The Pin-Up Art of Dan DeCarlo

Fantagraphics has just released The Pin-Up Art of Dan DeCarlo, an absolutely gorgeous collection of work from 1956 through 1963, when the cartoonist was at the peak of his powers.

For those who came late, Dan DeCarlo got his cartooning start working at Timely (later Marvel) Comics drawing such fare as Millie the Model and Sherry the Showgirl for Stan Lee. From the late 50s into the 90’s, DeCarlo was the quintessential Archie artist, best known for his work on the daily Archie comic strip and his definitive depictions of the yin and yang of Riverdale sexuality, Betty and Veronica. Millions of adolescent boys (myself included) felt peculiar stirrings while reading about the exploits of the wealthy brunette and the wholesome blonde (particularly while engaging in their titular Summer Fun... no pun intended).

The discovery years later that DeCarlo was moonlighting as a girlie cartoonist for the Humorama line of men’s magazines was, for some fanboys, the sociological equivalent of the discovery of the early nude photos of Madonna or Vanessa Williams. As sexy as Betty and Veronica were, they were chaste (to Archie’s eternal frustration). The women DeCarlo drew for Zip, Joker and Laugh Riot were not innocent. And they were often naked.

While DeCarlo’s drawings of men came in all shapes and sizes, critics charge that all of his women looked exactly alike, with the same rounded face, turned-up nose and hourglass figure; That the only differing feature was the hairstyle. It’s a valid point, but in the end it doesn’t matter. It’s like criticizing the Ramones for recording the same song over and over. Yeah, they did. And better than anyone else.

DeCarlo’s art was pure cartooning, clean and distinctive, with a masterful line and a sense of design that rivalled anyone’s. He drew clothes better than almost any cartoonist this side of Hank Ketcham (not that there’s a lot of sartorial evidence in this book) and his comedic timing was exemplary.

The Pin-Up Art of Dan DeCarlo (compiled by Alex Chun and Jacob Lovey) is beautifully printed in a black and orange two toned scheme, mostly full page cartoons with some devoted to detail from the art. There are a few problems. An out of place pin-up drawn by DeCarlo in 2000 awkwardly stretches across two pages near the end of the book, none of the cartoons are dated or annotated and the text for the gags has been redone, but those are minor complaints (the absolutely hideous sliced lettering used for the title of the book is unforgiveable, however). This book is indispensible for anyone who loves pin-up art, beautiful cartooning.... or ever wanted to see Betty and Veronica naked.

Not that I ever thought about that.

POSTSCRIPT, September 2010:
A second volume was released in 2008.
___________________________________________________________
ORIGINALLY POSTED on TOUGH GUY GOODS & SERVICES, May 2005

The Batman Chronicles volume 1

A while ago, I rambled on about the lamentable state of DC Comics’ collected reprint editions, particularly the operpriced, overblown and overproduced Archives Series. While there’s still a flood of those books coming, it does appear as if DC is starting to rethink how it’s handling its vast library.

The Batman Chronicles Volume One represents a big step in the right direction. This 192 page paperback begins the mammoth undertaking of chronologically reprinting every Batman tale from every comic in which he starred, beginning with “the Case of the Chemical Syndicate” from Detective Comics #27 (dated May, 1939).

The Good: The paper is cheap (a traditionalist, I prefer my comics on matte paper and with gutters!), the price is low ($14.99) and the quality is good. The design of the book is nice and the reproduction is pretty crisp.

The Bad: The physical size of the book is (like the Archives) disproportionate to the original comics, leaving huge margins at the top and bottom of the page while forcing the art too close to the spine. The art is still being recolored and worst of all, there’s a distinct absence of historical perspective; The Batman Chronicles lacks even a cursory introduction. The book opens with a table of contents (that thankfully gives writer and artist credits), and does reprint the covers along with the stories, but some more context would be appreciated.

