[Thanks to Joe]
Jules Feiffer, in his book on comics, put it like this:
Comic books, first of all are junk. To accuse them of being what they are is to make no accusation at all: there is no such thing as uncorrupt junk or moral junk or educational junk—though attempts at the latter have, from time to time, been foisted on us. But education is not the purpose of junk. Junk is there to entertain on the basest, most compromised of levels. It finds the lowest fantasmal common denominator and proceeds from there. It’s choice of tone is dependent on its choice of audience, so that women’s magazines will make a pretense at veneer scorned by movie-fan magazines, but both are, unarguably, junk. If not to their publishers, certainly to a good many of their readers who, when challenged, will say defiantly: “I know it’s junk, but I like it.” Which is the whole point about junk. It is there to be nothing else but liked.
Hmmm. Yeah. I can see that argument. But how about "comics" like Art Spiegelman's Maus, or Alan Moore's From Hell? They are both indisputably in the comics medium, and they are both indisputably about as far from "junk" as you can get.
Update: OK, the book was published well before these examples. And before most heavy weigth comics I know. Still there was The Spirit for example.
But junk is as junk does. The problem with the term is that it can mean "meant for entertainment mainly", which is true is 99% of comics, but it can also mean "beneath serious consideration", which is a grave mistake, especially if considered across the board.
More from Feiffer via Joe:
The particular brilliance of Superman lay not only in the fact that he was the first of the super-heroes, but in the concept of his alter ego. What made Superman different from the legion of imitators to follow was not that when he took off his clothes he could beat up everybody—they all did that. What made Superman extraordinary was his point of origin: Clark Kent.
Remember, Kent was not Superman’s true identity as Bruce Wayne was the Batman’s or (on radio) Lamont Cranston, the Shadow’s. Just the opposite. Clark Kent was the fiction. Previous heroes, the Shadow, the Green Hornet, The Lone Ranger were not only more vulnerable, they were fakes. I don’t mean to criticize, it’s just a statement of fact. The Shadow had to cloud men’s minds to be in business. The Green Hornet had to go through the fetishist fol-de-rol of donning costume, floppy hat, black mask, gas gun, menacing automobile, and insect sound effects before he was even ready to go out in the street. The Lone Ranger needed an accoutremental white horse, an Indian, and an establishing cry of Hi-Yo Silver to separate him from all those other masked men running around the West in days of yesteryear.
But Superman had only to wake up in the morning to be Superman. In his case, Clark Kent was the put on. The fellow with the eyeglasses and the acne and the walk girls laughed at wasn’t real, didn’t exist, was a sacrificial disguise, an act of discreet martyrdom. Had they but known!
And for what purpose? Did Superman become Clark Kent in order to lead a normal life, have friends, be known as a nice guy, meet girls? Hardly. There’s too much of the hair shirt in the role, too much devotion to the imprimatur of impotence—an insight, perhaps, into the fantasy life of the Man of Steel. Superman as a secret masochist? Field for study there. For if it was otherwise, if the point, the only point, was to lead a “normal life,” why not a more typical identity? How can one be a cowardly star reporter, subject to fainting spells in time of crisis, and not expect to raise serious questions?
The truth may be that Kent existed not for the purposes of the story but the reader. He is Superman’s opinion of the rest of us, a pointed caricature of what we, the noncriminal element, were really like. His fake identity was our real one. That’s why we loved him so.
Now any Superman readers here will point out that this is no longer the case. Superman's origin was revised in 1986 (and has recently been revised again, adding in old elements, like his cousin Supergirl) to make Clark Kent the real guy, and Superman the put-on. It doesn't work as well that way, I think it was better in the old days. I do get a kick out of those old Superman comics where he was godlike in power and could, for example, decide to spend an afternoon in the 31st century and casually, as though he did it all the time and it was no big deal, "pierce the time barrier." These days, in the days of trying to make a "realistic" superhero, a lot has been lost. They aren't fun anymore.
eolake adds:
Have you read Alan Moore's superheroes? Like Supreme and Tom Strong? They do this beautifully. Like one character who is *so* powerful that he can run across the galaxy by just taking a few steps on each planet along the way!
24 comments:
I think I can answer that. Feiffer's book was published in 1966. I don't know the date for Maus, but it probably came later.
