Continuing yesterday’s train of thought, where The Nam feels more like a documentary than a story. As such, that somehow makes it more difficult for me to evaluate it. I feel I’m judging people’s lives, as opposed to a work of fiction. Which is ridiculous on multiple levels. A) Based as it is on historical facts, this is not non-fiction. B) It’s a work of art. I can totally critique it. C) As good intentioned as The Nam is, it has got a lot of flaws. It’s not Band of Brothers or anything.
Let’s talk some about the art. Michael Golden is good, great even, but he’s let down by his inkers. With a good one (I can’t find a credit, he might have inked it himself), he looks like this:
With someone less talented (sorry, John Beatty), it looks like this:
And when you let Beatty draw a cover, the result is truly regrettable.
I’m sorry to say that this this may be one of the worst covers I’ve ever seen. It’s a failure in proportion, composition, dynamicism, and plain looking good.
For some reason, the most memorable example of a cover punch is this one from GI Joe. I saw it on the spinner rack as a kid, and it’s been stuck in my head every since:
Coincidentally, that artist, Ron Wagner, has also done covers for The Nam, and way better than Beatty (sorry again!). Some neat parallel covers between issues:
And in another example of an inker hogging the spotlight, Andy Kubert completely overwhelms Wagner with his own style here:
Andy is truly his father’s son, totally channeling Joe’s classic work on Sergeant Rock.
 |
| Like father, like son. |
Andy Kubert is a good penciller in his own right, and he does a fine job with his take on this classic, horrific photo:
 |
| Carefully cropped for the Comics Code Authority. |
Seeing art like this brings The Nam back to feeling like a documentary, and once again, I feel ill equipped to judge it.
Regret buying? No
Would buy again? No
Would read again? Yes
Rating: Fine
No comments:
Post a Comment