I just read a graphic novel adaptation of an adaptation of James Ellroy's "Black Dahlia" (more on that later). Long story short - 'twas bad.
***
I'm a big fan of blood-drenched minced meat prose of James Ellroy. I've learned a lot from his ultra-condensed no-bullshit prose. The way he ties up random details into one puzzle, the way he establishes character through little touches - the man knows how to deliver more with less.
Ellroy's primary weapon is Occam's Razor and he uses it as a butcher's knife. That is particularly inspiring - everything is chopped to fit together just barely, you can see the stitches and it is either excessively bleeding or is already drained of substance. His writing is as grotesque as the things he writes about. The texts are also quite poetic - wild mix of different slangs, argots, hard-boiled vibe and out there metaphors is worthy of Ezra Pound.
What is puzzling to me is that almost none of these qualities are translated to film in any measure of adequacy. You know - there is only one great Ellroy adaptation - "LA Confidential" and its greatness is based upon its willingness to step away from the source to make a better film narrative. Other adaptations are so-so for the very same reason but there is also one that is actually stupendously offending in its lacklustre nature - Brian De Palma's "Black Dahlia". But i will not talk about it because i'm bad at morbid comedy.
I'm going to talk about David Fincher's attempt at adapting Black Dahlia.
***
Before Brian De Palma stepped-in to direct "Black Dahlia" - David Fincher was circling around the project for some time. He wanted to do an immersive period piece about the city and the people who lived there. He wanted to show what a cesspool bizarroland was Los Angeles of late 40's early 50's. And as an extensive illustration of these theme he used Black Dahlia murder case.
It should be noted that it wasn't the only murder mystery project Fincher was working on at that time - he also tried to pull off Brian Michael Bendis' graphic novel "Torso" and also Matz's "The Killers" who later adapted Fincher's work. In the end "Black Dahlia" didn't worked out the way Fincher wanted - the budget was too high, there were not enough draw in attached stars, too big risk for the studio. Fincher moved on. Eventually he made his murder mystery period piece in a form of "Zodiac" and then made another lap of period with "Curious Case of Benjamin Button". He even developed a couple of projects with James Ellroy.
As time went by - interest for subject of unrealized projects became growing. You can read a lot about it on the net, there is even a sub-genre of films about unmade films ("Jodorowsky's Dune", "Lost Soul" about Richard Stanley doomed Dr. Moreau film, etc). It is easy to understand its phenomenon - curiosity of what could have been made and imagination can do better that any film ever. Naturally, there was a certain level of demand for the further description of Fincher' vision. After a while - fans got more than they could have expected - not just a couple of remarks or extensive comments but a whole graphic novel.
***
Released in 2016 by Archaia, a division of BOOM! Studios - this particular "Black Dahlia" is a strange beast to say the least. The weirdness starts before the story starts - in the credits. It is neither Ellroy's or Fincher's joint. It is credited as "based on James Ellroy's novel adapted by David Fincher" - which is a nice thing to think about that is a bit disorienting in practice. Basically - an adaptation of an adaptation. Actual work was pulled off by the other guys. It was written by Matz AKA Alexis Nolent and illustrated by Miles Hyman. So it is neither this or that but something else but not exactly and so and so and that. Ellroy merely approved Matz' work while Fincher presented some of his ideas regarding the way the story rolls.
And that is a problem.
Technically Ellroy's novel was partially based on bizarre unsolved 1947 murder of Elizabeth Short. The thing happened seemingly for no reason at all. Short was "young aspiring actress" with a string oddjobs here and there. Apparently she got herself in trouble with the wrong guys and paid for that. She was extensively mutilated (with a mouth cut ear to ear as a finishing touch), disembowelled and cut in two. It was an expert job with too little evidence left for an investigation to chew on. Because of its grotesqueness it captured the public's attention the wrong way which made things even more complicated. Eventually as any other cold case - it faded away as another grim true crime story.