No doubt, DC is trying to squeeze as many stories as possible into each volume to make the books economically feasible to the fanboys (especially the obsessive ones who already own the Archives... yes, there are some who will buy both). But I’d still love some additional material such as editorial comment on the tales, reprints of advertising (and the “full page autographed picture, suitable for framing” from the back cover of Batman #1) and biographies of the creators (which DC almost always includes in its collections).

It would seem that if a little more effort were put into discussing WHY these stories are so important in the history of comics, what their contemporaries and competition were, what the country was going through at the time, the books might appeal to a wider audience than the already oversaturated fan market.

After all, this was the darkest Batman of all (at least before Frank Miller got his hands on him)... he used a gun, he killed his enemies, he was wanted by the police, he was a loner.... until the introduction of Robin, the Boy Wonder in the twelfth story herein. The tone lightened a bit, but the Joker was still terrifying instead of funny and the stories retained a noir feel that would alter dramatically as the forties rolled on.

Still, despite my nerdy nitpicking (I wish they’d have used an earlier Batman logo for the back cover), I’ll keep buying this series at least for a while. And if DC decides to adapt this format to other characters, namely a certain last son of Krypton, well, my comic shelves may be expanding instead of diminishing for the first time in years....

POSTSCRIPT, September 2010:
DC has indeed continued and expanded this series to include Superman, Wonder Woman, the Flash (silver age) and Green Lantern (silver age). Now if only they'd follow suit with Dr. Fate and the Spectre...
___________________________________________________________
ORIGINALLY POSTED on TOUGH GUY GOODS & SERVICES, May 2005

You Don't Mess with the Seuss

Any time a movie is adapted from another source, be it a book, play, comic, TV show or even a video game, it’s inevitably compared to the original. And whether the comparison is positive or negative, it’s actually unfair. Different media meet different needs and shouldn’t be judged against one another. It’s not even like comparing junk food to a gourmet meal... it’s like comparing a gourmet meal to a wool sweater.

When the inspiration for a movie is a book, the comparisons are almost always unfavorable. Film and television are more passive art forms than literature, comics and even theater, which demand some level of interaction from the consumer. Common wisdom states that no matter how amazing the screenplay, acting, effects et al, a movie can’t compete with the subjective experience of reading a book and visualizing it for yourself (not to mention the depth that the length of most novels allows). The most one can hope for when translating one form of media into another is to remain true to the SPIRIT of the original.

When Hollywood tries to adapt beloved children’s literature, the challenge is even greater. Our feelings about the first books we grew up reading, stories that left indelible impressions on us in our most formative years are often stronger and far more passionate than our feelings about the oeuvre of Stephen King. “The Polar Express” is the latest in a long line of films tackling that most difficult of adaptations.

The Walt Disney kingdom was largely built by pillaging the fairy and folk tales firmly lodged in the public domain. “Snow White and the Seven Dwarves,” “Cinderella,” “Sleeping Beauty,” “Pinocchio” and many more stories were turned into animated films that have become, to many, the standard versions, far surpassing the prose originals in the public’s mind, despite being (in many cases) safely watered down for mass consumption.

For example, in the Brothers Grimm’s original “Snow White,” the tale ends with the evil queen being forced to don a pair of red-hot iron slippers and dance in them until she drops dead. In “Cinderella,” the evil stepsisters slice off chunks of their feet to fit into the slipper (again with the shoes... did the Bros. have a fetish?) and their eyes are plucked out by pigeons at the end.

Too much for the kiddies, you say? Maybe. But as we mentioned last week, some of the greatest children’s lit contain some difficult material, frightening, complicated stuff that may be challenging, but leaves an impact. We remember being terrified as a child by the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, but Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” is completely ineffective if the reader (or viewer) isn’t forced through the same gamut of emotions as Ebenezer Scrooge, and that includes fear.

In one horribly patronizing moment in 1992’s “The Muppet Christmas Carol,” a mouse wonders aloud whether the appearance of the ghost of Jacob Marley is too frightening for the kids to handle! Jim Henson was no doubt rolling in his then-fresh grave.

