I well tell you the first thing that I really appreciated in Miriam Libiki’s graphic novel Jobnik. On page 4, at the very beginning of the story, the author tells (or rather shows) us immediately that this will not be some sort of sugar-coated ego boosting attempt to make her life something more than it was. While it may have its faults, Jobnik is an honest account of Libiki’s experience serving in the Israeli Defense Force, as a woman and as a person who didn’t necessarily fit in with her fellow soldiers. The effort on her part to portray the reality of her experience with such candor is certainly something to be applauded. For, when telling a story such as this, what can be more crucial to understanding that experience, but the truth. This book examines many themes, self-identity and self-image issues, military service, religion, and more, but for the purpose of this blog I will mostly be reflecting on the “sex theme” that dominates the story.
The opening confession, through the use of drawn Polaroid snapshots of her own sexual encounters, which was certainly a dominant theme of her service in the Israeli Defense Force, is a topic I would guess that most auto-biographers would shy away from, especially in such a graphic nature. Yet, she doesn’t glamorize her sexual experiences by pretending that she isn’t at times a bit ashamed of it, nor does she pretend that these casual experiences had no affect on her. She reflects on her feelings of “being used’ by the men she had these sexual experiences with in several ways. In fact, the ways in which the author draws herself and her expressions to portray how she is feeling about herself at certain points during her time of service will be probably be the topic of my next blog post. Anyway, while it would be incredibly easy to paint these experiences in a light that would push all of the blame for these, at times negative, experiences to the man rather than herself, the author continually recognizes that she is partly to blame for her own heartbreak that occurs as a result of these encounters. Her first “boyfriend,” Shahar, as Miriam admits through inclusion its inclusion in the story, immediately discloses he doesn’t want a relationship, yet Miriam continues to pursue him, not realizing that their sexual experience together didn’t necessarily mean that Shahar wanted to be her boyfriend. Her second sexual partner, during her service, is Asher, with whom she seems to end up making out with simply because they are often hanging out in the same room (his room) and otherwise unattached. Their “friends with benefits’ relationship continues until Asher attempts to cross a line and “sodomize” her. Shortly after she becomes aware that Asher is pursuing another woman, Hila, but he is clearly looking for a girlfriend in Hila, and Miriam realizes that he never pursued her in this way, that he never pretended to actually be interested in her for anything other than fooling around. Again, illustrating that she allowed herself to be treated in a way that led to her own heartache. There are also a few separate incidents in which the author depicts her rendezvous with another man, Roi, where any sort of relationship is never implied, and yet they continue to fool around from time to time.
While the author claims to have maintained her virginity throughout these sexual experimentation, the reader is, at least at first, inclined to think that that her actions were, well, slutty. Not that this is wrong, a woman is free to do what she wants and I am not attempting to judge her actions. On the contrary, I am merely questioning the reason for such widespread promiscuity, both evidenced by the author’s behavior as well as the implied behaviors’ of others around her. This is a military base after all. I don’t have any personal first hand experience of life on a military base or in a combat zone for that matter, but I find it pretty astounding that these types of activities would be so commonplace. My only guess, is that in such a group as this, where everyone is separated from friends and loved ones and for many, home in general, combined with the stress of being in the center of a volatile conflict, essentially a constant war zone, that many people cope with this reality by finding comfort through human contact, and in this case, sexual contact. I guess you can’t really blame someone for trying to distract themselves with sex in this situation. I mean, with bombs going off, and friends getting shot/killed, and constant bombardment of news reports of brutal fighting and death and destruction, sex seems like a pretty reasonable method of distraction. I would also argue that the LACK of sexual encounters during her break from service, during which she attends a concert event with a group of friends, is evidence that under less stressful/distressing circumstances she doesn't feel compelled to seek comfort through sex. Therefore, her sexual experimentation during her military service was in fact a defense mechanism, a method of comforting herself during a tumultuous experience, and NOT simply just a "promiscuous" phase.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Rabbi's Cat Part II
As I stated in my previous post, I really enjoyed Joann Sfar's The Rabbi's Cat. There is one aspect of the story that is really bugging me though. What is the deal with Malka? His appearance is glorified over all of the others, he is portrayed so brilliantly and with such a towering presence. He comes across as a blue-eyed giant, who although very friendly, always seems to have a sinister look in his eyes. Or is it the fact that he is walking around with the "king of the jungle" that is distorting my impression? I realize that he is supposed to be some kind of famous musician and as an entertainer it is reasonable that he would have a more outrageous appearance, but it isn't just his looks that makes me so curious.
