Greetings From the New Brunette

ahoy hoy

2011-01-06T17:25:00.000-08:00

Whoa, it's been a while, hasn't it? Yeah, I haven't been around here much. Life happened, but I'm feeling much better now, thanks. It's a new year, so let's kick things off in an optimistic fashion to all of those who would stand in my way in 2011:

Final Watchmen post, really

2009-03-11T18:21:00.001-07:00

More Watchmen fun! Lucky you! My rundown on the film can be found here at BootCamp Comics.

In a sad attempt to jazz this entry up, I offer a pitiful sketch I drew of The Question meeting his Watchmen counterpart. Between The Question and Spider-Man I get the impression Ditko didn't like drawing faces much...

For some better art, try Inkblot Confronts the Black Heart of Humanity!

Watchmen fun roundup

2009-03-06T16:30:00.000-08:00

In honour of the release of the film adaptation of Watchmen I thought I'd share some of the best Watchmen-related humour and curios I've come across in recent months.

My favourite is Saturday Morning Watchmen, which gives us an idea of how the gang would look if they were transposed to a Saturday morning cartoon from the '70s and '80s. Pure genius.

I wanted to share a brilliant Watchmen: The Condensed Version which told the story in LOLcat/4chan style, ~~but sadly it was posted on the now-defunct Scans_Daily and I can no longer find it online.~~ Wait, it's back! Bask in its glory.

As an alternate to the Condensed Version I recommend Watchmen in 30 Seconds from the ISB's 30-second recap contest.

Slate wonders what would happen if other directors took a swing at adapting the comic?

Sure, the Watchmen Babies have already made an appearance on The Simpsons, but Springfield Punx shows what the real things would look like if Simpson-ized.

One of the most sadly ironic things about the Watchmen movie is all the frickin' merchandise! Here's a roundup on some of the most terrifying examples. But I need to know: where's my Bubastis action figure?

Speaking of merchandise, there's nothing geekier than wearing an obscure in-joke to your favourite comic on a t-shirt. So if the smiley face logo is too obvious a choice for you, perhaps you'd prefer a HURM or a Gunga Diner t-shirt? And Threadless has a clever Watchmen as, uh, watches shirt.

Finally, there's Gizmodo's Photoshop contest 104 Ways to Hilariously Ruin Watchmen. It's wonderful, and has given me my most recent desktop background: a googly-eyed Owlship.

the Golden Age of Comics

2009-02-18T19:26:00.000-08:00

(Once again, this is cross-posted from BootCamp Comics blog.)

I want to share with everyone a quote I read on the comics blogosphere recently. Although I can't remember the exact wording, it goes something like this: "There are two Golden Ages in comics: one was from 1938 to 1950, the other is from the time you were 8 years old to the end of middle school."

Hmm, pretty good, no? It sums up both the thrill of childhood, but also how nostalgia can colour your perception and taste in comics as an adult. Face it, when you were a kid, chances are you didn't care about what happened in comics decades before you were born. If you were like me, you just wanted something brand new! Because if it's new, it's gotta be good, right? Certainly, I was no great connoisseur of storytelling or artwork. But I don't think 10-year-olds are expected to be. It's only when you reach your teens that you start to develop that "us versus them" elitist attitude towards others.

But even though I loved comics, I drifted away from them in my mid-teens. A good part of this had to do with a growing interest in music, but I also found comic books less exciting. To give a rough approximation of the timeline I'm talking about, this would have been in the mid '90s, right after the initial Image explosion. I found the stories of some of the newer books lacking, I didn't like the changes being made to my old favourites, and I was also questioning why every other female character had to have a gravity-defying rack and ninja training. Some might say these were symptomatic of the worst excesses of the comic book industry in the '90s. But I honestly think I would have felt the same, whether it had been 1975 or 1995. I was simply growing up.

The more interesting question is, why did I return to comic books? There are lots of people out there who read comics as children, and never pick up another issue once they've finished adolescence. What drives people like me, and the other creators on this site, to stick with the medium?

For me, I think it's the promise of adventure that a comic book holds. In just 22 pages, a comic book can whisk me on a brightly-coloured journey; taking me from the streets of New York, to the dark side of the moon, with a possible stop in the Negative Zone for good measure. I'll admit, now that I'm pushing 30 I'm not as easily impressed by the umpteenth "secret identity in peril" storyline. But there are lots of fantastic writers and artists working today who can take characters others have long left for dead and breathe new life into them. And when make me say "cool!" out loud while reading one of their books, then they're doing their job right.

It seems this entry has turned into my "why I love comics" routine. But it's also why I enjoy creating comics. Hanging with Ty and the BootCamp gang has shown me that I don't have to sit back and read the adventures other people have written. I just need to unlock the crazy ideas bouncing around in my brain and, with a little help from my friends, those stories can be unleashed on the world for all to share. My own personal Golden Age of comics may have passed, but the BootCamp Age is well underway.

Bring on the bad guys!

2009-02-11T18:17:00.000-08:00

(This is cross-posted from the BootCamp Comics blog!)

This week I thought I'd discuss something which all longer-form stories need (along with sex, violence, wickedness and suffering, of course): a quality villain. As much as we enjoy rooting for the good guys, we can only do that if they face a challenge to overcome. Now, this can be done by having your protagonist go up against an obstacle without sentience (think the man vs. nature stories), but I like it best when the hero faces a brilliant mind they need to outfox.

What makes a solid, quality villain? Obviously, the answer will vary depending on your tastes. But I think some kind of ironic juxtaposition to the hero is a good place to start. I've met people who think it's lame that the arch-enemy for someone as powerful as Superman is the powerless Lex Luthor. These people Are. Missing. The. Point. For me, it's much more interesting to watch a guy who only has his wits face off against Superman than it is to see a mindless slugfest with Doomsday. Another example of two polar opposites who share an unhealthy symbiotic relationship are Batman and the Joker.

