendy first met Kirby. Chabon confessed that he had never heard of Jack Kirby when he was seven or eight years old, and DC began running ad copy, “Kirby Is Coming.” “The words meant nothing to me,” Chabon said. Was Kirby a “person” or a “character,” he wondered. Or was he “a new form of energy?” Chabon asked, adding, “which, in fact, it turned out to be.”

Later, Chabon was bedridden with a fever when his father, obviously an enlightened individual, brought him a stack of comics to read. Among them was Mister Miracle #8, featuring a shapeshifting creature called the Lump. Chabon thought that the Lump, when it grew “bristles” and “spikes,” expressed in visual form the way he was feeling in his fever. Looking at this artwork, he “realized this must be Kirby,” and then realized he had seen this art style before. Chabon began paying attention to this particular artist, and a turning point was a two-page spread of Kirby’s Female Furies in The New Gods. From that time on, Chabon said, Kirby was his “favorite artist, writer, and conceptualizer.”

Chabon’s fascination with Kirby’s work led him to his past work on Fantastic Four and Thor, and when Kirby returned to Marvel, Chabon “really liked The Eternals” (marking him, I think, as a more perceptive Kirby aficionado than most Marvel fans at the time).

However, Chabon said, the “most important book” to him was KAMANDI, a statement that won applause from the audience. Terming this series about “the Last Boy on Earth” “unjustly neglected,” Chabon speculated that many readers probably dismissed it as a “Planet of the Apes ripoff”: it was about a future Earth in which talking animals had supplanted humankind as the world’s masters, and even had the Statue of Liberty on the first issue’s cover. For Chabon, though, “it went far beyond that,” and that it was “important to me as a child that it was so open-ended.” Kamandi was continually traveling to different lands, different civilizations composed of a different species of animal with human-level intellect. This was “The kind of things that fire a child’s imagination,” the sense that “there’s more you haven’t seen,” “more stories to be told,” and that perhaps you yourself can tell them.

Readers of Chabon’s Adventures of Kavalier & Clay with knowledge of comics history probably assume that the principal inspirations for the title characters are Superman creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. But, it seems, Kirby was also a major influence on the book. Chabon said that it was in reading Kirby’s obituary that he learned that he lived close to Kirby ““ Chabon was based in Los Angeles at the time ““ and that hence “I could have met him.” But he didn’t, and the “realization I never would” helped “urge” him to write Kavalier & Clay, which Chabon began a year after Kirby’s death.

Evanier interrupted Chabon’s story at this point because a “surprise guest” was on his way. And then, to the applause of the assemblage, in walked Stan Lee, very much in the manner of the late Bob Hope doing one of his surprise walk-ons on The Tonight Show. (In fact, maybe Stan should have theme music just as Hope did.)

Now, I thought this was a wonderful gesture. It is widely known that Lee and Kirby had a falling out at the end of the 1960s, leading to Kirby’s departure for DC Comics. But here was Stan Lee, coming to the Kirby tribute panel, to pay homage to the greatest of his collaborators in comics.

The panel resumed, and now it was Larry Lieber, who is Stan’s brother (and draws the Spider-Man newspaper strip that Stan writes) who had the floor. Evanier asked Lieber to talk about what may have been “the first fan sketch” in the history of super hero comics. Lieber recounted how as a boy he visited the offices of Timely Comics (Marvel’s former name), where he received a sketch of Captain America and his sidekick Bucky, signed, “Your friend, Joe Simon & Jack Kirby” (the two artists worked as a team in the 1940s and 1950s). Years later, Lieber, who clearly treasured the gift, mounted it in a frame. Stan reacted with ““ real? mock? ““ disbelief. “Sell it!” he said. Turning to the audience, Stan asked, “Can you believe he’s related to me?” Lieber believed that Kirby had drawn the sketch, but later Evanier reproduced the sketch somewhere, and someone attributed the drawing to Simon. Evanier thought they both worked on the sketch, “half and half.” Serious now, Stan said he “couldn’t tell the difference” between Simon’s work and Kirby’s, and didn’t know which one “imitated” the other or whether they “both just drew the same way.”

Talking about scripting the first Thor story, Lieber revealed that he came up with the name for Thor’s human identity, Don Blake. Stan joked that you can tell he didn’t come up with it because it’s “not alliterative.” Lieber said he also invented the name of the mystic metal of which Thor’s hammer is composed, “uru.” It was “something that wasn’t long to letter,” Lieber explained.

Astounded, Wendy Pini asked if Lieber didn’t know that the Nordic word “uros” means “strength and power”? Nope, he didn’t. “Another difference between us,” observed Stan; “I would have taken credit.”

Lieber’s creation of “uru” was so convincing that later Marvel writer Roy Thomas, Lieber said, thought it was “a true thing in legend” but couldn’t find any reference to it. So Thomas asked Lieber where he found the word, and Lieber said he made it up. But, Lieber added, it was Thomas who gave Thor’s hammer in the comics its real name from the Norse myths: Mjolnir. This surprised Stan on the panel, who thought THAT name had been made up, too. As befits a surprise walk-on, Stan soon had to leave. Before he left, he effusively praised Evanier, asserting that “If Mark Evanier isn’t the head of it a convention panel, don’t have it, because it’s a waste of time!” Yes, it’s hyperbole in the Stan Lee manner, but Mark deserved it nonetheless.

Evanier declared a pause in the proceedings so that Stan could pose with the other panelists for group shots by the photographers in the audience. Thrilled, Wendy asked the audience, “Isn’t this fun?” and it was. We snapped our photos, and, despite the lack of theme music, Stan said his goodbyes and was gone! And, you know, it was the Jack Kirby tribute panel and he really hadn’t said much about Jack Kirby. But Stan had greatly entertained the audience, bantered amusingly with his brother, and stolen the show, and somehow I suspect that’s exactly what Kirby would have expected. (And, by the way, Larry Lieber got a solo panel hosted by Evanier on Sunday, in a long overdue honor.)

And now the whirlwind had passed. Mark Evanier turned to his right: “So, Michael, you were saying”“”

And Chabon continued where he had left off, expounding on the “somewhat nebulous connection” between Jack Kirby and his fictional characters Kavalier and Clay. Chabon had a photograph of Joe Simon and Jack Kirby together, with Kirby drawing. Chabon liked the image of a “little guy” (Kirby) and “big guy,” “one sort of refined, the other looks kind of tough” (Kirby again), working as a “collaborative team.” Chabon put that picture up on his wall as a visual inspiration for Kavalier and Clay, though, he said, he “didn’t draw very much on biographical details” of Simon and Kirby’s lives.

Chabon also got a photograph of John Garfield, a star of movies from the late 1930s into the early 1950s, having “read Jack Kirby fancied he had a resemblance to Garfield.” Chabon agreed that Kirby had a “John Garfield kind of pug face” and used the photo as “visual reference for Sam Clay.” (An addendum: in response to a question at the panel’s end, Chabon revealed he had completed ten drafts of the screenplay for the Kavalier & Clay movie, slated to shoot next year. Chabon told us that “they said I was done,” which he interpreted as meaning either “they” liked the screenplay or were intending to hire somebody else. It is interesting to note that not even winning a Pulitzer Prize means a writer gets civil treatment by the Powers That Be.)

Next up, Stan Goldberg said that at one point at Marvel “we all realized that Jack was carrying the whole company” with his prolific work. Goldberg recalled an appropriate visual image for Kirby’s importance: a time when he walked on one side of Kirby and inker Frank Giacoia walked on Kirby’s other side, “protecting him from the traffic.”

Mike Royer returned to comedic reminiscences. Talk about secondhand smoke: Royer remembered that when he received pages from Kirby to ink they would be “overwhelmed” by the smell of Kirby’s trademark cigars. Royer said he felt as if he were inhaling “six cigars a day” and imitated the hoarse voice he had for “about a month.”

Finally, Sal Buscema spoke as an artist who had never met Kirby, unlike the other panelists except for Chabon. But Buscema felt his strong influence nonetheless, recalling how his brother John Buscema, himself one of Marvel’s leading artists, advised him to study Kirby’s work. John Buscema told him that Kirby was “the best in the business.”

In the previous column I referred to what I termed EvanierCon, the large number of panels ““ eleven this year ““ hosted and organized by Mark Evanier, most of which focus on the important creative figures of American comic books’ first four decades, the Golden and Silver Ages. I only attended one (and a third) of the Evanier panels this time, but usually I go to considerably more. (I expect you can find out more about this year’s panels at Evanier’s website, www.POVonline.com). I especially am grateful that five years ago I ““ along with many other comics professionals ““ got to attend his interview with John Broome, the great Silver Age DC writer, who was making his first Comic-Con appearance but then died within a year.

Panels like these are so valuable because One cannot count on the corporate mindset at companies to honor, or even remember, creators from their past to whom they owe so much. Too many younger comics readers, and the publications they write for, are uninterested in the artform’s history, much like filmgoers who won’t watch black and white movies. And, in sharp contrast with film or television history, say, there are so few books, museums, publications, critics and historians to keep track of it all. During this panel, Stan Goldberg praised TwoMorrows’ “Jack Kirby Collector” magazine, which finds and prints Kirby art from the past, and said that if not for this magazine this “treasure” would be lost. Indeed.

This really is one of the purpose of events like Comic-Con International: not just to promote the present state of the artform, but to honor and remember its past creators and their achievements. It is up to all of us who attend such panels at these conventions to keep the memories alive, because, as yet, all too few other people are going to do it for us.

GRAPHIC NOVELS: THE FIRST QUARTER CENTURY

It was nearly 1 PM, and I headed down the corridor to Room 7A, to attend the final half hour or so of the panel “25 Years of Graphic Novels.” Graphic novels ““ self-contained stories told in comics form and published in book format ““ have long existed in Europe and Japan, and there were some early American examples prior to 1978. But that was the year that the graphic novel in America came of age with the publication of Will Eisner’s A Contract with God.

American comic books have a long history, and yet are still such a young art form that a number of its Founding Fathers are still with us. Jack Kirby may have passed on, but his contemporary Will Eisner is still very active, annually attending the Comic-Con, presiding over its award ceremony named in his honor, and continuing to write and draw graphic novels. In an interview he did for our film, Peter David referred to Eisner’s 1940s comics series, The Spirit, as the Citizen Kane of the comics medium: indeed, it is a dazzling demonstration of comics’ methods of visual storytelling. With A Contract with God, whose lead story is a serious examination of the relationship of man and God, Eisner not only started the graphic novel movement in American comics, but also a new and brilliant phase of his own career. Most careers in comics, I have observed, stay at their height for only ten or twelve years; Eisner has had two great creative periods, and the second is still in progress.

