Some "Watchmen" thoughts

As a fan (with qualifications) of the Alan Moore/Dave Gibbons graphic novel of fame and legend, I have of course been curious about the Zack-Snyder-directed adaptation, although the news that Snyder was directing never filled me with high hopes. Anybody who could tackle Frank Miller's po-faced homage to fascistic machismo 300 with such brio and then turn around and tackle Watchmen would have to have some kind of ideological screw loose, or at the very least not be all that bright. 

As it happens, I found the filmic Watchmen a largely tedious, even enervating experience. A lot of it has to do with the fact that Snyder directs like a preservationist rather than an interpreter. It might have been a kick to see this set-in-an-alternate-1980s tale directed like an '80s picture. maybe. But no; we instead get a lot of slavish recreations of Gibbons' panels. They look impressive, yes. Although, just as 300's look was submerged in Stygian muck, Watchmen is darkened by a thick gray-blue throughout; even the few bright daylight scenes look like rainy days. 

Snyder also, quite predictably, pumps up the violence (or, as some would have it, "action") to grotesque proportions, while slicing down the mordantly playful parodic elements of the original to little more than a nub. As the ultimate comic book about comic books, Watchmen never needed to be taken out of its original form; but given the way comic books and cinema have informed each other since the days of Winsor McCay even, it wasn't entirely inconceivable to hope for a film Watchmen that could purposefully re-illuminate some of the knottier aspects of the original. 

The cast, save for the magnificent Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach (who I fear many will take as the film's hero—whereas the graphic novel was quite thoroughly and unambiguously antiheroic), is also a problem. They're all game and mostly capable (save for poor Malin Akerman, who I feel kind of bad for), but they all seem more than just a little at sea, for which Snyder can also be blamed. I imagine that if you see the film, you, too, will wonder just why Matthew Goode talks more and more like Marlene Dietrich as the proceedings wear on.  Also, I can't help it; every time there was an extensive voice-over bit from Billy Crudup as Doctor Manhattan, I kept waiting for him to conclude with: "The power to bend space and time to your will? Priceless."

In any case, I participated with my pals Andrew Grant and Aaron Hillis for a podcast about the film that is up on Green Cine Daily now. Of the print reviewers who have weighed in so far, I think the Village Voice's J. Hoberman, while liking the film a bit more than I did, is exactly on the money. And I have to admit, as far as I'm concerned, any picture that brings out the Church Lady-esque scold in The New Yorker's own Little Lord Fauntleroy can't be all bad. Also, for sheer entertainment value, the increasingly Howard-Beale-esque anti Watchmen rants my buddy Jeffrey Wells is posting every five minutes or so (without having seen the film, natch), can't be beat. This one's particularly rich ("blazing truth tellers"? like, what, are we talking about the Pentagon Papers or something), but they're all winners, really...he even works in a slap at Watchmen fans in his Horton Foote memorial, chastising them for having an insufficient appreciation for Tender Mercies. What you say? 

Comments

[Douglas Arthur]

I think my appreciation of Tender Mercies is just fine, thank you very much. This is a very strange film for me. I am alternately excited and reviled by it. Excited because I am a huge fan of the original work, but reviled because I know that a lot of the great subtext and subtlety will be lost. I read an interview with Zack where he kept stating that he was going to be "religiously faithful" to the comic (I think this was in Wired, but I don't remember), but then in the next paragraph he goes on to mention all the things he had to change. He is good at making things look good, but so far his filmic output are either remakes or adaptations. I wouldn't call him visionary until he does a few "original" movies. I want to see what he does outside of comic book movies.

[Douglas Arthur]

Jeeze, i forgot to mention that I have tix to see it in IMAX on Saturday night! Me and my brother reliving our geek-youth. Maybe it'll be fun as a nostalgia trip??

[Matt Miller]

I'm not seeing the movie until Sunday, but in its defense, the fact that the comic's Rorschach is rather unambiguously psychotic hasn't prevented a significant portion of readers from seeing him as the hero of the piece for the last 20+ years.

