Kick-Ass and the Fanboy Inferiority Complex

I'm just wiped out today. Exhausted. Have no idea why...

Well, yesterday became rather stressful for me, but I'm usually able to shrug that off. I didn't sleep much last night, it's true, but come on...I've gone on 5 hours of sleep more often than I can count.

Oh well.

Kick-Ass is opening tomorrow/midnight tonight. I see no reason to see it again. It was pretty good, I was entertained. I certainly don't see it as a downfall of human civilization, but neither do I overrate it. It's a well-made adaptation of a middling-to-poor comic series (that was saved by amazing artwork), that solves some of the problems of the source material while making more.

However, I did read Roger Ebert's review. I respect Ebert a lot, and I can totally acknowledge (as he does) that he simply doesn't care if Kick-Ass is effectively made, or not. The nature of the story, and the Hit Girl character in particular, just completely put him off the film. Fair enough, and frankly, the man makes some pretty damning points, "I know, I know. This is a satire. But a satire of what?" being the most biting.

I have friends who tend to look at films like this for pure entertainment value. Who get pissy with me when I start talking about films they simply see as, well, "kick-ass," in a larger social and moral view. You see, to me, comic books and other escapist entertainment are supposed to teach lessons about morality, and honesty, and fair play. That's been the role of stories that trade on mythology and hero iconography since the Greeks. Joseph Campbell isn't considered a genius for nothing. These hero myth stories are important, and I make no excuses for treating them as such.

(Not that you can't have a laugh from time to time.)

So, yes, I think Mr. Ebert is completely valid in taking Kick-Ass to task for turning an 11-year-old girl into a mass murderer and fetish object for laughs. I don't agree with him 100%, as I think Chloe Grace Moretz's Hit Girl may, in fact, be the most powerful and self-actualized character in the film, but something is off. I've always been more than slightly put off by the use of brutality for humor in the works of filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino, and this film trades on that in a pretty openly and pretty brazenly.

I did laugh. I did enjoy the film. However, the more I think about it, especially in light of Ebert's comments, it did feel like an empty vessel, filled with a lot of flash designed to directly appeal to the worst parts of the 12 year old in all of us. There is a question to be raised as to using superhero iconography for that purpose.

Frankly, the comic series was far, far more guilty of this. Of course, I say that as someone who finds Mark Millar's MO in regard to making comics highly suspect. I do not think a comic series should be justified as a method to see an idea as a movie. It's a process that lessens comic books as a form in their own right, IMHO.

On the other hand, we have Harry Knowles absolutely idiotic reaction to Ebert's review. Which is, yet again, another heaping helping of fanboy inferiority complex. The kneejerk reaction to anything that finds fault with something you enjoyed as a personal attack, or vice-versa.

I still get awful comments simply because I found the Star Wars prequels and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to be worthwhile entertainments. I enjoyed them, and far too many people are upset by that because we, as a fan culture, have become obsessed with groupthink. It's not just in fandom, honestly, think about the religious groups who cannot fathom or abide ideas that contradict their own. It's fear. Fear that, my God, if everyone doesn't blindly agree, I MAY BE WRONG!!!! The effort then becomes to utterly crush any opposing ideas, so you no longer have to grapple with your own doubts.

I prefer to just enjoy what I like.

Review roundup: "Kick-Ass" and "La Raza"

Two blogs in one day? Mind. Blown.

Thanks to the generosity of Capone at Ain't It Cool News and Lionsgate films, Last night I saw Kick-Ass. The film is an adaptation of the comic book series by Mark millar and John Romita, Jr. It's set for release on April 16th.



Let's start by saying this: I'm not a HUGE fan of the comic series. I find, generally, with creator-owned comic projects by Mark Millar, it always feels like the comics are there simply to get a movie deal. Worked wonders in this case, as the storyline presented in the film just wrapped up last month with Kick-Ass #8, I think it was. I can say that John Romita Jr's art was worth every penny. Like his father, Romita is a legend in his own time.

But here we have the movie. Long story short, there are parts I like much better than the comic, and parts I liked less. Generally speaking, the film has much more of a sense of humor about itself than the book did, which helps a lot. The performances, with Chloe Moretz and Nick Cage being standouts, are all pretty solid. Cage does this incredibly odd Adam West voice while in costume as Big Daddy, and it's one of those things that reminds you of how wonderful his odd choices could be in the past. Moretz will be a fanboy favorite as Hit Girl, and is the centerpiece of pretty much all the major action sequences. Her physical work alone is as impressive as any adult, and the fact is she brings it emotionally, too. The final scene between Big Daddy and Hit Girl left me more than a little choked up.

(Note here: If you're uncomfortable watching a 10-11 year old girl kill 30-40 people in pretty brutal fashion, Kick-Ass is not the movie for you.)

