Batman and Robin #7: Amy’s additional annocommentations
February 7th, 2010
Here’s some of my annotations that I didn’t put up because I was too busy writing a script for my new Young Heroes in Love series that’ll be hitting the shelves in…uh, oh, I don’t know, let’s keep it positive, sometime over the next three years.
In no particular order
the teaser for the next issue
He doesn’t look much like a zombie, does he, this ressurected Batman? Which surprised me at first because I was convinced, and mildly concerned, that the next issue was going to centre around hackneyed zombie-movie cliches, but now I think the horror will run much deeper than that, because I don’t think there’s been any baiting and switching of cadavers. No my new pet fan-theory is that in this instance what we’ll actually be getting is an EVIL BATMAN, and that’s a reason to be cheerful. Yeah, yeah, owlman…. but Owlman’s only the anti-matter duplicate, not the genuine article. That it’s the real Batman can only have a positive effect on Morrison’s writing, because it’s a bloodchilling prospect isn’t it, that indestructable man, with all of his experience, expertise, intellect, training and resources, and he wants to hurt you?
Why has he turned to the dark side? One can only speculate. Perhaps this Batman is one of the Omega Effect’s latter iterations, a Batman gone sour and septic over time, as in David Uzemari’s excellent post, but not yet refined into Hurt, more savage and primal: ‘the Knight of the Beast’. Aaaah, the Beast, is that another clue?
But, yeah, sure, it’s more likely to be a clone.
Random thing
I’ve been thinking about Hurt. One of the things missing from the commentary surrounding him is the fact that he is a Doctor and the implications of same. ‘We will wound your soul forever and if it is strong it will survive the wound….’ and that’s Hurt’s function, isn’t it? Whether intentionally or not he’s the healer who wounds in order to heal. Inevitably his role in Batman’s development is to destroy Batman in order to raise him up by, literally, battling his inner demons and triumphing.
I love the way Morrison let’s you see all the moving parts of the spell…. and that its work has only just begun.
Old King Cole
If New York has subway piracy, so must London’s underground network. It may not be an original idea, but it’s still a resonant one, and serves King Coal’s thematic undertones well - coal’s natural habitat being under the ground. The burning black heart is powerfully totemic too, representative of a man so evil his soul has carbonated, a heart burning in Hell.
It’s a typical Morrisonian flourish, to take a quaintly corny sounding villain, in this case Old King Cole, and with a flick of the wrist transform him into something slightly nightmarish - shaven Shaggyman, BrRRrrrrrrR! - and he applies this talent deftly here: Cole’s connection to the Church of Crime and the instant and unpleasant depth it provides; the spooky mise-en-scene he generates, haunted mines, ghost miners and, grant’s favourite, secret subway lines and last but not least the resonant symbolism of his emblem and what its symbolism tells us about Cole’s self-image, his psyche, heck even his black spirituality. Shit we haven’t even met the guy but he’s a creepy bastard already, isn’t he?
The Miners
I’m surprised nobody mentioned Scooby Doo. These guys are pure Scooby, not supernatural at all but scaring off the locals with a combination of pre-existing folklore and a touch of luminous paint.
Rendle Colliery situation
On a ley line? Metaphysical fiery energy blazing from the rock. An altogether more interesting take on the idea of ‘coal’. Brilliant. Don’t know if the meaning I take from it was intended and neither do I care.
The Cover
One of my three fave B&R covers so far. I love the way the scary imagery is set off by the cartoony graphics inside. And the tension between it and what’s come before - see the cover to 3 - rocks too.
I can’t wait to see what colour scheme’ll be used for the cover to 8. That’s going to be a beauty too.
The Amusing Brothers, Andrew and Steven.
February 6th, 2010
A weekly strip by Fraser Geesin
The book Dream Date by Tim Leopard and Fraser Geesin is available from Running Water Press or from Amazon.
Lost again
February 5th, 2010
It’s been a long time coming but at 8 o’clock tonight the UK finally gets to see the Season 6 premiere. In an effort to get into the mood, Zomina and I sat down to rewatch the Season 5 finale last night. I was a little worried going in, as the last time I’d seen it I’d come away dissatisfied, in fact the whole season with its proliferation of sci-fi and fantasy trappings, has shaken my faith a little. It has all started to feel a bit too arbitrary, a bit too incoherent. Lost has trod the fine line between enjoyable absurdity and the irredeemably ridiculous since the beginning, but until Season 5 I thought it had always been on the right side of that line, or at least on the right side most of the time.
