A
History of Violence
I see problems
on the horizon for the comic book industry. These are not
problems that will be insurmountable, nor will they be problems
caused solely by the industry, something that seems to happen
a lot in these familiar realms that deal with overzealous
fanbases and editorial oversight. But they will be problems
that will have a tremendous effect on how comics are ultimately
viewed by the public. Our problem is shame and how we deal
with it.
Sitting
on my desk is a copy of John Wagner’s and Vince Locke’s
A History of Violence. Some people who have just
read that line have thought: how did he get a copy of that
Viggo Mortensen
flick so soon? Many of you reading this might have already
known that the said Viggo flick was indeed based upon a
comic book property from Paradox Press, but I’m willing
to bet that a fair number of you didn’t have a clue.
I didn’t when I first saw this sitting in the graphic
novel section of a Borders bookstore.
As I
looked at the cover and saw the words “Soon to be
a major motion picture!” printed at the top in plain
black ink, I tried to think how this could have slipped
by me. I am in no way saying that I’m any type of
authority on comic books, that I should be some hub of funny
paper information, but this is rather huge. The movie of
the same name as the graphic novel has garnered massive
critical acclaim, and some have been talking about Academy
Award nominations for Viggo and his costar Maria Bello.
Every Access Extra Hollywood Hot Minute celeb news magazine
has had an interview with the director or the cast, and
every one has talked about the powerful story behind the
film. Not once did I hear the words “graphic”
or “novel.”
I have to wonder
where this is coming from, because the comic itself is the
stuff of Eisner Awards. Suspense is hard to convey in comics,
because we can turn the page and know what is coming next
without always reading the dialogue and text, since the
visual language usually speaks somewhat louder than the
written. A comic book writer cannot control the way his
or her comic is read the way that a film director can control
the speed of his film; the speed, the presentation of the
comic book material is more controlled by the reader than
the artists, whereas the cinema viewer can only take in
the material as quickly as it is presented by the filmmaker.
So it is damn hard to really make a comic suspenseful, to
keep a reader guessing, and that is what Wagner and Locke
have done. They have made a true suspense thriller in comic
book form.
Tom McKenna was
just closing up shop one night when two malcontents thought
robbing the small town diner was more fun than murdering
hitchhikers. When it comes down to violent action, Tom manages
to kill or cripple both men, saving his own life and becoming
the small town hero he never wanted to be. He just wants
all the media attention to go away and get back to living
his happy familial life, when some dangerous men start asking
questions about Tom and his supposed “life.”
Believing him to be someone else, these strangers begin
to add a certain level of disquiet to the small town of
Raven’s Bend. Tom is pushed to the limit of danger,
and we get to watch as he and his family try and deal with
a threat that the ordinary man is never meant to deal with.
The level of
writing and artistry on this book is superb. Wagner creates
his characters well, but doesn’t give the reader any
real character knowledge until after the first third of
the book. He lets the reader walk into the story blind,
faced with the characters as they live their lives and knowing
about the characters only what is immediately apparent through
their daily interactions with each other. Not knowing the
characters thoughts or motivations make the story nail biting,
because while Wagner gives us fully developed characters,
he doesn’t tell us anything about them. We don’t
know how dangerous the men seeking Tom are and we’re
even less sure about how dangerous Tom is because he could
be telling the truth about being just a normal guy from
a normal town. But he could be lying. The fact that we don’t
know until the second act, where Wagner fills in the background
story, is wonderful, especially in the day and age of single-issue
story plotting and six-issue arcs. By the time we get to
know Tom, we’re dying to know Tom.
The artwork by
Locke is not artwork I would usually call wonderful, but
it so meets the needs of the story that I can’t help
but applaud it. Locke appears to do all his artwork in ink
pen with a thin scratchy line and he seems adept at the
nearly lost art (in comics) of crosshatch shading. His figure
work is not polished, but instead very raw in form and he
uses that to great advantage when relating the suspense
of Wagner’s script. Since his artwork more closely
resembles ink sketching, it looks unfinished at times, almost
uncertain, lending nicely to the uncertain elements of the
story. His artwork defines the uneasiness of every scene:
every time Tom and his wife are afraid for their family,
every time a gun is pointed in someone’s face. His
shading techniques end up making some great dark shadows,
also indicative of the crime/thriller genre, and even though
his sketched style is far from stable, he manages to convey
emotion, action, and absolute horror whenever the script
calls for it.
With the artistry
of this book from in question, I still wonder why I haven’t
heard anything about this movie being a comic book first.
I think we’ve entered a time when the comic book has
at least been able to grab significant attention through
its recent onslaught on the movie industry, if not always
gaining critical approval. But I can see the distinct difference
between a “comic book movie” and a movie; there
has to be some idiot in leather chaps or a cape before people
will start talking about comics. If we have a movie like
Daredevil or Spider-man, we’ll hear two things from
at least one member of the cast or the director “I
was always a big fan of the <fill in name here> comics
when I was a kid,” or “I wanted to bring back
that feeling of reading a comic book when you were a child
with this scene.” Then, inevitably, Stan Lee will
come by and explain how he got the idea for the comic, and
about how cool it was. All talk of comics in the mainstream
media is tied up in two things: superheroes and children.
Comics are, essentially, viewed as something for kids, even
after all these years where it has been decades since the
actual market depended on kids as the main audience.
But
this isn’t all the media’s fault, tough they
share plenty of the blame. Part of it is the comic reading
community. I believe we’re still stuck in the mindset
that somehow, unless the attention is focused on a large
property or a major character, we should keep hush about
comics. I call it fanbase syndrome: we’re willing
to dress up in lycra and tights and go to premieres of our
favorite superhero movie, but when a comic book movie comes
along that turns out to be just a good story that used to
be in panels we ignore it and treat as just a movie. I remember
when Road
to Perdition came out, and everyone applauded the
performances of Hanks and Newman, and no one talked about
Max Allan Collins' original graphic novel on which the movie
was based. And I’m talking about comic readers, not
just the media. Where was the fervor around Hank’s
performance and the constant comparisons between his portrayal
of the character and Collins’? Did we do a lot of
contrast and compare on Daniel Clowes' Ghostworld?
When
I think of the sheer idiocy of campaigns like the “Bring
Back Hal Jordan,” I am also forced to face the fact
that, if given incentive, we’re willing to make big
fusses over comics. Why aren’t we willing to do that
over the smaller properties like A History of Violence?
Why aren’t we out there raising a ruckus so that more
people than just the comic book reading community know about
great comics becoming great movies? Why aren’t we
handing out copies on street corners?
I know
some people have said that they feel as if they’re
pushing comics onto people when they recommend them for
reading. And I say, “Good.” Because you are
pushing them, and you should be. They’re a unique
art form, and one just as capable of being intricate and
meaningful as written word literature. There’s no
reason to not give someone a comic if you know they’ll
enjoy a good story, graphically represented or not. At times,
it seems as if we’re ashamed of word balloons and
panels and splash pages, which is a shame, considering we’re
the only people who can convince others of what we’ve
always known; comics are a medium of expression as important
as any other.
I’m
certain this has all been said before, probably by someone
far more eloquent and better equipped to speak on the subject,
but I had to put it down on paper after reading this comic.
I found it sitting on a clear plastic rack, next to empty
spaces and a few copies of Chobits. It wasn’t displayed.
There was only one copy. I can’t help but feel as
if it and its creators deserved better than that.
A History of Violence
|