I confess dear readers that I am hopelessly in love with comic book characters. I collected comic books as an adolescent (I was a Marvel guy if you must know) and now as an adult father who does enjoy literature, opera, and other forms of serious high culture I still cannot resist going to the movies and watching my old childhood heroes like Spiderman and Captain America fight the bad guys and see good triumph over evil.
In addition to watching all of the special effects mayhem on the big screen, superhero movies and now TV shows have started to tackle more adult themes – two years ago Marvel’s Captain America was in a movie that took on the theme of the national security state seriously and asked some interesting questions about the trade-off between liberty and safety when fighting terrorism. Then last year, the superhero team The Avengers asked what it would be like to create a sentient being to fight evil on behalf of humanity, making superheroes unnecessary (and what the implications would be when that plan went horribly wrong.)
Now television is getting in on the act, with Marvel Studies teaming up with Netflix to produce a series of gritty, ‘more realistic’ shows that highlight some lesser Marvel superheroes who live in New York City and fight crime with super powers that aren’t quite as spectacular (or require as many special effects!) as those you’ll find in the movies. These shows, and there are two so far: Daredevil and Jessica Jones (with two more planned), have been critically praised as featuring good acting, good writing, and gritty, realistic plots that are compelling and that tackle weighty moral issues.
Take the first series that came out last year, Daredevil – our blind superhero, his blindness the result of a chemical spill, and his other senses augmented as a result (including a special, radar-like sense enabling him to ‘see’ as well, if not better, than most people) has decided to become a vigilante to help the downtrodden and weak in New York – but is conflicted about what he does and seeks the advice of a Catholic priest in the neighborhood to confess his ‘sins’ as he beats up and brings bad guys to justice. This year, the hot new Marvel/Netflix series called Jessica Jones was about a rape survivor, the title character Jessica, and other survivors of traumatic mental experiences who have to figure out how to cope (which Jessica does mostly through booze and sex while at the same time pursuing her rapist who she thought was dead but comes back to haunt her.) Again, issues around vengeance versus justice are explored and the heavier issue of trauma and survival are looked at in depth from a variety of characters’ perspectives.
So what’s not to like? Unfortunately, there is plenty. Let’s start with Jessica Jones, which was the worst offender – to begin, as I mentioned, Ms. Jones decides that one way she will prove to herself and the world that she won’t let anything like a rape get her down is to have lots of sex with men – and don’t even think that a committed relationship is necessary or god forbid, marriage is in the cards. I guess I can be thankful that the series didn’t expose views to unnecessary gratuitous nudity, but the sex scenes were frequent and not much was left to the imagination. Meanwhile, her best friend is also a bit of a sex fiend – getting it on with a different would-be attacker (he was being mind-controlled so she forgave him.) Once again, viewers are just expected to think it is normal and healthy for two young adults to have sex before marriage or even before they have anything resembling a serious relationship – that’s just what two people who like each other do – have lots of sex! And what would a modern superhero story be without a totally unnecessary bizarre subplot involving a lesbian lawyer, her impeding “divorce” to her lesbian “spouse” and her affair with her young, hot lesbian legal secretary. When the writers brought this character into the series I was almost ready to just give up altogether – it was like they just wanted to surround their lead character with the most sexual immorality they could think of while at the same time have her lead a noble and worthy effort to fight one of the most interesting, insidious and evil super-villains ever brought to the screen by Marvel’s writers (and played brilliantly by the British actor David Tenant.)
Unfortunately, Daredevil was only a little bit better – our hero Matt Murdoch (Daredevil’s real name) may have had a guilty conscience when it came to all the bad guys he was beating up at night but not when it came to all the pretty women he was having sex with after those battles! If only we had a scene with Matt going to confession and asking the priest to forgive him for fornication. His good-hearted law partner/friend (‘Foggy’ Nelson) was no better – he liked to jump into bed with pretty women just as much as Matt (as did the principle villain, The Kingpin, who was humanized through his relationship with a woman – which of course included sex.) Again, I can be thankful for small favors that although the series featured lots of sex scenes there was no gratuitous nudity.
