Dark Market

I saw “Dark Knight” over the weekend. It was pretty good. I still think the movie Batman costume with the fake muscles is idiotic and ugly to boot — and, indeed, the movie’s design as a whole is pretty unmemorable. But the effects for the Joker and Two-Face were very nicely done — and Heath Ledger is great. The plotting is also very good; conistently suspenseful and clever. I’m on the fence about the movie’s message. The intimations of the war on terror, spying and torture as criminal justice measures, the limits of democracy, appeals to fundamental decency — it’s all clever enough, but seemed a little facile. The basic super-hero morality of good vs. evil is never challenged in any fundamental way (as it is in Watchmen, say, or even Dark Knight to some extent). As a result, the political/moral pronouncements, such as they are, seem there more for their exploitable emotional rush than for any actual desire to think things through. But what the hey — as a summer blockbuster action extravaganza goes, it’s pretty darn good.

Maybe the most interesting thing for me, though, was what was in the previews — or what wasn’t. Specifically, there were lots of ads for Coca Cola and for action adventure movies (I’m looking forward to the new James Bond, even if the title, “Quantum of Solace”, seems to have been designed by picking random words out of a dictionary.) But there were not advertisements for comics. Indeed, unless I blinked and missed it, I don’t believe the movie acknowledges it’s most immediate comic-book inspirations in the credits (Batman: Year One and The Long Halloween are the stories the director tends to cite, I think.)

This isn’t suprising, of course — despite the huge success of super-hero movies, there’s rarely much effort to redirect audiences from the big screen to the four-color source material. You’d think as a condition of licensing, the companies might try to get a 15 second preview spot, mentioning the relevant titles (maybe they could even get the stars or directors to issue an endorsement — seems like the least they could do for the creators they’re ripping off.) Or they could try independent ad campaigns; even, say, bookstore displays might have a big result. Why not put Heath Ledger’s Joker atop a table with a bunch of Batman graphic novels? As it happens, I was just in Borders, and they did have the Long Halloween and Year One displayed prominently — but there was no material to let civilians know that these books were the inspiration for the movie. I can’t help but believe that, if you told people it was a movie tie-in, they’d be more inclined to buy it. At the very least, you could spring for a new cover — special movie edition releases of the relevant books. How hard would that be?

Comic-book marketing, in other words, is almost entirely insular; it’s all directed at folks who are comics-nerds already. There’s no effort to invest in creating a larger audience. As a result, comic-book characters like Batman and Spider-Man or even Iron Man sell gazillions of tickets to all sorts of people, and yet this popularity has virtually no effect on the comics industry, which continues to trundle on, soliciting the dollars of the same shrinking pool of aging man-boys. The big two more and more look like vestigial appendages to their own properties. How long, I wonder, until these companies cease to publish comics altogether, and just become holding companies for licensed characters?

Dugald Stewart Walker

The illustrations below are by early twentieth century illustrator Dugald Stewart Walker. Though they were drawn to illustrate Hans Christian Anderson fairy tales, for each of the pictures below Walker wrote his own additional text/gloss. These short short stories are included below the pictures.


Fairy children are never bad until their second teeth come; and no one knows they are bad then except their mother. She thinks it very pretty, but of course she pretends she doesn’t. if she had a corner she would stand them in it, but as she hasn’t, she takes her naughty child’s chin in her hand, very gently, and she says: “Child, you have lost your nose. Go look for it at once. And if you don’t stick you finger in the hole where your nose used to be, before you find it, you will find a pot of gold at the same time.” Now fairies, you know, never think; for if they did they would see they could not use a pot of gold if they found one. So before they stop to think, off sails each naughty fairy up into the air to look for its nose with its hands for oars, so that it can’t stick its fingers into the hole where its nose used to be. And fanning its wings, it sails straight up into the air, and on still wings drifts down again — and up and down again it sails, looking all over the sky for its nose, which is another proof that it doesn’t think, for what, pray, should its nose be doing there? Until by and by it forgets all about the pot of gold and forgets it is using its hands for oars. And then! Well, of course, you know what it does at once. Just what you did with your tongue when you lost your tooth.