What really stumps me, is why Malka has such power over his cousin, the rabbi. In fact, when the rabbi returns from his journey to visit the grave of an ancestor and discovers that a new young rabbi from Paris is going to be taking the rabbi's daughter as a wife, the reader is led to believe that the rabbi might not allow the marriage to take place. He certainly doesn't appear to be thrilled with the idea. That is, until Malka threatens to "tear the place apart" if he does not immediately give his daughter his blessing. The rabbi walks to let his daughter know she has his blessing and he is slumped over and looking defeated. How does this cousin Malka have any right to tell the rabbi what to do? In fact, why does Malka even care so much. Why is this marriage so important to him that he would threaten to tear apart the home of his own cousin, a rabbi!?!? And more importantly why does the rabbi listen? Don't get me wrong, I loved the story, but I just don't understand who this Malka is and what his character and the character's actions are supposed to mean.
What really stumps me, is why Malka has such power over his cousin, the rabbi. In fact, when the rabbi returns from his journey to visit the grave of an ancestor and discovers that a new young rabbi from Paris is going to be taking the rabbi's daughter as a wife, the reader is led to believe that the rabbi might not allow the marriage to take place. He certainly doesn't appear to be thrilled with the idea. That is, until Malka threatens to "tear the place apart" if he does not immediately give his daughter his blessing. The rabbi walks to let his daughter know she has his blessing and he is slumped over and looking defeated. How does this cousin Malka have any right to tell the rabbi what to do? In fact, why does Malka even care so much. Why is this marriage so important to him that he would threaten to tear apart the home of his own cousin, a rabbi!?!? And more importantly why does the rabbi listen? Don't get me wrong, I loved the story, but I just don't understand who this Malka is and what his character and the character's actions are supposed to mean.
Jewish Identity & The Rabbi's Cat
I really enjoyed Joann Sfar's graphic novel The Rabbi's Cat. Why? Well, partly because of the fact that it wasn't about the Shoah, like the readings of the past few weeks, but also it was simply an interesting story. The idea of a cat eating a parrot and gaining the ability to speak is fantastic! That alone got me hooked. I mean, what WOULD cats say if they could talk to us? It's funny to think about, however, the novel does bring up some more serious issues.
The first part to really strike me occurs on pages 16-17, where the cat is talking to his master's rabbi about converting to Judaism. The rabbi's opinion is that the cat could not convert to Judaism because his motives were not sincere and the cat did not love and/or fear God, in fact his desire for conversion is coming only from a desire to make his mistress happy. Must one be religious in order to be Jewish? If one never steps foot in a synagogue nor ever sets their eyes on any part of the bible, but their parents are Jewish, is it wrong for the offspring to consider themselves Jewish? Is being Jewish only a question of religious belief? Aren't there those who consider themselves to be Jewish through ancestry alone? So many possible definitions...
The question of whether a cat can be Jewish seems silly. But it is in an interesting question. The rabbi did not believe that a "beast" could be religious. However, the cat is not an ordinary beast, he can talk. Doesn't this make a difference? In the end the rabbi stops resorting to the man vs beast argument and sticks with the argument that his reasons for desiring conversion are false and therefore the cat cannot become Jewish. Does the cat need permission though? Is he already Jewish, as his master stated earlier, that he must be Jewish since he has Jewish masters? Does the author want us to decide? Or does he tell us? Doesn't the fact that the cat loses his ability to speak after uttering over and over the forbidden "Adonai" mean something? Does this indicate that the cat was already in fact Jewish, and was therefore being punished for speaking the forbidden name?