A personal history with the hero is also good, because it sets up layers of character interaction and motivation. Dr. Doom has never been able to get over his college rivalry with Reed Richards. Magneto was always the X-Men's number one foe, but it wasn't until Chris Claremont filled in his backstory as a close friend of Professor X that things really gelled for the character. (At least, I think it was Claremont who filled in these blanks. Correct me if I'm wrong, fanboys!)

Claremont also introduced another famous aspect of Magneto: Holocaust survivor. This had the potential for coming off as tacky, but it ended up working perfectly in the context of mutant-human politics, and it's something that's been integral to the character ever since. It gave a credible motivation to why he hated humans, and why he would reject Professor X's philosophy. So let's add "pertinent backstory" to our list as well. Mind you, a little backstory can go a long way. I think everyone preferred Darth Vader when he had the simple origin of "ex-Jedi who went over to the Dark Side." Three prequels worth of Anakin's whining and angsting effectively extinguished any sympathy or respect I had for that character.

Then there are villains who are so imposing, so grand in scale they may as well be considered "forces of nature." Guys like Darkseid, Galactus and Thanos. At their best, these kinds of villains make the reader stop and think about how we define evil. Is it something in our nature, or can we rise above our station? Galactus has always been particularly terrifying for me. He's the physical embodiment of the apocalypse; beyond petty matters like our concepts of good and evil. He does what he needs to survive, like an anteater devouring the anthill.

But Galactus leads me to ask another question: are quality villains always doomed to become pale imitations of themselves through repeated use? Galactus is pretty much Exhibit A in the rule of diminishing returns. There are only so many times he can threaten to eat the world, before it gets old. And a lot of fans feel the Batman's inability to stop the Joker's homicidal rampages make him look at best foolish, and at worst, criminally irresponsible.

But perhaps the cruelest fate is watching a formerly mighty villain suffer a humiliating defeat at the hands of a much lesser hero. Some people would point to the time Squirrel Girl defeated Dr. Doom as one of these examples. But those people are fools, because we all know Squirrel Girl rocks.

So what do you think? Who are some of your favourite villains and why? Are there any villains who you loved when they first appeared, but lost their impact due to overexposure and mis-management? (*cough* Venom *cough*)

Ctrl + Alt + V: Why I'm sick of identical panels in comics

2009-01-15T16:39:00.000-08:00

Note: This was originally posted at the BootCamp Comics Blog but the server seems to be on the fritz, so I thought I'd cross-post it here.

I thought I'd kick off my weekly blogging stint by discussing a stylistic trick that a lot of comic artists have been using in the past few years: The use of repeated, identical panels. You know the type of page I'm referring to. Usually there are two or more people having a conversation, and the panels are pretty much identical. Sometimes the artist has clearly copied and then pasted the same image. Here's an example from The Pulse #12, written by Brian Michael Bendis with art by Michael Gaydos:

I've purposely sized the image so it was too small to read the text. That's because, without the context of the story, it's a boring page from a storytelling standpoint. Sure, there are some slight variations in the three images (mainly in Dr. Strange's eyes in the second panel) but I really had to play "spot the difference" to notice it.

Of course, there are many reasons why an artist would choose to lay out a page in this way apart from the usual knee-jerk reaction of "oh, they were strapped for time." In most cases I suspect it's a deliberate attempt to control the pacing of the story. It also gives the story a more cinematic type feel, especially when artists choose to make slight adjustments from panel to panel. But whether the decision to use this style comes from a specific request from the writer, or it's the artist's choice, I can't say.

But while I understand its purpose, I find the repetitive, identical panels trope really played out in mainstream comics. It's not so much that I think it's lazy, as I feel it's a missed opportunity for the art. Comics are a dynamic medium, which work best when the art makes your eye travel around the page. I'm not saying every page needs explosions and car chases. However, I don't think static, repetitive panels are the best way to tell a story. Scripts featuring heavy dialogue can be challenging for an artist, but I do think it can be handled well in the right hands. Here's a page from Amazing Spider-Man #569, written by Dan Slott, and pencils by John Romita Jr.:

The page is nothing but Norman Osborn talking to Harry, but the panels are still composed so that the eye moves around the page, even in the absence of the dialogue bubbles. And while Harry has a similar pose in panels 3-5, they're not exact duplicates. It accurately paces the scene for us, without stopping the action short with identical panels.

So, what do you think? Do you like repetitive panels, or hate 'em? If you're an artist, I've love to hear your thoughts as to why you would opt to use this narrative device.

some culture for youse bums

2008-12-09T16:12:00.000-08:00

Everything is better with Muppets.

My favourite election night moment

2008-11-06T15:38:00.000-08:00

There were a lot of great scenes around the world on election night. But I think my favourite was when the deliriously happy mob outside of the White House swamped CBC reporter Tim Hunter. The look on his face when he lets down his guard and just goes with the flow is priceless. I can't remember the last time I've seen such pure joy from a group of American strangers that wasn't related to a sporting event:

I know it's just a honeymoon, but damn if it doesn't feel good.

Of Jo(h)ns and Ham(m)...

2008-10-27T16:24:00.000-07:00

Being from Nova Scotia, when I first saw the credits for the cast of Mad Men it made me smile. Why? Maybe a little math is needed...

Does Jon Hamm...

Plus John Slattery...

Minus artistic talent equal...John Hamm?

And if they all got together, what would they eat? Jon Hamm's John Ham, of course! Mmm!

Also, I can't believe CTV isn't showing the Mad Men S2 finale until next week!! How am I supposed to avoid the blogs I read for that long? And I broke out the vermouth for nothing...

You call that music??!

2008-10-23T17:51:00.000-07:00

For those of you not in the know, SomeECards.com is an e-cards site that has fabulously snarky messages for all sorts of holidays and non-holidays. The tone of the cards range from slightly sarcastic to pretty damn insulting. Try to imagine Dr. House writing greeting cards and you'll get the picture. This week, I sent this card to a friend with only a slight hint of irony.

