RoR: Forum

Spirit guide: Frank Miller adapts Will Eisner's cult comic

Post 1

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - 7:23am

Well, Eva Mendes certainly has a new fan in me.

Post 2

Friday, December 26, 2008 - 10:09am

I saw "The Spirit" and was disappointed in it as a film.

Alternatively, "300" (also by Frank Miller) is one of my favorite films. I haven't seen "Sin City" yet, but it may help me gain perspective. You see, compared to 300, Spirit seemed horrible. It's like Frank Miller was a genius who crossed the line into insanity (like the cliche`). Compared to 300, Spirit has a hampered or mitigated plot and increased or skyrocketed "altered-state" visual effects.

What I mean to say is that as a well-told story, 300 was entertaining on all levels (sensational, theoretical, etc.). Spirit was barely entertaining even on one level. Let me use a metaphor: Watching Spirit after watching 300 was like taking a walk through a post-modern museum of art after a walk around the Acropolis of Athens.

In 1997, I walked around the Acropolis of Athens (the birthplace of Reason). No post-modern "shit-on-a-stick" art approaches that experience -- even the most visually-stimulating post-modern art.

I would be interested in getting feedback from others, in order to determine the level of reasonableness of my wholesale disappointment with Spirit as a film. Spirit isn't "shit-on-a-stick" but, compared to 300, I found it extremely wanting.

Ed

Post 3

Friday, December 26, 2008 - 10:48am

Ye ever see the comics it is based on - Eisner's creation?

Post 4

Friday, December 26, 2008 - 3:02pm

Rev',

I have a vague memory of The Spirit as a comic. The beginning and end of the film are philosophical (the Spirit is narrating). The Spirit gets his life force from the city, and protects the city as his wellspring of value. I like that. It's like Objectivism -- respecting technology and law and all other things that make human life on Earth better.

But besides this vague memory of a vigilante protecting a city which enriches his life -- I don't remember any specific comic issue.

Ed

Post 5

Friday, December 26, 2008 - 5:09pm

http://www.willeisner.com/spirit/index.html

Post 6

Friday, December 26, 2008 - 6:23pm

Basically the whole concept is a cop who gets into an accident and is presumed dead but after he manages to survive he works as a vigilante very closely with the cops. The main things the series was known for was the creation of the splash page (a single page which opens and sets up the whole story) and about every other major visual narrative technique that any comic artist would ever go on to use. The style of the series was very experimental and ran the gamut from dramatic to whimsical.

---Landon

Post 7

Friday, December 26, 2008 - 7:07pm

Landon,

Those details were conveyed in the film, too -- only, instead of a "splash page", the whole movie is splashed together. In between the visual splashing of color resembling the pscyhodelic '60s, there isn't any real development of characters or of some kind of an unfolding plot.

It's like the screenwriter just splashed some coy phrases together, and the cinematographer just splashed some cool colors on the screen at the appropriate times-- just like in Batman when the "Kerpow!" splashes on the screen as Adam West punches the villain. As a film, it doesn't seem to be any more intelligent than that.

Did I mention I was disappointed with this film?

:-)

Ed

Post 8

Friday, December 26, 2008 - 10:18pm

Ed,

Saw it myself today. Your comments are kind.

Advertising for this emphasized its 'artistic' connection to 300 and Sin City, both of which I liked. The graphics were (especially now) unimaginative - poor copy of the merging of real and unreal caught your attention in the other films. The dialog was so poor as to be embarrassing, and the plot barely an afterthought.

I hope for Samuel L. Jackson that they paid him very well. It may be a while before his next gig.

I didn't really expect much from this film... and I was disappointed too.

jt

Post 9

Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 12:35am

There's a part they don't mention in the advertising. Frank Miller didn't CREATE the Spirit. Hell I don't even think he did a Spirit story before this (I think he did one panel of a Spirit "Jam Book"). He's basically just a really talented fanboy making a movie of his favorite character.

But the biggest problem with the character is that there's not really 1 signature Spirit story. The series was marked for wild experimentation which doesn't lend itself to a MOVIE. There are a dozen Spiderman ones, about half as many Fantastic 4 ones, hundreds of Batman ones, 10 or 12 REALLY good Superman stories (most GREAT Superman stories are either elseworlds types, end of the world, or retelling of the origin).

All things considered as much as I love both Miller and Eisner, I'm really wishing that Miller would've gotten clearance for a Phillip Marlowe story as his first solo film other than this. I'm still going to see it but, if what you're all saying is true (as well as Bob's deafening silence) I might not want to.

---Landon

Post 10

Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 11:04am

I saw The Spirit yesterday and was disappointed. Frank Miller is a masterful comics creator but not a very good film maker. I said this about Sin City and it applies to The Spirit, as well. What works on the comics page does not necessarily work on the movie screen. They are different mediums and what is effective in one often doesn't work in the other. The Spirit would have made an excellent graphic novel as portrayed on the screen but doesn't work as a movie.

My wish is that Miller would stick to the comics he does so well. But I doubt he will. There are some fringe benefits to working in film that aren't available in comics.
http://blog.ugo.com/images/uploads/frank_miller_002.jpg

Post 11

Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 12:55pm