Guillem March Comments on Sex in Comics
Dec. 3rd, 2011 07:40 pm![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aeka posting in ![[community profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
scans_dailyNewsarama recently interviewed Catwoman penciller Guillem March, and of course, among the questions asked (especially given the still controversial BatCat sex scene at the end of #1) is where the artist himself stands on the topic of sex in comics.
Nrama: From kids to adults, there’s been along of tongues wagging over your new series Catwoman, both with acclaim and concern about how sexual it is. What do you think about sexuality in comics, especially with two well-known characters like Catwoman and Batman?
March: Catwoman is a book for mature readers. 16 year old people and over, as it is rated on the cover with a T+. I think that there should be a place for the books containing sexuality in the market share, even explicit sexuality, and with that I´m not saying Catwoman is explicit, because it isn´t. Real life is explicit, it doesn’t cast shadows everywhere. I’m not going to argue with anybody about if it’s right or wrong to display sexuality between two well-know characters, or the way it’s done in Catwoman. At the end those characters are a property of DC Comics, and nobody can say “this is not how Catwoman should be” because everybody has a different vision of how every character should be. The only right treatment is the current ongoing comic-book, the place where the character is “living”. I hope people like it and follow the series because there is a lot of work behind to make it a good book, funny and entertaining. Both Judd Winick and I are putting a lot of ourselves in it.
Here in Europe, I think we’re more open minded about displaying sexuality in the media, and maybe showing violence is less acceptable than in the US. All the controversy about the ending of issue #1 surprised me a bit.
SOURCE
Oh sigh. Newsarama truthfully asked the wrong question here.
I don't think most people disagree on sexuality deserving a place in comicbooks. In fact, I'd like to think most people are in favour of depicting sexuality and nudity in comics, even in the States despite cultural sensitivity to it. This wasn't the problem people had with the scene though. The problem most people had was that it was (a) exploitive of the characters, (b) was depicted in a way that felt horridly ooc for both characters, (c) served no real purpose in the story, and (d) contained some pretty strong rape overtones on the page where Selina admits that "he protests at first but later gives in."
It's one thing to depict a graphic sex scene between two consenting adults who are enjoying themselves, no matter how kinky or colourful the sex is, and another to depict it in a way that objectifies the characters to the extent of qualifying as wank material.
And hey, since the topic here is sex, how about more Dinah/Ollie for a legality scan?
Nrama: From kids to adults, there’s been along of tongues wagging over your new series Catwoman, both with acclaim and concern about how sexual it is. What do you think about sexuality in comics, especially with two well-known characters like Catwoman and Batman?
March: Catwoman is a book for mature readers. 16 year old people and over, as it is rated on the cover with a T+. I think that there should be a place for the books containing sexuality in the market share, even explicit sexuality, and with that I´m not saying Catwoman is explicit, because it isn´t. Real life is explicit, it doesn’t cast shadows everywhere. I’m not going to argue with anybody about if it’s right or wrong to display sexuality between two well-know characters, or the way it’s done in Catwoman. At the end those characters are a property of DC Comics, and nobody can say “this is not how Catwoman should be” because everybody has a different vision of how every character should be. The only right treatment is the current ongoing comic-book, the place where the character is “living”. I hope people like it and follow the series because there is a lot of work behind to make it a good book, funny and entertaining. Both Judd Winick and I are putting a lot of ourselves in it.
Here in Europe, I think we’re more open minded about displaying sexuality in the media, and maybe showing violence is less acceptable than in the US. All the controversy about the ending of issue #1 surprised me a bit.
SOURCE
Oh sigh. Newsarama truthfully asked the wrong question here.
I don't think most people disagree on sexuality deserving a place in comicbooks. In fact, I'd like to think most people are in favour of depicting sexuality and nudity in comics, even in the States despite cultural sensitivity to it. This wasn't the problem people had with the scene though. The problem most people had was that it was (a) exploitive of the characters, (b) was depicted in a way that felt horridly ooc for both characters, (c) served no real purpose in the story, and (d) contained some pretty strong rape overtones on the page where Selina admits that "he protests at first but later gives in."
It's one thing to depict a graphic sex scene between two consenting adults who are enjoying themselves, no matter how kinky or colourful the sex is, and another to depict it in a way that objectifies the characters to the extent of qualifying as wank material.
And hey, since the topic here is sex, how about more Dinah/Ollie for a legality scan?
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 01:36 am (UTC)I don't draw shadows to cover it up because of REALISM. But that REALISM obviously doesn't' extend to how I draw female body types, because I only know how to draw one!
