Frank Miller's "300" being used by Italian neo-fascist party

[zuludelta]

Okay... not sure if this topic borders on the "too-political-for-FR" but I came across this image in today's Lying In The Gutters column and an accompanying news blurb about how Alleanza Nationale (an Italian political party with ties to the MSI neo-fascists and the extreme-right wing Christian Democracy Party) is using images from Frank Miller's 300 graphic novel for their propaganda and posters.

Now I don't really see Miller's 300 as the homophobic (but ironically homo-erotic) and just a bit racist piece (being legitimized only because its subject matter is "historical") that many of its critics accuse it to be, but at the same time, I can understand how its imagery and themes can hold a particular appeal to neo-fascists. The graphic novel trades in stereotypes and caricatures (good guys are musclebound, fair-skinned manly men while most of the bad guys are dark-skinned, slender, and somewhat effeminate) and doesn't really provide any character nuance or subtlety (think of the comic book notions of good and evil, but amplified and distorted to an extreme degree)... the "villains" are not fit to be reasoned with or subdued, the only way the protagonists can effectively deal with them is to kill them.

I'm a Frank Miller fan, his work on Daredevil in particular is one of my favourite creator-defined runs in superhero comics, and his ideas and theories on comic book art serve as an inspiration to me to this day, and he's one of the few Western creators to really nail down the pacing of classic manga when he attempts to, but I have to admit that there's always been a somewhat quirky element to his work (it's most often noticed by non-fans in the occasions when his fondness for using elements associated with bondage and sado-masochism sometimes seep into some of his design choices).

In the early days of his success, that off-kilter and pointed quality to his writing and art actually served to enhance his work... Daredevil, Ronin, Dark Knight Returns, Batman Year One, Martha Washington Goes to War... all of those books were all the better because of Miller's uniquely critical and somewhat sardonic eye being trained on society-at-large.

These days, though... I don't know... I can't remember any public figure who's apparently changed his core make-up so drastically and so short a span of time. There's always been a libertarian feel to his early work, his politics were never as simplistic as right or left, the one thing being consistent with his work is a theme of individualism and self-determination. Now, his later work, and the man himself, just seems so different. From his somewhat controversial NPR essay reading to his continued espousal of "Rand-isms," to the creatively bankrupt All-Star Batman & Robin and the equally superficial Sin City (although I still love the art) and his work-in-progress, an unabashed war propaganda comic featuring Batman fighting real-life Islamic terrorists, it seems that he's turned unimaginative, creatively complacent, and reactionary (with enough self-contradiction in his statements and work that it becomes hard to take anything he says and does seriously).

It's certainly not the first time we've seen some great creators "lose it" for some reason or another. Chris Claremont has been a sad parody of his former self since his career peaked in the mid-1980s, Dave Sim exposed himself as a you-have-to-see-it-to-believe-it level misogynist late into his Cerebus run (and really, if he hadn't published that essay, nobody would have been the wiser, his female characters were always well-written and portrayed in a fair light), Steve Ditko was swallowed up by the pseudo-philosophy that is Objectivism (I guess it's no surprise that Miller himself admits to being influenced by Ayn Rand's writing), Jack Kirby's later work, while still much, much more creative than the norm grew increasingly inconsistent and disjointed, and poor old Stan Lee... well, he just grew older and lost his ability to keep in touch with the popular culture zeitgeist (always his greatest asset). Still, it's always a disappointment when it happens.       

[ow_tiobe_sb]

I suppose similar questions could be put to those fascist factions who took up elements of Friedrich Nietzsche's (anti-)philosophy, corrupted it, and repackaged it as a message of racial superiority and apology for territorial conquest in the 20th century.  When in doubt, I always consult Mr. Wilde:

Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming.

This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope.

I am afraid, however, that I cannot speak intelligently about Mr. Miller's book or its merits (or its place in the evolution of his political thought), for I have not yet read it.

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

[tommyboy]