By the way, it's called "The Great Comic Book Heroes" and is well worth a read. You may not agree with him on everything, and sometimes his words are tongue in cheek and written before the invention of handy emoticons. But definitely well worth checking out.
Maus/Maus II are graphic novels. How would you rate Raymond Briggs? "When the Wind Blows" (I am sure a Bowie fan would at least know the film) is short and more comic like, but carries a message with almost as much weight as Maus.
If we look at early newspaper cartoons, like "Gin Lane" by Hogarth, I believe, is there not some depth to that also? Maybe Maus did not exist in '66 but Hogarth and similar political satires did.
Still, I don't think you can defend Viz as anything but junk.
Feiffer is starting off with what was and - among some people - still is the popular opinion on comics, which is that they are junk. A perfect example of that attitude can be seen in the Simpsons (season one) episode "Bart the Genius" where Bart sees an issue of "Radioactive Man" on a library book shelf. The teacher throws it out, explaining that it was used in a film they made about illiteracy.
Hogarth does not count because those were not really comic books.
When he talks of comic books, it means as they existed in the U.S. between 1938 and 1966. That means the poorly drawn, poorly written horror, crime, romance, and superhero comics (among others, I'm sure).
Comics even today are not respectable to most people, as incorrect as that opinion is or seems to us. We've seen quality stuff like "From Hell," "Watchmen," "Maus," and a lot of other stuff.
The stuff Raymond Briggs does isn't really comic books either, in the popular idea of comics. His are considered a cut above, they're respectable. I believe Calvin in Calvin & Hobbes did a bit on this, talking about basically the hierarchy of art. The stuff Briggs does ranks a big higher than the monthly comics being produced today, mainly superhero comics. He ranks above comic strips like Calvin & Hobbes, which rank above, say, Superman and his ilk.
This is of course nonsense, but the majority of people are not in the know and have certain ideas about comic books.
That said, in fairness, most of what was produced back when Feiffer wrote the book was junk. He's talking, too, about what kids read, and what most kids read did not include the kind of thing Briggs does - most, because I believe he has done some stuff for children. I read "When the Wind Blows" as a child, but I wouldn't have sought it out - it happened to be on my parents' book shelf.
There are always going to be exceptions to the rule, and different ideas of what is and isn't a comic book.
I think what I've said here gives an idea of Feiffer's meaning of the term, or at least as it was meant in 1966.
These days, even with quality work being done, the majority of that being published is still junk, although there are not likely too many kids reading them anyway. These days, they're probably produced for 30-year-old guys, who are the ones who can afford today's prices.
Good grief, Viz is not even worthy of the name junk.
For some reason I'm not familiar with Briggs.
Ooohhh... I remember the animated version of When The Wind Blows. Very poignant graphics and animation.
So are we saying there is a difference between a comic book and a graphic novel? I hadn't thought about that, but you probably have something there.
It's just formats. Watchmen for instance was published both as comic books and as a graphic novel.
OK, the book was published well before these examples. And before most heavy weigth comics I know. Still there was The Spirit for example.
The Great Comic Book Heroes talks only about DC heroes from the Golden Age, the stuff Feiffer read as a child. It's partly a response to Frederick Wertham. The Spirit was around but I don't think he's mentioned. Was he by DC? If he was, he isn't mentioned.
The book is also worth checking out for what he says about Superman, which is supposed to be where Tarantino got Bill's Superman speech from Kill Bill, although Feiffer doesn't mention Spider-Man:
The particular brilliance of Superman lay not only in the fact that he was the first of the super-heroes, but in the concept of his alter ego. What made Superman different from the legion of imitators to follow was not that when he took off his clothes he could beat up everybody—they all did that. What made Superman extraordinary was his point of origin: Clark Kent.
Remember, Kent was not Superman’s true identity as Bruce Wayne was the Batman’s or (on radio) Lamont Cranston, the Shadow’s. Just the opposite. Clark Kent was the fiction. Previous heroes, the Shadow, the Green Hornet, The Lone Ranger were not only more vulnerable, they were fakes. I don’t mean to criticize, it’s just a statement of fact. The Shadow had to cloud men’s minds to be in business. The Green Hornet had to go through the fetishist fol-de-rol of donning costume, floppy hat, black mask, gas gun, menacing automobile, and insect sound effects before he was even ready to go out in the street. The Lone Ranger needed an accoutremental white horse, an Indian, and an establishing cry of Hi-Yo Silver to separate him from all those other masked men running around the West in days of yesteryear.