[lazarus]

He may not be the "hero" but he's certainly the protagonist, and the one who's "solving" the mystery when no one else seems to care.

Also, Rorschach has a code that is admirable, even if his means and Absolutist stance are hard to stomach at times. Conversely, the others all compromise their beliefs in one way or another, save for The Comedian, and we know what happens to him.

I think the question of whether he's "right" or not at the end of the film is something as worthy of discussion as the choice Casey Affleck's character makes at the end of Gone Baby Gone. What's more important, to follow the letter of the law or impose your own intepretation of justice?

[S.F. Hunger]

LOL @ that mastercard joke, Glenn.

This is the kind of movie that I'm having more fun reading about than I'm likely to have when I actually see the damn thing.

[bill]

I have my reservations about this movie as well, but I'm a bit flummoxed by the people (none of whom are here now, from what I can see) who believe this film shouldn't even exist at all, whether Snyder was at the helm, or someone else. Why is "Watchmen" considered so sacred and untouchable, or that it could only work as a mini-series, when no one has any problem with film adaptations of Dickens or Kafka or etc? The reverence for the original should probably be dialed down a bit. Have some perspective.

On the other hand, those who claim that the comic is easily filmable because reading the comic is like flipping through a bunch of storyboards clearly have no understanding of either comics OR storyboards.

And Glenn, leaving my serious problems over your use of the word "fascist" to describe "300" aside, Snyder can make both movies for the same reason I can like both comics. Many shades, and all that.

[swhitty]

@Glenn

"The cast, save for the magnificent Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach (who I fear many will take as the film's hero— whereas the graphic novel was quite thoroughly and unambiguously antiheroic)..."

Exactly. Actually, David Poland has already compared him, favorably, to a Bogart character. (Maybe, if Bogie played a homophobic fascist vigilante?) R may end up being the most misinterpreted "hero" of adolescents since Holden Caulfield.

In retrospect, I think this was just a bad idea from the start. A graphic novel is not a storyboard for a movie; a graphic novel is a graphic novel. And everything that this film had to, perhaps necessarily cut (the interpolated comics, psych reports, chapters of other books) is exactly the sort of meta-fictional stuff that made the novel so rich.

[Glenn Kenny]

Bill, I know that "fascist" is a loaded word, and particularly so these days, but I'm gonna stand my ground on this one. (Anyhow, I hedged my bet a bit by saying "fascistic" rather than "fascist.") As far as '300' is concerned, if you're looking for qualities that fit the dictionary definitions—you know, "belligerent nationalism," "militarism," and so on; as they say in those spaghetti sauce commercials, it's in there.

This isn't new to Miller, whose work I used to really love—the Janson-inked 'Daredevil's, 'Ronin'—and who eventually lost me as his work got more and more viciously misanthropic, adolescent, and humorless...despite the continuing inventiveness of his graphic work. (Interestingly enough, it wasn't in his comic book work that he first revealed his fascistic leanings, but in his co-scripting of 'RoboCop 2,' which was both a betrayal of the original and kind of jaw-droppingly offensive.) There's something really weirdly moving about his desire to direct 'The Spirit,' since his own work has wandered so far from that of Eisner—the comic book world's greatest humanist, perhaps—that they don't even seem to inhabit the same planet anymore. And that Miller doesn't necessarily see it that way.

Still, this is all just my opinion, as they say. So let me back up just a bit and allow that maybe I'm being a little too subjective, or even egocentric, to suggest that it's some sort of contradiction to harbor equal enthusiasm for '300' and 'Watchmen,' and perhaps I ought to get off that particular soapbox.

I think if I have time I'll watch Losey's 'Modesty Blaise' today...

[Tony Dayoub]

@ Bill

"I have my reservations about this movie as well, but I'm a bit flummoxed by the people (none of whom are here now, from what I can see) who believe this film shouldn't even exist at all, whether Snyder was at the helm, or someone else. Why is "Watchmen" considered so sacred and untouchable, or that it could only work as a mini-series, when no one has any problem with film adaptations of Dickens or Kafka or etc?"

