Brave the Carpathian wilds of Hungarian animated cinema, and sooner or later you’ll encounter a film called Cat City. Thanks to a fantastic reissue by Deaf Crocodile, there’s no reason it can’t be “sooner”.
Directed by Béla Ternovszky and released in 1986 as Macskafogó (“Cat Catcher”), it’s different to the other Pannónia Film Stúdió movies gaining popularity in the west. Marcell Jankovics’ Fehérlófia was a rapturous hewn-from-the-flesh-of-gods primordial Urheimat myth; György Kovásznai’s Habfürdö was a radical Warhol-meets-Schiele-meets-Soviet-Central-planning romcom. Cat City finds a different way to surprise: by being familiar.
The movie tips its hand early, when a Star Wars text-crawl tells us “In 80 AMM (After Mickey Mouse) the mice of Planet X were threatened by…” What follows is a broad spoof of James Bond and Dirty Harry, where retired “Intermouse” agent Nick Grabovski must recover plans for a device that will save mousekind from a race of evil felines.
Cat City is essentially a western chase cartoon jacked up on espionage steroids—The Mouse With A Golden Gun. Octopussycat.Tom and Jerry Never Dies—with its spy movie hijinks subtly twisted by the fact that they’re about animals. Nick doesn’t have “Bond gadgets”. He uses rodently attributes to get out of trouble (he gnaws through things with his teeth, and picks locks with his tail). The main cat villain has a prosthetic metal hand, like Dr No. The other main villain (?!) is Ernst Blofeld’s white cat. It’s not subtle.
James Bond is conceptually inseparable from Cold War paranoia, so Cat City feels provocative simply by existing. Eastern European baddies with fake accents are the villains in something like every Bond film ever made. Was there public demand for a “we have Sean Connery at home” Magyar imitation? Apparently so. The film was very successful.
But I’m curious as to how familiar, exactly, the average Hungarian would have been with the things Cat City parodies. Here’s a contemporary review (in Hungarian, but Google translates it readably) by Filmvilág‘s Gabriella Székely, who comments that much of the film is cribbed from media that nobody in Hungary can watch. On the other hand, Budapest had at least one cinema in the 1980s that played western movies. On Quora, Viktor T Toth reminisces…
A friend of mine and I saw Monty Python and the Holy Grail here. We were not familiar with Monty Python at the time, so we were completely unprepared. To this day, I don’t know how I managed to avoid wetting myself, I was laughing so uncontrollably at times. Other movies of the era that I remember include Alien (very popular in Hungary, despite the awkward title, apparently borrowed from the French, which literally translates back as “The Eighth Passenger is Death”)…
Hungary, under János Kádár, was the Eastern Bloc’s most liberal state, and an unofficial state attitude of “gulyáskommunizmus” (“goulash communism”) extended a certain permissiveness to the arts. In 1968, deputy Prime Minister György Aczél issued a statement“accepting any […] artistic expression of genuine value, even if it was produced by Western bourgeois culture.” Cases of censorship still occurred, but there were certainly tougher places in the Soviet Union to watch (and make) a James Bond parody.
It wasn’t always this way. The lot where Pannonia Films once existed is fifteen minutes away from the House of Terror, a museum dedicated to the victims of the Államvédelmi Hatóság, Hungary’s secret police. Many of the killed and tortured were actors, writers, and filmmakers. Hungary’s animation industry was nationalized around 1950 as Magyar Szinkronfilmgyártó Vállalat (the proto-Pannónia). Most of its early output tended to be didactic, safe, and moralistic fare aimed at children, but by the 60s and 70s, a spirit of restless experimentation was emerging, all but encouraged by the state.
Hungary occupies a geographically ambiguous part of Europe—Central Europe by some maps, Eastern Europe by others—and under Kádár it had politics to match, with loyalties cleft between the decrepit Soviet giant to the east and the rising sources of capital in the west. When the USSR collapsed, Hungary was the first domino to fall. The Berlin Wall symbolically marked the end of the Iron Curtain, but the beginning arguably came in April 1989, when Hungary dismantled its border fence to Austria.