The merchant’s son told the king’s daughter about the storks which bring little children up out of the river. But, of course, they weren’t in the river in the first place. They come from away up behind the stars, where the Spring comes from. And up theres, sits One (I can’t remember much about her, only that she made me think of a dewdrop — not such a dewdrop as you and I can see, but a dewdrop if it were as large as the whole world) and all the children are in her lap. And each one has a little harness made of ribbon. And there are faun babies, and fairy babies, and human babies. The faun’s harness is purple like grapes, and the fairies’ is silver like bubbles in moonlight, and the human babies’ is just pink and blue; and that’s how the stork knows which is which. Now, the storks fly up there (it’s wonderful, the distance storks can fly) and each one takes a baby in his beak by the loop at the top of the harness. And down he starts, and all the way down the baby practices kicking. But before they start, the One who is like a dewdrop would be if it were as large as the whole world, gives to each baby a dandelion. And she says, “When you reach the lowest circle of stars this dandelion will have gone to seed. Then you must blow on it and see what time you will be born.” So when they come to the lowest circle of stars, puff! puff! blow all the babies on the dandelions which have gone to seed, to see when they will be born. But the down of the dandelion sometimes gets into the storks eyes, and as they haven’t any memory to speak of, they make sad mistakes in the places they leave the babies. Sometimes fairies are left with human beings, and sometimes even fauns — though of that I am not quite sure.


Mathew, Mark, Luke and John,
Bless the bed that I lie on.

There was a bed with four posts and a boy named Robin slept in it. Long ago he grew too big to sleep in that bed. And since the new bed he slept in had no posts, he thought there were no saints. But some kind of saints one must have, of course. And one day he saw a glass bowl with four goldfish and he took it home and put it by his new bed, and he called the goldfish Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But he did not think that he was calling them after the saints, only after the four posts he was used to in his old bed. One Spring day this grown up boy’s four goldfish died. Many years afterward, as I sat and painted the picture of the angel who came to take little Karen to heaven — the angel who touched the air with a green branch and filled it everywhere with stars — this Robin said to me: “Oh, little Karen’s bed is like my old one with the four posts, Matthew, Mark, Lukd and John. Have your angel put a gold halo around each post in memory of my four fish.


For he that has his own world,
Has many worlds more.

A boy called Robin once upon a time asked me to tell him all I knew of the fairies and I told him all I had learned from them. Then he asked: “How did the angel of the flower in this picture get the lovely blue spots that are on his legs and wings?” I showed him a cornflower growing out of a zigzag crack in a garden path that was spotted with sunshine as it came sifting through the branches of a cedar tree. In the tree many birds slept at night. One night six seeds of a cornflower were dropped by a goldfinch out of this tree as he was eating them. The fairy was sleeping under the cedar tree and they fell upon his wings and legs. Just then his mother came along and saw them. Admiring the effect, she whipped out her needle and thread and sewed them on at once so that he might wear them all the time.


On the river that flows by the little thatched house the fairies have water-lilies growing under the branches of the cherry trees that hang out over the water. The lily-pads catch the cherries that would otherwise fall and be lost. For cherries are the most delightful food for fairies, and all other irresponsible creatures. When those fairies that are transparent have eaten cherries, their stomachs get red outside as well as in. Then they tilt their noses higher than it is safe for human beings to tilt theirs, because they have weights in their heels. When they have stuffed themselves as round as marbles, they say, “Cherries are good for the wholesome.” No one but a fairy knows where this organ is located, and I fancy they only pretend they have on, to excuse their greediness.


Fairies say: “to play that you are doing something is as nice as doing it. They have a play called L’Envoi, that is quite the nices of all plays, that is, if you are a fairy. One has a flower whose blooms hand from the stalk like little bells, the others follow in a line that flutters from onse side to the other. The leader holds her flower high and calls, “L’Envoi! L’Envoi! L’Envoi!” And whichever side she dips the little bells in, the fairies march in that direction. After they have marched several inches, they lie down and quickly jump up again. Then the leader goes to the end of the line, and the next one becomes leader, then the third, then the fourth, and so on until each fairy has been the leader once. It sounds very stupid, but if you are a fairy, it is the most delightful play int he whole world. If only human beings weren’t so dignified, there are many delightful things they could learn from the fairies. L’Envoi. L’Envoi!


