Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • [ Background noise ]

  • >> Hello, hello.

  • So most people upon learning that I study graphic novels,

  • which is highfalutin term for comic books,

  • graphic novel is really just a comic book

  • that takes itself seriously.

  • Most people upon learning that, and maybe stifling some ridicule

  • or laughter, may not realize that comic books have grown up.

  • In comic books, it is my argument

  • that we have unique opportunities

  • for seeing the social, and by that, I mean the way

  • that comic books often depict a single figure

  • in proximate relationship to depictions of community.

  • But before we get to anything so romantic and abstruse

  • and grandiose as that, most people want

  • to know about the movies.

  • Hey, wasn't that one film, From Hell,

  • originally a graphic novel?

  • It was. Wasn't that one movie, A History of Violence,

  • originally [inaudible] yes, yes again, it was.

  • It turns out that are a lot of movies that take graphic novels

  • as their templates, and some of us who know comics

  • and graphic novels quite well are sometimes a bit disappointed

  • when we see that even those scenes in the films

  • that are the most poignant to see are taken directly

  • from the comic book on which they're based, leads us to ask,

  • why is it that so many films these days are based on comics?

  • I think one answer has to be

  • that comics provide incredible opportunities

  • for identification.

  • We heard a talk earlier that suggested

  • that the human brain is ideally trained to recognize mind

  • in faces, comic books love to give us the doll face,

  • and imbue the doll face with mind

  • because we don't just have images, we also have words,

  • and the words are usually accorded

  • to some kind of mind activity.

  • However, another reason is a practical one, the problems

  • that anyone might encounter

  • in telling a story pictorially have already been solved

  • in the graphic novel.

  • All right.

  • Let's start with iconic abstraction, this is a panel

  • from Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics,

  • which is primer that tries

  • to help us understand how comics make meaning,

  • why they are meaningful.

  • Scott McCloud suggests

  • that realistic depictions actually detract

  • from our ability to, to take meaning from comics,

  • that he'd be -- he, he wouldn't be as convincing an avatar

  • if he drew himself more realistically,

  • and that is because he's drawn himself like a cartoon

  • that we tend to give him authority.

  • This again, has to do with the way we love to see,

  • narcissistic-ally perhaps, faces in just about anything,

  • any sort of ordinary object.

  • The comic though, is there to suggest that it is

  • in the most cartoonified kind of face that we are able

  • to see a reflection of the face that we might have

  • in our mind's eye of ourselves, and that we are so good

  • at projecting the face onto the two dots and the line

  • because it is there that we find our mind's eye reflection

  • of ourself.

  • As exemplification, let's move to the first panel

  • of Marjane Satrapi's wildly successful autobiography,

  • Persepolis -- something else, something else that's important,

  • the, these books are called graphic novels,

  • but they're usually not novels, they're often based

  • on autobiographies, and, you know, most people try to not lie

  • in their own autobiography,

  • this is about Marjane Satrapi's experience of growing

  • up during the fundamentalist revolution in Iran in 1980.

  • First panel just says, this is me, we are to take the cartoon

  • as an immediate reflection of the author artist.

  • Interestingly, the second panel,

  • and I want to give you the whole page from which

  • that first panel's taken, the second panel situates

  • that cartoon avatar of the author

  • in an individual panel all to herself, alongside another panel

  • of her peers, is it not interesting that in

  • that other panel of her peers, what we seem to get --

  • perhaps because of the veil are other girls

  • who in their seriality look

  • like indistinguishable versions of our author.

  • So, here the comic is able to train our eyes

  • to recognize individuality, despite seriality,

  • to see the individual despite her drawn indistinguishability

  • from her peers.

  • In the first panel, what we have is a fantasy of immediacy,

  • we are not supposed to see this image of the,

  • the cartoon as a representation of the author,

  • not at all, this is the author.

  • The fantasy in the second panel of course, is,

  • is that the photo real media,

  • the photograph is somehow subordinate to the,

  • the properties of reflection that we get in the comic book,

  • so it upends our normal understanding of a hierarchy

  • of arts, where the photograph would be able to contain,

  • to convey something that is transparently objective,

  • and the cartoon is just so obdurately mired

  • in the artist's subjectivity.

  • But we have a suspicion of photography in a lot of comics,

  • this might be some sort of [inaudible] in war

  • between media, but in Persepolis, we have a moment

  • where the father goes out to photograph events related

  • to the Islamic Revolution, so he is there with camera in hand,

  • capturing history as it happens,

  • poor Marjie's 10-years-old, she can't go

  • to the demonstrations, she can't be on the sidelines of history

  • as it occurs, but in her book, the one we know,

  • we've never heard of her father, or we've seen his photographs,

  • they're not famous, her book is,

  • his photographs are transubstantiated into the stuff

  • of cartoons, and it is only on that level

  • that they bear meaning.

  • We have similar suspicion of photograph

  • in Art Spiegelman's enormously popular graphic novel

  • about his father's holocaust survival, Maus, in which most

  • of the graphic novel depicts human beings

  • as anthropomorphic mice,

  • except for a few exceptional photographs that are inserted

  • in the panels, this is one

  • of Father Vladek looking far too

  • salubrious in a camp outfit that doesn't seem to associate

  • with our own understanding of what people look

  • like wearing this outfit, he was indeed a survivor,

  • but why does he look so healthy?

  • Why so clean?

  • Because after his camp experience, he went to a place

  • where they, there was a photography studio, and he,

  • he donned a survive --

  • a camp outfit and had his picture taken,

  • this was his commemorative photograph of his experience.

  • Art Spiegelman has transformed the lie that the,

  • that the photograph engenders here into his comic memoir.

  • But why the suspicion of photography within comics?

  • To answer, I want to go back to the movies.

  • One of my favorite recent heroes, think Batman

  • with even more psychosis,

  • Rorschach from Alan Moore's Watchman.

  • Very interesting thing about this character, he wears a mask

  • that is made of some sort of a high tech fugitive substance,

  • where the pattern that we see on that mask is constantly moving.

  • In the comic, however, the pattern on Rorschach's face,

  • which really is kind of like a Rorschach test ink blot, right?

  • Is -- we know it's supposed to move,

  • but because of the limitations

  • of the comic medium, it never does.

  • We can only ever experience the pattern on Rorschach's mask

  • as a still image, but it has power

  • because of that, nonetheless.

  • Its power, I would argue, is for the pattern on the image

  • at any one time in a, in a panel in the comic book

  • to visually echo other patterns,

  • other images we've seen elsewhere in this comic book,

  • for instance, this one pattern called the,

  • the Hiroshima Lovers, which becomes a graffiti image

  • that you see in the background in so many panels of,

  • of the world of the Watchman,

  • think about what this represents,

  • these are lovers clasping one another amidst certain disaster.

  • The mask can reference this other image of these lovers,

  • in a way that the movie never can,

  • that's why we call it the movies, it's, it's a cinema

  • of motion, all our eyes see when we see the Rorschach figure

  • in the movies is how the mask is constantly moving,

  • the pattern is always changing, ooh, lava lamp.

  • Ooh, lava lamp is very safe, what's not so safe?

  • Is to be put in a precarious position of someone