Genre Deconstruction as the pinnacle of the genre

[Slam_Bradley]

A thread on the TV/Film board got in to a discussion of the best western movie. This led me to think about comic books and more particularly about Watchmen. Which led me to ponder whether a work that is a deconstruction of a genre/form/what have you can actually be the pinnacle of that genre (to the extent there can be a "best" in any art-form).

To illustrate a couple of the things that caused me to ponder this.

Western Films. There are certainly a number of usual suspects when it comes to naming a greatest western film. The Searchers. High Noon. Once Upon a Time in the Old West. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. The Wild Bunch. Unforgiven. But there is a good argument that Leone's westerns were a deconstruction of the earlier Hollywood westerns. Unforgiven is even more clearly a deconstruction of both the traditional and the spaghetti western.

Comics...more particularly super-hero comics. Alan Moore's Watchmen is frequently singled out as the best comic ever. It's more frequently singled out as the the best super-hero comic ever. But it is clearly a deconstruction of the long-standing super-hero tropes.

So can a deconstruction become the apex of that which it is deconstructing? I'm still working on it. And I'll admit that to the extent I have knowledge of art it is largely self-taught. So I'm very curious to see what people think.

[Shellhead]

It's an interesting idea, and sounds very plausible. By definition, a genre is somewhat limited in scope, but a deconstruction of a genre can step beyond the boundaries of that genre to place it within a larger context and address broader themes.

[Mac Danny]

A thread on the TV/Film board got in to a discussion of the best western movie. This led me to think about comic books and more particularly about Watchmen. Which led me to ponder whether a work that is a deconstruction of a genre/form/what have you can actually be the pinnacle of that genre (to the extent there can be a "best" in any art-form).

To illustrate a couple of the things that caused me to ponder this.

Western Films. There are certainly a number of usual suspects when it comes to naming a greatest western film. The Searchers. High Noon. Once Upon a Time in the Old West. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. The Wild Bunch. Unforgiven. But there is a good argument that Leone's westerns were a deconstruction of the earlier Hollywood westerns. Unforgiven is even more clearly a deconstruction of both the traditional and the spaghetti western.

Comics...more particularly super-hero comics. Alan Moore's Watchmen is frequently singled out as the best comic ever. It's more frequently singled out as the the best super-hero comic ever. But it is clearly a deconstruction of the long-standing super-hero tropes.

So can a deconstruction become the apex of that which it is deconstructing? I'm still working on it. And I'll admit that to the extent I have knowledge of art it is largely self-taught. So I'm very curious to see what people think.

I am not sure if I understand deconstruction in this sense. If you mean a piece of genre work that shows the less glamorous "realistic" side of the genre then I agree. Those are usually the more interesting versions of a genre.

Have we had a deconstructed Horror Film?

[jessecuster3]

I am not sure if I understand deconstruction in this sense. If you mean a piece of genre work that shows the less glamorous "realistic" side of the genre then I agree. Those are usually the more interesting versions of a genre.

Have we had a deconstructed Horror Film?

Isn't Scream a deconstruction?

[Mac Danny]

Isn't Scream a deconstruction?

See, I think it's more of a Wink to the genre than a deconstruction. More Johnny Dangerously to me.

Could be though. I would think that a deconstruction would be more like The Minus Man maybe..

Like all things, I could be wrong.

[thespianphryne]

If the deconstruction is sound and comes from a place of mastery, then yes it can be the pinnacle of genre. But it's also simultaneously outside of the genre because as Shellhead says, it places the opus into a greater context. As far as I'm concerned, many of the best works of art are inherently already deconstructed.

The thing to remember is that you can't deconstruct a genre a without being a master of it.

[thespianphryne]

Isn't Scream a deconstruction?

I don't know. I think of Scream as parodic meta-commentary. I'm not sure it does anything to deconstruct the genre.

[Slam_Bradley]

I am not sure if I understand deconstruction in this sense. If you mean a piece of genre work that shows the less glamorous "realistic" side of the genre then I agree. Those are usually the more interesting versions of a genre.

Have we had a deconstructed Horror Film?

Honestly I don't know much about horror films. So I probably can't answer.

I'm just playing around with some concepts that I've seen broached and I'm trying to decide what to think.

In this sense I'm using the deconstruction of genre conventions to show (what the creator believes are) the essence of the genre. To go back to Once Upon a Time in the West, Leone consciously made reference to High Noon, The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, My Darling Clementine and a number of other more traditional westerns to rework them in a darker, ironic fashion.

In the same way Moore played with super-hero archetypes in Watchmen.

At least that's the point I'm coming from initially. I'm willing to potentially move as I'm very much developing where I'm at in this entire matter.

[vcassel]

this reminds me of something from understanding comics. something about every art form reaching a point where it evaluates itself and that this is rare for comics with the exception being eisner.

[thespianphryne]

I'm figuring we're going to have to get a lot of talk about what deconstruction actually is out of the way.

I'm coming from the Derridian perspective here. Where you examine every possible meaning of a word/structure/image/symbol of a whole text/opus until you come to a point where there is no coherent or discrete meaning.

[Slam_Bradley]

I'm figuring we're going to have to get a lot of talk about what deconstruction actually is out of the way.

I'm coming from the Derridian perspective here. Where you examine every possible meaning of a word/structure/image/symbol of a whole text/opus until you come to a point where there is no coherent or discrete meaning.


Certainly valid to get that out of the way (or attempt to) up front. And I'll admit that I'm not a huge amount of help there, because I have a very limited arts background.

Which is why I rely on swell people like you.


Now off to the interweb to see what you actually said.

[jesse_custer]

I don't know if I would call Leone's films deconstruction of the genre. They are, however, more stylized, romantic, and dream-like, so I can see why they are called deconstruction by some. Robert Altman's McCabe & Mrs. Miller is more deconstructive, I believe. And then if you want to talk about western television, Deadwood is clearly deconstruction.

But to answer the question, yes, I believe a work that deconstructs the genre can be the best of a genre. Watchmen still has costumes. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly still has shootouts. But sometimes such a work seems greater than the genre itself.

Have we had a deconstructed Horror Film?

I would almost say The Shining. There's nowhere to run or hide, and there aren't any "Boo!" moments.

Takashi Miike's Audition could be another contender.

[thespianphryne]

I haven't seen Audition (i know, I know) but I will agree with The Shining. It basically changes the accepted meaning of 'evil' or 'monster' in horror cinema. Where the notion of horror as the presence of something - as it always was until that point - is supplanted by the notion of horror as the absence of something.

[Slam_Bradley]

I don't know if I would call Leone's films deconstruction of the genre. They are, however, more stylized, romantic, and dream-like, so I can see why they are called deconstruction by some. Robert Altman's McCabe & Mrs. Miller is more deconstructive, I believe. And then if you want to talk about western television, Deadwood is clearly deconstruction.

I'm still trying to decide about Leone myself. Unforgiven is, to me, a deconstruction of both traditional westerns and of "spaghetti" westerns. With Leone it's not nearly as clear. But I think that with Once Upon a Time Leone pulls so many elements from prior westerns that he has a definite purpose for those particular uses that goes beyond homage. The opening is straight out of High Noon. The massacre of the McBain's is heavily influenced by The Searchers while the funeral is pure Shane.

But to answer the question, yes, I believe a work that deconstructs the genre can be the best of a genre. Watchmen still has costumes. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly still has shootouts. But sometimes such a work seems greater than the genre itself.


Ok. So which ones?

[Lone Ranger]

The thing to remember is that you can't deconstruct a genre a without being a master of it.

Nice, Das. Very nice.

In terms of western comics - I'd argue that Bat Lash and Wander both certainly deconstruct the genre and are all arguably among the handful of greatest western strips. All were published towards the waning days of the genre.

[jesse_custer]

Unforgiven is, to me, a deconstruction of both traditional westerns and of "spaghetti" westerns.

Yes, it is.

I need to watch Once Upon A Time In the West again.

Ok. So which ones?

Well, Watchmen. I can see why one would call it a superhero story, but at the same time, it seems that a typical superhero story cannot achieve the greatness it achieved. Then again, deconstruction like Watchmen cannot capture a utopian outlook as well as a typical superhero story.

For the revenge film subgenre, Oldboy. I won't reveal how it deconstructs the genre because it's better knowing little about it (y'know, to get the full sting), but it seems to be on a completely different plane than Death Wish or Kill Bill or whatever.

[Lone Ranger]

I don't know. I think of Scream as parodic meta-commentary. I'm not sure it does anything to deconstruct the genre.

I'd agree.

Wes Craven was essentially continuing some of the themes and ideas he began with New Nightmare, which a professor of mine declared upon its release as the first post-modern horror film.

There's a definite line between parody/satire and deconstruction. It can be a bit tough to spot at times, though.

[jessecuster3]

The thing to remember is that you can't deconstruct a genre a without being a master of it.

This is probably why I consider Scream a deconstruction. I don't think he was deconstructing all horror movies, but he certainly targeted specifically slasher films, of which he is the creator one of the big 3(Michael, Jason, Freddy).


It does also draw me to his own movie Wes Craven's New Nightmare, in which Freddy leaps from fiction to reality and goes after the makers of his movie. Terrorizing the actress who plays the protagonist(Heather Langenkamp) and the director(Wes Craven) and the rest of the crew, who are all real life people.

[Slam_Bradley]

Nice, Das. Very nice.

In terms of western comics - I'd argue that Bat Lash and Wander both certainly deconstruct the genre and are all arguably among the handful of greatest western strips. All were published towards the waning days of the genre.

Was Wander a Charlton book...or maybe a back-up. You're stumping me, Scott.

Bat Lash is an interesting case in that it was self-consciously a response to the success of Leone's films. It ended up an interesting melange of post-modern western fused with a Maverick-like humor. It certainly stood the traditional shoot-first ask questions maybe western hero on its head. For the first time I can think of in comics, if not in other media.

[Ray R.]

Great discussion topic, Slam.

I'd put my own internal understanding of genre deconstruction as using the outlines, conventions, boundaries and parameters of the genre itself as the underlying building blocks to parody, homage, revise, and introduce other genre elements as narrative devices to improve upon the original narrative limitations or predictable patterns of the genre.

One of the best examples I can think of was Dead Man, Jim Jarmusch's take on the Western. I'd consider Terry Pratchett as a fairly good deconstructor of the fantasy genre. Ambush Bug is a deconstruction of superhero books, as well as metacommentary on everything comic book in general. Arrested Development, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and quite a few others are deconstructions of the Norman Lear sitcom genre, which themselves were deconstructions of the Honeymooners/Dick Van Dyke/Bewitched/etc. model.

You could argue that an effective deconstruction becomes the standard for the next or further deconstruction of the genre. The effect is cumulative, more or less.

[jesse_custer]

Anyone seen Hitchcock's Frenzy? It has this brilliant shot where Hitchcock follows the killer up the stairs with his oblivious prey, and instead of moving the camera into the apartment so we can see the murder, Hitchcock moves the camera all the way back downstairs and out of the fucking building and across the street. Deliberately denying the audience an opportunity for voyeurism.

[thespianphryne]

This is probably why I consider Scream a deconstruction. I don't think he was deconstructing all horror movies, but he certainly targeted specifically slasher films, of which he is the creator one of the big 3(Michael, Jason, Freddy).


It does also draw me to his own movie Wes Craven's New Nightmare, in which Freddy leaps from fiction to reality and goes after the makers of his movie. Terrorizing the actress who plays the protagonist(Heather Langenkamp) and the director(Wes Craven) and the rest of the crew, who are all real life people.


I'm still not convinced that it's a deconstruction. I don't take any new meaning away from it.

[Lone Ranger]

Was Wander a Charlton book...or maybe a back-up. You're stumping me, Scott.

Bat Lash is an interesting case in that it was self-consciously a response to the success of Leone's films. It ended up an interesting melange of post-modern western fused with a Maverick-like humor. It certainly stood the traditional shoot-first ask questions maybe western hero on its head. For the first time I can think of in comics, if not in other media.

Wander ran as a back-up in Cheyenne Kid in the late 60s. It was written by Denny O'Neil and drawn by Aparo.

Wander was an alien stranded in the old west, who spoke Shakespearean English. It's a great strip.

Here's a sample page from a good blog:
http://aparofan.blogspot.com/2009/06/jim-aparos-charlton-days.html

[jesse_custer]

One of the best examples I can think of was Dead Man, Jim Jarmusch's take on the Western.

Absolutely. That's probably my favorite Jarmusch movie, too.

Arrested Development, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and quite a few others are deconstructions of the Norman Lear sitcom genre, which themselves were deconstructions of the Honeymooners/Dick Van Dyke/Bewitched/etc. model.

You could argue that an effective deconstruction becomes the standard for the next or further deconstruction of the genre. The effect is cumulative, more or less.

