THE SPIRIT MOVIE

Folks have asked me many times since Christmas Day if I had gone to see The Spirit movie. Once I got past all the sad and bad reviews, some personal work which is still not done, the loss of the family cat (okay, yes, “it was “just” a cat to some, but to me it was a member of my family for 14+ years, so I’m allowed to miss her), and just Xmas in general (already not my favorite holiday- for reasons I may go into here someday- or more likely in a graphic novel I’d like to do called “Spank The Monkey On Religion”), I took in the Sunday first showing in my second favorite theater in the area The Hollywood Cinemas in Birch Run.

I went to Birch Run because my current favorite theater (Trillium in Grand Blanc) decided not to show the film since there were already some half dozen or more films also premiering on Christmas Day and they HAD to cut somewhere, and that “somewhere” was NOT going to be Bedtime Stories (which is getting the same level of reviews, but it has Adam Sandler in it) or Benjamin Button- so The Spirit lost. Obviously someone else saw an advance copy or review of this film and had the same dread I did, albeit for different reasons.

Going in I KNEW there wasn’t a single positive review of the movie that I saw on the web. Not that I look for other folk’s opinions very often, but where Roger Ebert is quoted saying “I would call these performances cardboard but that would be an insult to descent packing material” you kind of notice. Rotten Tomatoes gave this film a 15 out of 100, and that was probably due to the fact that there are a lot of folks who read modern comics that are also web savvy as well as lovers of anything Frank Miller. Interesting to note that that number is officially 15%.

I LOVE Will Eisner’s Spirit, pure and simple. Been a big fan ever since high school and those Warren Magazine reprints, number 3 of which was the first comic magazine I ever bought and devoured. There is no question to me that Eisner is a true MASTER in the field of comics and one of my total heroes who, along with Alex Toth, Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby, Jack Cole, C.C. Beck and a few others I have yet to add to my My Heroes listings here on my blog- BUT I WILL EVENTUALLY, deserve their just attention in a spotlight that seems to make demi-gods out of flavor of the month hacks (who I would digress here to mention or attempt to list- that’s a rant for another time). Hacks by the way that I do NOT consider Miller to be one of.

Frank Miller’s movie is a testament to a number of things and picky points near and dear to my heart. Points that I should take the time to focus on individually here in future postings, but let me say this directly about the film; This IS FRANK MILLER'S SPIRIT, make NO doubt about THAT. It gives only passing nods to Eisner’s masterpiece, and would have paid more tribute to it if it were named FRANK MILLER'S SPIRIT. This is NOT Eisner’s Spirit as much as SIN CITY LITE, and is a prime example of two parts genius (that being Eisner’s and Miller’s) mixed with one part ego (Miller’s), devoured by a corporate filter and distilled to theaters and movie goers as “cinema”.

Everyone still alive and associated with the film did their job well, make no mistake, the film is kind of entertaining, the green screen effects are great, many of them heightened from my memory of Sin City (though I would have to watch that movie again to be sure and WILL as soon as I buy a copy of the Director’s cut version), and most parts are a joy to watch and perhaps even learn from. Some of the directing is obviously weak, but the director (Miller) is still new to the art form and given another film or 3 he may very well master this art form as well as he has mastered graphic storytelling on paper, just not now and not here in this film. Most of the performances were better than what the reviewers let on, especially considering the script (Miller’s again- which I only uttered “Jesus Christ!” out loud twice at- which was better than some others in the audience that I attended.), as well as the material the script was based upon and the format originally used for it. The real problems here with this movie all lies in their “homage” to the original material, and there is where Miller’s faults shine to the point of annoyance.

The Spirit comics were always told in 7 to 9 page shorts. Some of the most genius compact storytelling one could ever witness, examples of which EVERY writer in comics and entertainment media should read and study. As manga is to visual storytelling, Eisner’s writing is to compact/compressed “point-to-point” plotting. The use of character and characterization is short, direct, and sweet, sometimes to the fault of the dialog, but NEVER to the fault of the story’s pacing. No panel is wasted, no word balloon extraneous, everything is used to further the plot in Eisner’s tales because he had so few beats, so few pages, to tell it in. Now you move that quick clip characterization over to an hour and three-quarter movie and you get Frank Miller’s Spirit movie.



