Preface 1: The monthly 12 issue comic series, as I read it in 1986 -87, was one of my most intense interactions with a piece of art of any kind. Primarily due to my incorporating it into my class curriculum in 2002, I have continued to study the work and am amazed at both the large and small aspects which I discover for the first time each time I revisit Watchmen. Anyone who reads it once, or even five times, and thinks they have fully experienced the joy of the series has underestimated the complexity of both the form and the thematics of Moore's and Gibbon's novel. I love the themes, the characters, certain aspects of the plot, but more than anything I love the storytelling devices and the incredible use of the art form. (As a huge Steve Ditko fan, I enjoy other subtleties that I will not bore anyone with). It's no exaggeration to call it the Citizen Kane of comics, and for all of the same reasons -- it is not about simply being a good story (there's actually some pretty significant flaws by the end) - it is how that story is told, the innovations to the form, the multiple allusions to literature, philosophy, music, etc., that makes it so significant.
Preface 2: Comics fans all grow up wanting their comics to be converted to film. We can't help it -- there's just something transcendent when you see Dr. Octopus' tentacles brought to life, when you see Superman unleash his full powers on the phantom Zone villains, and most recently, watching Heath Ledger actually add dimension to a character who's been around for over sixty years. Therefore, even though Alan Moore voiced his displeasure (and other film adaptations of his work have been dreadful), even though Terry Gilliam said it was unfilmable, even though we all should have known better -- Watchmen fans wanted the movie -- no, we craved the movie, we NEEDED the movie.
And now we have it.
Central Question: I have been flooded with the same question since Friday -- So did you like it?
Answer: I suspect my experience will be somewhat like the phases of death and dying -- denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance -- in that I am only now experiencing my first phases, hopefully achieving acceptance further down the line.
Phase One: I really didn't see the film -- not the way that I would normally watch a movie. Instead, I went in with a mental checklist of every panel in those twelve issues of Watchmen and I preceded to check them off or cross them out. My biggest criticism of Zack Snyder (so far) is that he made this almost unavoidable by so closely mirroring panels and dialogue. I know fans wanted exactly that adherence to the text, but it did prevent me from actually experiencing the film itself upon the first viewing. Because of the fairly strict fidelity to the comic -- in terms of plot, dialogue, characters (with the exception of the Silk Spectre who I thought was far less bitchier and therefore blander), I just sat there watching for every deviation, i.e. Nite-Owl warning Veidt instead of Rorschach doing it, the police not noting that Rorschach was wearing lifts in his shoes, after they beat him, the sad lack of scooters on the way to Karnak, Hooded Justice's contempt for Silk Spectre I after the rape, Silk Specter II not smoking .... Every omission took me out of the film, just as many of the perfectly delivered "captures" from the comic -- Morloch opening the frig, Manhattan staring at the bra or putting on his tie, Dan cleaning his glasses -- made me happy (but happy because it was included, not because it enhanced the film). Just another check mark on the list. (Now compare this to loving King's The Shining, and then seeing Kubrick's version -- you may love it or hate it, but you put away the check list pretty early)
So this was what I experienced while watching the film. Not much beyond.
Phase 2: I walk out of the movie, and my fellow watchers ask what I think. I'm surprised at how critical I am, not of the slight omissions, or even the bigger changes by the film's end, but of bigger criticisms -- it seems like a needlessly dark film (not thematically, but just hard to see); some of the musical choices seemed inspired, i.e Glass on Mars, but more seemed ham-fisted, even ridiculous, i.e Hallelujah; sequences seemed forced and rushed, i.e. Rorschach giving up his origin in the first session with the therapist. At least I'm interacting with the film finally, rather than just comparing it with the comic, as I was the whole time I was watching. More of the film sunk in than I initially thought. But I seem to have little positive to say, other than liking three of the performances. (Blake, Rorschach, and Cruddup) Why? Was it actually bad?
Phase 3: I start to think what really troubled me -- besides that Snyder is not Kubrick, or even Gilliam. And it's that he has made a super hero movie, not a deconstruction of the super hero movie. It's like the difference between Death Wish and Taxi Driver, Green Berets and Apocalypse Now, When Harry Met Sally and Annie Hall. Secondly, the film has been unavoidably drained of all of the comic's narrative complexity and over-determination. In order to make Watchmen be as artistically successful as the comic, one needed to give Godard $100 million dollars and tell him to do to this what he did to Histoire(s) du Cinema. That wasn't going to happen. And not even the fans would have liked it -- but I suspect Alan Moore would have snuck into the back of the theater just to see how it turned out.