To expand on all of this, Seinfeld set the standard for all of those sitcom deconstructions. Seinfeld managed to get away from many cliches, but it took these other shows to lose the laugh track, for example.

[Ray R.]

I'm still not convinced that it's a deconstruction. I don't take any new meaning away from it.

I would tend to agree. It's more wink at the audience conceit wrapped around a slasher pic.

It'd be more of a deconstruction if nobody got killed.

[Paul McEnery]

I don't know if I would call Leone's films deconstruction of the genre. They are, however, more stylized, romantic, and dream-like, so I can see why they are called deconstruction by some. Robert Altman's McCabe & Mrs. Miller is more deconstructive, I believe. And then if you want to talk about western television, Deadwood is clearly deconstruction..

Ut! Not so fast, sparky. What it clearly is is demystification.

Deconstruction is a whole other business.

Some deconstructive horror movies:

In the Mouth of Madness
Nightmare on Elm Street.
Hellraiser

[howyadoin]

... I will agree with The Shining. It basically changes the accepted meaning of 'evil' or 'monster' in horror cinema. Where the notion of horror as the presence of something - as it always was until that point - is supplanted by the notion of horror as the absence of something.I'm not so sure about that. From what Stephen King has said - at length, repeatedly - about the movie, he got many, many calls from Kubrick during the filming, and the gist of it seemed to be that Kubrick couldn't wrap his head around any of the traditional horror elements of the book (the idea of the hotel as a repository of evil, for example), and wanted King to explain them, again and again.

Now obviously that's anecdotal, but it still leads me to believe that Kubrick wasn't exactly a master of traditional horror. Ergo...

[Ray R.]

Absolutely. That's probably my favorite Jarmusch movie, too.

Ultra-realistic in places, moody and dreamy in others, violent yet spiritual, with a Neil Young electric guitar musical score. Deadwood as deconstruction owes a huge debt to Dead Man.

To expand on all of this, Seinfeld set the standard for all of those sitcom deconstructions. Seinfeld managed to get away from many cliches, but it took these other shows to lose the laugh track, for example.

And Seinfeld set the stage for sitcom characters with horrible personality flaws, ones you can occasionally want to fail, and fail miserably. Compare that to Mary Tyler Moore, or Good Times, or Family Affair. All in the Family probably was the first major deconstruction of the sitcom in that direction.

[jesse_custer]

Ut! Not so fast, sparky. What it clearly is is demystification.

Deconstruction is a whole other business.

How do you delineate the terms? Because it seems deconstruction can involve demystification.

[Lone Ranger]

In terms of the horror genre, I think there were quite a few movies in the 80s that attempted to deconstruct the genre, or perhaps they're own particular sub-genre.

I'd argue that American Wereworlf in London and Near Dark did this to the werewolf and vampire sub-genres.

Near Dark might even deconstruct westerns.

[Ray R.]

How do you delineate the terms? Because it seems deconstruction can involve demystification.

I think you could argue that it's almost a necessary element depending on the history of the genre....

[Ray R.]

In terms of the horror genre, I think there were quite a few movies in the 80s that attempted to deconstruct the genre, or perhaps they're own particular sub-genre.

I'd argue that American Wereworlf in London and Near Dark did this to the werewolf and vampire sub-genres.

Near Dark might even deconstruct westerns.

Jaws might have completely deconstructed the monster movie. Alien deconstructed the "close encounters happy alien" standard that was prevalent in the seventies. But was it horror, or scifi, or as you state, its own particular sub-genre?

I agree with American Werewolf. Not sure whether to classify From Dusk to Dawn as a vampire deconstruction or not.

[jesse_custer]

One of the most interesting things about Deadwood is how the horse becomes a symbol of destruction. Not only is the horse unpredictable and violent, but the stables themselves are the setting for quite a bit of tragedy and ruin.

I also liked how the first episode had an old-school western draw, only for the idea to be completely ignored for the rest of the series.

[Mac Danny]

So deconstruction does not mean "Grim Gritty and Real" because when I think of Watchmen I think of the Grim Gritty "Realism" of who you have to be to do these kinds of things. The same goes for Unforgiven.

I was understanding it as the point where the fantasy meets reality and reality shows fantasy it's diseased swollen nutsack.

[howyadoin]

So deconstruction does not mean "Grim Gritty and Real" No, it means analyzing genre conventions and basically picking things apart to see how they work.

But as berk once said, it doesn't mean taking a hammer and smashing all the things you don't like.

[Mac Danny]

No, it means analyzing genre conventions and basically picking things apart to see how they work.

But as berk once said, it doesn't mean taking a hammer and smashing all the things you don't like.

Do you mean showing WHY Jason prefers to attack people about to have sex? Giving the genre convention a grounding in reality/

[thespianphryne]

I'm not so sure about that. From what Stephen King has said - at length, repeatedly - about the movie, he got many, many calls from Kubrick during the filming, and the gist of it seemed to be that Kubrick couldn't wrap his head around any of the traditional horror elements of the book (the idea of the hotel as a repository of evil, for example), and wanted King to explain them, again and again.

Now obviously that's anecdotal, but it still leads me to believe that Kubrick wasn't exactly a master of traditional horror. Ergo...
Then I would say that my initial assertion of mastery of genre as being necessary to deconstruction is callow.

Apparently, then deconstruction can also happen when you have absolutely no exposure to the genre. But he couldn't have made The Shining as good a movie as it was unless he wasn't a master of film. So, he took the superficial meaning of the conventions of horror and then ran them through his own filter and in the end you get this movie that actually disappoints many lovers of the horror genre because he's taken the supernatural element away from it, but at the same is still as scary as hell.

[Mac Danny]

This is a great Discussion. Brought out all the board thinkers and Me.

[Lone Ranger]

Jaws might have completely deconstructed the monster movie. Alien deconstructed the "close encounters happy alien" standard that was prevalent in the seventies. But was it horror, or scifi, or as you state, its own particular sub-genre?


Alien is an interesting hybrid of a few genres. I consider it more horror than sci-fi - and it's almost within the slasher subgenre of horror. Slasher was a genre that had really only been around since Black Christmas or perhaps Bava's Bay of Blood.

Carpenter's The Thing is a similar hybrid - at times it's a simple horror movie, but other times it comes across like a deconstruction of 12 Angry Men.

Since we're talking about outer space - let's keep drifiting... Can a remake/homage deconstruct its source material an even an entire genre. Outland is essentially a remake of High Noon - but it comes across as a much more cynical and pessimistic feel.

[berk]

I'm not so sure about that. From what Stephen King has said - at length, repeatedly - about the movie, he got many, many calls from Kubrick during the filming, and the gist of it seemed to be that Kubrick couldn't wrap his head around any of the traditional horror elements of the book (the idea of the hotel as a repository of evil, for example), and wanted King to explain them, again and again.

Now obviously that's anecdotal, but it still leads me to believe that Kubrick wasn't exactly a master of traditional horror. Ergo...That reminds me of the anecdote, also from the Shining, where Kubrick exasperated Nicholson by having him repeat the simple act of walking across a room or something like that 50 times before he was satisfied. No dialogue. I always took that as a sign that Kubrick wanted to divest Nicholson of all his actor's self-consciousness, to get him to a place where he was just walking across the room, not being Jack Nicholson playing someone who's walking across a room.

I wonder if there might not be a parallel with the King anecdote. In this case, by making King go over the same ideas again and again, maybe he was hoping that eventually he'd wear him down to the point where King left out all the extraneous baggage and from sheer weariness totally focused on what the horror of The Shining really was.

Probably not. But fun to speculate.

[Lone Ranger]

Then I would say that my initial assertion of mastery of genre as being necessary to deconstruction is callow.

Apparently, then deconstruction can also happen when you have absolutely no exposure to the genre. But he couldn't have made The Shining as good a movie as it was unless he wasn't a master of film. So, he took the superficial meaning of the conventions of horror and then ran them through his own filter and in the end you get this movie that actually disappoints many lovers of the horror genre because he's taken the supernatural element away from it, but at the same is still as scary as hell.

As I understand, King never liked Kubrick's interpretation of his work. That's the main reason he did the remake with the guy from Wings.

If's King story has all of the horror conventions intact, can't Kubrick simply have deconstructed the novel in choosing how he presented it on film?

[thespianphryne]

That reminds me of the anecdote, also from the Shining, where Kubrick exasperated Nicholson by having him repeat the simple act of walking across a room or something like that 50 times before he was satisfied. No dialogue. I always took that as a sign that Kubrick wanted to divest Nicholson of all his actor's self-consciousness, to get him to a place where he was just walking across the room, not being Jack Nicholson playing someone who's walking across a room.

I wonder if there might not be a parallel with the King anecdote. In this case, by making King go over the same ideas again and again, maybe he was hoping that eventually he'd wear him down to the point where King left out all the extraneous baggage and from sheer weariness totally focused on what the horror of The Shining really was.

Probably not. But fun to speculate.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if that was actually the case.

[thespianphryne]

As I understand, King never liked Kubrick's interpretation of his work. That's the main reason he did the remake with the guy from Wings.

If's King story has all of the horror conventions in tact, can't Kubrick simply have deconstructed the novel in choosing how he presented it on film?
I'm simply responding to the idea that Kubrick'd have to be a master of the conventions of "horror cinema" to deconstruct a horror story.

apparently being a master of cinema and understanding how to pull and release tension is enough. And in a way that what horror is: the creation of tension but only using the idea of the supernatural. here Kubrick pulls a classic bait and switch on us. We think it's about ghosts, but only about one man's demons.

[Serik]

IIRC, Hackman's character in Unforgiven actively deconstructs the Western genre of the movie's universe that's being created by English Bob's biographer...so that's like two levels of deconstruction. *head esplodes*

I'm trying to think of deconstruction in the music genre, but the only thing that immediately comes to mind (perhaps because I listened to it this morning) is Springsteen's "Racing in the Street," which seems like a deconstruction of all the Beach Boys-like racing and car songs (or even some of Springsteen's earlier work).

[jessecuster3]

What about Raiders of the Lost Ark, would you consider that a deconstruction of serials or an homage to them?

[howyadoin]

Then I would say that my initial assertion of mastery of genre as being necessary to deconstruction is callow.

Apparently, then deconstruction can also happen when you have absolutely no exposure to the genre. But he couldn't have made The Shining as good a movie as it was unless he wasn't a master of film. So, he took the superficial meaning of the conventions of horror and then ran them through his own filter and in the end you get this movie that actually disappoints many lovers of the horror genre because he's taken the supernatural element away from it, but at the same is still as scary as hell.Yeah, that could be. Personally, I only find the movie scary in a few parts anymore, but it used to frighten the piss outta me when I was younger and not burned out on horror. Now I can't get even past the horrible acting by Talia Shire and the little kid.

At the same time, though, the supernatural element hasn't really been taken away altogether. Which is good, because there's not much else to the story - Jack's character in the novel certainly doesn't have anything in the way of a character arc, for example. It's obvious that he's a raving psychopath and an alcoholic pretty much from the first few pages.

That reminds me of the anecdote, also from the Shining, where Kubrick exasperated Nicholson by having him repeat the simple act of walking across a room or something like that 50 times before he was satisfied. No dialogue. I always took that as a sign that Kubrick wanted to divest Nicholson of all his actor's self-consciousness, to get him to a place where he was just walking across the room, not being Jack Nicholson playing someone who's walking across a room.

I wonder if there might not be a parallel with the King anecdote. In this case, by making King go over the same ideas again and again, maybe he was hoping that eventually he'd wear him down to the point where King left out all the extraneous baggage and from sheer weariness totally focused on what the horror of The Shining really was.

Probably not. But fun to speculate.That makes perfect sense to me.

[thespianphryne]

What about Raiders of the Lost Ark, would you consider that a deconstruction of serials or an homage to them?

Homage, I'd say.

[jesse_custer]

Raiders strikes me as something that embraces the serials.

[thespianphryne]

Not Talia Shire. Shelley Duval.

[jessecuster3]

Homage, I'd say.

I pretty much thought that.

[Ray R.]

Alien is an interesting hybrid of a few genres. I consider it more horror than sci-fi - and it's almost within the slasher subgenre of horror. Slasher was a genre that had really only been around since Black Christmas or perhaps Bava's Bay of Blood.

Carpenter's The Thing is a similar hybrid - at times it's a simple horror movie, but other times it comes across like a deconstruction of 12 Angry Men.

Since we're talking about outer space - let's keep drifiting... Can a remake/homage deconstruct its source material an even an entire genre. Outland is essentially a remake of High Noon - but it comes across as a much more cynical and pessimistic feel.

Interesting, Scott. I barely remember seeing it, but perhaps Outland was a homage to High Noon and a deconstructive effort towards 2001: A Space Odyssey. Base-level humanity versus star-babies and monoliths.

An interesting aspect of a deconstructive approach is perhaps a cultural one: to wit, Akira Kurosawa borrows from John Ford to make a samurai movie based on the American western which is then co-opted to make another Western, The Magnificent Seven.