It's pretty fair to say that when I was a teenager my entire life revolved around music. I'd keep track of release dates and voraciously read music magazines to try and identify the Next Big Thing. Now? Not so much. It's just a part of growing up I suppose. When you're 16 you're hearing everything for the first time and it sounds so damn impressive. Now I hear bands like the Killers and Coldplay I think, "Ehh, not bad, but I liked it better when [insert name of older band here] did it." But that's not to say I'm not still finding new and interesting bands. This year alone I've enjoyed albums by Vampire Weekend, Glasvegas, the Fleet Foxes and others. It's just that the bands I listen to don't define my identity anymore.

One band I've been listening to a lot lately is the Gaslight Anthem. They're a straight-up rock band with a punk edge and they're certainly nothing ground-breaking. But damn if I can't stop listening to their second full-length, The '59 Sound. The album is basically a love letter to their favourite artists, with lyrical and musical shout-outs to Springsteen, Tom Petty, Miles Davis, and, uh, Counting Crows. At times it's almost a too much (the first line on the album addresses a girl named Mary!), but overall the songs are strong, with minimal filler. If anything, the production is a little too slick and punk-rock generic for my tastes, but I think this band has a lot of promise and I'd love to see them live (something I rarely do anymore.) If I may use a comparison to really show my age, they remind me of a less-drunk version of The Replacements.

Judge for yourself and watch the video for the title track from The '59 Sound:

Vote early, vote often!

2008-10-12T10:01:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, October 14 is Election Day in Canada! After speaking with my friends and other voters, I find a lot of people are unsure about where they vote, what ID they need, and other issues. Some people think they are unable to vote because they recently moved, and did not receive a voter information card in the mail from Elections Canada. This is not true! You can still vote! The cards that you receive in the mail from Elections Canada just speed up the process for you at the polling station.

Visit this page at Elections Canada and type in your postal code. The resulting page should list information for your riding, such as where you vote, what ID you need, and so on.

If you require further information, please phone your local Elections Canada returning office, or the main Elections Canada number at: 1 800 463-6868.

Be aware that if you don't have the voter information card, it may take a bit longer for you to vote as there may be a lineup. Plan your time appropriately, and try to vote as early as possible.

Remember, voting is a responsibility and a privilege. And if you don't think that your vote matters, meditate on these words from Voltaire:

"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men."

(Hopefully now that the election season is drawing to a close, I'll have some time to write stuff for this blog again.)

And now for something completely different...

2008-09-08T17:04:00.000-07:00

An impossibly young Richard Dreyfuss lip-synchs "Hey, Little Goldfish" with his groovy band, while Tony Randall and a rhythmically challenged Janet Leigh watch. And oh, yeah, they're under the sea.

But it's too bad that You Tube doesn't have their best song, "Glub Glub Glub (Drowin' in a Sea of Love)" available. You'll have to watch the movie, if you dare.

Popular culture no longer applies to me...

2008-09-06T09:00:00.000-07:00

Maybe it's just me, but I'd so much rather watch a 90210 show based around the drunken antics of Jessica Walters and Linda "Swellen" Gray than a group of pretty teenagers. God, I need help.

Bootcamp Comics at FanExpo!

2008-08-23T06:04:00.000-07:00

I am thrilled to announce that my comic-book collective Bootcamp Comics is participating in Fan Expo Canada this weekend, August 22-24 at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. We will have mini-comics for sale, and our artists will sketch you something if you ask nicely. We're sharing our space with Mr. Comics and the Hoverboy Museum at table 346, right next to Marvel's signing booth! Look for a banner that reads "Sex & Violence, Wickedness & Suffering."

If you are planning on attending, please stop by our table and say hello. I should be around Friday night and most of Saturday. I also recommend that if you don't have an advance ticket you go early, since the lineups at this event are absolutely killer.

For more information and previews of the art, visit our website BootcampComics.com for more information and art previews.

What would Don Draper do? Pretty much the same thing as Tony Sorpano

2008-08-12T17:40:00.001-07:00

I've spent the past few weeks extolling the awesomeness of Mad Men to my friends and family. I was initially cool to the show, mainly because of the frustrating pace of the action and its at-times condescending humour. But eventually I was won over, mainly by the final four episodes of season one, which I consider some of the best television or film I've seen all year. But the third episode of season two, "The Benefactor" made me want to wash out my mouth, much like its central protagonist, Don Draper. (Warning: inevitable spoilers for Season 2 to follow.)

Among my reasons for loving Mad Men is that although it's got a lot in common with The Sopranos, the characters on Mad Men can't just solve their problems through casual violence. But "The Benefactor" pretty much smashed that theory of mine to bits. Already debate has been raging over the Internet (check out the comments at Alan Speinwall's blog for a taste) over Don Draper's decision to "take the reins" with the wife and business manager of a difficult client. That's a delicate way of saying he roughly grabbed her by the hair by one hand, and grabbed a much more delicate area below with another. Even worse, we were treated to the sight of Don wiping his hands afterwards, just to hammer the point home.

Don Draper has done some pretty despicable things over the course of the series, and his actions in "The Benefactor" make sense not only in the context of the immediate story but also with what we know about his past. But what bothers me is how the episode was clearly written to make the audience feel that the wife/manager Bobbie was "asking for it." In fact, I'm a little sickened by some commentators, particularly at EW who think what Don did was "cool."

Clearly, Don was in need of a worthy adversary. He easily dispatched Pete's feeble challenge to his throne last year to emerge as a partner at Sterling Cooper. But this year he's struggling in the workplace due to the arrival of Duck Philips. In fact, Don's actions in "The Benefactor" are a sign of how desperate he is to regain Roger and Bert's favour. Don's losing his touch and he knows it. I couldn't imagine the Don Draper of season one getting himself so worked over by Bobbie in the first place.