What is wrong with television today – every modern person, even Catholic superheroes who go to confession are just assumed to have bought into the sexual revolution lock, stock and barrel and to tell a story in which a leading man (or woman) says no to sex – ‘I want to wait until I’m married so it means something special’ – would just be too weird or strange for the writers to put into one of their characters mouths? Or how about just being coy about the issue and if our characters are dating, let's show them going home to their respective apartments/homes at the end of the date. What does it say about our culture when all our heroes are fornicators and we can’t even rely on the superhero around the block to reject the sexual revolution? Maybe it is time to create our own hero – the Chaste Crusader!
Comments (36)
Huh? What are you talking about? The relationship with Claire? Matt kisses her once then never sees her again (Claire even says something to the effect of "I was wondering when you'd do that," but it's specifically never followed up on). That's it. Matt never has extramarital sex. Nor does Foggy, who goes on a single date with Karen, during with Hell's Kitchen is literally blown up by the Kingpin. Nor does Kingpin, for that matter, at least on screen. I guess you could say it's implied insofar as he's the villain and we have no reason to believe he isn't sleeping with her, but it's certainly not explicit.
Like, seriously, I have no idea what you're even referring to. I'm baffled.
"Jessica Jones" I'll give you with no argument.
Posted by MarcAnthony | December 7, 2015 6:58 PM
I grew up on Marvel, but around the time that Marvel had a lot of internal problems and Image and Top Cow formed from a lot of the refugees from Marvel. I remember being in middle school and early high school and reading Witchblade, the Darkness, Fathom and stuff like that as well as X-Men and a few others. It's actually amazing how tame Marvel and DC were and still are compared to some of the imprints that spun off from them. Though Marvel does now, or had for a while, some R-rated comics. One was more lewd and nude. I think the other was based on War Machine and rated mature because it was pretty damn violent.
I will say this, though. If you can look past the sex, Image and Top Cow had much better stories back then than Marvel tended to have in the X-$TEAM_HERE comics.
Posted by Mike T | December 7, 2015 8:19 PM
By the way,
Definitely agreed. Ritter was great, but Tenant was the highlight of the show. Brilliant.
Posted by MarcAnthony | December 7, 2015 9:28 PM
MarcAnthony,
Three comments:
1) On the question of Daredevil and Claire, I just assumed that after their kiss, because she slept over they had sex but perhaps it is my mind that has been corrupted by the sexual revolution and I was assuming the worst of Matt Murdock. You may have provided an important corrective to my cynicism here.
2) On the other hand, you simply don't remember Foggy and Marci's fling:
http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Marci_Stahl
The picture provided in the Wiki helpfully sums it all up -- to be honest I may have been confusing Foggy's exploits with Matt's in my head.
3) It is obvious that after the Kingpin tells Vanessa about his childhood, she sleeps over at his penthouse and I doubt they spend a chaste evening together. You are right though that the show is not explicit about their fornication -- be thankful for small favors!
In summary, I'm not letting Daredevil off the hook :-)
Posted by Jeffrey S. | December 7, 2015 11:16 PM
Marci I apparently forgot about (though again, Foggy isn't Catholic and there wasn't anything explicit), but I think you're being distinctly unfair to Matt. It never occurred to me that he was sleeping with Claire, and I don't think it was implied.
As for Kingpin...look, I'm not sure what you want from the show. Are you expecting the evil crime boss/domestic terrorist to be sexually chaste? They didn't even show anything.
"Jessica Jones" was conceived as a "progressive", feminist show, and in light of that I actually think they told a surprisingly good story with some strong performances from the leads. But I do think you're being distinctly unfair to "Daredevil". The worst you can say about it is that maybe Foggy shouldn't have hopped into bed with Marci, but even that didn't show anything explicit.
