"Civil Snore" checklist

Marvel's released the official tie-in list for "Civil War": http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/CivilWar/CWarchecklist.jpg

It's pretty horribly bloated, and while I'd hoped to sidestep it completely, I find that no less than three books on my pull list will be involved: "Captain America", "Ms. Marvel" and "X-Factor". I'm also still on the fence about the Young Avengers/Runaways miniseries, because Zeb Wells might actually be able to pull it off.

So what's a girl to do? I guess it'll depend on how involved the tie-ins will be - some writers just shove the event storyline into the background and continue to do their own thing; some resort to "filler" stories that can be skipped over (Brubaker did this when "Captain America" tied into "House of M"); and some take the most undesirable route of diving headfirst into the crossover, and using it to affect artificial changes in the book that pretty much force the reader to get the greater context. It's also not uncommon for the crossover connection to be completely tangential - I recall a Waid storyline of "Fantastic Four" being billed as an "Avengers Disassembled" tie-in, because in one panel someone mentioned that the Avengers were unavailable. The rest of the story went on regardless.

Time will tell, I suppose. If worst comes to worst, it's another reason for me to drop "X-Factor", and while the first issue of Brian Reed's "Ms. Marvel" was good, it's hardly going to tear me up if I have to let it go. Brubaker's Cap... that's a problem, but if he just puts his stories on hold like he did before, I'll be content.

*sigh* You know, the prospect of abandoning comics to fully immerse myself in webcomics is looking more and more appealing every day. I'll probably be doing a post about that quandary soon.

Well, I tried to warn you...

In November of 2005, I ran a commentary on Marvel's solicitations for February and concluded with the following plea:

"Until next time, this is Diana, asking you to PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP BUYING CROSSOVERS. The tenth anniversary of "Onslaught" is coming up soon; don't come crying to me when "Heroes Re-Reborn" is announced! ;)" (http://dianakingston.livejournal.com/9499.html)

And now... http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/Onslaught/OnslaugthReborn.htm

Maybe I should have taken my shirt off and run around screaming "DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!"

Movie Review: MirrorMask

Cold. Detached. Highly stylized but utterly devoid of emotion.

I didn't like it one bit.

Comics Review: March 24

X-Factor #5

Not much to say about this one. The ongoing plots are put on hold for this standalone story ostensibly starring Siryn, but focusing on a rather typical "crazy ex-mutant" type we've never seen before and will never see again. Somehow, Nutters knows X-Factor is investigating M-Day (did they put an ad in the paper? Did Oprah do a special?), but is convinced the X-Men caused it because none of them were affected. It doesn't make much sense, but then, he's crazy, so I suppose it's a moot point.

Curiously, the recap page describes the man who attacked Siryn as "an unknown assailant", despite the fact that Peter David went to the trouble of posting a clarification of the previous issue on his blog, indicating it was Damian Tryp and we were all too stupid to figure it out. I suppose this little mix-up is our fault as well. *shrug*

At any rate, it's nothing we haven't seen before: self-pitying psycho rants and whines about his lost powers, Theresa gets tortured, and Rictor saves the day. The end. I suppose it's serviceable, but not much more than that. I think I'll give this series one more issue to win me over before dropping it.

---

Exiles: World Tour - Squadron Supreme (#77-78)

The World Tour Saga enters its second half with a visit to the Squadron Supreme universe, once Marvel's answer to DC's Justice League, now superceded by J. Michael Straczynski's "Supreme Power", which has recently been renamed "Squadron Supreme" and does not interact with the Marvel Universe, though it will soon be crossing over with the Ultimate Marvel universe.

Got all that? Me neither. Just go with it. ;)

To Tony Bedard's credit, he's still doing his absolute best to avoid repetition; after several encounters with the Exiles, Proteus realizes he can't outfight or evade them, and instead manipulates them into a conflict with the Squadron Supreme using Mimic's stolen memories. The two teams almost immediately throw down, and Proteus slips away unnoticed.