Was 1980s Hungary a Goldilocks zone for the arts? Isolated enough to have a national style; yet open enough that foreign ideas like James Bond could trickle through? Rich enough to support a film industry; yet poor enough that it avoided the fate of 1980s Hollywood—economically minmaxed by capital into a depressing prolefeed machine? Oppressive enough to stimulate art; yet free enough that this art was allowed a voice? The idea is striking, but likely reductive.
Likewise, it’s tempting to read (and probably misread) broad Cold War concerns into Cat City. Are the cats meant to symbolize anything in particular? At times they behave like a crime syndicate, robbing mice of their possessions. At other times they’re a KGB-esque spy network, surveilling the mice. Yet they’re also a hostile state power, seeking the genocide of the mouse race. They’re like a vague (and sometimes contradictory) conglomerate of Nazis, Soviets, and mafia. Any political allusions are likely nebulous, and buried beneath ersatz James Bond and goofy jokes. The villainous Mr Teufel’s first name is a Germanic “Fritz”: you can that as a political statement, but a more likely reference is Bakshi’s Fritz the Cat.
That said, there is a striking shot where Mr Teufel is wiping his brow with a handerchief, he throws it over his head, and it lands over one eye, looking like Hitler’s combover.
This is an “adult animation”, but only in the sense that Paul McCartney “rocks hard”. There’s some light PG-rated sexual references. Characters have names like Pissy, Pukie, and Lusta Dick. A few gags have a mordant, subversive edge. The basic scenarios—such as a bank robbery, a heist on a supertanker, and an all-out urban battle—are adapted from adult movies (or at least movies watched by adults) like Dirty Harry, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Death Wish 3 (maybe not the 3rd, which came out pretty close to Cat City’s release.) Otherwise, the movie is pretty kid-friendly. Hungarian animated films tended to muddy the lines between adult and children’s cinema—Feherlofia blended dick jokes with fairytale storytelling—and this is of a piece with that. Children can surely relate to the plight of these small creatures as they try to avoid being eaten by vampire bats. That is the world they live in.
At the center of the movie are “The Four Gangsters”: a quartet of rats who are good at self-promotion but little else. Teufel hires them to kill Grabowsky, a task they fail dismally (and hilariously) at. They get a huge amount of character development, but even though ultimately could be cut with no impact on the plot, they improve leaven the mix with some Keystone Kops-esque absurdity. The Four Gangsters feel like a reference to something that a Hungarian audience would be more familiar with than I am.
As far as comedy goes…well, James Bond has been pretty much spoofed to death for me. Having the villain say “Welcome…Mr Grabowsky” doesn’t even register as a parody. It’s like doing a fake Arnold Schwarzenegger voice—you make that kind of joke when you’re a person who doesn’t really watch many movies.
The trouble with satire is that you now have two ways of failing. Either the thing you’re spoofing will become old and forgotten (leaving the movie shadowboxing at nothing), or the parody will itself fail. In some ways, western audiences are as culturally distinct from Connery-era Bond as we are from gulyáskommunizmus-era Budapest. And while the classic James Bond movies are influential and cast a long shadow, Bond seldom crosses my radar at all, except for random culture war stuff about how to reconstruct him so he’s Relevant(tm) for Today’s Audience(tm) (you know what I mean—arguments about whether Bond should be a black woman who believes #ConsentIsSexy and so on.) The character increasingly seems cut off from the now: more like a work of cultural taxidermy than a living, breathing property.
I’m reminded of Elvis’s 1968 hit “A Little Less Conversation”, which was remixed by Junkie XL in 2003, and then hit number one in nine countries. Some took it as a sign of The King’s enduring cultural legacy. Yet Elvis was so buried in the mix, so out-of-place in the modern production and big-beat trappings, that it had the opposite effect for me. He felt irrelevant. It was as if we, as a civilization, were saying “yes, Elvis is important. But let’s be real, nobody actually wants to hear him, unless we dress him up in modern drag.”
