Redundant aesthetics

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005

Welcome easywriter.

But now to this comment by Mark A on my post on Sin City the film. Mark writes

This films’ ability to capture the look of Millers’ books makes it a valid cinematic effort. It is a series of comic panels set in motion. Perhaps it’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 it’s not all spandex and heroism in these pages. There’s bullets, decapitations and caniabism too.

Comic book pages are the last battlefields of true freedom of speech, it’s nice to see one of them presented to the masses uncensored, without being “adapted” 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?

Mark?


4 responses to “Redundant aesthetics”

  1. JRadke says:

    I haven’t seen or read Sin City and I haven’t read the League graphic novels. But from the Star Wars side of things, I hate straight adaptations.

    If a film is going to adapt a book (or vice versa) then the parties involved need to get together and figure out a way to offer a film (or novel) that provides more information or a different experience than whichever medium came first. All the while keeping the integrity of the original story.

    Good examples for me are The Lord of the Rings movies and The Mask of Zorro novelization. The James Bond movies are another example, but the book/movie relationship in that franchise is pretty extreme and quite unique.

  2. Cindy says:

    I personally loved Sin City, but then again I never read the graphic novel. I thought that the movie had a unique feel and succeeded to suck me in. The only comparison I can make is with The Hulk in which they tried to capture the feel of the comic book, which I thought failed and it broke my “bubble” of belief. Maybe if I had read the novel version of Sin City I wouldn’t have enjoyed the movie as much, but I honestly found it captivating. Although, I was overtired and overworked when I went to go see it, so that could have clouded my judgement…

  3. Steve says:

    Cindy,

    No judgement clouding here. I can see how the film could entice, sure: there are stunning visuals there. My experience, however, was to shake my head at the dialogue.

  4. Cindy says:

    Yeah, the dialogue was bad. I remember making fun of parts with my friends, but I don’t think the movie was made for the dialogue. It was made to impress our eyes, and it did that quite well.