I think part of it is because of Moore and Gibbon's decision to tell a story using comic book devices that are not able to be duplicated oustide of that format. For instance, in the issue "Fearful Symmetry" if you turn to the exact middle of the comic book and work your way back to the beginning and end of the book, you'll find that the panels are layed out as exact mirror images on either side of the midpoint all the way to either end of the book (and their content reflects each other also). That is something inherent to the format that cannot be duplicated.

That being said, I think it's perfectly OK to adapt the comic. But (not having seen the movie yet, mind you) I agree that Snyder's attempt to slavishly duplicate the artwork fails for that reason alone. He can't do it. Interpreting it would probably have been the better way to go.

[Owain Wilson]

I'm seeing it tonight. I have not read the graphic novel and do not know much about it, so I'll be one of the few guys in the audience who'll be viewing it as a straight movie.

Given that there is apparently a slavish reproduction of panel art and all that, I wonder if the film will work for me. I've never liked this whole put-the-pages-of-the-comic-on-the-screen approach. Haven't these people ever heard the word 'adaptation'? Adapt the damn thing!

Anyway. I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm really looking forward to it so I hope I have a good time. If it bores me to tears (as another recent, hugely anticipated comic book movie did), then at least I'll have Malin Akerman's thighs to look at to help me through it.

[Matt Miller]

"I think part of it is because of Moore and Gibbon's decision to tell a story using comic book devices that are not able to be duplicated oustide of that format."

Yeah, I think that's the crux of it. A recent WIRED article had sidebar quotes from, for lack of a better descriptor, famous geeks, and one of them (I believe it was Brian K. Vaughn, though it may have been Joss Whedon) described it as akin to doing "Citizen Kane" as a stage play. Yeah, you could largely reproduce the story, but you would lose too much given the original film's inherent...film-ness.

[bill]

@ Glenn - Belligerent nationalism? How so? Are you talking about the not-in-the-movie aspects of Spartan culture, like forcing citizens into the military, or the violent defense of their country from invading forces, the latter of which seems pretty reasonable to me?

Anyway, feel free to not answer that, as it's getting way off topic. But also, I actually never said I had "equal enthusiasm" for "300" and "Watchmen", and I doubt Snyder -- based on what he's said -- does either. And, in fact, I think "300" the movie is pretty dopey, and the comic only slightly less so, mainly because of it's striking artwork, but both provided me with a good time. The main point being that a guy can appreciate the immense talent and inventiveness that went into creating "Watchmen" (the comic), while finding some of its political elements to be a tad sketchy.

I am embarrassingly ignorant of much of Eisner's work, though I want very much to correct that, but what you say about Miller's film of "The Spirit" jibes with what I've heard. And I do think that Miller has kind of gone off his rocker lately ((don't really remember anything about "Robocop 2", though). Still, are we now calling "Sin City" fascist, too?

@ Tony -

"I think part of it is because of Moore and Gibbon's decision to tell a story using comic book devices that are not able to be duplicated oustide of that format."

Well, sure, absolutely (I was just reading some of the comic last night, and it is very much a COMIC BOOK, if you know what I mean). But I would hope any artist working in any media would do the same thing, and that includes novels. Novels aren't just these easily filmable collections of dialogue and set-pieces, and no one complains about adapting those. Hell, SONGS have been adapted, and POEMS have been adapted, into films. To Moore's credit (and he's as crazy and obnoxious and offensive lately in his persona -- at LEAST as crazy, etc. -- as Miller, these days), he rails against all adaptations of any work of art, so he's consistent, but those backing him up regarding "Watchmen" haven't been. Again, if we're all cool with Dostoyevsky making it to the screen, then we should be cool with Moore/Gibbons getting the treatment.

As to the slavishness of Snyder's adaptation, and whether or not that's a good or bad thing, I don't know, because I haven't seen the film. I'm seeing it tomorrow. We shall see.