I suppose at root my concern was about whether anything meaningful could ultimately be said on the back of Lost’s nigh on nonsensical sci-fi dimension, and the more that element was played up the more I worried that the creators would be forced to try to. This might seem strange coming from a fan of Morrison’s work after all he’s ostensibly the go-to guy for crazy science fiction, but in my opinion Morrison’s sci-fi has a metaphorical, allegorical, artistic and poetic strength that Lost’s can’t touch.
Or does it? After last night I’m a lot less sure and happily a lot less worried because I think there are some very clear pointers in that show about where we’re going and how we will ultimately be asked to view Lost’s labyrinthine plot, subplots and mythology, and I think the encounter with Rose and Bernard is the key.
To summarise the scene, Kate, Sawyer and Juliette stumble across Rose and Bernard living happily in the Jungle. The couple have been missing for the last three years (in show) and claim that they have “retired” from all the shenanigans that so preoccupy the stars of the show. When Juliette points out Jack is looking to set off a nuclear bomb and that they will almost certainly die if he isn’t stopped, Rose responds with, “there’s always something with you people”. And that’s the thing, there always is. They are always running around bumping into their own pain, always fighting and screaming and no-one ever knows what’s going on because everyone is too preoccupied with their own concerns to ever consider actually talking to anyone. The crucial point here is that Rose and Bernard are happy and content – the same cannot be said of their guests with their well worn psychological shackles.
Meanwhile Jack is indeed trying to detonate a nuke in an effort to wipe out the current reality and land him and the Losties back in their pre-Lost lives with no memory of anything that’s happened over the last 5 seasons. Whether Jack should or shouldn’t be doing this is a live issue but the show largely leaves it up to the audience to explore the moral and ethical dimensions of his intended course of action. At first this bothered rather a lot given that killing hundreds of people with atomic weaponry is a questionable act no matter how you cut it, but then I realised that Jack’s myopic worldview – that the myopic worldview of all of the central characters – was perhaps supposed to be under the microscope here. That we were just maybe supposed to be asking ourselves, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Because even if there was nothing morally troubling about Jack’s intentions and even if everything went to plan and he got what he wanted, he still would still find screwed up Jack Shepherd waiting for him back in LA.
At the end of the episode a whining tearful Ben asks Jacob “what about me?” and Jacob responds with a pointed “what about you?”. You could read this as callous or as an assessment of Ben’s character or you could add it together with the Rose and Bernard scene, with Jack’s demented plan, with all of the mental behaviour that goes on this island and ask yeah what about any of these people. The question here isn’t about time travel or course correction or monsters or why Ben does what he does or why anyone does anything or who the Others really are or why the statue, it’s about trying to find a better way to live that isn’t about being chained to one’s own ego. So chained that you’ll set off nuclear bombs (Jack), or kill everyone that gets in your way (Ben), or spend your life running away from everything that could make you happy (Kate), or conning people (Sawyer), or searching for status and validation regardless of the cost (Locke).
Lost is about free will vs determinism, yes, but all the fantastical components are just window dressing, in the final analysis just as barmy as all these demented humans running around the Island. Rose and Bernard haven’t just retired from all the crazy activities of the people, they’ve retired from the crazy activities of the Island, from all of it, and in the end I’m sure that’s where the show is headed.
What’s are the answers to the mysteries of the Island? I’m sure we’ll get some but when the show fades to black it might just be who bloody well cares!
Final shot prediction meme: The same one I’ve had in mind for years, Hurley walking across one of the island’s sun drenched beaches, and maybe, just maybe chatting with Charlie.
Paul Collicutt - Robot Man
February 4th, 2010
When Tymbus forced me and Brown Lantern to interview Robot City Adventures creator Paul Collicutt, I was gripped with fear. As it turns out, he’s a lovely man. Look at him. Lovely cheeky face.
In our conversation we talked robots, creation, Kirby and other. LISTEN DAMN YOU!
Download our Paul Collicutt interview
Mindless Ones are proud to offer you the chance to win Paul’s first two books plus a limited edition print…
Click here for more data…
Terminus - a weekly comic strip
February 3rd, 2010
Batman & Robin #7: the annocommentations
February 2nd, 2010
Bob: This is not only the best issue of B&R yet, but the best single issue of Morrison’s batman run by some margin, and as dense and full a piece as he’s written since Seven Soldiers #1, with which it shares many links and referents, both deliberate, accidental and incidental.