[moebius]

Haven't read most of the thread, but I think what separates something like Watchmen or Unforgiven in terms of quality is an awareness of what's come before, and ideally a self-awareness of the decisions you make in your own creative process that challenge what makes the best story and even more so what is possible given your medium and your aims.

A good deconstruction almost by definition needs to be aware of what's happened before and is going to attract a higher quality of author, or it's going to be a disaster. A deconstruction also has the advantage of moving last...it has to take in the full scope of the genre before it can happen, and gets to avoid the false starts of earlier creators.

At the same time, I think that you can have pieces of art within a genre that are not deconstructions but are still near or at the top of their game. For example, I wouldn't call Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs deconstructions of the crime genre (the former especially is an homage), but I would put them near the top of their genre.

[berk]

One of the things I'd look for in a genre-desconstruction would be some awareness of the various binary-oppositions inherent to the genre, and then to see those oppositions played with in some way that brings out their implications, and in this way shows us something about the genre that's otherwise taken for granted or goes unnoticed as part of the landscape.

For example, some of the obvious ones for superheroes might be superhero/supervillain, or good-guy/bad-guy; superhero-identity/secret-identity; superpowered/non-superpowered. I've always thought that Gerber's and Skrenes's Omega was one of the first properly deconstructive superhero comics because it plays with several of those: Omega doesn't have a secret identity, at least not at first - he's just Omeag. He doesn't really understand the whole good-guy/bad-guy thing, as seen in the story where he lets the bank robber go cause it turns out the guy really needs the money. And so on.

But to answer the original question, no I don't think a piece has to be deconstructive in order to reach the pinnacle of the genre. I'd say it's more the case that, once that pinnacle, has been reached, once a genre has recieved a defining treatment, there aren't many other places to go other than to deconstruct it or to approach it ironically, i.e. with some awareness of the genre's basic nature and its consequences, in some other way. Otherwise you just get an endless repetition of that defining story done more or less competently or incompetently depending on the writer's skill and so on.

[jessecuster3]

I'm trying to think of deconstruction in the music genre, but the only thing that immediately comes to mind (perhaps because I listened to it this morning) is Springsteen's "Racing in the Street," which seems like a deconstruction of all the Beach Boys-like racing and car songs (or even some of Springsteen's earlier work).

So would you consider Led Zeppelin or even just roots rock and roll as a deconstruction of the blues?

[Lone Ranger]

Has anyone seen Let The Right One In ?

I'd say that it completely deconstructs the entire vampire genre (which seems to be everywhere these days), while managing to be the best damned vampire flick I've ever seen.

[jessecuster3]

Has anyone seen Let The Right One In ?

I'd say that it completely deconstructs the entire vampire genre (which seems to be everywhere these days), while managing to be the best damned vampire flick I've ever seen.

Yeah, it kind of deconstructs the coming of age story, as well.

[Sir Tim Drake]

I'm figuring we're going to have to get a lot of talk about what deconstruction actually is out of the way.

I'm coming from the Derridian perspective here. Where you examine every possible meaning of a word/structure/image/symbol of a whole text/opus until you come to a point where there is no coherent or discrete meaning.

Based on my limited understanding, deconstruction is not actually about taking the text and emptying it of all meaning whatsoever. Deconstruction has more to do with identifying the central contradictions (aporias) which a text can't fully acknowledge, but without which it couldn't exist. Deconstruction takes texts apart not in order to destroy them, but in order to understand what they have to ignore in order to function properly.

I'm not fully satisfied with this explanation, and I can't claim to fully understand deconstruction even though I've read a fair amount of Derrida. But Derrida's theory is certainly more complicated than the standard strawman version of it -- Derrida was not a complete nihilist and he wouldn't have said that all texts were completely meaningless (or if he had said that, he would have meant something more complicated by it).

Anyway, I think some of the deconstructions that people are citing in this thread are actually more like parodies or metafictions. Watchmen is closer to a genuine deconstruction because it identifies the themes that are lurking in the background of every superhero comic, but that can never be directly mentioned -- for example, costume fetishism.

[Mac Danny]

I'm simply responding to the idea that Kubrick'd have to be a master of the conventions of "horror cinema" to deconstruct a horror story.

apparently being a master of cinema and understanding how to pull and release tension is enough. And in a way that what horror is: the creation of tension but only using the idea of the supernatural. here Kubrick pulls a classic bait and switch on us. We think it's about ghosts, but only about one man's demons.

My drawing teacher used to always tell us to learn to draw technically then develop a style. He would say that you can't take anything apart unless you know how to put it together.

Great instructor, great insight into drawing and creating.

So Cubism is a deconstruction of Realism then?

[thespianphryne]

[...]

But to answer the original question, no I don't think a piece has to be deconstructive in order to reach the pinnacle of the genre. I'd say it's more the case that, once that pinnacle, has been reached, once a genre has recieved a defining treatment, there aren't many other places to go other than to deconstruct it or to approach it ironically, i.e. with some awareness of the genre's basic nature and its consequences, in some other way. Otherwise you just get an endless repetition of that defining story done more or less competently or incompetently depending on the writer's skill and so on.

Absolutely, but the question isn't is deconstruction the pinnacle of genre, but can a deconstructive work be a pinnacle of the genre. The way I understood it the question was, can a work be the best of something when it stands outside that something. And I say yes, it can be two things at once, which is what deconstruction is all about.

[Lone Ranger]

Watchmen is closer to a genuine deconstruction because it identifies the themes that are lurking in the background of every superhero comic, but that can never be directly mentioned -- for example, costume fetishism.

True, it's as if Moore took a step back from the long boxes in his basement, stroked his beard and thought "now what are some of the little bits that make these folks tick?"

Shit, I'm treading into watchmaking territory here.

[thespianphryne]

Based on my limited understanding, deconstruction is not actually about taking the text and emptying it of all meaning whatsoever. Deconstruction has more to do with identifying the central contradictions (aporias) which a text can't fully acknowledge, but without which it couldn't exist. Deconstruction takes texts apart not in order to destroy them, but in order to understand what they have to ignore in order to function properly.

I'm not fully satisfied with this explanation, and I can't claim to fully understand deconstruction even though I've read a fair amount of Derrida. But Derrida's theory is certainly more complicated than the standard strawman version of it -- Derrida was not a complete nihilist and he wouldn't have said that all texts were completely meaningless (or if he had said that, he would have meant something more complicated by it).

Anyway, I think some of the deconstructions that people are citing in this thread are actually more like parodies or metafictions. Watchmen is closer to a genuine deconstruction because it identifies the themes that are lurking in the background of every superhero comic, but that can never be directly mentioned -- for example, costume fetishism.
No, I agree about the emptying of meaning. In my understanding, what Derrida was saying was, if you follow deconstruction all down the garden path, you will come to a point where there can be no coherent meaning: the aporetic point. Which only outlines that fact that a text can have many and contradictory meanings in its whole; the very fact that meaning itself has no meaning without the concept of "no meaning". In my understanding, what Derrida says is that we don't actually need to set out to actively deconstruct a text. That it's already deconstructed from the moment of its construction, it only takes a reader with a point of view or a understanding to point it out.

[jesse_custer]

Has anyone seen Let The Right One In ?

I'd say that it completely deconstructs the entire vampire genre (which seems to be everywhere these days), while managing to be the best damned vampire flick I've ever seen.

Yeah, my favorite movie of 2008.

[Lone Ranger]

No what Derrida was saying was if follow deconstruction all down the garden path, you will come to a point where there can be no coherent meaning: the aporetic point. Which only outlines that fact that a text can have many and contradictory meanings in its whole. The very fact that meaning itself has no meaning without the concept of "no meaning". In my understanding, what Derrida says is that we don't actually need to set out to actively deconstruct a text. That it's already deconstructed from the moment of its construction, it only takes a reader with a point of view or a understanding to point it out.

That did it.

Now my head hurts.

[thespianphryne]

That did it.

Now my head hurts.

It's just like being back in college isn't it?

[Slam_Bradley]

What about Raiders of the Lost Ark, would you consider that a deconstruction of serials or an homage to them?


To me Raiders is a straight up homage. It mimics (with a much bigger budget) the serials of the 30s & 40s. I don't think it delves much deeper than the surface of what it is looking at. Which doesn't take away from it as an adventure film.

Now...in Indiana Jones and the Crystal whozit, I think that Lucas & Spielberg attempt to deconstruct 50s SF films. And overall they fail miserably.

[Mac Danny]

That did it.

Now my head hurts.

Have that kind of Brain Freeze feeling? Like a mental Blue Screen.

[Mac Danny]

It's just like being back in college isn't it?

I was a lot Higher in College for these conversations.

[Lone Ranger]

I was a lot Higher in College for these conversations.

Same, if we'd had this conversation back in '92 at 4:00 after I'd returned from a night out on St. Laurent in Montreal, I would come across as a genius.

Today? Not so much.

[Mac Danny]

Same, if we'd had this conversation back in '92 at 4:00 after I'd returned from a night out on St. Laurent in Montreal, I would come across as a genius.

Today? Not so much.

I killed those braincells the last time I talked like this.

[Paul McEnery]

How do you delineate the terms? Because it seems deconstruction can involve demystification.

Well, let's define some terms then, shall we?

Deconstruction is a correction of the structuralist method. Structuralism derives from Levi-Strauss's work in anthropology, which in turn takes its method from Saussure's work on linguistics.

Saussure's big idea is that words are not derivative names for things, but instead a system of difference that operates on its own level; e.g. "cat" has meaning not because it refers to the object "cat" but by differing from all other possible words occupying adjacent spots in the grid (cot, chat, car, bat, etc.). He goes on to define a grid of oppositions which defines all possible meaningful words, at which point I kind of forget the deal.

Anyway, Levi-Strauss picks up on that, and decides to form grids of oppositions so as to define all possible social relationships (a bit like the old Libertarian fuzzy logic square we all know and love, that defines the field governed by liberal-authoritarian on the x-axis, and individual-collective on the y-axis).

Which is quite a useful tool, apart from the tiny problem of not being true, because the grid is a rigid external imposition, and a carry over from Enlightenment Rationalism. And the world don't work like that.

So post-structuralism leaps in to create the same grid, but one that is flexible, and responsive to the terms within the field it describes. So you start with a model, but then the terms being modelled get uppity and start changing the model so it better fits the conditions of their being.

Deconstruction -- as a philosophical-linguistic term; rather than as the architectural term from which it borrows the name -- is part of the post-structuralist turn.

Like Levi-Strauss, it leaps off from Saussure's critique, but now applies it to the depths of Platonic-Rationalism (which critique is strongly implied by Saussure anyway). We now realize that objects -- as we perceive them through language -- are not in fact things in themselves; instead, we're using a system of differences to render the world more usable. Which makes the Platonic measure of the world as an implicit hierarchy of essences look awfully silly.

We might remember that Platonism is build around Parmenides's assertion that there's no such thing as the void, and that what we perceive is reality presenting itself to us in the fullness of its being.

This is, of course, false.

And what Deconstruction does is demonstrate not only that meaning is created by arbitrary grids of differential opposition that have a life of their own derived by the interaction of the observation and the object (as it were), but also that meaning is by definition that which never arrives, a chain letter that continually circulates, having no intrinsic value, but only an exchange value.

Which brings us to a consideration, in any work, of, in the first case, its apparent intentional meaning, then bore down to find what the systems of opposition and difference are that generate the illusion of that intentional meaning, and grasp the ways that the seeming rigid solidity of the grid of meaning presented to the world interacts with the boiling tensions of the underlying signification.

Bearing in mind, that is, that we're talking about something more elemental than simply recognizing the dramatic tension between (or within) characters; and even more than the tension between a realistic character and the plain artifice of the work; but rather something down at the phonemic or graphemic level which then casts the work in a new light, and allows us to see its internal life rather than the dead-eyed fronting of a streetwise conman.

Which is to say that a traditional reading seeks to discover the presence of a meaning within the work as a thematic unity which speaks a truth; whereas a deconstructive reading uncovers the absence which gives the elements within the work their breathing room.

So that a traditional reading of a Woody Allen movie, say, will focus on the presentation of a Jewish humour, psychology, and subculture; and many taking that reading complain bitterly about what is being excluded; like Spike Lee asking where all the black people's at. But a deconstructive reading goes: hang on, where are the black people's at? And finds that in almost all of Allen's movies there's a very minor black character whose place within the narrative, and whose motivations, call into question every single one of the governing assumptions of the main narrative.

Except, that is, for Take the Money and Run, which has a black co-star; and an extremely non-neurotic Allen lead, who only happens to be Jewish, but is more importantly someone doing criminal things because he's underclass.