Not only does this short part of the story remind us of the complexity of the question of what defines "the Jewish identity," but it also gives us a glimpse into, and a little background understanding for, the coming scenarios in which the cat's master, also a rabbi, is encountering different Jewish practices and differing opinions on what it means to be a good Jew. This glimpse into the opinions of the rabbi's rabbi, his teacher, helps us to understand why it was so difficult for him to come to terms with the varying behaviors of the different Jewish people he encounters throughout the story, behaviors that seem to contradict what he believes to be the "right" way to live and be a good Jew. Things that contradict what his rabbi taught him. Most people can relate to this I would think. It isn't always easy for any of us to understand (or accept) that sometimes there is more than one "right" way to do things.
This scene also reminded me of Art Spiegelman's struggle, as told in Volume II of Maus, of how (what animal) to depict his wife, Francois, since she is French but had converted to Judaism. By her own admission her conversion took place only to please her father-in-law, Vladek. So in a away, Francois is very much like the Rabbi's cat. It made me wonder, if knowing this is what made it more difficult for Art to decide how to draw her?
Being Jewish is clearly something that means many different things to many different people. The Rabbi's Cat, among other things, takes an interesting look at how Jewish Identity is not easily defined, at least in any simple terms.
The first part to really strike me occurs on pages 16-17, where the cat is talking to his master's rabbi about converting to Judaism. The rabbi's opinion is that the cat could not convert to Judaism because his motives were not sincere and the cat did not love and/or fear God, in fact his desire for conversion is coming only from a desire to make his mistress happy. Must one be religious in order to be Jewish? If one never steps foot in a synagogue nor ever sets their eyes on any part of the bible, but their parents are Jewish, is it wrong for the offspring to consider themselves Jewish? Is being Jewish only a question of religious belief? Aren't there those who consider themselves to be Jewish through ancestry alone? So many possible definitions...
The question of whether a cat can be Jewish seems silly. But it is in an interesting question. The rabbi did not believe that a "beast" could be religious. However, the cat is not an ordinary beast, he can talk. Doesn't this make a difference? In the end the rabbi stops resorting to the man vs beast argument and sticks with the argument that his reasons for desiring conversion are false and therefore the cat cannot become Jewish. Does the cat need permission though? Is he already Jewish, as his master stated earlier, that he must be Jewish since he has Jewish masters? Does the author want us to decide? Or does he tell us? Doesn't the fact that the cat loses his ability to speak after uttering over and over the forbidden "Adonai" mean something? Does this indicate that the cat was already in fact Jewish, and was therefore being punished for speaking the forbidden name?
Not only does this short part of the story remind us of the complexity of the question of what defines "the Jewish identity," but it also gives us a glimpse into, and a little background understanding for, the coming scenarios in which the cat's master, also a rabbi, is encountering different Jewish practices and differing opinions on what it means to be a good Jew. This glimpse into the opinions of the rabbi's rabbi, his teacher, helps us to understand why it was so difficult for him to come to terms with the varying behaviors of the different Jewish people he encounters throughout the story, behaviors that seem to contradict what he believes to be the "right" way to live and be a good Jew. Things that contradict what his rabbi taught him. Most people can relate to this I would think. It isn't always easy for any of us to understand (or accept) that sometimes there is more than one "right" way to do things.
This scene also reminded me of Art Spiegelman's struggle, as told in Volume II of Maus, of how (what animal) to depict his wife, Francois, since she is French but had converted to Judaism. By her own admission her conversion took place only to please her father-in-law, Vladek. So in a away, Francois is very much like the Rabbi's cat. It made me wonder, if knowing this is what made it more difficult for Art to decide how to draw her?
