New York, Fall 1985. The Doomsday Clock, a representation of potential nuclear strikes between the U.S. and Russia sits at five minutes to midnight. Costumed vigilantes, once belles of the ball, celebrities now forgotten, have been outlawed by sitting 5th term president, Richard Nixon. (who, even in an alternate time line does not escape the mantle "Tricky Dick") The only thing that stands against certain annihilation is Dr. Manhattan, a government sponsored super-being who can manipulate his environment and everything in it on a quantum level and serves as the ultimate deterrent. This is the backdrop for Watchmen, written by David Hayter (X-Men) and Alex Tse, directed by Zack Snyder. (300)
Adapted from a graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, my immediate instinct is to draw comparisons between the film and the original effort. Upon seeing it however, the film really stands on its own. The book is something that should be read in it's own right, but isn't a prerequisite. It's on Time's 100 Best Novels and has been discussed by far more intellectual people than myself. The minutia of comparing panel to frame does not hold much appeal to me, nor I expect the reader.
Zack Snyder has created a visually stunning experience, truly a technical masterpiece. The meticulously crafted details of each scene is sure to drive moviegoers toward multiple viewings. Depth of scene is easily one of the film's strong suits and set design in this film is often incredible. CGI is utilized throughout the film, most notably in the case of Dr. Manhattan, with his glowing blue skin and faux nakedness. It never overtakes the film however. This could be due to the fact that the film clocks in at over two and a half hours, but I'll choose to believe Snyder was trying to maintain as much gritty realism as possible.
Realism is the key element that will most likely divide audiences on Watchmen. The addition of real world celebrities, talk show hosts, and politicians contribute to a sense of familiarity and serve to flesh out the time period in this alternate history tale. The cold war setting was something fresh in the American mindset before this new "cold" war on terror. But the outlandish costumes, at times noirish dialogue, and over the top action sequences do serve to remind us that we're watching superheroes. Luckily, The Dark Knight has acclimated us to the idea, or at the very least, possibility of heroes and villains. The latest incarnations of Batman ask us the question, "How would Batman exist outside of fiction?," instead of, "Can't Batman ice skate to defeat Mr. Freeze?" While this isn't a Dark Knight review, it deserves mention for tearing down the preconceived notions of a comic book movie. So too, does Watchmen. Unsurprisingly, its novel counterpart leapt forward the comic book medium when it was released.
Both films are character dramas involving superheroes and there the similarities end. While Knight is focused on telling the story of human nature through one man (Joker), Watchmen instead tells it through many men. (and women) Performances range from excellent to average, with Jackie Earle Haley standing out as the lovable ultra-conservative sociopath, Rorschach. Certain to be overlooked is Patrick Wilson, who delivers an excellent performance as the impotent and endearing Nite Owl (II). Malin Akerman exudes sexiness as the Silk Spectre (II) and delivers a convincing performance, despite her volcanic hotness. Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian is having a blast with his performance, notable since he almost passed on the movie. Thin is Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan, playing the film's foil to its human nature plot, as a being all but devoid of humanity. Crudup is an excellent actor in his own right, it's just that an entity entirely based on logic, math, structure, and other scientific concepts isn't that interesting to watch. Even Spock got pissed from time to time.
Watchmen leaves it up to us to decide whether it's comedy wrapped in a tragedy or a tragedy wrapped in a comedy. I don't mean to go all fortune cookie, but I think this is one of the film's best features. We're meant to weigh the positive benefits of technology with the creation and possible use of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, out of despair and suffering, heroes rise. There's an endless cycle explored, and a multitude of examples such as these. The film's ensemble cast really serves to highlight its main character, the aforementioned human nature. We see human nature twisted through the eyes of a dictatorial president, celebrated through the love that Nite Owl has for Silk Spectre, and completely misunderstood through the eyes of Dr. Manhattan. It's fitting that the film's symbol is that of a smiley face with blood on it, only reinforcing the idea that comedy and tragedy must coexist.
It all works wonderfully, if you buy it. Make no mistake, there is some responsibility on the part of the viewer. I don't mean to suggest that an imperative exists to love this movie at all costs, but instead offer that Watchmen is an experience, not just a film, and requires an active participant. To an extent, all films require some suspension of disbelief. Watchmen requires a bit more. The film is at times both hyper-realistic and completely fantastical, often in the same scene. The political and sociological nature of the film broadly interpreted makes fits in with our world view, but at the ground level is (mostly) told through the story of costumed heroes. None of this lessens the work. It's exceptional, a must experience. It's also enjoyable and at times humorous, but chooses to focus more on exploiting our own human nature and voyeuristic tendencies, told almost like a game of chess, where each piece reveals a different aspect of the game. To some cold, to others masterful, but always interesting.
