Week Three - The Universality of Archetypes

        The main focus of our class this week was the idea of superhero archetypes. These archetypes, as they relate to adapting a graphic novel like Agents of Atlas, seem to lend themselves readily to further investigation. Of particular interest to our group were the Antediluvian Age archetypes: the Science-Fiction Superman, the Dual Identity Avenger-vigilante, and the Pulp Ubermensch.

        The first of these archetypes can be seen in two of our heroes. The first is through the Uranian Marvel Boy, Bob Grayson. He is from a highly advanced society where powers can be given through scientific exploration. In this way he reflects the basic associations of the archetype. In order to see the full application of the archetype, however, one need only look to M-11. In many ways, M-11 is the re-telling of our example for the Science-Fiction Superman: Frankenstein. He is created in a lab as something bigger than humanity, achieves consciousness and then kills his creator, taking a part of him into himself and receiving not just life, but humanity. M-11 seems to be built specifically to fit this archetype.

         As an interesting contrast, we can see Batman and The Joker, as portrayed in Tim Burton's Batman (1989), in a similar light. He is created by an act of violence when Jack Napier kills his parents. As a reflection, Jack Napier is transformed into the Joker by Batman. Batman and The Joker don't have any truly superhuman powers, but rather are aided by technology and science.

         The second archetype, the Dual Identity Avenger-vigilante, can be seen in the Agents' Venus. While the beginningg of the narrative builds Venus as the actualGoddessss of Greco-Roman myth, it comes to light that she is in fact a monster who comes to believe that she is thGoddessss Venus. In this way Venus reflects the dual nature of many superheroes. One side is essentially evil and dark while her heroic side is the exact opposite.

         Batman can, again, be applied to this second stereotype. In the film, Batman is a vigilante who goes above and beyond the law to administer what he believes to be justice. This sense of justice becomes corrupted when faced with Jack Napier, the murderer of his parents, and Batman destroys a chemical plant, effectively killing everything inside. By contrast, his true identity, Bruce Wayne, is constantly seen at charitable events and gives his wealth freely to those who attend, as expressed in the decision to open two more crates of champagne. The effect of this is once again a divide between the character's true identity and their “heroic” side, though in the case of Batman and Venus the method seems reversed.

         The final archetype we investigated is the Pulp Ubermensch. Our example of this archetype was Tarzan of the Apes. Of course, the first example that should come to anyone's mind is Ken Hale, the human gorilla. The effect is, again, the same as the example. A man who was raised by gorillas as a gorilla is just the reverse story of a human raised by humans becoming a gorilla. Ken is the character who does not fit in to his own society and is left behind for it.

Ken and M-11 fight their way out of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Similarities between Ken and Batman go deeper than their status as outcasts.

         In order to apply this archetype to Batman, we must look to Frank Millers The Dark Knight Returns. In the beginning of the narrative, Batman is retired and, by all rights, should be happy. However, while his society is content to stand by and allow crime to take their streets, Bruce Wayne must fight back. In this way, he too is different from his own society. The only other similarity, which is common between both the graphic novel and the film, is Batman's association with bats. It seems as though he prefers the company of the “great survivors” to those who allow themselves to be overrun and harmed.

        While it is all well and good to identify archetypes in common between our work and the works in class, it is also important to analyze what these similarities mean for our adaptation. For this we looked again to McCloud's second chapter in Understanding Comics. McCloud makes a point of discussing the level to which we identify with a character compared to the level of “realism” present in their depiction. Our group found an interesting parallel between this idea and the idea of archetypes. We suggested that perhaps the level of realism was less important than the archetypes, particularly when analyzing film. By way of example, a cartoon version of Superman, like the one we saw in week two, is infinitely less relateable than a version who is much more (an you'll excuse the pun) drawn out over time, like the depiction we saw in Superman: The Movie. When we understand Superman as an archetype, we can automatically associate certain problems with him and ourselves, and thus feel a stronger connection to his struggles.

Batman. Dir. Tim Burton. By Prince. Perf. Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Billy Dee Williams, and Jack Palance. Warner Bros., 1989.

McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics: the Invisible Art. New York: HarperPerennial, 1994. Print.

Miller, Frank. Batman: the Dark Knight Returns. New York, NY: DC Comics, 2002. Print.

Parker, Jeff. Agents of Atlas. New York: Marvel, 2009. Print.

Week Two - Questions of Adaptation.

Adapting a narrative from one form of media to another is always going to be a jarring process. Whether one pays strict attention to staying “true” to the original text or simply tries to capture its tone and greater themes while adding and omitting other sections can greatly affect the adaptation’s reception. Obviously different audiences would be looking for varied aspects going into a film reworking a comic book. Indeed, as we learned in class this week, the differing levels of connection to the primary text – i.e. the audience’s prior knowledge of the narrative – going into the film is of paramount importance and can drastically shift the way the film is received. However, these are not the only considerations one must make when adapting a comic to film.

Pascal Lefèrvre, in his article ‘Incompatible Visual Ontologies: the Problematic Adaptation of Drawn Images’, highlights the similarities that make comics such good candidates for film adaptation while also asserting the differing characteristics between the two mediums that can obstruct the process.  