Graphic novels are mounting in importance in recent years. Eisner’s next, Fagin the Jew, is being published not by a comics company, but by Doubleday. Another panelist, Chip Kidd, is an editor and designer at Pantheon, another mainstream line now publishing graphic novels. Even the Big Two of mainstream comics, Marvel and DC, are increasingly relying on the sales of trade paperbacks ““ individual issues of comics telling one long story, collected together into a graphic novel format. In fact, trade paperback sales, both in comic shops and mainstream bookstores, seems to be the only part of the comics market that is growing.

Eisner, of course, was seated alongside the other participants who have followed in his path. Among them were Colleen Doran, creator of A Distant Soil; Eric Shanower of the graphic novels based on L. Frank Baum’s Oz mythos; Craig Thompson, creator of the new graphic novel Blankets; the aforementioned Chip Kidd; and Kim Kang Won, an Asian creator of graphic novels, who spoke through a translator. The moderator was Randy Duncan, one of the heads of the Comic Arts Conference, which keeps alight the flame of academic study of comics at each year’s Comic-Con.

When I entered, the panel was engaged in a discussion that enables me to continue pursuing a topic from the previous section of this column. “We need reviews,” said one participant, so that libraries, now that more and more librarians are disposed to purchasing graphic novels, know which ones to get. It seemed that at least in part, the people speaking wanted reviews in order to determine the appropriate age group for particular graphic novels (as Colleen Doran vividly put it, “so you don’t get Grant Morrison’s latest gorefest in elementary school”). Indeed, as if to illustrate the problem, at one point a father wandered into this panel, bringing along his very small daughter, presumably with no idea of what it was about, and they stayed for awhile before it apparently finally sank in on him that this was not an appropriate panel for tiny tots. No gorefest here, it’s true, but, as the saying goes, comics aren’t just for kids anymore.

Randy Duncan proposed “a catalogue to be published to help librarians make distinctions.” Judging the proper age level for a work’s audience can be complex: Eisner said that thirteen and fourteen-year-olds had come up to him with copies of A Contract with God, and he said he once joked that Contract had been “written for a 55-year-old man who just lost his wallet in the subway.”

However, some of the panelists seemed to be saying that reviews were also important in order to alert potential readers that the books are out there and worth buying. “The important thing is to get reviewed,” one said. Eisner addressed the myth that “you get into a bookstore; your book will sell. It’s not true.” He reminisced about how 25 years ago only a small publisher would publish A Contract with God; earlier he had told us how the first printer that had been approached turned the book down because it had (drawn) naked women in it (and this is in the mid-1970s!). But the book was published, and one of the high profile bookstores on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue purchased copies to sell. Enthused, Eisner went down to the bookstore to ask how it was doing. He was told that in its first week it was displayed prominently on the table in front of the store. Then James Michener’s new book came out, so Contract was moved into the inside section on religious books. A woman saw it there and complained, and so it was moved to a section with books full of collected comics (strips, I imagine). Then a man with a five-year-old saw the book there, with its naked women, and complained. So finally, Contract was moved down to the basement: in other words, taken off sale. This story in part grew out of a discussion of the problem of just where to “shelve” graphic novels in bookstores. Eisner’s book was shunted about from one inappropriate spot to another 25 years ago.

And the problem persists today.

A short time ago, I found myself passing by the new location of Coliseum Books, a now legendary independent Manhattan bookstore that closed a few years ago but has now miraculously been resurrected alongside the New York Public Library’s main building. Exploring the new venue, I found the new Ballantine American Splendor anthology in the humor section, and DK’s Hulk book in the children’s section. Don’t the owners realize that times have changed, I wondered. Where’s the graphic novel section?

“I don’t want to be in the graphic novel section,” said Eisner at the panel. The other panelists weren’t happy about it, either. Colleen Doran worried that people who might like “romance novels with pictures” might shy away from the graphic novel section, since it’s usually near the Dungeons & Dragons and Star Trek books. Chip Kidd said that “in a perfect world” there would not be a comics section. Several panelists’ preference was to have their books shelved according to genre, along with prose novels in the same genre. This, I take it, reflects the panelists’ desire to have their works taken seriously by a world beyond comics fandom. And indeed, this panel had the most serious and sedate audience of any of the panels I attended. And it was not an audience ““ or panel ““ kindly disposed towards American comics’ best-selling genre. One audience member disparaged super heroes as “steroid cases in tights fighting.” One panelist ventured, “I think super heroes are dying,” replaced by video games and movies for “adolescents,” and I suspect he was hoping that wishing would make it so. Another audience member gloomily contended that “the graphic novel is under the shadow of X-Men 5.” (Actually, the American Splendor movie might prove an indie hit.) At yet another, like a Chekhovian character longing for a happier, distant future he may not live to see, speculated that “in 30 to 40 years” the word comics might mean “good graphic novels” and “not super hero stuff.”

There was another audience member who said it was “tragic” that he had not discovered the century-old comic strip Little Nemo in Slumberland when he was a child. All right, now I have lost my patience. September 11 = Tragedy. Not discovering the works of Winsor McCay till you’re an adult ““ as a late 20th century toddler you probably would have preferred Pokemon to Little Nemo, anyway.

Now, I have eclectic tastes, which include intelligent superhero material, as my readers know. As someone with a serious interest in studying the pop culture mythology of superhero comics, indeed, as someone who had just come from the Kirby tribute panel, I was not altogether comfortable with the anti-superhero sentiments. People have different tastes and temperaments, but if you don’t like a genre, you don’t have to read it. You need not wish it destroyed. And even if you reject the idea that the superhero genre can provide intelligent satisfactions for adults, what about the traditional readership ““ children? I sense a certain puritanical streak at work here. Their attitude seems to be, how dare these people publish comics that give kids pleasure! (And doesn’t one of the panelists do Oz books? Oh, all right, Dorothy actually doesn’t punch the Wicked Witch.)

I suppose that to some degree these people’s intolerance towards the super hero books reflects their own disappointment that “serious” comics do not receive more recognition by the culture at large. It’s easy to blame the abundance of superhero comics. But the larger public thinks of most comic strips as kid stuff, too.

Moreover, lots of people simply are unused to the conventions of comics storytelling. Craig Thompson said that new comics readers have trouble looking at “all these panels.” Eisner countered that “balloons” are the problem. If they don’t see word balloons, he said, people accept the work; if they see the balloons, they consider it comics.

The lack of wider acceptance of comics presumably leads to the economic problems discussed at the panel’s end. Colleen Doran said she had to do her stories in serial magazine form before collecting them into graphic novels, because it takes so long to do them that she’s “starve to death” in the meantime. Kidd said that Pantheon pays advances to its graphic novelists, but admitted they weren’t the size of the advances that go to leading prose novelists. As for me, I think that having bookstores shelve graphic novels with prose novels in the same genre would be like shelving plays and screenplays alongside novels. To do the latter would be to deny that plays and screenplays belong to other media than prose fiction. To want a graphic novel shelved with a prose novel is to subordinate the visual aspect of the book to the literary one. It is to say that the graphic novel is words illustrated by pictures, rather than a form in which words and pictures are equals. And what if one thinks that graphic novels are primarily a visual medium? Then should they be shelved with the art books? Eisner’s Spirit put alongside 1940s figurative artists?

No, I think that in a perfect world graphic novels would not hide among the prose novels. They would have their own section, in any major bookstore. The real key is to foster more critics and reviewers who take comics seriously, and write for major media outlets. That’s the way, ultimately, to change the mindset of the culture’s opinion makers, and the population at large. Virtually every other form of pop culture ““ movies, television, popular music in its myriad forms ““ eventually wins critical recognition; I hope it’s only a matter of time for comics.

ANOTHER OPENING, ANOTHER SHOW

Another way to publicize the artistic worth of comics is to do a documentary about them. With the graphic novels panel over, I arrived early at my next stop, the screening of my film, Sex, Lies & Superheroes, which was to begin in Room 4 at 1:45 PM.

I feel a little uneasy about using my column to blow my own horn about my own movie, but I will try to suppress my usual diffidence to tell you this much about it. Sex, Lies and Superheroes is a documentary consisting of interviews with a number of luminaries of American comics ““ including, in alphabetical order, John Byrne, Chris Claremont, Amanda Conner, Peter David, Colleen Doran, Neil Gaiman, Stan Lee, Scott McCloud, Frank Miller, Jimmy Palmiotti, Bill Sienkiewicz, Louise and Walter Simonson, and more ““ intercut together, creating a continuous dialogue, intelligent and entertaining, about the comics medium and the iconic characters it portrays. I played a major role in selecting and contacting the interviewees, wrote most of the questions for the interviews, and conducted large portions of the interviews (sometimes half, occasionally all), which usually lasted two hours apiece. Myself; Constantine and Ben thereafter edited the “raw material” down into the smoothly flowing film, nearly an hour long in its current version. And I think it’s one of the best documentaries on comics you’ve never seen! (Just ask FilmForce’s Ken Plume; he’ll back me up on this.)

The title of the movie was not my choice, but I can explain it: obviously, we deal with superhero comics, but also with women who write and draw comics, and how women’s tastes in comics differ from men’s (hence the “sex”), and one of our interviewees, Neil Gaiman, discourses on the idea that fiction, including stories in comics, consists of “lies” that illuminate truths.

It is somewhat odd showing the movie at a comics convention. When we first showed the movie last fall at New York City’s Anthology Film Archives, the audience had come specifically to watch new independent movies including ours. Except for the filmmakers themselves, I doubt if anyone attends Comic-Con primarily to see new indie cinema, and why, for example, should a Neil Gaiman fan attend our film when The Real Neil is simultaneously appearing at the Vertigo 10th Anniversary panel in another convention meeting room? I stood in back during the screening, and was not particularly happy about people who aimlessly wandered in, not knowing what was going on in the room, crinkled their noses and said, “A video!” and left. The audience that stayed throughout the film, however, was very appreciative indeed. When I watched the film with a general audience ““ in other words, not composed primarily of comics enthusiasts ““ at Anthology Film Archives, the audience recognized that our interviewees make witty comments all the way through. The Comic-Con audience, perhaps because they are more used to taking comics seriously, took a while to catch on that the film is both serious and consciously amusing. Halfway through one of Neil Gaiman’s witticisms finally broke the ice, and the laughs began to come.

