I deliberated on whether to include a section on superhero movie reviews, and decided that it would be appropriate to post them, as long as the reviews were labeled as such. What follows is a review (or, rather, a rant) I wrote shortly after seeing the film adaptation of “Watchmen”. Be warned, it is mostly negative.
————————
Sometimes its the subtle things that separate a mediocre movie from an outstanding work of film. Sometimes its the huge, blatant errors that do so. And sometimes, as with Watchmen, both are culprit.
I should probably confess before I delve into the meat of this review that I am two things first and foremost — a student of film and a lover of comics (and, of course, I love Alan Moore’s post-modernist deconstruction of the superhero genre, “Watchmen”). I’m telling you this up front, so don’t comment saying “You’re just comparing it to the comic”. I sure am, that’s why I told you this up front. Adaptations are always going to be compared to their source material — and rightly so! The source is provides the basic structure of the story, including plot, characters, and themes. Also, if you’ve never read the comic, then I’d expect you’d like it more than me, or if you read the comic after you’ll probably be grateful that the film showed you the way to the comic. But the thing is, aside from “Watchmen” being a disappointing adaptation, I didn’t really think it was much good as a film, either. Anyway, I digress.
First things first, did you notice Alan Moore’s name in the credits? I’d venture a guess and say ‘no’, unless you’re imagining things. There’s a reason for that — Alan Moore, a British comic book writer who insisted on having his name removed from the film completely and refused to accept any money he might have made off the film’s success, vehemently holds the conviction that “Watchmen” is unfilmable. As he infamously told Terry Gilliam when Gilliam (at the time, attached to direct a “Watchmen” film) asked Moore how he would adapt “Watchmen” for the screen: ”Well actually, Terry, if anybody asked me, I would have said, ‘I wouldn’t.” (http://blog.newsarama.com/2008/07/17/creator-qa-alan-moore-3/) So that’s the author of “Watchmen’s” opinion. Admittedly, he is a bit eccentric, and seems to hate Hollywood on a whole, so it makes sense he would not be too enthused when they get their hands on his work. But let’s move on, shall we? If you’d like to read more on what Alan Moore (author of such comics as “V For Vendetta”, “From Hell”, and “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” — all vastly different from their respective film adaptations) thinks of the films made from his movies, google and wikipedia are your friends.
One of the more admirable aspects of the “Watchmen” film is how faithful the director Zack Snyder tried to keep the film to its source material. Almost every scene or line was lifted straight from the comic itself. However, it does this its own detriment. Part of the magic of “Watchmen” was how it was a commentary on superhero comics of the time: it aimed to further the genre as a whole (even if the comics industry itself missed the point entirely and took a few steps back in their attempt to move forward,). The superhero genre is at a different point now than it was when “Watchmen” came out in the 80s, and it is only natural that the aim of a “Watchmen” film should be modified accordingly. Instead, it seeks to recreate a change that already took place, and in doing so missed the point itself.
After “Watchmen” came out, the major publishers began to make their comics full of ‘grim and gritty’ violence in response to “Watchmen’s” popularity. Yet, “Watchmen” was never about the ‘grim and gritty’ or the blood. The film, too, seemed to make this mistake. The bloodiness of the story has been amped up to unbearable levels, as seems to be Zack Snyder’s modus operandi (first in 300, now in this). The story is already a dark one due to its subject material, the constant barrage of limb loss and blood sprays only serve to obscure the true themes and merit of the story in moments of “Dude, wasn’t that sweet” that seemed to me more typical of ‘B Grade’ action films. Honestly, have audiences become so numb that a slit throat is no longer horrifying, that we must see a man have his arms sawed off instead? Or the subtle horror of seeing a single panel of a man handcuffed in a burning building looking at the saw left him to him as his only way out, transformed into the more blatant horror of someone cleaving his head in half multiple times.