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 02:03 am (UTC)Were it like, Batman and Babs, then it'd be squicky as hell... but Bruce and Selena getting feisty isn't news. The contrast with Ollie and Dinah isn't exactly fair.
With GA/BC you're talking a well-bred rich boy who thinks he's robin hood and a sassy legacy heroine who operates out of a flower shop, both of whom are a long standing couple. Then Bat/Cat opposite them, a borderline sociopath with extreme emotional disconnect issues and a scrappy criminal used to exploiting her sexuality to lower people's guard... who also both spend their nights hiding in dark rooms in skintight leather, waiting to beat gangsters into hospital beds.
The respective personalities involved are very, very different - two of them being much more dark - and so it follows suit that the sex might be as well.
As for the body types thing, granted Cats has (the sadly standard) case of waif-waist and zero-G boobs, but c'mon. It's Batman and Catwoman. Batman sets an impossible muscular standard for the male readers too, you know. Building calves the size of his or arms as sculpted would pretty much require you to spend 6 hours a day, every day, in a gym - doing a high-intensity workout that would make a marine cry.
They leap across rooftops and trample on ten 'roided-out thugs at once in unarmed combat on a nightly basis. They both pretty much have to be incredibly cut.
If she were a big girl and he with my dad's physique, I'd laugh until I peed.
Being upset about this... it just really seems like looking for something to be upset about. If anything rally about her comic covers objectifying the hell out of her. that one is at least valid.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 02:03 am (UTC)To be fair, I can't necessarily argue that--it seems like Winnick is going for a sort-of seedy, grindhouse vibe with this book.
"(b) was depicted in a way that felt horridly ooc for both characters,"
I guess it depends on what you mean by "depicted." In terms of how much they showed, that was definitely more, but in terms of action? Hell no. I felt that was perfectly in-panel. They've been having rough angry sex for decades--it's just always been off-panel.
"(c) served no real purpose in the story,"
Well, it was a character moment for her. She was starting to angst about not having her own home anymore, and Batman came in at just the right time for her to get her aggression out.
"(d) contained some pretty strong rape overtones on the page where Selina admits that 'he protests at first but later gives in.'"
I never read it that way. The way it's always been for Batman's side of the relationship is that he wants her, he wants her bad, but she's a criminal and he knows he should arrest her and not want her. In this case, part of him is trying to resist, but he gives into temptation. One should also remember that, when Selina's narrating, she mentions that they've been sleeping together for a long time. Honestly, describing this instance as having rape overtones almost seems like a slight to actual sexual assault.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 02:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 02:29 am (UTC)First of all, Google "False Equivalence".
Second of all, go on YouTube and look up "Killing Us Softly 3". Jean Kilbourne explains these things much better than me.
But that argument? Has been played out and done over and over with Feminist Thinkers and argued against much better than I ever could.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 02:31 am (UTC)However, this isn't pre-reboot Bruce and Selina, this is a brand new Bruce and Selina who are starting all over again, and the idea of Selina having anonymous sex with with a man she doesn't know the identity of feels out of character for her. Same with Bruce allowing a woman he presumably doesn't know to "have her way" with him in a manner of speaking. It's all in how it's depicted and how the characters are being characterised.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 02:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 02:38 am (UTC)Y'know what? IT'S NOT THAT IMPORTANT. I'll just... leave it. Yeah.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 02:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 03:00 am (UTC)http://www.shortpacked.com/
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 03:18 am (UTC)The quoting of Shortpacked was on purpose. The Jean Kilbourne was my own thing, because I just recently read her work and she explains things really well.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 03:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 03:29 am (UTC)(Though, to be honest, his picture of Batman sorta creeped me out.)
I don't actually think so
Date: 2011-12-04 04:07 am (UTC)Second( this is trickier point to make, and I almost decided against it for fear of being vilified in caricature: but th overcoming some residence to throw caution to the wind
I don't actually think so
Date: 2011-12-04 04:22 am (UTC)Second( this is trickier point to make, and I almost decided against it for fear of being vilified in caricature: but this is a well reasoned community) overcoming some residence to throw caution to the wind and engage in sex is not, in and in itself, the equivalent of rape: that's just a false equivalence.
I beg/plead/kiss/nibble/bite to get my wife to have sex with me on a regular basis, as does she(thought, frankly, less so: she's out of my league, so she doesn't have to do much except arch an eyebrow and I'm down. But in the past, she has. Even going so far as to wrestle me one time).
The matter and mechanism of seduction can take a lot of forms, and they are as complicated as people are complicated.
It can be an intense conversation, cooking together, or hang-gliding. For two people who are extremely good physical fighters, and who have an strong sexual chemistry(an catwoman & batman have always been shown to) a little sparing/tussle might be exactly what it takes.