The audience applauded loudly at the film’s proper ending, but Constantine and Ben have broken up the closing credits with further interviewee comments, serving as encores, in effect, and Peter David’s closing anecdote had the audience roaring with laughter.

The only question Constantine got after the film finished was, will this movie be available on DVD? Well, that’s one of the main reasons we came: to try to find a distributor who’ll put the film into limited theatrical distribution and sales on home video and DVD. I will let this column’s readers know if and when Constantine makes a distribution deal. (And I’d love to see transcripts of the complete, two-hour-long interviews see print somewhere.) Meanwhile, if you want to find out more about the movie, and inquire about buying VHS copies, go to his web site, www.sexliessuperheroes.com.

HIS MOVIE PANEL

Producer Ted Hope worked at the production company Good Machine, which co-produced this summer’s Hulk movie. “It was about this kind of nerdy intellectual who couldn’t help but get angry, and when he got angry he became really compelling. Then we took that formula,” Hope said, starting his punch line, “and adapted it to American Splendor.”

Hope made these comments at the next panel on my agenda, “Fine Line Films: American Splendor,” back in Room 6CDEF at 3:30 PM. This panel was intended to promote the new film adaptation of Harvey Pekar’s long-running alternative comic book series. The movie won the Grand Jury Prize at this year’s Sundance Film Festival and was set to open in New York, Los Angeles, and the film’s own locale, Cleveland, within a month, on August 15.

The long-running alternative comic series American Splendor is the ongoing real life saga of Harvey Pekar, written by the man himself but drawn by various artists: the story of a seemingly ordinary man in an ordinary job in a less than stellar city, Cleveland, and his coping with the mundane events, small joys, irritating nuisances, and sometimes great sorrows (including cancer) of everyday existence.

Besides Ted Hope, the producer of the American Splendor film, the panel featured the three real-life people on whom the film centers, Harvey Pekar, his wife Joyce Brabner, and their adopted teenage daughter Danielle Batone. Hope’s joke comparing Pekar to the Hulk unintentionally points to one of the ways that American Splendor works. Comics deal well in portraying larger-than-life figures as visual icons, making super heroes so suited to the medium. But American Splendor demonstrates how comics can elevate Pekar’s life, and by extension, anyone’s, into that of an iconic everyman, a survivor of life’s ups and downs.

Storytelling in any medium, through focusing with insight and perceptiveness on an individual and his or her life, can find the drama in anyone’s existence. American Splendor has proved to work in a stage adaptation that was performed in Los Angeles, and that I saw in a special presentation at the 1991 Comic-Con, with The Simpsons Dan Castellaneta starring as Pekar. So, why not a film version as well?

Hope informed the audience that numerous people, including actor/playwright Wallace Shawn, wanted to turn American Splendor into a movie. “I encountered all of them along the way,” said Hope, “and never thought they really understood what American Splendor, the movie, should be. I didn’t know any better myself, but I knew they hadn’t got it.” Hope said it was one of his “life dreams” to make this movie.

Comics artist Dean Haspiel, a mutual friend of Hope and the Pekars, put them in contact. “So one night,” recounted Hope,” I was sitting in my apartment drinking alone, and I got a phone call from some woman who said she heard I was interested in her husband.” This was disconcerting phrasing. The woman was Joyce Brabner, who made it clear that she was talking about the movie rights to American Splendor. According to Hope, she asked for “some amazing fortune” for the rights: Hope said he “was drunk” and “said yes.”

Eventually, Hope went to meet Pekar and Brabner on their home ground in Cleveland, and found the answer he had long sought. “When I met them, it was clear to me that what all the other… attempts to make the movie got wrong was that they didn’t actually include the real Harvey, Joyce and Danielle, and any movie had to have as many different personas of Harvey Pekar that American Splendor itself had, and not do it in a traditional way.”

So, while the American Splendor stories in the comics are drawn by different artists, the movie has multiple Pekars: actor Paul Giamatti, portraying Harvey; the real Harvey Pekar, portraying himself; and even an animated version. Brabner is portrayed by two actresses, Hope Davis and Molly Shannon. Post hired a husband and wife team of documentary makers, Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini, to direct the movie after dispatching them to Cleveland to get Pekar’s okay.

Still, Hope had no, uh, hope that he could get financing for such an unusual project. Brabner added, “We had no faith at all. We just thought we were fleecing this guy from New York.” But HBO came through, filming started within a year, HBO let the filmmakers alone, and shooting was completed in only 24 days. Not only that, but despite its low $3 million budget, Hope claimed American Splendor contains more and better special effects shots (presumably the animation) than the recent remake of Solaris, which had six times the special effects budget. (For more on the new era of low budget SFX, see my next column on the forthcoming film MirrorMask, another film connected with comics people that was blessed with quick greenlighting and lack of studio interference.)

Pekar and Brabner had been unfamiliar with the past work of actor Paul Giamatti until they stayed at a hotel where, Brabner explained, there was “something we don’t have at home ““ cable TV.” Brabner continued, “There was this blue orangutan bitching and whining in this movie, Planet of the Apes (the recent remake), and I said, ‘Hey, Harvey. That hairy guy’s going to be you.'” On the panel Pekar praised Giamatti’s performance, saying, “Paul studied me in the comics mainly,” and on tapes of Pekar’s once frequent appearances on David Letterman’s show. “He created a character who was an interpretation of me, and a very interesting one, instead of just trying to imitate me.”

At the end of the movie, a copy of new Pekar comic book titled His Movie Year is shown. Actually, it does not exist yet, but they hope to do it eventually.

I somehow doubt that the American Splendor movie will alter the popular conception of Cleveland as cultural wasteland (despite its art museum and orchestra). Towards the end a questioner from the audience asked for tips for someone going to Cleveland. What should a visitor see there? Danielle had been to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice (which, in a it’s-a-small-world development, has been run by Terry Stewart, head of Marvel in happier times), but Joyce has never gone. “Do what we do,” Brabner said. “Stay inside and read.” How has the movie changed the Pekars’ lives? Does he have qualms about becoming famous? “No, no. I’ll take as much money as I can get,” he said. “I haven’t got nearly enough left. I’m retired now, and I want my old age to be as easy as possible.” Observe, please, that a writer can be read by tens of thousands of readers, and even have his work turned into an independent film, and still not make that much money. Danielle confessed that she has probably already spent the money she got for the film. Yes, I can identify with all of this myself.

One benefit of the movie is that Pekar got to visit France for the first time in his life, for the movie’s screening at the Cannes Film Festival. The French distributors agreed to release the film on the Pekars’ 20th anniversary, a nice gesture, and it is hoped that the film can be linked to other important dates in his life. Danielle said, “We’re looking at the dates for the bar mitzvah.”

In answer to a question from the audience, Pekar said he would also like to go back on David Letterman’s show, on which he appeared many times during Letterman’s NBC years, until he finally angered Letterman by insisting on talking about what he saw as the corporate evils of NBC’s parent company, General Electric. Pekar did visit Letterman on CBS once afterwards, but Fine Line has been trying to get him back on the show for six months with no answer. Now, I think Pekar did go too far on Letterman’s NBC show. It wasn’t Charlie Rose or even Dick Cavett; nor was it a show dealing in political commentary, like Bill Maher’s now. The old Letterman show had a more lightweight agenda: ironically subverting and twisting the conventions of talk shows into entertaining nonsense. But since Sept. 11, 2001, Letterman’s mood has changed, and he has demonstrated his willingness to discuss serious issues, and even to drop the ironic mask when circumstances dictate. Maybe now Letterman and Pekar could meet each other halfway. I’m a fan of both. I want to see a rematch! The time has come!

The Pekars have also ventured into cyberspace, with Harvey, Joyce and Danielle all contributing to the weblog at harveypekar.com (so go check it out).

As for another way that the movie has changed the Pekars’ lives, Brabner said, “We don’t have to go to places like this” to “hustle” for sales. (“Places like this”?) Earlier, she had been discussing the Pekars’ friend Toby, who is, shall we say, rather eccentric. The movie has both an actor playing Toby and the real Toby in it. Brabner said that when you see the real Toby in the movie, you will think, “This young man would be really happy to attend the San Diego Comic-Con.” Hey! I think I’ve been insulted! I think even the serious sorts at the graphic novel panel have been insulted!

No, I don’t really mind (she’s kidding, right?), but maybe it would do us good to turn to a panel where the Comic-Con is celebrated. And you’ll find out about that in the next column.

-Copyright 2003 Peter Sanderson

August 8, 2003

Comics in Context #5: San Diego 2003 – Day One

Filed under: Columns,Comics in Context — UncaScroogeMcD @ 10:53 pm

comicsincontext4.jpg

For over a decade starting in 1982 I regularly attended the San Diego Comic Convention, the largest comics convention in the United States, and could not conceive of not going every year. How could I not go, and miss seeing all the friends who went there, the great panels with major figures in cartoon and comics art, the parties, the dazzling tourist attractions of San Diego, and the sheer excitement of it all? What was wrong, I thought, with the people I knew in comics prodom who did not attend? Well, at that point I didn’t yet know about the tendency towards cocooning that comes with middle age. I also didn’t realize that when the comics boom went bust in the 1990s, paying for plane fare and the ever-rising hotel bills would present a problem. So I took a break for a few years in the 1990s, attended two more Comic-Cons in a row, and then stayed away. And when 2003 came along, I was shocked to realize I had not attended for a full five years.

This year, though, I had a reason to go: the Comic-Con now holds an event with the long-winded name of the Comic-Con International Independent Film Festival ““ CCI-IFF, for short, and it would be showing the documentary I worked on as a writer, interviewer and executive producer. This is Sex. Lies and Superheroes, directed by Constantine Valhouli, and he, I, and our director of photography Ben Jackendorf were all going to attend.

THE THREE AGES OF COMIC-CON

How, I wondered, would the San Diego Con have changed in the half decade in which I’d been absent? Certainly I’d witnessed changes over the two decades I had been going, and the Con had even then evolved drastically from its tiny beginnings.