Being Jewish is clearly something that means many different things to many different people. The Rabbi's Cat, among other things, takes an interesting look at how Jewish Identity is not easily defined, at least in any simple terms.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
In the Shadow of No Towers
A few weeks ago I picked up Spiegelman's In the Shadow of No Towers at Half Priced Books (man I love that place!). When I saw that we would be discussing it in class and that we had an article about it assigned for a weekly reading, I decided to put off reading the book until this week. After reading Maus I & II once again, I was of course very excited to dive into this telling, by Spiegelman, of a tragedy that actually occurred during my lifetime. I must say though, now that I have finished, that I am utterly confused.
The first half of the book was amazing, just like I expected. Also, the article assigned for the week from Baskind and Omer-Sherman's The Jewish Graphic Novel: Critical Approaches, "When Time Stands Still" was very informative and certainly got me excited about finally picking up the book and reading it. As I read (the first half) of Spiegelman's work, I agreed with the author of the article, that the "all over the place" approach to the images of the story lets the reader understand the chaotic state of mind the author is in while writing them. I appreciated the varying ways in which Art depicts himself, struggling after living through and experiencing first hand his own tragedy, to define both to himself and to the reader who he is and what the tragedy has done to his sense of being. Also, it was simply interesting to hear the story of the experience of someone who did witness the tragedy of 9/11 first hand and in person rather than through the "tube" as most of us did. We all have our "where were you that day..." stories, but obviously it isn't quite the same as actually being there. However, even in the first half, I was surprised that the book wasn't evoking an emotional response in me in any way close to the way that Maus did. I mean, generally I tear up at the mere mention of 9/11. I found myself wondering if perhaps this story couldn't have used a bit more time to marinade before being told. (Marinade? Man I'm hungrier than I thought). Clearly I'll have to read it a few more times before I make up my mind, except...I'm not sure that I can, particularly when it comes to the second half. Perhaps it is just a little too smart for me? But I am left simply confused. I think it is supposed to be some kind of political commentary, and perhaps that's where the problem lies for me, as I'm sure that I'm not as up on political news as I should be and I certainly wasn't that attune to the happenings of the world following 9/11. At that time in my life I was finding out how to survive in this new and scary world the same way I was before 9/11, getting plastered at the bar with my friends. Anyway, back to the book, the entire second half just didn't seem to fit in the book. It seemed like two entirely separate books in fact. I keep feeling like I missed something, that perhaps my copy is a publishing "oops" and the second half was accidentally replaced with something else entirely and I'll never get to hear the rest of the story. I really hope we get the time to discuss this in class. Perhaps some of my classmates, who always seem to make sense of something I can't, leading to that wonderful "oh...okay...I get it" moment, will have some insight. Please please please, someone help me have that moment. I need this confusion to end so I can perhaps go back for a second reading and a third, which I'm sure this book deserves (I hope).
The first half of the book was amazing, just like I expected. Also, the article assigned for the week from Baskind and Omer-Sherman's The Jewish Graphic Novel: Critical Approaches, "When Time Stands Still" was very informative and certainly got me excited about finally picking up the book and reading it. As I read (the first half) of Spiegelman's work, I agreed with the author of the article, that the "all over the place" approach to the images of the story lets the reader understand the chaotic state of mind the author is in while writing them. I appreciated the varying ways in which Art depicts himself, struggling after living through and experiencing first hand his own tragedy, to define both to himself and to the reader who he is and what the tragedy has done to his sense of being. Also, it was simply interesting to hear the story of the experience of someone who did witness the tragedy of 9/11 first hand and in person rather than through the "tube" as most of us did. We all have our "where were you that day..." stories, but obviously it isn't quite the same as actually being there. However, even in the first half, I was surprised that the book wasn't evoking an emotional response in me in any way close to the way that Maus did. I mean, generally I tear up at the mere mention of 9/11. I found myself wondering if perhaps this story couldn't have used a bit more time to marinade before being told. (Marinade? Man I'm hungrier than I thought). Clearly I'll have to read it a few more times before I make up my mind, except...I'm not sure that I can, particularly when it comes to the second half. Perhaps it is just a little too smart for me? But I am left simply confused. I think it is supposed to be some kind of political commentary, and perhaps that's where the problem lies for me, as I'm sure that I'm not as up on political news as I should be and I certainly wasn't that attune to the happenings of the world following 9/11. At that time in my life I was finding out how to survive in this new and scary world the same way I was before 9/11, getting plastered at the bar with my friends. Anyway, back to the book, the entire second half just didn't seem to fit in the book. It seemed like two entirely separate books in fact. I keep feeling like I missed something, that perhaps my copy is a publishing "oops" and the second half was accidentally replaced with something else entirely and I'll never get to hear the rest of the story. I really hope we get the time to discuss this in class. Perhaps some of my classmates, who always seem to make sense of something I can't, leading to that wonderful "oh...okay...I get it" moment, will have some insight. Please please please, someone help me have that moment. I need this confusion to end so I can perhaps go back for a second reading and a third, which I'm sure this book deserves (I hope).