Tough to post on this with FR's "no politics" policy, but I'm not too surprised by someone using 300 as a propaganda tool.
The film itself is simplistic, iconic, heavy-handed in it's symbolism, and stirring. It makes for perfect propaganda. The right and the left have in the past seemed to like to use iconic symbolism to promote their ideology, and theres nothing like memorable, powerful images to stick in people's minds (see the iconography of the 3rd reich, or Soviet poster art, or Che Guevarra t-shirts).
I'd also note that Miller's book, and the film, contain a risible level of "good looking=good, ugly=bad" subtext (well, subtext is overstating it, it's right there in the text, really...) and the inability to cope with that time and culture's different attitude to homosexuality is hilarious for a film that fetishizes muscular male bodies.
As to Miller himself, and his .....views....I have to do what I do with Ditko, and love the art, especially the early stuff, and not really judge the man or his views, at all, if I can restrain myself. As long as his views are not present on every page and panel, I can just about do that. If I try to read "Mr.A" by Ditko, it's tough. Early Spidey, or even Speedball though, and I'm quite happy to ignore the man, and enjoy the Art. Same deal with Miller. Early Daredevil or DKR is good stuff, recent outings like ASBAR are almost a parody of his style.
There was a period where whenever I read any comics by Grant Morrison it seemed like he almost hated the genre he wrote in, thankfully either he, or I, or both have moved past that. I almost feel that reading Millers most recent stuff, (though with Morrison my feeling was at least in part caused by interviews where he pretty much came out and said comics and comic fans were pathetic).
 

[zuludelta]

As to Miller himself, and his .....views....I have to do what I do with Ditko, and love the art, especially the early stuff, and not really judge the man or his views, at all, if I can restrain myself.

That's my approach to art appreciation too, for the most part. It's how I can watch Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph Des Willens (1934) to study its artistic merits (she really revolutionized the composition of camera angles... before she came along, nobody really used high angle, panoramic, and panning shots to the extent that she used them) or enjoy Beck's music while knowing that both artists' publicly stated personal beliefs and attitudes run counter to mine.

The problem with comics though, is that it's a very personal and dear art form to me (well, I like film and music too, but comics are probably the top in my favourite art-forms hierarchy), so it becomes increasingly hard to read them in a detached, objective manner. Similarly, I can't help but form strong personal opinions about comics writers and artists. I was a little crestfallen when I first read Ditko's Mr. A (because I had always admired his work on Spider-Man). I read snippets of Mr. A as a young adult, and so soon after my own brief dalliance with Objectivism... what I couldn't stop thinking was, how could anybody so seemingly intelligent continue to hold on to its outdated and ultimately disproved principles?   

[doctorchallenger]

I have to say that I have become very disenchanted with Frank as of late.  I was a big fan as a kid. As I have gotten older I have detected a trand in his storytelling I find very distateful, one that has colored even my reading of DKR, Year 1 and Daredevil. 

I find Ditko's Mr. A interesting reading, a prototype for the kind of story that Alan Moore perfected.  You probably wouldn't have Rorshach if you ddidn't have Mr. A. 

I guess I just can't be as objective with Frank.

[detourne_me]

I find Ditko's Mr. A interesting reading, a prototype for the kind of story that Alan Moore perfected.  You probably wouldn't have Rorshach if you ddidn't have Mr. A. 

Theres a great bit in the Jonathon Ross (i think) documentary called Finding Steve Ditko.  He's interviewing Alan Moore about Ditko, and Moore was telling about the time when he discussed Watchmen with Ditko.  apparently Ditko said,  "yeah I guess Rorshach is based on Mr. A, except for, y'know Rorshach is insane."
Add that with the hilarious facial expressions Moore has, and i laughed for hours.

[Ajax]

I find Ditko's Mr. A interesting reading, a prototype for the kind of story that Alan Moore perfected.  You probably wouldn't have Rorshach if you ddidn't have Mr. A. 

Theres a great bit in the Jonathon Ross (i think) documentary called Finding Steve Ditko.  He's interviewing Alan Moore about Ditko, and Moore was telling about the time when he discussed Watchmen with Ditko.  apparently Ditko said,  "yeah I guess Rorshach is based on Mr. A, except for, y'know Rorshach is insane."
Add that with the hilarious facial expressions Moore has, and i laughed for hours.

Saw that documentary last night It was very interesting, though at times they prone to Stan Lee bashing. It seems that Steve wasn't so much lost to his obsession with objectivism but to the politics in the comics. For instance they talked about a time when Spidey was swinging past a bunch of protestors and Ditko wanted to say "Dirty hippies", but Stan would write "I'm with you kids." Stuff like that lead to the friction between the two professionally speaking. Plus he kinda turned away a fanbase when he creates a character like Mr.A who comes out and says "there is a right and there is a wrong. No gray". I doubt teenagers can identify with a character who is telling them what to do. :P

[lugaru]

Fascists and ultra nationalists have always had a love for escapism and macho imagery. If you look into the origins of the Klan they where extremely juvinile despite their violence and hatred. Everything was about secrecy, codes and clubs which gave them their wide appeal amongst disenfranchised racists. When they lost their secrecy and 'fun' they fell appart except for the most hardcore little monsters in the group. This is touched upon repeatedly, that superheroes are not fascist but they do appeal to those unbalanced people who see things only in terms of black and white. And 300 is a great example of superheroics applied to history, so this does not surprise me.