Make no mistake, it was fun watching Bobbie turn the tables on Don and nearly get away with it. She worked well as the mirror equivalent of Don. Whereas Don is a creative and successful man who uses his beautiful wife as window dressing, Bobbie is a woman who manipulates her successful husband behind the scenes. They're both disgusting characters, but we're meant to sympathize with Don because he's the star of the show. But I never like rooting for sexual violence, and I wish the writers could have come up with something else to make their point. Once you open up the show to a certain level of violence (even if it's implied) it's hard to back down the next time. Frankly, I prefer to see Don take his revenge in more creative ways than a stereotypical male revenge fantasy. (Judging by some of the comments around the Internet, there are still plenty of men who cheered Don on, even if dedicating a blog to more extreme thoughts will get your fired.)

So thank goodness for the scenes in "The Benefactor" between Harry and his wife. Here's a guy who seems to have the most progressive (from our point of view) relationship with his wife. He was honest about his one-night stand last year (too honest) and is now making a real attempt to relate to her as a human being. I was a pleasant change of pace from the unrelenting bleakness of the rest of the episode.

not dead yet

2008-08-10T11:52:00.000-07:00

I have been entirely too lax in my postings. As usual. I get about two-thirds through a ginormous post about the curious appeal of Mad Men but got sidetracked. I might finish it and post it later this week, if I can figure out what I'm trying to say.

Instead, something of interest for you comic-book lovers: Newsarama has an article on some of the behind-the-scenes editorial interference in the early days of Superman. Apparently, editors felt Lois was too curvy and Superman's arse was too "lah-de-dah." Amusing.

Damn.

2008-07-12T16:59:00.001-07:00

It's doubtful that I would've coughed up the $225 U.S. to buy this Darwyn Cooke page but imagine how awesome it would have looked on my wall. Wolverine and Doop walking down College Street! (Albeit with some slightly screwy geography.)

How I learned to stop worrying and love George C. Scott

2008-07-08T17:35:00.000-07:00

I somehow managed to get through nearly 29 years of existence on this planet without seeing Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. It was one of those films I was embarrassed to admit I hadn't yet seen. So the other week I found the DVD at a good price and picked it up. And I must admit it was not what I was expecting. I felt like so many of the film's classic scenes had already been spoiled for me through Oscar montages and AFI clip shows. In fact, I was pretty surprised to find that Dr. Strangelove the character has a relatively small role in the grand scheme of things. So for me the best part of the film was not Sellers' various roles but George C. Scott as the manic General Buck Turgidson. Watching the documentary that accompanied the DVD I learned that Scott felt like Kubrick had encouraged him to over-act. But I think it turned out pretty damn good.

My favourite part in the movie isn't even scripted. As Turgidson begins another paranoid rant, he takes a step backwards and trips. But instead of just lying there on the floor and laughing it up for the blooper reel, Scott rolls over and springs back up. "Look at the big board," he yelps. "They're gettin' ready to clobber us!" For me, this little slice of unintended slapstick perfectly captures the character of Turgidson. He's an overgrown kid who's had just a little too much sugar and probably needs a time out. Check it out about 20 seconds into this clip:

Cinematic Appreciation: William Holden

2008-07-02T20:12:00.000-07:00

"You and Colonel Nicholson, you're two of a kind, crazy with courage. For what? How to die like a gentleman, how to die by the rules. When the only important thing is how to live like a human being." - William Holden as Maj. Shears in Bridge on the River Kwai

The Film Society of Lincoln in New York City is holding a retrospective on someone who has become one of my favourite actors over the past year or so: William Holden. Accordingly there are some interesting articles popping up in the media covering the event. This article in the New York Sun comes closest to nailing my thoughts on the man and his work.

Like the article says, Holden is the perfect bridge between the Old Hollywood leading man and New Hollywood's anti-heroes, and you can find touches of both in his best performances. Although I cringed through most of the comedic scenes in Stalag 17 (pretty moldy stuff that was covered later and better by things like M*A*S*H) I was absolutely riveted whenever Holden was on the screen. He was working on a different level than the rest of the cast, projecting to the outside world that cold cynicism, but communicating to the audience a more wounded inner space. It's similar to the persona that Steve McQueen would utilize so well in films like Bullitt.

By the mid '60s Holden's roles tended to be unspectacular, and his leading-man looks began to deteriorate, most likely from his years of hard drinking. This should have been the kiss of death for someone like Holden, who was much a box office draw for his beefcake status as his acting. But instead, he was able to transition into craggy character-driven roles, beginning with his role as the gunslinger past his prime with Sam Peckinpah's the Wild Bunch. And indeed, as painful as it can be so compare fresh-faced young Holden with his craggy older self, you can't deny the sheer expressiveness of those worry lines. You think, "Here's a guy who's lived a few years." And you're right.

Of course, my favourite Holden role is the aging newsman Max Schumacher in Network. Max acts as the voice of reason in that film, but like so many of Holden's characters, finds himself compromising his morals and is unable to put up much of a fight against either the exploitation of his friend Howard Beale or the predatory charms of Diana Christensen. Of course, it's a metaphor for dumbing dumb of the news media, but it wouldn't work without Holden's unflinchingly vulnerable performance pulling it all together. It's not too often you get an actor of Holden's stature giving such a raw and honest portrayal of the fear of death the way you do with Max's "primal fears" speech. It's not a monologue I could imagine any of the other Old Hollywood stars giving, with the exception of maybe Henry Fonda. (Certainly I can't see Humphrey Bogart or James Stewart bickering with Faye Dunaway about "cocksmanship," can you?)