But Superman had only to wake up in the morning to be Superman. In his case, Clark Kent was the put on. The fellow with the eyeglasses and the acne and the walk girls laughed at wasn’t real, didn’t exist, was a sacrificial disguise, an act of discreet martyrdom. Had they but known!
And for what purpose? Did Superman become Clark Kent in order to lead a normal life, have friends, be known as a nice guy, meet girls? Hardly. There’s too much of the hair shirt in the role, too much devotion to the imprimatur of impotence—an insight, perhaps, into the fantasy life of the Man of Steel. Superman as a secret masochist? Field for study there. For if it was otherwise, if the point, the only point, was to lead a “normal life,” why not a more typical identity? How can one be a cowardly star reporter, subject to fainting spells in time of crisis, and not expect to raise serious questions?
The truth may be that Kent existed not for the purposes of the story but the reader. He is Superman’s opinion of the rest of us, a pointed caricature of what we, the noncriminal element, were really like. His fake identity was our real one. That’s why we loved him so.
Now any Superman readers here will point out that this is no longer the case. Superman's origin was revised in 1986 (and has recently been revised again, adding in old elements, like his cousin Supergirl) to make Clark Kent the real guy, and Superman the put-on. It doesn't work as well that way, I think it was better in the old days. I do get a kick out of those old Superman comics where he was godlike in power and could, for example, decide to spend an afternoon in the 31st century and casually, as though he did it all the time and it was no big deal, "pierce the time barrier." These days, in the days of trying to make a "realistic" superhero, a lot has been lost. They aren't fun anymore.
Have you read Alan Moore's superheroes? Like Supreme and Tom Strong? They do this beautifully. Like one character who is *so* powerful that he can run across the galaxy by just taking a few steps on each planet along the way!
The term comic - in paper form - in the UK tends to mean a kids weekly, such as the Beano, Whizzer and Chips and The Eagle (Dan Dare) and 2000AD (Judge Dread). UK comics used to address ages 4 to 12, girls mags taking it to about 14.
In the US, comics seem to mean the page of "cartoons" in the daily paper.
In the 80's in the UK we started seeing more mature comics, Viz for the 16-20 range, Judge Dread, and then the import comics became more popular. These would be the classic DC and Marvel comics which America had a comic books since the depression years.
Around this time in the UK we adopted the term Graphic Novel, both for stand alone works and compilations, especially when the story was more mature, more carefully crafted and deeper. I think the US used the same term.
Although we've all seen Japanimation since we were young, Speed Racer in the US, Battle of the Planets in the UK, it wasn't until much later we discovered Manga. Maybe this is more skewed in Silicon Valley than elsewhere in the US. I started seeing import manga about 10 years ago, and translations in American about 5 years ago. There has been an explosion of the stuff, the US is lapping up a 50 year history of the stuff. Some of it is fluffy and trite, some can give the Western heavy weights a run for their money.
I would suggest a look at "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind", "Buddha" and "Appollo's Song" as good examples, along with "Ghost in the Shell" and "Appleseed".
As for Superman. He was a super hero. The others had been heros. Batman continuously gets mis-labelled "Super hero", sure he is one demented masochistic vigilante, but he still is only human. Superman is something different to the previous caped crusaders, the ones who wear a guise for invoking fear. Of the older heros, my fave is still Simon Templer. Never heard any of the radio shows, but love the books and movies.
Back to Superman. The whole last son of Krypton deal is essential to his being. I love that concept. Dirk Maggs didn't believe Clark had to look a total wimp though. He naturally had a good physique, which needed to be excused and rationalized. His dorkiness may be , in part, the fact that he is a dork. No offense meant, I mean brought up as a simple farmers son, and bashful around strong girls like Lois, and unsure around girls like Lana.
Briggs is quite an artist. He adds something very human to his work. I like the biography he wrote of his parents, Ethel and Earnest. Borders file that one in History, quite an apt place for it.
Parting shots. Asterix - Junk or Genius? Jeff Smith's Bone - a great saga, almost as rich as Tolkien, except visually rather than verbally.
In the US, comics seem to mean the page of "cartoons" in the daily paper.
That's true, which is why the other kind is called a comic book.
Around this time in the UK we adopted the term Graphic Novel, both for stand alone works and compilations, especially when the story was more mature, more carefully crafted and deeper. I think the US used the same term.
