Tucker spoke highly of 100 Bullets in this interview, and I’ve heard good things about it in other places, so I thought I’d give it a, er, shot.
I was pretty disappointed, though. In the first place, Eduardo Risso’s art is lousy. The figures are stiff, the anatomy is shaky, the layouts are cluttered and confusing, and the coloring (by Grant Goleash) is more muddy than moody. If you’re going for stylish noir, it’s really important that the art be…well, stylish. You want Alex Toth or Howard Chaykin; bold blacks and whites, dramatic page design — the art should scream sex and danger and class. Risso just doesn’t have the chops. I mean, look at that page below. [Update: Johnny B in comments notes that the cover below is not by Risso (who I still don’t like), but rather by Dave Johnson (who,apparently, I like even less.)]
What is wrong with that woman’s neck? Is this supposed to be a Parmigianino tribute or something? And the proportions are all completely off; her legs are lengthened to make her look sexier, I guess, but it ends up looking like she’s been assembled from mis-matched doll parts. And the ugly red insets segmented up almost at random…what the hell? That’s not dramatic: it just looks dumb. (I’d apologize for the book code stuck in there by my bookseller, but it actually seems like a reasonable aesthetic choice, given the context. Certainly it doesn’t drag the image down in any way.)
I wish I could say I liked Brian Azzarello’s writing better. Some of the dialogue is okay (the yuppie bar-crawler who smugly boasts about his trust-fund-greased-life is pretty funny.) But the plot is lame. For those not in the know, each story is sparked by a guy named Graves, who gives some lucky hard-luck case a gun and 100 untraceable bullets with which he/she can get revenge on some evildoer in his/her past. So Graves is like Michael Landon’s cranky cousin, basically. The whole thing seems like some gimmicky sit-com, and the episodic nature makes it hard to create the slow build of inevitable doom and corruption which haunts the best noir.
I don’t know…maybe things improve later in the series, but after one volume this really seems sub-Sin City as far as comic pulp goes. And that’s not a good thing.
Update: I force Newsarama [Update: not newsarama; but Heidi at the Beat; see comments for suitable snark from Heidi) to eat their words re:not whining about criticism. They’re especially dismissive because I didn’t instantly see the difference between Risso and Johnson. Fair enough, I guess…though the funny thing is that I did see the difference — I knew the cover was an especially poor effort, even though I didn’t instantly identify it as by a different artist. So is it really a failure of connoisseurship? Or is it a failure of geek knowledge? You make the call….
Incidentally, the page of Risso art Newsarama the Beat uses seems definitely better than the stuff in the first 100 bullets trade.
Using a simple grid is a big help — not that I”m a huge fan of grids, but when you can’t lay out a page to save your life, simple is often better. Black and white helps too, given the indifferent coloring in 100 bullets. The page doesn’t make my heart sing, exactly — I’ve been looking at Arthur Rackham silhouette work recently, which has maybe spoiled me for Risso’s take on black outlines. But, in any case, if 100 bullets looked like this page, I’d be much more inclined to buy the next couple of trades.
Update: A follow up post is here.
Update: And Chris Mautner weighs in at Newsarama; and I post about my related flame-war with Mark Waid here.
It’s worth saying that 100 Bullets improves immeasurably as the series goes on. Not Risso’s art, which seems to be love it or hate it (I mostly like it myself, though your example is particularly awkward), but the episodic nature of the early stories slowly gives way to an overarching narrative. I’d say this is the book’s greatest strength as a whole, the way its narrative arc starts as though it’s a gimmicky episode-by-episode noir anthology, and then slowly reveals the underpinning forces and plots behind these seemingly unrelated stories. I’m not a huge fan of the first 2 volumes or so, but after that things get much more complex and twisty, with a huge cast slowly emerging and all sorts of criss-crossing plots between shadowy underworld figures. It goes from gimmicky to great noir. Lots of action, and Azzarello’s writing has the perfect pulpy cleverness to keep it fun. I still haven’t read the last few volumes, because it was getting close to impossible to follow the story with the gaps between trades. I’m waiting for the series to end now to catch up on the whole thing.