This is a picture of a father stork hastening to tell Mrs. Stork the upsetting scandal. Look closely and you will see fairies sleeping on the waterlily-pads. They never sleep except when they have danced their hands hot — which is very seldom. Then, with a little wince, they stick their hands under a frog’s stomach to keep them cool, just as on cold winter nights we stick our hands under the pillows to keep them warm.


The dragon who posed for this picture had no name; the wiggly thing that grows on his back from his head to his tail is his comb. It wiggled so while he was posing that the fairies discovered that it would make a delightful doormat. If one stood on it only for a second it wiggled all the mud off his feet and so they game him a name. It was Diplo-door-mat. He rather like this name, for all his life he had been called just Dragon, which made him feel as though he were in the insurance business and sat on a high stool and wrote in a big book all day.


Instead of second teeth the birds get second feathers, and because they are friends with the fairies they can feather oftener than we can get new teeth. When the feathering time comes the birds have no grown-ups to tie strings to their feathers and pull them out, as they do our teeth, so the fairies pull those that are stubborn and will not fall out. Here stands a gay and debonair creature who pulled the stubborn feathers from the peacock’s tail. He left one feather which forms a magic circle. This is a wish of good fortune from the fairies to you. This creature is not conceited, though he looks so. He belongs to the tribe of fairies who eat worms and has just eaten two. That is what gives his stomach its arrogant tilt, and it is in utter defiance of no one at all that he says airily: “The book is finished. I don’t care; I’ll do another!”

I’ve also scanned a handful of other Walker pictures from the same volume. No text for these — just the art.

If you’d like to know more about Walker, I’ve written a short bio of him for Wikipedia You can see a bit more of his art at the site that introduced him to me.

If there’s a lot of interest, I could maybe scan some more Walker illustrations — and I’ve got some great Arthur Rackham silhouette drawings I was thinking of uploading as well. What do you all think? More golden age illustration? Or should I just stick to the cranky criticism?

The Blogosphere Talks to Me

I found a kind of interesting thread about my Women in prison essay which I thought I might respond to here in part. A commenter named xod says:

I found it interesting that Berlatsky refers to camp rather frequently but always without acknowledging its potential. Even in his response to the comments of Jack Hill – who, in his philosophical aside, criticizes western dualism – Berlatsky remains strictly binary, perhaps necessarily, given a second-wave feminist analysis.

I’m not positive, but I think the point xod is making is that I (like second-wave feminists) believe in gender as a coherent and/or useful concept; I’m not using camp to empty gender out or to show that it’s constructed or contradictory or oppressive. And that’s basically correct; I’m definitely not a proponent of the Judith Butler, throw-away-your-gender-and-frolic-freely school. I think gender matters, and I think camp tends to be about gender, not opposed to it. In any case, (like E.M. Cioran and Slavoj Zizek) I tend to like the binary agonies of Western philosophy…. So, yeah, as those dudes put it in Say Anything, “We’re binary by choice.” Or something like that.

The other comment is by Ambrosia Voyeur, and is a little harder for me to figure. She (or possibly he) says:

Great essay, but he lost my faith a bit with this paragraph:

So I like the latter Marie because I read feminist theory and am generally a sensitive new age guy. But I also like her because I’m just a guy. Marie at the beginning of the film is too good, too obviously focused on her husband, her baby, and her own plight, to be a satisfactory object of desire — she’s beautiful, but inaccessible. By the end, though, she’s come down off her pedestal, and so can be an object not of romantic love, but of lust. Which is to say that men like to see women corrupted; loss of virtue makes women sexier.

