Comic Week: Is Smallville worth a rewatch?

Clark Kent and Lois Lane
Image credit: CW Network

In continuation with Comic Week, Screen Editor Olivia Luder takes a look at Superman origin series Smallville…

 

It’s time to talk about Smallville.

A giant of mediocre American television, Smallville ran for ten years, produced over 200 episodes and gave the world unrivalled access to Tom Welling’s abs. So far, so good.

It began on the now-defunct Warner Brothers television network before transferring to the CW network for season 6 and sustained an average of 4.34 million viewers, with a series high of over 9 million.

The narrative core of the series was the origin story of Superman or Clark Kent, as the TV series almost exclusively knows him as. It followed Clark from his days as an ‘awkward’ freshman (year 9 for those of you not state-side), through to the beginnings of his career at The Daily Planet.

And throughout those long years of watching Clark navigate puberty, love and being the angstiest person in the entire world, Smallville was a curious beast.

The series has its moments of surprising insight. Season 6 gave us Subterranean, a somewhat-shoddy episode that nevertheless took an intelligent look at illegal immigration and Clark’s own immigrant status. Season two’s Heat used Clark’s heat vision as a Buffy-like analogy for the difficulties of burgeoning teenage sexuality. Clark’s secret of being a Kryptonian alien with superpowers worked consistently, and often movingly, as a metaphor for any hidden secret or characteristic someone might have, whether it be sexuality, background or ambition.

However, the amount of utter rubbish that Smallville unloaded onto television screens across the world cannot be understated.

Key story-lines regularly fell by the wayside, unexplained and apparently ignored by the writers: who sent that crystal to Tess in Season 8; what did the caves have to do with anything; what happened to the soulmate bracelet; and is it Lex Luthor or Doomsday who is Sageeth, Clark’s ultimate nemesis? These are just a few of the inhabitants of Smallville’s Home for Lost Plot Threads.

Even worse are the abandoned characters. Think being a series regular with a firm spot on the opening credits and three seasons worth of character development would keep you safe from being forgotten? Not so. Poor Jimmy Olsen (Aaron Ashmore) showed up in Season 6 and became a series regular in Season 8, but was killed off in the season finale and forgotten by the beginning of Season 9. Not even getting married to Chloe (Allison Mack) and buying her Watchtower (the place where much of Season 9 and 10 is set) kept him from him from literally never being mentioned again. Other in memoriam mentions go to Pete Ross, Gabe Sullivan, Lucas Luthor and Grant Gabriel; all characters with huge narrative importance but, for no reason whatsoever, were ruthlessly abandoned.

So Smallville sometimes was great and sometimes it wasn’t. But with such a ridiculous level of inconsistency, what kept people watching?

Chloe and Jimmy
Image credit: CW Network

Firstly, it began in 2001 in a post 9/11 world. Rather than be cynical and nihilistic, Smallville was the optimistic, all-American antidote to a new, scarier world. It had a handsome and sweetly-charismatic young lead in Tom Welling and a strong mythological base in the Superman universe. The early narrative format was characterised as Freak of the Week: every new episode introduced a new ‘freak’ with meteor powers who Clark and his two plucky best friends would have to defeat. This all came together to form TV show that, while simplistic, empowered its viewers in an otherwise unsure time.

Later series were sustained by fanatical support from comic fans and ‘shippers’ alike. The series went under a metamorphosis from being centered around Clark Kent’s small hometown, Smallville up to Season 8 then transitioning to being focused on the city of Metropolis and The Daily Planet. This refreshed the format and opened up further possibilities for character development, notably the beginning of Clark’s double-identity as the Red Blue Blur.

Long-running TV shows have the particular advantage of allowing viewers to follow characters for years. While as mentioned before, Smallville didn’t always capitalise on this, it did in the case of Clark, his best friend Chloe, and her cousin (and Clark’s future wife) Lois Lane (Erica Durance). Their transformation from being directionless and immature to finding their destinies is undeniably emotional to watch over the years.

Smallville is not an epic that many will remember for its exquisite dialogue. Neither is it one that will be remembered for its intelligent and inspired story-lines. But it was sweet, and earnest and gave me my favourite television character in the world: the ball-busting, name-taking Lois Lane. Most of all, it will be remembered for its love of alliteration, for its borderline obsession with shirtless men, and for having a heart much bigger than any of its plot holes.

Olivia Luder, Online Screen Editor

To read more on Superman, check out features in the Books and Games sections…

Comic Week: "F***k it, how 'bout they're just born with powers."

Senior Reviewer, Thomas Barr examines the final in our series of comic book franchises – the X Men. Is there more to this crime-fighting team than cool powers and team dynamics? Barr unveils an interesting social commentary within the comic…

If you’re ever struggling to come up with an idea, but don’t really feel creative or innovative at that moment, take heart from the X-Men. They are a great example of how sometimes laziness is the solution. In 1963 Stan Lee had come up with some of the all time great comic book series; Spider-man, The Hulk, Iron Man, Thor and The Fantastic Four. When it came to ideas for a new group of superheroes he was running on empty and  basically said “F**k it, how ‘bout they’re just born with powers. Lets call ‘um, I dunno,  ‘Mutants’. I’m hungry, I’m off to lunch.” So from humble beginnings they’ve gone on to be one of the most successful and well loved super-heroes of all time. Why?