James Ellroy had somewhat personal connection to it. His mother was raped and murdered when he was ten years old. The case was never solved and that took a toll on him. The book is dedicated to her and can be distantly interpreted as an attempt to find some kind of closure for it.
Another huge source of information for Ellroy was Jack Webb's (of "Dragnet" fame) book "The Badge" that recounted many of the sensational cases from the files of LAPD coupled with vital inside information on the force including systematic corruption and dubious racism. This book serves as a foundation for the entire cycle of Ellroy's novels and is required reading.
But you don't need to know all these things in order to read the graphic novel. Because oddly enough it doesn't matter. Because this novel is a bastardized apparition of a redesigned body.
Here's why.
***
It is obvious that Matz was trying to condense Ellroy's story to a reasonable single tome length and in the same time represent the vision Fincher was going for. However he managed to fail both. You can't really tell what Fincher was going for. None of signature ticks and spins are in place. In terms of streamlining the story he did a serviceable job - Matz kept all the beats intact. But this very same thing also critically bludgeoned the story.
Here's the thing - Ellroy's novels are multi-layered explorations of a particular moment in time through the eyes of unreliable narrators. It is never about the titular subject itself but everything and everyone around it. The titular subject is nothing more than an inciting accident - point of entry into the rabbithole. Ellroy's novels are all about little details that make it all tick tick tick and that is what the graphic novel is extremely lacking.
"Black Dahlia" the comic" is told in broad strokes, often skimming over context. Stripped off detail the narrative becomes overly schematic and that keeps you away from any kind of investment in the story. The story is just there and it goes on and on.
Because of that dialogue is put in a weirdly contorted position. It is left more or less intact with the source novel but because of overall barebones nature of the narrative it feels tacked on. It is on a different level in comparison with the way the story is being told. And that is distracting.
***
Another issue comes with visuals. One of the first things that fall into the readers eye is the visual style. Miles Hynes did a nice job. Stylistically it is based upon pulp illustrations with soft steady lines and clear shapes. It has warm pastel look heavy on background detail.
When I started reading it - i thought these drawings were actual storyboards with a word bubbles tacked on. It is not a drawing to represent something but an approximation of how it will go in another medium. And it is completely pointless. There is so much more you can do with such rich source material.
The problem with it is that it adds nothing to the narrative. It simply follows the story - illustrates it as it is without furthering or expanding. Everything is told and barely shown. There is nothing to hang on for an eye. No clues, no parallel strains of narrative, even easter eggs are missing. The story is told in the midpoints of the episodes but there is nothing particular going on. There is no dynamics in the drawings - they are all static and dour.
Every panel is just people standing, looking blank, delivering lines or some traced landscape shot or something in the midst of happening with the voice-over in the corner explaining what is it all about instead of pictures speaking for themselves. That's might be the logical way to present story in the prose text but there is no reason to keep it when you have visuals.
Not only that - but the character are very clumsy and indistinctive of each other. Most of the males are suits with different colors. Women are even worse. Sometimes you can't even tell who is who. A couple of characters look like other for no reason at all. The continuity of Short's injuries is as flowing as Marvel's timeline.
After a while it becomes unbearable. But then i've came to a conclusion that there is nothing more that i can tell you about this book. Not even a bit. Funny, huh?
***
Concluding statement
This graphic novel is blatant half-baked cash-grab that tried to cover it flaws with the fact that it was merely based on unrealized adaptation of the novel that was subsequently equally substandardly adopted into a feature film. It almost feels like a forgery. It was targeted to the fans who wanted to get some taste of what it could have been. From that point of view - it barely manages to do its job. After all - it is better than nothing. Sure, it is approximation with not enough thought put into it - but it gives you a very distant idea to chew on. Which is a good thing if you are a fan of Earth-Pluto kinds of distances.
THIRTY.
Немає коментарів:
Дописати коментар