“He Kinda Looks Like A Supervillain”- A Look at the Clues- And Responses- To Funky Flashman

This is not an article which attempts to inform you on the history behind Jack Kirby’s character Funky Flashman, a brilliant send-up and factually correct satire of Stan Lee. That’s been covered numerous times to varying degrees of success and factual correctness, notably on the excellent According to Kirby blog.

No, today we’re going to examine some potentially overlooked examples of evidence that form the Funky character, the belief that Funky is “mean-spirited” on Kirby’s part, as well as the continued blissful ignorance of the modern true believer– an ability to reject and resist the truth even when it’s unavoidable and directly in front of your face.

To the masses of rationalizing professionals and nostalgia-driven fanboys, Funky Flashman is “below the belt“, “mean-spirited” and even “uncalled for“- a parody of a public figure that longed to be a public figure, so long as he and his enablers could avoid the familiar trapping of criticism and mockery that famous figures often elicit.

What’s imbalanced with that perspective is that it does not take into account the numerous and valid things that inevitably drove Jack Kirby towards creating the parody in the first place. You’ll get a begrudging “oh, sure Stan could frustrate people…” or “Stan could’ve mentioned Jack more…” as if all Lee is guilty of is being absent minded and so caught up in his work that he didn’t give enough affection or something.

There’s a tangible resistance towards confronting the fact that Lee, for all his other talents, legitimately stole creator credit and pay, literally downplayed the contributions of the main creative force and content generator at Marvel and also allowed his so-called partner to be humiliated in the press by a fawning, job-seeking journalist. For to confront the truth means to acknowledge it.

(ABOVE: Posed modelling shots of Lee that were sent by his publicity agent to potential speaking engagement bookers.)

I’ve tried to stress that I generally don’t like to make speculative arguments but I’m hoping you’ll indulge me with this one. I was concerned enough that I was possibly reading too heavily into a hunch… so much, that I sought out the opinion of a trusted friend, the publisher of a prominent Pulp magazine and someone whose editorial outlook would surely tell me if I were projecting.

“These photos“, I asked- “Lee is clearly using removable facial hair in order to get this photo session done, right?” Yes, I knew Lee is capable of growing actual facial hair. The context was that a professional photo session meant that paid time and a paid photographer would ideally want to get as many different shots in presumably different outfits, etc. as possible.

But also, Lee would adapt his appearance accordingly depending on which particular avenue of media was seeking him out. Hip college paper? You’re going to get THE MAN. A more conservative endeavor perhaps, a conference filled with distribution professionals? Well, Stan will remove the beard and wear a tie. That’s Stan Lee- he’s adaptable.

My friend confirmed that’s the impression he had as well. It wasn’t about growing facial hair, which we knew Lee could do and is different from balding- but more the need to “change appearances” based on function. Consider the above photo montage again- and then, compare to Kirby’s famous sequence of the balding, gaunt and aging looking Funky dressing himself in toupee, fake beard, etc.- becoming vibrant, verbose, and alive.

But perhaps I’m reaching. It’s possible. But it’s also highly unlikely that Lee, constrained on time (and also, when you’re trying to book speaking engagements, time is of the essence!) simply shaved between outfit changes. These are legitimate modelling shots.

I remembered hearing in passing an anecdote told by a dealer who attended the Special Edition NYC event in 2015; while he wasn’t speaking to me directly, he was relating a story he’d been told by someone who worked in a legislative manner at Marvel that Lee had been speaking to a group of office workers in the early Seventies when Lee’s facial hair “tilted” slightly and Lee put a tissue to his face and pretended to cough (to better adjust his beard).

Now it’s worth mentioning this is a random anecdote and is essentially hearsay; I’d also like to note that the tone of this story was not to be critical of Lee, but that the man meant it in a complimentary manner; he was impressed at Lee’s quick thinking and didn’t think to question Lee’s apparent moving facial hair.

I quickly forgot about that anecdote until I saw a specific photograph of Lee in 1971. Again, I may be reaching- sure. Just stay with me. We’re about to move on from this but I simply must share it, frantic ones:

The hipster Lee looks pretty bohemian and artsy with his fashionable turtleneck, stylist ring and longish hair, appearing like the charming Professor that inspires thoughts of “I want to be like that when I’m old” from his students. But something did seem off, ever slightly- you tell me:

Kirby also had Funky Flashman recording monologues into a tape recorder and playing them back, enchanted at the sound of his own voice. Lee was known to do this- it’s well dramatized as one of his adorable quirks in Peter David’s horrific 2015 graphic novel “biography” of Lee- and Kirby had pointed out that he’d come upon Lee doing this in his darkened office and been turned off. (Author Michael Hill made the compelling suggestion that Kirby caught Lee dictating Kirby’s own submitted plots onto tape) Kirby hits several of Lee’s traits correctly in the Flashman story- would it be that outside the realm of possibility that Kirby knew for a fact that Lee would wear and abandon a false beard at specific times? That’s all I want to ask.