Maus II: Thoughts
Re-reading Maus II has gotten me a bit farklempt. I can't even discuss the trauma of seeing page 72 again. The binding on my book is basically non-existent, and I'm considering removing it just in case I should read the book again, so I don't have to see it. Not that the entire narrative regarding the actual process involved in the "Final Solution" isn't awful, it is...but for some reason, this page always sends me into the fetal position taking deep breaths.
What I love about Maus II is the chance to see more of what the family's life is like in the present. Particularly the part beginning with Page 14, where Art & Francois are driving to see Vladek and they have a long discussion about Richieu and how growing up with "the ghost" of a brother who died during the Shoah affected Art growing up. It is interesting how Art is almost jealous about Richieu. He says that he wished he could have been in Auschwitz so he knew what it was like, and so he could really understand what his family had been through. As we see later in the story, Art is even seeing a professional to talk about his issues of being a child of Holocaust survivors. But growing up with the lingering memory of the little boy, who died so young that he never had a chance to be a disappointment to his parents, was clearly difficult for Art. Richieu is sort of put upon a pedestal in the house (at least in Art's eyes) and Art felt that he could never live up to the ghost brother. Sibling rivalries are difficult enough but how can you compete with one who, if they hadn't died, could have grown to be the "perfect son." I wonder if Art felt a sense of pressure growing up, to do all the things that Richieu never had a chance to do, to be and become all the things that Richieu could not. We see throughout both volumes that Art feels that he hasn't lived up to his parents expectations and dreams for him. I wonder how it felt for him when his father, as he depicts in the last page as Vladek is ending his story with his "happily ever after," calls Art by his dead brother's name, Richieu. Did it hurt? Or was it perhaps a compliment, a Freudian slip by Vladek, letting him know that he is proud of his son? Art doesn't tell us, but its inclusion in the story tells us that it did have meaning for him, whether positive or negative.
What I love about Maus II is the chance to see more of what the family's life is like in the present. Particularly the part beginning with Page 14, where Art & Francois are driving to see Vladek and they have a long discussion about Richieu and how growing up with "the ghost" of a brother who died during the Shoah affected Art growing up. It is interesting how Art is almost jealous about Richieu. He says that he wished he could have been in Auschwitz so he knew what it was like, and so he could really understand what his family had been through. As we see later in the story, Art is even seeing a professional to talk about his issues of being a child of Holocaust survivors. But growing up with the lingering memory of the little boy, who died so young that he never had a chance to be a disappointment to his parents, was clearly difficult for Art. Richieu is sort of put upon a pedestal in the house (at least in Art's eyes) and Art felt that he could never live up to the ghost brother. Sibling rivalries are difficult enough but how can you compete with one who, if they hadn't died, could have grown to be the "perfect son." I wonder if Art felt a sense of pressure growing up, to do all the things that Richieu never had a chance to do, to be and become all the things that Richieu could not. We see throughout both volumes that Art feels that he hasn't lived up to his parents expectations and dreams for him. I wonder how it felt for him when his father, as he depicts in the last page as Vladek is ending his story with his "happily ever after," calls Art by his dead brother's name, Richieu. Did it hurt? Or was it perhaps a compliment, a Freudian slip by Vladek, letting him know that he is proud of his son? Art doesn't tell us, but its inclusion in the story tells us that it did have meaning for him, whether positive or negative.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
More Superheroes
