American Splendor: The Best Comic Book Movie.

The 2003 film, AMERICAN SPLENDOR, opens on the streets of Cleveland during Halloween in 1950. On her front porch, a neighborhood woman is greeting 5 Trick-or-Treaters dressed as comic book characters. The woman compliments and acknowledges each of the children in turn.

“Superman. Batman and his pal Robin. Green Lantern.”

But the fifth child prompts a different reaction. The best way I can describe how he is dressed is as a middle aged man.

“And what about you young man?”

“What about what?”

“Who are you supposed to be?”

“I’m Harvey Pekar…”

“Harvey Pekar? That doesn’t sound like a super hero to me.”

“I ain’t no super hero, lady. I’m just a kid from the neighborhood, alright.”

The film then shifts to a montage of panels reminiscent of the AMERICAN SPLENDOR comics while “Paniots Nine” by Joe Maneri plays. Our hero, Harvey, introduces himself via word balloons. One panel even shows a photo of the real life Harvey Pekar who also does the voice over…

“My name is Harvey Pekar. I’m a character in a celebrated underground comic book. Different artists draw me all kinda ways. But hey, I’m also a real guy…and now this guy here is playin’ me in a movie.”

“This guy,” is Paul Giamatti in his breakout role as Cleveland’s greatest comics writer (sorry Bendis. You’re still my fave, tho).

AMERICAN SPLENDOR, written and directed by Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini, is the best comic book movie ever made. I’m going to explore why, but I’m not really going to talk about the film making. The movie was nominated for and even won a number of awards. It was well received and well liked (though notably it has yet to be released on blu-ray). It’s a good and well made film. We’ll take that as a given. But the movie also has a lot to say about what a “comic book movie” is and what it means today. And the things it says are what I feel make it the best.

First, I want to be clear about one thing: I do not like the term “comic book movie”. Or at least, I don’t like how it is generally used. In particular I hate how the term is used by film critics. Here a number of films based on comic books…

• American Splendor
• Ghost World
• Art School Confidential
• Snow Piercer
• Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
• Road to Perdition
• Alita: Battle Angel
• Every Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie

And I could go on. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone refer to any of these as “comic book movies”. Instead, whenever people use the term, they are almost invariably referring to the latest MCU or DCEU movie. What they really mean is “comic book super hero” movies. I guess that’s too much of a mouthful for most folks.

In my mind, anything based on a comic book is a “comic book movie”. Otherwise, it’s a meaningless term. And, not only is AMERICAN SPLENDOR based on material from the comics Harvey wrote, but it’s also about the writer of those comics. Harvey’s work was autobiographical. Some of the earliest and most notable autobiographical comics, in fact. Harvey wrote comics about ordinary life and like he says, “Ordinary life is pretty complex stuff.”

And that’s one reason why this movie is the best. It takes seriously Harvey’s statement, that “Comics are words and pictures. You can do anything with words and pictures”

The very existence of a movie about Harvey Pekar is an opportunity to drive that point home. Comics have come a long way but I do think the general public still struggles to accept that there are more than just super hero stories available in comics.

(I could easily tangent here into a rant about the term “Graphic Novel” muddying people’s understanding of what comics can be, but I’ll save that for another post.)

This brings me to my next point. AMERICAN SPLENDOR also deals with the exploitation of a comic creator by big media while also being a movie that directly benefitted that creator financially.

Havrey Pekar appeared on Late Night with David Letterman 6 times. These appearances were often both cordial and combative. I believe Letterman sincerely enjoyed having Harvey on the show, but the nature of late night comedy shows like his, and Letterman’s general demeanor, can often make it feel like Harvey was the being laughed at. In his final appearance, which is depicted in the film, Harvey confronts Letterman while wearing a shirt stating that he is boycotting NBC and says that being on the show hasn’t helped sales of his comics. I think it’s obvious why this was his final appearance.

Rewatching this sequence, it resonated with me as a representation of what I see as the exploitation of comic book professionals in an era where their work is adapted, often without significant compensation, into billion dollar movies. Harvey was brought on Letterman for comedy. America laughed at him. But not many of them bought his comic book.

The same is true of modern super hero movies and modern super hero comics. I have yet to see any evidence that the billion dollar MCU franchise has done anything to meaningfully lift sales of comics or financially benefit the lives of comic book creators.

Harvey Pekar did receive compensation from AMERICAN SPLENDOR, though. And his book sales skyrocketed. The end of the film shows us a retirement party for Harvey and in voiceover he says…

“Between my pension and the chunk of change I got for this movie, I should be able to swing somethin’.”

The film was ahead of its time in depicting the corporate exploitation of creators and remains ahead of its time as an adaptation that actually directly benefitted a creator.

Ultimately, AMERICAN SPLENDOR is a film I hope people watch and appreciate. It’s a great film. More importantly, I hope this film encourages people to seek out Harvey’s work with the likes of Greg Budgett, R. Crumb and so many other great artists. He is one of our most important American comic creators and I hope this film can serve as a way to preserve the life and work of Harvey Pekar and as an example of what a “comic book movie” can be.