The truly annoying touches here are solely Frank Miller’s mistakes in writing, pacing, and directing. Faults he may grow out of, just not here. Focusing on the Nazi motif and the llooonnnggg drawn out scene of exposition between Octopus and Spirit killed this movie outright for me. Having labeled clones as humor relief was more of a device from the 60’s Batman more than anything associated with Eisner, and over the top violence and the little side tributes to Miller’s influences (Iger Street, Ditko Delivery Service, Tuska as the name of one of the cops) were distracting to me, but that was because I knew who those folks were originally, and there were SO many of them that I started looking directly for them, and I’m sure I missed the majority of them along the way.

Finally, and this is also a picky point probably just to me, but a horribly distracting one, you have what I call “The opening of the black box” in the attempt to explain The Spirit’s seeming invulnerability and making it a major plot point in the film. Again, this is a picky point best deserving it’s own posting so I will try to compress my thoughts on it, but frankly, when you try to explain away the "fantasy" and try to make it “real” you blow all credibility with me, and you make for LOUSY entertainment. Eisner’s Spirit was always an average Joe, and his survival of whatever stabbings, shootings, and cartoon violence that he experienced came from his being a cartoon style HERO more than any scientific explanation. To try to explain that fantasy device away just robs us of that fantastic, heroic, aspect that truly made a comic book character like that unique, and not grasping that, not understanding that so-simple concept of heroism, especially old style American heroism is such a common fault of so many “modern writers” that it’s shamefully annoying. Folks who can’t brain-check their entertainment every once in a while, and need an explanation for EVERYTHING should just abandon such a fantastic and fantasy based art forms such as comics (and comics based entertainment)all together and go write their All American “slice of life” novel, or cinema and get the hell out of my playground!

Miller’s Spirit can be fun and entertaining at times, but mostly for all the wrong reasons. Stylized like Sin City is stylized, bastardized like Miller’s Dark Knight, overly egocentric and about 80% off the mark from the original material, Miller’s Spirit movie is much more a Spirit/Sin City crossover than most any of us long time Spirit fans ever wanted to see, but you better believe that I’ll buy the DVD as soon as it hits the discount bin, and if I ever see it late night on cable I’ll probably spend a few minutes watching it in a half sleep haze, then later I’ll pick up my Spirit Archives and relive some TRUE genius there. Folks who don't know the Spirit property well might be VERY entertained, but unfortunately not if the critics are listened to at all.

One final note: If you go see this movie at a theater (matinee’s only please) watch this movie all the way through the end credits as you get treated to some examples of Miller’s real talent in his drawings from storyboards and other prep materials on this film. You get to see the “Sin City” Miller, as well as the brilliant sketchy more comic book oriented Miller. That was the true treat of this film to me, and seeing it on the big screen was icing on a pretty soggy, almost bitter cake.

In the future, let’s hope Miller does more Sin City, or more ORIGINAL material (too bad he says he wants to do Buck Rogers- I honestly hope he does something LIKE that in genre only ORIGINAL in name- but better he do Buck than Flash Gordon!), or perhaps is knocked down a peg or two ego-wise, goes to film school and perhaps a creative writing class or two, and comes back to entertain us like the comic book storyteller craftsman he’s shown us he can be.

WAKE UP!

P.S. if you want to witness the REAL genius of The Spirit pick up the Archive sets from DC, particularly numbers 12-22 and relive five years worth of TRUE genius from a Master of the art form. There's a reason why some of Eisner's best Spirit stories have been reprinted, in many different formats, almost as much as Ditko's early Spider-Man works- that is because 1)they still make the publisher's huge jing every time they reprint them, and 2) They are works of genius, pure and simple.