Although no one knows who first started using the term, one of the earliest instances was "A Contract with God."
Although we've all seen Japanimation since we were young,
Do you know The Simpsons' character Comic Book Guy? The real-life Comic Book Guys out there laugh when people use the term "japanimation." I think it's supposed to be "anime" or "manga." But, then, I'm not in the inner circle either. I don't know when people really started getting into it over here, but it was earlier. I remember Akira in 88 or 89. That was my first exposure to it. I can't say it thrilled me as it did some. Japanese animated characters spend half their time screaming.
As for Superman. He was a super hero. The others had been heroes. Batman continuously gets mis-labelled "Super hero", sure he is one demented masochistic vigilante, but he still is only human.
Batman and others like him who lack powers are usually lumped in as superheroes because of the costume. Although they are technically frauds, they are part of "superhero comics."
Superman is something different to the previous caped crusaders, the ones who wear a guise for invoking fear.
Yes, but as Feiffer I think correctly states, those earlier guys were frauds. Nothing against The Lone Ranger, The Green Hornet, Zorro, etc., but those dudes were not the real deal. Some people believe Superman owes a lot to Hugo Danner, too.
Back to Superman. The whole last son of Krypton deal is essential to his being. I love that concept. Dirk Maggs didn't believe Clark had to look a total wimp though. He naturally had a good physique, which needed to be excused and rationalized. His dorkiness may be , in part, the fact that he is a dork. No offense meant, I mean brought up as a simple farmers son, and bashful around strong girls like Lois, and unsure around girls like Lana.
Thing is, there are really two versions of the guy. What you're saying really only applies to the modern, post-1986 Superman.
Parting shots. Asterix - Junk or Genius? Jeff Smith's Bone - a great saga, almost as rich as Tolkien, except visually rather than verbally.
Asterix is a tough one. Junk, I'd say, but that shouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. It's fun, and even more so if you know something about the history being covered. (That's sort of like with Blackadder, where you wouldn't get some of the jokes without at least some knowledge of the real history.) Of course, some jokes are lost on non-Europeans.
Aargh,
I was going to say Japinimation as was known is now called Anime. Don't lets get into the sub genres, or Pascal will be looking for ecche (aka H-Anime, the animated form of Hentai, which is a sub genre of manga (whimsical drawing). Comic book guy does seem to be an otaku though (anime expert).
I think Asterix suffers in the US because, not only is Fraco-Roman history not studied, the translations from the original Belgian are in English English, any Euro in-jokes have been replaced with Anglo in-jokes. (Druid Valueaddedtax etc).
I also get lost in the Latin in those too. Still the kids enjoy them.
Post '86, ah, that must mean the new story comes from the second CR movie, or thereabouts. I thought young Superman, or Superboy the cartoon of the 60's had something about his innate powers in it?
I don't think the heroes were frauds, just masked heroes, a different entity. Why don a uniform to do good? To identify yourself, it's an independent "uniform". The story goes back to The White Knight v's The Black Night. It's an identifier.
I think Asterix suffers in the US because, not only is Fraco-Roman history not studied, the translations from the original Belgian are in English English, any Euro in-jokes have been replaced with Anglo in-jokes. (Druid Valueaddedtax etc).
That translation is still better than the American one they did in the mid-1990s. I think they only did five books because Asterix has never really caught on there as it has in Europe. While it was accurate enough, it lacked the humour and style of original British translation.
They're originally French, anyway. Tintin was from Belgium.
Poor Belgians, though. They had something in the paper the other day about them - I guess the French look down on the French they speak as a debased, hillbilly version of the language (the same way they look on the Quebecois), and the Flemish speakers are looked down on by the Dutch for speaking a debased form of their language.
Someone should tell them that there is no such thing as a pure language. Someone should especially tell the French that they are speaking a vulgar, hillbilly version of Latin. :-) And the Dutch are speaking a Germanic dialect.
I guess it's kind of to do with the territorialism (in a way) that Eolake was talking about.
You can't put a whole genre in the same bag, never. Japanese animes were considered "the very epitome of junk" in my childhood (the Seventies). Then came Hayao Miyazaki, the Japanese Walt Disney...
'Nuff said, true believers.
Was Superman before Zorro? Zorro is so much about the alter ego that he and Batman are practically clones. Wealthy playboy, servant, black costume and transportation...