So over the past few weeks I've watched four X-Men movies, three Spiderman movies and Daredevil. I've also played a Fantastic Four video game for Wii (which I found to be pretty boring). I found X-Men III quite strange, and I'm told from many of my X-men loving friends that it apparently strayed quite a bit from the original stories. I can't really attest to that though as I've yet to actually hold a real X-men comic in my hands. The Spiderman movies, again with the exception of the 3rd, were all enjoyable. Not that I didn't like the third movie, it just seemed a little all over the place. (Not unlike this blog post by the way. Explanation: my internet wasn't working for most of the day, and since I waited until today to post, I am now forced to scramble). Anyway, I could see what Kaplan was saying about Spiderman being a character that teenagers could really identify with. He is the classic geeky guy who seems to all of a sudden change into someone else, welcome puberty! Plus his awkwardness with girls and struggling to earn a buck is typical of the average teenage boy's every day life. Spiderman was certainly a stark contrast to the typical rich, handsome, muscle-bulging superhero that attempts to portray "the perfect man." Daredevil was also a fun movie to watch, I wouldn't call it the best movie ever made, but I did love the story and the idea of the blind lawyer as superhero. I'm glad I picked all these used movies a few weeks ago, they've really come in handy. When you are reading about the Holocaust, you need something else to take your mind off of it before you go to bed, and superhero stories have proven to be quite effective. Thank God for all those Jewish writers and artists without whom we wouldn't have all of these wonderful characters and stories.
Maus
This is the second time I've had the opportunity to read and analyze Art Spiegelman's Maus in class. I don't mind though. If it wasn't for the fact that the process is incredibly depressing, for obvious reasons, I'd read it over and over. I have actually read it multiple times, and each time I find something in the images that I had noticed before that adds to the impact of the story. The first time I learned of this graphic novel and picked it up, I was startled by the concept of a telling of a Holocaust story in a "comic," ( a medium that I was, as I've said, quite unfamiliar with). However, I was immediately drawn in to the story and stopped questioning the format. Spiegelman's use of animals to differentiate between the nationalities of the characters was interesting. We know when we are reading the story, that the pigs (Poles), mice (Jews), cats (Germans), etc. are really actually people, all members of the human race, during a time when some people (somehow) believed that the Jews were not human. Depicting them as animals reminds us how each group saw each other as different. The choices for the animals to represent the groups is interesting as well, particularly the choice of mice for Jews and an intimidating looking cat image for Germans. In public statements Hitler described Jews as vermin and being carriers of disease, and also, as mentioned, as being a different species than other people. The choice of using this image of the mice to depict the Jews, reinforces the fact that others saw them as vermin, as lowly mice, and because of this, a horrible tragedy was allowed to take place. The choice of the cat, since the Jews are mice, is appropriate for the Germans. The image is not that of the cuddly lap cat of course, a more sinister version is found here, but the cat still pursues the mouse relentlessly. The story itself is one that never stops shocking us, mostly because it is so hard to believe it could happen, that it is true. Every time I have to study the Holocaust it is depressing enough to make me want to avoid the subject ever again, but in spite of that, I may consider writing my research paper on Maus after all. Reading it again reminded me how much more there is to see.
Friday, October 1, 2010
X-Men
My history with the X-men is pretty, well, non-existent. I’ve seen the first movie before, but that is it. I’ve never read the comics and prior to this week, I never managed to watch any of the sequels. However, I’ve found the readings regarding the X-men in class thus far to be incredibly interesting, and I believe I may now be in love with the X-men. (Side note - with all the “political correctness going on in the world, I really hope that feminists keep their hands off the X-men or we’ll have X-Persons on our hands, which doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, right?)