The rest of the story is given over to the Squadron putting the Exiles on trial for crimes against the Multiverse. I'm a bit ambivalent towards this; on the one hand, it's a nice diversion from the main plot, and a proper follow-up to "Timebreakers". But on the other hand, the Squadron really come off as complete nimrods here, trusting and distrusting people with neither rhyme nor reason. Consequently, it's hard not to see them as the incompetent, hypocritical villains of the piece - and yet, they're the heroes of their world. The fact that most of them aren't characterized (due to the absolutely immense and unwieldy size of the cast) doesn't help.

The Exiles' interaction with the Squadron Supreme reality feels even more restricted than their stay in 2099. On the level of the plot, Bedard provides a valid reason for this - the battles with Proteus have been disrupting timelines the Exiles were never meant to visit, and the damage is starting to accumulate. This was something readers were picking up on (particularly considering what the absence of Miguel O'Hara meant for the future of 2099), so it's nice that Bedard was able to anticipate that concern. But I imagine the nostalgic value for fans of these old, defunct alternate realities is diminished.

As a minor aside, Heather is yet again written as the Grand Poobah of Exposition, giving us a two-way scene that explains the Squadron to the Exiles and vice-versa - as with previous infodumps, this one was necessary, but it's starting to grow stale.

A flawed read, then, and not one of the highlights of the World Tour. In retrospect, perhaps the more densely-populated timelines should have been left alone, or allocated more issues: there are just too many pins in the air, even for a skilled juggler like Bedard. It ends up feeling cramped, compressed and ineffective. I expect the upcoming "Future Imperfect" segment will be vastly improved, since it's really all about the Maestro - which means there will be a lot more room to breathe.

Movie Review: Stay

Or: "If There Is No Spoon, How Do You Eat Soup?"

Generally speaking, "Stay" is situated in the genre of psychodrama, alongside movies like "The Machinist", "The Sixth Sense", "Donnie Darko" and "Memento". However, it also distinguishes itself from its peers, in that the others - complex though they may be - are based on relatively simple concepts. If we strip away the jargon, "Donnie Darko" is about a boy who sees the future and changes it. If we turn "Memento" into a linear narrative, it's about a man seeking revenge.

"Stay" goes beyond this. Like other psychodramas, the movie is structured around mysteries and unexplained events, with the denouement pushed to the final moments of the movie - the effect is that we look back, now possessing a key bit of information we didn't have before, and the puzzle pieces fit together. However, the denouement of "Stay" can't really be boiled down to a straightforward concept. In hindsight, the answer is not as obvious as it usually is.

This had something of a double effect on me; my initial impression of the climax was "My God, this is dumber than a box of hair. It's indecipherable. It's sloppy." But when I really stopped to think about it, I realized that it all clicked into place. I like that. I like that "Stay" made me think, made me work for the conclusion most movies do (and perhaps should) offer in big neon letters.

The basic plot of the movie concerns Sam, a psychologist who has taken on a new patient named Henry Letham. Henry is a brooding teenager who hears voices, is suffering from a traumatic yet mysterious event in his past, and most disturbing of all, his half-coherent mumblings seem to have a hint of prophecy in them. When Henry tells Sam he's going to kill himself in three days, Sam decides to stop him... but as he delves deeper into Henry's psychosis, the world around him seems to come apart at the seams: the blind regain their sight, events repeat themselves, the dead walk. Is Henry responsible for this? Or is Sam losing his mind?

I'll go ahead and tell you that the above synopsis is completely useless, as it's both accurate in terms of what happens in the movie, and false in those same terms. :) There's absolutely nothing more I can tell you that wouldn't completely blow the mystery apart - and it's one that's worth experiencing on your own.

Comics: An Update

1) With "Ultimate X-Men" dropped, and Millar's "Ultimates" coming to an end soon, I'm now officially done with the Ultimate Marvel line. Normally this would call for commentary, but I honestly think the recent slew of idiot ideas speaks for itself: Vaughan to Kirkman, Millar to Loeb, and let's not forget the monumental waste of talent that is "Ultimate Wolverine vs. Hulk". All these are indication enough that the shark has not only been jumped, it's been spanked, harpooned, molested and eaten.