"Asterix - Junk or Genius?"
Ask that question in France or Belgium the day you get tired of breathing! ;-)
Honestly, half of the humour in Asterix is near-impossible to convey in translation. In french-speaking countries, it's simply a classic.
Just like I'm sure half of the nods and puns in Harry Potter are lost for non-british readers, even if like me they read the original version and not a translation.
Does the fact that Asterix never takes itself seriously make it "junk"? To be or not to be... Good junk, I'm not ashamed of liking. Harry Potter also lacks any literary value in style, for example. It's just entertaining, very creative fiction. Why should it feel the need to be anything more? Only to spoil our fun and satisfy boring adults that "our kids are learning with it"?
Shakespeare's style is universally recognized as excellent... but the stories sometimes clearly border with crowd-pleasing junk, like the bloodfest of Titus Andronicus. It's practically a medieval snuff movie for the commoners.
Rock 'n' Roll was, for quite some time, officially labeled as junk. The appreciation of these things can immensely change with society's standards.
Another classic "once junk": television. And cinema. And Disney's feature-length, very costly "kiddie cartoons" like Snow White.
Even some declared junk, intended as such by their authors, can become classics. Sculptor Auguste Rodin, some 100 years ago, did in his early career an art exhibition of nudes described by critics as "so obscene, they would make a monkey blush".
I think the safest comment about something you THINK is junk, but might also not be, is a prudent "Well, I don't like it much myself". To me, most of what Picasso drew can still be considered junk. This doesn't necessarily make me an ignorant... as long as I let others free to like it. And to eventually pay insane money for a portrait that looks nothing like a beautiful woman! ;-)
Alex, I've known about ecchi for years. If you know what's good for you, don't google (or maybe "don't yahoo") terms like bukkake, yaoi or futanari. You've been warned.
"I also get lost in the Latin in those too."
Now that's not surprising. One specificity of French culture, is that in the Larousse dictionary, the famous "pink pages" list the "latin and foreign expressions", and in them you can find the translation of all the latin used in Asterix. Which is NOT a coincidence. :-)
And these latin expressions are usually jokes of their own. Like Cesar going: "Veni, vidi, and I can't believe my eyes!"
"Someone should tell them that there is no such thing as a pure language."
This part-french doc fully agrees with you. The folks in the metropole really tend to indulge in a sorry superiority complex.
I currently watch two weekly Quebec sitcoms, both excellent. The vocabulary is sometimes difficult to grasp (there are subtitles to "translate"), but I find it very pleasant -and enriching- to hear and learn, sapristi!
And actually Quebec speak and accent is a lot closer to the classic French of some 400 years ago that what they use in Paris today. It's more "faithful", you could say.
As if a language, dialect or variant could ever be superior to another, as long as it is well built and developed. I find Japanese and Chinese abominably complicated to write, but they have some literature and poetry which some may consider the best in the world. They're simply not practical for a world common language, that's all.
"Someone should especially tell the French that they are speaking a vulgar, hillbilly version of Latin."
[Virtuous standing indignation] Sir, this is a totally preposterous thing to say! French comprises almost as much Greek as Latin. The name itself comes from the Francs, who were a germanic tribe that took over Gaul after the Romans. And, for centuries, French and English intertwined so much that they have about one third of words in common. (Be careful, though, sometimes the same word will have taken different beanings, like "sensible" or "corpse".)
"I guess it's kind of to do with the territorialism"
Well, that's still better than terrorism. I guess...
Pascal,
I think I go for "Bishōjo Sentai" in general, my favourites to date have included "Gunslinger Girls" and "Noir". Much as I love Miyazaki, I think Satoshi Kon brings a wonderful level of visuals, especially in "Millenium Actress".
Miyazaki is not the Japanese Disney. Disney starts by destroying the mother figure, then makes the lead fight adversity to achieve a selfish goal by being righteous over others.
Miyazaki brings us a blossoming flower, and we learn that the shadows are not so dark. We accept others and see their best, becoming stronger overall.
This doesn't necessarily make me an ignorant...
According my high school art teacher it would. Of course, she was a dolt.
Miyazaki is not the Japanese Disney. Disney starts by destroying the mother figure, then makes the lead fight adversity to achieve a selfish goal by being righteous over others.
Hm. This made no sense to me. Could you explain? I don't get this about Disney "destroying the mother figure." I haven't seen many Disney movies.