I just double checked Matt and Claire's relationship. I really don't think they actually hooked up, so I think Matt's in the clear.
Posted by MarcAnthony | December 8, 2015 12:22 AM
"What is wrong with television today" - Maybe what's wrong with television today is that Christians are watching this trash, which supports the industry. So they will continue to produce this evil. Because it doesn't feature "gratuitous nudity," but just has numerous sex scenes, it is okay to watch??? Wow. -d
Posted by Dan | December 8, 2015 4:05 AM
Yikes. Sounds about as appealing as Christian metal.
Posted by Scott W. | December 8, 2015 7:37 AM
There is good Christian metal out there.
Posted by Mike T | December 8, 2015 8:04 AM
Give me a better alternative than the latest Kirk Cameron movie or "Fireproof" and I'm in. You gotta give me some reason to believe the Christians can match up in quality, because right now I'm not seeing it. And as it is, "Daredevil" is actually pretty good on a moral/religious front.
Posted by MarcAnthony | December 8, 2015 10:22 AM
Um, wait a minute, MA, who says you have to watch some TV show or other? That sounds to me like an addiction, not a rational choice.
Mind you, I'm not saying that a Christian boycott is going to change the industry. But your response to the suggestion not to watch some show is a rather typical (and, dare I say it, somewhat knee-jerk) response of someone who is all-in for pop culture: We have to watch something. Anyone who suggests that we not watch x because of y content is obligated to "give me a better alternative."
I have a better alternative: Read some excellent old book.
Posted by Lydia | December 8, 2015 10:57 AM
Dan,
In a better, serious, moral Christian country, there would be a television censor that would insist that such sex scenes be removed from the show. Since we don't live in such a country we all must make a decision as to whether or not watching such vulgar stories is worth it or not for the show's other positive qualities.
In defense of popular culture, I turn to this blog's patron saint, G.K. Chesterton's, "A Defense of Penny-Dreadfuls":
Posted by Jeffrey S. | December 8, 2015 11:03 AM
Lydia,
You posted right before me, but raise an important and related issue -- should Christians and/or those concerned with high culture simply tune out popular culture and ignore it altogether? That is certainly one option and a noble and worthy option in my opinion -- no one's life will be diminished in any way by removing television viewing (even EWTN and CSPAN) from their daily habit and replacing it with reading literature, listening to classical music/opera, or reading religious material and cultivating a deeper spiritual life.
I'm simply commenting on popular culture for those of us who do still...suffer?...from the...habit?...of dipping into popular culture perhaps more than we should. I do think one can find worthy and wholesome stories in popular culture -- movies and even television shows that do avoid sexual themes and liberal madness and celebrate old fashioned virtues of courage, heroism, familial love, romance, sacrifice, etc.
Posted by Jeffrey S. | December 8, 2015 11:12 AM
To clarify, I'm not recommending per se that Christians must opt out of pop culture. I am, however, agreeing with Dan that "it doesn't contain actual nudity" is not sufficient to put something into the "not trash" bin, and I would recommend that Christians not watch trash. I think your own explanation of how the sex scenes leave little to the imagination indicates why shows with that feature still belong in the "trash" bin.
If "don't watch trash" ends up meaning that one watches little or no popular TV, so be it. That isn't the end of the world. I'm mainly arguing against any notion that one must watch at least n amount of pop culture TV shows and movies, so one just has to find the best of a bad lot in order to satisfy, as it were, the quota.
Posted by Lydia | December 8, 2015 11:25 AM
No one; I just like several. Having considered it in the past (not because somebody told me too, but because lots of people were), I genuinely don't think I'm addicted, and I read far more then I watch TV - but I don't think watching television is inherently immoral.
