But now to this comment by Mark A on my post on Sin City the film. Mark writes
This filmsâ€™ ability to capture the look of Millersâ€™ books makes it a valid cinematic effort. It is a series of comic panels set in motion. Perhaps itâ€™s greatest reason for being a film is to build a larger audience for graphic novels. This film made people question thier notion of what a comic book is. The world needs to know itâ€™s not all spandex and heroism in these pages. Thereâ€™s bullets, decapitations and caniabism too.
Comic book pages are the last battlefields of true freedom of speech, itâ€™s nice to see one of them presented to the masses uncensored, without being â€œadaptedâ€ to protect the innocent.
My response is why, if the “look” of the comic is expressed in the film , does this make Sin City a valid “cinematic effort”? Perhaps Mark is pushing a valid criteria for judging the film. The film should be judged for its ability to express a comic’s aesthetic climate and feel. This may indeed be my problem: I don’t think the film came at all close to expressing the panels in the graphic novels. I saw that the film expressed the mood, color, and texture of the world. But I got that from the comic.
Why do I need a filmic version of Kevin’s hacking?