The film itself centers on Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), and this is where things kinda fall down. The comics presented Dave as a uber-nerdy kid in the "real world" who decides to become a superhero. Being a movie/comic book, this, of course, leads him in to conflict with real-live bad guys far beyond his ability to deal with, as well as Big Daddy and Hit Girl, who are the closest thing to "real" superheros in this story.

The Dave of the comics was a true believer in comic book ethics, he is truly disturbed by Big Daddy and Hit Girl's body count. The film backs off this, and leaves up with Dave wielding the heavy artillery like everyone else. That saddened me. What also saddened me was the resolution of Dave's "love story," which changed from a pretty powerful (and realistic) denouement in the comic, to a extremely formulaic "Hollywood" resolution in the film. If anything the move really upset me, as far as changes, that was it.

Just to note, for the sake of noting it, yes...this movie also features McLovin (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) as a superhero.

Bottom line, I found the film entertaining. It drags a bit in the middle, but ends with a bang. I give it 3 out of 5 stars, with the caveat that I was no huge fan of the source material.

I also downloaded La Raza, the first album in ten years by Armored Saint.



I became aware of Armored Saint, really, because vocalist John Bush had joined Anthrax in the early 90's. I picked up a copy of Symbol of Salvation, which, in my humble opinion, is not only their best album, but one of the best metal albums, ever.

I am a big John Bush fan. I love the qualities of his delivery and attack when he sings, and the line-up of the whole band backs him with equal skill. Jeff Duncan (guitar), Phil Sandoval (guitar), Joey Vera (bass), and Gonzo (drums) all seem more than happy to be back together and making music.

The album starts strong with "Loose Cannon," but then gets even more solid for the next two tracks, "Head On" and "Left Hook From Right Field." these two tracks represent the high water mark of the record. Powerful numbers with great musicianship and vocals. We slip back a bit on "Get off the Fence," but then "Chilled" slows things down in a nice, moody number. Probably Bush's bet performance on the record.

The title track, "La Raza," is next, and I think it suffers a bit from "Chinese Democracy syndrome," wherein the band seems to try to do everything they can do in one track, instead of pushing through on one cohesive idea. It's good, but a little long and sprawling. "Black Feet" is a rugged little bluesy number, I like it a lot. "Little Monkey" comes off as a bit of a joke, with goofy wordplay and silliness, but it doesn't overstay it's welcome. The final two tracks are a bit weak, "Blues" and "Bandit Country," so the album kinda fades away rather than ending on a powerful note.

La Raza is not Armored Saint's best album ever, but having Symbol of Salvation on your discography kinda skews things. This is a really, really solid hard rock/metal album. It's enjoying heavy, heavy rotation on my zune right now, and I expect it to be there for a while.

Four out of five stars, and a big recommendation if you like this style of music.

Also of note: I am so very excited that Them Crooked Vultures are coming back to Chicago in May. I am waiting with baited breath to get my ticket.

Catching up...

Missed an entry yesterday. So, my weekly comic buy list, which I KNOW you are all, literally, DYING to read each week, was not published...

So, here we go. Thankfully, I have a light week after the last few very heavy ones. Always nice to get one week where you don't have to shell out quite so much. Only 4 titles.

Red Robin #4

Written by Christopher Yost
Art by Ramon Bachs
Cover by Francis Manapul

This series is kind of the red-headed stepchild of the Batman line. Tim Drake is ousted as Robin, and replaced by Bruce Wayne's illegitimate son, Damian (LONG story), when Dick Grayson (The first Robin) takes up the mantle of The Batman after Bruce Wayne's apparent death. Tim, you see doesn't believe Bruce is really dead. We all know he'll be back sooner or later, as readers, but within the story, Tim's the only one holding out hope. So, he takes on this new identity of Red Robin, and apparently grows into adulthood very quickly, and is scouring the globe looking for clues as to Bruce's location. I think the series stands out like a sore thumb because it's the only place where the characters aren't trying to forge ahead. Dick, Alfred and Damian, representing the core characters for 3 of the 6 Batman-related titles, are trying to find their way without Bruce, and that storyline is strong, and working well. This is the only title where we're being reminded, over and over, this is only a temporary storyline and Bruce will return. Even if Tim never really finds anything concrete to base his beliefs, it's still flying in the face of what's working so very well in the other titles.

I'm still buying, mainly because I like Tim as a character, but it is on the bubble for getting dropped.

Wednesday Comics #10 (of 12)

Various Writers and Artists.

My thoughts on this series are unchanged. You may go back and look at last weeks comments.

Kick-Ass #7

Written by Mark Millar
Art by John Romita JR. and Tom Palmer
Cover by John Romita JR.

