My life on the D-list, or “I’m of a mind to make some Imoogi”

After much anticipation I saw Dragon Wars (aka D-War) yesterday. It’s a strange beast because it really is about 50% eh, 50% awesome, and ymmv as to whether the latter outweighs the former.

In terms of the awesome, the monster material is really dynamite. I’m baffled by the complains alleging that the CGI work is SciFi Original-level terrible. You can certainly tell it’s CGI–at the risk of repeating myself around here, we’re not talking Weta Digital–but (again at the risk of repeating myself) you could tell King Kong was stop-motion animation, couldn’t you? The real issue is the visual imagination behind the effects, and in this case it was excellent. Several images made me gasp out loud or laugh with delight: A giant serpent weaving its way up a crowded city avenue loaded with cars, tossing them into the buildings lining either side with explosions and debris galore. A helicopter pilot flying low down a skyscraper-lined street, looking up to see the side of a massive building literally crawling with winged creatures, then a cut to a shot nearly straight-down the building right at the creatures themselves. Cut-away vistas of a bustling metropolis engulfed with combat between the military and the invading army of creatures and their demonic warrior handlers, on the streets, on the buildings, in the sky. A Korean dragon hovers vertically in the air against a backdrop of stormclouds. And most breathtaking of all, the two protagonists isolated atop a towering skyscraper as the giant serpent, coiled around it, rears its head yards above them, while the camera swirls around to offer a vertigo-inducing panorama of the city that surrounds the scene. At their best–and their best is very, very good–Dragon Wars‘ giant-monster images offer the same terrifying, awesome (in the original sense) sense of scale, sweep, and immensity as The Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson’s King Kong, even that masterful bird’s-eye-view shot in the clouds from Hitchcock’s The Birds.

The problem, as you might have guessed, is a script that’s almost completely inadequate to the task of supporting these images with an involving plot or interesting characters. Time and again, when it comes to developing its leads, delineating relationships, or creating a sense of the stakes at hand, the film is content to assert or intone rather than establish through dialogue, performance, or visual framing. We’re required to believe that leads Jason Behr and Amanda Brooks are reincarnated lovers whose passion is destined by heaven, but it’s tough to imagine them calling each other after an awkward first date. Poor Robert Forster really phones in a role as the wise old man, with his tough-guy accent marring every attempt at playing Basil Exposition with regards to the Good Imoogi and the mark of the red dragon and on and on and on. Contrary to several reviews I’ve read, the constant mystical mumbo-jumbo infodumps didn’t bother me at all–I mean, I wasn’t expecting Ursula K. LeGuin, I just wanted some basic set-up for the giant monsters, and that’s what I got. But the film’s ability to sell the mystical mumbo jumbo, to create a sense of urgency without resorting to a giant snake showing up to eat a house or whatever, was nonexistent.

I hit a matinee (score one for unemployment!) and thought it was seven bucks well spent; the strength of the monster stuff was worth sitting through the weakness of the other stuff. If you’re an intolerant type you might wanna wait for a rental. I think all of us are waiting for someone to apply that visual imagination–a “what if the Battle of the Pelennor Fields took place in Manhattan?” imagination–to a film whose other aspects are its equal.

The Thin White Sketchbook

Man alive, I waited ever so impatiently to be able to post this, and now it can be done!

As readers of this blog, or anyone who knows me really, are likely aware, I am a big David Bowie fan. I also enjoy comics. When I discovered that several of my coworkers had themed sketchbooks in which they coaxed various artists into all drawing the same character–Nova or Lockjaw or Yoda or the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, say–I knew what had to happen. And at MoCCA this past summer, happen it did. And so…

SEAN T. COLLINS’S DAVID BOWIE SKETCHBOOK

Jeffrey Brown: Jeff grabbed the sketchbook from me during an afterparty and furiously produced this elfin rendition. Bowie as homunculus.

