Monday, 20 August 2012

On Jennifer Blood Annual #1 By Al Ewing & Igor Vitorino (The First Time No. 4)

        

America is full, it seems, of useful mass murderers and dyed-in-the-wool serial killers. How would American society ever get by without them? Martin Blank and Frank Castle, Dexter Morgan and Jennifer Blood, they're all such productive members of the community. Not only do they offer all the convenience of a highly efficient cadre of society-serving executioners requiring no tax-payer's funding, state supervision or liberal hang-wringing over the rule of law. But they're also such good fun too.

       
It's the convenience offered by the mass-murderer-as-public-servant that makes the whole business so attractive. It's law-enforcement on the cheap, it's social policy as entertainment, it's the lizard-mind's longing to murder repackaged as a supposedly cathartic popcorn experience. Played smartly, the tradition raises a host of questions about what it is to be human and the degree of compassion and responsibility which we want to assume for our fellow citizens, irritating and even despicable as they so often are. At its worst, we're presented with irony-free revenge fantasies which reinforce a sense of social emasculation while glorifying the behaviour of ferociously disordered psychopaths. But however it's played, the tradition nearly always insists that we look away even as we're relishing the sight of the very thing we've paid our money to enjoy. For the torture and slaughter of the victims of our heroically trigger-happy vigilantes and super-psychos to entertain us, we have to collaborate in accepting that there's a fair few people who not only deserve to suffer and die, but to do so for our delectation  too.

    
The eyeballs have been flying entertainingly out of skulls all over the place in Jennifer Blood since Al Ewing arrived as the book's writer, and yet there's always a sense that the removal of an eye is as terrible a thing as it's taboo-shatteringly amusing. Ewing quite evidently finds the idea of the perversely self-motivated, remorselessly inventive social cleanser to be a thoroughly entertaining one. But he also refuses to let us look away from the consequence of the gruesome acts that we're hoping to be thrilled by. At times gently and in good humour, at others in a disturbing explicit and forlorn manner, Ewing's work keeps elbowing away at the question of what it is that we want from our champion lunatics. While I'm not entirely convinced that all of his artistic collaborators on Jennifer Blood's interiors and covers are as thoroughly committed to an ironic examination of the character as Ewing is, the scripts are always aware of the need to criticise as well as celebrate the idea of Our Player On The Other Side. We can watch as the scum of the Earth are eviscerated, we can rejoice as the more-than-just annoying neighbours are atomised in explosions, but we're going to have to remember on one level or another, that these are people as well as folk-devils. It doesn't, after all, take more than a subtle touch to remind us how we might ourselves respond to the prospect of swallowing our own eyes, for example, or of how easily we ourselves might find ourselves swallowed up by a culture which regards extortion and murder as an absolutely necessary, and even virtuous, business.

        
The first Jennifer Blood annual is by far Ewing's most satisfying work on the ever-improving property so far. Set a quarter of a century ago, it's an origin tale of sorts, and one which takes a far darker tone than is typical of the character's monthly comic. There's no-one in view, beyond a rather endearing if teatime-spoiling Fox Terrier, who isn't at the very least utterly reprehensible, and yet this tale of criminal in-fighting, torture, corruption and madness never once sidesteps the fundamental if profoundly flawed humanity of all involved. Ewing deftly portrays a family subject to a range of pernicious influences which drive all concerned way beyond the bounds of merely loathsome behaviour. From sheer unadulterated selfishness to dysfunctional thinking, from group conformity through denial to hereditary schizophrenia, the Blute's are both pathetic victims and self-defining monsters. As such, the disemboweling that's at the heart of the book couldn't happen to a more apparently deserving subject, and yet, he's still a distinct, if fearsome, individual, and the thought of the disemboweling is still a terrible, shiversome business. 