I'll go even further - there's a LOT of high quality (and I don't mean this in a technical sense, but an artistic one) television and movies out there, and the idea that there isn't (which nobody here has said, but which I've heard) is a very elitist one. To deny watching them because certain parts are immoral is doing yourself a disservice. "Firefly" contains some non-explicit sex scenes and portrays some immoral ideas, but if you drop it entirely you'll miss out on their very moral follow-up movie "Serenity", which is about a man struggling to make sense of life in the absence of a God to guide him, and in the end devoting himself to the pursuit of the truth at the urging of a preacher...And this is the same show that had an episode tearing down fathers and upholding whores as examples of virtue.
(By the way, the idea that I of all people should be reading more books, or more wholesome books, actually amuses me a bit. Sitting next to me as I type this is Stephen Lawhead's novel "Pendragon", book four in a series that re-imagines the Arthurian legends in a thoroughly Christian light; I stayed up until 2:00 AM reading it. On my Christmas reading wish list is the Maboingion.Trust me, I read enough, and what I read leans far more towards wholesome than otherwise.)
In fact, Jeff is wrong about "Daredevil" anyway, which contained no explicit sex scenes, just Foggy waking up in bed afterward.
Posted by MarcAnthony | December 8, 2015 12:00 PM
(And when I say "not explicit", I think you may misunderstand me. Literally, the Kingpin is never shown in bed with Vanessa. They don't go to bed together. They don't wake up together. At best you can imply they slept together because she stayed over, but even then this was never emphasized or mentioned.)
Posted by MarcAnthony | December 8, 2015 12:03 PM
MarcAnthony,
I like the fact that you are pushing back against me with respect to Daredevil, but here is what I want you to consider. Yes, the show is excellent and certainly does not emphasize the characters sexual exploits in any way. I mean that sincerely. And yet, I would argue that the show does take it for granted that 20-something professionals who have a love-life are to be expected to be having sex -- hence Foggy hooks up with his ex-girlfriend Marci and they wake up in bed together. Hence Matt is referred to as a "ladies man" and has a girl he kisses sleep over at his apartment. True, we don't see them waking up in the same bed, so there is a bit of plausible deniability there. Maybe they spent the night in separate beds and have a chaste relationship -- and maybe I was bitten by a radioactive spider and swing around Chicago at night fighting bad guys with my web-shooters!!! I just don't buy it -- even if I agree with you that Daredevil did not emphasize the sexual elements like Jessica Jones and could safely be recommended to a mature Christian audience that doesn't want to see any sex scenes.
Posted by Jeffrey S. | December 8, 2015 12:14 PM
I looked at it - and I mean this sincerely, at the time, not justifying it afterwards - as a character moment for Matt. As much as he liked Claire, his guilt at being the Man in Black prevented him from forming a serious relationship with her. Thus, in that scene where it might be expected that Matt has sex, he doesn't because he's avoiding getting too emotionally entangled with Claire despite the fact that there's clearly a growing attraction there.
You can also make the argument that Catholic pre-marital sex teachings played a part in the decision, though in truth that never occurred to me because it made sense for them to sleep separately for other reasons.
I do want to emphasize that I really don't think my defense of "Daredevil" is because I liked the show. I generally didn't think there were serious moral problems with it. If I had I would have done what I did with "Jessica Jones" - agreed with you and added that I enjoyed the show anyway for other reasons.
And yet, I would argue that the show does take it for granted that 20-something professionals who have a love-life are to be expected to be having sex -- hence Foggy hooks up with his ex-girlfriend Marci and they wake up in bed together.
Foggy, certainly, and I do agree with you that it's the sexual revolution that caused this sort of assumption to be unfortunately accurate in regards to the real world as well. But Matt? I'm not so sure.
Posted by MarcAnthony | December 8, 2015 12:41 PM
Me too.
I have put quite a few shows into the "trash" bin, even when I liked the premise and the plots and the acting. Sometimes because of the gratuitous or disordered sex (I mean, even apart from the actors not being married to each other in real life). Sometimes because of the over-the-top violence. I have rarely, if ever, decided later that "darn, I really SHOULD have watched that series after all". Life is too short, there are too many other goods worth going after. Good books, for example. Though there are plenty of trash books, of course.