So, here we have Mark Millar's latest "I sold it to Hollywood before the first issue hit the shelves" series. Millar, I have to hand it to him, can spin high-concept like nobody's business. The one line description, "normal real-world kid decides to be a super-hero, and gets in over his head," is just the sort of think Hollywood snaps up. The question is always execution, and things get especially foggy when the development of the film is going on as the series is playing out. I have no doubt that Millar and Romita have changed things because they new a "major motion picture" was in the offing. I just don't know how to feel about the series. I do enjoy the issues as I read them, but I can't say I'm chomping at the bit for the next. The fact each issue takes 2-3 months to appear doesn't help. It's not bad, but it is yet another example of Millar's over-hyping and early media sale of his idea making the ultimate product seem...underwhelming. That being said, John Romita Jr's art is, as always, stunning.

Ultimate Comics Avengers #2

Written by Mark Millar
Art by Carlos Pacheco and Danny Miki
Cover by Carlos Pacheco

Ah, More Mark Millar. I have to say, my favorite Millar writing is within Marvel's Ultimate line. I'm still angry about the Ultimatum event, even now it feels like a useless exercise for a line that was always intended to be a easy way in for neophytes. Suddenly, this title and Ultimate Comics Spider-Man are carrying the baggage of a bloody-minded, and relatively failed story that forced them to change the tenor of their stories. I mean, that can be a good thing. Brian Bendis has used it to really change the game with Spidey, but I still resent that such a bad mini-series caused all this. What about this title? I can't remember what's going on, so that may tell you something.

So, what for Friday?

I stumbled across a blog for a Chicago theatre company, who shall remain nameless, in which they put forth, once again, this idea that theatre professionals need to "educate" the audience. That audiences need to understand the work we do in order to appreciate it.

This, my friends, is bullshit. In fact it's not only bullshit, but it the kind of arrogant attitude that is slowly killing our artform. It's proceeding from the idea that if only the poor public could understand what we do, they would love it. It's the kind of stupid, elitist thinking that allows an art form to slowly, forcefully insert it's nose up it's bellybutton and keep on going.

This blog offered several ideas, such as that we ought to strive to make the purveyors of the craft draws in themselves. For example, that a skilled sound designer ought to be able to bring audiences with them. Also that the proliferation of "Computer programs like Word, Garage Band and iMovie have opened up the practices of graphic design, music composition and filmmaking to the public," yet no such "in" exists for theatre. Well, frankly, I think those programs, while, yes allowing some truly skilled individuals to spread their work to the world, have facilitated the ability for people with relatively weak skill sets to feel validated because they can publish sub-par and half-baked ideas on the web.

I mean, seriously...Have you heard my music? Take a listen. I can play guitar, I think. I am a mediocre singer, and my songwriting skills could probably benefit form collaboration. Yet, I can record 2 CDs worth of music. This is not changing the world of music, or improving it, I'd hazard to say it's probably watering it down.

My point is, understanding and having access does not create better art. In fact, I would say in emboldens people who, honestly, lack the skill to do what they are trying to accomplish. Trying and failing is not a crime, but before the digital revolution there was an editorial system in place, publishers, record companies, movie studios, (I know, I know...Corporations, SO EVIL!) that would, generally reserve mass exposure to those with the experience, talent and skill to create the best material. You had to WORK to get a mass audience, not just buy the right equipment.

Enough of that, to the point; what would improve theatre? What would excite audiences and get buts in the seats?

Follow this link. Then come back, I'll be here.

Anthony Neilson is, frankly, my new hero. Why? Because he looks out at the state of theatre, and instead of thinking "what's wrong with the audience?" he asks "what's wrong with us?" The fact is, there is plenty wrong with how we are going about what we do. Theatre has been hijacked by a group of people who have tried to elevate it to "high art."

William Shakespeare did not write "high art." He wrote rabble-rousing plays about sensationalized topics, with lewd jokes and an entertainer's heart. I am firmly convinced that, were he alive today, Shakespeare would be happily working right in the Hollywood system, grinding out films like Armageddon. Shakespeare never lost sight of the basic point of theatre TO ENTERTAIN. Yes, his plays also exposed many, many truths about the human condition, but that was a sideline to giving the groundlings a good show.

Why do we treat our classics like something to be embalmed? Why must Chekhov always seem slow and ponderous? Why can't we take these plays and not just fall back on the old thought process, but make them our own. Make them vital, alive and ENTERTAINING for our audiences today?

That spreads to every facet of our work. Yes, we want to challenge our audiences, but if that challenge comes in the form of two characters debating the culpability of auto dealers in the environmental crisis for 2 hours, the only challenge you're offering is to stay awake. There are so many ways to make a point in drama, why do we always seem to fall back to lecture? Allegory can be such a strong platform, look at District 9, which is one of the strongest films about race relations and the way we treat the lest fortunate and "different," yet is exciting for almost every moment of it's run time. Clearly you couldn't do District 9 on stage, but you could do something like that.

Stop thinking that the problem lies in changing our audience, and change yourself.