|
By now I know you're all probably sick of discussing the Watchmen movie. I can't remember the last time I've talked about a new movie in such depth to so many different people (not even Dark Knight.) But indulge me with a quick rundown of what I've learned this past week. And enjoy a quick sketch I threw together of the Question and Rorschach. Although please don't judge me against artists like Gibson Quarter! I was just testing out a new pen and thought I'd have some fun. Spoilers to follow, obvs. 
Violence -- The movie really hit home for me the difference between comic book violence and cinematic violence. I found the movie's violence overly-gruesome and difficult to watch. Similarly, I found the slo-mo fight scenes tedious. (Although that's a separate issue.) When I mentioned this to people, they replied, "Well, the book is pretty violent, too." Which is true, up to a point. But I felt Zack Synder really went overboard with the violence, and not in a good way. I presume they changed Rorschach's execution of the child killer because they didn't want audiences to think they were ripping off Saw or Mad Max. But the machete whacking was NOT an improvement. And there's a big difference in seeing several panels of Dan and Laurie beating muggers up on the page, compared to enduring them crack limbs on the big screen. But I think the violence itself was not be the problem, but Synder's direction. For me, the violence didn't have the visceral kick I wanted it to have. Tarantino can make onscreen violence look fun and exhilerating. But Synder just made it uncomfortable and crass.
Sex -- People either loved or hated the sex scene. One friend said he burst out laughing. I too thought it was cheesy, but thought that was the point...
Wickedness -- I enjoyed hearing the opinions of my friends who saw the movie without reading the book first. I was anxious to hear how they processed the story. At first, I felt the movie did a pretty good job of condensing the source material. That is, until I got home and realized that I had been mentally filling in the blanks. Upon reflection, there were a lot of aspects which would have confused a novice viewer, such as what the hell was up with Rorschach's mask, and the out-of-the-blue appearance of Bubastis. Likewise, substantial chunks of Rorschach and Laurie's backstory were missing, which would have rounded them out substantially beyond what we saw on the screen. And while at first I didn't mind the absence of the incidental characters like the newspaper vendor, I realized they were the ones who really drove home the tragedy of the end in the book. So although I thought it was a nice touch in the movie to see the newspaper vendor and the kid embrace during the explosion, it unfortunately meant next to nothing to someone who hadn't read the book.
Suffering -- A common complaint I heard from my female friends was their disappointment with the depiction of women in the film. To be fair, this is something I wrestled with when I first read the book. But, like a lot of things in Watchmen, you gain a new perspective on the characters of Laurie and Sally every time you read it. Yes, Moore was writing a satire and deconstruction of superhero archetypes, and the Silk Spectres were his take on how women are depicted in comic books. But that doesn't lessen the ickiness factor. So I knew that this part of the film was destined to disappoint unless there was some substantial re-writing or some tremendous casting. I felt both of the Silk Spectres were miscast. I found Marlie Ackerman teeth-grindingly bad near the beginning of the film, although she did grow on me somewhat. But Carla Gugino was the biggest disappointment of the movie. Sally Jupiter should be a big, scenery-chewing role along the lines of Norma Desmond or Lucille Bluth, who only softens for us near the end of the film. But Gugino was far too sedated for me.
WTF? -- Finally, this movie made me finally appreciate that there are some things that will work in comics that won't easily translate to the screen. For instance, giant telepathic vagina-squids. It's stupid, folks. But that's the entire point. It's such a great WTF comic book scenario in the tradition of Starro, the Ultra-Humanite, and every issue of Superman's Girlfriend Lois Lane ever written. Comic books are all about coming up with the next big WTF moment, and then running with it. ("Hey, Jack, what about a guy who eats planets?" "Well, Stan, I'll see you and raise you with a naked silver guy on a cosmic surfboard!") Watchmen the novel continually challenges its audience not only in these ways, but also in its inversion of traditional comic book narrative through chapters like "Watchmaker" and "Fearful Symmetry." But even though it is now packaged as a "graphic novel," I don't think Moore or Gibbons ever intended to have someone read it beginning to end in one sitting. As a result, trying to cram all the crazy ideas of Watchmen into a film, even if it is nearly three hours, is mentally exhausting. The numbers aren't in yet, but I expect there will be a severe box-office drop-off for the film compared to last week. It's just too much to have the average layman to comprehend, let alone appreciate. True, some people like to be challenged by wild ideas like omniscient, teleporting, naked blue men. We call those people sci-fi and comic book fans.
That said, I'm happy the movie got made. True, it's far from perfect and there were scenes that I truly hated. But there were some parts that really moved me, such as Dr. Manhattan's story and the brilliant opening credits. And if the movie leads more people to seek out the source material and other comic books like it, all the better.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