Charles Burns: Even though I’ve interviewed him before, I was still enormously starstruck by watching Burns draw live and in person, not least because of how much I love the Bowie imagery in Black Hole. Burns didn’t use photo ref, but I’m not sure if that’s because he didn’t want to or just because he didn’t realize I had it. I don’t care either way.

Brian Chippendale: The only color image, and the only one to riff on early-90s bearded Bowie. “Bow down to Bowie” indeed–he looks like a real rock and roll animal here.

Becky Cloonan: Becky was extremely gung-ho about drawing David, perhaps more than any other artist. Given her Pirates of Coney Island and East Coast Rising gigs, she naturally went for the late-glam pirate look. “As a general rule…Bowie does it better!” Truer words, my friends.

John Cuneo: Cuneo is primarily an illustrator, and he’s a big honking deal in that world. MoCCA was his first comic con and this was his first sketch request, and he was really amused/bemused by the specificity. After some self-effacement, he tore the goddamn roof off the book, even matching the photoref he more or less randomly chose with the era (Diamond Dogs–note the tail) with no help. People who’ve looked at the sketchbook say “this is my favorite” a lot.

Robert Goodin: Goodin’s table was set up next to ours at MoCCA, and I grabbed him last minute. He’s the only guy to go for the “Space Oddity”-era perm.

Paul Hornschemeier: A definite Young Americans lounge-lizard vibe to this one.

Michael Kupperman: This was the most painstakingly drawn sketch in the book, at least of the ones I watched happen. I handed Kupperman the book open to Gary Panter’s sketch so as to be impressive, but he took this as a request to sketch on the same page, which he did. He handed the finished product back saying “This is NOT worthy of being on the same page as Panter’s,” which I think is selling himself short, but I was bummed out for making him feel that way nonetheless.

Vasilis Lolos: Vasilis, like Paul Pope and Charles Burns, eschewed photo ref. You could tell that this Bowie had been in his head for a while.

Anders Nilsen: From my standpoint on the other side of the table, watching Anders draw this upside-down, I couldn’t figure out what was going on in this sketch until he turned the book back around and gave it to me. This sketch seems to get to people.

Bryan Lee O’Malley: Bryan knew exactly which era he wanted to tackle–the Thin White Duke. This tends to be a lot of people’s favorite sketch, and Bryan took a picture of it himself before he gave the book back, so I guess he dug it too.

Gary Panter: Panter was the first artist I approached to do a Bowie sketch, thinking (correctly) that a) this would be awesome in and of itself and b) having Gary Panter in your sketchbook will go a long way toward convincing other artists to go along with this cockamamie idea. He was game but concerned that he wouldn’t remember what Bowie looked like–then blam, out came my book of photoref (BowieStyle), and off he went.

Paul Pope: Unlike virtually everyone else who was nice enough to draw for me, Paul a) dove right for the virgin first page of the book (and his idea coincidentally made a great kick-off image) and b) didn’t need photo reference at all. Note the mistaken label of “SPX” in the dateline–he caught this right away but didn’t want to screw up the sketch by scribbling it out.

Zak Sally: When I pitched him on the Bowie idea, Sally immediately brought up the recent incident where an audience member lobbed a lollipop at David’s eye during a show, and lo behold that’s what he drew. Note the microphone cord.

Frank Santoro: I was really excited to get a Santoro sketch because his comic with Ben Jones, Cold Heat, captures the Ziggy-era Bowie mystique and appeal as well as anything I’ve read, even though it isn’t about Bowie.

Adrian Tomine: I find Tomine’s work very sexy so I suppose I expected something glammer, but his Bowie (which I believe was the tiniest rendition) has a nervous, almost fragile air. And the surprisingly popular pirate look makes another appearance.

Then there were the ones that got away: Alison Bechdel (I missed her signing by literally 30 seconds), Bill Sienkiewicz (a no-show), Nick Bertozzi (he promised to do it at a future time when he could take it slow), and Hope Larson (she felt like she couldn’t do David justice). We’ll see what the future brings.

