Advertisement
Director Zack Snyder has succeeded in doing the impossible: he has adapted the “unfilmable” graphic novel, Watchmen, to the screen. While there’s no doubt that he has made the movie with surprisingly little deviation from the source material, that doesn’t mean he has made a good film. In many ways, Watchmen is a case study in the inherent differences between the comic page and the screen. Success on screen, even if the adaptation is faithful, is not guaranteed.
The story (in case you didn’t piece it together from the constant barrage of trailers and posters clogging the internet since last summer) revolves around a group of costumed super heroes whose fates intertwine with the events of the twentieth century. Set in an alternate 1985, the world is on the brink of nuclear holocaust. The action is set in motion by the murder of The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), a retired hero with dubious morals. The outlawed heroes fight to avert impending doom, and spur to action the only one among them with the power to single-handedly save the world, Dr. Manhattan. Played by a blue CGI mock-up of a naked, impossibly ripped Billy Crudup, Dr. Manhattan is the result of an experiment gone wrong. He is the only hero with supernatural powers, which are inconceivably vast, and has become the lynchpin in the United States’ defense strategy against the Soviets. His powers have gradually separated him from the plight of humanity, illustrated by his failing relationship with Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman), a sexy, second-generation heroine.
There’s a concern that the web of back-stories and sizable cast of characters could render the film inaccessible to those who haven’t read the graphic novel. On the contrary, I think the Watchmen virgins are at an advantage going into the film. Snyder covers a dizzying amount of material, staying true to the core of the original story even while making some significant cuts. For Watchmen fans, I think the problem is not the cuts, but rather the treatment of some of the material that’s left in. Hollywood seems to assume that comic books are ready-made storyboards, in need only of several million dollars of CGI to come to life. In many ways, Watchmen is a collection of examples which show why the formula is much more complicated than that.
The opening credits stride through several decades of alternate history, showing how the Watchmen, and their predecessors the Minutemen, fit into American history. Rather than produce old-looking photos, or depict Dr. Manhattan shaking JFK’s hand in the grainy film of the day, a la Forrest Gump, Snyder sets up nearly still live action scenes. The camera pulls out of these mostly frozen moments, giving a nostalgic feeling of living within the photos. It’s a nice effect, but it’s also extremely fake looking. There’s something very odd about seeing actors you know were told to hold very still, like they’re faking slow motion. At first this really turned me off, but then I began to like it. As the montage went on, it began to feel self-consciously fake, as if these scenes are not depictions of the actual events, but rather glorified memories, existing only in the minds of aging super heroes.
After the credits, the film continues to make drastic jumps in tone and pace. Some of these work quite well, while others do not. About half way into the film, after being pulled in repeatedly by stunning sequences and shunted back out by unsuccessful ones, I found a pattern: the movie works really well when it doesn’t try to be an actual movie. Many passages, the majority of the film even, are a delight to watch. But when the film needs to slow down and just let a scene play, a scene which needs no visual flourishes but is still important, it seems bored with itself. A perfect example is The Comedian’s burial. Rather than inner-cut wide shots of somber figures gathered around the grave with contemplative close-ups, Snyder instead decides to use movie magic to make the camera fly from a tight shot of a stone angel statue back, back, flying over the mourners, cutting through the rain, until the camera itself passes through an impossibly small hole in a wrought-iron sign that reads “Cemetery.” Scenes like this made me wish Snyder could have somehow kept the entire film in music video mode, where it really sings.
For every dramatic visual improvement the film offers, there’s a lack-luster chunk of dialog that sounds as though the actors are reading the comic aloud. There’s plenty of voiceover, the filmic version of comics’ ubiquitous narration boxes, with Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), a grizzled anti-hero with a simmering contempt for the city he’s trying to save, each narrating portions of the film. Alan Moore, who wrote the graphic novel but has distanced himself from the film, penned passages that are now canonical in the graphic novel world. These passages are adhered to where ever possible, which works in certain scenes, but in others the translation to screen feels awkward. Some of Rorschach’s ponderings, which come off as masterpieces of noir prose in the book, feel hokey here. While Dr. Manhattan’s voiceover, with an epic calmness, makes his scenes some of the strongest in the film, due in no small part to Crudup’s stellar voice work.