Zom: Tan’s a nice chap, some of us around here were quite keen on his work, but if you ask me thank God for Cameron Stewart: Batman & Robin is back at long last. This isn’t my favourite issue and I’ll get into some of the reasons why later, but it’s a bloody good one.
The Amusing Brothers, Andrew and Steven.
January 30th, 2010
A weekly strip by Fraser Geesin
The book Dream Date by Tim Leopard and Fraser Geesin is available from Running Water Press or from Amazon.
Batman & Robin competition time: Call in the Lads
January 29th, 2010
An interesting aspect in the reading and long-term appreciation of superhero-comics, one of few nearly unique to the genre-medium, is the impact that a single image of a single character can have. Few sights are more potent and electric than the basic dramatis-persona mugshot of the steroidal spandexophile (popular in the early Image-era which took the dynamic far beyond the realms of mere absurdity), poised four square to the camera, and his name. Plot, narrative, dialogue even, can all to a greater or lesser degree be shed, and the key meaning of the superhero, the immortal appeal, remains undiminished. All that is required is a strong image and a strong name.
The enduring popularity of the A-Z Handbook of the X?X Universe books are a testament to this - the costume, the name, the paraphernalia, the ‘vital statistics’ (so porno), and the stripped-back plot recaps that the Handbook-style entries offer are the pure flavour, the total hot- drug effect, of the strongman funnybook. The superhero, a figure without a background, exists perfectly well, separate to the superfluous storytelling and other dimensions the comicbook medium affords. After all, if it’s all about wish fulfilment and fantasy-projection, the other stuff just gets in the way - just show me, in crazy colours and moody lighting, the bare (oo-er) image of the proud superthing, standing erect, and let me do the rest of the work myself (stop!) All that you need is a cool, tight image and a few terse syllables of context (of which the name, both descriptive and directive in its ideal form, is the concentrate). and you can have that uncanny charge the trueborn superhero fanman is always chasing.
Terminus - a weekly comic strip
January 27th, 2010
La-Tues reviews: Starman #81, Amazing Spider-Man #618
January 26th, 2010
In the dying light of the comic week…
Starman #81 by James Robinson, Fernando Dagnino, Bill Sienkewicz & Matt Hollingsworth
First up, art sentence: the art looks fucking doss, because it’s drawn - inked, but whatever (no-one survives a Sink-ink, except John Paul Leon) - by Bill Sienkewicz and therefore looks like Bill Sienkewicz, which is fucking doss, and also Matt Hollingsworth colours it and he is the best colourist, especially at the murkier end of the palette.
(Seriously, if you want to say a Bill Sink comic, any one of them - if you want to say “hhm, not sure about the art” or, I don’t know, it doesn’t matter, fact is: if you want to say something like that you are making a dick of yourself.)
Right! Comic-reviewing credentials, I think you’ll agree, well established this is a pretty interesting one; I pre-reviewed it as “James Robinson pisses his final chips, probably”. The chips being his credibility as a once-capable, fan-favourite writer. The chips being a casino metaphor. The chips being how I - in my opinion which is valueless (beyond or beneath, you the reader may interact and decide, it’s the new format) - how I feel about James Robinson. As a human being. What his worth. To me.
Is?
And actually, to my surprise, James Robinson did not piss his final chips but instead turned in a thoroughly decent comic for probably the first time since he last wrote an issue of Starman, eight-and-a-half years ago. I say probably, I’ve not read all of them - six or so, it felt like infinity, of the most time-dilatingly dull Superman comics of all time, which considering the average standard of dullness in Superman comic [fucking dull, broseph] is likely an achievement of some moment and an eight-issue run on Batman as a lead-in to Morrison taking over the title, something I hyped myself into believing was half-decent due to overexcitement, and then I quite reasonably stopped reading them, the James Robinson comics, but man o! Some people read them for me. Others showed me pictures. And I don’t want to, look - I’ll be out the door before we turn into scans_daily or you can put me in the crosshair, aim-for-the-heart - I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to take things out of context and rudely and roundly condemn, but I’m pretty certain nothing else in the latter Justice League issue could conceivably make up for murky-depthy chats with Zombie Doctor Rapelight. It would take a bit of doing, over several comics, to redress that little soulquake.