On the other hand, I have also read a few books that had a fairly explicit sex scene, that I considered worth reading and am not dismayed that I read it. And would probably recommend to my kids, a few years after they get married. A couple, even, where the sex is not between married persons...yet.
Now, I put some shows into the trash bin that my wife doesn't, and vice versa - we don't always agree on around the edges. (Probably, she isn't going to be as bothered by a mostly naked woman on screen as I might). So I am always cautious about projecting my own choices. I can see, for a fair number of PG-13 rated movies, where one person might be beset by a scene and another person not, all as legitimate differences and without harm to good principles. More and more, recently, I have found myself turning off a movie or a series because I found the OVERALL tenor of it diminishing to my sense of rightness. Not any one specific scene, necessarily, but the whole package is the reverse of uplifting or whole-making. For example, I forget which one it is, but some show piles on pretty graphic (and frequent) death scenes, with double- and triple-dealing secret agents, and whose heroine is a killer woman - something about the fact that it is making a woman into this triple-level loyalties-betraying (or risking) woman spy killing all sorts of antagonists and lying to everyone she ever touches just doesn't do it for me. I don't need it affecting my soul, my imagination, my sensibilities. (Say, Jeff, can you unravel the insistence on shows that make the women protagonists into these extreme soldier types who can throw around a 300 lb lineman with ease?)
I came to that conclusion about Jessica Jones with 1 episode: I just don't need that. I mean, even aside from the graphic, explicit sex scene, I don't think I want her inside-out psyche inhabiting my imagination for an hour. I don't want the incredibly ugly crimes making me want JJ to do (probably) all sorts of wrong things to stop them. And yes, I really don't want dumb love-less hook-up sex in front of me, EVER.
Posted by Tony | December 8, 2015 8:15 PM
Well, what do y'all think about the violence, which to me was the most prominent feature of Netflix's Daredevil? Gruesome violence is more tolerable or less tolerable than R-rated sex scenes? Not always an easy question.
My 6th-grader (accidentally) saw some scenes of HBO's The Pacific -- which is 10-episode series about US Marines from Mobile, Alabama, fighting the Japanese on distant hellhole islands in WWII. It's superbly done but heavy on realistic war violence, and the poor girl was really affected by it.
Now no part of me would ever say we should censor The Pacific. But film is a powerful medium for sure. We need to be careful what we put before our eyes.
Posted by Paul J Cella | December 8, 2015 8:32 PM
Violence can also descend into its own analog to pornography. The video game series Mortal Kombat is an excellent example. I remember when the series first came out and my peers scoffed at the hysteria about it. In hindsight, with the rest of the changes in society and in so many people I now notice, it's a testament to our foolishness. Anyone who doubts that violence can be quite similar in that respect should go on Youtube and watch a video collection of Mortal Kombat "fatalities."
Posted by Mike T | December 8, 2015 9:11 PM
Tony,
"Say, Jeff, can you unravel the insistence on shows that make the women protagonists into these extreme soldier types who can throw around a 300 lb lineman with ease?"
This drives me crazy!!! I can perhaps forgive this sin in a superhero movie (the example that comes to mind is the Black Widow, who has no superpowers, and yet is shown fighting and beating up big, strong men constantly) but I won't watch a show with a female fighting protagonist -- I generally like my drama to be realistic and women cannot regularly beat up men. Quick side note on this subject: the excellent actress Emily Blunt, who did a good job in the science fiction movie with Tom Cruise, Edge of Tomorrow (her fighting skills were augmented by a special suit) was in a movie this year about the Mexican drug cartels called Sicario. She was fantastic in the movie and one thing I liked was how the film showed how the brutal violence took a particular toll on her character and how as a woman she really couldn't handle the brutality. Benicio del toro should win an Oscar for his supporting role in that film.
