Attempting to Understand Film through "Understanding Comics"

Earlier in the semester, Scott McCloud taught us that protagonists in comic strips are made with few details, almost as a blank slate, so that the reader will identify with them at times, even casting themselves as the comic character. The more defined the look of the character, the easier it becomes to view them as Other.

This past weekend I watched Todd Haynes’ 1995 film, “Safe”. Never before had I watched a film that so vehemently refused to sculpt its main character in any way. Carol, the protagonist, is almost affect-less throughout the entire film. Both her physical appearance as well as her interiority are not much more than a blank slate. She remains pretty expressionless throughout the whole film and her wardrobe is completely indistinct. Additionally, the audience gains no insight into her thoughts, her rationality, her inner life. As a character, she is empty.

Although Scott McCloud was not purporting that comics should be blank slates both in the way they look and as characters in order for people to identify with them, in “Safe”, Carol’s blank interiority and blank physical appearance are one in the same. My question is, why does the effect of this stand in direct opposition to Scott McCloud’s argument? Far from facilitating the audience member to identify with Carol, the lack of details about her, hysically and with regard to her character is alienating. Why does McCloud’s line of reasoning not translate to film?

Just so you all know, despite the alienation (perhaps because of the alienation) “Safe” was actually pretty great (especially if you think about it afterward from a media studies/feminist perspective). It definitely is not your average film – I’d recommend it for sure.