Here’s the link to the whole shebang as a Flickr set. Hopefully I’ll have more to add after SPX next month. And oh how I wish I’d made it to the superhero-artist bonanzas that were San Diego or Chicago this year. Again, look to the future!

UPDATE: See more of my Bowie sketchbook here!

Day job follies

Well, how’s this for a folly: I’ve been laid off. Hey, no hard feelings. The upshot around here is that I can blog about comics again, so we’ll see how that goes.

Increasingly inaccurately titled Friday T-shirt blogging

Never let it be said that goofball hipsters are good for nothing. This fine fellow is sporting a shirt that reminds me of that corpse they find upstairs in the Night of the Living Dead house, and good for him. (Misshapes, via the never-miss-a-week Blue States Lose.)

Or be square

This week’s Horror Roundtable asks what horror-related event from the past we wish we’d been present for. My answer sort of begs the question: Is it possible to “be there” for what I’m pretty sure is an urban legend?

Quote of the day

I will never understand so many comics readers’ apparent desire for “hugely popular” comics, and the implied belief that that popularity goes hand in hand with being “aesthetically vital”….I don’t care if comics in the future are aimed at 13-year-old girls or 31-year-old boy-men or both. I don’t care what genre they fit into, or what country they’re produced in. All I want are comics that are good.

Timothy Hodler

Right on:

After all (the theory goes), one must be interested in what is popular and therefore relevant. (You see similar arguments being made against comics readers who don’t read a lot of manga, incidentally.) My question is, what is it about hip hop (and manga, I guess) that has enabled popularity to replace quality in terms of the reason why a listener/reader/critic should or should not get into a particular work?

Me, March 2006

Weighing in

The need for my opinions on this week’s issues of B.P.R.D.: Killing Ground, Green Lantern, Daredevil, Punisher War Journal, Ultimate Spider-Man, and The Walking Dead is the disease. Wizard’s Thursday Morning Quarterback is the cure.

Operators are bleeding out standing by!

Just found this in my inbox: DeepDiscount.com is holding a “buy 2 get 1 free” sale on all of Anchor Bay’s horror DVDs, from Abominable to Zombi. Am I the only one who had no idea they had that many releases?

9.11.07

God bless America
Land that I love
Stand beside her
And guide her
Through the night with a light from above
From the mountains
To the prairies
To the oceans
White with foam
God bless America
My home sweet home

—–
As he followed her inside Mother Abagail’s house he thought it would be better, much better, if they did break down and spread. Postpone organization as long as possible. It was organization that always seemed to cause the problems. When the cells began to clump together and grow dark. You didn’t have to give the cops guns until the cops couldn’t remember the names…the faces…

Fran lit a kerosene lamp and it made a soft yellow glow. Peter looked up at them quietly, already sleepy. He had played hard. Fran slipped him into a nightshirt.

All any of us can buy is time, Stu thought. Peter’s lifetime, his children’s lifetimes, maybe the lifetimes of my great-grandchildren. Until the year 2100, maybe, surely no longer than that. Maybe not that long. Time enough for poor old Mother Earth to recycle herself a little. A season of rest.

“What?” she asked, and he realized he had murmured it aloud.

“A season of rest,” he repeated.

“What does that mean?”

“Everything,” he said, and took her hand.

Looking down at Peter he thought: Maybe if we tell him what happened, he’ll tell his own children. Warn them. Dear children, the toys are death–they’re flashburns and radiation sickness, and black, choking plague. These toys are dangerous; the devil in men’s brains guided the hands of God when they were made. Don’t play with these toys, dear children, please, not ever. Not ever again. Please…please learn the lesson. Let this empty world be your copybook.

“Frannie,” he said, and turned her around so he could look into her eyes.

“What, Stuart?”