"Who Watches The Watchmen?," is the tag line of the film and question painted throughout. It originates in Latin, but its modern usage is more about instilling a guardian class with the will to do right without the desire for power, exhibited in our division of government. In Watchmen, I think it means something entirely different to the flawed characters we're presented with, and by extension, the audience. It's more about watching themselves from themselves. In other words, will we be our own undoing? This makes Watchmen as poignant now as it ever was, and hopefully, barring any cataclysmic events, will be for years to come. Enjoy the film.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
An open letter to Alan Moore, creator of Watchmen
With the upcoming release of Watchmen in theaters, Alan Moore was interviewed by Adam Rogers of Wired magazine about everything but the film it seems. Moore is no stranger to controversy regarding his work being brought to the silver screen and on every single translation has demanded his credit be removed. For those not in the know, that's From Hell, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V for Vendetta, and the current Watchmen. One saw his influence in The Dark Knight as well, with Christopher Nolan giving Heath Ledger a copy of The Killing Joke, also written by Moore, as a reference for his character.
Considered one of the more influential writers in the medium, he's credited by many comic enthusiasts as having altered the medium in a very fundamental way with the introduction of more serious tones into his books. Watchmen, in particular, exemplifies this. It should also be noted that he was not the only one, and almost simultaneously, Frank Miller was using similar themes in books like The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One. It was the maturation of the medium, a new dawn for adult-oriented themes to be explored, and the birth of the modern age of comics.
At this point, you're probably wondering about the title of the blog, and possibly a little bored. In order to understand the context of the forthcoming letter, it's necessary to provide a bit of a prelude. With that out of the way, I'll also offer some links:
Alan Moore Wired Interview (I'll mostly be referring to the first page)
Alan Moore Wikipedia Entry
An Interview From Youtube
These links serve to flesh out the character of Alan Moore himself, a eccentric legend who has devolved into a semi-coherent, more gandalfian than Gandalf shadow, full of anti-american sentiment and bitterness toward the medium that fostered his popularity.
Dear Alan,
I've followed and admired your work for years, first discovering you through early Swamp Thing issues and later, more prominently, with Watchmen, and The Killing Joke. If I were pushed to produce a top ten of all things comic-dom, you'd undoubtedly make more than one appearance.
Now go fuck yourself. Seriously, what happened to you? Have you so completely lost touch with your audience that you now choose to condescend them?
I can appreciate the desire to not see your work sullied by a weak film adaptation. I can even respect the anger that you direct at Hollywood and the individuals you feel have wronged you there. What I cannot ignore is the bitterness you show for your audience, your supporters, especially when you've made several anti-american statements. I'm referring of course to your comment on the V for Vendetta film, "Those words, 'fascism' and 'anarchy,' occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country."
Aside from being more of a stab at your audience than the filmakers, this statement is completely untrue. America has a long history of political and social satire, more recently to the point of exhaustion. While often characterized as a listless and lazy lot, one would hope I'd not have to explain the dangers of stereotyping to an accomplished writer such as yourself.
Sadly, this isn't the only example. More recently, in your interview for Wired, purportedly for the Watchmen film, but in reality a venue to shill your latest work, you're quoted as characterizing the archetype of the superhero as "...I wonder if the root of the emergence of the superhero in American culture might have something to do with a kind of an ingrained American reluctance to engage in confrontation without massive tactical superiority."
Even more incredulous is your previous statement: "It has occurred to me that the superhero really only originates in America. That seems to be the only country that has produced this phenomenon."
I confess I don't even know how to address the idea of Americans needing superheroes as some sort of massive inferiority complex. It's too Freudian to even bother with, and negated by the fact that your premise is entirely fallacious. Instead, I'll tackle that.
The idea that the superhero is an American creation is such a failure of the imagination, I'm still wondering if you were misquoted. Since our first ancestor was painted slaying a woolly mammoth, the superhero was born. The Greeks had Jason, Achilles, and Hercules to name a few. The English, Beowulf. And most overlooked as such, The Jews (and later a large percentage of the world) had Jesus.
Not to mention, in your more recent work, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, you use literary characters that not only draw direct correlation to modern superheroes, but can be characterized as such themselves. The Invisible Man, Dr. Jeckyll/Hyde, Mina Harker, Dracula's "Bride" all ring true with the modern superhero.
More important than your inability to have any sense of history for a medium you helped mature (other than a very narrow history of the content of your own works), I can no longer abide your rabid sentiments towards your fans. Would it surprise you to learn that a large percentage, if not a majority of your work is purchased by Americans? I'm not sure how alienating your audience is any form of reprisal to the difficulties you had with U.S. publishers.
As for the Watchmen movie, I find it unfortunate that you choose not only to not participate, but to disavow. I've read your recent work, and while entertaining, your greatest work is behind you. I would think any chance to spur an entire new generation into reading this opus 23 years later would be worth jumping at. You clearly state in the article that you don't feel the film can ruin the original content, and with that, I agree. So, why then, cast such a pall over the whole affair? Do you plan to relinquish any profits received from sales brought on by the movie? In a declining comics market, I think not.