I would prefer he simply confer visibility and look-worthiness on the non-virtuous, cinema’s central moralistic principle, and build from there. The 1:1 relationship of debauchery and sexuality is familiar, but unfounded by his argument, and this reads a little like a leap directly to “well, men are like this and I would know lol. There’s something this essay could bear to repeat about male viewership’s dependence on generic and presentational cues for the development of arousal, and what those are, as evidenced by the reception of Marie throughout her transition.

The issue of availability to bear the look as object is, IRL, denied by society’s removal of women from the public sphere into either domesticity or prison. Pulling back that curtain and creating a fabulous voyeuristic erotic imaginary is what these films do. Therefore It’s worth pondering why there aren’t more desperate housewife gilt-cage straight-up exploitation films. Damn would I love to see some X rated Sirk.

I have to admit I don’t entirely follow this. She’s saying I guess that I should interpret Marie’s transformation as simply look-worthy; the non-virtuous are worth looking at, but not necessarily sexy. (She also dislikes my appeal to my own desire — fair enough, I guess, though I think it’s a bit disingenuous to pretend, as is done in a lot of academic prose, that one is some sort of disembodied acultural cipher; of course one’s cultural position and gender affect how one sees films, and it seems silly not to acknowledge/access that knowledge. But I digress….) To me the link between debauchery and sexuality seems fairly straightforward; debauchery is generally defined in terms of sexuality, isn’t it? And I think I did get at, at least to some extent, the way that genre and presentational cues are involved in male arousal. My argument is that butchness at the time was a presentational cue which signaled sexual availability, and that that has everything to do with how Marie is perceived, and with what happens to her.

The second paragraph is really thought-provoking, though. Again, I do talk in the essay (especially at the beginning and end) about the erotic importance of female-only space; the idea that part of what is exciting about female-female relationships is male exclusion, and part of what these movies offer is the chance to both experience that exclusion and at the same time to be a voyeuristic witness. I probably could have emphasized that somewhat more in the article (though, for reasons I discuss at length, I don’t think these movies are just about voyeurism). I like the way Ambrosia links this fetishized female space both to domesticity and to prison; that’s a very nice move. I think I would suggest that there are few purely domestic exploitation films because by the time exploitation took off in the 70s, domesticity as an ideal had been pretty thoroughly undermined as an ideology, especially among those likely to watch these films (young people who like porn, basically.)

Coincidentally, I just read the Stepford Wives, which is a kind of domestic exploitation, and…it seems really dated. Basically, the men want to turn their wives into robot housekeepers. To me, that just seems really…boring. Why would you want a wife who was obsessed with cleaning the house? For one thing, how could you afford to lose her income? I think it just doesn’t really jibe with the way women are
exploited today at all (on the most basic level, they are forced into the workforce (welfare to work!) rather than out of it.) The women-in-prison movies, which are much more focused on controlling women sexually, forcing them to work, exploiting feminism rather than negating it, etc., seem a lot more relevant to me.

Jack Hill Talks to Me

Director Jack Hill wrote a long and thoughtful response to both my women in prison article and to some of my other reviews of his work (including discussions of Mondo Keyhole; Pit Stop and Swinging Cheerleaders;Spider Baby and Switchblade Sisters;Coffy and Foxy Brown

Anyway, the full email is below (cross-posted at the Bright Lights blog)

Your review is, as usual, very astute and incisive. Only, re The Big Doll House, I don’t want to take credit — or blame, depending on your point of view — for ideas that were not mine. Actually, Stephanie Rothman developed the script with Don Spencer, a writer of her choice. Stephanie wanted to direct the picture herself, and she and her husband Charles Swartz tried their best to get me off the picture. Fortunately for me, Roger Corman had previously engaged my services on the project and was bound by that agreement. I was then handed the script and instructed to go to the Philippines to shoot it. I personally thought the script was a mess, and immediately set about rewriting it, and the rewriting continued throughout the production. To this day I can’t separate out everything that I contributed from the elements that were given to me, some of which, frankly, I couldn’t find better alternatives for and felt that I was just stuck with. The only things I do want to take unequivocal credit for on the record are Bobby [Roberta] Collins’ lines, “Get it up or I’ll cut it off,” which invariably brought down the house; and “Hah! Now I’m in my own natural element,” when she falls into the mud, which, strangely, didn’t even get many laughs. And then, a lot of Sid Haig’s business, of course.

