Frames: Foreshadowing and Other Effects

To begin, I must declare that I am a huge fan of graphic novels. Maus and Maus II are two of my favorite texts (not just graphic novels) to read and analyze; likely because I was exposed to them at an extremely young age, an age that was likely too young to be dealing with the disturbing content matter of the story; the Holocaust (my father owned and frequented both). But alas, I am confident that my early exposure to graphic novels assisted in my selection of Editing, Writing and Media as my focus of study.

Opening the graphic novel Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi, a few observations of the layout and organization strike me first. The “frames” of the novel, or sometimes lack thereof, help set the mood of the tone that the story is attempting to show and project. So, what I mean by this is that in a normal novel, the text is the only story-telling source. But in this graphic novel, the text is not the sole source of the audiences’ understanding of what is occurring in the story. For example, on page 51’s bottom “frame,” Satrapi goes from (dark) frames that show the narrator and her family to a (white) frame that is meant to show the torture experienced by Ahmadi. By using one large frame with several examples of torture on the bottom of page 51, the reader gains the knowledge that these things have already occurred, and are being talked about by characters other than Ahmadi. By leaving the frame as more of a “floating frame,” (I made this term up to describe a graphic novel frame that lacks borders) the author has allowed the audience to gain a different perspective on this frame. Had the frame been given borders, readers may interpret the actions that occurring in the frame as the present, or things that occurring at that very moment. But because the frame is lacking borders, a “dream-like,” or “relection-esque” feeling exists in the mind of the reader, or at least in the mind of this reader.

The left-hand frame on the bottom of page 43 is one that interests me, very much so actually. The characters in the frame are discussing oil, peace and the newfound freedom of their land; as the Shah and his family departed the country. The dialogue reads as,

                Father: “Let’s talk about something else. Let’s enjoy our new freedom!”

                Mother: “Now that the devil has left!”

Whilst the text of the frame contends one thing; “the devil has left!” the image associated with the frame essentially contends the exact opposite. The frame has a normal border, but it also has something else… a devilish serpent that is surrounding the characters in the frame; the very same character that is exclaiming that the devil has left. This, because of the general tone of the book, seems to act as a form of foreshadowing. The fact that Satrapi included an actual devil in the frame, in a symbolic stature (circling the characters, surrounding them), seems to predict negativity.

 This brings me to question the capabilities of the frame and image, as opposed to the much more concrete and predictable nature of text. What are those capabilities? Through text, the story progresses and pertinent data is released, information that is vital to the narrator and her story. But the frames and the images associated with the frame also project information that is necessary to the understanding of the story, i.e., emotions, actions and other things that are felt by the audience but aren't read via text.

Source
Satrapi, Marjane. Persepolis. New York, NY: Pantheon, 2003. Print.