You were once something, and though now you are not nothing, you are certainly something else entirely. It's clear from the interview that you appreciate the work you did on Watchmen, just not so clear that you want others to. A rebellious attitude in your youth is in its way noble, but in your mid 50s, with former co-creators puzzled, and your threats to remove your name from all work you don't own, you grow tiresome.
So seriously, go fuck yourself. But only after you read this.
Sincerely,
Greg
Considered one of the more influential writers in the medium, he's credited by many comic enthusiasts as having altered the medium in a very fundamental way with the introduction of more serious tones into his books. Watchmen, in particular, exemplifies this. It should also be noted that he was not the only one, and almost simultaneously, Frank Miller was using similar themes in books like The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One. It was the maturation of the medium, a new dawn for adult-oriented themes to be explored, and the birth of the modern age of comics.
At this point, you're probably wondering about the title of the blog, and possibly a little bored. In order to understand the context of the forthcoming letter, it's necessary to provide a bit of a prelude. With that out of the way, I'll also offer some links:
Alan Moore Wired Interview (I'll mostly be referring to the first page)
Alan Moore Wikipedia Entry
An Interview From Youtube
These links serve to flesh out the character of Alan Moore himself, a eccentric legend who has devolved into a semi-coherent, more gandalfian than Gandalf shadow, full of anti-american sentiment and bitterness toward the medium that fostered his popularity.
Dear Alan,
I've followed and admired your work for years, first discovering you through early Swamp Thing issues and later, more prominently, with Watchmen, and The Killing Joke. If I were pushed to produce a top ten of all things comic-dom, you'd undoubtedly make more than one appearance.
Now go fuck yourself. Seriously, what happened to you? Have you so completely lost touch with your audience that you now choose to condescend them?
I can appreciate the desire to not see your work sullied by a weak film adaptation. I can even respect the anger that you direct at Hollywood and the individuals you feel have wronged you there. What I cannot ignore is the bitterness you show for your audience, your supporters, especially when you've made several anti-american statements. I'm referring of course to your comment on the V for Vendetta film, "Those words, 'fascism' and 'anarchy,' occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country."
Aside from being more of a stab at your audience than the filmakers, this statement is completely untrue. America has a long history of political and social satire, more recently to the point of exhaustion. While often characterized as a listless and lazy lot, one would hope I'd not have to explain the dangers of stereotyping to an accomplished writer such as yourself.
Sadly, this isn't the only example. More recently, in your interview for Wired, purportedly for the Watchmen film, but in reality a venue to shill your latest work, you're quoted as characterizing the archetype of the superhero as "...I wonder if the root of the emergence of the superhero in American culture might have something to do with a kind of an ingrained American reluctance to engage in confrontation without massive tactical superiority."
Even more incredulous is your previous statement: "It has occurred to me that the superhero really only originates in America. That seems to be the only country that has produced this phenomenon."
I confess I don't even know how to address the idea of Americans needing superheroes as some sort of massive inferiority complex. It's too Freudian to even bother with, and negated by the fact that your premise is entirely fallacious. Instead, I'll tackle that.
The idea that the superhero is an American creation is such a failure of the imagination, I'm still wondering if you were misquoted. Since our first ancestor was painted slaying a woolly mammoth, the superhero was born. The Greeks had Jason, Achilles, and Hercules to name a few. The English, Beowulf. And most overlooked as such, The Jews (and later a large percentage of the world) had Jesus.
Not to mention, in your more recent work, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, you use literary characters that not only draw direct correlation to modern superheroes, but can be characterized as such themselves. The Invisible Man, Dr. Jeckyll/Hyde, Mina Harker, Dracula's "Bride" all ring true with the modern superhero.
More important than your inability to have any sense of history for a medium you helped mature (other than a very narrow history of the content of your own works), I can no longer abide your rabid sentiments towards your fans. Would it surprise you to learn that a large percentage, if not a majority of your work is purchased by Americans? I'm not sure how alienating your audience is any form of reprisal to the difficulties you had with U.S. publishers.
As for the Watchmen movie, I find it unfortunate that you choose not only to not participate, but to disavow. I've read your recent work, and while entertaining, your greatest work is behind you. I would think any chance to spur an entire new generation into reading this opus 23 years later would be worth jumping at. You clearly state in the article that you don't feel the film can ruin the original content, and with that, I agree. So, why then, cast such a pall over the whole affair? Do you plan to relinquish any profits received from sales brought on by the movie? In a declining comics market, I think not.
You were once something, and though now you are not nothing, you are certainly something else entirely. It's clear from the interview that you appreciate the work you did on Watchmen, just not so clear that you want others to. A rebellious attitude in your youth is in its way noble, but in your mid 50s, with former co-creators puzzled, and your threats to remove your name from all work you don't own, you grow tiresome.
So seriously, go fuck yourself. But only after you read this.
Sincerely,
Greg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