I hit up the Netflix library for some supplemental studying this week, and found an interview with Stan Lee by Kevin Smith titled “Stan Lee’s Mutants, Monsters and Marvels.” Basically Stan Lee summarized the entire Silver Age unit from Kaplan’s “From Krakow to Krypton” except it was more entertaining hearing it straight from the man himself. He did provide a few bits of information that the book did not, including the fact that he originally pitched the idea of “X-men” to the bosses with the title of “Mutants.” The title was turned down due to, what Stan Lee said he was told, “that people won’t know what a Mutant is.” I think it was meant to be, as X-Men certainly has a better ring to it, but I thought it hilarious when he said, that after he re-pitched it as X-Men, and it was approved, he said he walked away thinking, “so people WILL know what an X-Men is?” If you are interested, the interview is available to play instantly on Netflix if you are subscriber, but beware, Kevin Smith was not the most brilliant interviewer. If I could have jumped up and into my television I would have slapped him. I like Kevin Smith, so I’m going to guess that he was just nervous interviewing a hero of his. Stan Lee also provides just a tad more insight into the whole issue of Jack Kirby defecting to DC. He claims that he knows very little firsthand, just that he was told Jack wanted to keep rights to all of his images and the right to re-issue them without any connection to Marvel, and was very angry when he was turned down.
Anyway, the readings inspired me to re-watch X-Men (the first) which I thoroughly enjoyed and was completely amazed at all the references to the Jewish experience that could be found, particularly the experience during the Holocaust. Obviously the first scenes which show Magneto at a concentration camp being separated from his parents, are clearly depicting this time, and explaining to us why he is who he is. But the entire theme of the witch hunting and the propaganda against the mutants, an entire population being convinced that another group is different and therefore dangerous, fostering a sense of fear that is sure to make people lose their sense of right and wrong if not their minds entirely. These themes are all reminiscent of the events that lead to the Holocaust.
Netflix didn’t have the second X-Men movie on demand, but luckily The Exclusive Company carries tons of used dvd’s at a reasonable price, so I now own a few more. The second movie, which I watched for the first time last night, while not as outwardly as the first, is still continuing this theme of the Jewish experience during the Holocaust. This is depicted through the obvious, like the idea of forced registration of all mutants, as well as the eventual attempt and move towards the “rounding up” of all mutants after being framed for a terrorist attack. However, there were more subtle references too, like the image of the children hiding in the walls when the military arrived to detain them.
X-Men and the deeper stories that are evident in the comic books we’ve explored thus far, is definitely fostering a new interest in comic books for me. By the end of class, or perhaps even by mid-way through, I may be a card carrying comic book nerd. I was (in a very complimentary way) called just such a thing by the store clerk when I got up to the counter at Exclusive with a stack of comic book based movies and after I corrected him that my stack of treasure did not contain ONLY Marvel but also one lonely DC title. A few weeks ago I wouldn’t have known the difference.
I hit up the Netflix library for some supplemental studying this week, and found an interview with Stan Lee by Kevin Smith titled “Stan Lee’s Mutants, Monsters and Marvels.” Basically Stan Lee summarized the entire Silver Age unit from Kaplan’s “From Krakow to Krypton” except it was more entertaining hearing it straight from the man himself. He did provide a few bits of information that the book did not, including the fact that he originally pitched the idea of “X-men” to the bosses with the title of “Mutants.” The title was turned down due to, what Stan Lee said he was told, “that people won’t know what a Mutant is.” I think it was meant to be, as X-Men certainly has a better ring to it, but I thought it hilarious when he said, that after he re-pitched it as X-Men, and it was approved, he said he walked away thinking, “so people WILL know what an X-Men is?” If you are interested, the interview is available to play instantly on Netflix if you are subscriber, but beware, Kevin Smith was not the most brilliant interviewer. If I could have jumped up and into my television I would have slapped him. I like Kevin Smith, so I’m going to guess that he was just nervous interviewing a hero of his. Stan Lee also provides just a tad more insight into the whole issue of Jack Kirby defecting to DC. He claims that he knows very little firsthand, just that he was told Jack wanted to keep rights to all of his images and the right to re-issue them without any connection to Marvel, and was very angry when he was turned down.