“Did you ever go to the Con at the El Cortez?” one friend asked me at this year’s Con, clearly eager to learn what it was like. Unfortunately, I never did. The Golden Age of the San Diego Comic-Con, as befits Golden Ages, I suppose, took place before I attended my first, and so I know it only as a legend. In the Con’s early years in the 1970s it was held at the El Cortez, a hotel a good long walk from the San Diego shore. The one real piece of information I have about those early Cons is that the convention area was apparently laid out around the swimming pool, with certain convention activities actually taking place at poolside. (There are also anecdotes about certain female members of the comics professional community making memorable appearances in swimwear along the pool.)

I expect that the real reason why the El Cortez days have the aura of legend would be that the attendance at the Con back then would have been considerably smaller, so it would have been a much more intimate event. Indeed, it has been reported that the first San Diego Con, in 1969, had only 300 attendees. Attendance grew considerably over the following decade, but the relatively small size of the Con still afforded greater opportunities for fans and young comics pros to mix with the great names of the artform.

When I attended my first San Diego Con in 1982, Reverend Sun Yun Moon, head of the “Moonies” religious cult, had bought the El Cortez. Perhaps Reverend Moon disapproved of comics, or perhaps the Con had simply outgrown the El Cortez, but the Comic-Con had now moved to the Civic Center, which provided large but functional and undistinguished facilities. Perhaps we could call this the Silver Age of the Comic-Con.

In those years downtown San Diego was somewhat appalling. Oh, there were the grand hotels from the early part of the last century, like the U. S. Grant and the celebrated, castle-like Hotel del Coronado, backdrop for the movies Some Like It Hot and The Stunt Man and alleged inspiration for San Diego resident L. Frank Baum’s Emerald City. And there were spectacular areas of San Diego: the beaches, the San Diego Zoo, with which no other zoo I’ve visited can compare, and the museums and Spanish-American architecture in Balboa Park, the outdoor Shakespeare performances at night at the Old Globe complex. But most of downtown looked shoddy and run down, and it all seemed symbolized by a large billboard atop a building near the Civic Center that various Con attendees found amusing, promoting the virtues of “Hypno-Sex” (complete with staring eyes). Could this really be one of the largest cities in California, and indeed, in the whole country?

In the late 1980s San Diego began to undergo an extraordinary transformation. There was the creation of downtown’s Horton Plaza, an outdoor, upscale shopping mall that was a postmodern architectural wonder: a shopping center as multi-leveled theme park, bursting with color, an entertaining melange of buildings old and new, crisscrossed with tilted walkways, as if M. C. Escher had returned from the dead to design public spaces. There followed Seaport Village, which took an opposite tack, concentrating on small specialty shops and an array of restaurants, and imitating the look and layout of a picturesque seaside town. San Diego finally got a real skyline, as a forest of high-rise hotels went up, in a variety of handsome modern and postmodern designs. In my previous visits, I had seen publicity for the renovation of the Gaslamp Quarter, a section of downtown that dated back to Victorian times, but I was singularly unimpressed. This year, however, I was delighted by the variety of restaurants and shops that had sprung up throughout this compact area.

The centerpiece of the San Diego renaissance was the brand new San Diego Convention Center, itself a startling postmodern work whose large exterior decorations mimicked sails, and whose colossal round windows evoked portholes; it was as if the Convention Center were an enormous ship, at once retro in design and futuristic, cast up upon the shore of the harbor, filled with real sailboats, that it overlooked. (And, indeed, the Convention Center turns up as a building in the future world depicted in the movie Demolition Man.)

cic-005-01.jpgIn the Civic Center days, the San Diego Con was already clearly the best of the big comics cons: spacious, well-lighted, clean, with a wide array of intelligently conceived panels and the largest and most stellar roster of guests from the worlds of comics and animation. When the Con moved to the new Convention Center, it now had something of an epic setting and scale, and seemed the equal of the other massively scaled events held there. (In 1996 the Con had to be held unusually early in the summer to make way for the Republican National Convention held at the Convention Center in August. I recall, watching the GOP’s convention on television, that Bob Dole was now standing more or less where a Vampirella model had posed only weeks before.) I suppose we might call this the beginning of the Platinum Age of the San Diego Comic-Con, its current period, when its scope and significance began to reach beyond comics fandom.

Along the way the convention also changed its name from the unpretentious San Diego Comic-Con to the more grandiose Comic-Con International (though people still familiarly refer to it by the original name). Speculation had it that the Comic-Con people wanted to drop San Diego from the title in case they ever decided to move the convention somewhere else. However, the move has never taken place and I know of no reason to think it ever will.

A CONVENTION IN PARADISE

I think the fact that the Comic-Con is in San Diego is one of the foremost reasons for its success. Considering that the two major comics companies, Marvel and DC, are based in New York City, it has long been a puzzle why New York is no longer able to sustain a first-class comics convention. It used to: there was another Golden Age of comics cons, and in this case I was around for the tail end of it. These were the annual Fourth of July comics cons in New York City run by the late Phil Seuling, the pioneer of the direct sales comics market. Again, I suspect that the smallness, intimacy, and newness of these Cons are what have made them nostalgic legends, but they were already in decline when I started attending in the late ’70s. The Seuling cons were supplanted by Creation Cons, back before Creation abandoned comics cons for sci-fi, and though large, there were probably too many of them per year, and they lost the cachet of being special events. For years now, there are comics conventions, some large, and others merely a Sunday gathering of back issue dealers, in New York City, but they all seem cheesy, crowded and undignified. (I went to one years ago that was held in the Madison Square Garden complex when the circus was in town, and people remarked on the strong scent of elephant urine.)

There are, of course, other major comics conventions around the country, but San Diego has the choice location. Decades ago, I went to several Chicago Comicons, long before Wizard took them over, when they were located in a hotel across from downtown Chicago’s Grant Park. This enabled me to witness the startling sight of a neo-Nazi demonstration from a hotel window (The Blues Brothers movie didn’t make that stuff up). On the other hand, by midday on Sunday, when I had become saturated with comics, I would just walk down the street to the Art Institute of Chicago and immerse myself in its copious Impressionist collection. On returning to the Chicago Comicon years later, I found that it had moved out to a hotel by the airport in Rosemont, a long and surprisingly expensive taxi ride from Chicago’s Loop. Now it was really the Rosemont Comicon, and for someone who went to the con in large part to explore Chicago, this severely downgraded the value of bothering to attend the con.

In contrast, going to the San Diego Con in the 1980s it was like going on vacation with one’s friends: I happily recall heading out to the beaches, the zoo, Sea World and Old Town with friends from New York, and large gatherings at local restaurants at night. Nowadays the Comic-Con is far busier, and most people seem too heavily scheduled with manning booths, appearing at panels or having business lunches to take an afternoon off to head to the beach. But still, it’s San Diego, and even if we spend most of the day inside the Convention Center, there is the brilliant sunshine and the rows of palm trees when we arrive in the morning, or if we go out on the terrace in mid-day, and the perfect temperatures at night. The advantages of escaping to humidity-free San Diego in the midst of the endless sauna of a typical New York summer are not to be underestimated.

Moreover, now that the Comic-Con has oriented itself more towards films and television, and now that Hollywood is considerably more interested in comics properties, San Diego’s nearness to Los Angeles is a considerable advantage, as we shall discuss.

Why the Comic-Con now calls itself “International” is a conundrum. I noticed how much space is now devoted to anime at the Con, and certainly there are tables where foreign graphic albums are sold, but the Con is still predominately concerned with American comics. Similarly, when Mort Walker’s Museum of Cartoon Art moved down to Boca Raton ““ where it has since closed ““ it became the “International Museum of Cartoon Art,” despite a collection overwhelmingly devoted to American works.) What do the attendees of major foreign comics conventions like those in Angouleme and Lucca think of the San Diego Con’s attempt to make itself sound like the United Nations of comics? And how many people from other countries come to the San Diego Con? (Answer: relatively few as far as I can tell.) How many European and Japanese comics companies exhibit there? (Answer: same as before). In both the Comic-Con and Museum’s cases, the claim to being “International” strikes me as being a chest-thumping bid to assert itself as the biggest and best of its kind in the world, while mostly ignoring the rest of the world. It’s like the way baseball has a World Series that defines the world as limited to America.

Although I had not attended Comic-Con in five years, I had been monitoring its schedule of events each year as posted on the Con’s website. In my experience, there have always been numerous panels and events going on simultaneously at any point during the day at the Con. But this year, surveying the schedule on the website, I wondered if it was my imagination or whether there would actually be far more going on at once than in any of my previous visits.

The Comic-Con is like one massive “Which Way?” game. There are so many possibilities that despite the fact that there are tens of thousands of attendees, I can feel positive that not one of them duplicated my individual and convoluted path through the schedule of events.

On Friday night I was talking with Peter Coogan, one of the heads of the Comic Arts Conference, an academic conference on comics that is held each year at the convention. At one point I heard him reassuring some of the conference attendees that he quite understood if they did not attend every session: there are simply too many noteworthy panels and events going on simultaneously, and he wished he could attend more of them himself.

For example, I chose to attend Buffy creator Joss Whedon’s panel in the vast Room 6CDEF from 3:30 to 4:30 PM on Saturday. But during that same hour, I could have been at a panel reuniting science fiction legends Ray Bradbury, Julius Schwartz, and Forrest J. Ackerman in Room 6A. Or I could have listened to Will Eisner discussing his new graphic novel, Fagin the Jew in Room 8. Or I could have attended the presentation of more papers at the Comic Arts Conference in Room 7A. Or gone to Sony’s presentation on its upcoming films Spider-Man 2, Hellboy, and Underworld, with Spider-Man producer Laura Ziskin, Hellboy comics creator Mike Mignola, and actors Alfred Molina (who plays Doctor Octopus) and Kate Beckinsale (from Underworld) in the biggest of the ballrooms, Room 20. Or gone to the panel of animation voice actors hosted by Mark Evanier, complete with live performances, in Room 6B. Or seen two more short movies at the con’s Independent Film Festival in Room 4. Or watched a PowerPoint slide show of early Marvel artwork from 1939 to 1959 in Room 2. And there were nine other panels going on during this very same hour, along with the ongoing do-it-yourself pleasures of exploring the dealers’ and companies’ booths on the main convention floor. Daily Variety (July 17, 2003) referred to the “sensory overload” of Comic-Con, and you can see the point.