One contemporary actor who I think could learn a lot from this phase of Holden's career is Harrison Ford. It's no secret that Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull is the only Ford movie worth getting excited about in a while. With all the stinkers like Six Days and Seven Nights and Hollywood Homicide a lot of people have probably forgotten that Ford didn't always play the crusty action hero. In fact, he used to be a damn good actor, as films like The Mosquito Coast and Witness can attest. Ford should take a lesson from Holden's playbook and find something that matches his stature as a leading man whose glory days have passed him by. In short, Ford should not be afraid to make himself look vulnerable again. (Getting beaten up in the first five minutes of Crystal Skull doesn't count.)

But I digress. Here's hoping this retrospective brings Holden's work to a broader audience. Wish I were in New York this month!

EDIT: You ever write on a subject and as soon as you're finished realize that someone has not only beat you to it, but they summed up exactly what you were trying to say, only better? That's exactly the case with Sheila O'Malley's fantastic post on the Holden retrospective. Absolutely pitch-perfect and you should read it now!

Pregnant and need a baby name? Read this.

2008-06-30T19:06:00.000-07:00

It seems parents these days are always trying to come up with unique and special names for their children. And it doesn't seem to matter whether the name makes any sense, or is even suitable for a child. Nevaeh ("Heaven" backwards) was apparently the 31st most popular name for girls in the U.S. last year! And Messiah was 723 (talk about setting high expectations!)

The popularity of baby names rises and falls based on a number of factors, and one of them is celebrity names. But instead of naming our children after a soap opera character or Angelina and Brad's latest spawn, why not name more children after the people who really made a concrete difference to humanity?

Doctors and medical researchers often get a bad rap, since their names end up being associated with a terrible disease or condition. But think of the huge impact they've made to our world. Alexander Fleming isolated penicillin, a discovery that is estimated to have saved 200 million lives. Joseph Lister pioneered the idea of sterilizing surgical tools in the late 19th Century. That's something that is so obvious now, but was revolutionary at the time. And diabetics all over the world who rely on insulin to survive have Banting and Best to thank.

What thanks do they get? Postage stamps and, unless you're a medical student, a passing mention in your studies at school. (Well, to be fair, Listerine is named after Lister, but I'm not sure that counts...) Come to think of it, how come the discovery of insulin didn't get a Heritage Minute? It's not as dramatic as brain surgery, I guess.

So name your child after someone worthwhile! Baby Fleming will thank you when he's stuck in a class with five Joshuas and three Jacobs!

How I watch a film

2008-06-02T16:09:00.001-07:00

Jim Emerson's Scanners recently published a post about something that has been percolating in my brain for a while now. The idea that some movies are too personal to watch with an audience. It seems weird, considering that movies are generally designed to be first experienced with a group of strangers in the dark. But I can totally relate to what Emerson is saying.

I watch a lot of "old timey" movies and, whenever possible, I prefer watching them alone. I generally find that unless my viewing companion is used to older movies or is very, very quiet, they will get on my nerves. Films made before the New Hollywood of the '70s tend to have a stagey feel that is unnatural to most viewers nowadays. I have learned how to plow through the artifice and enjoy the film. But I can't do that when other people in the room are snickering just because men wore their trousers so much higher in the '50s.

Case in point, Emerson mentions Night of the Hunter as one of the worst films to see in the company of a contemporary audience. Oddly enough, the Bloor Cinema here in Toronto was recently showing that film and I wanted to attend a screening with some friends. In the end, I had to miss the screening and eventually watched the film on DVD instead. And boy, I can understand why Emerson had a bad time when he saw the film the last time in the theatre. The film was a lot more dreamy and expressionist than I was expecting. And the child actors weren't terribly good. Mind you, I liked the creepy visuals, and Mitchum's performance far outweighs any bad acting from the rest of the cast. But I imagine if I was in a theatre I would be put off by an audience's catty comments (although I suppose there's always the chance they would love it too.) That's why I like to watch a film solo the first time I see it. It allows me to relax and enjoy the movie at my own pace. Is that weird?

I think it's too bad a lot of modern audiences don't seem to want to give pre-'70s films any attention. Sure, lots of things about old movies are dated, but so many of them are funnier, sharper and more intelligent than most of today's releases. Case in point, here's an awesome scene from Preston Sturges' Sullivan's Travels where our titular hero describes to the studio heads how his next film (O, Brother Where Art Thou?) will be more socially relevant than his usual comedies:

Wherein I try to make a point about a TV show, and end up slamming the vox populi

2008-05-31T15:44:00.000-07:00

I'm slightly amazed, but much more disappointed, to see that Sex and the City is still so polarizing. Reading the media coverage surrounding the release of the movie, it's as if everyone has spent the four years since the show's farewell sharpening their knives, waiting for the chance to rip into the Sex and the City phenomenon one more time. Friday's Globe had a review by Rick Groen where he gives the movie zero stars. Mind you, he says he enjoyed the TV show, but thinks the movie is woeful and a culmination of all that is horribly shallow in our culture. But more distressingly is agony uncle David Eddie answer to a reader's question on how to set up her man-bashing friend with a date. He uses the question as an excuse to tear off on a tangent about how much he hates Sex and the City:

It never ceases to amaze me that women who say all men are pigs, bastards etc. in one breath will then begin to wonder why they're single in the next. Like the horrible women of Sex and the City. They sit around their little coffee shop or whatever mocking, insulting, rolling their eyes at, generalizing about, and angrily denouncing men, then wonder: "Where are all the single, available, heterosexual men?"

Eddie goes on to complain about the trend of "man-bashing" in our society. A quick persual of the comments section reveal Eddie has unleashed a can of worms among the readers.

CD says: "Call up your local manbashing lesbian, they might have a lot in common."
Mr. Justice says: "It's intriguing that your feminist friend wants you to set her up with a man. Should be interesting."