The Flashman story has- apparently- stayed notorious, leading to different opinions and suggestive retellings of Lee being deeply hurt or angrily throwing down the issue of Mister Miracle after reading it. Notably, the comments vary depending on the individual. It’s worth pointing out that Lee defender Jim Shooter claimed that “Stan found it funny, by the way” and I see no reason why we should doubt him on that if we’re not to doubt him on other claims of Lee creating everything.

From the current Marvel regime, Editor and fedora enthusiast Tom Brevoort wrote a blog entry entitled “Five Mean Caricatures of Comic Creators“, an entry I have deduced was created simply to justify criticizing Kirby’s satire of Stan:

“Kirby is merciless in his characterization of Lee here. He’s also got shade to throw at Lee’s number two Roy Thomas, whom he renders as Houseroy, Funky’s sycophantic servant who dreams of inheriting the family business once Funky moves on to greater things. I think it can certainly be argued that Kirby was justified in many of his feelings, and his talent and passion is all over this issue. But one of the things that doesn’t get said enough when it’s spoken about is just how mean it all is. It’s brutal and vicious and spiteful, and just a hair unprofessional.” – Tom Brevoort, July 12th 2020

A parody is just a hair unprofessional. To give Brevoort the benefit of the doubt, it’s possible he was giving Kirby the lesser of it and believed that Lee’s actions in making Kirby look inept in the Herald Tribune was, correctly, more unprofessional. But Brevoort’s take is- not surprisingly- the majority view. To ridicule Lee is to make his enablers work overtime in rationalizing his documented and proven actions.

Lee was extremely conscious as the Marvel Age of Comics took off, hiring a publicist and apparently allowing his wife Joan to hire a stylist to give him a complete makeover in order to honor the public perception of him as a hip elder statesman. I believe it’s this, more than being insecure over balding which is nothing shameful or even unattractive, that led to any real anger on Lee’s part (if any existed at all).

Could Lee have been insecure about baldness? As noted above, I have serious doubts. It is completely tied to his image, which was in a flux from 1967 until about 1972 when Lee settled into his famous image. Consider this anecdote from Dave Sim:

“It was years later, in talking with Captain George about the “coup” of having Stan Lee at a small Canadian convention in 1968 — that Captain George smiled his characteristic smile.

“Do you know how we got him? I had a copy of a promotional film that Marvel Comics had done in 1965 or earlier that featured Stan Lee, so I contacted Marvel and asked them if it would be OK if I showed the film at the Triple Fan Fair. Well, I got a call from someone saying that they’d rather I didn’t and how would I like to have Stan Lee in person instead?”

Of course, Captain George jumped at the chance. It instantly took the Triple Fan Fair from being a small Mirvish Village “artsy” kind of event into the realm of a comic-book happening (which, for you younger folk, is what these things were called back in the ’60s). All the while, Captain George is wondering how he had hit it so lucky which he didn’t figure out until Stan and his wife showed up at the airport.
Stan had a full head of hair.

In the promotional film, he was bald.”– Dave Sim, October 1995

“I’m preparing for my ESTABLISHMENT phase…” – Funky Flashman

“It was the most accurate and incisive portrait of Stan Lee ever, by a master caricaturist who knew the inside story. No one was ever better positioned or equipped to give Lee the treatment.” – Michael Hill, author of According to Kirby and Kirby at Marvel

“The permanent misfits can find salvation only in a complete separation from the self; and they usually find it by losing themselves in the compact collectivity of a mass movement.”
– Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

In May 2021, a discovered video from 1966 went viral for a brief time, especially among Pop Culture aficionados. The website Nerdist shared what is believed to be the earliest documented recorded footage of Stan Lee for public release.

Lee looks remarkably aged and gaunt, even in comparison to photographs from the same era, presumably not helped by the lighting requirements of the time. His conversational tone is in its early stages, and he is, understandably, not yet at ease on camera he would later be.

“Since Marvel was so popular to the youth of the day, I guess he figured it didn’t help to look like their dad. But by the ’70s, Stan “the Man” Lee was sporting his now-iconic look. A sunglasses-wearing cross between Hugh Hefner and Burt Reynolds’ in Boogie Nights.” – Nerdist.com

What I found especially telling is the mass reaction to this footage in 2021 from apparent Stan Lee Lovers. A minor form of mass hysteria set in, with apparent grown adults literally in denial about what they were seeing. They could not accept, would not accept that this was their beloved and affable hip, geek grandfather. This was not the Creator as they had known him.