Life is complicated, and so are good comic book characters. Selina has always owned her sexuality. I don't really see this as a departure for either character. She wanted him: he wanted her. They had sex, thought both probably resisted in some ways. Frankly, I thought it was a fairly mature presentation.
+1
Date: 2011-12-04 04:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 04:51 am (UTC)Ugh. I think, after 70 years, all of us have a right to say how Catwoman should be or what Batman would do because--culturally--these are our characters. We don't own them, but we know them. These characters and their place in our culture is wonderful because we do say, "That's not how Catwoman should be" or "Batman would never do that." With most of our fiction we can only say, "I don't like that [character] did that," but with our superheroes we know when the writers get them wrong.
Maybe my vision of Catwoman doesn't match everybody's, but I think my vision is going to have a lot of similarities to everybody else's vision. Depending on your age and what you watched when, my vision's probably cobbled together out of a lot of the same things as everyone else's, and I think it's a lot more flexible than March gives any of us credit for. I can have my vision of Catwoman as a relatively sane, unpowered thief and still love Batman Returns (and despite all the changes that Tim Burton makes, I think the Catwoman in Batman Returns still has the essence of Catwoman).
Re: I don't actually think so
Date: 2011-12-04 05:40 am (UTC)While we're on the subject, I never once said that the scene itself played out as a full fledged rape, but the fact that Selina explicitly states "Every time he protests. Then he gives in. And he seems angry" does provide a sexual overtone that isn't particularly consensual. And speaking of trivialising sexual assault, that's basically what that scene does. Yeah Winick doesn't depict it as outright rape in the following issue. But the fact that he makes it a point of emphasising that he always "protests before giving in," and then depicts the whole encounter as 110% consensual despite that bit of information, is basically dismissing the serious nature of unwanted sexual attention. He's basically catering to the erroneous belief that "it's no longer considered sexual assault once you consent," and depicts it as such. This is the same erroneous belief that's very pervasive in society, and the reason many people don't recognise all aspects of sexual assault beyond what's traditionally recognised as 'forcible sexual intercourse against a non-consenting person, conscious or unconscious.' This isn't even going into everything else that's wrong with that scene, particularly with the way both Batman and Catwoman are objectified in those 4 pages of #1 alone.
It is very poor characterisation of two very well known and iconic characters, and the message of the scene itself isn't particularly relieving.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 06:40 am (UTC)This is exactly what I was getting at when I commented above on society accepting the erroneous belief that "sexual assault is no longer considered as such once the person consents."
The problem with the scene itself is that it initially plays out as a non-consenting sexual encounter (as Selina's narration makes clear, and Bruce struggling against her advances doesn't leave much to the imagination), before Bruce "willing" accepts the encounter, and the rest of the scene is played out as having been mutually consenting. The problem with this depiction is that it especially caters the idea that "it's not longer sexual assault once a person consents," and reiterates it by depicting it as such. The fact that Winick dresses it up as "Batman and Catwoman simply giving in to temptation because they want each other so badly,"is nothing short of dismissing the serious nature of unwanted sexual advances, especially considering how the scene started out in the first place.
Once you actually undress the scene (no pun intended) and actually see it for what it really is, then you'll begin to understand one of many reasons people found this scene uncomfortable. It really had very little to do with what the characters "actually wanted."
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 07:25 am (UTC)Sweet, I am never paying back my HECS debt.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 07:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 08:37 am (UTC)He made a good point, though.
Re: I don't actually think so
Date: 2011-12-04 08:43 am (UTC)She is basically boiled down into every lonely, borderline-sociopathic nerd-boy's fantasy: the sex slave who always engages instead of having to be engaged.
Re: I don't actually think so
Date: 2011-12-04 10:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 11:04 am (UTC)Although assuming that pouty and lean with big expressive eyes is the way that they should go which "never gets catered to", 1989 movie Batman says hey. He seemed successful enough.
I'm not looking to argue with feminist thinkers about feminist thought. Feminist leanings aside, this is (was?) a slash community, not "Wymyn now." The portrayal of sex and relationships in comics is the primary focus here, and there's nothing especially filthy or wrong about what was shown in the comic in question.
Catwoman's physical proportions being fetishized is an aside, and an argument that is years and years old; IMO, not really relevant enough to be dredging up here. Assume in the scene in question, Bat/Cat were fat and wrinkly alike... would you still think that the [scene] was horrible sexualization?
If you would, you're more than entitled to your opinion (not that you'd need my permission,) but I'd also like the right to respectfully disagree (not that I'd need yours, in due courtesy.)