So, but this is okay, this comic? It’s pretty okay, I would give it three to three-and-a-half brains; yeah, call it a 3.5er for the art. It is, it transpires, a welcome return to Opal City, it got me to reread Starman #80 for research (Research! You must always do research if you wish to be a critic on the comics blogosphere) and that was… I totally loved doing that. That hit just about every right note that a DC superhero comic should or could upon closing, it has a touching tribute to Archie Goodwin in the back, it’s really quite an emotional experience, I got quite Mist-y. This ain’t colour-of-nostalgia speaking; I was quite bloody miserable in 2001, and understandably concerned the years might have taken a sheen off somewhat, but not excessively, treasured memories of Starman, the original series, sections of which had already proven trialsome to go back and reread. Batman/Hellboy/Starman - you’d be right to expect that to rule, how could it conceivably not, but it’s bollocks.
This issue (whose contents I am going to discuss not at all, except to say for a more authentic feel there should have been a lot more misplaced boldface stresses) proved that, to some degree, James Dale Robinson can still write a comic. So why isn’t he? I think he - and bear in mind, if it need be said, that this is wholly supposition, I know not how a sausage is made nor the sausagemakers - like Brian Azzarello writing Doctor Thirteen, was not really a fan of - not in love with - superhero comics, but rather of the past and of antiquities, and like Azz utilising obscure, pointless bands that he loved anyway to write obscure, pointless superheroes that someone presumably feels likewise about… basically that was what that was about, Starman. That was an actual asset, not to be in love. The past, its ochre, its eternally dissipating hue, and it worked for the most part; it was was informed by this, there was its foundation. With the other DC books, it’s like - there’s no ‘there’ there, as they say, nothing underlies them, and they read like editorial-driven shitfests, they really did. As if script-notes have come back saying “make more odious“/”not enough tedium“/”I didn’t feel ruined as a person by this experience, can you juice up the miasm of despair a bit?“, etc. It’s a confluence of knowing popular American comics are writer-driven at the top-end and a desperate drive to continually rebrand the subsidiary’s sole assets that’s led to this end; it isn’t working in this case, just as it never does with Peter Milligan, who can at least turn in a half-decent, no more, no less, Batman comic. James Robinson wrote Leave it to Chance. James Robinson wrote London’s Dark. I can only imagine he is doing a lot better out of comics these days, and this issue just about earned it for the first time in a long time. (BB)
Amazing Spider-Man #618 by Dan Slott, Marcos Martin & Javier Rodriguez
When does a comic stop dealing in long standing conventions and veer headlong into a brickwall made of pastiche? That’s the question I found myself pondering after reading Amazing Spider-Man #618.
I’ve enjoyed much of what I’ve read of the new Spider-line, but I have to question whether it’s appeal is particularly healthy. The focus on new new villains and new old villains, the bubbly soap-operatics, the densely packed panels and incident filled issues. The spider-quips, love triangles, the Daily Bugle and Aunt May in peril. That right there is Spider-Man, and I’m absolutely certain that that’s what the line’s heavily editorially controlled creators want me to think.
In #618 we get a slew of baddies, multiple-returns from the dead including the return of two classic villains, evil Aunt May, yep that ever trusty love triangle (that includes the Black Cat), and more angst tha you could shake a stick at. Not only that but the art team treat us to Ditko-esque layouts, panel constructions, and line work, topped off with a sombre pastel colour scheme not entirely unreminiscent of the late sixties colour palette.
It’s true to say that none of this amounts to full-blown pastiche. A heavily diluted modern sensibility informs the book and provides much of the humour, but it does so at the expense of the verisimilitude. The book as a whole is just too knowing, too aware of the conventions on which it is built to be truly entertaining. There’s a fun of a sort to be had in recognising how the traditions of the spider-comic are being deployed and toyed with here, but it’s, if anything, a guilty kind of fun.
But despite these gripes they’re is something undeniably refreshing about this comic. Some of the cliched storytelling techniques on display couldn’t be more at odds with Marvel’s current focus on pseudo-realist psychology and emphasis on plot over incident. Soap opera and melodrama aren’t without their faults but they’re not without their pleasures either, and the sheer imaginative brio embodied by the line’s spider-foes is commendable in and of itself.
So while this line of books and the hoary cliches on which it is built could teach other Marvel titles a thing or two about entertainment ultimately its role certainly isn’t pedagogical, and it’s hard to imagine reading something this beholden to its past on a regular basis. (Z)
