Frank Miller (c. 2016) is the Donald Trump of comics. Not merely because he’s demonstrated some ebullient racism, not because he really hates Muslims, not because of his warped ideas about women, but because of the general incoherence of his vision. The sad thing is that Miller considers Trump a bit of a “buffoon.”
There’s a whole article to be written about Miller’s political beliefs from the 1980s to the 2010s: how a man who wrote a satire on Reagan and Nuclear Armageddon could transform (?) in latter years into such a reactionary (presumably he always was one); how an artist who created a comic about an all conquering female ninja and her masochistic, castrated male partner (he only gets an erection when he submits) could come to see women in latter years as harlots. I guess Freudians would put this down to a Madonna-Whore complex.
Frank Miller the thinker is a slightly knotty problem, but there’s nothing especially complex about the drawing hand of Frank Miller circa 2016. The one time master of dynamic movement and page composition has hit rock bottom and his fans aren’t amused.
He has a 12-page back-up story in The Dark Knight III: The Master Race #4 which is little more than one big fight scene with some barely sketched out characters just limply hanging in blank space. Then Aquaman appears in all his shoddy glory and…the end. This is a rigorous reflection of the story in the main body of the comic which is also little more than an extended fight scene between Superman and his daughter, with Batman and Carrie Kelley as spectators. Remember the scene in The Dark Knight Returns where Batman beats Superman to a bloody pulp under some street lights like the lowlife street mugger he is? Well, the new comic is yet more fanservice for Batfans who think the Man of Steel sucks (Miller is the inspiration here, not the cause).
But it’s not all corrupt—if you take individual panels out of context you can still see some remnants of the old artist. A silhouette here and some adequate superhero posing there.
Still, no one really cares about Miller’s subliterate backup story; the internet is far more disgruntled by his series of covers for DC. The most recent culprit is his portrait of Wonder Woman for a DK3 #4 variant cover.
Yet for me, this seems closer to that time when Trump emerged from a relaxing spa a few months back and said that he would be friendly with Russia—which is infinitely preferable to World War 3 I should add.
Yes, she looks a bit sullen but not everything needs to be fun and games a la Marston and Peter. He’s on song again because of the nostalgia he has for the warrior-child motif from his days as a fan of Lone Wolf and Cub. The thing isn’t conventionally erotic or pornographic; this Wonder Woman doesn’t want to make love to you; she doesn’t even want to be tied up with her sorority girlfriends. She just wants to beat you up, hence the gorilla-like stance with her fists on the ground. The breasts are a wee bit big but they’re covered and it could just be the armor doing the talking. The bicycle shorts are cool and the stars quite well drawn. Anyone who knows anything about recent Miller will tell you that this is “decent” Miller as opposed to OMFG Miller. To wit:
I will accept intimations that this image is a natural extension of Miller’s penchant for night spots of all sorts in his sequential work, and thus a homage to drag queen clubs; maybe a bad homage but a homage nonetheless.
Every few months, Miller releases his new modernist vision of superheroes to the world to the general consternation of the Twittersphere. And every time, one of these images appears, the internet expresses equal parts astonishment, outrage, and delight that something so grotesque should exist in this universe. It’s like stepping on some dog poo just as you’re about to get into work—you have to tell someone because it just stinks. If you don’t, they’ll find out and then where would you be?
Everytime one of these things hits the stands, it’s as if Miller is pulling out his dick and saying, “Fuck you, DC! And fuck your pet rabbit!” The most obvious screw you was his infamous Superman with a package (he packs to the right) splash page/cover.
Miller fans point to moments like these as expressions of his genius and his innate feminist instincts—the drawing hand may be withering but that brain! It still works and wants to let the supermen (and their cocks) have it as good as the superwomen.
The people who go to conventions and collect original art were well apprised of this paradigm shift in Miller’s abilities at least a few months in advance of the general public, with responses ranging from delight at owning a hand drawn masterpiece from the Master to earnest attempts at retrieving whatever vestiges of dignity remained in the art—the equivalent of trying to pick a really dry piece of snot from your nostrils. Utterly disgusting for all concerned.
Any hesitation to declare this a sharp deterioration in artistic prowess does not simply reside in the level of respect Miller has garnered over the years from the fan community but the simple fact that you simply don’t make jokes about the afflicted. And Miller has looked pretty ill for some years (the exact nature of his ailment is a mystery). The internet gasped with incredulity when Miller took a photo with Stan Lee recently.
But there’s every indication that he’s on the mend. The recent photos while far from hearty are still a significant improvement over those from not so long ago. Like a mud-caked Batman in The Dark Knight Triumphant, Miller is having it out with the Mutant Leader. Something is telling him to stop with the art but he’s not listening to it; and that’s all for the best.