At this point, the claustrophobic grid of differential opposition that confines the characters in a typical Allen movie glows - like the moment Neo sees the green at the end of The Matrix - and breaks apart. These people are caught up in a narrative of presence that traps them all; and traps the viewer with them. Except that there's no need to do that at all; you can, as Ewan McGregor says, Choose Life.

IOW, Deconstruction is just Buddhism applied at the linguistic-philosophical level.

[Mac Danny]

Well, let's define some terms then, shall we?

Deconstruction is a correction of the structuralist method. Structuralism derives from Levi-Strauss's work in anthropology, which in turn takes its method from Saussure's work on linguistics.

Saussure's big idea is that words are not derivative names for things, but instead a system of difference that operates on its own level; e.g. "cat" has meaning not because it refers to the object "cat" but by differing from all other possible words occupying adjacent spots in the grid (cot, chat, car, bat, etc.). He goes on to define a grid of oppositions which defines all possible meaningful words, at which point I kind of forget the deal.

Anyway, Levi-Strauss picks up on that, and decides to form grids of oppositions so as to define all possible social relationships (a bit like the old Libertarian fuzzy logic square we all know and love, that defines the field governed by liberal-authoritarian on the x-axis, and individual-collective on the y-axis).

Which is quite a useful tool, apart from the tiny problem of not being true, because the grid is a rigid external imposition, and a carry over from Enlightenment Rationalism. And the world don't work like that.

So post-structuralism leaps in to create the same grid, but one that is flexible, and responsive to the terms within the field it describes. So you start with a model, but then the terms being modelled get uppity and start changing the model so it better fits the conditions of their being.

Deconstruction -- as a philosophical-linguistic term; rather than as the architectural term from which it borrows the name -- is part of the post-structuralist turn.

Like Levi-Strauss, it leaps off from Saussure's critique, but now applies it to the depths of Platonic-Rationalism (which critique is strongly implied by Saussure anyway). We now realize that objects -- as we perceive them through language -- are not in fact things in themselves; instead, we're using a system of differences to render the world more usable. Which makes the Platonic measure of the world as an implicit hierarchy of essences look awfully silly.

We might remember that Platonism is build around Parmenides's assertion that there's no such thing as the void, and that what we perceive is reality presenting itself to us in the fullness of its being.

This is, of course, false.

And what Deconstruction does is demonstrate not only that meaning is created by arbitrary grids of differential opposition that have a life of their own derived by the interaction of the observation and the object (as it were), but also that meaning is by definition that which never arrives, a chain letter that continually circulates, having no intrinsic value, but only an exchange value.

Which brings us to a consideration, in any work, of, in the first case, its apparent intentional meaning, then bore down to find what the systems of opposition and difference are that generate the illusion of that intentional meaning, and grasp the ways that the seeming rigid solidity of the grid of meaning presented to the world interacts with the boiling tensions of the underlying signification.

Bearing in mind, that is, that we're talking about something more elemental than simply recognizing the dramatic tension between (or within) characters; and even more than the tension between a realistic character and the plain artifice of the work; but rather something down at the phonemic or graphemic level which then casts the work in a new light, and allows us to see its internal life rather than the dead-eyed fronting of a streetwise conman.

Which is to say that a traditional reading seeks to discover the presence of a meaning within the work as a thematic unity which speaks a truth; whereas a deconstructive reading uncovers the absence which gives the elements within the work their breathing room.

So that a traditional reading of a Woody Allen movie, say, will focus on the presentation of a Jewish humour, psychology, and subculture; and many taking that reading complain bitterly about what is being excluded; like Spike Lee asking where all the black people's at. But a deconstructive reading goes: hang on, where are the black people's at? And finds that in almost all of Allen's movies there's a very minor black character whose place within the narrative, and whose motivations, call into question every single one of the governing assumptions of the main narrative.

Except, that is, for Take the Money and Run, which has a black co-star; and an extremely non-neurotic Allen lead, who only happens to be Jewish, but is more importantly someone doing criminal things because he's underclass.

At this point, the claustrophobic grid of differential opposition that confines the characters in a typical Allen movie glows - like the moment Neo sees the green at the end of The Matrix - and breaks apart. These people are caught up in a narrative of presence that traps them all; and traps the viewer with them. Except that there's no need to do that at all; you can, as Ewan McGregor says, Choose Life.

IOW, Deconstruction is just Buddhism applied at the linguistic-philosophical level.

Sorry, the minute I read Levi-Strauss all I thought of was Pants and a Brisco County Jr Episode that involved Denim.

[berk]

Absolutely, but the question isn't is deconstruction the pinnacle of genre, but can a deconstructive work be a pinnacle of the genre. The way I understood it the question was, can a work be the best of something when it stands outside that something. And I say yes, it can be two things at once, which is what deconstruction is all about.Woops, you're right, shoul've read the original post more carefully. Yeah, I'd agree. It is possible for a piece to be a perfect instantiation of the genre and at the same time a deconstruction of it.

[Paul McEnery]

Which only outlines that fact that a text can have many and contradictory meanings in its whole; the very fact that meaning itself has no meaning without the concept of "no meaning".

Well, and indeed to recognize that "meaning" is not the name of a thing, but transparently a name for the intentional act, and that all essence is invariably the spell cast within the act of intending: temporary, contingent, and always a matter of relationship.

[Paul McEnery]

Sorry, the minute I read Levi-Strauss all I thought of was Pants and a Brisco County Jr Episode that involved Denim.

You just want to deconstruct Catherine Bach's shorts.

[Slam_Bradley]

Since we're talking about outer space - let's keep drifiting... Can a remake/homage deconstruct its source material an even an entire genre. Outland is essentially a remake of High Noon - but it comes across as a much more cynical and pessimistic feel.


I've been pondering this. It's clear that Outland is High Noon in space. It wears that tag out in the open. I'm not sure how much it really deconstructs the western though. If anything, to me it points to the long line of space opera, both in print and in film, that, again, was little more than cowboys and indians in space-suits. I just don't see Hyams playing with the archetypes in the way that would signal true deconstruction to me.

That's not to say that you couldn't possibly deconstruct one genre within another. I could see, for example, Stagecoach, which has such truly archetypal western characters, translated to another genre and used to deconstruct the western.

[Paul McEnery]

Has anyone seen Let The Right One In ?

I'd say that it completely deconstructs the entire vampire genre (which seems to be everywhere these days), while managing to be the best damned vampire flick I've ever seen.

You want vampire deconstruction? Abel Ferrara's The Addiction will do you.

[jesse_custer]

Bearing in mind, that is, that we're talking about something more elemental than simply recognizing the dramatic tension between (or within) characters; and even more than the tension between a realistic character and the plain artifice of the work; but rather something down at the phonemic or graphemic level which then casts the work in a new light, and allows us to see its internal life rather than the dead-eyed fronting of a streetwise conman.

So you wouldn't say Deadwood casts the western television series in a new light? That it isn't a streetwise conman but instead demonstrates how arbitrary the meanings have been in past western television?

[Paul McEnery]

Derrida was not a complete nihilist and he wouldn't have said that all texts were completely meaningless (or if he had said that, he would have meant something more complicated by it).

Derrida couldn't order jam on toast without meaning ten thousand words of something more complicated by it.

[jesse_custer]

You want vampire deconstruction? Abel Ferrara's The Addiction will do you.

I need to see that.

I also hear that Park Chan-wook's Thirst deconstructs vampires as well. Can't wait to see it.

[Lone Ranger]

I've been pondering this. It's clear that Outland is High Noon in space. It wears that tag out in the open. I'm not sure how much it really deconstructs the western though. If anything, to me it points to the long line of space opera, both in print and in film, that, again, was little more than cowboys and indians in space-suits. I just don't see Hyams playing with the archetypes in the way that would signal true deconstruction to me.


I can't disagree with you - because I never thought much of Outland - but I watched it late one night last year after a few glasses of wine and I was feeling that it had all of these different layers that I'd never noticed before. Of course, I can't quite put my finger on any of it.

There's a real pessimism to it as well as corporate greed (also a major player in Alien), and the dehumanizing of relationships through technology. I agree that none of that really has to do with western archetypes - so I don't think it deconstructs anything, but there more to it than I originally thought - I just can't sort out my thoughts.

[Lone Ranger]

You want vampire deconstruction? Abel Ferrara's The Addiction will do you.

I agree with that.

How about Romero's Martin?

[jesse_custer]

The pessimism in Outland is most apparent in how drugs are used to boost the laborforce, regardless of the consequences (if I remember correctly). You're watching the future, but workers are still being treated like shit, despite technological advancements.

[Slam_Bradley]

I can't disagree with you - because I never thought much of Outland - but I watched it late one night last year after a few glasses of wine and I was feeling that it had all of these different layers that I'd never noticed before. Of course, I can't quite put my finger on any of it.

There's a real pessimism to it as well as corporate greed (also a major player in Alien), and the dehumanizing of relationships through technology. I agree that none of that really has to do with western archetypes - so I don't think it deconstructs anything, but there more to it than I originally thought - I just can't sort out my thoughts.

There is a very anti-corporate sentiment to it. But that is a sentiment that tends to be pervasive in science fiction (controlling for Robert Heinlein and possibly Poul Anderson). Part of the problem may be that Peter Hyams bit off more than he could chew in the film. As a director and a writer he's never done anything that is better than ok. The seeds of an interesting film are there...High Noon in Space. But the execution doesn't live up to those seeds.

[Paul McEnery]

So you wouldn't say Deadwood casts the western television series in a new light? That it isn't a streetwise conman but instead demonstrates how arbitrary the meanings have been in past western television?

To be honest, I only watched the first episode or so. But based on that, no.

It's still operating within the theology of presence, because it privileges "real life" over "artifice". While it plays against the stereotypes, all it's doing is wiping the greasepaint off the whore.

The Wild Wild West -- now that was deconstructive.

[Paul McEnery]

I need to see that.

I also hear that Park Chan-wook's Thirst deconstructs vampires as well. Can't wait to see it.

I would watch Park Chan-Wook's home movies.

Actually, I'm a bit worried that, now and again, that's exactly what I'm watching.

[Mac Danny]

Jason X and Hellraiser 4

Does taking the Genre to space help to deconstruct it?

Is deconstruction increase watch ability or enjoyment?

[jesse_custer]

To be honest, I only watched the first episode or so. But based on that, no.

It's still operating within the theology of presence, because it privileges "real life" over "artifice". While it plays against the stereotypes, all it's doing is wiping the greasepaint off the whore.

The Wild Wild West -- now that was deconstructive.

So if a work uses realism to demonstrate the arbitrariness of past meaning, it is not deconstruction because it is championing realism to an extent? (However, like I mentioned earlier, the first episode did feature an artificial draw between three characters.)

I see what you're saying, although you could call Deadwood deconstructionism to an extent and simply admit that another work could be even more deconstructive. Like Ray said, deconstruction is a progression.

[jesse_custer]

I would watch Park Chan-Wook's home movies.

Actually, I'm a bit worried that, now and again, that's exactly what I'm watching.

I recently watched I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK. Didn't think it was that funny. Interesting and weird, but it was trying to make me laugh, and I didn't. But that's OK. I still like him a lot.

[Paul McEnery]

So if a work uses realism to demonstrate the arbitrariness of past meaning, it is not deconstruction because it is championing realism to an extent? (However, like I mentioned earlier, the first episode did feature an artificial draw between three characters.)

I see what you're saying, although you could call Deadwood deconstructionism to an extent and simply admit that another work could be even more deconstructive. Like Ray said, deconstruction is a progression.

With all due respect to Ray, "deconstruction" is a term of art that is frequently misused in popular parlance. The word that would suit what he's saying better is "post-modern".

And no, Deadwood is no more deconstructive than Heaven's Gate or McCabe and Mrs. Miller. It still painstakingly observes the conventions of the genre of historical realism.

Now if every now and again the villain turned to the camera and actually twirled his mustache, that would be another matter.

Also: Blazing Saddles, genuinely deconstructive. Ditto many other Mel Brooks movies.

[Mac Danny]

So Rustlers Rhapsody (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OaA3LZHbQs)is a Western Deconstruction.

I am on a real Rustlers Rhapsody kick lately.

Johnny Dangerously too then.

[Mac Danny]

So Rustlers Rhapsody (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OaA3LZHbQs)is a Western Deconstruction.

I am on a real Rustlers Rhapsody kick lately.

Johnny Dangerously too then.

So then the Key to deconstruction is the casting of Marilu Henner.

[jesse_custer]

It still painstakingly observes the conventions of the genre of historical realism.

Is it possible for a work to be deconstructive of one genre but structural of another?

[jesse_custer]

Also: Blazing Saddles, genuinely deconstructive. Ditto many other Mel Brooks movies.

In other words, what you're saying is that the element of parody does not mean a work is not deconstructive.

[Paul McEnery]

In other words, what you're saying is that the element of parody does not mean a work is not deconstructive.

Parody and deconstruction are non-disjunct sets, yes.