Risso didn’t do that cover, Dave Johnson did.
I could not disagree more about Risso’s art; I think he’s a genius. He has this ability to exaggerate expressions and movements, but not too much that you even notice right away. And his layouts and angles are beautifully chosen. Uh, to each his own, I guess.
I will say that the series gets better and better, but I liked it from the very beginning, so I don’t know if reading more will help. Chalk it up to taste.
Dismissing 100 Bullets after reading the first trade is like dismissing Citizen Kane after the first 15 minutes.
God knows I have quibbles with this title myself; I think Azzarello has often gotten too clever for his own good at the expense of storytelling clarity. That said, there’s a lot more to this series than what is shown in this collection.
You may not want to spend the money, but you really should try to go deeper into the series to get the gist of what it’s about. Borrow someone’s copy, look on eBay, or something. You don’t really seem tobe inclined to investigate further, and that’s too bad.
You can also be proud that of all the people (and I’ve seen many) who have opined on Risso’s art, you’re the only one to my knowledge who has panned it. Hats off to you, sir. Me, I’m amazed at the scale of his acheivement in doing almost 100 issues, and I think he’s absolutely brilliant- he has Eisner magic in his storytelling abilities. Of course, that’s just my opinion for what it’s worth.
Risso is, as Ed Howard said, pretty much a love it or hate it thing, and while I think his work in the first volume is a bit too loose, it is pretty much what you see/what you get even after that. If you’re not digging it with the first two volumes, then yeah, it’s never going to work for you.
But the dialog, plotting–all that stuff takes off with the fourth volume. (Although the third is the one that got the most critical acclaim, with one of those “best comic of the year” awards.) I think that’s part and parcel of it needing to prove itself too Vertigo before they agreed to give it the full run–my understanding is that there wasn’t a guarantee of the entire story being published until somewhere in the middle of the third arc, which is also where the overall narrative begins.
All that aside–if you’re not digging it after the first two volumes, I’m not sure that you’ll find much to your liking if you go any further.
Dialog wise, the prison story arc clears the floor though–it makes Sin City look like fan-fiction.
I think I noted in the post that it seemed possible that things got better further on. It’s a bit of a hard sell since I don’t like the art terribly much…but maybe I’ll try to get through issue 3 at some point.
And thanks for pointing out the cover-art error Johnny. Hate to sneer at the wrong person….
While I’m at it, I think Dave Johnson is a much better artist than he showed in that particular illustration (the actual cover to #5)- his run of Detective Comics covers (#’s 743-761, examples here and here)in the late 90’s are just a few examples of his innovative work. Some of his other 100 Bullets covers are absolutely outstanding.
Oh, yeah, I think Dave Johnson is also really good. He has done some excellent stuff on the series, and while that one example isn’t great, as soon as the second collection, he was putting out some awesome stuff. And later on, he just kept knocking them out. Don’t count him out.
One last thing–the “game” that Graves is playing with the briefcase and gun is pretty much solely there as a way to introduce the cast. I’d say spoiler or something, but I don’t think it’s really that big of a deal. I like the “sitcom” description, that pretty much nails it.
Also, I know that Johanna Draper Carlson isn’t a big Azzarello fan–I don’t know how much of this is based on 100 Bullets, but you aren’t the only critic out there who’s been less than enthused.
One bad thing about Azzarello is that he seems to have mostly just one voice. It works wonderfully in 100 Bullets, since the witty, quip-filled dialogue has a noir crispness that reminds me of a Howard Hawks or Sam Fuller movie. It doesn’t work quite so well in, for example, Loveless, which is a Western in which all the characters talk as though they just stepped out of a gangster movie. Or out of 100 Bullets. So in general he gets old pretty fast, but this series is definitely his finest work.
One bad thing about Azzarello is that he seems to have mostly just one voice.
Totally agree- that’s one reason I didn’t make it more than four issues into Loveless. It was just grating.
I read the the first two 100 Bullets collections and while it wasn’t horrible, I was not compelled to pick up the third trade.
I like the art, particularly Risso’s use of shadows and negative space to define his backgrounds. Not as mind-blowing as Frank Miller’s art in Sin City, but still interesting.