Well for a start the X-Men are logistically sound. You can see that they were created with a team dynamic in mind. Each member has a unique skill set that makes the team better for having them in it. No member is significantly stronger than the others and the variety of powers helps them deal with a variety of situations. You don’t get the embarrassing gulf in abilities that undermines so many of the other superhero team-ups. There must be some sort of pro-diversity, union regulation making it compulsory to have an archer in every team. Other than that I can’t see what Superman gains from having Green Arrow nearby. Green Arrow is undeniably really really good at hitting far away things with a bow and arrow, but that becomes kind of insignificant when the guy next to you can level buildings with a single punch.

For me the biggest strength of the X-Men is their ability to reflect social issues to a greater extent than other mainstream comics; racism, religion and LGBT struggles are all represented. As super-powers are a commonly occurring natural phenomenon, the Mutants become the model of an alienated community through which issues such as civil rights and societal acceptance can be explored. These themes would be wasted if the characters weren’t sympathetic. Luckily, when you have awkward characters in their teens experiencing strange and mysterious changes to their bodies, they’re not going to have a problem relating to the alienation of the X-men.

So whilst I admit that comic books don’t have a reputation that screams ‘positive social interaction’, I think the X-Men should be praised for presenting young people with important real-world conflicts in an entertaining and non-patronising form.

By Thomas Barr – Senior Reviewer

Comic Week: "I'm Superman, lol"

Carrying on our Comic Week feature, Senior Reviewer, Thomas Barr, takes a look at the Superman comic-book series. A character so handsome it hurts, Barr is trying desperately to hate him…

So there’s this guy at school. He’s tall, handsome, athletic, and is never seen with a hair out of place. Every fibre of your cerebral cortex is begging you to hate him. Yet on the odd moments of shared social interaction you begrudgingly find him to be infuriatingly charming and frustratingly likeable. Well, now you know how I feel about Superman. He’s the main man. Numero Uno. You ask the man on the street who his favourite superhero is and chances are he’s going to pay lip service to the Man of Steel. So how is it that what is essentially a pro-American, anti-Fascism propaganda weapon has gone on to become the poster boy for superheroes?

When you ask the question ‘What is it that’s so special about Superman?’ its turns out to be a harder question than it seems. I mean he was the first, the archetype, but that’s not really saying much. Being first doesn’t mean that you’re the best. If I’m on my way to Costa Blanca, I’ll take cramped economy class in a Boeing 737 any day over an admittedly roomier journey in something knocked up by the Wright brothers. He may have been the trailblazer, introducing tropes like superpowers, villains and secret identities, but if you look at Superman’s world now it all seems kind of, well, stupid.

“I’m power hungry and I’m going to defeat you!”
“Well thats embarrassing for you because I’m Superman, lol”
“Yeah well I’m using this [Kryptonite/Magic/Sunblock] to weaken you”
“Oh no that’ll bother me for like 20 minutes while you gloat, then something will happen, I’ll be back to normal and I’ll punch you, really hard, in the face.”

This is what most Superman stories simply boil down to. This is problematic as readers become engaged with characters during their moments of struggle and Superman is just too damn powerful to be interesting. That’s the problem with a character whose power is physicall; the demonstration of it is just not enough to hold the attention of anyone who is older than ten. Maybe back in the 30’s the sight of a man leaping over a tall building in a single bound was mind-blowing, but our modern-day superheroes are three-dimensional with elements of pathos and innovative powers.

Despite all this I just can’t help but have a sizable amount of affection for the big guy. He’s just so epic.

[poll id=”19″]

By Thomas Barr – Senior Reviewer

Superwomen: Empowered and sexy, or made powerless by sexism?

As part of our Comic Week feature we have been reviewing key figures of the comic-book franchise. But we are yet to analyse the role of any superwomen. In answer to this problem, Elizabeth Moore considers the presentation of women within comicbooks. Are they empowered or powerless? Is there a sexist undertone to the highly eroticised images? Do these superwomen present strong role-models? And are their superpowers simply masking a frightening sexualisation?

Comic book heroes are designed to be idealised versions of humanity: strong, beautiful and perfect, representing all that we could be (you know, minus the superhuman powers). But from a female perspective, this is not neccessarily an image that we should idealise. There are three main issues with the portrayal of heroines in graphic novels: bodies, poses, and costume.

All superheroes have impossible physiques; it’s a part of their fantastical appeal, but the way in which these bodies are gendered proves problematic. For example, Superman’s modern appeal comes from his huge muscles and superhuman strength. However, his female counterpart Superwomen has the focus placed upon her sizable breasts. We have to think why these features are prioritised, and let’s be honest, unless Wonder Woman’s chest holds some sort of super power that I don’t know about, we have a simple case of sexualisation and objectification.