I’ve wandered a bit from the point, but the question of how much you enjoy Cat City’s largely rests on how much you enjoy other, fairly old movies. In 2024, I’m now convinced that the Bond parody stuff is the least interesting side of Cat City. It’s far less sharp than even something like Austin Powers, and its barbs are further blunted by time and culture. Mostly, I’m surprised by how distant James Bond himself feels. Too far to even take potshots at anymore. If you’d asked a person in 1970 whether James Bond would last longer in culture than Sherlock Holmes, I don’t think many moviegoers would have put money on Doyle’s detective.
Cat City definitely nails the racial and gender politics of a classic Bond film. The vampire bats are cartoonish Mexican stereotypes who wear sombreros and play mariachi music. There’s a Japanese cat who attempts to trap Grabowski while the “Chinaman riff” plays. There’s a sexy mouse geisha, who is effortlessly seduced by Grabowski at the end, despite having no chemistry established. It’s all played for fun; a slightly naff recreation of Hollywood stereotypes.
So what do I think of Cat City?
Well, it has a lot of charm. It’s also a bit baggy, feeling every minute of its 1:33:00 runtime. A number of gags just don’t work because they’re dragged out, and lack rhythm and timing. The scenes of Teufel terrorizing and maiming his put-upon assistant, Mr Safranek, should have been funny, but they just go on and on, and become uncomfortable.
The story also needed a haircut. It has numerous plot digressions that don’t really go anywhere and are dropped by the end—Safranek’s daughter has a pet mouse, and their relationship is played up for its taboo potential, but this ultimately gets forgotten about. Animated films are normally very “tight”—one of the blessings of a 3-year production cycle is that it gives you ample time to work out what film you’re actually making—so it’s odd to see one second guess itself and go down blind paths.
The adventures are suitably Bond-esque, with setpieces involving mountain roads, submarines, high-tech cars, etc. Grabowsky is so competent and capable (and his opponents so moronic) that he never feels in much danger. Incredibly, the Four Gangsters rank among his tougher adversaries!
The animation is good, but static. Shots are locked-down and stiff. Characters exist on flat planes of action, like comic book panels. There’s little of the camera movement or layered multiplane action of a Disney movie.
But its flaws make it interesting, in a rough-hewn, shaggy way. It’s reactive, in a sense, and can’t be watched on its own like Feherlofia can. There’s a still a lot of creative juice inside it. I kept pausing to admire certain shots, such as how Mr Teufel’s smoke floats across the room and weaves a noose around his put-upon subordinate Safranek’s head. It certainly has the Pannonia energy. It’s not altogether successful, but it is memorable: a weird island of convention inside the bubbling goulash of Magyar animation.
Have you ever read a fanfic where author clearly 1) likes the characters and 2) hates literally everything else about the world and setting and tone? Star Trek, but it’s a dystopia and everyone’s angsty and gay? Harry Potter, but there’s no magic and everyone has up-to-date political views?*
The Devil’s Rejects was and is Rob Zombie doing revisionist fanfic of his own work. It preserves the characters of 2003’s House of 1,000 Corpses but otherwise reinvents their entire world, tabula rasa. The first movie was trippy and phantasmagoric, more inspired by Rocky Horror Picture Show than, say, Tobe Hooper (also “influenced” by the budget running out by the end, as Rob admits). This one’s a different beast: as visceral and ugly as pyloric stenosis surgery performed on a taxidermized fetus stuffed with wriggling hairless baby mice. It’s a raw, bracing film, and you want to take a hot shower after it’s done. You feel its foulness baked into your skin.
I watched it 18 years ago through a cloud of resentment: Rob Zombie was my favorite musician at the time, and his filmmaking gig took him away from that. When he returned to music, I no longer liked him as much. You have to move on. Unconditional love does not exist. However, he still is family.
The Devil’s Rejects‘s small, bloody plot begins on a small bloody plot: the local sheriff raids a farmstead where 75 homicides and disappearances have taken place. After a rousing shootout, the surviving members of the (Manson-inspired) Firefly family go on the run, while the sheriff chases them, becoming increasingly unhinged in his own methods.
