Aching

I ached all day yesterday in my right ankle, left shoulder, and elsewhere. I guess falling down isn't a good thing to do, eh? Still, I am going out today. I need to do some food shopping, and have a strong desire to see a film. The main contenders are Marley & Me and The Spirit. I know that Marley & Me will make me cry a lot. I've been a long term fan of Eisner's The Spirit but the trailer makes the film look like a cross between Sin City and The Crow. Not surprising considering it's directed by Fran Miller. Hmmmm.

We'll see.

Back from the flicks

I decided to see The Spirit anyway, though I must say I have very mixed feelings about it. Did a little shopping and caught the first bus home.

Expect a review soon.

The Spirit

I think we should be thankful for small mercies - namely that the creator of the Spirit, Will Eisner, didn't live to see this adaptation of his comic series (he died in 2005). This is one of the few films I've seen where I considered walking out or demanding my money back. I didn't though and saw the whole thing through.

The problem I have, is that I'm a fan the original comic book series and character. I discovered reprints of these about the same time as discovered undergrounds and bought both at the Market Street Bookshop. Loved the way that Eisner made interesting stories in only eight pages.  

The strip originally appeared in the 1940s as part of a 16 page give-away comic book included with the Sunday paper. It lasted until 1952 and the last story (the Spirit goes to the moon) was even inked by Wally Wood!

When I was doing my honours, I discovered five volumes of colour Spirit archives ( the first 3 years worth) in the Huxley library - absolute bliss!  So I'm a big fan of Eisner and his work, but also especially of the Spirit and the qualities it possessed. And I didn't see much evidence of Eisner or those qualities in the film.

Instead what we seem to have is Frank Miller's "remake" of the strip. Almost nothing is untouched or unchanged. The film has the look of Sin City which was an adaptation of Miller's own work. I was able read that work via the local library and found that the high-contrast sparing use of colour look of the film was true to the comic originals. But this time the original isn't Miller's work - it's Eisner's and the contrast in styles is very jarring (this becomes very apparent if you stay to watch the credits - see who's artwork is up there).

( Spoilers under this cut )

Despite all the differences, some things do seem the same. Apart from the over the top physical violence slapstick, the rambling plot is vaguely like a Spirit story. Also, some scenes seem to be taken directly from the original stories, like the Spirit rising up out of the water, or talking to the audience and saying that he has to bring in Sand Serif, or the dissolving cat! But all this effort seems wasted in the rest of the film with its jarring differences and failed humour (which oddly reminded me of Batman and Robin - funny how this keeps reminding me of bad films).

In fact there's a number of pop culture references in the film (to Batman and Star Trek, and Crime SuspenStories) that just seem out of place. Central City is presented as an "anywhere town" of the middle 20th century and yet these references are specific and date it - to different times (the same with the young Denny and Sand being interviewed for TV).

This isn't the first film done about the Spirit - there was a TV pilot made in 1987 staring Sam Jones. I've seen that film and it seemed much truer to the original, Not surprising considering that Eisner was credited as co-script writer. There's a quote from the film (if I remember correctly) that sums up this film:

Octopus: There's shot to hell, and shot to hell,
                but this's ridiculous!