Paul,
Yes, I think the violence can be a problem and unfortunately, I'm like the drug addict who has built up a very, very strong tolerance for the stuff. I thought most of the violence on Daredevil was mild, although there were one or two scenes with the Kingpin that I admit were intense. I won't let my daughters anywhere near any of the action movies I watch -- I like the crazy Asian stuff (The Raid and The Raid 2 out of Indonesia are my favorites.) My older daughter is into the teen dystopian books and so I have been dragged to the movies with her to watch The Hunger Games and now the Insurgent series of movies. They are violent, but the violence is more controlled and when death does occur it has a lot of emotional power and affects the characters in profound ways -- in other words the films take the violence seriously. So I do think context is key -- there are ways to use violence to help propel a story along (like The Pacific) and then there are some action movies that just throw it in to get a rise out of the audience.
Posted by Jeffrey S. | December 8, 2015 10:16 PM
I'd say it was graphic, but not gruesome (mostly) - a distinction with a difference. The one exception is arguably Kingpin's beheading of the Russian with a car door, but even that wasn't actually shown directly.
Otherwise, yeah, the world is violent, but I think it's used to good effect. One of my favorite things about Matt is that he routinely gets the stuffing beat out of him, but he keeps going and ends up winning his fights anyway. The single shot fight scene from episode 2 is one of my favorite fight scenes in anything, ever - and the Nobu fight was pretty great too.
And what made them both great was that, both times, Matt got crushed, but he didn't give up. He fought anyway, and won through sheer willpower. That's a hero to admire.
Posted by MarcAnthony | December 8, 2015 11:05 PM
Breaking Bad was the most morally serious show to come down the pike in a long time, never mind its consistently high quality. And the fact that it was an AMC show, and not HBO or Showtime, limited the level of graphic material, both sexual and violent, that could appear.
Some of the British and Scandinavian TV series also hit a level of moral seriousness that is hard to find on American TV. The first series of Broadchurch (UK) and all three series of The Killing(Denmark) come immediately to mind. Broadchurch, especially, is one of the best things of its sort I've ever seen, and I've been watching British series of its type for over 30 years.
Posted by Nice Marmot | December 9, 2015 7:34 AM
There is good Christian metal out there.
Christian metal is so wretched Jesus and Lucifer both facepalm when they hear it.
On the other hand a gospel singer taking you to church is fantastic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm-KsLytcW0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQao9OnpmLU
Just a side note about The Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins' father was a Vietnam vet who later taught history in college and it is through the lens of Vietnam that I think the series has a richer meaning.
Posted by Step2 | December 9, 2015 5:03 PM
Leah is an exception. In fact, she's better than most symphonic, secular acts from Europe and right up there with Nightwish at their prime.
Posted by Mike T | December 9, 2015 8:30 PM
I think I'm in the minority here that thought Fireproof was okay for what it was.
Posted by GRA | December 9, 2015 11:33 PM
I offer this for consideration: http://www.jamesbowman.net/articleDetail.asp?pubID=1915
Posted by Scott W. | December 10, 2015 7:10 AM
I never bothered to watch it after literally every conservative Christian I saw reviewing it came to the conclusion that it made a mockery of the need for repentance in both of the main characters.
Posted by Mike T | December 10, 2015 7:21 AM
Scott W.
Bowman is very, very good but I think he is ignoring Chesterton's challenge -- I wouldn't for a second compare or elevate a superhero movie to the level of a great painting or a novel. But, sometimes our stories don't have to be the highest of the high culture.
Here is Joseph Epstein on the same theme as Bowman, writing just a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/whatever-happened-to-high-culture/article/1055581
This is how he begins:
Posted by Jeffrey S. | December 10, 2015 7:42 AM
I have a theory (for lack of a better word) about this about movies that transcend genres. Superhero movies can be very good, but very rarely do they transcend the genre into "great" works of art. I can think of two exceptions. One is "The Dark Knight", which is, of course, brilliant.