If you want gore, this has it. It also has a fun, lively script, peppered with one-liners. “Boy, the next word that comes out of your mouth better be some brilliant fuckin’ Mark Twain shit, ’cause it’s definitely gettin’ chiseled on your tombstone.”
Rob’s a “Quentin Tarantino” filmmaker. He doesn’t make movies about reality. He makes movies about movies. In this case, it’s Sam Peckinpah, blaxploitation, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and sundry other things, filmed through the distorted Monstervision lens of Rob’s imagination. Everything has a bleary carnival vibe where it’s trying to conjure or evoke or remind you of something you saw before, but in a cracked, broken-down form. This movie recognizes that carnivals are never more compelling than when they’re old, rusty, and breaking down. When the paint chips, and the muzak distorts, and the rides might suddenly kill you. There’s a real dry, arid air of death and dying about this film. You’re seeing American culture being tanned out to leather under the blazing sun.
But it’s incredibly referential. I often wonder if there’s much to the movie, once you wash away the dried blood of its influences. The “Freebird” shot at the end is all about redeeming the idea that “Freebird” can be a serious song, which, of course, relies on the audience knowing that it’s a stand up comedy punchline.
Then comes a scene mid-movie a woman (Kate Norby, I believe) runs out onto a highway wearing her husband’s face as a mask (long story). She seemingly cannot hear approaching cars and trucks until they literally are in frame. I believe that this is a reference to Sergio Leone’s patented “things outside the frame don’t ontologically exist” approach…fuck it, here’s Ebert.
A vast empty Western landscape. The camera pans across it. Then the shot slides onto a sunburned, desperate face. The long shot has become a closeup without a cut, revealing that the landscape was not empty but occupied by a desperado very close to us. In these opening frames, Sergio Leone established a rule that he follows throughout “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” The rule is that the ability to see is limited by the sides of the frame. At important moments in the film, what the camera cannot see, the characters cannot see, and that gives Leone the freedom to surprise us with entrances that cannot be explained by the practical geography of his shots.
…but if you don’t know about that fourth-wall-bending technique, the character’s behavior just seems bizarre. Like she’s spontaneously become deaf. It’d be fun to try this movie out on a person who’s never seen a movie before. An Andaman Islander or something.
Sid Haig is despicably great. Rob Zombie’s wife punches the clock and does her usual job. Bill Moseley is suitably depraved and desperate. And speaking of dearly departed Rog, there’s a film critic character who seems like a merger of Ebert and Siskel—the movie gets a few mean laughs at his expense, then throws him out on his ass. Rob doesn’t like critics much.
As with House of 1,000 Corpses and his later films, it’s weird and confusing around the edges. One of those jigsaw puzzles where the sides aren’t straight lines, but fit still more puzzle pieces. Some of the actors don’t quite seem to get what movie they’re in. And there’s a lot of faffing around in the middle involving bounty hunters and carnie owners that feels like “unnecessary complications”. The film seems to have barely any story—it’s driven by vicious, limbic-system horror gore and comedic gags that sometimes work and other times don’t. (The scene involving the chicken-fucking appears to be an attempt at a “do you think I’m funny?” classic-movie scene, but it falters because there’s little at stake and the characters don’t matter.) Genuinely clever writing exists alongside the kind of dumb shit you normally get from Eli Roth. So there’s a lot of texture and unevenness to the film.
But there’s one unreservedly great scene. “Tutti fucking fruity”.
It’s a canonical example of how a scene can add literally nothing to the plot, yet carry the movie’s soul on its shoulders. The Fireflys stop to get ice cream. That’s the scene. They don’t murder the ice cream vendor, or do anything weird. They just get ice cream. This scene makes me extremely uncomfortable: why do these depraved serial killers suddenly seem sympathetic, relatable, and human, just because they stopped for ice cream?
Well, that’s the movie. These people aren’t space aliens or monsters: they’re people. A family. A neuroscientist would compare my brain with Otis B Driftwood’s and find them basically identical. The best of men and the worst of men are about 1% apart.
