When I heard Garth Ennis was going to be taking over the helm of The Punisher, I had feelings of trepidation mixed with disbelief. Garth Ennis (and Steve Dillon) of Preacher fame? I admit I hadn't ever read more than one Preacher comic. Not that I'm squeamish, nor do I have a problem with sex and violence. It's just there was so much of it and it seemed so pointless. Some people love Garth Ennis for that, but I still don't. I thought though (erroneously, as it turns out) that that meant Garth Ennis couldn't be a good storyteller. Well, I admit, I ended up liking this new Punisher.
Ennis and Dillon really remade the Punisher. One thing I always liked about the old Punisher was its graphic realism (yes, I know it can't happen in real life, but it was real for a comic, ok?) The fights were real, the weapons were real, the blood flying out the pages was real. Ennis changed that and brought a more comicy, cartoony level to it, much more like what you find in your average Spider-Man. The coloring was different, not as dark, and characters became more important than how many mooks Punny gunned down per issue. While I do appreciate this style, I can only do so by telling myself the old Punisher is dead and gone, never to be resurrected. This is the only way I can have him. But that doesn't mean it's not good of its own accord. Not what I'd prefer, I admit, but it is good. I chose this particular volume because I don't have much more of Ennis' series than that.
The level of violence overall is about the same as what it was before. That's important for us visceral types for whom a story isn't advancing if people aren't fighting and dying. Ennis retains this aspect of The Punisher. Ennis introduced the Russian (who also made an appearance in the movie) and Ma Gnucci (and her whole retard family of mobsters). There are plenty of cases where someone just gets shot and dies, but there are places where someone is burned alive, or, as in the Russian's case, their face is burnt with hot pizza. Ma Gnucci herself is first mutilated by a polar bear (her limbs are torn off). The difference, like I said, is not in the level of violence. The difference is that this violence has a tongue-in-cheek, humorous aspect (if that's the right word to use). You'd never laugh at the violence in the old Punisher. In this one, you do. In the old Punisher, you didn't have zany characters. In this one, you do.
It's its own thing, really. You shouldn't expect this Punisher to have anything to do with the old one, and if you never read the Punisher because it didn't seem like it would interest you, you might want to now. In the past, the Punisher was not the domain of a particular writer. He was handed off to various teams of writers and illustrators, each of whom usually seemed like he was just earning a paycheck with this work. Ennis really has invested more of himself in it. This Punisher is his franchise, much like the Sandman is Neil Gaiman's.
It's always interesting when a writer takes a comic and writes it like a novel, or a series of novels. There's more sustained development and the author has a tendency to know where he's going, as opposed to the old monthly model of publishing. I look forward to reading more of Ennis' work in the Punisher. I think any serious comic fan should at least give it a try.
2 comments:
I understand why it had to happen, but I'll still take the old Punisher anyday. Now what I don't understand is why they wanted to try and wrap the Punisher movie loosely around this story, but make it as violent and serious as the old Punisher would be. I mean, you can have it one way or the other, but not both.
That's a good point. I think the motivation was to appeal to both old-school fans, without whom there would be no grass-roots support, and to appeal to Ennis fan and the average action movie-goer, who's going to be much more entertained by Ennis' style of story and violence.
Post a Comment