FilmForce’s own Ken Plume tells me that most Con attendees do not bother to read the Comic-Con schedule. (Available at registration, the schedule booklet now seems to me at least three times as thick as it did five years ago.) And I did indeed observe people wandering into a room, apparently with no idea of what was going on in there, briefly checking it out and then departing again, presumably to wander aimlessly into the next room. To my mind, though, planning was essential, to avoid missing out on important panels because I did not know they were going on.

Luckily, the Con now begins posting its schedule a little over a week ahead of time on its website, so I could work out what felt something like a battle plan: making decisions as to which of the many competing panels I could attend, in whole or in part, with alternative options listed in case I decided (as I did at one point on Saturday) to revise part of my own schedule. Since simultaneously held panels do not all start and stop at the same time, I can attend part of one and then see the rest of another. Hence, going back to the Saturday afternoon schedule, I could see the beginning of the Bradbury panel, which began at 3, before rushing off to a nearby room to find a seat for the Whedon panel, which started at 3:30 PM.

But still, I have a wide scope of interests, and there was so much that I would like to see but would have to miss. In past years I have found transcripts from Joss Whedon and X-Files creator Chris Carter’s Con panels posted on the Net. And now there are comics websites and mainstream media reporting on the Con, though primarily on the movie companies’ panels. This still leaves so much that is said at so many panels of which there will be no published record and thus will be lost. I’m doing my part by writing columns reporting on what I saw and heard at this year’s Con, but I ““ or anyone else ““ can only cover a small fraction of what takes place there.

A CITY OF COMICS

Preparing to fly out to San Diego, I wondered just how crowded the Con would be this year. When last I attended, five years ago, its attendance topped out at 35,000. My understanding was that in 2002 65,000 people had come to the Con; this is a small city’s worth of people. (And I learned after this year’s Con was over that 2003 attendance was over 70,000 people.)

In times past I found many aisles on the convention floor virtually impassible at the Con’s peak time on Saturday afternoon, and I wondered how much worse it would be now. But, in fact, only a few times this year did I have trouble navigating along a crowded aisle. Now I had heard that the Convention Center, already quite large, had undergone an expansion. But I did not realize until I got there this year was that in 2001 the San Diego Convention Center had doubled in size through the construction of an extension as large as the original building. The convention floor was now twice as long, and I certainly felt it when I made my way from one end of the floor to the other.

Clearly the Comic-Con has become a major event for the city of San Diego. One hotel employee told me the Monday after this year’s Con that it had been the hotel’s busiest weekend in the last twelve months. I heard elsewhere that virtually every hotel room in San Diego ““ and in nearby towns ““ had been booked up that weekend. (Constantine had to make last minute arrangements for hotel rooms for us, when our initial plans for accommodations fell through, and we ended up in Alpine, California, which, you are correct, does not sound close to the San Diego shoreline.)

In the 1990s I was already amazed and pleased to see Comic-Con ads, with artwork by Alex Ross, on the sides of San Diego buses, and banners promoting the Con along the main streets.

cic-005-02.jpg

This time I was startled while riding to the Con with the car radio on, to hear an announcer alert her audience that today was the last day to attend Comic-Con. This sort of thing just does not happen in other cities I’ve been to that have major comics conventions.COMIC-CON IN THE NEWS

So, will the national news media take notice of such a massively attended pop culture event? In past years I have rarely seen much mainstream coverage of the Comic-Con, and running a Google search when I got back from this year’s turned up disappointingly little (outside websites that specialize in comics news).

Indeed, I find it annoying to see what some media outlets consider to be conventions more worthy of their attention. I recall that years ago The New York Times ran an article about a convention in Chicago for aficionados of the works of P. G. Wodehouse, and the Times was all aflutter that (if memory serves) over forty people attended the event. Gosh. The Wall Street Journal, on July 23, 2003, ran a piece about a convention of fans of the Coen brothers’ movie The Big Lebowski, which grew from 150 people last year to 800 this year. Well, that’s good for them, considering their subject. Yet I repeat; this year’s Comic-Con attracted over 70,000 people (way more than the circulation of most comic books these days).

Nonetheless, 2003 appears to be the year when the San Diego Con first made real inroads into the consciousness of the major news media.

As should be no surprise to readers of this column, some people take the opportunity to belittle comics. What is a surprise is that a culprit this time is Entertainment Weekly, which is usually enlightened on the subject of comics. The Aug. 1, 2003 issue of EW subtitles its report on the Con, “Studios and stars gave it up for the geeks at America’s biggest comics convention.” The report also seems puzzled that the film The Last Samurai was previewed at a comic book convention, as if comics could not be about samurais (Lone Wolf and Cub, anyone?), or, actually, any other subject imaginable. Elsewhere in the same issue, EW runs a schizoid review of the Daredevil DVD, which shows respect to Frank Miller’s Daredevil comics but criticizes the film’s director, Mark Steven Johnson, for acting “as though he’d never decided whether he was aiming it at geeks, a mass audience, or both.”

In sharp contrast, the issue of Daily Variety that appeared on the Con’s opening day (July 17, 2003) observed that “They may have been derided as geeks in the past, but now the diehard fans of sci-fi, comics, fantasy and horror that flock by the thousands to Comic-Con Intl. [sic] are important enough to warrant personal attention from Hollywood’s biggest studios.” That issue featured a special section on comics and animation, spotlighting the Comic-Con, treating it very respectfully. One headline even ran: “Comic-Con a nexus of all things cool.”

On a stopover on my flight to San Diego on the Con’s opening day, July 17, I was astonished and pleased to discover that the day’s USA Today was running a positive article about Comic-Con. Nevertheless, the article’s opening hinted at an unfortunate trend: “Once upon a time the Comic-Con convention was about comic books.” Actually, it still is principally about comics, as artform and as business. By stating that Comic-Con is no longer about comics, USA Today is just projecting its own lack of interest in comics onto reality. Like other mainstream reports on the Con, USA Today focused on the movie companies’ presentations at the Con, and pretty much ignored comics; The Hollywood Reporter and even EW took the same approach. (Admirably, Daily Variety dealt with comics in its July 17th section on the Comic-Con, even including interviews with comics stars Alex Ross, Brian Michael Bendis, and Paul Dini.)

USA Today even projected its skewed vision of the Con into the past. The article states that “Hollywood did not pay much attention to the convention until the mid-1970s, when directing legend Frank Capra and comic fan Frank Capra began showing up to talk superheroes. Since then, the convention has become as essential to studios as the Cannes Film Festival and the ShoWest exhibit for theater owners.” Well, the mid-1970s were before my time, and I am surprised and delighted to learn that Capra went to Comic-Con. But I have been going since 1982, and I can assure you that Hollywood was not much in evidence at the Con until recent years, and if the Con were as important as Cannes or ShoWest, we would have seen a lot more film company booths at this year’s Con.

Still, USA Today hits the nail on the proverbial head in pointing out that Comic-Con’s “Clout stems from the boom in comic-book films and the surging power that film fans are exerting over the Internet. “They will be at home the day after Comic-Con giving their opinions on their Web pages,’ convention spokesman David Glanzer says.” (Or in my case, a week after the Con.)

Certainly I am pleased to read USA Today’s quote from Paramount vice chairman Rob Friedman, who once worked at Warner Brothers and showed clips from the first Superman movie at the Con in 1978: “The fans weren’t happy that I didn’t know more about the history of the comic book, and they told me so. That’s when I knew we were going to have to take Comic-Con seriously.” The comics aficionados, the core audience for such projects, once (and still in some quarters) scorned by the suits for taking comics seriously, are now getting some respect for their points of view. (Perhaps the makers of the Hulk movie should have paid more attention to what Hulk readers would have liked to see, hmm?) And, since I was unable to attend Sony’s presentation on Spider-Man 2 at the Con, I was grateful that USA Today gave it extensive coverage in its July 21 issue.

On Friday morning, on our way to the Con, Constantine Valhouli and I encountered a gentleman from Publishers Weekly, who informed us that the magazine had sent a number of people to report on the convention ““ not on the movie presentations, but on the books ““ comics ““ being sold. After returning home, I found the first of these reports, on manga, on the Publishers Weekly website. I find Publishers Weekly‘s interest satisfying because it directs mainstream attention to the comics themselves, which, however the Con may diversify its scope, remain the heart of the convention.

THE HUNT BEGINS

But enough talk of past Cons and anticipations for this one. My plane arrived in San Diego at quarter of 4 in the afternoon on Thursday, June 17, with the Comic-Con already well under way on its opening day. By 4 PM my cab had pulled up at the San Diego Convention Center and I was ready to begin.

For the first hour and a half I explored the convention’s main floor, surveying the territory, getting a sense of where the major exhibitors had set up their booths. I was also going to see for myself if the stories I had heard were true: I had been told, more than once, that there was no longer a Marvel booth at the Con.

Now, how could that possibly be? The San Diego Con is by far the leading comics convention in North America, and Marvel is the continent’s leading comic book company. Surely it is inconceivable that Marvel would not have its own area on the convention floor!

Let’s look in the program book. No, I can’t find Marvel’s booth marked on the map of the convention floor, but then, there are so many exhibitors here. Let’s check the index of exhibitors. Hmm, I don’t see Marvel listed here, either. But there are Marvel panels listed on the schedule, complete with appearances by editor in chief Joe Quesada. Surely Marvel would arrange for a spot on the convention floor for him to sit. Marvel must be somewhere. Just where is it?

Back in the 1980s even big companies like Marvel had low-tech set-ups at the major conventions that basically consisted of long, plain tables at which comics pros sat, with photocopies of their latest work arrayed before them, signing autographs. I did not attend the Con for a few years in the early 1990s, during which time the era of the big booths arrived. In my absence I had heard about them, and they lived up to my expectations when I finally returned to San Diego and saw them. I suppose the big booth is a kind of trademark of the Platinum Age of the San Diego Con.

DC Comics had by far the best booth set-up: a large rectangular area with tables where writers, artists, and editors sat giving autographs and talking to fans, big, prominent images of the characters, and video screens playing new animated shows featuring DC characters. There might be a model dressed as Wonder Woman posing for pictures with fans; one year there was even a full-sized Batmobile in the middle of DC’s public square.