So if you’re sick (and there is by no means any public confirmation of this) and are still able to support yourself, I think more power to you. And if you want to do a Dark Knight IV all by your lonesome in years to come, well, I guess why not—DC deserves it, and fuck “artistic legacy.” But, you know, get Klaus Janson to help out a bit I think, now that you’ve both kissed and made up. Because there’s really no shame in getting help, especially when not getting help results in this:
These monstrous ninja zombies are of course depictions of Miller most famous creation, Elektra; which sort of makes sense considering her resurrection in Miller’s early Daredevil comics. I guess if you created the character, you get to decide if the lady has flat-rectangular shaped nipples or has a tattoo of Matt Murdock on her left thigh or has glow in the dark areolae. There’s little doubt that Miller considers most of these images transcendent spank material.
Speaking of which, how much do you think this wank material is worth? $2000 maybe? You need to account for the fact that we’ve had several suppositories of Quantitative Easing for close on 10 years (though with nary an effect on inflation). So maybe $4000-5000? Miller is a living legend in superhero circles afterall. Apparently a nice big Batman sketch like this goes for somewhere in the region of $10-12K.
The Elektras? 8.5-9.5K. There were nasty rumors circulating that customers who bought an Elektra stood a better chance of getting a Batman. When I heard about this from a fellow collector, I assumed it was a buy one and get one free deal. But no chance, Frank Miller (and his handlers) are nothing if not great businessmen.
Which only goes to show that you don’t need close readings or a smattering of comics history to understand the baseline ethic at work here. When exciting new conceptions of the decaying female form are greeted with ready wallets, then Capitalism dictates that we sell them. As for the rest, DC will just have to suck it up because they started it first.
Man was this article a long time coming…
There’s a visual and/or muscular problem in his drawing, it really stands out. That’s the #1 problem of American comix … shitty draftsmanship (intended or accidental) is no bar to success.
Imagine a literary culture where editors cheerfully let sub-literate, inchoate and misspelled manuscripts into print. They don’t, not yet, at least … but comix, anything goes.
And get off my lawn
If I saw those Electras on eBay I would laugh my head off… Silly me…
The Batman piece at the bottom isn’t bad, the weird-looking rips in the cowl notwithstanding. But the others? [shaking my head].
While some of the fall-off in Miller’s drawing is most likely attributable to health problems–he looks like he’s aged at least 30 years in the last decade–a lot of this grossly disproportionate figure stylization began showing up in his work in the late ’90s. DK2 would have looked terrible regardless of the coloring, and the covers he did for the three-volume Visionaries collection of his first Daredevil run still make me wince.
The core problem is that he’s not a natural draftsman. He’s developed the knowledge and the skills, and he’s willing to work his ass off, but he doesn’t have an intuitive feel for drawing. His work has almost always looked clumsy regardless of the stylization he’s working in. The reason it looks so godawful now is that he’s no longer following other artists’ lead in his stylistic approach. He’s determined to stake out his own stylistic territory as a draftsman, and he can’t help but flail around. Everything looks grotesque in the worst way.
I agree with the general sentiment of the article. I had a brief correspondence with him when he was 15 years old (we were both in an APA) and I was 18. Have some of his ‘original’ artwork done in mimeograph reproduction!
Yah, his Ronin and DKReturns were blazing pieces of storytelling. So well done, DK2, and stuff later…much less so. Sin City early on was nicely done but got old fast as he did more ‘shorthand’ in his style…to its detriment I think. Holy Terror? Omg…
“… he’s not a natural draftsman. He’s developed the knowledge and the skills, and he’s willing to work his ass off, but he doesn’t have an intuitive feel for drawing. His work has almost always looked clumsy …”
I think you could say the same thing about Ditko or Kirby. I dont know if Kirbys art ever declined like Millers, but even the late Moebius lost his touch (and i guess you could call him a draftsman in the traditional sense).
Personally, I always found the unacademic approach to drawing part of the fascination of American comics. If you showed Kirby to any art teacher they would point out the obvious anatomic misconceptions, but that doesnt necessarily mean much in the context of a superhero comic, does it?
The reason i always preferred Dark Knight Returns a little bit over Watchmen is probably because of Millers art – i think its safe to say this was one of the most inventive, most urgent interpretations of Batman (or any superhero) ever done. Gibbons Watchmen on the other hand just felt more like an ironic appropriation of Kurt Schaffenberger (which fits perfectly of course).
Anyway, not to justify these renderings of WW and Elektra, theyre just terrible. What i find much more troubling is where Miller has gone as an author though.
Yeah, I have to agree with that last part. Miller has never been a terribly deep thinker-author but in his prime he did write good action comics. The last respectable thing he’s done in that genre might be the first Sin City arc (or perhaps even earlier).
Mahendra – are you referring to Frank Miller from Day 1 or just Frank Miller in the 21st Century?
Kirby and Ditko are both fine as draftsmen. Kirby in particular became a visionary stylist. The person in comics who is most like Miller–strong design abilities, weak innate drawing talent–is probably Art Spiegelman.