Plenty of scenes are given the justice they deserve, but others, particularly near the beginning, feel like the abridged version. In particular, a dialog between The Comedian and Dr. Manhattan in a Vietnam bar, a key foreshadowing of the central conflict the blue demi-god faces, plays like a sped-up dress rehearsal. Ozymandias, a hero who has cashed in on his fame and turned his attention toward global energy reform, underscores the futility of placing humanity’s hope in Dr. Manhattan. If the full volley of Soviet nukes come, he explains, “even Dr. Manhattan can’t be everywhere at once.” Watchmen, as thorough an adaptation as it is, suffers from the same fate. It can’t be everywhere at once. In some ways, it’s too complete a retelling of the graphic novel, as it sets itself up for easy panel-to-scene comparison, making the film’s inadequacies that much easier to measure.
It’s clear that Snyder has found a kindred spirit in Dr. Manhattan. As Silk Spectre II distances herself from her big, blue, supernatural lover, she says a line that could just as easily be meant for the director himself, “You know how everything fits together, except people.”
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
Alan Moore did not distance himself from the film. Alan Moore has cut off his relationship with DC Comics and Warner Brothers and removed his name from anything that they do outside of reproductions of his work that they own. It isn’t quite the same thing. You also don’t mention that Dave Gibbons, the artist and 50% creator of the title, worked on production of the movie and is extremely pleased with it.
I’d also like to add that the meta story within the Watchmen graphic novel, Tales of the Black Freighter, has been completely gutted from the movie. Zack Snyder opted to include it on its own DVD which is cool I guess… but it does seem like a planned money grab for Alan Moore fans. Still, I will be picking it up at the end of March. Zack has said that the DVD über-extreme-better-than-evar cut of the movie will include a lot of this content placed back into the movie.
I just bought the motion graphic novel that just was released on DVD yesterday and it does an amazing job of intelligently bringing the graphic novel to life. I just hope the movie does the same for me.
I didn’t have time in this review to elaborate on how Moore and Gibbons have reacted to the production of the film. I wrote a piece about Gibbons commenting on the film and Moore’s attitude about it back in July, during a press conference at Comic Con. You can read that here:
http://blog.spout.com/2008/07/26/comic-con-2008-watchmen-artist-dave-gibbons-on-writer-alan-moore/
Cool, thanks Kevin! I will check it out.
I just read your Dave Gibbons post. I find it very interesting how Alan won’t have anything to do with Hollywood. I have heard from colleagues of his like Warren Ellis when I saw him at Wizard World last year, that Alan, while an incredibly decent and wise person, has a tendency to make strange decisions and then never, ever change his mind. He sold the rights to League of Extraordinary Gentlemen before he even wrote the graphic novel and then acted stunned when it didn’t do his work justice. Confounding.
To learn more about Alan, here is an incredible BBC doc about him from the 80s. It is from a show called England Thier England. It is in 5 parts, all are on YouTube. I think it helps to unwind some of the man. You also get to hear him do a reading of Swamp Thing that is just amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucba9NtF3cE&feature=related
I have to agree with Victor Sirotek, your comment about Alan Moore immediately struck me as misleading because the context implies that he has distanced himself specifically from this film and not a Watchmen movie in general. I don’t think that requires any additional background for accuracy, rather a change from “this film” to “any Watchmen film”. As a standalone piece I shouldn’t have to follow another link from last July for the context.
Pretty much in total agreement with you Kevin. I found the film frustrating. Not only does it truncate several key characters, sub plots and motivations (especially the mishandled Ozymandias in the movie, not to mention poor casting selection of Mathew Goode for the role) but Snyder makes the mistake modernizing and extending the fight scenes. They were cool to look at, but completely out of the reality the the comic sets up. This is not the Matrix, Rorshach shouldn’t be doing kung fu kicks and punching through walls. not a terrible movie, some of it was entertaining, I especially loved Manhattan’s exile to Mars which was handled perfectly save for the reveal of Silk Spectre II’s father. All in all, Moore is right. He made the comic for THAT medium only, and while it was a valiant (and I’m sure profitable) effort by Snyder and co. I feel this story is perfect as is in print, comic book form.
If you don’t like the idea of Rorschach doing spin-kicks and fist-jabs and the Nite Owl being a badass with taser-gloves… OMG AVOID the Watchmen “prequel” games on PC and XBox Live. Holy crap. They reduce the characters to hollow shadows of themselves and drop them into a sub Streets of Rage brawler where they fight the same 5 curse word spouting escaped cons over and over and over. The End is Nigh indeed.
Alan Moore, although clearly a gifted artist is also undeniably a douchebag. To say that Moore wouldn’t get involved with “Snyder and co.” is clearly not an accurate depiction of the issue, as this movie has been under development without Moore or Snyder for quite some time now (10 to 20 years depending on your source). Moore refused to get involved with any Watchmen movie because of his disdain for hollywood. Plain and simple. While he could have involved himself in the creative process, trying to make certain that the movie stayed faithful to the spirit of his work, he chose in stead to devote his efforts to trying to prevent anyone from going to see the movie. I would be interested in reading a review, not so much a “this is how I would have made this movie.” In addition, you discussed that Goode was a poor casting choice, but I have read other reviews that said he did the best of anyone. I don’t know who to trust.