[Paul McEnery]

Is it possible for a work to be deconstructive of one genre but structural of another?

I wouldn't have thought so. The deconstructive turn sinks its teeth into the tender neck of all convention.

[Omega Alpha]

To illustrate a couple of the things that caused me to ponder this.

Western Films. There are certainly a number of usual suspects when it comes to naming a greatest western film. The Searchers. High Noon. Once Upon a Time in the Old West. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. The Wild Bunch. Unforgiven. But there is a good argument that Leone's westerns were a deconstruction of the earlier Hollywood westerns. Unforgiven is even more clearly a deconstruction of both the traditional and the spaghetti western.

The Searchers is itself a deconstruction of the western genre. The main character is a racist thug (though Ford doesn't portray him as a bastard necessarily, understanding that a man like him from that time wouldn't even understand the concept of racism) obsessed with vengeance. He's not portrayed as a hero and is shown clearly to be out of place in the community, or any place where there's something that resembles a normal life.

[jesse_custer]

El Topo seems to be deconstruction of the western, but I could never bring myself to call it a western.

[howyadoin]

Not Talia Shire. Shelley Duval.Oops. I guess I get those shriekingly-ineffectual-female roles mixed up.

Anyway, I think some of the deconstructions that people are citing in this thread are actually more like parodies or metafictions. Watchmen is closer to a genuine deconstruction because it identifies the themes that are lurking in the background of every superhero comic, but that can never be directly mentioned -- for example, costume fetishism.Plus, Watchmen is essentially a textbook on how to put a comic together, right down to the layout-and-pasteup stage.

Well, let's define some terms then, shall we?

Deconstruction is a correction of the structuralist method. Structuralism derives from Levi-Strauss's work in anthropology, which in turn takes its method from Saussure's work on linguistics.

Saussure's big idea is that words are not derivative names for things, but instead a system of difference that operates on its own level; e.g. "cat" has meaning not because it refers to the object "cat" but by differing from all other possible words occupying adjacent spots in the grid (cot, chat, car, bat, etc.). He goes on to define a grid of oppositions which defines all possible meaningful words, at which point I kind of forget the deal.

Anyway, Levi-Strauss picks up on that, and decides to form grids of oppositions so as to define all possible social relationships (a bit like the old Libertarian fuzzy logic square we all know and love, that defines the field governed by liberal-authoritarian on the x-axis, and individual-collective on the y-axis).

Which is quite a useful tool, apart from the tiny problem of not being true, because the grid is a rigid external imposition, and a carry over from Enlightenment Rationalism. And the world don't work like that.

So post-structuralism leaps in to create the same grid, but one that is flexible, and responsive to the terms within the field it describes. So you start with a model, but then the terms being modelled get uppity and start changing the model so it better fits the conditions of their being.

Deconstruction -- as a philosophical-linguistic term; rather than as the architectural term from which it borrows the name -- is part of the post-structuralist turn.

Like Levi-Strauss, it leaps off from Saussure's critique, but now applies it to the depths of Platonic-Rationalism (which critique is strongly implied by Saussure anyway). We now realize that objects -- as we perceive them through language -- are not in fact things in themselves; instead, we're using a system of differences to render the world more usable. Which makes the Platonic measure of the world as an implicit hierarchy of essences look awfully silly.

We might remember that Platonism is build around Parmenides's assertion that there's no such thing as the void, and that what we perceive is reality presenting itself to us in the fullness of its being.

This is, of course, false.

And what Deconstruction does is demonstrate not only that meaning is created by arbitrary grids of differential opposition that have a life of their own derived by the interaction of the observation and the object (as it were), but also that meaning is by definition that which never arrives, a chain letter that continually circulates, having no intrinsic value, but only an exchange value.

Which brings us to a consideration, in any work, of, in the first case, its apparent intentional meaning, then bore down to find what the systems of opposition and difference are that generate the illusion of that intentional meaning, and grasp the ways that the seeming rigid solidity of the grid of meaning presented to the world interacts with the boiling tensions of the underlying signification.

Bearing in mind, that is, that we're talking about something more elemental than simply recognizing the dramatic tension between (or within) characters; and even more than the tension between a realistic character and the plain artifice of the work; but rather something down at the phonemic or graphemic level which then casts the work in a new light, and allows us to see its internal life rather than the dead-eyed fronting of a streetwise conman.

Which is to say that a traditional reading seeks to discover the presence of a meaning within the work as a thematic unity which speaks a truth; whereas a deconstructive reading uncovers the absence which gives the elements within the work their breathing room.

So that a traditional reading of a Woody Allen movie, say, will focus on the presentation of a Jewish humour, psychology, and subculture; and many taking that reading complain bitterly about what is being excluded; like Spike Lee asking where all the black people's at. But a deconstructive reading goes: hang on, where are the black people's at? And finds that in almost all of Allen's movies there's a very minor black character whose place within the narrative, and whose motivations, call into question every single one of the governing assumptions of the main narrative.

Except, that is, for Take the Money and Run, which has a black co-star; and an extremely non-neurotic Allen lead, who only happens to be Jewish, but is more importantly someone doing criminal things because he's underclass.

At this point, the claustrophobic grid of differential opposition that confines the characters in a typical Allen movie glows - like the moment Neo sees the green at the end of The Matrix - and breaks apart. These people are caught up in a narrative of presence that traps them all; and traps the viewer with them. Except that there's no need to do that at all; you can, as Ewan McGregor says, Choose Life.

IOW, Deconstruction is just Buddhism applied at the linguistic-philosophical level.I'm seeing a lot of our conversation on Love and Rockets in this.

I can't disagree with you - because I never thought much of Outland - but I watched it late one night last year after a few glasses of wine and I was feeling that it had all of these different layers that I'd never noticed before. Of course, I can't quite put my finger on any of it.

There's a real pessimism to it as well as corporate greed (also a major player in Alien), and the dehumanizing of relationships through technology. I agree that none of that really has to do with western archetypes - so I don't think it deconstructs anything, but there more to it than I originally thought - I just can't sort out my thoughts.As others have said, I think there's nothing to it that wasn't already a trope of either Westerns or sci-fi. And it doesn't build anything on that knowledge, or do anything with it.

[berk]

Paul should have his own CBR column. You should send in a proposal to whoever manages that stuff around here, Paul. No one else I'm aware of is taking this particular critical view of comics and other media on a consistent basis and you're the guy with the tools to do so. Or would that be too, er, structured for you, as opposed to just conversing about it when the subject happens to arise.

[howyadoin]

Paul should have his own CBR column. You should send in a proposal to whoever manages that stuff around here, Paul. No one else I'm aware of is taking this particular critical view of comics and other media on a consistent basis and you're the guy with the tools to do so. Or would that be too, er, structured for you, as opposed to just conversing about it when the subject happens to arise.All the populists would rise up against him.

"Who are you to say...?"

[Pól Rua]

I am not sure if I understand deconstruction in this sense. If you mean a piece of genre work that shows the less glamorous "realistic" side of the genre then I agree. Those are usually the more interesting versions of a genre.

Have we had a deconstructed Horror Film?

'Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon' is an excellent deconstruction of the slasher horror genre.
The thing that makes it for me is that the first half is an almost expository deconstruction of the tropes and conventions of the slasher horror genre, before the second half becomes a straight slasher horror film, with the added bonus of the characters being self-aware and informed participants in the story.

[Paul McEnery]

All the populists would rise up against him.

"Who are you to say...?"

"I'm the man who's siring your little brother right this second..."

[Reptisaurus!]

A thread on the TV/Film board got in to a discussion of the best western movie. This led me to think about comic books and more particularly about Watchmen. Which led me to ponder whether a work that is a deconstruction of a genre/form/what have you can actually be the pinnacle of that genre (to the extent there can be a "best" in any art-form).

To illustrate a couple of the things that caused me to ponder this.

Western Films. There are certainly a number of usual suspects when it comes to naming a greatest western film. The Searchers. High Noon. Once Upon a Time in the Old West. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. The Wild Bunch. Unforgiven. But there is a good argument that Leone's westerns were a deconstruction of the earlier Hollywood westerns. Unforgiven is even more clearly a deconstruction of both the traditional and the spaghetti western.

Comics...more particularly super-hero comics. Alan Moore's Watchmen is frequently singled out as the best comic ever. It's more frequently singled out as the the best super-hero comic ever. But it is clearly a deconstruction of the long-standing super-hero tropes.

So can a deconstruction become the apex of that which it is deconstructing? I'm still working on it. And I'll admit that to the extent I have knowledge of art it is largely self-taught. So I'm very curious to see what people think.

Wayull, anything getting tagged with "pinnacle of the genre" status is probably also going to be labeled as a deconstruction, if only 'cause really brilliant work does it's own thing and doesn't pay homage to cliches.

Also, I like Marcel Duchamp a lot.

[howyadoin]

Wayull, anything getting tagged with "pinnacle of the genre" status is probably also going to be labeled as a deconstruction, if only 'cause really brilliant work does it's own thing and doesn't pay homage to cliches. Is that last bit really true of genre fiction, though?

[Pól Rua]

...really brilliant work does it's own thing and doesn't pay homage to cliches.
Dunno. I think we're getting into originality vs execution here.

[jesse_custer]

And no, Deadwood is no more deconstructive than Heaven's Gate or McCabe and Mrs. Miller. It still painstakingly observes the conventions of the genre of historical realism.

This should have been an obvious point yesterday: Deadwood's language is often incredibly anachronistic. The original plan was to have authentic language for the period, but it sounded goofy. So Milch decided that the authenticity of the language didn't matter, only the meaning it conveyed about the characters and setting. That could be considered deconstruction.

[Mac Danny]

Dunno. I think we're getting into originality vs execution here.

This is why I submit Rustlers Rhapsody as a deconstruction of the Western Genre and Johnny Dangerously as a deconstruction of he Gangster film.

Both use the beats of the genre and work within it's rules however absurd.

[Minkie]

I don't know about plugging them into a precise deconstructionist category, but it seems to me that practically all of Kubrick's films can be seen as examining or playing with genre conventions.

Barry Lyndon vis a vis period costume epics.
Shining -- Brightly lighted dark old house with the real horror being getting trapped with your own family with no other social outlet.
Eyes Wide Shut--Anti-erotic sex film
2001--more opera than space opera
Clockwork Orange--juvenile delinquent / outsider is more hero than antihero
Full Metal Jacket--not a conventional antiwar film, but what is it?

Anyhoo.

A question about The Shining: Is there any event in the film that can conclusively be labeled as supernatural? Or can everything be a product of mental disturbances? Can the psychic links between characters be just a form of hypersensitivity? And when Someone unlocks the pantry where Jack is trapped... is it his wife acting out her conflict about imprisoning her husband?

Another anecdote re The Shining is that Kubrick supposedly never read the book. His daughter liked it and suggested it as a flim project and he is said to have had her tell him the story. He even suggested in one interview that he didn't want to have his idea of the film contaminated by the actual book. If all of this is true, it throws an amusing light on his close questioning of King.

He often solicited Arthur C. Clarke's advice on 2001 and then did the opposite. I think the lack of narration for the "silent" first 20 or so minutes is an example of this.

[howyadoin]

Another anecdote re The Shining is that Kubrick supposedly never read the book. His daughter liked it and suggested it as a flim project and he is said to have had her tell him the story. He even suggested in one interview that he didn't want to have his idea of the film contaminated by the actual book. If all of this is true, it throws an amusing light on his close questioning of King.It definitely makes me wonder about his daughter's grasp of the book, then.

[thespianphryne]

Actually in an interview, Kubrick said that he was sent the manuscript of the novel by somebody at Warner Brothers and that he thought it was really good.

ETA: Here's the interview (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.ts.html)

[jesse_custer]

I've got a 3-hour documentary on Kubrick waiting on the DVR, so I'll share anything revealing if it's there.

[Paul McEnery]

This should have been an obvious point yesterday: Deadwood's language is often incredibly anachronistic. The original plan was to have authentic language for the period, but it sounded goofy. So Milch decided that the authenticity of the language didn't matter, only the meaning it conveyed about the characters and setting. That could be considered deconstruction.

I'm going to stick to pedantry here.

That's not deconstruction; that's post-modernism.

It's also laziness; writing in authentic language is a pain in the arse; you get points for pulling a Stephenson only if you're honest about it and say you can't be arsed, or because you're having more fun the other way; claiming it's for some other reason makes you look like an arse-coverer.

And speaking of men with an interest in arse, Derek Jarman's Caravaggio IS deconstructive with its deliberate anachronisms. He gives one character a gold-plated pocket calculator; this straight away knocks us out of the realism of the movie, in a manner intended to evoke the realism of Caravaggio's own painting style. We're now in a place where we question the construction of narrative representation, and are caught on the winkle-pin of experiencing narrative representation in all its evocative glory while at the same time knowing we're being gulled into this emotional response.