100 Bullets worked best for me with the shorter stories, where Grave’s gift is injected into classic noir-like scenarios. The larger X-Files global conspiracy plot is a non-starter for me. I think Azzarello clumsily reveals too much, too fast. The fun in any conspiracy story is the journey to uncover the truth, however hackneyed it may be.
Put me in the pro-Risso, pro-Azzarello column. I’m with this series to the end.
wow — for a “comics reviewer” you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. way to embarrass yourself there, noah! risso is a genius.
Whoa, anonymous drive-by insult! What a dick.
Anyway, I agree that Azzarello’s often writes in a very similar style from series to series (his run on Batman (with Risso) did the same thing as the other series mentioned), but if you want evidence that he can do something different, check out Doctor 13: Architecture and Morality, which ran as a backup strip in a miniseries called Tales of the Unexpected (I think) a year or two ago. It’s hilarious. And I dunno how different it is, since I haven’t read it, but I hear his run on Deathblow was also quite enjoyable. Tucker, how does it stack up with the other stuff stylistically?
Be aware, both of the noir artists you cite are/were fans of Dave Johnson.
I don’t as much take issue with your opinion of Dave’s work — I think you’re dead wrong, but entitled to your opinion — as I do that if you’re going to conduct critical analysis of someone’s work and post it to an audience, you ought to be familiar with what kind of profile they have professionally.
“Whoever this Rothko guy is, he sucks!”
Dave has won Emmy Awards. He’s won Eisner Awards. He’s been in the business for 15 years. He designed BEN 10, which was a huge merchandising and ratings hit for the Cartoon Network worldwide.
You can think his stuff sucks. But I think it’s just inexcusable to not do a simple Google search (the terms “Dave Johnson comic book” give you everything you need to know) for an artist you are about to label as “lousy” and “dumb.”
It undermines your credibility as someone with an informed opinion worth listening to.
Respectfully,
-R
Now THERE’S a good drive-by insult. Kudos, Mr. Ritchie.
I love that you just referred to the Beat as Newsarama.
“Now THERE’S a good drive-by insult. Kudos, Mr. Ritchie.”
Matthew,
I don’t know if you’re misconstruing me, or trying to stir it up? :-)
Just to clarify, I am not interested in insulting anyone and my post was not intended like that. When I wrote at the end “Respectfully” I meant it.
My point is this: the opinion should have been better informed and familiar with its subject.
If anyone is taking my post as an insult, it was not intended as such.
Best,
-R
Hey Ross. I think Matthew was actually comparing you favorably to the earlier anonymous poster. He was being ironically unironic, not unironically ironic. Or that’s my guess, anyway.
In any case, I’m certainly not insulted. The below is offered as a respectful rebuttal.
Your position (I should have done due diligence on everyone’s background and professional standing) is a common one. I’ve never quite gotten it, though. How is knowing that some people like Johnson going to change my opinion that that cover is lousy? I mean, yeah, if I were writing an article for publication about what a terrible artist he is, I’d do a lot more research. But in a blog post where the sole point (such as it is) is that I don’t like the cover? Why do I want to go and spend a lot of time researching some guy whose work I dislike? Life’s too short.
I know I know…how can I call myself a comics critic if I don’t know person x, y, z, and q? I think this is actually a really unfortunate attitude. You shouldn’t have to be immersed in the fandom to have an opinion. I don’t know everything (or anywhere near, alas), but I’m interested in art and illustration and have looked at a fair bit of it. Comics should be eager to have more people attracted to the medium who don’t know (or care) which artists won Eisners or whatever.
Or, to boil it down: in art, resumes mean zilch. If you want to argue with me, explain why that cover doesn’t suck, or post something by the man that isn’t lousy. (That’s what the Beat and Matthew Brady did; I don’t agree with either of them, really, but the argumentative tactic is sound.) Huffing and puffing about his awards is deeply unimpressive.
Oh, and my kid loves Ben 10. Cant’ say I’m impressed with the design aspect of it, though….