Re The Big Bird Cage: I had carte blanche on just about everything and therefore have no one else to blame for whatever didn’t work. The film was criticized for being homophobic, yet had its longest run in a theater in a gay neighborhood in Hollywood.

Re The Swinging Cheerleaders: I had the very valuable creative help of my producer partner John Prizer and the very talented writer David Kidd — the two being at opposite ends of the political spectrum. No, I didn’t intend the film to be conservative; on the contrary, I wanted to make fun of both ends of the spectrum — but, I admit, especially the imbecile left. FWIW, when the football player beats up the hippy, audiences in Texas invariably cheered — although probably not for the same reasons that I enjoyed the scene.

Re Mondo Keyhole: Needless to say, I was quite restricted in content by the guy who was putting up the money, but also did some dumb things — as well as some things that I still think were pretty clever — by choice. But somehow, the film has acquired a cult following on home video, so I no longer feel the need to disavow it.

BTW, I was very much into Deleuze myself at one time, although not the specific works that you reference, to my best recollection. I found Heidegger much more rewarding on the subject of Nietzsche, for example, although I must say Nietzsche and his ilk never interested me much; once you’ve been exposed to the writings of the ancient sages of Kashmir, all that 19th-century western crap seems rather puerile and vapid, frankly — except perhaps for the late Schelling, IMHO. But then, Schelling’s brothers-in-law were sanskritists and so I presume that Schelling himself had access at least to the basics of the true philosophy, and I find indications of that in his work.

Re: Switchblade Sisters: About the rape scene: It was patterned specifically on a similar situation and actual scene in The Fountainhead (both book and movie), which as I’m sure you know was written by a rabid radical conservative woman (as a kind of personal in-joke). I rest my case.

After reading this I was thinking a little about the homosexuality and homophobia in Big Bird Cage. The movie is obviously making fun of gay people — the camp (ahem) guards are all very unattractive and ridiculous; gayness is quite clearly emasculating. At the same time, though (and as I argue in my women in prison article) Bird Cage is very invested in emasculation; a lot of its erotic/emotional charge comes from systematically emasculating its viewers. So it both ridicules gayness, and encourages its male viewers to masochistically enjoy the position of being emasculated (and therefore, in the movie’s economy, gay) men.

I think it’s also important that the film isn’t built around the homosexual/heterosexual binary which Eve Sedgwick talks about as being essential for homosexual panic and the resulting violence. The movie isn’t built, in other words, around heterosexual terror of becoming gay; on the contrary, Sid Haig, the heterosexual hero, spends much of the movie pretending to be queer, and seems (relatively) unfreaked out about it (there’s a hint that the violences he commits against the other guards has something to do with the fact that they hit on him, but considering the explicitness of the gay innuendo, the resulting homosexual panic is extremely muted.) In fact, instead of heterosexual/homosexual, the binary the movie works off for the most part is homosexual male/heterosexual female. That’s a binary that is at the root of a lot of camp gay culture in the first place, so you can see why it would appeal to that demographic. Moreover,in the film the most over-the-top act of violence committed against a gay man is being raped by women — a danger that, in practical terms, is just a lot, lot, lot less credible than gay-bashing at the hands of heterosexual men.

Or to put it another way…The Big Bird Cage is both homophobic and fairly enthusiastic about gender fuckery. The second doesn’t necessarily negate the first, but it does take some of the edge off it. Anyway, I can readily see why a gay audience in the early 1970s would, given the other options available, see this as (A) not especially threatening and (B) a hoot.

Oh, and did I mention that Hill’s email made my year? It kind of made my year.

