CSotD: Matt Bors: Cinéaste
Skip to comments
Okay, before I start blathering today, you have to go read Matt Bors' review of the new GI Joe movie.
Seriously. Go.
I'll wait.
.
.
.
Was that awesome, or what?
It brings up some great possibilities, only coincidentally related to the loss of Roger Ebert.
But given the increasingly visual nature of our culture, given the decreasing attention span of our culture, why not expand the role of cartoonists into a less monumental genre of graphic commentary?
Graphic commentary itself — even in long-form — is, obviously, nothing "new."
Or not terribly new, in any case. "Maus" and "My Friend Dahmer," not to mention Bors' own collaboration with David Axe, "War is Boring," and the work of Joe Sacco, Alison Bechdel, Raina Telgemeier, Brian Fies, all qualify as graphic commentary, with highly blurred lines between memoir and reportage being endemic to the genre. (Bors also having done some actual short-form, on-the-ground graphic reporting from Afghanistan.)
Going much further back, at the dawn of the editorial cartoon, Hogarth did some multipanel story-telling, and even invented the sequel. And there is even precedent for multi-panel cartooning in a more gentle, affectionate format: In the mid-20th century, Francis Dahl was a champion at multi-panel local humor, and Rob Rogers and Ed Stein and others have gone that route as well.
The notion that cartoons necessarily take the place of text, rather than augment it, is perhaps something put forth by cartoonists themselves, particularly those who would rather draw than write.
But that doesn't mean the two forms are incompatible: This blog, after all, is dedicated to the idea that a simple cartoon can spin off a lot of thought, while Nast (who was either dyslexic or poorly educated, depending on who you ask) worked backwards in that respect, with many of his cartoons in Harper's Weekly illustrating longer articles by other writers.
But the combination can certainly exist: Though Mauldin's Willie and Joe cartoons appeared on their own, he wrote the text combining them with commentary in "Up Front" and it's a classic. And, recently, David Horsey has begun drawing a cartoon and then writing his own blog on the topic. (If I were unionized, I'd file a grievance.)
But there's a huge difference between providing social commentary and doing mixed-media movie reviews.
Most editorial cartoons about pop culture are ephemeral at best, and, for actual editorial cartoons, usually suggest a very slow day, or a little laziness on someone's part. When the editorial page runs a cartoon about saggy blue jeans, we should be able to assume war and poverty have been pretty much eradicated.
Not that other levels of cartoon commentary can't provide some pop culture laughter:
But the notion of using of a cartoonist as an actual movie reviewer brings up a question.
Well, it brings up two questions. The first is, can we please have some more, Wired, please?
The other question, though, is, how well would this format work with a movie that wasn't so well-made for ridicule?
That is, what if he'd liked it?
I'm sure I would enjoy a similar review, even of a more serious movie like "Lincoln." But would people who like thoughtful reviews in this mixed format be a significant demographic?
And never mind "Lincoln" or "Rashomon" or "The Sorrow and the Pity."
What about a well-crafted, mid-level movie like "The Hunger Games," which had an 85% favorable rating at Rotten Tomatoes?
Would there be pressure — from editors, from adoring fans, from within — to find amusing wisecracks to make, even if you had to dig for them? And, if he didn't mock it, would the review be compelling?
I know snark sells, but is it (artistically) mandatory?
I don't know. I'm asking.
I'd love to see someone offer Matt some opportunities to let us find out.
Comments 6
Comments are closed.