Also, when I say he’s not a “natural draftsman,” I’m not talking about academic drawing skills. Those can be learned, and Miller has done a pretty fair job of that in his history. It’s about having an intuitive feel for drawing, and that mostly comes across by looking comfortable in the context of what you’re doing. In other words, the drawing looks like you’re not second-guessing yourself all the time. Kirby certainly meets that test. Ditko meets that test. Jules Feiffer and Charles Schulz meet that test. Miller and Art Spiegelman don’t.
“There’s a whole article to be written about Miller’s political beliefs from the 1980s to the 2010s”
I actually wrote that article some time ago and shall helpfully provide a link!
Here:
http://www.thenewestrant.com/2012/06/social-and-political-differences.html
Gotta love shameless plugs!
Robert: “[…]when I say he’s not a “natural draftsman,” I’m not talking about academic drawing skills. Those can be learned, and Miller has done a pretty fair job of that in his history. It’s about having an intuitive feel for drawing, and that mostly comes across by looking comfortable in the context of what you’re doing. In other words, the drawing looks like you’re not second-guessing yourself all the time. Kirby certainly meets that test. Ditko meets that test. Jules Feiffer and Charles Schulz meet that test.”
I would cite Robert Crumb, Bernard Krigstein, Alex Toth, Al Columbia, Carl Barks, Walt Kelly, Frank Frazetta. The motherload is in newspaper comics though: Winsor McCay, Milton Caniff, Roy Crane, Hal Foster, Alex Raymond, E. C. Segar, Geo. Herriman, etc… etc…
Robert, think I can see where you’re coming from, but I would argue that Ditko and Kirby are somewhere in middle of the Feiffer/Schulz vs. Miller/Spiegelman spectrum (complete control of artistic means in a traditional/academic sense vs. crudeness)… To me the contrast of underworked and overworked parts in the art of Miller, Spiegelman or Todd McFarlane (at their height) only adds to the experience, but I know people on here wouldnt agree. Its like trying to explain to your parents why Punk, Techno or Vaporwave is actually good music hahaha
Dan Nadel at TCJ today said he likes these drawings…I guess they’re genuinely ugly and they make me laugh, which is something. I probably like them better than the art in Maus, I have to say, which makes me angry…and definitely better than the art in Shadow of No Towers, which I actually find insulting. Better than run of the mill DC superhero art too, which is mostly boring and without any sylistic interest at all….
So yeah. This has a goofy, wtf, outsider art appeal. It’s not good, but it’s not hard to find worse.
Any thoughts on Kevin O’Neill? Definitely some awkward anatomy, but damn I like to look at his stuff.
Ng Suat Tong … I’m referring to the recent work … I commiserate with his plight, he’s clearly got his back to the wall and I hope he pulls through … his earlier work was never my cup of tea visually. BTW there was an earlier comment about Moebius going soft at the end, I couldn’t disagree more. His draftsmanship was always very, very good once he hit his stride on Blueberry …
I kind of stated the obvious above. The problem in comics to me were never the tech skills of those cited and others. The problem lies elsewhere…
Sorry to change the subject– Mahendra Singh, I’ve recently seen 20 Trillion Leagues under the Sea, and your illustrations there are masterful.
thank you, Baldanders … the author of 20 Trillion is Adam Roberts and I strongly recommend his SF to readers who are looking for something a bit more literary/conceptual in their SF.
Did anyone notice that Adam manag
ed to pack the Hunting of the Snark into that novel? The guy’s an insane genius, the Proteus of SF
And Diego is right, the problem is not the art, the problem is shabby concepts, that should be fixed first. But THEN comes the art problem.
sorry, Domingos, not Diego … I am extra stupid today, apologies
Ng Suat Tong wrote:
> There’s a whole article to be written about Miller’s
> political beliefs from the 1980s to the 2010s: how a
> man who wrote a satire on Reagan and Nuclear
> Armageddon could transform (?) in latter years into
> such a reactionary (presumably he always was one)
The first time I encountered this subject was in a 2006 blog entry, subtly titled ‘Why Frank Miller is a fascist writer’:
http://goodcomics.blogspot.dk/2006/02/why-frank-miller-is-fascist-writer.html
Fuck you.
http://harveyjames.tumblr.com/post/143735873863/theory-frank-millers-recent-work-is-good-but-it
It’s like no one on the internet has ever seen an Henri Matisse painting… Or a Picasso.
Or…possibly folks aren’t convinced that Frank Miller belongs in that company?
Ridiculous…
@Noah
Their loss.
I mean…I like Frank Miller, and am pretty iffy on Picasso, but…yeah, I have to go with Domingos here. The comparison seems silly. I mean, if you see it,you see it, but positing that the problem with folks who don’t like Miller’s recent work is that they’re unfamiliar with Picasso is not especially convincing to me. You might do better trying to sell folks that Miller’s some kind of outsider artist? I don’t find him very interesting in that light as of late either, but you’re not as likely to get people laughing at you outright.