Just finished listening to the latest episode of Film Couch. Interesting issues raised. I agree the film is vignette-y. But sprawling and appropriate. It takes a talented director to make the tidy. I never felt the film was incoherent or messy.
I believe Matthew Goode was an appropriate casting choice. But Jackie Earle Haley and Jeffrey Dead Morgan were explosive. Malin Ackerman is probably the weakest link.
I vlogged about my “Watchmen Experience” on my You Tube channel. View the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZONyfR-FoI
I had tried to read watchmen back in the 90’s, and I’ll be honest I never really got into it… But when I heard that they were making a movie I read it, and reread it over the last few years and I can truly appreciate it.
The comic itself was a turning point, and it wasn’t that it was unique - but instead that it both critiqued and analysed everything that came before it.
- what would it actually take in a real world for someone to dress up in a costume. If they did wouldn’t that person literally become a sociopath?
- If someone was super powered - how would that impact their love-life and connections with humanity?
- How would the rest of humanity truly look at heroes?
- What is the connection between violence/power/control and sex?
- What is the role of homosexuality and fetishism in comics
- As we age and mature - how do we pass that on to our children and avoid damaging or controlling them?
- How do we deal with a world that is changing so fast, and that uses us up, spits us out and in the end will destroy us.. How do we find hope and joy in this world.. or even a sense of purpose or meaning?
- And despite however amazing the world is - we will always have a need and desire for escapism. You see this in the black freighter comic
- How politicians and people of power will always seek to control and win and dominate - they are reactionary and respond only to fear. Fear of losingtheir power.. fear.. fear.. and more fear. and in the end it wasn’t hope or a sense of higher purpose or ideals that saved us… but a very very delicate balance based on a greater fear.
This comic is praised so much, and over the past few weeks critics just say that it is a great comic universally - but never actually say why it is great. The comic is over 20 years old and the themes of Watchmen have been used and reused from Heroes, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and in some degree I will say that there is a part of me.. somewhere.. that says that this truly is the best Watchmen film that could possibly ever be made - but then there are also so many other things that absolutely made me shake my head. Now I will say that I feelSnyder did a decent job, and in a way I almost don’t feel that it is even fair to critique or judge this movie at all. This movie cannot be made. Its as if you tried to make Six Feet Under, The Wire or the Sopranos into a 2hr movie. Its too broad. its too epic.. and I know that they wanted to do it on HBO, but HBO said no. When the 3.5-4hr extended cut is released I will rewatch it, but even then I feel that you cant fix a bad recipe by making more of it.
Snyder seems to have largely traded the subtext, nuance and social exploration aspects of the work for an excuse to just make the most brutal and dark superhero movie he could. Thisisn’t a terrible film… its amazingly reverent and loyal to the book - but it does so in a way that has actually misrepresented the original.
Imagine if you went to a art gallery and it had posters and lithographs of Michelangelo, Degas and Picasso all over the walls… you may take 4-5 minutes and walk around and look at them, and comment that they are nice… However, you can never call them art.. they have no soul, they reflect the light completely differently and they will miss all of the texture, nuance and history that the original have that make it a true work of art. Most importantly, you should never miss the opportunity toactually see an original in Paris - and if you did, you would say, without any doubt - “Wow, I had no idea, it does look completely different”.. the complexity of the colors and the entire experience of seeing it would be completely different.
Snyder’s film in dozens of ways has actually misrepresented the classic, and had traded substance for style, and is in a way satiring itself - which unfortunately becomes confusing and sloppy.
For instance, just to take a single aspect - Violence in the original work was the exact opposite of every other comic book. Violence was a poor sad desperate result of fear or desperation. It was a central pillar of every character.
Ozymandias killed the comedian because he was afraid his plan would get out. He was the Smartest man in the world… but like a Pharaoh, or King.. he was completely alone. Like a machine.. a reflection of Dr Manhattan - he will do what is logical in order to save the world but his plan, and the violence was pure logic. It was not out of love or ethics… but just amathematical desperate decision.
Dr Manhattan was the mirror to Ozymandias in the fact that he was a central representation of love all thru the book. He truly loved Janey Slater. - but by being transformed into Dr Manhattan.. by actually being the representation of wish fulfillment an having all of the power in the world, he lost/chose to stop loving her. He abandoned his role as a husband and chose the love of another woman, Laurie - who ironically did the same to him with Dan. It is only on Mars when Dr Manhattan see’s the true complex beauty in Laurie that he begins to love again and becomes almost human again. Manhattan does several amazing things at the end of the book, all related to violence.