[Virtuous standing indignation] Sir, this is a totally preposterous thing to say! French comprises almost as much Greek as Latin. The name itself comes from the Francs, who were a germanic tribe that took over Gaul after the Romans. And, for centuries, French and English intertwined so much that they have about one third of words in common. (Be careful, though, sometimes the same word will have taken different beanings, like "sensible" or "corpse".)
Fair enough - I just meant that it, like the other Romance languages is descended from Latin and probably not from the grammatically-perfect, sort of Queen's English version of Latin we learn today. Did the man on the street in Lutetia speak like a page of Cicero?
I am a huge Miyazaki fan, but I was not aware of Satoshi Kon. I'll check him out.
Seen the jap Metropolis? What a visual feast.
This made no sense to me. Could you explain? I don't get this about Disney "destroying the mother figure." I haven't seen many Disney movies.
Disney movies are often a visual, and to some too a musical, treat.
You will soon see that there are no (few) mothers in Disney movies. Bambi - she gets shot. Beauty and the Beast, Finding Nemo, Jungle Book, all have orphans as the lead. Sure, sometimes that is how the original story started. But more often than not the mother is absent, often dead. If she is there she is a soft non-character. I guess I was generalizing, there are a few where the mother survives, but she is seldom allowed to be strong.
The fathers aren't much better, they often seem a little tapped.
Miyazaki and Disney both show people growing up and learning to cope. Disney's characters seem to have to cope with great hardship, and become very strong to survive. It is all about the self. Miyazaki has perceived perils which normally resolve themselves and the growing character become at one within a team or society. I think the exception in Miyazaki's films is "Howls Moving Castle", which is based on a British (Welsh?) novel. This seems to fall more into the Disney role.
I am a huge Miyazaki fan, but I was not aware of Satoshi Kon. I'll check him out.
I only know of 3 films and one short. The films are
"Perfect Blue" - a psycho thriller of "Cold Comfort" or, what was that James Caan, Kathy Bates film. Anyway, 'bout a J-Pop idol breaking into film.
"Millenium Actress" - a study of 50 years of Japanese Cinema and 1000 years of Japanese culture.
"Tokyo Godfathers" - 3 Tokyo bums find an abandoned child at Christmas, and have a voyage of re-discovery.
The short is on "Memories" a disk well worth checking out, oft termed as like "Heavy Metal".
Seen the jap Metropolis? What a visual feast.
I have great respect for Fritz Lang, and was pleased with this interpretation. I went back and started investigating the original manga, and further works by the author Osamu Tezuka. His landscapes are very detailed, his characters very engaging, even in his more serious work.
"The Japanese Disney", of course, was merely the approximation meant by the Americans as a great tribute and compliment to a cartoon maker from around the globe.
I had already noticed long ago that weird detail, that practically the only family among Disney's characters (those Walt created himself) were uncles/nephews, and fiancés. There's a definite phobia of the nuclear family...
Walt Disney was a poetic genius, but also a prude with many unresolved personal issues. When two artists from his studio made a humoristic cartoon as a lighthearted present for his birthady party featuring Mickey & Minnie having sex, his face turned white and he fired them on the spot. No lovers of HIS are ever meant to get married!!!
Oh dear, poor man.
"Did the man on the street in Lutetia speak like a page of Cicero?"
Frankly, I haven't got the slightest idea where Cicero got his pages from! Maybe he picked thew in the streets of Lutetia during his vacations in the roman province of Gaul? You know, shopping on the Campus Elyseata while going to the Towerus Eiffelium with the missuz...
Osamu Tezuka? I've started catching up on that revered master. Funny, how even in his very serious and adult stories, he usually keeps a round and childish-feeling style and humour, almost kawaii. It helps convey more message and less violence, I think.
It's not by lack of choice, since he's also done other graphic styles.
Just thought I'd say I agree with Pascal about Tezuka.
Also, just found a 4th movie by Satoshi Kon today, Paprika. Absolutely on form with the visuals. The imagery got a little surreal, but when you are talking about electronically merging dreams that is bound to happen. I think Abres Los Ojoys dealt very well with it's dream state images. Vanilla Sky seemed to add extra clues to make the ending more "understandable". Paprika seems to take a louder approach. Reminiscent of "Serial Experiments Lain" at times. CG enhanced cell animation, kinda like GIS and Appleseed in that regard.
Post a Comment