[Paul McEnery]

I don't know about plugging them into a precise deconstructionist category, but it seems to me that practically all of Kubrick's films can be seen as examining or playing with genre conventions.

Barry Lyndon vis a vis period costume epics.
Shining -- Brightly lighted dark old house with the real horror being getting trapped with your own family with no other social outlet.
Eyes Wide Shut--Anti-erotic sex film
2001--more opera than space opera
Clockwork Orange--juvenile delinquent / outsider is more hero than antihero
Full Metal Jacket--not a conventional antiwar film, but what is it?
.

This cunning thought almost makes me want to watch Eyes Wide Shut again. But I have more sense.

And will instead recommend reading Terry Southern's Blue Movie, written after he'd just fallen out with Kubrick at the end of the sixties, about a director who really wants to make an anti-sex sex movie featuring some hot stars that he wants to humiliate.

[jesse_custer]

That's not deconstruction; that's post-modernism.

But coincidentally, your point about not championing either the real or artificial sounds post-modern. Seems like there could be some overlap.

It's also laziness; writing in authentic language is a pain in the arse; you get points for pulling a Stephenson only if you're honest about it and say you can't be arsed, or because you're having more fun the other way; claiming it's for some other reason makes you look like an arse-coverer.

Not laziness. Again, they went with the authentic language initially, but the effect was overly comical.

You also haven't watched much of the show, so it's laughable to state how many points it should get for making a decision when you haven't even seen the results. Like some good television shows (The Wire included), Deadwood doesn't hit the high points immediately.

[Kees_L]

Hmmm. This 'deconstruction pinnacle apex' thing has me intrigued but stomped a bit. It sounds a li'l like tenacious backflap-talk to me.

But I guess I can really like a narrative work to contain some consciousness of itself, of the medium or the genre of it. Maybe break through some supposed boundary or restraint here and there. Or not if it isn't necessary.

In comics I feel to prefer some apparent transparency or ease to the way stuff gets to be showcased although it should make for intricate storytelling.
I find sophisticated timing by means of the panelling or page layout to be rather vital. And I like seeing an seemable sinergy to the writing and the art.
I'll think the writing should initiate or enable fabulous art, not the other way around.

Maybe I'll have given some reason here as to why I like comics such as Xenozoic Tales, Jorge Zaffino's Punisher, Hellboy (or really evt. Mignola), Shaolin Cowboy and Moebius' stuff. Or Charles Burns. To name some.
They all seem mighty pinnacly to me, but I wouldn't know if they'd be deconstructions of sorts...

[Reptisaurus!]

Is that last bit really true of genre fiction, though?

Yeah, maybe your right.

Mostly I'm just arguing that the "Let's Do what THAT guy did, 'cause it was AWESOME*" effect that followed Watchmen or the Godfather or Revolver or Crumb's stuff tends to make critics label the original work deconstruction when it really ain't: I think Watchmen's more of a grumpy piss-take on superheroes than a deconstruction.



* Even though I don't really understand it.

[thespianphryne]

Hmmm. This 'deconstruction pinnacle apex' thing has me intrigued but stomped a bit. It sounds a li'l like tenacious backflap-talk to me.

But I guess I can really like a narrative work to contain some consciousness of itself, of the medium or the genre of it. Maybe break through some supposed boundary or restraint here and there. Or not if it isn't necessary.

In comics I feel to prefer some apparent transparency or ease to the way stuff gets to be showcased although it should make for intricate storytelling.
I find sophisticated timing by means of the panelling or page layout to be rather vital. And I like seeing an seemable sinergy to the writing and the art.
I'll think the writing should initiate or enable fabulous art, not the other way around.

Maybe I'll have given some reason here as to why I like comics such as Xenozoic Tales, Jorge Zaffino's Punisher, Hellboy (or really evt. Mignola), Shaolin Cowboy and Moebius' stuff. Or Charles Burns. To name some.
They all seem mighty pinnacly to me, but I wouldn't know if they'd be deconstructions of sorts...
What is "tenacious backflap-talk"?

[thespianphryne]

Yeah, maybe your right.

Mostly I'm just arguing that the "Let's Do what THAT guy did, 'cause it was AWESOME*" effect that followed Watchmen or the Godfather or Revolver or Crumb's stuff tends to make critics label the original work deconstruction when it really ain't: I think Watchmen's more of a grumpy piss-take on superheroes than a deconstruction.



* Even though I don't really understand it.

How does the effect that follows an influential work retroactively make the original work not deconstructive?

[Paul McEnery]

Not laziness. Again, they went with the authentic language initially, but the effect was overly comical.

As a former entertainment journalist, I try not to put too much stock in what PR departments tell me.

You also haven't watched much of the show, so it's laughable to state how many points it should get for making a decision when you haven't even seen the results. Like some good television shows (The Wire included), Deadwood doesn't hit the high points immediately.

Perhaps you'd also like to argue with me about how I don't understand Wonder Woman because she doesn't matter as much to me. :evilsmile:

[berk]

...
Not laziness. Again, they went with the authentic language initially, but the effect was overly comical. ...I'd like to find out a little more about that. How was it comical, and to whom? Test audiences? The writers? The executives? Why was this comical when, say, a British period piece from the same 19th-century era wouldn't necessarily have a comic effect. Genre convention? Have years of American "Western" movies having established an artificial, standard "Western" speech - which is probably not too far removed if at all from everyday contemporary speech - that's expected as a matter of course by audiences? Do modern audiences just expect everyone to sound like them?

[howyadoin]

Do modern audiences just expect everyone to sound like them?That's rhetorical, of course.

[Paul McEnery]

How does the effect that follows an influential work retroactively make the original work not deconstructive?

I think his point is more that critics automatically reach for their Browning after the derivative works display some particular quality in the original.

And for what it's worth, I agree on the assessment of Moore. And that, I think, is the crux of the argument between him and Morrison; Moore is a stealth humanist realist, but Morrison is genuinely deconstructive.

[Paul McEnery]

Do modern audiences just expect everyone to sound like them?

Yes.

They also wish their girlfriend was hot like me.

[howyadoin]

Yes.

They also wish their girlfriend was hot like me.Because your milkshake brings all the boys to the yard?

[Kees_L]

What is "tenacious backflap-talk"?

(Uh-oh). The short descriptive bit on the back (or 'backflap': the wraparound bit folded in between the back inside cover) of a book. Tenacious backflap-talk: almost annoyingly steep superlative-overusage or something like that.

If you read such book descriptions and the words start to sound in your head like that Hollywood blockbuster preview voice*, or the guy with the ponytail selling workout-stuff, than you may have found an example.

Did I make myself clearer? :redface:

* "And now, a book like no book has ever been before... A pinnacle of an apex, sure to invoke improbable coups d'état like no picknick..." (etc.)

[jesse_custer]

As a former entertainment journalist, I try not to put too much stock in what PR departments tell me.

It came from David Milch. You can choose not to believe what he says, but then I could question your willingness to believe anything that anyone says about his or her work. :evilsmile:

Here's a quote from linguist Geoffrey Nunberg that illustrates the point:

Every age swears differently from the last one -- it's as if we have to up the ante every generation or so. As Jonathan Swift wrote :

…now-a-days Men change their Oaths
As often as they change their Cloaths.

That leads to problems for the writers of historical fictions. If you have your characters use historically accurate swear words, they're apt to sound no more offensive than your grandmother in a mild snit.

This idea drove Milch to drop the authentic language. Another crew member said that before changing the language, too many characters sounded like Yosemite Sam.

Perhaps you'd also like to argue with me about how I don't understand Wonder Woman because she doesn't matter as much to me. :evilsmile:

Of course not you cheeky bastard!

I'd like to find out a little more about that. How was it comical, and to whom? Test audiences? The writers? The executives? Why was this comical when, say, a British period piece from the same 19th-century era wouldn't necessarily have a comic effect. Genre convention? Have years of American "Western" movies having established an artificial, standard "Western" speech - which is probably not too far removed if at all from everyday contemporary speech - that's expected as a matter of course by audiences? Do modern audiences just expect everyone to sound like them?

You can learn more from the commentaries on the Deadwood DVDs. I also think there are some other interviews with Milch that include information on it.

Also, I assume you haven't watched the show. Because the characters in Deadwood--notwithstanding that they use anachronistic language at times--don't sound like us. They also don't sound like characters from past western television shows or films.

[thespianphryne]

(Uh-oh). The short descriptive bit on the back (or 'backflap': the wraparound bit folded in between the back inside cover) of a book. Tenacious backflap-talk: almost annoyingly steep superlative-overusage or something like that.

If you read such book descriptions and the words start to sound in your head like that Hollywood blockbuster preview voice, or the guy with the ponytail selling workout-stuff, than you may have found an example.

Did I make myself clearer? :redface:

Ah, got it.

[berk]

Yes.

They also wish their girlfriend was hot like me.Visions of She-Beard drift before my mind's eye.

Get out, visions! GET OUT!!

[berk]

It came from David Milch. You can choose not to believe what he says, but then I could question your willingness to believe anything that anyone says about his or her work. :evilsmile:

Here's a quote from linguist Geoffrey Nunberg that illustrates the point:



This idea drove Milch to drop the authentic language. Another crew member said that before changing the language, too many characters sounded like Yosemite Sam.



Of course not you cheeky bastard!



You can learn more from the commentaries on the Deadwood DVDs. I also think there are some other interviews with Milch that include information on it.

Also, I assume you haven't watched the show. Because the characters in Deadwood--notwithstanding that they use anachronistic language at times--don't sound like us. They also don't sound like characters from past western television shows or films.I've seen an episode or two, so no, not enough to go by, you're right. All I remember was that they swore a lot more than in most Westerns, and most of the cursing sounded pretty contemporary. But for all I know, cursing might be an aspect of language that changes over time more slowly than less taboo elements.

[Paul McEnery]

Because your milkshake brings all the boys to the yard?

That's right.

It's better than yours.

[Paul McEnery]

It came from David Milch. You can choose not to believe what he says, but then I could question your willingness to believe anything that anyone says about his or her work. :evilsmile:

You had me at anything.

This idea drove Milch to drop the authentic language. Another crew member said that before changing the language, too many characters sounded like Yosemite Sam.

Right.

So they sacrificed "authenticity" in order to reinforce the illusion of realism.

Not the deconstructive turn at all, then.



Of course not you cheeky bastard!


Also, I assume you haven't watched the show. Because the characters in Deadwood--notwithstanding that they use anachronistic language at times--don't sound like us. They also don't sound like characters from past western television shows or films.

No. They sound like the kind of Tarentino knockoffs I expect to see in an HBO drama.

[jesse_custer]

Right.

So they sacrificed "authenticity" in order to reinforce the illusion of realism.

Or to show that historically authentic language doesn't necessarily convey meaning.

No. They sound like the kind of Tarentino knockoffs I expect to see in an HBO drama.

Nah. Many of the characters in Deadwood--Ellsworth is a great example--speak in a stunted way, not reminiscent of Tarantino's flow at all.

Swearengen is definitely more on the poetic side, but there is a untamed ferocity with his speech that doesn't say "I'm a character!" like Tarantino's people.

[Paul McEnery]

Or to show that historically authentic language doesn't necessarily convey meaning.

Not relevant to the argument at hand, counsellor.

The point isn't to estabish whether Deadwood is an enjoyable show, merely to see whether the point of the show is to construct a self-consistent world in which you are supposed to believe; or whether it is to create a theatricality which calls into question not only the means of production of the illusion itself, but also that of reality as a whole.

I would suggest that the choice of modern realism for the dialogue is aimed precisely at the world-building paradigm in a way that reinforces the fourth wall.

[Reptisaurus!]

I think his point is more that critics automatically reach for their Browning after the derivative works display some particular quality in the original.

And for what it's worth, I agree on the assessment of Moore. And that, I think, is the crux of the argument between him and Morrison; Moore is a stealth humanist realist, but Morrison is genuinely deconstructive.

Yeahyeahyeahyeahyeah.

I think. I don't know who Browning is.

But Watchmen doesn't deconstruct or mess with genre conventions so much as pick and choose which ones it follows. In most superhero comics the leads are these power fantasy audience surrogates. In Watchmen that's ignored and replaced with messed up losers with interestin' sex lives.

Viewed as a commentary on superheroes (as opposed to an exercise in craft and science fictional world building) I think it's kind of simplistic and suck. But a lot of readers seem to only be interested at looking at it in terms of how it relates to genre conventions, as opposed to examining the good and interesting stuff. (And I've got a similar argument for the Godfather if anyone wants to hear it.)

I'm not so sure about Morrison as deconstuctionist either, though he's a hell-of-a-lot closer. Most of his superhero stuff strikes me as contrarian criticism. His JLA refutes the heavy emphasis on angsty character bits by putting the emphasis on plot, scope, and moments. from X-men and other then-current superhero books. Final Crisis refutes decompression by being... well, kind of hard to follow and not very good, but good effort! All Star Superman refutes the edgy too-cool-for-school Mark Millar style (which he partialy inspired) by writing a misty-eyed, heartfelt essay on how very much Superman loves us.