Across the way in one direction would be Dark Horse’s area, similarly set up, with life-sized statues of, say, the Mask. And in another direction was Marvel’s booth, the same size as DC’s, and trying to do many of the same things, but without the same style and handsomeness. This was not really surprising: in 1986 the mantle of being the cutting edge mainstream comics company had shifted from Marvel to DC, and so it made a symbolic kind of sense that the Marvel booth seemed a paler imitation of DC’s. Moreover, whereas every year DC flew out much of its staff to appear at its San Diego booth, by the mid-1990s Marvel was hiring locally based temps to man its San Diego booth, not quite the sort of people fans hope to meet at conventions.

The rise of the big booth coincided with the boom in comics sales in the early 1990s, when there was plenty of money in the business to spend. The boom is over, but the colorful booths still seem right. The long, plain tables of the 1980s conventions to me symbolize a period when comics were still a very minor business, and even the San Diego Con was still not far enough removed from fan gatherings in crowded dealer’s rooms in shoddy hotel facilities. Today’s booths, on the other hand, make the major comics conventions look more like trade shows for mainstream book publishing. They signify prosperity and prestige and a bid for greater respectability as an artform and as a business. DC’s booth area is still by far the best of the comics’ companies, and I like Dark Horse’s and CrossGen’s.

And it’s not just comics companies that are exhibitors. The Hollywood Reporter (July 20, 2003) quoted Marvel’s Avi Arad as telling one of this year’s San Diego Con audiences, “I have to congratulate you because you are the first community ever to manage to bring Hollywood to them.” So, it would make sense that if Disney, DreamWorks, New Line, and Artisan all have booths at the Con, then Marvel, with its own burgeoning film division, so much more tied in with comics properties would, too, right?

Oh, I suppose I could understand there not being a Marvel booth if the company was still in bankruptcy. Then again, Fantagraphics nearly went under this year, and they have a big booth area: presumably they reason that in times of financial stress it is even more important to make a public appearance to promote and sell their wares (and Chris Ware books, too). But lately Marvel has been trumpeting its return to profitability and success. So then there must be a Marvel booth! Mustn’t there?

I mean, really, there have long been Marvel-haters who probably wondered what it would be like to have a major comic book convention without Marvel being the dominant presence. Maybe they even wondered what the American comics industry would look like if Marvel suddenly disappeared. But we would never actually see a major comics con like that, would we?

THE GENERATIONAL SHIFT

There were other things I observed as I wandered about the convention floor on Thursday and the next several days. It was amazing to see the displays and booths from film companies and non-comics publishers, though I also had the feeling that there were far fewer actual comics companies exhibiting. In my last few visits it seemed as if there were a vast number of comics companies, big and small, represented. Have so many of the smaller companies gone under?

Then too, whether I was searching the convention floor or the program book, there were far, far fewer professionals from the Baby Boom generation attending the Con. So many people had lost staff jobs or freelance work during the bust of the comics boom, the turmoil that ensued at Marvel, and the narrowing of the business. On my last few visits to the Con I still saw numerous familiar faces, presumably there because of the Con’s reputation as a nexus for networking. And now so many of them were absent. Had they given up?

A LONG COLUMN ABOUT NEIL GAIMAN

At 5:30 PM began the first of the panels I had put on my schedule to attend. Now, one could even view the Comic-Con as a grand conglomeration of smaller conventions. For example, someone could spend his whole time just attending the Comics Art Conference’s discussions, or watching the movies running day and night at the Con’s Independent Film Festival.

The aforementioned Bradbury and voice actors panels were part of what we might call EvanierCon, an astonishingly long list of panels in which Mark Evanier acts as moderator or major participant, dealing primarily with great writers, artists and editors of the Golden and Silver ages of Comics (the mid-1930s through the 1960s) and animation.

This year, one of the components of the Con was, in effect, NeilCon: according to the program book, Neil Gaiman appeared on more panels this year than anyone else. I managed to get to one of the NeilCon panels every day. In fact, since Gaiman is one of the most prominent interviewees in Sex, Lies and Superheroes, I suppose my movie could even be considered part of NeilCon.

cic-005-03.jpgFor some years now, there have been attempts to make a movie of Gaiman’s comics mini-series, Death: The High Cost of Living, that would be both written and directed by Gaiman himself. Now, it appears, it looks as if the film might actually happen. In his introduction, Gaiman recounted that his longtime friend and collaborator Dave McKean had suggested that Gaiman try directing a short movie of his own for practice. As Gaiman explained, McKean expected he would just shoot some simple short material. But instead, Gaiman found outside funding and conducted an elaborate experiment in documentary cinema, A Short Film about John Bolton, concerning the British comics artist and painter of the same name.

After the screening, Gaiman cautioned the audience that it was important to him that they knew little about the movie beyond the title before seeing it, so as not to ruin the surprises in tone, style and narrative that the film offers. This, of course, handicaps the reviewer, since, in order to honor Gaiman’s intentions, I can’t discuss how the film evolves and certainly not its denouement. I can tell you that it is entertaining, intelligent, surprising, and satisfying; I just can’t tell you why.

But there are some aspects of the film that intrigued me that I think I can explore without giving the show away.

In part this film is an acknowledgement of the growing mainstream interest in and acceptance of comics-related art. Here is John Bolton, a leading British comics artist, having a major gallery show of his paintings: fantasy art depicting women in the horror genre, notably as vampiresses. And it seems entirely credible that he would and should have such a show.

The film also deals with the idea of the creative artist who has no interest in or motivation to analyze his own work. Bolton, as depicted in the film, keeps being asked questions about the deeper meanings of his work and its psychological implications but he seems oblivious to anything beyond the surface imagery. Bolton simply contends that he paints what he sees.

But I wonder if Gaiman is also expressing a storyteller’s impatience with having his work subjected to critical or academic analysis. This may be the stance of the artist who presents his work and does not want it explained or dissected. Perhaps the idea is that the writer or artist feels that the story as presented, or the visual imagery, is rich enough in meaning on the surface, and that looking for more is unnecessary and perhaps inappropriate. The argument might go that if the creator intended to say more than he could in the format he chose, he would have written an essay instead, or that audience members tend to ascribe meanings to the work that the author did not intend and which therefore are simply not there. Certainly, the onscreen interviewer, gallery owner and gallery attendees, for their part, babble on amusingly about what they think the work is about, and cannot venture beyond cliches. It would seem they cannot grasp what the artist they purport to admire is doing. (And the gallery owner is barely disguising the fact that her own interest in the work is solely in its potential monetary value.)

As a critic and former academic myself, I naturally disagree. Some critics and academics may go off on wrongheaded theories about the work they study, but a good critique of an artwork illuminates its meanings, and can even reveal aspects of the work of which the creator himself was unaware. A good critic is, in a sense, a good collaborator with the artist. The artist creates a treasure ““ the artwork –and the insightful critic uncovers facets of the treasure that might otherwise escape the observer’s notice or understanding, thereby revealing more of its true value.

Gaiman told the audience that the British company that produced his film, the same people who did Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, are too busy with their new movie project to do anything about getting the Bolton film released on DVD or video. Let’s hope that they find some spare time soon, because you all should see this little film for yourselves.

STAR WARS ON SPEED

Another Con within the Comic-Con would be what I’ll call LucasCon, programming devoted to Star Wars and its various spinoffs; indeed, Friday was designated Star Wars day, with panels on the theme all day long.

For reasons I will explain later, I was looking for a way to pass the time Thursday evening, and, not knowing quite what to expect, ended up at the “Star Wars Fan Film Awards,” in their first appearance at Comic-Con, presented by the online film site AtomFilms.com and Lucasfilm itself. Lucasfilm has clearly made the right move by embracing its fandom to the extent it has rather than acting the role of the forbidding corporate monolith, fending off contact from its audience and suppressing their well-intentioned efforts to play with the mythos. (And that’s why Marvel, would surely heed Lucasfilm’s example and have a booth in San Diego from which to greet its audience. Surely.) Even George Lucas himself appeared on video to present one of the awards.

This was one of the two events I attended at the Con whose audience seemed the most “fannish” in a negative sense, by which I mean that audience reactions seemed excessively exuberant compared to the quality (however good) of what is presented onstage. In other words, Star Wars seems to be a way bigger part of these people’s lives than it is of mine (and I used to be assistant editor on the Star Wars comic book!). Jokes were even made onstage about how Jeremy Bullock, who played bounty hunter Boba Fett, has spent so very much more time at conventions over the years compared to the tiny number of moments that Fett spends onscreen in The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Bullock was the master of ceremonies, charming, witty, and soft-spoken, and definitely different from the kind of person you might expect was inside Boba Fett’s armor.

It was odd to watch various Lucasfilm personnel announce each recipient of an award, then applaud the winner as he went up to accept his trophy and only then get shown the film that had earned the prize. (It seems the nominated films could be seen on AtomFilms.com, but, as I discovered later, the site refuses to recognize my elderly browser.) I felt I was applauding only out of politeness in the hope that the recipient turned out to deserve it. But in fact the winning films proved to be delightful. All of them were comedies (and hence, I suppose, as parodies do not violate Lucasfilm’s treasured copyrights) and all were inventive and funny. I especially liked Trey Stokes’ Pink Five, which places a Valley Girl behind the controls of one of the Rebellion’s spacecraft in Episode IV’s climactic battle, Jeff Allen’s Trooper Clerks, which substitutes Imperial stormtroopers in a familiar Kevin Smith milieu, and, my favorite, John E. Hudgens’ The Jedi Hunter, fusing Boba Fett (Him again? What is it with the Boba cultists?) with Animal Planet’s Crocodile Hunter, complete with Australian accent and comely wife.

cic-005-04.jpgThinking about these comedy shorts, I realized that these were not parodies that undercut or trivialized the characters or the Star Wars films. Rather, in an odd way, they demonstrate the strength of the mythos: the archetypal nature of the characters and situations are so strong that it functions effectively even in satiric and comedic contexts far removed from the tone of the original films. Yes, there is a considerable amount of comedy and wit in the Star Wars movies, but they are still basically adventure melodramas that verge at times on tragedy. These fan comedy shorts extend the Star Wars mythos by giving it a fully comedic side. In ancient Greece, a trilogy of tragedies would be followed by a bawdy “satyr-play,” that dealt with mythological material in a comedic way. These Star Wars shorts play a similar role in a pop culture context.