Ha, ha! Sweeping generalizations about entire genders sure are awesome, huh? This is why I can't stand when major media outlets allow the general public to comment on their stories and columns. I only recently began reading the reader comments at the Globe and was shocked at how much of a horrowshow it really is. For a paper that likes to think of itself as one of the last bastions of old-school, respectable journalism, it's astonishing how much of their readership are raving loonies. This goes for pretty much all the articles, ranging from business, arts, life and, of course, politics.

Anyway, getting back to Sex and the City... I can see the temptation for journalists to write articles on the show's cultural impact and how it relates to gender politics. But it's ultimately futile and not very useful if you want to have a real debate on the subject. (Though I'm not convinced a real debate is ever possible.) It's just a fluffy TV show, that had some soapy twists. Let the fans have their fun, and chill out.

Comic books in the mainstream media

2008-05-12T17:35:00.001-07:00

Because I know at least one person who wants me to post more...

Articles by the mainstream media on comic book events never fail to make me laugh and cringe. It's always clear the reporters never have the slightest idea what they are talking about, and are relying on the company press release. Inevitable, the articles are rife with errors. For instance, look at this quote from the AP article on Barry Allen's impending return: "Now he joins the tradition of super-heroes like Captain America and Superman who have died only to be resurrected later on."

You see, Cap hasn't actually come back to life (yet.) I assume they're referring to the fact that his former sidekick Bucky is now running around as Captain America. And I guess you could say that's not a big deal. But that kind of mistake bugs me. It shows the reporter didn't bother to check the facts. Obviously, I have no way of knowing whether this was through laziness, time constraints or editorial changes. But it's upsetting for me to read that because then I wonder what other kinds of subjects are getting the short shrift when it comes to news coverage. Of course, anyone within a subculture (be it comics, music, stampcollecting, etc.) is unable to view their interest the same way as an objective observer. But would it kill one of these reporters to actually talk to spend five minutes on Wikipedia or talk to someone outside of the Marvel or DC editorial offices when they write these things?

"The River"

2008-03-15T19:02:00.001-07:00

If this isn't the saddest verse ever written, it's gotta come damn close.

Then I got Mary pregnant
And, man, that was all she wrote
And for my 19th birthday I got a union card and a wedding coat
We went down to the courthouse
And the judge put it all to rest
No wedding day smiles, no walk down the aisle
No flowers, no wedding dress

"The River" by Bruce Springsteen

Phantom Ladies and Crippled Batgirls

2008-02-09T16:59:00.000-08:00

Invisible Girls and Phantom Ladies is an excellent article written by Alan Moore in 1983 on the treatment of women in comics. Of course, we've heard the arguments before, but it's nice to know that some male creators were speaking out the issue back then.

Of course, as some of the S_D posters point out in the discussion that follows, it's rather ironic that the article is written by the same guy who uses cripples and humiliates Barbara Gordon in The Killing Joke. The usual heated point-counterpoint discussion ensues.

The discussion made finally track down and read TKJ, which was one of the few big Moore stories I hadn't yet read. Now that I've read it, I have to side with those who agree it's dodgy and stereotypical storytelling. I always knew that the Joker shoots Barbara but I wasn't aware he then strips her and takes photographs of her. (Mind you, he also strips her father and makes him wear a dog collar.) Pretty graphic and horrible stuff, which is entirely the point and it probably was even more powerful when the story was published. (Nowadays every crimelord in comics tortures their victims with hot pokers, blowtorches, etc.) But more to the point, Barbara only exists in the story as a tool to humiliate her father. The fact she's Batgirl is entirely ignored (apart from knowing Batman is Bruce Wayne) and she's merely a tool to move the story along.

To Moore's credit, he now admits that crippling Barbara was a bad idea and at the time he didn't think the story would be considered mainstream continuity. (Obviously, the "look, she went on to become Oracle!" argument is invalid since Moore had nothing to do with that.) But the story still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. However, that's not to say it didn't have its moments. Bad Moore is still better than most stuff out on the stands nowadays.

Headline of the week

2008-02-02T09:05:00.000-08:00

Brazil's carnival of samba and sex begins -- But the real gem of the article is buried in the middle:

This year's parade ran into controversy when one of the schools, Unidos do Viradouro, wanted to put in an entry showing a dancing Hitler on top of a pile of emaciated Holocaust victims as a reminder to avert such atrocities in the future.

But a judge on Thursday banned the float at the urging of an offended Rio Jewish group.

The miffed school is now modifying its display to one enshrining "freedom of expression."

Wow. Just...wow. The worst part is, they thought they thought it made sense as a touching tribute.

Do the Thriller!

2008-02-02T09:01:00.000-08:00

Just in case you find yourself locked up in a Filipino prison sometime in the near future....

"Remember to keep your limbs kinda weak, 'cuz you're a zombie!"

News of the World

2008-01-29T16:32:00.000-08:00

This past weekend I did something I hadn't done in a long time -- I bought a newspaper. Aside from the occasional super-hour CBC news, I almost exclusively get my news from various sources on the Internet (Mainly the Star, the Beeb, and Yahoo News.) But I bought the Globe & Mail on a whim. I've been trying to learn more about financial stuff, so I was curious to see what their ROB section would say on last week's economic near-meltdown. But of course I leafed through the rest of the paper as well. And? Well, it was just as boring a paper as I remember.

It seems to me whenever I pick up the Globe that the articles I like the most are wire stories, usually from my all-time favourite newspaper, the Guardian. (Pretty much ANY British newspaper is better written than any of its North American counterparts. There's a cheekiness to their stuff that just makes the writing so much more alive. But that's another blog entry.) The Saturday Globe consisted of a bunch of fluffy lifestyle sections, anchored by some dry reporting and its usual clique of columnists: Blatchford, Wente,* Murphy and, of course, MacLaren. I honestly can say have no interest in what any of those columnists have to say about the state of the country or anything else. They're played the role of the insular critic and professional reporter for so long that they're completely out of touch with anything resembling real life. Or at least anything that I consider to be real life. Of course, maybe if I start pulling down four-figure salaries I'll change my mind... (God, I'm starting to sound like a Westerner! Well, I can see their point about navel-gazing Toronto media elite and I live in Toronto. But I'm not trying to turn this into an Us versus Them argument. I simply want to explain why I'm so unenthused.)