[bill]

@ Matt - In that WIRED article, doesn't John Hodgman say something like "'Watchmen' can succeed as a film as long as it realizes it has no reason for existing'"? Because if so -- and I realize I'm starting to belabor this point -- then by that rationale, Lean's Dickens films have no reason for existing, either.

[Joel]

From that picture above, I know exactly why Wells doesn't like Watchmen: too much damn grain. Anyway, I've also never understood why literate people in 2009 continue to lament the inclusion of comics into the discussion of serious literature. I've never read a comic book or a graphic novel (even as a child), and I've stopped being proud of this fact. Actually, I'm kind of ashamed of it. Also, Tony: if this adaptation bothers you, then have you read Cloud Atlas? There's apparently a Tom Twyker adaptation in the works, and I imagine that the narrative's symmetry is going to prove troublesome. However, plenty of people have adapted "unadaptable" books by NOT being faithful, by just following their own visions--i.e. Cronenberg's Naked Lunch, Huston's Under the Volcano, and Carax's Pola X (Melville's Pierre).

[Glenn Kenny]

@bill, now that Dana Stevens has pronounced "300" vile, maybe I'm gonna have to reassess it.

I kid. I suppose that, strictly speaking, to read belligerent nationalism into '300' is more a matter of connotation than denotation, so I'll hand you that point; or rather, just say that we read the thing differently.

John Hodgman. What a nerd.

[hisnewreasons]

"...the mordantly playful parodic elements of the original to little more than a nub."

I knew something was wrong when I saw how Snyder handled the rescue scene. It was played as straight-up heroism. I didn't hear this piece of dialogue from the comic --

"Are you with the fire department?"
"Look, I'm Smokey the Bear's secret mistress. Now could you just get on the ship or throw yourself over the side or something?"

Not that I feel particularly reverent toward the original work. If you asked me to choose between "Watchmen" and "The Tale of One Bad Rat," I would pick the latter with no hesitation. But if you are going to make changes, they should be interesting ones.

[hisnewreasons]

Over at Big Hollywood I notice that John Nolte is joining Schlussel's protest against "Watchmen" being 'marketed toward children.' He cites the toy line as being proof.

Funny. I don't recall him being upset about the series of merchandise seen at http://www.cmdstore.com/frmi300.html. (Seriously, does he honestly believe that the core audience of Zach Snyder's previous film were adults?)

As long as I'm being somewhat off-topic, I'll like to pay tribute to this classic toy commercial found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKSv85mJEmY.

(I'm not sure if I can embed the links among the text. Hence, my awkward citing.)

[Dan Coyle]

I'd argue that 300 the graphic novel is fascist, but not in the way you might think.

In the book, Leonidas' conversation with Ephialtes is the only time the king is allowed to show a shred of tenderness and kindness (Gorgo's role is greatly expanded in the film). He lets down Ephialtes the nicest way he possibly can.

Ephialtes is having none of that shit. After failing to kill himself, he throws away all his beliefs and betrays the Spartans out of spite. The message is clear here- the weaker are not just weak in body but weak in spirit; they will betray you no matter how well you treat them (it can't be a coincidence that Leonidas shows more compassion with Ephialtes than he does his own wife and child), and must be purged. If only his parents killed him as a babe, like they were supposed to! IF ONLY! I suppose 40 years ago when Miller got his teeth knocked out while wearing a superboy costume, the 52 year old Miller would deem himself too weak and deserved it.

THAT's fascism, as I define it. Miller's work was always about revenge, about the victim rising up against their tormentor, but with 300 it became something... different. Combine that with the bizarre, pornographic, ENDLESS beating and humilation of Superman in Dark Knight Strikes Again, and we've got something very wrong here.

[hisnewreasons]

Well, I messed up my own punchline. Here's the link without the fouling period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKSv85mJEmY

[Dan Coyle]

John Nolte should really change his name to Won't Someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN? Nolte.

HNR: I agree One Bad Rat would make a fine, fine film.