I, on the other hand, unlike Ross, am happy to just flat-out insult, because this kind of nonsense blogpost, shat out by a self-styled guardian of culture who thinks “mediums” is the plural of “medium,” is largely a waste of electrons and does nothing to elevate any sort of discourse. If there were a FailBlog.org site for reviews, this would lead the list.
The only fair yardstick against which any work of art can be measured is how well it accomplished whatever the hell it set out to accomplish. Every critic’s mileage will vary, but the critics who tend to be worth listening to are the ones who demonstrate, at the very least, enough critical acumen to be able to tell the difference between Ed Risso and Dave Johnson. Particularly when Dave Johnson’s signature is about the size of a matchbook.
Risso “lousy” and lacking “chops?” Johnson’s work “dumb?” Sorry, but that’s just objectively wrong. I bet if you polled the artists working in the business– the people who know what goes into doing this job well– you’d have a very, VERY hard time finding anyone who doesn’t admire the hell out of both these guys’ talent and skill.
I don’t think you really know the meaning of “chops.” To paraphrase the Ricky Roma character in GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS: “If you ever spent a day in your life, you’d know.”
Sorry if I painted your post as a simple insult, Ross, but Noah was correct; I was comparing it favorably to the anonymous commenter who did little more than call Noah an idiot. You made a good argument that I agree with, and left your name. That’s what I was trying to praise, and calling it an insult was kind of an insult of my own, so sorry about that.
It did lead to an interesting response from Noah though, and I’ll have to ponder this issue to see which side I come down on. Obviously I disagree with Noah about Risso and Johnson, but he has a point; does one have to be aware of all their work and the general critical consensus to have an opinion about them? Well, obviously not, but what’s the critic’s responsibility, etc, etc. This is the kind of thing that keeps Dick Hyacinth up at night.
Noah, you certainly seem to have raised the ire of comics folks; looks like you’re doing your best to cement the appearance that you hate comics. I say keep it up. Curmudgeon-ism (and the response to it) is fun to read.
“(…)but when you can’t lay out a page to save your life, simple is often better.”
This sounds terribly awful to me…
Matthew Brady:
“Obviously I disagree with Noah about Risso and Johnson, but he has a point; does one have to be aware of all their work and the general critical consensus to have an opinion about them?”
That’s a valid point in general, but not in this specific instance. Noah was trying to prove his points about Risso’s are having stiff figures, shaky anatomy, cluttered layouts, and a lack of dramatic page design. He tried to do this by:
1. Showing a page which Risso didn’t draw, and CLEARLY didn’t draw, as Dave Johnson’s signature is practically billboard-sized.
2. Picking a cover instead of a story page, which wouldn’t even go towards supporting his argument if Risso HAD drawn it.
He then goes on to insult Dave Johnson’s artistic skills, despite obviously having no clue who he is and basing it off not liking this one cover. I mean, he’s not obligated to like Johnson or to know who he is, but if he’s willing to damn Johnson’s entire career on the basis of a single page drawn 9 years ago, I don’t think anyone should feel bad about thinking he’s ignorant and has no idea what he’s talking about.
In this busy busy world, do we really have time for “uninformed opinions”? I prefer informed ones.
Also, was calling The Beat Newsarama a joke or just another dumbass mistake?
javascript:void(0)
Holy crap. Mark Waid cares enough to post. Hey Mark! I was just reading some of your amazingly mediocre efforts on Justice League. You are the last person whose opinion about writing I would take…I may even keep using “mediums” as the plural just to distance myself from your lameness. Cheers!
Oh, and Heidi, it’s just a mistake. Yes, you should dismiss me because I don’t care what your blog is called. Go back to peering in your navel, Maam. (But bless you for linking here, and for your general support of the blog. No harm either side, I hope.)
But was it a mistake or a DUMBASS mistake?
Also,what “words re:not whining about criticism” was I forced to eat exactly?
Somewhat off-topic, but you all brought it up: I’m looking in my Webster’s New World right now, and while “media” is listed as usually the plural for the meaning of “medium,” it doesn’t list “mediums” as incorrect.
Also, the New York Times (at least sometimes) goes against Webster’s and uses “mediums” as the plural form for this meaning of the word “medium.” Don’t believe me? Go
here and read the second sentence, or go
here and check out that headline.