“Do you think…do you think people ever learn anything?”

She opened her mouth to speak, hesitated, fell silent. The kerosene lamp flickered. Her eyes seemed very blue.

“I don’t know,” she said at last. She seemed unpleased with her answer; she struggled to say something more; to illuminate her first response; and could only say it again:

I don’t know.

–Stephen King, The Stand

John RambOH MY GOD

Here’s another cataclysmically violent trailer for John Rambo.

Amazing.

Beautiful apocalypse

Here’s a cover image for the upcoming installment in Brian Ralph’s first-person post-apocalyptic zombie comic, Daybreak.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Just lovely. Via the New Bodega blog.

Your dreams were your ticket out

This week at The Horror Blog’s Horror Roundtable, we’re down on our knees, we’re begging directors who’ve left horror behind to come home. Here are a few hints as to the man I’d welcome back:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

(Images via Arwen Undomiel.)

QB or not QB

Learn what one Sean T. Collins thinks of the most recent issues of Lobster Johnson: The Iron Prometheus, Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight, Amazing Spider-Man, Captain America: The Chosen, Countdown, and The Exterminators over at Wizard’s Thursday Morning Quarterback.

Belated Friday T-shirt blogging

Sean and the Missus, Negril, Jamaica, August 2007.

The David Bowie shirt was an eBay find–I wish I could dig up the vendor, but alas. It’s a shot of Bowie holding a revolver, from The Man Who Fell to Earth, part of the era during which David was the best-looking man in the world.

Torture Porn War: Whose side are YOU on?

Sorry, old habits die hard.

My post in defense of the term “torture porn” has resulted in some interesting responses. In favor are Bruce Baugh and Craig Moorehead, opposed are Steven Wintle and Kimberly Lindbergs, and somewhere in between are Jon Hastings and Jesse Mazer.

Steven’s response is the lengthiest, so I’ll take it point by point. He starts by arguing that appending the word “porn” to the equation adds a qualitative connotation above and beyond what a straightforward might do. (In order to illustrate the point, he tacks the word on to a whole bunch of different genres to striking and humorous effect here.) “I’m sure someone will come along to correct me on this,” sez Steven in the original post, essentially tossing me a softball right down the middle, “but I’m fairly sure ‘Torture Porn’ is the only horror sub-genre label that denotes not only the content of the film but also suggests a particular quality, as well.” Now, I’ve already suggested that the term “horror” itself has a pejorative connotation. But even putting that aside, there’s the entire “-sploitation” super-genre: exploitation, sexploitation, blaxploitation, nazisploitation, et cetera and sometimes ad nauseum. Then you’ve got “trash,” an appellation enthusiastically embraced by many niche horror bloggers. And surely “splatter,” “slasher,” and “creature feature” were not coined in the same value-neutral fashion as, say, “romantic comedy.” The recently en vogue “grindhouse” sure wasn’t. Hell, I think “torture porn” fits a lot more comfortably in the same continuum as “weepies” and “chick flicks” and “queer cinema” than Steven would admit.

Next, he quibbles with my attempt to play Webster, saying he’s encountered at least three applications of the “torture porn” label that hold to different definitions than the one I proposed (“horror films in which the physical brutalization of a person or persons, frequently to death and always while somehow immobilized or held captive by the brutalizer or brutalizers, is the primary locus of horror in the film”). He cites this John Campea post, arguing that “torture porn” refers to films that focus on torture to the exclusion of all other considerations, as exhibit A. In this case I think the problem lies not with the term, but with the person using it–he’s clearly out to use the phrase to describe only “bad” movies with torture on them. He’s written good movies involving torture clean out of the term, in a micro example of what the “transcending the genre” crowd does with horror writ large. But just because he has doesn’t mean we have to! As the above list of horror sub-genres demonstrated, we horror fans have embraced any number of labels with the scent of disrepute lingering about them, and I don’t see why a few misguided attempts to conflate “torture porn” with “horror movies that suck” should steer us away from doing so again.

