Book of Ants Leaves Reviewers Scurrying For Answers.

Review By Robbo and Gambit

When artist Edward Ross Flynn asked Comics2Film to review his latest work, Pi: The Book of Ants I (Robbo) was very excited. After all, we love comics here at C2F and we love movies, so this collaboration with tyro filmmaker Darren Aronofsky seemed right up our alley. The comic is a one-shot that will be published soon by Dark Horse Comics. It's an adaptation of Aronofsky's much discussed indy film Pi.

Besides, there's been a buzz in the air about the movie. Aronofsky grabbed an award for the film at Sundance and was raking in the critical praise. The director also revealed himself to be a comic fan by citing Frank Miller's Sin City as an influence on the stark black and white design of the film and by snatching up Miller's comic Ronin for an upcoming movie project.

After agreeing to review the comic, I then did a foolish thing: I rushed out and saw the movie. Don't get me wrong, it's a terrific movie but it left me completely incapable of reviewing the comic on its own merits. When the comic arrived I knew I was in trouble, so I handed it off to my buddy Gambit, who hadn't seen the film yet. Therefore, we aim to present you with two points of view on this work, one which will inevitably compare the book to the movie and one which will judge the book as is. Gambit's remarks appear justified to the right and italicized, mine hang to the left, in normal type. Without further ado, lets get to Gambit's views on the comic:

When I thumbed through the pages of Pi: The Book of Ants the first thing I noticed was it's dark imagery. Actually the first thing I noticed was that it was an advanced copy, and that's just damn cool. Then, I noticed the imagery. The art brought back memories of another dark and seedy book, which I enjoyed immensely, James O'Barr's The Crow. This started that tingly feeling inside that you get after realizing that you're quite possibly holding on to, what is soon to be a cult classic. All this just from the art! The usage of lighting, or lack there of, to create an uneasy feeling in regards to the characters and story really help to set the tone for the book. Ed Flynn used the constraints of black and white art to his advantage to successfully create an edgy feel to the story.

I liked Flynn's artwork too. His drawings have a kind of woodcut look to them. The intricate cross-hatchings and sometimes cartoony rendering give the book an almost dream/nightmare like quality. I especially liked Flynn's renderings of Euclid, the massive computer that our hero, Max Cohen, shares his cramped apartment with. It's all tangles of wire, ribbon cables, gauges and circuitry that looks like it provides huge computing power but could blow up at any moment.

The imagery does conjure up different feelings that the frenetic, feverish style of the film. The movie's harsh blacks-and-whites, fast edits, techno music and restless camera shots left me feeling a little fried at the end. The book looks...cleaner. It doesn't seem so dangerous or urgent as the movie, but does take on kind of a queasy, hallucinogenic quality.

Unfortunately, after the art, there wasn't much left that really grabbed me. Not seeing the movie, I had nothing to base the story of the comic book on. This helped to remove any preconceived notions that I might have had from seeing the big screen version. And preventing that all to familiar thought, "well the movie was much better because it had a big budget and cool special effects. Like those BIG ANTS (see below)." The comic seemed to try and pack a large story into a short space.

Unfortunately, the characters in this issue weren't built up enough for me to have interest in them. I sensed Aronofsky trying to use a lack of information to create a sense of mystery about the characters and story. Leaving it up to the reader's imagination to define what makes these characters tick. What Aronofsky did was present the plot with an in your face bluntness that left me thinking, "You expect me to believe it just like that?" I would have liked the story more if it had more of an enigma surrounding the motives of the main character. Something deeper under the surface than just stock analysis. Or maybe building up why the stock market is so important in the scheme of chaos and pattern finding.

I have to agree with Gambit here. The comic seems incomplete, especially after having seen the movie. I did ask Flynn about this and he revealed that this one-shot comic was actually intended by himself and Aronofsky to be the first chapter in a four-issue series. Apparently Dark Horse didn't have enough faith in the project to commit to more issues, but I would imagine they would green-light it if the reader response was there.

As a first chapter, the comic does do what a good adaptation should: expand on the themes of the movie. For example, the sexual tension between Max and his neighbor don't get much service in the film. The comic expands this revealing to us what is keeping Max from accepting the voluptuous woman's advances.

The comic also presents information in ways the movie can't. One possible fault with the film is the barrage of mathematical jargon that the viewer must endure. I actually didn't mind it (having a background in math), but I wondered if someone without a strong math background would just drown in it all. The comic circumvents this by illustrating concepts in the art, not necessarily in the dialog. For example while two characters discuss and ponder the Fibonacci series, Flynn actually does the reader a service by writing the sequence in between panels. It's a neat way of illustrating a potentially unfamiliar concept without bogging down the pace of the story.

On the other hand, I was completely baffled by the awkwardness of the coffee shop scene where Lenny reveals the mathematical code of the Hebrew language and the Torah. The example used in the movie ("Mother" + "Father" = "Child") so simply illustrates this fascinating aspect of the Torah that I can't understand why the confusing alternate example was used in the comic.

The concept of an individual with the ability to number crunch at astounding speed is a great concept. It worked wonders for Rain Man. Learning about the characters is half the fun. In this story there wasn't much to learn or relate to.

And what was up with the ants? What did they symbolize? That was probably the one thing that intrigued me the most. Big, giant ants popping out of naked women! That and midgets in dream sequences. I'm funny like that. Regardless I am eager to read the other issues as they are released. And from what I heard, the movie is a must see.

The movie is, indeed, worthwhile. It certainly isn't Rain Man and takes the stories in directions you won't expect. The ants are there working their mysterious magic. The story definitely continues further beyond the ending of the comic. In fact, if you're the type that avoids adaptations because they spoil the movie, I would estimate that the comic only covers about the first quarter of the film. There's more hallucinations, plot twists and computer munching ants to come. And in the movie you get to meet Sol, Max's aging mentor who warns Max of the dangers of getting lost trying to find order in chaos. Sol is a wonderful part of the film.

To sum (clever math reference!) it up, I feel the comic works well as a first chapter. I think, as a comic buyer, I would be disappointed if the Pi comics begin and end with this one-shot. With the movie getting the attention it's getting and Aronofsky's presence in the comic book world growing, I can't imaging why Dark Horse (or Image or DC/Vertigo or Kitchen Sink or Oni Press) would not want to print the work in it's entirety.

For more information on Ed Flynn's work check out his Growling Rooster website.

For more information about the movie Pi, see the official movie site.

Send tips, press releases and other scoopage to news@comics2film.com or fax to (707) 897-8420. Click here for more contact info.