Movie Reviews

I have a long, long, long article about Women-In-Prison films which should be up shortly at Bright Lights Film Journal. So, in hopes that some folks might be clicking over from there in the near future, I thought I’d post a list of links to my writing about movies…mostly on this site, but a few from other places. Here we go:

Fecund Horror (The Thing, Shivers, Body Snatchers, and more)

Grindhouse

Women in Cages and Terminal Island

Mondo Keyhole

Pit Stop and Swinging Cheerleaders

Caged Heat and The Big Doll House

Spider Baby and Switchblade Sisters

Black Mama, White Mama

Coffy and Foxy Brown

Two Sisters

Omega Man

Halloween and Ringu

Prince of Darkness

Vampyr

Catwoman

Wurdulak

Re-Animator

Kill Bill 2

Parasyte

This review appeared in The Comics Journal a while back.

Paranoid splatter horror has to be one of my favorite sub-genres. In movies like Romero’s “Night of the Living Dead,” or Cronenberg’s “Shivers,” a loathing of the human body serves as a not-very-suppressed synecdoche for a general loathing of humanity. People transform into monsters, devouring each other in an orgy of bloodlust, betrayal, and Freudian wet meat. The apocalypse is us.

Hitosi Iwaaki’s •Parasyte* does the tradition proud. Monstrous, slimy, ravenous, shape-changing critters of ambiguous origin are eating our brains, manipulating our bodies, and then messily dining on our friends and family. This hyperbolic plot is put across with a pulp intelligence that rivals Alan Moore’s — once Iwaaki gets the basic premise down, he starts to push it, prod it, see where it will go. What happens when a parasyte accidentally inhabits a dog? What happens when two parasytes decide to use their human bodies to mate? Can parasytes transfer from human to human? Why do they want to eat people, anyway? The answers are uniformly smart and surprising — they pull you into the work rather than making you close the book in disgust, as super-hero plot twists tend to do.

It doesn’t hurt that Iwaaki has an absolutely masterful visual style. Iwaaki’s art is, by manga standards, realistic, non-cartoony, and unembellished. His bodies and faces look like mundane, boring bodies and faces — so when he starts to twist them, the result is viscerally unnerving. One of the earliest sequences in the book is a tour de force. A newly embedded parasyte checks itself out in the mirror, twisting its host’s face in subtly disturbing ways. The creature then turns to its host’s wife, and, over the course of three panels, its face cracks open revealing a star-fish like interior of floating eyeballs and razor-sharp teeth. It then closes, completely severing the woman’s head, leaving the neck a ragged and bloody stump. The parasyte’s skull as it clamps down is distended to the size and shape of a watermelon, its ear and hair stretched out to comical extremes. What makes the scene though, is the creature’s hand, which is entirely normal — the fingers grasp the wife’s shoulder naturally, as if holding her still for a moment to speak to her.

Iwaaki’s tale doesn’t have the millenarian adrenalin rush of its filmic peers. Instead, his story unfolds at a leisurely pace — intense violence alternating with sequences devoted to characterization and reflection. The hero of the story is Shinichi, a young high school student whose right hand has been taken over by a parasyte he calls Migi (“right-hand” in Japan.) Migi is a kind of shape-shifting, homicidal Mr. Spock; an emotionless blob of eyeballs and razor-sharp blades devoted to self-preservation and self-improvement through reading, more or less in that order. At first, Shinichi is a fairly standard-issue Japanese schoolboy protagonist — if he has any distinguishing features, I missed them. But the transformation of his hand, and the existence of other parasytes, prods him to ask some fundamental questions about himself. The (partial) loss of his own humanity makes him try to be more human by being braver, kinder, more empathetic. And yet the people around him are hardly more likable or friendly than the thing on his arm. Indeed, in many ways, Migi (who is smart, unvindictive, and weirdly thoughtful) is a much more human character than, say, Shinichi’s dad, who is a bland emotional cipher.

For those who read the old Tokyopop edition, this new Del Ray version offers a new, more careful translation. It also presents the artwork with original sound-effect and in right-to-left order — thus solving several plot burps caused when the flipped art put the parasyte on Shinichi’s left hand. Del Ray also gives you more bang for your buck, reprinting about the first volume and a half of the Tokyopop series in a single book. In whatever format, though, this is a stellar series. Every volume is worth buying.