Were back here at Print is Dead after taking a year (and a half) hiatus for a bunch of reasons, not the least being a new baby, but mostly reasons that add up to my not having read much at all in the last year. This is not entirely true- I did read a bunch of art education type books (and even reviewed one on my other blog, which if I'd thought about it could have had at least one entry here last year if I cross posted, oh well). On to business:
Reading these two books confirms my feeling that it is not necessary and perhaps even counter productive to "read the book first". I thoroughly enjoyed Edgar Wright's film adaption of the Scott Pilgrim series, and would count it within my top 10 films of 2010. Wright's brilliant style is evident, even when filtered through the lenses of the "Hollywood Mainstream Machine" and the "Comic Book Adaptation Paradox" (these are two 'lenses' that I just made up, the first needs no explanation, and the second one I don't have a good explanation of yet. It has something to do with the idea that you've basically already got a storyboard and know in advance what the film is going to look like, but on the other hand comics have adapted some 'cinematic' techniques in the way they tell their stories).
Where was I? Yes. The point was that had I read these books first, I might not have enjoyed the film as much as I did. Not so much that I would have gone in with raised expectations (although that is certainly part of it as well) but because there is really no way to portray these characters with any real fidelity to the comic. In Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, he explains that the more simply that characters are drawn, the more we see of ourselves in them, and the more 'universal' they become (we all see a human face in a line and two dots if put in the right positions). Scott Pilgrim is simply drawn, and we identify with the characters not based on their complexity but on our ability to transfer ourselves into their lives. This doesn't mean that I don't think O'Malley has done a weak job at creating characters- quite the opposite- he's created characters which are both open to interpretation and specific and interesting (albeit mostly flat- at least, they are at this point in the story).
So the world of Scott Pilgrim is much richer in comic book form. Here there is time to get to know the characters a little better, and spend some time in the alternate-reality canada that Scott exists in. At the end of book 2, we're not even halfway through the scope of the film. This also represents one of my favorite sorts of fiction - it is magic realist (although a far cry from the original literary use of the term for the latin american work of Marquez and others) - but restrained. Most of the action takes place in a world similar to ours - a world in which we deal with the everyday mundanity of life by focusing on unimportant things like video games. However, every once in a while, we're removed from that world- in a way that is often much more subtle than how it is presented in the film. It would be nice if mainstream films could take their time to build a story like these comics do - and while they're at it, find this terrific balance of the familiar with the ridiculous.
Grades:
Scott Pilgrim's Precious Little Life: A-
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: A
Recommendation: Recommended for your next graphic novel reading endeavor.
3 comments:
Nice analysis. That's a great point about us being able to impose more of our imagination in the simpler comic character. I'd love to see you expand on your Comic Book Adaptation Paradox as well at some point in the future.
I need to read these.
I wish I could take credit for it, but it was scott McCloud's idea... as for teh Comic Book Adaption Paradox- I'll work on it. I've got 4 more Scott Pilgrims to read and a bunch of others in the wings! :)
I think you'd like them- they really are a love poem to canada in a way.
High praise indeed! I have the movie on my list to see soon.
Post a Comment