And so, my conclusion is that I have no idea what I thought of the film. I didn't actually see it first of all. Secondly, my immediate criticisms were fueled by resentment at what it was not. I don't want Watchmen to be a super hero movie, but that's what the studio wanted it to be -- and of course they did.
So here's what I need to do -- I have to see it again; this time as a casual viewer. If it doesn't happen on the second try, I'll see it again until I can watch it as a work apart from the comic. When that happens, I'll post a more reliable assessment of what I thought of the film as part of the current cycle of super-hero films. I want to be able to compare it with Iron Man, Dark Knight, etc. (In fact I need to be able to do so, in terms of my own scholarship), but the first time hurt too much for me to enjoy it -- and all those years of anticipation were too distracting, etc. I'm sure my second or third viewing will be more enjoyable -- I'll be more relaxed (I hope). By my 4th try, who knows -- maybe I'll be yelling Zap!Wham!Kazam! like the other kids. I'll let you know.
8 comments:
Not as intricately familiar with the GN as you, to the extent that some of the original panels and subplots escaped me while watching the film, I think I was able to distance myself enough from the GN to judge it as a film alone. That said, the more I think about the film, the easier I find it to make a comparison to Benjamin Button, in the sense that both are lengthy, cold, and unrelatable films, whose conclusions suffer as a result.
Yes, Snyder loves the GN. We see that from the great opening credits sequence. Great, but probably the point where Snyder either won or lost those in his audience unfamiliar with the source material. It's a lot of history, perhaps too much, to take in and accept in five minutes. Still, I found it a decent love letter to the GN's rich backstory, as well as a visually pleasing way to mention the parts of the story he couldn't fit into the film.
Yet Snyder went to seemingly painstaking lengths to include parts of the GN that weakened the film. Take the street vendor and the boy reading the comic. Yes, it puts a smile on all the die-hards faces, but casual audiences won't understand. And Snyder goes so far as to include them in a final embrace before they're incinerated. But who are they? Why should someone who's never read the GN care? And that's what bothered me most about the movie: the conclusion. While I think Snyder found a "Squid" more palatable and more easy to explain to today's audiences, I think he lessened the finale's impact so much more by never giving us a chance to care about anyone outside of the costumed heroes. Sure, we can infer that the world was a messed up place, but we never see this; we only hear Manhattan and others lament this fact throughout. And if we can't see how bad things have gotten, we can't understand why Adrian would do what he did. And since we never spend time with anyone not wearing a mask or costume, it doesn't hit us just how many, or what quality of lives, were lost in the explosion. It was here I missed the GN's subplots (the psychiatrist's home life, Nite Owl I's death, etc.) the most, because Snyder never painted a full enough picture of humans' growing depravity. Add that to the likely distance regular audiences felt when watching a 1980s America that looked nothing like anything they could ever imagine, and it's logical to think people will struggle to identify with, let alone understand, the plights they see on-screen.
And don't forget the awkward and out-of-place music cues, and an opening scene with far too much slow/fast/medium-motion for my liking, and you start to see the film's problems. And I really think Veidt and Silk Spectre II were miscast. Questionable acting aside, Matthew Goode was far too slight to portray Veidt. Veidt's muscular, commanding presence in the GN reinforced his character, someone smarter than the rest of us, and so sure of himself, physically and intellectually, to have the confidence to execute his plan. Goode was never commanded fear or respect, and so I never fully believe that he had the wherewithal to carry out his scheme.
Writing this, I think I understand why I just didn't care when The New Frontiersman's chubby employee sees Rorschach's journal: because the film never creates a full sense of the trouble world existing outside of its costumed heroes. Okay, crowds riot, and flower-toting hippies get massacred, but who are these people? Why should it matter to me that that journal could tip the balance in a world already on the edge of self-destruction if I never truly see this world in action? Audiences are at the point where they expect their superheroes to have some inner torment. The talent comes in showing them how the normal people share in this same torment; how they lash out, often at one another, when deprived of the cathartic release of a mask and costume, and an alter ego giving you the freedom to take out your inner conflicts on criminals representative of the very depravity you're trying to reject (or embrace) in yourself.