And speaking of theatrical comedy, the award ceremony ended with a small acting troupe from Los Angeles performing the Star Wars Trilogy in Thirty Minutes (the original trilogy, that is: what aficionados now call Episodes 4 through 6. There were visual gags and over-the-top acting moments, to be sure. But the main source of the humor was the sheer speed at which the actors performed, most performing multiple roles, and all rushing from one familiar incident from the story to another. Playwright Tom Stoppard designed a version of Hamlet that compressed Shakespeare’s play into a matter of minutes, to comedic effect, and even a thirty second version (which, as I recall, has Hamlet walk out on stage and drop dead, whereupon Fortinbras comes out, as a signal for the curtain to fall.) Oedipus Rex performed at this kind of speed would be funny; tragedy must be slow.

And again, this was a comedic riff on Star Wars that also served as a tribute to it. I was surprised that not only did the actors manage to cover all major incidents, but also, it seemed, every famous line of dialogue. It had the effect of demonstrating just how well structured the original three films were. Moreover, whereas George Lucas’s ear for dialogue has long been criticized, and often justifiably, the performance also demonstrated how strong and memorable so many of the lines from the films are. (So here’s the test: will these actors try a 30-minute version of the new trilogy once it is finished, and will that source material prove to be anywhere nearly as strong?)

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS

With the tumultuous (and thoroughly deserved) applause for the Star Wars Trilogy in Thirty Minutes actors, the “Star Wars Fan Film Awards” ceremony came to an end near 11 PM. Since our producer Constantine had arranged for hotel accommodations under his name, I couldn’t get to the hotel until after he arrived, and he, Ben, and their intern Lyman did not land in San Diego until after dark. Now, I had been up all of the past night, in part to finish work before my departure, and in part because I had to be at the airport by 6:30 AM. And, no, I can’t get to sleep on planes. So getting to the hotel was a priority for me.

I met up with all of them close to 11:30 PM outside the Convention Center, but, perhaps understandably, Constantine and Ben were so excited about being at their first San Diego Con that they insisted on trying to find and get into the parties they had heard about. (That evening Ben had already experienced Everyfan’s dream: by sheer accident he was seated at a restaurant next to Stan Lee, whom he had never met, and struck up a friendly conversation.) So, despite my grumbling that we were approaching midnight San Diego time, which translated to 3 AM New York time, I accompanied them off to Dublin Square, an Irish restaurant in the Gaslamp Quarter that, it turned out, had been the site of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund earlier that evening.

Unwilling to brave the noisy bustling inside, I waited outside with Lyman the intern, and there unexpectedly had one of the chance meetings characteristic of Comic-Con. First there was colorist Patricia Mulvihill, who, as she pointed out, hadn’t seen me in a long time, and then there was writer Paul Jenkins, whom I’d only met over the phone, over lengthy consultations on Marvel history. I was happy to see them both, but each left and in effect, was swallowed up by the teeming mass of humanity that is Comic-Con. I never ran into either one again in the course of the convention, because there are just so many people there now, and so many things to do. Daily Variety‘s interview with Paul Dini quotes Paul as saying, “Now it’s so huge, good luck finding your friends.'” It’s true: I only got to see Paul from afar, such as when he was on a Cartoon Network panel and I was in the audience. My funniest near miss at the Con was my encounter with Kurt Busiek, as I was going down one of the long, steep escalators at the Convention Center, waving to him as he was passing me going up an escalator across the way.

By the time I finally got to the hotel and went to sleep Thursday night ““ or, rather, Friday morning ““ I had been up for a grand total of 43 hours straight, my all-time personal best. This is longer than any of my all-nighters in my younger days at Columbia University. It is longer than when I stay awake on overnight flights to London and remain awake until past 11 PM London time. I don’t normally work such feats of physical and mental endurance; ordinarily I start winding down once the sun sets. But not on this trip. In time I came to realize I was living more intensely at this Comic-Con than in my everyday life. How could I have stayed away for five years?

There are still three days to go, each to be covered in a succeeding column. Who knows, perhaps I will find out where the Marvel booth is yet!

-Copyright 2003 Peter Sanderson

August 1, 2003

Comics in Context #4: The Old Superfolks’ Home

Filed under: Columns,Comics in Context — UncaScroogeMcD @ 10:42 pm

comicsincontext4.jpg

This new column is now only four installments old, and you can by now see I range very widely in subject matter. In my last two installments I was discussing the Hulk movie, and there is still plenty to say about it. The film of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen just opened today, as I write this, and I intend to compare and contrast the movie with Alan Moore’s original comic book series. And there are the Daredevil movie, just released on DVD, and X2, whose DVD release looms in the future, not to mention the August release of the movie of Harvey Pekar’s American Splendor. Moreover, when this column goes up on the website, I’ll have returned from San Diego’s Comic-Con International, the first I’ve attended in five years, and I expect to devote a number of columns to discussing the panels and films I see out there.

But, you see, this is a weekly column, and eventually I will get around to everything. It may take a while to get back to the Hulk movie, but, rest assured, its time will come again. It’s actually a pleasure to know that I have plenty of topics for the foreseeable future.

This week, though, I turn my attention to what you surely least expected, but it is something that I hope will demonstrate the scope of this column. I’m reviewing an art exhibit at a major American museum, and yes, it has to do with not just comics, but superhero comics.

The Whitney Museum of American Art in New York City every once in a long while acknowledges cartoon art as a serious subject. I first went to the Whitney over two decades ago when it staged a landmark exhibition on Disney animation from the initial Mickey Mouse cartoons through its first five animated features (Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo and Bambi), curated by animation historian Greg Ford. It was astonishing; an entire floor of the museum devoted to original animation art, identifying and spotlighting the great Disney animators of the period. Sequences of the actual drawings were often mounted alongside video screens which showed the completed, filmed sequence on a continual loop. I returned again and again, not just to see the exhibited drawings, but also to attend the accompanying screenings of Disney animated shorts from the 1930s. In those days before home video or DVDs or the Disney Channel, the Whitney in those months was one of the very few places to see these films, and there were always enormous lines to get in.

Years later, the Whitney did an exhibit on visual art chronicling New York City in the Twentieth Century, and I was surprised and delighted to see an alcove filled with original artwork for splash pages from Will Eisner’s The Spirit, on loan from the International Museum of Cartoon Art: Eisner’s Central City was, of course, a fictionalized 1940s New York.

These exhibits sound wonderful, don’t they? Do they make you wish that these sorts of shows took place more often, and more widely? Or that the International Museum of Cartoon Art, and for that matter, the Words and Pictures Museum, a comics museum I never got to visit, had not both gone under? Serious study of cartoon art is still all too rare in America.

Well, the Whitney’s new exhibition is not about comics and there is only one work in it that relates to the subject, but it is a striking one. This exhibition is titled “The American Effect,” and it consists of artworks commenting on the United States’ role in the contemporary world from 1990 onward. And the very first artwork that one sees on entering is French artist Gilles Barbier’s Nursing Home, an installation of eight statues of familiar characters from American superhero comics, all depicted as decrepit senior citizens.

There is Superman wearing glasses and using a walker. The elderly Hulk, who actually looks more like an ancient Bruce Banner with green skin, sits in a wheelchair watching television. Catwoman, wearing the Michelle Pfeiffer costume from Batman Returns, lies exhausted in another chair. A bald Reed Richards, alias Mr. Fantastic, is, appropriately enough for him, reading a book. One of his arms and one of his legs are stretched out and look quite flaccid, presumably suggesting the state of another part of his physique at his age. Wonder Woman, her skin sagging all over, stands watch over the hero in the worst state of all: Captain America himself, lying on a gurney with an IV in his arm.

cic-004-01.jpgThis exhibit is genuinely funny and a crowd-pleaser. While I was studying the exhibit, a young woman came up to me, her friends behind her, gestured at the statue of Reed Richards, and asked me who the character was. “Mr. Fantastic,” I replied, adding, “but how you knew I would know that is beyond me.” I know I have a professorial look, demeanor, and style of dressing, but I didn’t know I look like a comic book expert. (You see, I am recognized as an authority on the subject by everyone except those who could pay me for this expertise.)

Now, something seems missing from the exhibit. Shouldn’t there be DC and Marvel lawyers hovering about? Well, perhaps Nursing Home could be considered a one-time parodic use of superhero imagery, and hence legally permissible. But I confess I am confused by the legalities involved when copyrighted comic book imagery is appropriated by artists in the “fine art” world. The late Roy Lichtenstein took panels from existing comic books ““ notably, for example, DC war comics stories drawn by one of DC’s masters of the genre, Russ Heath ““ and used them as the bases of his own pop art paintings. A little over a decade ago, the Museum of Modern Art even did a show, High and Low, which identified various comic book sources for renowned Lichtenstein works. Did Lichtenstein get permission from DC or other copyright owners to use this artwork? I’ve seen a Lichtenstein at the National Gallery of Art that is apparently based on Carl Barks’ work and features Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. Could he have really defied the famously litigious Disney company and gotten away with it? I guess so. There’s a framed poster for the High and Low show, featuring a Heath panel and the Lichtenstein based on it, hanging in the DC offices: they appear to be proud of it. Mind you, Lichtenstein did not sign his work “Roy Lichtenstein, after Russ Heath,” or anything like that. I’ve seen a Lichtenstein at the Guggenheim Museum, an extreme close-up of eyes, surrounded by the eyeslits of a familiar helmet, that looks to me as if it was inspired by a panel of Magneto from Uncanny X-Men #1. And how many people who see this painting know ““ or care ““ it was based on the work of Jack Kirby?

Yes, yes, I am well aware that Lichtenstein utilized various methods to alter and transform the original source material, to heighten various formal aspects of the imagery. And he’s not the only one who does this. Decades ago the Whitney, and later the Institute of Contemporary Art in London, did entire shows of “fine art” based on cartoon and comics imagery. But still, my reaction to such work is usually that much of the composition and a great deal of the vitality of these works comes from the original, unacknowledged comics artist who drew the source material. And I like to see credit given where credit is due (and a share of the profits, too).

Or at least not to see the artists of the source material disparaged. Some years back the Guggenheim Museum in New York did a Lichtenstein retrospective. I can’t recall the exact wording of the introductory text, mounted on the rotunda wall, but it stated that Lichtenstein is known for taking imagery from sources of no artistic value, such as comics, and transforming it into genuine art. And here’s the kicker: the sponsor of the exhibition was Marvel. This was during the days when Ron Perelman owned the company, and he was on the board of the Guggenheim and was one of Lichtenstein’s patrons. Ah yes, the corporate world’s view of comics.