Steven’s second example of a rival, irritating “torture porn” definition is one where it’s used to attack both film and audience, indicating a film designed for people who “get off” on torture. Steven means this in the “enjoying watching other people suffer” way; Jon takes it a step further and says it implies that they enjoy watching other people suffer “in a sexual way.” Again, I wouldn’t let certain critics’ attempts to use the term to deride the films’ audience dictate whether I must use it the same way. But regarding the linguistic point, Jesse points out “food porn” as an example of a genre wherein the “porn” tag is not meant to imply that people literally get aroused by watching the Food Network (unless, of course, Nigella Lawson is on), just that the food content is designed to bypass your usual rational filters and hit you straight in the lizard brain. Along those lines I’ve seen references to kitty porn, shoe porn, and T-shirt porn (I coined that last one myself, naturally). In my view, the violence in torture porn movies and in many horror movies in general is spectacle in the filmic sense, material that through its confrontational, aestheticized, frequently plot-independent presentation is meant to bypass the typical processes by which we view and comprehend film narratives and access you in a rawer way. “Torture spectacle,” though, doesn’t have that catchy internal rhyme to it. (I kid.) If the porn fits, wear it.

Finally, Steven points out that there are, in fact, literal torture porn films, movies involving extreme S&M and sex. Well, yeah. But this just reminds me of the argument that there are literal “graphic novels,” novels containing graphic sex or violence or language or whatever. That’s certainly a drawback to that particular term–and even if it weren’t, one need look no further than From Hell artist Eddie Campbell’s blog on any given day to see that you can haggle about definitions until armageddon–but take a look at my bookshelf and you’ll find a lot of book-length comics with the words “graphic novel” above the ISBN.

Day job follies

Here’s Mike Mignola on Lobster Johnson: The Iron Prometheus, his pulp-inflected new Hellboy spinoff. Which is AMAZING, by the way.

And here’s ToyFare Magazine’s Top 100 Toys of the Past 10 Years, containing oodles of stuff you didn’t know you needed. (Super-Grover!)

In defense of “torture porn”/towards a definition of “torture porn”

Not torture porn the genre, mind you–“torture porn” the term.

The Horror Blog’s Steven Wintle today called the label an “utterly useless term”. If you’re reading this blog, chances are you already know that you can’t swing a dismembered arm in the horror blogosphere without hitting just that very kind of expression of both dismissal and angry contempt from the cognoscenti. You hear it quite a bit from filmmakers, too.

But why?

First of all, why is it “useless” as a descriptor? You know what it means. I know what it means. We all know what it means and what movies it’s meant to encompass. “Torture porn” (noun): Horror films in which the physical brutalization of a person or persons, frequently to death and always while somehow immobilized or held captive by the brutalizer or brutalizers, is the primary locus of horror in the film. I’d imagine the intent would be clear upon introduction to many people who’d never heard the term before–sure, “porn” might give them the wrong idea, but it’s a hell of a lot more instantly grokkable than, say, “graphic novel.”

My guess is the dislike of the term stems from the facts that it’s frequently seen as pejorative, that it tends to lump together films that we horror buffs like (Hostel, Wolf Creek) with films that we don’t like (Chaos, the Saw franchise, sequels to remakes of classic ’70s genre antecedents like The Texas Chainsaw Massacare and The Hills Have Eyes), and that it lumps together films that, in terms of things like plot structure and financing and intent, don’t really have much in common. But isn’t all of that true of the term “horror” itself?

On this blog, I myself have tended to use other terms when referring to the movies generally placed under this rubric, like “meat movies” or “the current brutal-horror cycle.” But that’s because I made them up and like them, not because I have any beef with “torture porn” per se. I know exactly what it means and so do most people who care about this sort of thing.

Own your torture porn, people. Live your torture porn. Love your torture porn!