Some of you will be aware of the Hawkeye Initiative, a blog that satirising the characterisation of female heroes by drawing Hawkeye in many of the overly-provocative poses that the superwomen are placed in. Pushing his posterior out, extending his limbs ineffectually, and placing his chest and groin as the central focus of the image, Hawkeye looks ridiculous. Although humorous, the sexualised images of women on comic-book covers arguably show them in poses akin to those of page-three models (see Poison Ivy’s seductive stare, and Catwoman’s handling of a fetishised whip as an example). In fact, when you think about it, the ways in which heroines fight in comics would be fairly powerless, their anatomic integrity sacrificed for the sake of showing more leg, or making their chests more visible. Alright, the male poses aren’t exactly structurally powerful, but at least they retain some dignity within it.

Finally, there’s the costumes, spanning from the skin-tight, low cut suits of the deliberately provocative Catwoman to the exhibitionist ‘boob window’ of Power Girl’s unitard: all superwomen find themselves exposing at least one part of themselves for no discernible reason. Think again to Wonder Woman: yes, she could allegedly deflect bullets with her unbreakable bracelets, but at no point does it say that she is completely invulnerable to weaponry, so in what way is it a good idea to run around with not much more on than armour-plated underwear? Perhaps these images signal sexual empowerment, liberation, and freedom? Looking at the combination of suggestive poses and costume, I think not.

Developed during the same time frame as the “pin-up girl” phenomenon, it’s unsurprising that superwomen have taken on this sensualised iconography; years on, why are we still stuck with the same sexualised imagery? Essentially, the times have changed, but the readership has not. The most recent statistics for DC’s “New 52” series show that only 7% of their readership is female, meaning the sphere is still very much a male one, catering to their ideals. But maybe this isn’t such a bad thing. After all, it is only fantasy, and these characters, no matter how controversial, are memorable. Yes, we could probably do with fewer T&A tributes in female-centred comics, and almost certainly a more realistic spin put on the shapes and costumes of these characters, but what would the appeal of comics be if we sacrificed all their fantastical elements in favour of supposed realism? All that’s needed is a more appropriate balance of fantasy and dignity.

[poll id=”20″]

By Elizabeth Moore

Comic Week: "The Mother-F**king Batman"

To celebrate the Animated Exeter festival, Exeposé Online Books, Screen, and Games have teamed up to bring you the definitive guide to the world of comics. We will be taking a look at the comic books, the films, and the spin-off games to see which of three comic series is the ultimate franchise. Senior Reviewer, Thomas Barr, will be kicking things off with DC Comic’s Batman…

I love Batman. Everyone loves Batman. People who feel indifferent to the Dark Knight are misguided, let me explain. Batman is one of the world’s oldest and best known comic book characters, having first appeared to readers of Detective Comics #27 in May 1939. No character has Batman’s levels of sustained popularity without good reason, the reason in this case being that he’s awesome. Anyone can find something to enjoy in Batman. If you’re just passingly familiar with him you can still enjoy the heroic exploits, cool gadgets and camp escapism that a man dressed as a giant bat provides. No one can fail to enjoy a man defeating a Shark whilst handcuffed. But as a hardcore fan, I can’t help but look beneath the glossy veneer and find an endlessly fascinating exploration of society, psychology and philosophy. Along with all this he exists as one of the most powerful metaphors in popular literature, as a symbol for the potential of the self.

Of all the best known comic book icons, Batman is the only one not there by accident. His powers don’t come from being a member of an alien race or the result of some freak scientific mishap, they come from him. For Batman, it’s not a case of ‘With great power comes great responsibility’, he grasps responsibility for himself and forges great power out of it. We’re not interested in him for any fantastical powers he possesses, we’re interested in him because of him. He is his superpower. Batman is the epitome of human resilience and determination, through a combination of intelligence and willpower  (and the money doesn’t hurt) he crafted himself into a virtual demi-god. He’s a genius-millionaire-scientist-detective-ninja, don’t you know? (take that Tony Stark).

Batman is inspirational in the way that he fights a universal and recognisable enemy: fear. For me, combatting and overcoming fear is the key theme of the Batman comics. In many ways, he is more human than superhuman. Bruce Wayne suffers the most terrifying experience any child could possibly suffer, he watches helplessly as those he loves most are senselessly taken from him. He sees with perfect clarity the chaos and meaningless cruelty of the world. Yet he does not give in to fear or despair, he chooses then and there to force the world into order  and meaning by taking fear and bending it to his will.

See you do love Batman, and you know why? Not for any of the reasons above, but simply because he is the mother-f**king Batman.

[poll id=”18″]

To see what the Exeposé Online Games team made of the Dark Knight series, click here.

By Thomas Barr – Senior Reviewer
Ed. by Georgina Holland – Exeposé Online Books Editor