“Films and comics are both media which tell stories by a series of images: the spectator sees people act – while in  a novel the actions must be verbally told. Showing is already narrating in cinema and comics, but while classical cinematic narratives situate the spectator at the centre of the diegetic space, comics on the other hand are rooted in a parodic tradition”                                                                                    (Lefèrvre: 3)

Given that both mediums are intrinsically visual, the notion of adaptation seems logical. However, as Lefèrvre argues, there are rather large problems with this theory. Unlike comics, the cinematic experience places the audience within the film via the use of sensory-deprivation and various other techniques. This gives the viewer the feeling that the film is real: they are engrossed and absorbed by the filmic devices as all other “distractions” are removed. While comic books, by their nature as a silent, printed medium, keep the audience away from such a state. Comics allow for such distractions to come through and displace the reader from the text. Essentially while movies attempt to bring the audience wholly into the narrative, comics keep you out.

Moreover, as we have learned this week in Scott McCloud’s discussion on the existence of “gutters” between the panels of comic books, the very nature of time and space is treated much differently in either medium. The notion of differing compositions between cinema and comics plays an integral role in discerning narrative aspects such as pacing which, while being one of the more subtle filmic techniques, proves to be crucial within both art forms. McCloud’s emphasis on varying panel compositions and their ability to either quicken or hinder the pace by which the reader “reads” each image is of paramount importance when considering adaptation of specific comic “scenes” to film. For example, within Zack Snyder’s adaptation of Moore and Gibbons’ “Watchmen”, the audience is privy an extremely faithful reworking of the famed graphic novel. However, within Nite Owl’s dream sequence (in which Dan and Laurie appear to be on mars and are enveloped by a nuclear explosion) as originally illustrated by Gibbons, the singular page structure is composed of a series of 16 smaller panels which gives the reader a feeling of quick succession, of rapid movement. Due to the fact that there is minimal information to decipher within the images, the reader quickly glosses over them. Snyder’s rendition of the scene is much more fluid and essentially dream-like in its representation, only using under 10 cuts to deliver the scene. The two scenes – while looking remarkably similar – each give a different tone to the sequence.

This ultimately highlights the difficulties evident in adapting a “still” medium to one steeped in movement.

 Works Cited.

• Lefèvre, P. (2007). Incompatible Visual Ontologies? The Problematic Adaptation of Drawn Images. In Ian Gordon, Mark Jacovich, Matthew P. McCallister, Film and Comic Books (pp. 1 - 12). Jackson: University of Mississippi.

• McCloud, Scott (1993); Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art; New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
• Moore, A & Gibbons, D (1987); Watchmen; New York: DC comics.

Week One - The Creative Process Begins

        Icons, as defined by our first reading in Understanding Comics, are symbols that hold meaning. This concept is very important to our class as we are essentially tasked with transferring the meaning of symbols and images on the page to the film medium. In our group discussion, we talked at length about the different ways in which the idea of an icon can influence the creative process of adapting a graphic novel to film.

        While examining our own project, we first decided to take into consideration the implications of McCloud's description of icons upon the process of adaptation. The characters of Agents of Atlas, after all, do seem to lend themselves very readily to the very topic. Each character in the group seems to represent a from of iconic archetype. This representation is seen most clearly in one of the novels tag-lines: “The spy. The spaceman. The goddess. The robot. The gorilla.” Each character seems to bring to the team a unique quality that is defined entirely by their physical representation on the page. The archetypal quality of these characters is again reflected in the “What If” scenario included in the back of the graphic novel. In a series of panels, each member of the Agents of Atlas is compared to a member of the Avengers. As McCloud suggests, the reader then takes these archetypal icons and sees, within their characteristics, a new form of self. In the case of characters like Gorilla Man or the Avengers' Beast, a reader may see their animalistic side, while in M-11 and Vision a reader may see their calm, logical side. The proper application of these iconic archetypes is essential to our moving forward in adapting Agents of Atlas.

        In moving forward, however, it is perhaps beneficial as well to move back. A second key area of interest when discussing icons in our group was the distinction between the icons of the early origin comics, ranging from 1947 to 1978, and the newer story of Agents of Atlas published between 2006 and 2007. While the origin stories feature very unrealistic graphics (as defined by McCloud's pyramid on page 51 of Understanding Comics), the more contemporary icons seem to have shifted toward the realistic. In considering aspects of our adaptation like the level of realism, particularly as it relates to the characters of Gorilla Man and M-11 (being difficult to outfit without CGI), this shift plays a major role.

         For how the role of realism in comics has altered existing superhero film franchises, we needn't look any farther than the several examples of Superman that were shown in class. Several of the early clips that we saw were not extremely particular about maintaining realism, presumably because the comics of the time were less interested in portraying realism. As an example, the clip in which Superman flies up in to a burning building uses animation in order to show flight. By contrast, the most recent clip from Smallville attempts to show every gritty detail of the meteor shower, even taking a slow-motion moment to focus on a young crying Lana Lang.

        The distinction between icons of the 50's and contemporary icons is one that our group is going to have to consider very deeply, as our story takes place not only in the present but largely in the past. As well, the archetypal nature of our characters will need to be considered in casting and staging them. After all, film and comics are both constructed out of an endless swarm of icons.