> Would either the graphic novel or the film of SIN
CITY have
> >survived as a straight prose story, without the
visuals?
Oh for crying out loud, they're a graphic novel and a film. I
appreciate good storytelling in prose as much as anyone, but
since these were originally conceived for visual media, and
the visuals are essentially part of the appeal, what's the
point in trying to assess them "without the visuals"?
> I took the movie to be the new
> millennium's equivalent of what was once called
"camp," a sort of
> surreal self parody. I loved watching Mickey Rourke
play a role that
> appeared to me to be an ideal of his own public
image, drawn to the
> extreme and illogical end. My impression is that the
movie did the
> same to the hardboil genre itself. Sort of a slap in
the face to fans
> like us that this is what we enjoy and take
seriously, to which our
> only logical response must be to laugh and ask, "Is
that all you got?"
I didn't take it that way at all, and neither did anyone
involved, if the commentary tracks are any indication. The
original graphic novels were Miller's personal distillation
of the essence of the genre (at least as he saw it), and
that's what excited Rodriguez about bringing SIN CITY to the
screen.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 29 Oct 2007 EDT