2) The Bendis/JMS/Loeb crossover miniseries "Ultimate Power" will apparently have major effects on the "Supreme Power" series. As a response, I've dropped "Supreme Power". :) I actually enjoyed JMS' take on the Squadron Supreme very much, but not enough to sit through an act by the Three Stooges.

Movie Review: Brokeback Mountain

Or: "I Wish I Knew How To Classify You"

Ah, this one.

I realize I'm probably the last person to see this movie or review it, unless there's some Amish woman living in the Negative Zone with severe allergies to movie theatre popcorn.

"Brokeback Mountain" is an incredibly difficult movie for me to review, for several reasons. First, I never read the original story by Annie Proulx, so it's impossible to determine what and how much of the film is Proulx, and how much is Ang Lee - which means I can't really analyze the film as an adaptation, only in terms of the final product.

Second, I'm fighting the urge to give it obligatory points simply because it's unapologetic about its subject matter - considering how conservative America is (to say nothing of Hollywood as an American institute), "Brokeback Mountain" probably deserves some credit simply for being what it is. But I do feel that sometimes the critical schools skew a bit in favor of being politically correct; any gay or lesbian movie that's halfway competent gets praised simply so the possibility of prejudice doesn't rear its ugly head. It's been the case in Israel as well, where movies such as "Yossi and Jagger" or "Walk on Water" might have been good, but certainly weren't deserving of the enormous accolades and hype heaped upon them.

And finally, the biggest issue I have with this movie is that I can't reconcile it as a love story. Having mulled it over a bit, I realize that I don't actually see "Brokeback Mountain" as a romance at all. Yes, it's certainly true that love and sex are deeply intertwined, but this story presents a total conflation; we're asked to see Jack and Ennis as tragic lovers, but all they do is fuck. Anything that transcends the physical never comes into the discourse.

Now, to be fair, that's probably the point, that their relationship couldn't go any further because of social restrictions... but at the same time, these guys don't even admit their love to each other. The closest they come is acknowledging that "something" overtakes them when they're together - but that can be construed as hormonal, not emotional. Even the film's famous line, "I wish I knew how to quit you", can be read as an admission of sexual addiction, not romantic attachment.

The obstacle here is that when the film suggests the characters have fallen in love, my automatic response is "How could they?" They don't act like they're in love, at least not the way we define love today (and the film is set in the second half of the 20th century - it's not like we're dealing with a completely different culture). They barely see each other, and when they're apart fidelity is a foreign notion; Jack in particular becomes something of a village bicycle. The narrative is riddled with enormous chronological leaps, which means there's no real process of development you can observe. One second you're watching an army of sheep that would put Peter Jackson to shame, the next our boys are playing tonsil hockey.

As an aside, kudos to Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger for excellent performances in general, and for going all-out during the intimate scenes specifically. The women of the world salute you, gentlemen. ;)

However, no amount of conviction can resolve the issue at hand; at the end of the day, maybe Jack Twist is just a fantastic shag and that's all Ennis wants. Maybe it's an easy way for him to cheat on a boring wife without taking on more responsibilities. And maybe Jack fetishizes the rodeo so much that he needs sex to be as close to that as possible: with Ennis, all he has to do is spread his legs, brace himself and ride until he gets thrown. And when Ennis isn't in the picture, he marries a fellow rider and hits on a rodeo clown.

If you look at "Brokeback Mountain" not as a love story but as a story about sex and passion, about damaged individuals relying on a physical connection to escape their problems, the movie might actually come out stronger for it; when we reach those closing moments, and Ennis finally displays an emotion beyond the physical for Jack, it's more poignant if you believe he simply hadn't thought about that possibility until it was too late. He only lets himself feel love when it no longer matters. But that interpretation is more or less the antithesis of everything Proulx and Lee have claimed the movie is about.