But yeah, mistaking Dave Johnson’s work, which I like, for that of Eduardo Risso, which I also like, was pretty bad.
“In any case, I’m certainly not insulted. The below is offered as a respectful rebuttal.”
Fantastic. I appreciate that.
“Your position (I should have done due diligence on everyone’s background and professional standing) is a common one. I’ve never quite gotten it, though. How is knowing that some people like Johnson going to change my opinion that that cover is lousy?”
To not get lost in rhetoric, I think I summarized it fairly succinctly earlier: “It undermines your credibility.”
To go further, you say that I am asking you to do “due dilligence” which is an extensive vetting process that typically precedes a corporate acquisition so you know what you’re getting into. I never said that, and it’s an exaggeration of what I said. I don’t think you need Dave’s dental records. Just spend a minute (literally, only that!) on Google. They own the site you’re typing on.
“Why do I want to go and spend a lot of time researching some guy whose work I dislike? Life’s too short.”
Isn’t it the professional thing to do? I spend tens of hours a week doing things I don’t like as it’s my job — comes with the territory. If you want to be a fanboy ripping people a new one online with snarky talk, fine, but if you want to write for the COMICS JOURNAL, that puts you in the professional arena.
“You shouldn’t have to be immersed in the fandom to have an opinion.”
Again, that’s missing the thrust of the argument. I’m not saying you should be immersed in fandom, I’m not saying you have to go to every convention, read every blog, or do due diligence on anyone.
Just know the illustrator you’re talking about. Simple. Don’t get him confused with Eduardo Risso. It undermines your credibility as a critic. You, quite literally, don’t know what you’re talking about.
“Comics should be eager to have more people attracted to the medium who don’t know (or care) which artists won Eisners or whatever.”
I didn’t say winning Eisners made Dave good. Dave is a great artist, and Eisners and Emmys and such follow. The point of that was to say that a casual cursory glance at Google would tell you who he was, so you didn’t get confused.
Look before you leap? Doesn’t that make sense?
“If you want to argue with me”
I would prefer not to, I’d rather have a respectful discourse…
…but I think the way you characterize my previous post right gets all school yard in its approach:
“Huffing and puffing about his awards is deeply unimpressive.”
1) I’m not trying to impress you, on a superficial or deep level.
2) The huffing and puffing characterization is patronizing.
Happy to have a level-headed discussion about the issue at hand. If we want to go off the rails into “your huffing and puffing doesn’t impress me” I’m happy to move on.
There is certainly mileage to be had in walking up to something, as a critic, and saying, “This sucks” and shocking everyone with a contrarian opinion. As a tactic, it’s worked flawlessly here, garnering a fair bit of attention on THE BEAT (which, BTW, is not Newsarama).
If that’s what you’re aiming for, congrats, you got it!
Best of luck with everything,
-R
Hey Heidi. Well, I guess it depends on whether or not you think I’m a dumbass. Reasonable people may differ, I guess.
You seemed to be suggesting that the piece had forced you to reconsider how much slack negative critics should be given. My apologies if I misinterpreted you.
Anonymous; not off topic at all. Grammar is always good. Or well.
Hey Ross. You ask if it wouldn’t be professional to look Dave up. And it would. But…this blog ain’t a professional endeavor. Really, nobody’s paying me. I don’t even have any ads up.
And, yes, “huffing and puffing” is a bit of a poke. I honestly can’t write without doing stuff like that; it takes all the joy out of life. It honestly isn’t meant as a personal insult; just part of the give and take of blogdom.
Follow up post is here.
If you’re going for stylish critique, it’s really important that the critique be…well, stylish. In the first place, Noah Berlatsky’s writing is lousy. The words are stiff, the grammar is shaky, the sentences are cluttered and confusing, and the tone is more bitchy than clever.
hmmm. Can only speak for myself.
I think 100 Bullets has the best art of any western comic. Risso is a master of shadow and enviroment.
And Azzarello is grossly underrated.
This is especially true these days where it’s always Moore this and Morrison that…
See also “Loveless” for some off beat writting.
I think 100 bullets is masterpiece.