Were these real Marvel fanatics? Had they not seen the 2010 documentary, “With Great Power” which itself came out after the Marvel Cinematic Universe was established? Had they never sought out a biography, an article, an interview? Were these devotees really ignorant from TwoMorrows Publishing? Comic Book Marketplace? There had been examples of old photographs of Lee being printed for years. Had their entire awareness been built upon a cameo in the Iron Man film?

This itself illustrates the willful ignorance of the True Believer, the happy submission to the comfort of groupthink escapism. These people who were intelligent enough to log onto the internet and type destinations to then type their thoughts, were moved enough by their shock to express it in public. They were unintentionally reaffirming the truth in Kirby’s portrayal of Funky Flashman.

These people don’t read history, nor seek it out. They eagerly await to be fed, to consume. It does not occur to them to delve deeper, go further. They loved Lee, they said- they never even sought out his fiction-heavy “biographies”! Are these the best candidates to defend Lee’s legacy?

When the 1966 footage was uploaded on SMUJones Films’s YouTube channel, the comments ranged from bewilderment to sadness and disbelief:

“so, that really is him?? I’ve been seeing a still photo with an article the last few days and was thinking it was just a mistake on the part of the person who wrote it – but, that voice – it IS him!”

“why does he look older here than in the 80’s?’

“Is like if he later decided to turn himself into a cartoon just for the heck of it.”

“He looks like a total establishment stiff without his ‘stache and syrup of figs!”

“I literally don’t see the resemblance whatsoever”

“I wouldn’t have recognized him. I first saw him as an old man”

The fans on Reddit were just as taken aback:

“Wow, never knew this guy wore a costume for most of his professional career. Pretty sad, actually, like we wouldn’t accept him as a bald dude. Major Ralphie Cifaretto vibes lol “

“Holy shit I kept waiting for this bald faced man to introduce Stan Lee and then like a minute into it I realized it WAS STAN LEE!?! “

“This feels like a What If? set in a universe where Stan Lee is just some boring guy in a tie.”

“For a second there I thought this was pre- Fantastic Four. Then I saw the comics in the back and then it hit me that Stan the man wasn’t the hipster persona with tinted glasses we know and love when he created all those heroes.”

(above: the best comment)

The intent of this piece is not to make fun of Lee’s appearance whatsoever. It’s to point out a trajectory that exists but is rarely configured and placed together. There’s the sainted image of Lee- an image so blatant that the recent Disney documentary opens with the balding 1966 Lee and then presents dramatizations of Lee during the same era as having a full head of hair– because they know: the true believers need their myth. The reality doesn’t matter, can’t matter. Lee always existed as you remember him.

As the pathological Danny Fingeroth wrote, “Stan Lee would never let you down.“

There’s another facet of Lee’s true personality that Kirby alludes to rather directly. While it’s true that the description of Funky’s inherited residence Mockingbird Estates is described as looming in “decaying ante-bellum grandeur” as a metaphor for Goodman and Marvel’s business practices/philosophy with freelancers, let us look at Funky’s bewildered response to the destruction of his home at story’s end:

“Mint Juleps! Cotillions! Happy Slaves singing for the Family!!!“

Cotillions are still done today, but were especially celebrated on plantations in the Slavery-era South. Mint Juleps have an interesting racial history in America and ties to slaves of Haitian descent, and I doubt I need to provide context on happy slaves, singing for the family. But all of this did remind me of a brief anecdote and a more distressing one from two veteran artists who worked with Stan Lee:

At the aforementioned Special Edition NYC event in 2015. I was working there in a professional capacity and had just interviewed both noted scholar Arlen Schumer and, also, curator of the Jack Kirby Museum, Rand Hoppe. I had hoped to interview noted artist Ken Bald, then in his nineties and making, I believe, his last or next to last convention appearance. Bald was long cited as being one of Lee’s rare close friends and I was very keen to speak to him.

When I approached, Bald had a gathering of collectors around him. And while Bald was in his nineties and assisted by a gentleman sitting next to him, he was lucid and energetic- and seemingly an advocate for fitness, reminding me of noted character actor William Smith. A man with several certified Golden Age comic books was showing Bald 8×10 photos of Bald’s wife, who had apparently appeared in some B-Movies during the Forties. I didn’t want to interrupt so decided to come back when Bald might have a few minutes to be interviewed. As it turns out, Bald left a little early and I’d missed him. Lamenting this to a group of guys I’d chatted with, they excitedly told me how gregarious Bald had been. I’d asked if he’d had any Stan stories.