             
Artist Igor Vitorino offers a competent if rarely inspiring backdrop to Ewing's script. Reliant on photo-resources as he is, Vitorino's characters often lack any sense that their bodies have an underlying and defining structure. Though the expressions he gives his characters are always recognisable, they seem to float on ill-structured faces which lack the sense that they're bound to a specific skull by specific muscles with specific purposes. With page designs dominated by ranks of horizontal panels regardless of the script's content, Vitorino carries us effectively through the events in Ewing's script without adding a great deal to the experience. Yet in his depiction of the terrifying demon which lurks at the periphery of Samuel Victor Blute's vision, Vitorino shows what an effective artist he may well yet develop into, and he delivers the oh-no-they-haven't final page with an admirably unflinching unpleasantness.

          
1987: My Father, The Hero is a grim, remorseless depiction of how the illusion of fate emerges from a poisonous brew of naked self-interest and irreversible disorder. With this aspect of the character's backstory now so emphatically put in place, even the most apparently light-hearted of Jennifer Blood stories are unlikely to ever seem anything other than fundamentally tragic.

.

6 comments:

  1. To be fair, Martin Blank was a hitman, not a serial killer; otherwise, you're spot on - we're meant to empathize with him and not spend too much time thinking about his defense that the people he's hired to kill "did something" to earn it. He's a sociopath, but not quite in the same league as folk heroes Anton Chigurh (No Country For Old Men) or Eminem (Wanted).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Michael:- I agree Blank was a hitman, but his excuse was that he only killed folks who deserved to die, making him an ethical serial killer. The idea that he's been redeemed by love at the end of GPB is ludicrous. If only the film had ended him waiting outside Minnie Driver's house while she sneaks away in the background ...

      After all, in what way had Blank earned back his good citizen card?

      And you're quite right to point out that the Player On The Other Side has become so commonplace and taken for granted that we can end up being expected at least in part to root for the Player Who's Pretty Much Entirely On The Other Side!

      Which is what makes Jennifer Blood so interesting at the moment. Things are really going to hell and the serial killer is becoming obvious as .... a serial killer. Tis good work :)

      Delete
    2. I think we're almost on the same page regarding Martin Blank, but I still maintain he isn't a serial killer - Blank kills people because he's paid and instructed to. Characters like Castle & Dexter follow their own (twisted) conscience to determine who lives or dies, not that of an employer (or higher power, even).

      Blank doesn't see how killing someone on behalf of a wealthy patron is any different than killing on behalf of the CIA. In that respect, I suppose he is a little like Castle, who hunts criminals as though he were hunting Viet Cong (but with nobility, mind you! the Punisher never engages in collateral damage!). Both men turn their "wartime" occupation into a "peacetime" mission.

      Blank does prove to have a conscience so far as... he won't kill his girlfriend's father. Which is actually somewhat *lower* than Castle or Dexter's standards, depending on how you look at it.

      Delete
    3. Hello Michael:- I never meant all the names in that list to be regarded as character who behave in identical ways. I merely meant that they're all serial killers and we're often expected to stand with them and against their victims. Blank does meet some of the technical criteria for a serial killer; he's killed more than three people in a single month for financial gain, to take one common definition. The definitions of "serial killer" are quite broad and will happily incorporate, for example, desensitised army veterans who don't consider their victims properly human and deserving of their rights.(The FBI def only asks for 2 bodies in the period of a month!) The question is whether he kills ultimately for "psychological gratification" or not. Yes, money is a motive, and it could be very well be argued that it's the only one. Yet I think - for the sake of playful argument - that we might see Blank as a man who was psychologically driven too. He says the business of assassination isn't for him, but that doesn't mean that killing isn't. Still, I take your point. It'd be stubbornly stretching to construct a revisionist view of Blank's motivation. Rather, I'll go back and add "mass murderers and dyed in the wool serial killers" rather than stubbornly holding out and saying IT COULD BE!!!

      But it COULD BE!

      Delete
  2. I don't know. Maybe I'm too much of a suburban wife, but I find the comic too prurient to stomach. I see the violence and sexism within less as commentary and more as entertainment. I mean, naturally, the final shot of JB #15 contains a face full of puke. I see humor in its over-the-top gruel. But it's humor I don't find funny. Me and Garth Ennis, we just don't get along it seems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Patrick:- I'd never argue with you on matters of taste, though I would say that the Annual is a tragedy rather than a comedy. It might be that that's closer to your taste.

      Delete