The other is the more controversial example of "The Incredibles", which I would argue transcends both animation and superhero movies to become a classic in its own right.
Posted by MarcAnthony | December 10, 2015 9:55 AM
The Incredibles is a classic. The Dark Knight is self-important and overrated.
Posted by The Masked Elephant | December 10, 2015 10:28 AM
I generally agree, but it's hard for me to argue with Heath Ledger's performance.
Posted by MarcAnthony | December 10, 2015 10:29 AM
"I have a theory (for lack of a better word) about this about movies that transcend genres. Superhero movies can be very good, but very rarely do they transcend the genre into "great" works of art. I can think of two exceptions. One is "The Dark Knight", which is, of course, brilliant."
The same can be said for most Jazz. There are some very good jazz pieces out there, but are there any that really transcend the genre into greatness? Superhero movies are jazz songs of this generation of youth. So far, there hasn't been a Rhapsody in Blue.
Part of this has to do with the parallels between how jazz developed and the modern (post-Silver Age) trends in comic. Jazz, although being taught as coming from things like the Negro Spiritual and folk music, when it actually developed directly, was from taking Classical music and, "jazzing," it, which was a way of making Classical music into slang or a lower-class dialect. Likewise, after the Silver Age, with the infusion of young blood from the Woodstock crowd, the heroic themes of the Golden and Silver Age were infiltrated with occultism, sex, and gratuitous violence - all in an attempt to be, "relevant." In reality, it was a type of moral bankruptcy, born of sin, that started the slide of comic into the Bronze Age, then the Iron Age, into the current Dark Age. Modern superhero movies are not quite transcendent because they do not have the innocence of the transcendent. A lot of the rationalizations in the comics industry about having older readers so needing more, "adult," themes is just that - a rationalization for indulging their appetites.
Golden and Silver Age comic writers were science fiction writers. They were inventive. They knew how to tell a simple, powerful, uncomplicated story. Modern comics rely on spectacle.
Fredric Wertham was pooh-poohed for his alarm in writing The Seduction of the Innocent, which caused comic books to clean up their act in the late 1950's, but, it turns out, he was prescient, given the unedifying turn and moral decay of some modern comics comic.
I like comics, but I can't recommend them, anymore.
The Chicken
Posted by The Masked Chicken | December 10, 2015 1:40 PM
MarcAnthony,
You say,
The more interesting question is whether film even deserves a place at the high art table -- clearly Sam Lipman thought they didn't -- I wonder how many other smart critics in the past (or even now) share his opinion?
Masked Elephant,
Thanks for stopping by -- I'm afraid I think you are mistaken about The Dark Knight, although I do think that it works better as part of the whole trilogy of films which end perfectly with The Dark Knight Rises. Refreshing to have a dark, intense superhero trilogy end on such a shameless, upbeat note.
Posted by Jeffrey S. | December 10, 2015 4:31 PM
Bluntly, I think the idea that it doesn't completely absurd, and I don't even know how one can argue the point effectively.
Posted by MarcAnthony | December 10, 2015 6:47 PM
Golden and Silver Age comic writers were science fiction writers. They were inventive. They knew how to tell a simple, powerful, uncomplicated story. Modern comics rely on spectacle.
They often rely on spectacle - especially when converted into movies. IIRC Walker Percy made an observation about spectacle in a Northern vs. Southern context. With little to no religious code or honor tradition to be violated the Northern writers use spectacle as a way to grab a reader's attention. I would say the modern comic book writer relies on complicated stories as much as spectacle, it is rarely pure heroic good vs. pure dastardly evil. For my money The Sandman fit this mold and was inventive enough to transcend the comics genre, it won the World Fantasy Award and was nominated for a Hugo Award. But it also drew heavily on classical literary influences so it may have been more like jazz in that respect.
Posted by Step2 | December 11, 2015 5:02 PM