Collector guy (named this by me because he carried half a dozen CGC’d books under his arm the entire day) told me he told a funny story about Lee and his wife going with the Balds to an antique market unplanned after they’d had brunch together.
“That sounds like what Jim Mooney said”, I’d responded.

He continued that Bald briefly told them about the only time he’d seen Lee “uninspired” was when Lee had to attend an antique market at his wife’s behest and feign enthusiasm. This was remarkably similar to what Jim Mooney had said in interviews- Mooney’s wife and Lee’s wife Joan both had interests and partial ownerships in antique stalls throughout the Eighties- so I simply said “ah”, losing interest.

The guy laughed and said, “He said Stan and his wife argued about how many jockeys to buy.” Jockeys. Are those shoes? “Lawn jockeys.”

I still didn’t know what those were- well, I did, but didn’t know that’s what they were called. Lawn jockeys are the black faced, red-lipped and vested racist lawn decor that certain homes owned by old people used to predominantly have on both sides of their front door entrance.

I don’t say that makes Lee a member of the White Nationalist party. I believe it’s generational, indoctrinated passive racism- but racism no less. I am still looking for any other anecdotes Bald may have given about that incident- and almost didn’t include it here- except that it seems made much more possible by the further anecdote.

I’d heard Cal Massey’s unfortunate experience before. A noted and acclaimed Fine Artist, Massey got his start in comics and was one of the few African Americans working in the industry at that time, even seeking out Matt Baker for advice in navigating the field.

When Massey was asked about his experience- he didn’t offer it prior to that- he described his meeting with Stan Lee:

“I walked into the room [to show Stan Lee my work] and Stan said, ‘Massey’s in the cold cold ground.’ I sat down and he said, ‘Messy Massey.’ Then I got up and started to leave, when Stan asked me where I was going. I said, ‘I thought New York had grown past this sort of thing. Have a nice day.’ …Stan was making a play on the lyrics of a song from the South that was written during slavery times, and I didn’t like it. He explained that to me, saying, ‘I just wanted to see what kind of character you have.’”

– Cal Massey interview Alter Ego #105

I’d read this years ago and was disgusted by it then, taking Massey at his word. It wasn’t until the other night that I thought deeper on it and wanted to know the context of “Messy Massy” and my apologies and shame at taking so long to educate myself on it, I don’t know how well known the source song is.

The song Lee was singing is a Stephen Foster song from 1852; “Massa’s in de Cold Ground“- ‘Massa’ being Racist dialect for “Master“- essentially, singing a song about Black Slaves mourning their buried White Master and not knowing what to do without him- to a working Black professional.

Chorus:

Down in de cornfield

Hear dat mournful sound

All de darkeys am a weeping-

Massa’s in de cold, cold ground

It’s just fucking gross, man. Casual Racism is still destructive; see also, Lee’s missive to his daughter about adopting a Black baby- and again, I am not trying to paint Stan Lee as David Duke. I just think his natural inclinations leaked out a lot- and Kirby captured them.

More and more, Funky Flashman repays close study– especially if you read upon Lee’s life throughout the years. No, not the intoxicating (and fictional) story that inspires many to do it their way, not the empowering moment when his wife urges him to go for broke- but the digs, the comments, the craving need for recognition, the adaptive nature to appeal to whichever audience would take him- we know Stan Lee. He was supported by a wealthy relative he later betrayed. He created nothing of lasting value until circumstance brought comic’s most prolific creator to his door. His appearance changed as much as his story.

But if you want to know the man at his essence? If you want to “get” him instantly? Read Kirby’s Funky Flashman. Every complexity (if any ever existed), every trait, is helpfully summarized and condensed all in that figure. By the only one who was willing to paint him as he truly was, the only one who understood at heart who Lee was.

In closing, I initially enjoyed this photo because Lee’s groggy expression delighted me as it’s so uncharacteristic of what we’ve come to gotten used to. Taken in 1992, it took on new meaning when I looked at it in the early A.M. hours as I prepared this article. It’s before the cinematic success, at a time when Lee’s reputation still isn’t that cemented- and Lee is obviously attending an autograph signing of sorts that I am positive was well attended and well received but far from the later $125-per-photo opps he’d later get a conventions- and it shows a genuine weariness in his face.

Before his most important contract was signed later that decade with Marvel, which was for Marvel’s benefit in cementing its ownership of the characters as much as it was for Lee’s, before the absolute security and protection from criticism that contract held, this one snapshot shows a hint of the insecurity Lee held inside of him.

Or I really am just looking too deeply and Stan was just fuckin’ tired of signing Spider-Man reprints. That’s probably more likely.

With thanks to Michael Hill’s exhaustive research, Jim Amash, Patrick Ford, Evelyn Richardson, Rand Hoppe, Arlen Schumer.