It's a lot like the Gay Talese interview I linked below where he complains that the Washington press corps are so far up the asses of the people that they're supposed to report on that they're completely ineffectual and useless. I just feel that nobody in the Canadian media really cares about anything. It's just a job. And that's why I prefer to get my news and opinions from the Internet and assorted bloggers in particular. People who write because they feel strongly about a subject, not because they've got to fill column inches every day. People who are passionate about, say, films because they enjoy them. Compare this to a billboard I saw recently for the Toronto Star's film critic, Peter Howell which had a quote from him that read: "If Hollywood ever had an original idea, it would die of loneliness." (See it here.) To which I thought to myself, if you hate Hollywood so much, why are you writing about movies for a living? It's like joining the Navy when you hate the water.

We should have a term for journalists, just like the Americans do for the president. Eight years, and then get out. Otherwise you're too jaded. There are a lot of important issues out there today, and the media should be engaging the public. But it's so hard to do that when you can find an amateur blogger who writes more eloquently on the state of the economy, terrorism or environment than the professionals. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this way?

*Actually, I don't think Wente was in Saturday's edition. So sorry, Ms. Wente, if you had a fantastic piece in Monday's paper that would've changed my mind.

Gay Talese interview

2008-01-27T18:43:00.000-08:00

Here is a fascinating interview (well, more of a conversation really) with writer Gay Talese. At 75, he's sharper than ever, with some real incisive thoughts on the state of journalism, America's youth and the war in Iraq:

"Those who don't have to serve, or choose not to, can say that it's not their war. But it's an economic war; it's a sad commentary on who has to serve, because it is mercenary. They are economic mercenaries. They are economically deprived people, without opportunities, and they seek this opportunity and they never imagine how ill-chosen was their choice when they are missing a leg, or witnessing the horror. It's been close to five years, and still no protests? You don't find the students at Columbia protesting? They can protest the President of Iran! They're good at that, but they are no good at protesting what is going on in to their generation that couldn't afford to get into Columbia, or any place. It's so unfair, and so un-protested after so many years...it's been close to five years!"

There are some typos and whatnot in the article, but a good read nonetheless.

The trouble with Mary Jane

2008-01-18T17:05:00.000-08:00

Although I personally love the Spider-marriage and I don't like Marvel's "uh-oh, it's magic" method of undoing it with One More Day/Brand New Day, I can understand some of Joe Quesada's logic. Marrying Peter off does take him away from his "loveable loser" persona. But for me it's not the marriage itself that's the problem; it's Mary Jane's choice of career and the way the writers chose to expand upon on it following the marriage.

I grew up reading Spider-Man in the late '80s and early '90s where the marriage was in full swing. I didn't have a problem with the relationship but even as a kid I found the fact that Mary Jane's "career" was model pretty pathetic. Sure model/actress is a career a lot of young women aspire to. But how many actually achieve success in that field? Not a heck of a lot. But it seemed like the writers couldn't let the concept of Mary Jane as a professional model go. No, she even went on to become a supermodel and an actress. The upside of this was that the artists got a chance to draw MJ in various states of scantily-clad clothing and sultry poses. But it backed the characters of Peter and MJ into a corner, thematically. Peter basically became a kept man, and one who was pretty whiny about it too.

It bothered me that while Mary Jane is a great, free-spirited character, I never really knew much else about her. She likes fashion! She likes to party! She loves Peter! Ummm, anything else? With all the talk of Peter having to grow up because of his marriage to Mary Jane, I wonder: did her character have much growth? A quick perusal of her Wikipedia entry tells me she went to college to study psychology (uh, what?) but eventually went back to acting.* Wouldn't it have been more interesting to see her fail as a model and actress and have to reevaluate her life and career goals, much like Peter has to do every couple of story cycles? I know following that line of exploration opens up a risk of making her too much like Peter, but that doesn't mean MJ has to react the same way Peter would when faced with obstacles. In fact, she'd be quite different. But they'd still have to support each other and that would make for good stories.

Just think about it… Shouldn't Peter Parker be married to someone with an ordinary job instead of a glamorous fantasy job? I'm not saying MJ has to become some dowdy wallflower. That's obviously not part of her character. There are lots of gorgeous, sexy women working regular jobs in our real world. Why can't MJ be one in the Marvel Universe? I guess it won't happen anytime soon since, judging from Jackpot's comments in BND, MJ is still a model in the new status quo. But it's something to think about for the future, surely?

* My Spider-knowledge is by no means encyclopedic! So I apologize if there was a story arch about MJ's childhood desire to become an astronaut or something.

My Improbable Dream Jobs - Part 1: Master of Disguise

2007-12-19T18:12:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I have the occasional existential crisis over my career path, and where my life is headed. I recently picked up a career-advice book from the library and one of the exercises it recommended is to make a list of your ultimate dream careers. Trouble is, my dream careers are even more wildly improbable than the average person. Here the first in an ongoing series of my Incredibly Improbably Dream Jobs.

Master of Disguise
A staple of spy fiction, every secret government organization needs a Master of Disguise to help infiltrate the enemy, create distractions and gather information. Think Artemus Gordon from Wild Wild West or Rollin Hand and the Great Paris from Mission Impossible. The appeal of this job for me is obvious -- travel to exotic locations, meet rich and exciting people and then pretend to be one of them!

"Isn't that dangerous?" you ask. "Not to mention incredibly difficult?" Well, yes and no. Sure there's the chance you'll accidentally blow your cover and have to fight your way out of a sticky spot. But from what I've seen on TV it's not that hard to fool people, even if you're impersonating another person. Heck, even the relatives of the person you are imitating don't think to ask why you're acting out of character. It just takes some hair-dye and a lot of chutzpah!