Anyway, the readings inspired me to re-watch X-Men (the first) which I thoroughly enjoyed and was completely amazed at all the references to the Jewish experience that could be found, particularly the experience during the Holocaust. Obviously the first scenes which show Magneto at a concentration camp being separated from his parents, are clearly depicting this time, and explaining to us why he is who he is. But the entire theme of the witch hunting and the propaganda against the mutants, an entire population being convinced that another group is different and therefore dangerous, fostering a sense of fear that is sure to make people lose their sense of right and wrong if not their minds entirely. These themes are all reminiscent of the events that lead to the Holocaust.
Netflix didn’t have the second X-Men movie on demand, but luckily The Exclusive Company carries tons of used dvd’s at a reasonable price, so I now own a few more. The second movie, which I watched for the first time last night, while not as outwardly as the first, is still continuing this theme of the Jewish experience during the Holocaust. This is depicted through the obvious, like the idea of forced registration of all mutants, as well as the eventual attempt and move towards the “rounding up” of all mutants after being framed for a terrorist attack. However, there were more subtle references too, like the image of the children hiding in the walls when the military arrived to detain them.
X-Men and the deeper stories that are evident in the comic books we’ve explored thus far, is definitely fostering a new interest in comic books for me. By the end of class, or perhaps even by mid-way through, I may be a card carrying comic book nerd. I was (in a very complimentary way) called just such a thing by the store clerk when I got up to the counter at Exclusive with a stack of comic book based movies and after I corrected him that my stack of treasure did not contain ONLY Marvel but also one lonely DC title. A few weeks ago I wouldn’t have known the difference.
The Silver Age!
What I found most interesting of the Silver Age of Comics unit, is that there seemed to be a trend towards deeper character development, including a shift towards characters that the readers could more easily identify with. Certainly this is evidenced by the newer X-men, as realized by Chris Claremont, as the series came to include characters of many different ethnic backgrounds, including the development of Mageneto’s Jewish background. Spiderman as well, shows evidence of a character more easily identified with by the readers. Certainly teenagers at the time, welcomed this average guy character, who when bit by a radioactive spider becomes super-human, but yet remains so human in the respect that he still has girlfriend issues, etc.
Perhaps most shocking to me in this week’s readings, were the pictures in Kaplan’s From Krakow to Krypton, and story regarding Doctor Doom in the Fantastic Four comic series. When I look at this image on page 35, all I see is Darth Vader. The author tells us that George Lucas has never admitted to using Doctor Doom as “inspiration” for Darth Vader. I find this a bit ridiculous. It is fairly obvious to anyone in a side by side comparison, that these two characters are long lost identical twins. Does anyone else feel that it is probably about time that Lucas come clean and thank Lee & Kirby for providing him inspiration?
In addition, the Silver Age saw the emergence of underground comics (or comix), who found their outlet in head shops across America. I’d be very interested to have the opportunity to peruse such items in person some day. I am sure that some interesting cultural dynamics can be found and analyzed within their pages. Does anyone know if there are any shops in the area that carry old comic books (or comix)?
Perhaps most shocking to me in this week’s readings, were the pictures in Kaplan’s From Krakow to Krypton, and story regarding Doctor Doom in the Fantastic Four comic series. When I look at this image on page 35, all I see is Darth Vader. The author tells us that George Lucas has never admitted to using Doctor Doom as “inspiration” for Darth Vader. I find this a bit ridiculous. It is fairly obvious to anyone in a side by side comparison, that these two characters are long lost identical twins. Does anyone else feel that it is probably about time that Lucas come clean and thank Lee & Kirby for providing him inspiration?
In addition, the Silver Age saw the emergence of underground comics (or comix), who found their outlet in head shops across America. I’d be very interested to have the opportunity to peruse such items in person some day. I am sure that some interesting cultural dynamics can be found and analyzed within their pages. Does anyone know if there are any shops in the area that carry old comic books (or comix)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)