[Brian]

Bill, I'm not offended by the existence of a WATCHMEN movie, I just have a hard time imagining what it would be like (for the reasons you and Tony mention, and also just due to time-- I heard there was talk of an HBO miniseries a few years back, and I don't know if that's true, but I do think having six or twelve or whatever hours to stretch and play with the narrative might make it work better than having 2 or 3 hours). But I'm curious to see what it's like.

And I suspect the outrage, such as it is, about the adaptation is not only due to wariness about another mediocre Moore adaptation (my students and I were talking about that today) but because of what Joel kind of alludes to in his comments-- the defensiveness a lot of comics readers still feel about the form, and the implication that translating it to cinema might make it more "socially acceptable." I think you're absolutely right that Kafka and other novelists pose equal/greater challenges in terms of adapting-- but (at least now) critics don't challenge the bonafides of THE TRIAL of THE METAMORPHOSIS, and don't hang their heads (a la Anthony Lane) and say, "Geez-- ANOTHER adaptation of a novel??" the way they do with comic book movies. Douglas Wolk mentions this in the introduction to his book on comics, quoting a NEW YORKER cartoon-- "Man, now I have to pretend to like comics, too?"

This despite Moore, Grant Morrison, Will Eisner, Marjane Satrapi, Brian K. Vaughn, Art Spiegelman and so many others who have done such interesting work (to say nothing of Lee & Kirby).

Anyway, I'm rambling, but I did want to thank Glenn for mentioning Miller's DAREDEVIL-- that's a blast from the past, and I agree it's brilliant (even if I prefer his second run on the book with David Mazzucchellii, collected as BORN AGAIN in TPB.

[Brian]

Also, this is pretty brilliant.

[Brian]

Um, or rather, THIS is (damn link not working, grumble grumble):

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797

[bill]

@Dan Coyle - Fair enough point regarding Ephialtes, but I'll have to wait until I get home and look over the comic before I can either fully agree or disagree.

@Brian - "but (at least now) critics don't challenge the bonafides of THE TRIAL of THE METAMORPHOSIS, and don't hang their heads (a la Anthony Lane) and say, 'Geez-- ANOTHER adaptation of a novel??' the way they do with comic book movies. Douglas Wolk mentions this in the introduction to his book on comics, quoting a NEW YORKER cartoon-- 'Man, now I have to pretend to like comics, too?'"

Well, that's true, but I'm still not sure this fully applies to the idea that "Watchmen" is "unadaptable". I mean, Moore makes the same specific points regarding adapting the comic as everyone else on that side of the issue, and I doubt he's all that defensive about comics (in fact, these days he's one of the people PUTTING comic fans on the defensive). But I do see your point, and I think a lot of it has to do with two things: One, people still simply are not used to movies based on comics as its own genre; and two, more importantly, how many comic book movies have been made that are actually specifically adapted from a particular comic? Every superhero movie I can think of is based more or less on the IDEA of Spider-Man or Batman, or whoever. The Alan Moore adaptations technically apply, but are so "free" in their interpretations that they basically function the same way. I haven't read "Ghost World" or "Road to Perdition" or "A History of Violence", so I don't know how those fit in, but most people don't even know those were comics in the first place, and don't seem to care.

Before I go too far with citing examples and all that, the main point is simply that for the first time people are talking about what makes comic books a unique art form, and how that applies to their adaptation to film. So why now? Why didn't anyone complain about "what happens between the panels" or page layouts when "Ghost World" was adapted? The fans weren't up in arms back then, so what happened? Are they being hypocritical?

And I tried to watch that film you linked to earlier this morning, but my computer wouldn't let me. I hope I can later, because it sounds hilarious.

[Matt Miller]

@bill - "Why didn't anyone complain about "what happens between the panels" or page layouts when "Ghost World" was adapted? The fans weren't up in arms back then, so what happened? Are they being hypocritical?"

That's fair. Anecdotally, I recall wanting to mail Ang Lee a copy of "Understanding Comics" when his Hulk came out, as he didn't seem to understand that putting four separate frames on screen at the same time doesn't function the same as multiple panels on a comic page, but I don't recall there previously being any fanboy outcry like this.