Master of Disguise is one of those careers that turns off a lot of people because they think it's complicated. But in reality it's pretty easy, much like being president of the United States or a Texas oil baron. For starters, you don't need to be a master of every disguise. If you can master these three staple disguises you're set:

1) Old person -- The easiest of the lot. Add some grey hair, thick glasses, wrinkles and affect a limp. Throw in a creaky voice and Bb's yer uncle. ou will have to choose between being a Grumpy Old Person or Insanely Happy Old Person but that's usually decided on a mission-to-mission basis. Check with your squadron leader.

2) Obnoxious foreigner/Southerner -- Nothing throws off your marks like a crazy dude from another country! They'll be too polite and confused to question your authenticity. After all, no one wants to look like an insensitive dolt to other cultures. If you claim to be a rich sheikh from the Middle Eastern kingdom of Qantiptar who's going to question you? No one. They'll be too busy sucking up to you in the hopes you'll give them a huge tip. You'll obviously need some kind of funky hairdo and clothes to pull this off. It also helps to learn a few choice phrases from another language. But don't go overboard or anything. Sheesh.

3.) Stern Authoritarian -- This works best when you need to get information from somebody or get into a restricted area. Dress neatly and carry a clipboard with you. A posh British accent usually helps intimidate underlings as well. If someone questions your credentials huff and puff and namedrop a few impressive people, like their superior officer or the super villain running the place. Trust me on this one. If there's one thing I've learned watching TV and movies it's that those who work in maximum security facilities would rather let through someone of dubious credentials than spend two minutes checking your story.

So all in all, Master of Disguise seems like a pretty safe bet, huh? I'm not certain of the going rate of pay, but it's gotta be decent. And I'm sure you could get your employer to pay for your assortment of creams, wigs and costumes.

So what's stopping me from pursuing this job? Just why is it so improbable? Well, simple fact of the matter is it's a dying profession. Since the end of the Cold War it seems no spy agency wants to put the time and money into driving crimelords insane or tricking them into giving away their top-secret plans through elaborate clandestine operations. Their loss, I say! I do a really mean sea captain.

He's not just the Goddamn Batman...

2007-12-03T17:23:00.000-08:00

He's the Goddamn Hipster Batman. Dig the scarf, man. (From Batman #671. Pencils by Tony Daniels.)

Who Are the "Old" Brunettes?

2007-11-26T19:19:00.000-08:00

When I told my friend Peter the name of this blog, he immediately asked: "Who's the old brunette?" I quickly set him straight, pointing him to the Billy Bragg song, but he got me thinking. So here is a list of the brunettes I look up to.

Liz Taylor -- Accused by no less than the Vatican for "erotic vagrancy," Elizabeth Taylor is someone for whom I only have grown to respect over the years. She's often reduced in the media to a one-note joke: the vain, aging star who marries every other man she meets. (Although at least she's got a sense of humour about it.) But let's look at the facts: awesome actress, one of the most desirable women ever, AIDS advocate at a time when few people would even be in the same room as those infected, and last year the woman went swimming with sharks. Liz has always done whatever the hell she wants. Rock on.

Emma Peel/Diana Rigg -- Yes, after all these years, I'm still thinking Emma Peel is the coolest woman in fiction. Fashion icon? Check. Martial artist? Check. Scientific genius? Check. Artist? Check. So cool James Bond married her. Okay, not Emma but another character played by Diana Rigg. But you get the picture.

Myrna Loy -- One half of my favourite on-screen couple ever: Nick and Nora Charles from The Thin Man series. Or, heck, anytime she was paired with William Powell. Yes, my idea of the perfect relationship is to be a wealthy alcoholic socialite married to an equally soused detective. Is that too much to ask for?

Big Barda -- Ha! I bet you were expecting me to say "Wonder Woman," weren't you? Well, to be completely honest, I've never identified with Wonder Woman. For starters, she's not even a "woman" in the most basic sense of the word. According to her most recent origin, WW's mother Hippolyta did not give birth to her, but created her out of clay, which the gods then imbued with life. Umm, how's a girl supposed to identify with that? No, let's face it. The greatest comic-book brunette has to be Big Barda, created by Jack Kirby. Inspired by Kirby's wife Roz and a Playboy centerfold of Lainie Kazan, Big Barda is a fierce warrior woman from the planet Apokolips. She is inspired to join the side of good after meeting the love of her life, Scott Free, aka Mister Miracle. Barda is super-strong, super-tough and wields the *ahem* Mega-Rod. In other words: Pure Awesome. Alas, DC has recently killed off Barda in the recent "Death of the New Gods" mini-series. Par for the course, I'm afraid. DC had already killed off (oh, and retroactively raped!) another one of my favourite brunettes, Sue Dibny, for its Identity Crisis series. I'm not reading another DC comic until they bring them both back. (In other words, not for another two months.)

Bea Arthur -- And then there's Maude! She's still got it. Check this out:

Here we go again...

2007-11-24T14:58:00.000-08:00

Another foray into the blogging world. This is basically a way for me to start writing on a regular basis again. Writing is like a muscle and if I can work a little here and there hopefully I can get back into fighting shape again.

I expect I'll start out with the usual: links to things that make me laugh, think or angry, accompanied by some snarky comments. Hopefully I'll move on to longer pieces as I get my head together.

As my inaugural post I was going to post the video of the song which inspired this blog's name ("Greetings to the New Brunette" by Billy Bragg, in case you didn't know!) but I found the video rather dull. Instead, I present to you a fellow playing an instrumental version of the song. Johnny Marr's guitar on the original recording is what really sells the song to me so I'm glad to see it getting some recognition. Check out this version. It's absolutely beautiful.