(I'm reasonably sure the into to the first Doom Patrol trade talks about how Morrison was refuting then-current trends in superhero comics, but I don't remember his argument.)

[howyadoin]

Yeahyeahyeahyeahyeah.

I think. I don't know who Browning is.Unless I miss my guess, it's a what and not a who.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Browning_Automatic_Rifle_Cropped.jpg

[Paul McEnery]

Yeahyeahyeahyeahyeah.

I think. I don't know who Browning is.

But Watchmen doesn't deconstruct or mess with genre conventions so much as pick and choose which ones it follows. In most superhero comics the leads are these power fantasy audience surrogates. In Watchmen that's ignored and replaced with messed up losers with interestin' sex lives.

Viewed as a commentary on superheroes (as opposed to an exercise in craft and science fictional world building) I think it's kind of simplistic and suck. But a lot of readers seem to only be interested at looking at it in terms of how it relates to genre conventions, as opposed to examining the good and interesting stuff. (And I've got a similar argument for the Godfather if anyone wants to hear it.)

I'm not so sure about Morrison as deconstuctionist either, though he's a hell-of-a-lot closer. Most of his superhero stuff strikes me as contrarian criticism. His JLA refutes the heavy emphasis on angsty character bits by putting the emphasis on plot, scope, and moments. from X-men and other then-current superhero books. Final Crisis refutes decompression by being... well, kind of hard to follow and not very good, but good effort! All Star Superman refutes the edgy too-cool-for-school Mark Millar style (which he partialy inspired) by writing a misty-eyed, heartfelt essay on how very much Superman loves us.

(I'm reasonably sure the into to the first Doom Patrol trade talks about how Morrison was refuting then-current trends in superhero comics, but I don't remember his argument.)

One word.

The Filth.

[howyadoin]

Viewed as a commentary on superheroes (as opposed to an exercise in craft and science fictional world building) I think it's kind of simplistic and suck.Only if you start by looking at it in simplistic terms in the first place.

[Paul McEnery]

Only if you start by looking at it in simplistic terms in the first place.

No, I'm with Mark on that.

It's because it's something more/other than that that it's interesting.

Teaching my grammy to suck eggs here, it's not as a "deconstruction" of the genre that Watchmen is worth beans. It's by using the metaphor of the superhero as a way to investigate history that it's interesting.

Though also all the other stuff.

Which is why New Frontier is the only other superhero book that gets Watchmen (including some of Moore's own work!).

[howyadoin]

No, I'm with Mark on that.

It's because it's something more/other than that that it's interesting.

Teaching my grammy to suck eggs here, it's not as a "deconstruction" of the genre that Watchmen is worth beans. It's by using the metaphor of the superhero as a way to investigate history that it's interesting.

Though also all the other stuff.

Which is why New Frontier is the only other superhero book that gets Watchmen (including some of Moore's own work!).I get what you're saying. But my point is, if you start out by being dismissive and simplistic yourself, then using that viewpoint to say the work you're criticizing is simplistic comes across as more than a bit self-serving.

[Paul McEnery]

I get what you're saying. But my point is, if you start out by being dismissive and simplistic yourself, then using that viewpoint to say the work you're criticizing is simplistic comes across as more than a bit self-serving.

Mark can be even more of a pisser than your or me, but I don't think that's what he was doing.

I mean, dear God, he's being sincere here! Give the brother a hand!

:biggrin: Emoticon added solely for your inconvenience.

Like this one. :evilsmile:

[howyadoin]

Mark can be even more of a pisser than your or me, but I don't think that's what he was doing.Alright, then what, out of the various things that Moore says about the superhero genre in Watchmen, would you say is "suck"?

[Paul McEnery]

Alright, then what, out of the various things that Moore says about the superhero genre in Watchmen, would you say is "suck"?

Well if it was just that, it would be all those other dodgy books that went all grim and gritty afterwards.

The grim and gritty superhero accent was good for those of us who were superhero fans -- woot! something acquiring adulthood at the same time we did (which is to say, it was being PIL) -- but that was the packaging for the way of talking about everything else.

Which I don't think Moore knew, at the time. I think that opened the door for the other stuff he took off with. But still.

[berk]

One word.

The Filth.One of the reasons I think the Filth is his best work so far is that, sure, it can be seen as a deconstruction of the superhero, but it's so much more than that that that perspective feels close to irrelevant. Also, it was my first taste of his stuff - there's no escape from these double-entendres is there - so there was the shock of discovery. But really, I still find his DCU work suffers from an overly respectful attitude towards convention, contrary to what seems to be the common perception.

There's no way I had to use three thats in a row. Had to be a better way.

[howyadoin]

Well if it was just that, it would be all those other dodgy books that went all grim and gritty afterwards.

The grim and gritty superhero accent was good for those of us who were superhero fans -- woot! something acquiring adulthood at the same time we did (which is to say, it was being PIL) -- but that was the packaging for the way of talking about everything else.

Which I don't think Moore knew, at the time. I think that opened the door for the other stuff he took off with. But still.I guess I'm just not seeing how any of that makes Moore's commentary on superheroes superficial.

[Paul McEnery]

I guess I'm just not seeing how any of that makes Moore's commentary on superheroes superficial.

Depends what you mean by superficial.

I mean, it's pretty obvious, don't you think? It wasn't much of a stretch for Millar to do the "you think this A stands for France?" bit. The idea that adolescent power fantasy characters, especially within an American standpoint, might be a little bit fascistic is something that, if you've been reading or writing Judge Dredd, goes rather without saying.

It's all pervert suits and authority fantasies -- that's what everyone who wasn't reading superhero comics was saying. And that's quite a lot of people. It only seemed shocking to those of us on the inside (and I include myself).

[berk]

Well if it was just that, it would be all those other dodgy books that went all grim and gritty afterwards.

The grim and gritty superhero accent was good for those of us who were superhero fans -- woot! something acquiring adulthood at the same time we did (which is to say, it was being PIL) -- but that was the packaging for the way of talking about everything else.

Which I don't think Moore knew, at the time. I think that opened the door for the other stuff he took off with. But still.To the best of my recollection, I never really got a "grim & gritty" vibe from Watchmen at the time. That was all Frank Miller for me, back then. Actually, the earliest instance I can think of is Claremont's Wolverine continually ranting about how he's gonna kill somebody, which I found embarrassing even at the time. No wait, Roy Thomas's Conan used to bother me that way too, much as I loved it for the most part.

Thinking back, you know what really grabbed me at first with Watchmen was the extra prose material at the end of each issue. How effectively it enhanced the illusion that this was a real, layered world with its own history and - telling word - presence. Which makes it very much not a deconstructive work, at least in this one respect. And which, now I think of it, actually brings it more in line with things like Tolkien's LotR or Herbert's Dune.

[berk]

Depends what you mean by superficial.

I mean, it's pretty obvious, don't you think? It wasn't much of a stretch for Millar to do the "you think this A stands for France?" bit. The idea that adolescent power fantasy characters, especially within an American standpoint, might be a little bit fascistic is something that, if you've been reading or writing Judge Dredd, goes rather without saying.

It's all pervert suits and authority fantasies -- that's what everyone who wasn't reading superhero comics was saying. And that's quite a lot of people. It only seemed shocking to those of us on the inside (and I include myself).Very true, is it really fair to judge Moore's comics work from outside the comics medium? I suppose it is, to answer my own question, but it really does highlight the fact that he's a victim of his own artistic success.

Watchmen was a stage comics had to go through. Actually, no, it was a stage comics should have gone through, but instead got stuck in - as Moore himself would be the first to acknowledge. "Comics" here of course in the limited meaning of DC/Marvel and their emulators.

[Paul McEnery]

Very true, is it really fair to judge Moore's comics work from outside the comics medium? I suppose it is, to answer my own question, but it really does highlight the fact that he's a victim of his own artistic success.

Watchmen was a stage comics had to go through. Actually, no, it was a stage comics should have gone through, but instead got stuck in - as Moore himself would be the first to acknowledge. "Comics" here of course in the limited meaning of DC/Marvel and their emulators.

And we might want to think about the social construction of the idea that Watchmen and Dark Knight were stand alones. Were there really all that much more advanced than, say, American Flagg and Nexus? Or indeed Cerebus, at the time? Or everything by Jodo? Or Bilal?

Or even, dare I say it, Tintin and Asterix, let alone the Moomins.

None of which is to argue against Moore as a great thinker. Just listening to him interview Eno -- and leave Eno (Eno!) in the dust -- tells us how smart and on the ball the guy is. Or reading his theological thoughts in that epic conversation with Dave Sim, and realize the fluidity of his thought.

But all of that came later. Watchmen, at the time, was one slight nudge DOWN from Flagg in its political-economic and emotional maturity. But its construction was something Joycean in its beauty.

So in that sense, it's almost by definition the opposite of deconstruction.

[Paul McEnery]

presence. .

Yes.
..........

[jesse_custer]

Paul, do you know of a good book about deconstruction that isn't too overwhelming? Y'know, something straightforward?

[Mac Danny]

Paul, Ever see Rustlers Rhapsody?

[Cei-U!]

How is The Godfather deconstructionist? It's an extra-long 1930s Warner Brothers gangster film with the profanity, gore and sex censors forbade back in the day ladled on top. Don't get me wrong, it's one of my all-time favorite films but I see nothing in it that challenges or examines the genre instead of celebrating it.

And, Mac Danny, I *love* Rustler's Rhapsody! The idea of tossing Roy Rogers and Gabby Hayes into a spaghetti Western is brilliant!

Cei-U!
Waiting patiently for Paul McE to intellectually humiliate me!

[jesse_custer]

I wouldn't call The Godfather deconstruction, but you are oversimplifying its significance by only mentioning the profanity, violence, and sex.

It doesn't celebrate the genre, either. It pushed it forward by making the proceedings morally ambiguous and the motivations of its characters complex.

[Mac Danny]

How is The Godfather deconstructionist? It's an extra-long 1930s Warner Brothers gangster film with the profanity, gore and sex censors forbade back in the day ladled on top. Don't get me wrong, it's one of my all-time favorite films but I see nothing in it that challenges or examines the genre instead of celebrating it.

And, Mac Danny, I *love* Rustler's Rhapsody! The idea of tossing Roy Rogers and Gabby Hayes into a spaghetti Western is brilliant!

Cei-U!
Waiting patiently for Paul McE to intellectually humiliate me!

"Well we've ever fired these guns before, he's over 100 yards away and there is a significant wind factor"

[Cei-U!]

I wouldn't call The Godfather deconstruction, but you are oversimplifying its significance by only mentioning the profanity, violence, and sex.

Of course it's far more complex and nuanced than its predecessors but it's still at heart a sympathetic glamorization of organized crime.

It doesn't celebrate the genre, either. It pushed it forward by making the proceedings morally ambiguous and the motivations of its characters complex.

I'll grant that "celebrate" may have been a poor word choice. But I must disagree with the rest of your statement. Have you seen the original Scarface? Or The Public Enemy? Or the silent film Underworld? Moral ambiguity and complex character motivations are nothing new to the genre. It's only that standards had changed enough by '71 (thanks to the iconoclastic Bonnie and Clyde, among others) that these themes could be explored more openly.

Cei-U!
I summon the counterpoint!

[Paul McEnery]

Paul, do you know of a good book about deconstruction that isn't too overwhelming? Y'know, something straightforward?

Deconstruction: Theory and Practice, by Christopher Norris
Superstructuralism, by Richard Harland

Quote from the latter:

Instead of pre-existing ideas then, we find in all the foregoing examples values emanating from the system. When they are said to correspond to concepts, it is understood that the concepts are purely differential and defined not by their positive content but negatively by their relations with the other terms of the system. Their most precise characteristic is in being what the others are not.

Hey, I said that! Ma, I learneded something once!

[Paul McEnery]

How is The Godfather deconstructionist? It's an extra-long 1930s Warner Brothers gangster film with the profanity, gore and sex censors forbade back in the day ladled on top. Don't get me wrong, it's one of my all-time favorite films but I see nothing in it that challenges or examines the genre instead of celebrating it.

And, Mac Danny, I *love* Rustler's Rhapsody! The idea of tossing Roy Rogers and Gabby Hayes into a spaghetti Western is brilliant!

Cei-U!
Waiting patiently for Paul McE to intellectually humiliate me!

Just remember to leave the hunnert on the pillow.

And while I mostly agree with you, there is always something of the deconstructive about the early Coppola (and a lot of the work from, say, 64-74, give or take). The Conversation is very deconstructive, a movie about the interaction of the visual track with the sound track. And One From the Heart, with all those gorgeous fake dissolves through the scrim, and the blatant artifice of everything. So you'd expect to find something there in the Godfather.

