My Two Cents: Jack Kirby as Auteur

Barry Pearl has recently posted an article Jack Kirby Takes an Auteur Detour. Pearl is a fine comic book scholar which makes this particular post so surprising. Surprising because he gets so many things wrong. In the comments section to his post Barry says that

The first time I had heard the term “Auteur” applied to Jack Kirby was at the NY Comic Con in 2011 when there was a seminar on that subject.

Actually that was my first time as well. It was a great presentation by Arlen Schumer along with panelists Rand Hoppe, John Morrow, J. David Spurlock and Michael Bonestell. There is a summary of what would be presented here. It is too bad that Barry Pearl did not review this summary.

Perhaps he would not have stated that they were advocating Kirby as the actual and sole creator. No, Schumer and all the panelists that I can remember gave credit to Stan Lee as well. By no means was there a claim that Kirby did it all by himself.

Or perhaps then he would not have stated that the Jack Kirby as Auteur concept takes credit away from other creators. No it was explicitly stated that the term auteur could also be applied to Steve Ditko and any of the other artists who worked under the Marvel Method.

I could go on and on about the various inaccuracies in Pearl’s post. He has presented a straw man version of the theory of Jack Kirby as Auteur. He then uses this straw man to try to make the case that a movie director was not the proper analogy for what artist like Jack Kirby were doing. But with all the distortions about the auteur theory and what happens in movies it is small wonder that Pearl gets it all wrong and ends with:

In collaborative media, auteurs need not apply

But the idea of a film director as auteur is based on movies that are very much a collaborative effort.

I have a lot of respect for Barry so I wonder at what prompted such an inaccurate post. Perhaps Pearl’s post was not a response to Schumer’s theory but a distorted version of it by someone else. I no longer follow any Kirby list as they all seem to attract Kirby Cultists. It is not the extremes of their positions that bothers me so much as their lack of manners in their avocation (name calling and disrespect for alternate views). I can easily envision the use Kirby Cultists would make with a distorted version of Kirby as Auteur. But it would be unfortunate if Barry’s post was a response to a distorted version of the Auteur Theory because the true version is worthy of much thoughtful discussion.

6 thoughts on “My Two Cents: Jack Kirby as Auteur

  1. Barry Pearl


    We arrived too late and just saw the seminar listed, so I couldn’t go. All Kirby seminars must be given after lunch! I keep mentioning this, but I have read articles and post on this, but I have never read the one you mentioned.

    Please understand that I find it difficult that this is bounced back and forth. That while I wrote about comic book pencillers being auteurs, you posted, “But the idea of a film director as auteur is based on movies that are very much a collaborative effort.” I was talking about pencillers, not directors. By it’s original use, auteur refers to film directors and nothing else. I don’t believe that mainstream comics have auteurs. (Well, maybe underground comics)

    I write in my last post on this, “They want to change the definition of a word so that it can fit where they needed to fit. That is like going to a shoe store and trying on new feet to get one to fit into the shoe that you want. “

  2. Harry Post author


    I appreciate that you have received a lot of negative response to your post, much of it unwarranted. However I feel that the concept of Kirby (or Ditko, etc.) as an auteur has a lot of validity to it and does not call for a redefinition of the term.

  3. Barry Pearl

    Harry, I wish everyone was like you and Rob S. I just don’t mean here and on this topic, but in real life, in politics and in social media.

    It is alright to disagree and we can all learn from that when people with opposing views present facts and their own interpretations. Honest Harry, I don’t think you are “less smart” or any other term because you disagree with me. I do wish I could change your mind, and suspect you’d like to change mine.

    But let me ask your opinion. We all love comics, we have that in common and we like to write about them. We also want to see their creators recognized and appreciated, and even compensated fairly.

    But why is there so much anger when the topics of Lee and Kirby or Kirby and Marvel (Disney) comes up. Lee is often attack, and often for business procedures of 50 years ago that we don’t know all the details about. The Marvel Method leaves wide room for discussion on an individual’s role, but why to fans fight over this bitterly. (I am not asking why they discuss who did what, but why the bitterness?)

    And generally, what happened at DC, with Schiff in the late 1950s and Infantino in the 1970s is left out, the focus is almost always Stan and Jack.

    I loved those comics of the 1960s, even most of the movies use those plots. So if people love these comics so much, why the animosity and name calling. Not just towards to principles but to the people who discuss it? Let me tell you I get into trouble when I say that I understand that Disney, legally, has the upper hand. This doesn’t mean I am on their side, but even the shisper of that, bring out name calling people. But you can be a Met fan but think Philly is a better team. I certainly would like to see something worked out to promote Kirby.

    Finally, and this is a big issue with me. Why can’t someone be considered middle of the road? It’s either all Kirby or all Lee, nothing in the middle.

  4. Arlen Schumer

    Barry, your concluding statement in your 3 “responses” was: “Finally, and this is a big issue with me. Why can’t someone be considered middle of the road? It’s either all Kirby or all Lee, nothing in the middle.” I’ll take that to mean final proof positive that you have NEVER actually read–needless to say accurately “responded”–to my essay, “The Auteur Theory of Comics,” that you could’ve/should’ve read on any number of sites before making ALL of your recent “responses” to my Auteur Theory of Comics; here are a few of them:

  5. Arlen Schumer

    “The Auteur Theory of Comics” by Arlen Schumer








    —John Romita













  6. Harry Post author


    Why the bitterness? I am not a psychologist so I will not hazard a guess. Whatever the reason, there are all too numerous Kirby fan’s whose ardor and manner place them in the category of cultists. These Kirby Cultists are quick to attach anyone that deviates from their particular doctrine. But I am afraid that your closeness with Marvel comics has given you a false idea that such attacks are limited to Stan Lee and Marvel. I have seen many similar attacks about Schiff and Infantino. I remember some bitter comments from Carmine about the treatment he has received from some Kirby fans.

    It is quite possible to be “middle of the road” on the subject of Lee and Kirby. I know quite a number of people in that position. However in any discussion on that subject, such moderate opinions are always overwhelmed by the intolerance of the Kirby Cultists. I hasten to add that the Kirby as Auteur theory is not the work of the cultists and is very “middle of the road”.

Comments are closed.