But not nearly as much as the most beloved children’s author of all time, who by now has probably rotated up through the ground and into the stratosphere. No children’s author ever had more integrity and respect for his audience than Theodore Geisel, aka Dr. Seuss. Through his long, illustrious career, the good Dr. steadfastly refused many offers to merchandise his characters. The few times he did allow them to be adapted, he kept a gloved hand in, and those records and cartoons stand out as classics in their own right. Animator Chuck Jones’ 1966 version of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” is as rightfully beloved as the book.

But when Geisel died in 1991, his widow promptly let the exploitation begin. Licenses were granted both left and both right and crap filled the toy shelves by the fifty-fifth night! Okay, we’ll knock off the attempt at Seussian rhyming... just like both big budget live action Seuss adaptations did.

Ron Howard’s “Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas” (2000) is mistitled, because this overblown, crass, loud travesty bears no resemblance to anything created by Geisel. Jim Carrey plays the Grinch as broadly as Robin Williams in drag while the overloaded set design is enough to give the most ADD afflicted tot a migraine. The movie is filled with fart jokes, awkward pop culture references, a forced backstory for the Grinch and absolutely no rhyming dialogue aside from Anthony Hopkins’ narration (the sole high point of the film). This mass-merchandized “Grinch” completely misses the whole point, that “maybe Christmas doesn’t come from a store... maybe Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more.” While the movie was a box office success, it was universally panned by critics and is reviled by most Suessites.

But in Lalaland, money talks, etc., and so 2003’s “the Cat in the Hat” stuck with the same formula. Mike Meyers, struggling and failing to find an original voice for the hyperactive feline, seems so painfully lost in this schizophrenic set piece that you almost feel sorry for him. Again, the playfully anarchic soul of the original books is replaced with a mean spirited snarkiness that feels like a parody of Dr. Seuss rather than a tribute.

Still, it is possible to craft a movie that holds up to the inspiration. Not all of Disney’s adaptations were too sugary to swallow (“Jungle Book” and their short “Legend of Sleepy Hollow” cartoons spring to mind). “The Wizard of Oz” still holds up and 1973’s “Charlotte’s Web” animated feature captured E.B. White’s novel with a stark honesty happily typical of 70s cinema.

Arguably the best kidlit to film translation was 1971’s “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” based on Roald Dahl’s dark novel about a nice guy actually finishing first. The film stars Gene Wilder as the mysterious, seemingly deranged chocolatier Wonka, who, with the aid of his indentured Oompa Loompas and apparently a lot of psychotropic supplements, weeds out the bad eggs to find a suitable heir to his empire. The movie is alternately sweet and scary, sad and funny, and has left an indelible impression on generations, to the point that Tim Burton’s upcoming remake feels not only superfluous, but doomed.

We are, however, keeping our fingers crossed for next year’s live action / CGI combo “Where the Wild Things Are.” Not only is author Maurice Sendak heavily involved in the project, but the director is Spike Jonze, someone who is adept at straddling the thin purple, hairy, fanged line between reality and imagination. If there’s anyone we can trust to maintain (dare we imagine even enhance?) the more frightening aspects of the book, it’s Jonze.

Where Madeline, Harry Potter, Winnie the Pooh, Shrek, Stuart Little and many, many more fit into this discussion is as subjective and arguable as where God fits in the voting booth (how’s that for a leap). But, like we said, this is a passionate topic, one that may just replace November 2nd at the dinner table for those who love “The Polar Express” once they check out the many digitized faces of Tom Hanks in the theater.

The only sure bet is that as long as there’s a market for merchandizing and mutating children’s literature, Hollywood’s gonna keep scouring the lower shelves at your local big chain bookstore. Which makes us wonder: Will “Everyone Poops: the Movie” be live action or CGI?
______________________________________________________
ORIGINALLY POSTED in REWIND on MTV.COM, November 2004