(*I don’t say that as criticism of fanfiction. As Lev Grossman said: “I adore the way fan fiction writers engage with and critique source texts, but manipulating them and breaking their rules. Some of it is straight-up homage, but a lot of [fan fiction] is really aggressive towards the source text. One tends to think of it as written by total fanboys and fangirls as a kind of worshipful act, but a lot of times you’ll read these stories and it’ll be like ‘What if Star Trek had an openly gay character on the bridge?’ And of course the point is that they don’t, and they wouldn’t, because they don’t have the balls, or they are beholden to their advertisers, or whatever. There’s a powerful critique, almost punk-like anger, being expressed there—which I find fascinating and interesting and cool.”)
Cerebus is an colossal 300-issue comic about an aardvark.
It started in 1977 as a simple one-note parody of Conan the Barbarian. As it gained an audience, it evolved into an ambitious and recondite meditation on politics, religion, gender, and liberty. Then, at the peak of Cerebus‘s critical and commercial popularity, its artist began going mad.
I have been vaguely aware of Cerebus for a long time. It exists like a terrible mountain in the indie comics landscape, littered with tattered flags and the bodies of inexperienced hikers. It has a reputation, and not a good one. Whenever it’s discussed, people immediately quarantine themselves from the creator. I don’t agree with Dave Sim, but… or Dave Sim’s views on women are repellant, but… Tom Ewing’s lengthy and excellent writeup of Cerebus finally inspired me to read its 6,000 pages for myself.
I went into it with a “don’t believe the noise” approach. I expected it would be a somewhat nice but dated comic that doesn’t really hold up, and that it’s offensive elements would be less offensive than expected. Both of my ideas were wrong.
Cerebus is an astonishing work in all kinds of directions. I have never read a comic with such extremes of good and bad. Everything is at utter polarity: -1 or +1 with no values in between.
My emotions swung from “this is good” to “this is excellent” to “are you kidding me, I cannot believe how great this is”. I read the final 400 pages of the “Church and State” arc in a rush and went to sleep exhausted, as if Dave Sim had used my amygdala like a speedbag. When it’s good, Cerebus is absolutely in a class with Watchman and so forth: a work that tests the limits of the comics medium and finally tears a hole right through them.
And then “Jaka’s Story” immediately throws away everything that made “Church and State” work…but finds new, different ways to be great. Perhaps equally so! It’s small-scale without being trivial; dramatic without being maudlin; brutal without being gratuitous. Audacious stuff, but Sim pulls it off with brass balls. I’m reminded of Bowie (who makes a guest appearance), and his gear-five-to-reverse shifts through styles and fashions.
Not everything Sim touches turns to gold. The satire in “High Society” is fairly broad—politicians are greedy, religious leaders are hypocrites, Marvel superheroes are silly, and so on. Cheap shots and easy targets. Sim’s pop cultural interests seldom stretch beyond the Great Depression, and can be a bit strange in their construction. I know who Elrod is based on, but why does he talk like Foghorn Leghorn? Often I was struck by the sense that Sim expected me to laugh, but I didn’t know at what, exactly.
The way Sim integrates comedy and drama is impressive: he crafts a world where a throwaway gag can also be load-bearing to the plot. This sucks you deeply into the work: you’re constantly reading between lines, looking at details, waiting for the next shoe to drop. It’s a totally different experience (and a more satisfying one) than, say, modern Marvel movies, which are terrified of confusing the audience and clearly separate humor from drama (shot 1: a scowly gritty action hero says something serious. shot 2: plucky comic relief says a quip.) Sim mixes it all together: Cerebus is streaks and whorls of humor and absurdity and drama, all frozen together in a single sheet of marble.
By “Flight”, cracks are finally starting to appear. Sim appears unsure of the comic’s identity, cyling through retcons and in-jokes. Why bring back a long-forgotten monster-of-the-week from vol 1? Doesn’t it diminish the once-in-a-lifetime cosmic awe of the Ascension to do it AGAIN? What are we doing here? Once Cerebus parodied fantasy, politics, and religion. Now it parodies…Cerebus.