For every one person that dies in the comic, ten must die in the film, in a very stylized manner — and it usually makes little to no sense. What sense does it make for a would-be assassin to try and kill everyone around his target before killing his target, when he knows the man he’s been hired to kill is one of the most powerful and agile men in the world? Yeah, maybe the guy was a horrible shot, or maybe the creative staff just wanted to make up for the fact that “Watchmen” is not a superheroic action film by adding in gratuitous sequences of people dying in a myriad of different ways. Now I love crazy testosterone-ridden sequences as much as the next guy, but not in a film that is attempting to be intellectually stimulating. Yeah, I was pumped up after seeing “300″ for the first time, but it was never trying to be something more than a film in which a bunch of guys fight a bunch of other guys. “300″ was a faithful adaptation of a xenophobic, mediocre comic that had no real thematic significance or merit. And because of this, when audiences were given a xenophobic, mediocre movie that had no real thematic significance or merit, it was ok (well, except for the xenophobia). But you get the point. Don’t masquerade a film you’re marketing as “The Most Celebrated Graphic Novel Of All Time” as an action film full of “Did you see that!” moments. By shifting to a greater focus on these stylized fight sequences, you allow people to all but ignore the underlying messages that made “Watchmen” unique in the first place. The comic is one in a million. The movie is one of a million.
Two victims of this bloody intent are Nite Owl and Silk Spectre. Although both characters see Rorschach as dangerously unhinged and his use of lethal force as unacceptable, they seem to have no problem killing a gang of punks who assault them in an alley in a variety of painful ways. Does anyone else see something out of character in this? Especially later in the film when Silk Spectre is arguing with superpowered Dr. Manhatten that human life does have value.
(SPOILERS FOLLOW)
Ozymandias, too, is undermined as a character. The whole point of blurring the line between hero and villain is just that — blurring the line. But Ozymandias speaks his lines with such a tone of mania that there is never any doubt that he is a bad guy. Part of the horror of Ozymandias is that he’s supposed to be this calm, connected guy. Smartest guy on the planet, sure, but he’s likable and has depth — which makes when he murders thousands of people all the more horrifying. The film, however, plays him as pompous right from the get-go, in what I suppose is an attempt to distance him emotionally from the viewer, as if the executives and creative team wanted to establish some kind of moral judgment while also retaining the moral ambiguity ofthe story.
Since I’ve already labeled this section as Spoilery, I’ll move onto my next subject — the ending. As you may have gathered, the ending of the comic is different from that of the movie. And you know what? That works perfectly. I felt that the film’s ending played out very well. And you know why? Because the creative team realized that Ozymandias staging an invasion of Earth by giant squid monsters in order to get the world to band together works fine in a comic… but does not work on film. My gripe here is that they didn’t do this with the rest of the film. The ending was a bright little point of self-realization on the film’s part, as it seeks to find its own identity. “V For Vendetta”, as vastly different as it was from the comic it was based on, worked for me. Because it wasn’t trying to be exactly the comic, but on screen. It took its time and found its own identity as a film, and once it found that identity it worked out its own themes. Its an adaptation. “Watchmen” is never given the time or the space to find its own identity as a film, it tries to be a comic. Comics and movies are different media, and work accordingly.
(SPOILERS END)
Now, I’ve heard a lot of praise of “Watchmen” from those around me. I realize I’m being harsh because I’m comparing it to its vastly superior source material, but for me “Watchmen” is typical action fare, complete with subpar acting (with a few exceptions, like Rorschach). And the film spent so much time attempting to cram as much as it could from the comic into the film, I found myself wondering if audiences who hadn’t read the comic would even care about what happened to any of these characters, with maybe the exception of Rorschach, just because everything thinks he’s “cool”. It includes so many little hints at the comic that are all but irrelevant to the screen adaptation of the story — such when Comedian says to Hooded Justice: “I know what gets you hot.” Hooded Justice’s possible homosexuality is a point in the comic, but is only a throwaway line for fanboys in the film (Hooded Justice is in a total of one scene), most likely leaving the non-comic audience either scratching their heads or not caring at all. After viewing the film, I turned to my friend, who had never read the comic. He told me he’d liked the film, and I asked him if the film made him care about any of the characters. He said “Not really.”
So, I’ll just tell you this now — read the comic. It’s everything the movie tries to be, but ten times better. Why would I want to watch something that tries to be the exact same thing as the comic when I could just read the comic instead? If a film adaptation of any source material is going to be made, the first thing the creative should ask itself is “Are we trying to replicate exactly the source for the audience?” If the answer is ‘yes’, then just give up now. Find your film’s own identity and understand that each medium differs drastically from every other medium. Take this into account and then, maybe, watch the movie “Watchmen” as a cautionary tale of what to avoid.
Pingback: What “The Hunger Games” Tells Us About the Media Industry | Diniverse Major