Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Thematic BuddyRead with that gang we shouldn’t even be admitting to belonging to (but somehow proudly emblazon it wherever we go), the .

Criteria: An embarrassing amount of jugs on display

Yes, Miller had a real talent for drawing...


[Composition]


[it's almost balletic]

...even if he spent a remarkable amount of time focusing on the female nipple...














[I mean, seriously Frank. Porn wasn't *that* hard to acquire in the 80's...]

And no, I can't approve of the throwback-to-unapologetic-misogyny times.





For the most part this is less "great noir homage" (cf. Brubaker/Phillips) and more "cliche-ridden tripe" - he executes the basic maneuvers but lacks any finesse:





Given that Miller in Act One, bathes women in the Male Gaze and zealously populates the 'world' with distasteful caricatures of 'independent' women, it's hard to believe Miller sees women as a species as equal to men, or ever would put in the effort to portray them as such.

(Note: there's only one type of woman who's worth respect, the nurse:)


[spoiler: Miller's mother was a nurse]

I ask this question every once in a while, 'cause I'm genuinely curious: if a writer consistently and deeply takes on a slur/bigotry-ridden tone in their writing, is that just an ironic distance thing, or do they actually enjoy embodying and proliferating this kind of prejudice and hatred? Every writer has a blank canvas upon which to spatter their imagination - if they continue to choose a specific subject matter time after time, is that choice, compulsion or just random chance?

I ask the same thing of Garth Ennis, who 'liberally' garnishes his hilarious writing with homophobic slurs. It makes me pause when I keep coming across this kind of streak (and with Ennis, it's a lifelong thing). In his case, he's a good enough writer (see some of his less-exaggerated over the top works to get my meaning) that it makes me wonder whether he's being ironic/holding up a mirror to society, or if he's just a bigot and enjoys expressing it. Occam's Razor or artistic commentary?

Looking at the twisted wreck of a man that Miller became in later life (the later books like All-Star Batman and Robin, the Boy Wonder, Vol. 1 & Holy Terror, his ), and comparing it to the dark/fascist hints in his earlier works, it's hard for me not believe that the later man was always in Miller and just was amplified after 9/11 - set free to fully embrace his angry/fearful/under-empathetic personality.

IIRC, in later Sin City books, the best a woman can be is the gang of murderous prostitutes.

Marv on the other hand is Miller's libertarian ideal: the ubermensch, fighting against the forces of order and oppression, overcoming them all with the super-strength and iron resolve of a Man who knows he's right when all others say he's wrong.

Marv looks like just a twisted, flat copy of Batman - the Batman Miller wanted to write, the Batman he's finally fully realized years later in Holy Terror:






[Put a pointy cowl on the guy and give him a giant penny]

Are there people in the world like Marv? Or Goldie? Or the dirty cops, or prostitutes, or Angry unsanctioned racist not-batman? Of course. Welcome to a planet of 7 billion. I guess that makes Miller an historian, a sociologist, a cartographer of the disgusting wasteland of humanity.

Very egalitarian and progressive of you Professor Miller.

Is Miller notable in comics history? Of course. He's taken steps that dragged comics out of the technicolor 70's and into the dark 80's. We gained an art form that took on adult levels of anger, violence and sad disappointment.

Does he deserve a place on the current shelf of "best comics creators"? That's for each of us to decide. Not hard to see where I stand on the matter, but I'd be an ass to assume mine is the only opinion that matters.

At least the climactic confrontations were fun.



Four stars for some generally great art, minus two stars for a sad little tale from a sad little shell of a man, aspiring to become the more powerful, brave, righteous, merciless man that he drew.