This exhibition, The American Effect, as noted, consists of recent artists’ comments on America’s role in the world. It does not surprise me that superheroes are seen by a foreign artist as American icons representing the nation as a whole. I do not know if whoever it was who first dubbed the United States a “superpower” was thinking of the comic book Superman. But it seems appropriate that the word “superpower” both means one of the most powerful nations on Earth and the superhuman ability of a comic book hero. It makes sense that so many superheroes were created in the 1940s when the United States left isolationism behind and asserted itself as a world power in the Second World War. Surely one of the reasons that the superhero is a specifically American icon is that it is a metaphor for the United States’ military might as a nation.

And for this reason Nursing Home initially seems to me to be wrongheaded. In today’s world, the United States is the last remaining superpower. Terrorists wreaked havoc in American cities on Sept. 11, 2001, but neither terrorists nor other nations have any hope of conquering the United States. Indeed, this is a period when various mainstream political commentators, either disapprovingly or, astonishingly, approvingly, speak of “the American Empire.” (And it reminds me of the late Mark Gruenwald’s Squadron Supreme series, in which the Squadron ““ an organization of superheroes created in large part as seriocomic parodies of the Justice League ““ effectively rule the United States, making it the only powerful nation in a devastated world. That was published long before America became the sole super-power.)

Perhaps the artist is not commenting on America’s present but its future. A writer in The New York Times (July 13, 2003) suggested that Nursing Effect, “can also be seen as a prophecy (or perhaps an eager anticipation) of the natural decline of American power in the world.” All “empires” come to an end, though I can’t imagine what nation would eventually become more powerful than the United States, or how, or when.

But art that works as metaphor can have different interpretations, more than the one declared by the museum that exhibits it, or even by a creator. What if, for example, one sees present-day America as a negative influence, trying to dominate and control the world? Then one could argue that the United States has lost sight of its traditional ideals, its devotion to freedom for all people.

America’s involvement in World War II was a noble effort to stop the atrocities and tyranny and aggression of the Axis powers. And, of course, World War II is the heart of the Golden Age of Comics, the period in which Superman, Captain America, and Wonder Woman originated. Superman has come to embody “truth, justice and the American way.” Wonder Woman wore the colors of the American flag and the nation’s symbol, an eagle, on her costume. (Indeed, in her secret identity, she was even a member of the American military.) And Captain America, of course, is symbolically the spirit of America in human form. His costume resembles the American flag, and in a sense Captain America is the flag come to life.

The museum label accompanying Nursing Home asserts that the artist shows all the characters as if they had aged in real time since they first appeared in print. Well, that may imply that the museum thinks all these characters were created at about the same time; in fact, Mr. Fantastic and the Hulk first appeared in the 1960s, though I suppose that Reed Richards, who was originally presented as a World war II veteran, could be said to be the same age as the Golden Age heroes.

But still, even if we see Mr. Fantastic and the Hulk as figures representing the 1960s, that still works in this interpretation of Nursing Home. The 1960s is also remembered as a period of moral and political idealism, and that was the decade in which Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and others created most of the classic Marvel heroes, including Mr. Fantastic and the Hulk. Mister Fantastic strikes me as being very much a Kennedy-era figure. Like JFK, Reed Richards came of age as a soldier in World War II. By 1961 Richards had become a pioneer in a program that was one of the Kennedy Administration’s top priorities, the space race. In the Fantastic Four’s origin story, Reed and company are determined to beat the “Commies” in reaching not the moon (as in the real space program) but to the stars. And the Hulk’s origin is tied in with the nuclear weapons program of the Cold War of the 1960s.

So, what if one admires the America of the 1940s ““ the Golden Age of Comics ““ and the 1960s ““ the Silver Age ““ and condemns the United States’ current foreign exploits? Then it would make sense to show these comic book icons, who embody the spirit of those decades, in physical decline, aging, approaching death. Now personally, I don’t take such a critical view of contemporary America, but I can see how these statues could serve to express such a position.

Were I disposed to dislike all superhero stories on principle, I could also interpret Nursing Home as a critique of the whole genre: it’s worn out, it’s dying, it’s practically dead. Actually, this line of interpretation might work better for someone who thought superhero comics used to have vitality, especially in the Golden Age and Silver Age, but have lost their way.

But the installation need not be limited to these interpretations. Why not look upon it as a metaphor for the fate of all people: condemned to age, decline and death? How appropriate, then, to use iconic figures whom we first encounter in our youth, superheroes? They incarnate youthful idealism and the passion to strive to achieve noble goals. They represent the ideals of physical beauty and strength associated with youth. These characters ““ most of them, anyway ““ never age into midlife, never die (or if they do, like Superman in the 1990s, they inevitably are resurrected), and seemingly are eternal, unchanging, and effectively immortal.

And, of course, real people aren’t. John Byrne has observed (and I hope I’m paraphrasing him correctly) that one starts out reading Spider-Man when one is younger than Peter Parker, or perhaps (in the 1960s) the same age, and eventually, as a comics pro, finds himself approaching the age of J. Jonah Jameson. Frank Miller has said in interviews that he made the Batman of The Dark Knight Returns a man in his fifties because he wanted Batman, whom he sees as a “father figure,” to still be older than he was!

So an installation of statues of elderly, decrepit comic book characters aptly captures the pathos of mortality: the passage from the child or youth who sees unlimited potential in life and acts as if he has limitless time, to the elder whose best days are behind him, whose body is failing him, and whose time is now short indeed.

Now, I am more disposed to take iconic comics characters seriously than many other critics. But if one sees superhero costumes as ludicrous, well, that works in interpreting this installation, too. The optimism of youth, or its unconscious assumption of its own immortality, may seem ludicrous from the perspective of those who are extremely old. I suppose you could even see an Absolutely Fabulous motif here. Here are these superheroes, at the ends of their lives, still wearing the costumes they sported in their younger days. However, Patsy and Edina on Absolutely Fabulous, middle-aged women still pursuing a youthful lifestyle, are both foolish and strangely heroic. They are too old to be acting so immaturely, but their refusals to lead dully respectable middle-aged lives compares favorably with the Puritanical existence of Edina’s straight-laced daughter. But there’s nothing: the costumes merely make these heroes’ fates both absurdly and darkly and ironic.

Yet we do not have to look to commentators from outside, like artist, to critique human mortality through comics imagery. Comics can do just as well themselves. In effect, with his 1960s work at Marvel, Stan Lee was transposing superheroes into a more adult world and showing what might happen. Terry Gilliam, who once planned to direct a film version of Alan Moore’s Watchmen, pointed out that it could serve as a metaphor for the fate of 1960s political activists in middle-age in the 1980s.

cic-004-02.jpgAnd then sometimes one can find a surprising treatment of a serious issue in a very unexpected place. One of the earliest superhero comics I read was an old Superman Annual that reprinted “The Old Man of Metropolis!” first published in Action #270 (Nov. 1960). Superman editor Mort Weisinger became rather infamous for doing stories in which some horrible fate befell his characters that was revealed to be “a dream, a hoax, or an imaginary story,” as the slogan ran. The best of these stories, however, enabled Weisinger and his writers to create scenarios that enabled them to delve into their characters’ emotions for impressive dramatic effects without actually altering the ongoing status quo. This was, after all, a period before mainstream comics would throw Spider-Man’s leading lady Gwen Stacy to her death or slaughter high profile superheroes in Crisis on Infinite Earths.

“The Old Man of Metropolis!” is an example of Weisinger’s “dream” stories at their best and most disturbing, a work of children’s literature with resonance for adults. In this story Clark Kent dreams that as Superman he travels through time into the future and finds himself trapped in the body of his future self, an old man who has lost his super-powers due to his exposures to Kryptonite over the decades, and is now physically enfeebled. Worse, he is a “has-been,” supplanted by a new generation in the form of Superwoman, the adult Supergirl who has taken over his role as superhero, and in her secret identity, has even replaced him as a reporter on the Daily Planet. Not only that, but she has taken over the Fortress of Solitude, shunting Superman’s own memorabilia into a storeroom. Superman finds the world has changed around him, unrecognizably: his own father figure, Perry White, is deceased, Jimmy Olsen is now a stout middle-aged dad, and Lex Luthor has reformed and become mayor of Metropolis. Superman learns that he never married Lois, and she never married anyone else: both their lives seem emotional wastes.

Superman witnesses the sad fates of characters who can be seen as his counterparts. His distorted double Bizarro has likewise lost his powers and ended up jailed as a vagrant. Particularly disturbing to me at the time was the fate of Krypto the Superdog, who has also lost his powers, is homeless and elderly (in human years, not dog years!), and is carted off to the pound, presumably to be killed: Krypto seems a surrogate for Superman himself, reduced to similar degradation and facing mortality.

Mort Weisinger, the Superman editor of the early 1960s, stated that his audience was made up of children, whereas his fellow DC editor Julius Schwartz seemed to be aiming at young teenagers and Stan Lee, of course, found himself attracting college-age readers. And yet whom was this story aimed at? I read it as a kid, when old age seems an eternity away, yet it startled me with its dramatic power. Perhaps Weisinger and his writer, whoever that was (Jerry Siegel? Edmond Hamilton? Who?), perceived that even for children there may be something intimidating about watching their grandparents go into physical decline, and knowing that old age awaits them, too, someday. Or perhaps Weisinger and the writer were addressing their own concerns in a format that made it comprehensible to their younger readers. Though later fans and comics writers and editors reacted strongly against the Weisinger-era Superman stories: as the comics audience grew older and more sophisticated, much of what children found entertaining about the Weisinger stories ““ ranging from Beppo the Super-Monkey to Lois Lane’s I Love Lucy-style antics trying to expose Superman’s secret identity ““ no longer passed muster, however inventive it was.

Still, in the early 1960s, there were a number of strangely haunting and dark stories in the Weisinger books ““ Clark Kent fearing his life as Superman is a delusion (a motif used more recently on Buffy), Superman repeatedly stripped of his powers, Superman dying of an incurable disease. It was in large part stories like these that interested me in superhero comics in the first place. Whether in strangely dark stories meant for children or in satiric statues in art museums, the American superhero can prove to be an iconic image of surprising metaphorical power.

-Copyright 2003 Peter Sanderson

Powered by WordPress