Dave appears to be working under the assumption “I know what the fans want after all that downtime! MORE AKSHUN!”…but I don’t want more action! After the compelling, tightly-woven drama of the previous volumes, I have no desire to watch Cerebus swing a sword around. That is unsatisfying to me. The comic (and the world outside it) have evolved beyond the context where that made sense. Imagine if the Beatles had reunited in 1975, cut their hair in mop-tops, and tried to become a yeah-yeah-yeah skiffle band again. It wouldn’t have worked. Some doors only swing one way.
Soon after that, Dave Sim’s contributions to Gender Discourse emerge. I’m a conservative (unlike most here, I think) and feel directional sympathy to some of Dave’s views. Men and women are different; it’s easy for relationships to pull apart because of this; society is bad at discussing those differences (or even admitting they exist). Sure. There are reasonable arguments to be made for the above.
But Dave’s views are not reasonable. They’re based on resentment. They’re little hacked-out flecks of spite—exacerbated and possibly created by his divorce, drug abuse, and untreated mental health issues—which slowly gather into a rolling avalanche of all-consuming hostility, with Dave and his comic lost in the middle. Dave is worse than wrong. A wrong person can be taught to be right; an irrational ego-monster can’t be reached at all.
Lionel Trilling described conservatism as “a set of irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.” You may or may not agree in the general case, but it feels true of Dangerous Dave’s worldview. It’s reactive and insubstantial. There’s no “there” there. There’s nothing to support them, and nothing a critic can score blows against. It’s just blind rage, scaffolded to a lot of shallow post-hoc intellectualization. I’m not afraid of weird, outré philosophy. It’d be interesting to read a serious intellectual argument in favor of (say) kicking puppies, if only to see the mental gymnastics involved. Yet there’s fundamentally no substance you can engage with in Dave’s thought. It’s just a guy with more issues than his comic, trauma dumping on you.
It doesn’t work. His gender-obsession infests and paralyzes Cerebus like a cordyceps, corrupting even the good parts. “Form and Void” could have been a powerful return to form…but not if you know what Ham and Mary Earnestway represent. Comics are a bad medium for didactic “here’s wot’s wot” preaching anyway, and Dave is forced to rely on all-text passages—first as a crutch, then as a wheelchair—to get his ideas across. All the worse for Cerebus, because Dave’s prose can kill an ox at a dozen paces. I skipped a lot of text in Cerebus‘s final 100 issues. Life’s too short.
At some point, Dave and reality part ways. It takes a while for you to notice that the author of Cerebus has gone mad, but eventually you DO notice. The earliest warning sign comes in Cerebus #12, where Deni Sim mentions that her husband has suffered a mental breakdown. She would later supply more details: he freaked out on acid, punched a hole in a wall, and she and his mother had him committed. (Dave disputes this: he went of his own free will and the wall-punching never happened).
Either way, the “classic” Cerebus run (“High Society” thru “Melmoth”) was likely made by a troubled man. If Dave Sim wasn’t on the struggle bus by the late 70s, he’d at least bought the ticket. I don’t say this to castigate or excuse Dave, but it feels important. There’s no “sane” Dave Sim that can be quarantined off from the rest. He didn’t get bumped on the head in 1991 and turn into Mr Hyde. His mental decline was gradual. Did incipient madness fuel the good parts of Cerebus, in some weird way? I don’t know, but on paper, a comic like “Melmoth” seems like a terrible idea. And yes, you might call it insane. Why put Oscar Wilde in your talking aardvark comic? Yes, it 100% works in practice, but it’s an artistic swerve that few normal artists would consider.
Dave’s peculiarity metastasizes into hatefulness. Long before Issue #186, we start getting weird little rants in the introductions page. Like that bizarre “sir, this is a Wendy’s” tirade in #103 about gay men and AIDS and bath houses. It’s an oft-noted phenomenon that websites with “truth” in their name have none in their contents. You could devise a similar aphorism for essays beginning with “here’s a thought”.