On the bright side, at least the film looked good. I just think more attention went into set design and art direction than character and narrative. Just like Benjamin Button.
When I sat down for The Return of the King, there were two scenes I had memorized, word for word: The Ride of the Rohirrim and Eowyn’s defeat of the Nazgoul. Find the former passage here: http://www.pelennorfields.com/matt/about-pelennor-fields/.
The first execution was heart swelling, sans a few words paced differently in my mind. The latter was more cheese than riveting thanks to the bland unremarkable that was Miranda Otto. Nevertheless, I loved the film adaptation of LOTR. Jackson captured the spirit of the book. Because as much as LOTR is an entire world, 1000 + pages and appendices rife with allegories, mythology, exhaustive new languages, it contains a classic story translatable to the screen.
The difference with Watchmen, in my opinion and as I believe you state Jim, is that its genius rests in its method of storytelling. Strip away the host of intricacies, and you strip away the spirit of Watchmen, the list of details that quicken the heart…
Maybe, it's like if someone made a film adaptation of The Wasteland. How would that work? It is its structure, its metaphors, its discombobulated narratives that whisper of indistinct truths.
I suppose it’s difficult to show humility when Hollywood is dangling such a behemoth in front of you. Still, Watchmen can’t exist as a cliffnotes version; it belies the entire entity that is Watchmen. I’m not sure if a risky reinvention would have worked either. At least the movie will push people to read the graphic novel, now heartily stocked in the B&N closest to you, and realize what they’ve been missing...
Hey Jim sorry I couldn't stay for the after viewing discussion I had something I had to make it to. I'm not going to go into too deep of an analysis or critique because that's not my thing, but I will say that stylistically the movie was pretty on point. Except for maybe going a little crazy with CG, even when it wasn't necessary, Zach Snyder is a master at visual and stylistic filmmaking (look at 300), especially considering his background in commercials. If you also take into account that his first film 300, was purely visual and the story and acting kind of sucked (my opinion), this is a big step up for him as a filmmaker, and it's only his second film. I thought the movie was pretty narratively and visually engaging. The story stayed pretty true to the original novel which is a good thing (why mess with success) but I probably didn't read into it or break it down as much as you or some other people did. So basically I liked it a lot, thought it looked awesome and was an experience.
Just for the record, it's his third film -- he did the fast-walking remake of Dawn of the Dead first.
And to Janet -- I actually used the Cliff Notes analogy immediately after the film as well. And Tiffany, to her great credit as an individual, said "What, I like reading the Cliff Notes."
I, on the other hand, have always thought cliff notes were literary blaspheme made for econ majors and jock monkeys...not that there isn't skill to a tight summary, but you best be reading both.
I agree about the opening, Clarence -- it's probably my favorite part -- but maybe it's no coincidence that it's the only bit that's not a recreation from the book.
I also agree with you that not having the contrast with "regular" people really lessens the emotional impact of the conclusion. I understand the time limitations, but I think you're right about the result.
And finally, I think Goode is just awful You have to believe he could kill the Comedian. Instead, it seemed like Snyder forgot that these guys aren't suppose to have super powers. He has them throwing each other around like they've all been bitten by radioactive spiders. And then Nite-Owl seems to actually get the better of him in the final punch down. Absurd. He never seemed like the smartest man on the planet, just the prissiest.
So I'm not sure my somewhat negative assessment is going to change -- I think Clarence's points are all accurate --- but maybe I'll be more forgiving of the film's weaknesses once I see it's strengths. I'm suspecting that most of those involve Dr. Manhattan, Mars and the Glass score, or Rorschach in prison -- but I'm keeping an open mind.
I think that's what the CNN reviewer got perfectly right: "Visionary" implies a unique vision, and not a book on film like this version. No Country for Old Men's a great example of sticking so closely to the book, but still making stylistic and cinematic choices that make for a better film, while still respecting and creating the tone and intention the author intended. Had Snyder done that better, there'd be no gripes about missing squids or black freighters.
Post a Comment