But I can't put my finger on it.

[howyadoin]

Depends what you mean by superficial.

I mean, it's pretty obvious, don't you think? It wasn't much of a stretch for Millar to do the "you think this A stands for France?" bit. The idea that adolescent power fantasy characters, especially within an American standpoint, might be a little bit fascistic is something that, if you've been reading or writing Judge Dredd, goes rather without saying.

It's all pervert suits and authority fantasies -- that's what everyone who wasn't reading superhero comics was saying. And that's quite a lot of people. It only seemed shocking to those of us on the inside (and I include myself).I wasn't reading comics at the time. Where were all these people saying this?

And does Judge Dredd predate Watchmen?

[jesse_custer]

Of course it's far more complex and nuanced than its predecessors but it's still at heart a sympathetic glamorization of organized crime.

Nope. At its heart it's about the strange dichotomy of family and crime, best represented in the juxtaposition of the christening and murders. If you take the emphasis on family away, you don't have The Godfather. Looking at your family members with holes in them is not glamorous in the slightest.

I'll grant that "celebrate" may have been a poor word choice. But I must disagree with the rest of your statement. Have you seen the original Scarface? Or The Public Enemy? Or the silent film Underworld? Moral ambiguity and complex character motivations are nothing new to the genre. It's only that standards had changed enough by '71 (thanks to the iconoclastic Bonnie and Clyde, among others) that these themes could be explored more openly.

There's nothing that ambiguous or complex about any of those movies when you compare them to The Godfather. It would be like saying Jimi Hendrix didn't establish the most advanced template for the electric guitar because other guys played electric guitar before him.

I will admit that Bonnie and Clyde was revolutionary as far as violence and sexuality are concerned, but that's it. It wasn't ambiguous or complex, just like none of these movies are anymore, unless you're a sheltered white person in the suburbs.

The Godfather's ambiguity and complexity are as apparent as ever, however, despite countless imitators.

[Paul McEnery]

I wasn't reading comics at the time. Where were all these people saying this?

And does Judge Dredd predate Watchmen?

By ten years (1977). After all, 2000 AD is where Moore got his start, doing Tharg's Future Shocks.

We might point out that the same school gave us Marshal Law at about the same time, from the same Pat Mills who started 2000 AD, and Morrison's Zenith.

Mind, Marshal Law and Zenith both stand on the shoulders of Moore's Captain Britain and MarvelMan. Up to that point, the Brits were largely contemptuous of superheroes - well, still are (see: No Heroics) .

[Reptisaurus!]

I guess I'm just not seeing how any of that makes Moore's commentary on superheroes superficial.

Keep in mind I'm not dissing on the work itself which, apart from all it's other myriad strengths, is a hell of a story about the changing relationships amongst a core group of people.

But I'm not gettin' much out of it as a superhero story.

Superheroes wouldn't work in the real world? Yeah. No shit.

If you remove the power fantasy/wish fulfillment elements superhero comics would work differently? Gosh!

Didn't say much more than Garth Ennis running over Wolverine with a steam-roller in Punisher. Just felt like drive-by snark.

[jesse_custer]

Does Moore really say that superheroes wouldn't work in the real world?

Because I didn't read that in Watchmen. Seemed like he was trying to say that if they existed, we would have ethical questions to consider.

That says way more than Punisher running over Wolverine. Not as funny as that image, mind you.

[Tages]

Does Moore really say that superheroes wouldn't work in the real world?

Pretty much.

Part of the reasons Rorschach begs Manhattan to kill him* at the end is that Ozzy and the Doc have demonstrated how irrelevant his life's work has been, how he failed to do anything of lasting importance, and the only way he can change that is to put the world at risk of nuclear Armageddon.


*I'm trusting that even with the recent movie a twenty-two-year-old comic classic qualifies as an "It Was His Sled (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItWasHisSled)."

[howyadoin]

Superheroes wouldn't work in the real world? Yeah. No shit.

If you remove the power fantasy/wish fulfillment elements superhero comics would work differently? Gosh!Sure, that stuff's obvious - and well-travelled ground as well - now. Was it when Watchmen first came out?

Does Moore really say that superheroes wouldn't work in the real world?

Because I didn't read that in Watchmen. Seemed like he was trying to say that if they existed, we would have ethical questions to consider.

That says way more than Punisher running over Wolverine. Not as funny as that image, mind you.Or as simplistic, for that matter.

[Reptisaurus!]

Does Moore really say that superheroes wouldn't work in the real world?


Yeah, that was poorly phrased. Wouldn't work in the way they're shown in comics.


Because I didn't read that in Watchmen. Seemed like he was trying to say that if they existed, we would have ethical questions to consider.

That says way more than Punisher running over Wolverine. Not as funny as that image, mind you.

Yeah, maybe. I getcher point.

But it DEFINITELY wasn't as effective as the time Superman showed up in Hitman.


Sure, that stuff's obvious - and well-travelled ground as well - now. Was it when Watchmen first came out?


I think so. A lot of what Stan Lee was doing in the early Marvels was winking at the audience, saying "We're far too mature to take this COMPLETELY seriously, aren't we?"

[jesse_custer]

Pretty much.

Part of the reasons Rorschach begs Manhattan to kill him* at the end is that Ozzy and the Doc have demonstrated how irrelevant his life's work has been, how he failed to do anything of lasting importance, and the only way he can change that is to put the world at risk of nuclear Armageddon.

That says "tough ethical decision" to me more than it does "this isn't working."

[jesse_custer]

On the other hand, The Boys definitely makes the superheroes not working in real life argument.

But it DEFINITELY wasn't as effective as the time Superman showed up in Hitman.

I just can't forget Batman's puke on Hitman's shoes.

[howyadoin]

I just can't forget Batman's puke on Hitman's shoes.John Constantine pissing on the Phantom Stranger is right up there, too.

[jesse_custer]

I mean, Hitman's puke on Batman's shoes.

[howyadoin]

A lot of what Stan Lee was doing in the early Marvels was winking at the audience, saying "We're far too mature to take this COMPLETELY seriously, aren't we?"I dunno. I think that's an interpretation you're choosing to make.

[Paul McEnery]

I dunno. I think that's an interpretation you're choosing to make.

Though I think Gerber's Defenders definitely goes there.

[howyadoin]

Though I think Gerber's Defenders definitely goes there.Yeah, I could see that. I don't think Stan was necessarily that self-aware, though.

[Slam_Bradley]

Though I think Gerber's Defenders definitely goes there.

Yeah, I could see that. I don't think Stan was necessarily that self-aware, though.

I think you're probably right about Gerber. But not Stan. I've read tons of interviews with pretty much everyone from the Marvel bullpen and they didn't realize until '66 - '67 that they were reaching a significant college-age audience. They may not have been actively writing for the 7-13 year old demographic, but that was still perceived as the audience.

[Paul McEnery]

I think you're probably right about Gerber. But not Stan. I've read tons of interviews with pretty much everyone from the Marvel bullpen and they didn't realize until '66 - '67 that they were reaching a significant college-age audience. They may not have been actively writing for the 7-13 year old demographic, but that was still perceived as the audience.

Ironically, I'd say that the books were way more knowing, playful, and post-modern before that moment.

[Tages]

That says "tough ethical decision" to me more than it does "this isn't working."

I don't think Manhattan considered it a difficult decision at all. Rorschach likes pretending to be a nihilist, but he's Erasmus compared to the Doc.

But look at it this way:

*Rorschach takes out his frustrations on rapists, murderers and crime lords but is a local curiosity who never would have been more than that had he not stumbled onto Ozzy's plan.
*Nite Owl spent his entire protracted adolescence playing with toys and beating people up. He comes out of retirement just in time to see that he might as well not have bothered as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
*Silk Spectre, same diff. Living her entire life first to please her mother, then Manhattan, then tackles the first (arguably) healthy relationship of her life with Dan when she's in her thirties. Personally significant, but compared to the scope of Ozzy's ambition, she might as well not have.
*Manhattan, the only actually superpowered being on the planet, alters the entire balance of power between the two superpowers by being able to individually neutralize 60% of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. This ends up actually making the risk of nuclear war worse. So the difference he makes is counterintuitive to put it mildly.

[jesse_custer]

You're correct. All of which suggests that Ozymandias might have figured out how to make it work.

It goes back to what Max Weber said in "Politics as a Vocation." In Watchmen, Ozymandias rejects the ethic of absolute morality--which everyone else pretty much championed--and chooses the ethic of responsibility. But the jury is still out on whether this was the correct decision. Yes, Dr. Manhattan makes the point that nothing ever ends, but that doesn't mean Ozy didn't save millions of lives.

[Reptisaurus!]

I think you're probably right about Gerber. But not Stan. I've read tons of interviews with pretty much everyone from the Marvel bullpen and they didn't realize until '66 - '67 that they were reaching a significant college-age audience. They may not have been actively writing for the 7-13 year old demographic, but that was still perceived as the audience.

I've heard some of the same stuff from Stan, but I have (obviously) have trouble taking him completely seriously. I don't think they were writing for college kids, but there was always a significant military readership for comics, and OBVIOUSLY juvenile delinquents love 'em.

Or he coulda been writing for smart 13 year olds, or (and this happens a lot in older comics) writing to amuse himself - But I don't think you can argue that the hyperbolic narration, which was completely different from the tone of the stories, wasn't a distancing effect. And there were similar elements in the stories themselves: Stan'd play a lot of elements straight, but he'd often use bystanders and civilians to show that the "world" didn't always take the superheroes seriously, either.

[Paul McEnery]

I've heard some of the same stuff from Stan, but I have (obviously) have trouble taking him completely seriously. I don't think they were writing for college kids, but there was always a significant military readership for comics, and OBVIOUSLY juvenile delinquents love 'em.

Or he coulda been writing for smart 13 year olds, or (and this happens a lot in older comics) writing to amuse himself - But I don't think you can argue that the hyperbolic narration, which was completely different from the tone of the stories, wasn't a distancing effect. And there were similar elements in the stories themselves: Stan'd play a lot of elements straight, but he'd often use bystanders and civilians to show that the "world" didn't always take the superheroes seriously, either.

Yancy Street Gang Beatle Wig!

[Reptisaurus!]

Or if you don't buy that - And the "Marvel New York" is the one absolutely brilliant Marvel creation I feel comfortable single-handedly ascribing to Stan -

Then Batman TV show, Okay?

[Kees_L]

A thread on the TV/Film board got in to a discussion of the best western movie. This led me to think about comic books and more particularly about Watchmen. Which led me to ponder whether a work that is a deconstruction of a genre/form/what have you can actually be the pinnacle of that genre (to the extent there can be a "best" in any art-form).

To illustrate a couple of the things that caused me to ponder this.

Western Films. There are certainly a number of usual suspects when it comes to naming a greatest western film. The Searchers. High Noon. Once Upon a Time in the Old West. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. The Wild Bunch. Unforgiven. But there is a good argument that Leone's westerns were a deconstruction of the earlier Hollywood westerns. Unforgiven is even more clearly a deconstruction of both the traditional and the spaghetti western.

Comics...more particularly super-hero comics. Alan Moore's Watchmen is frequently singled out as the best comic ever. It's more frequently singled out as the the best super-hero comic ever. But it is clearly a deconstruction of the long-standing super-hero tropes.

So can a deconstruction become the apex of that which it is deconstructing? I'm still working on it. And I'll admit that to the extent I have knowledge of art it is largely self-taught. So I'm very curious to see what people think.

Question: does a striking or succesful deconstruction automatically make for an all-time highpoint?
Or would a most striking example within a genre have to be the apex or pinnacle?

I ask this because I asked myself whether I could see Watchmen as the best superhero-comic ever and felt inclined to say no, because I would rather appoint a more striking genre-example (one with less genre-commentary and just more 'strike-ability').

Which raised another question: would the best comic ever have to be an issue or installment in a long-running series, rather than a stand-alone book?
I mean, Watchmen is a limited series, if not a stand-alone comic book. I as a reader usually dig those books best. But I could see how stand-alone material would be less confining to a comic writer, than to be fitted into a more ongoing perspective. Like what publishers such as Marvel and DC seem to be safeguarding for their long-running titles.
Also, this long-running bit (what usually is meant by 'continuity'?) seems to be some part of what Watchmen is deconstructing, as if it would be a vital part of the superhero genre.

I posted it before, but I might regard Hellboy as a deconstruction, of the superhero genre, or broader: the comic genre. With comic heroes and pulp heroes and book hero-bits referenced or tributed in there. A hero or anti-hero, not alien but not human either, with weird bodily features instead of a cape, with superpowers more a curse than a blessing although he chooses to use them how he sees fit instead of what they were destined for. Apparently.
But then I also see Hellboy as a comic designed to fit everything cool in there.
Proving rather pinnacly for me :smile:.