And then there’s the intro letter (I forget the issue) where he describes a woman at a bar grabbing his wrist and forcing him to dance with her (I may be misremembering the specifics). It’s totally reasonable to be annoyed by that, but then he goes on a proto-incel rant about how this is a CLASSIC EXAMPLE of how WOMEN exploit their POWER over MEN to (etc). It was viscerally unpleasant to read, like something you’d see on /r/PussyPassDenied.
A lot of men feel Sim-like impulses at times. At a Static-X show I was assaulted by a woman and felt anger, some of which settled on her gender—”Yeah, it’s cool how you can punch me and know I’m not allowed to hit you back”. Then I calmed down and realized I was being foolish. I hadn’t witnessed some dark gynocratic evil that lurks at the heart of Woman(tm). I’d merely had an unpleasant encounter with a stranger.
For whatever reason, Dave seems incapable of those realizations. Everything that happens is Deep and Important to him. It’s a common schizoaffective trope to see deep meaning inside random things, but honestly, I think all humans are wired up that way, at least a little. We all have a Viktor Davis inside us, trying to get out. We just have to ensure that our personal Cerebus issue #186 gets lost in the mail. Religion? Dave didn’t find God, God found Dave. In principle, a religious conversion should be a humbling experience—you’re broken down, and forced to rethink your life and values basically from square one. But all too often, it’s a moment of personal narcissism. You have discovered The Truth(tm). You are wise, and other people are foolish. Dave’s conversion seems like the second kind: a chance to take all of his prejudices and rewrite them in permanent “God says it” ink.
What changes when Dave found God? Nothing. He didn’t like women before or after he converted. He was paranoid before and after he converted. His comic remains a dismaying wreckage-field (strewn with broken beauty and rubbish) before and after he converted. His shoggoth-philosophy sprouted a few more mutant heads and limbs, but that’s it. How kind of God to confirm that all of Dave’s pre-existing views were correct.
At least his triple-conversion to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is fairly unique and interesting. Based on what I’ve seen, he now seems to be turning into a yet another Fox News viewer (or the Canadian equivalent): his brain foaming with worms, obsessed with Muslims and liberals and Covid, mad in the most boring way possible. If Cerebus had been completed a decade later, I suspect we’d be reading arcs about Barack HUSSEIN Obummer, with Hillary Clinton cackling inside her Cirinist hood. So I suppose there’s always that: Cerebus could have been even worse.
Was Dave ultimately a force for good in independent comics? He seems almost like a cautionary tale. If you were a businessman with an algorithm instead of a soul and you wanted to make a case that artists should be shackled to their desks and forced to crank out product…wouldn’t Cerebus literally be the first case you point to? “Here’s what happens when an artist controls their own work. Cerebus happens.” Dave Sim destroyed his life’s work. Not only did he ruin Cerebus, he salted the earth beneath it, ensuring it would never come back in the hands of another. Maybe that was the plan all along. There will be no Cerebus revival; the world is slowly forgetting it. Casual discussion of Cerebus online is dominated by shock and outrage over its creator’s Bad and Wrong views—nobody seems to care much about the actual comic. Which is sad, because the comic is often extremely good!
Tom and his commenters have compared Dave to Stan Sakai and Eiichiro Oda. You could also compare him to his longtime acquaintance Harlan Ellison: notorious SF gadly. Discussion of Ellison generally revolves around his personality, not his stories. One can be too good at self-promotion.
For better and for worse, Cerebus will remain a weird, fascinating, horrible curate’s egg. It’s like a drug. One hit makes you feel good, as does two. But eventually you stop feeling good; you have a terrible habit that you must either quit or die from. Except in the case of Cerebus, you don’t die at the end. You have read a disappointing comic, which is basically the same as dying if you think about it (I didn’t.) There’s not really a good place to stop reading Cerebus: either you leave trailing pieces of story unfinished, or you soldier through to the end, and then wonder if it was worth it.
At least we’ll never get a JJ Abrams movie where a CGI Cerebus wears sunglasses and floss-dances and says “that’s not a thing”. Again, it could have been worse.