The reason "Watchmen" is drawing out these criticisms is probably because the formal aspects of Moore's writing are so foregrounded in the text. That, and fanboys really don't give a shit about "Ghost World."

[Dan Coyle]

Bill: Just to clarify I don't think 300 the book or film are particularly political or fascist in any way other than what I said. Even in 1998 or 2007. I read too many reviews of the film which seemed to be simply projecting. Miller, as far as I can tell, didn't intend it to be anything more than a scrupulously researched and accurate retelling of a historical incident which really inspired him as a child.

Miller's "pulpy response" to 9/11, Holy Terror, Batman!, if it ever materializes, whether it has Batman or not (reports have recently surfaced that Miller has decided to take Batman out of the story and make it a creator owned book), well, that'll provide PLENTY of fodder for us to talk about for a long, long, looooooooooong time re: politics.

Dragging this kicking and screaming back on topic, I found that Road to Perdition was superior to the comic (though both IMO are pretty awful), History of Violence inferior to the comic for the big story changes it makes (but still good), and... I haven't seen Ghost World. In the end, it doesn't matter to me unless it gets the spirit of the character right. Iron Man did that, Spider-Man 1 and 2 did that, Daredevil did that but was pretty much horrendous in every other respect. Oh, Mark Steven Johnson, you'll pay for this, you will pay.

Of course, if Ryan Reynolds gets Deadpool wrong in X-Men Origins Wolverine, it's ON LIKE DONKEY KONG.

[Ellen Kirby]

Re: Rorshach having an "admirable" code...I'd say that his code is certainly his own and he holds to it, but it's as fucked-up and ever-shifting as the shadows in his mind. As countless action movies have told us, direct, "kickass" action results in the saving of the world - part of what "Watchmen" was about, as far as I can see, is that cutting the Gordian Knot (a reference that turns up once or twice in the book as I recall) is a quick-fix at best.

As far as Rorshach being viewed as an unadulterated hero, well, whattayagonnado? Even in this day and age we're still convinced that if we cut just the right Gordian Knot... This isn't helped by things like a net promo I saw for the movie yesterday which had all the character's faces over the question: "Which Watchman is the most badass? Pick one." Yeesh. Sorta reminds me of watching "The Visitor" with a friend and having her roll her eyes at the part near the end where Richard Jenkins' character is proclaimed "cool." Yep, that's what most important.

[Matt Miller]

@Ellen - "Rorshach having an "admirable" code...I'd say that his code is certainly his own and he holds to it, but it's as fucked-up and ever-shifting as the shadows in his mind."

Exactly. Without getting too deep into spoiler territory, there's a reason that Harry Truman is referenced on Page 1 of the book, and that Rorschach's admiration for his decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima is expressed in an essay he wrote as a child: "He dropped the atom bomb on Japan and saved millions of lives because if he hadn't of [sic], then there would of [sic] been a lot more war than there was and more people would of [sic] been killed. I think it was a good thing to drop the atomic bomb on Japan."

I mean, Moore really couldn't have (of?) been any clearer in pointing out the bullshit that is Rorschach's "code," could he?

[Dan]

I think Snyder was a bad choice for director, but he tries his hardest, and this shows definite improvement over "300". The opening title sequence alone is pretty damn good.

My basic feeling is "Middling, could have been worse, ultimately worth seeing once." It continues DC's streak of at least putting out interesting and solid adaptations of their material, if nothing else.

My key complaint is really with the sound cues. Cliche, or ill-suited, or undercutting the tone of the piece, they're all pretty awful. Not to mention BLARING. Jesus Christ! Just how loud does "The Sounds of Silence" have to BE, anyway?!

[Watch Watchmen Online]

I agree that Zack Snyder's adaptation didn't quite live up to my hopes as a fan of Alan Moore's Watchmen. However, I can't say I was disappointed. Despite its shortcomings, I came away from this movie feeling quite satisfied. So much that I'm going to have a second serving tomorrow at IMAX. :-)