1. He chooses to not stop or condemn Veidt. He literally chooses pacifism. Just moments after reconnecting with his humanity, this is not his apathy or ambivalence - but he absolutely chooses to stop the violence, both on Earth and in Antartica.
2. He murders Rorschach, or more accurately commits Euthanasia to end his tragic life. He could have left him out in the snow, of course he would have died and would have no opportunity to tell anyone. But he kills him to ease his pain. Again mirroring the sacrifice of millions in NYC
3. He doesn’t attempt to reunite or reconcile with Laurie, he steps aside and literally disappears. He leaves to allow her and Dan to mature into fully functional adults. All 3 of them have now left their twisted violent/heroic ways and are now true mature adults and can have a relationship thatisn’t based on violence, S&M or approval of their mother/Hollis.
The comedian was a weak sociopath who used violencece to control, dominate others - to the point of it becoming his career - in the end he realizes what a joke he is. He is mirrored by Rorschach whom shows how a life or repeated violence is literally so tragic and meaningless that he literally begs to be killed at the end of the story. Both men tried to find meaning in their life by dominating violencethru violence - ultimately both men were destroyed by it.
Violence is literally a replacement for love or spiritual connection for both Nite Owl and the Silk Spectre. Hollis has actually moved on and found fulfillment in restoring old cars, mentoring Dan, and with the neighborhood kids. Hollis literally tells Dan to move on and he doesn’t need to keep coming around, and Dan blows him off… not to be polite… but because Dan NEEDS Hollis.. Dan is so empty and is missing something in his life. All of his money has been given to him, he has no one to share his life with - and is so desperate for companionship he has named his ship, and is in twisteddysfunctional relationships with both Rorschach and Sally (which eventually mature into more meaningful relationships).
I could write about this for hours but the violence in the book is a conscious tragic substitute for life and meaning. As the characters mature they either chose to change, or be destroyed by it. Unfortunately the movie doesn’t truly illustrate this arc, but instead it celebrates the violence, amps it up and doesn’t add to or make the connections.. but instead it blurs them and this can be said about several aspects of the film such as the music, sex, and dialogue.
Saw the movie on Friday and have to say Kev… I agree with you. Not on the same points. I thought the movie was gorgeous but entirely uneven and at times not very good. Often it was great but then would get sidelined. I am still trying to place what about it turned me off but it seemed like the longer it went on, the less I was enjoying myself.
For me, I knew it wasn’t good when I began contemplating whether I even liked the graphic novel… not a good sign.
I think Rorschach was fantastic, I loved the sets, I loved the opening… but it was so choppy and vignettey without a really super-strong connection. Sure, the book is like that too… but the book works perfectly. I think for me, this is evidence that things cannot just hop mediums and NO graphic novels are not just ready-baked scripts and storyboards.
I absolutely agree with you Christopher! I ended up feeling after a lot of thinking that it really isn’t possible to make this into what it needs to be and that is kind of what I meant about the book not being a readymade script.
The Nolan Batman movies were awesome because they were completely in character and honest to what Batman is. Batman is a mythos. So you just have to make sure that the character you present to the audience IS Batman.
With the Watchmen, it is only what it is. It isn’t a mythos. It is a complete story and concept and it is a commentary on humanity, politics AND comics. You can’t make something “inspired” by Watchmen unless it isn’t Watchmen. At the same time you can’t really make Watchmen because it is a commentary as a comic about comics, making that into a movie really can’t possibly work.
So in that sense I think the movie proves it. It is entirely servicable. It looks great. It just doesn’t really work as it is supposed to as a movie in my opinion. I have heard from plenty of Watchmen fans that loved it. What I am really interested in is what normal everyday humans that don’t take super-humans as normal stuff would take this movie that is very much about adults in bondage gear growing old and complaining. How can you deconstruct something that they have no context for and then make them care?
i haven’t read the Watchmen comic series, but i can’t imagine them packing any more into one movie even if they wanted to, which is good for me, makes me feel like i got my money’s worth
I am a 69 year old Watchman virgin, who enjoys science fiction and movies and books that feature alternate realities. I went to see Watchman with only a vague idea of what it was about. I found it absolutely fabulous, exciting, well acted (accept Adrien mumbled) and philisophically challenging. I was sorry when it ended. Now, I will read the book.
Sorry, I meant Watchmen, not Watchman
The State House became increasingly mono-ethnic. ,