I've read some recent reviews of Frank Miller's solo directorial debut the Spirit and it seems he should've spent another film or two working as an apprentice to really learn how to undertake working in this new medium for him. Another thing which I think may have been the problem with this film was the source material of a project like this. Eisner's run on his creation, the Spirit was marked by constant experimentation as well a range that ran all the way from the dramatic to the whimsical.
The previous adaptations of Miller's work were as good as they were because they had a strong story (or stories) working as their spine. In some cases the techniques which Miller had developed on the printed page after finally learning that "comics are more than just films on paper" fell flat on film, but the whole work itself was strong.
If you ask any fan of the Spirit they will tell you that the series' draw was the experimentation, like every installment was a clinic in storytelling in the comics medium. They also probably could not tell you which singular Spirit story they would call a "signature" story.
In a way this was probably the worst license to give Miller to "experiment with" however. Since there is no signature Spirit story offering Miller this film would be like one of the major publishing houses offering him someone like Spider-Man and simply saying "Make a movie."
The irony being that it would be substantially easier with a number of the major characters from Marvel or DC.
Spider-man has a fairly interesting origin story, even though it's a bit recycled since all major Marvel heroes share some variation on the same origin. But likewise the same could be said of each of his numerous interesting villains. On top of that there have been a number of great stories which could be mined to great benefit, such as: The death of Captain Stacy, the Death of Gwen Stacy, his courtship and marriage to Mary-Jane Watson, etc...
Batman has a laundry list of great stories, the origin of course which is a bit overused if for no other reason than being one of the first of its kind, each of his numerous villain's unique origins, but beyond that there have been a number of great stories which could be easily adapted, A Death in the Family, A lonely Place of Dying, The Killing Joke, Year One, The Long Halloween, Dark Victory, Venom, Knightfall/Knightquest/Knight's End.
You may think that Superman would have a similar amount of great stories behind him but he suffers from a fate similar to Mickey Mouse in that he's almost more of a logo than a character. Most of his great stories are unique re-tellings of his origin or stories of his end. Though because his supporting cast and world is so well established if it is respected it is very easy to create a great story. Just remember that Lois and Clark/Superman always have a great back and forth like any screwball romantic comedy pair whether Lois knows the secret or not (but she is a great reporter so don't make her look stupid). The rest you could probably figure out.
But for something like a film it isn't something which should be done on the fly which based on what Miller says his comic writing style is like as well as reviews of the film seem to indicate has happened. Hopefully Miller will get a chance to learn from his mistake. One thing that anyone can learn from this is the importance of a strong story as the core of a great film, because there's only so much that be covered by a unique visual style and a great cast... which are luxuries which many filmmakers cannot afford.
Posts
Kindertrauma Funhouse
3 days ago
Interestingly enough, I could draw a parallel to this in musical terms.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't fully fleshed out, just brainstorming...
Pink Floyd, like Will Eisner, were known for their experimentation, especially in their earlier works. But after Syd, and before Dark Side of the Moon, it's hard to say what their "signature song" or album is...(besides "Echoes"/MEDDLE.) The parallel is that Roger Waters brought in the conceptual element, the story, if you will, that made the albums as a whole stand up, working to integrate the lyrics, music, and sounds/experimental aspects. Something like Wagner's Gesamtkunstwerk.
Funny thing, though: some would argue that their earlier work was better because it was more innovative, while the later stuff tended to follow standard song structure. And then there's the "emotional" affect to consider. I think that's where the analogy breaks down. But still, a comic can get away with experimental art if the story is weak, and a piece of music can move someone even if the "song" is weak (even in opera, where the libretto is often an excuse).