Some of our in-class discussion, and a few blog posts, have involved criticism of Tardi for his overuse of dialogue. While I would agree that the Pterror over Paris is a confusing narrative, full of dialogue that provides little useful information, I do not think that this is an absolutely terrible thing. Though Tardi's panels are cluttered at times, I think he uses his speech and thought bubbles to great effect. Tuesday's class began with a discussion of the distinction between the two kinds of bubble. At the bottom of page 12, soon after introducing Adele, Tardi expertly shows us how the distinction can be used to comical ends. We read Zborowsky's lecherous thoughts before learning anything of his character. Adele's ability to intuit these thoughts from Zborowsky's behavior makes her out to be an especially savvy heroine. Further, his inability to do the same makes him a comically ineffectual figure from the first. Adele's blank expression and non-committal conversation belie (poorly) her real thoughts. So poorly, that Zborowsky's fawning becomes even more comic. I also find that text-heavy panels are often inherently humorous. To me, Tardi's decision to include long-winded discussions between scientists at the center of his rip-roaring adventure is a humorous subversion of reader expectations. Hergé's work included similar panels. I am thinking especially of the radio news bulletin placed at the close of TinTin in America. The dialogue-heavy sequence of panels on pages 10 and 11 is also effectively comic. This series of location-to-location transitions is one of the few cinematic moments in the text. I was reminded of a series of 'swish-pans' and this sketch from the first episode of Mr. Show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGuT97v4pv0
As Paris' higher-ups continue to pass responsibility down the ladder, the characters appear more ridiculous, the situation more comically dire. I mention that sequence because I remember it being singled out as especially troubling in its wordiness.
I would agree that - although not for everyone - the use of dialogue in Tardi's work certainly alters the feeling of the work and breaks up the action. This, for me, actually helps Adele Blanc-Sec from becoming too James-Bond-esque or Crime-Suspenstories-like. I think that the dialogue is also perhaps used to flesh out characters and reveal important plot details that would be difficult to communicate via image alone. I think that the heavy dialogue boxes, even within moments of action, keep the pacing of the story suspended at a moderate speed for the most part, almost letting readers relish in the story in slow motion and absorbing more details.
ReplyDeleteI should also note that were it not for the dialogue, it would be very hard to comprehend the story because of the intricate details of the plot and visual similarity between many of the characters. I often found myself searching the dialogue boxes for context clues to tell me who the speaker was, as the image alone was not always sufficient. Even for those of us who resented the text-heavy dialogue boxes, it should be apparent that for this particular story it still serves as a kind of necessary evil.