Monday, March 16, 2009
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A dozen thoughts on Zack Snyder's cinematic adaptation of Watchmen:
1. The opening sequence showcasing the murder of the Comedian was masterfully shot. Even if I found it hard to believe that one would be in much of a state to continue defending oneself after being slammed into a marble countertop so hard that said countertop breaks, Snyder won me over by including dozens of little references throughout the scene. Everything from the TV commercials to the art on the wall.
2. I could watch that opening credits sequence again and again and again. Part of the reason I love Watchmen is that in addition to being a great murder mystery, it's also an alternate history. Seeing little details like Andy Warhol's artistic take on the rise of the costumed hero or the Comedian hanging out on the grassy knoll...these things were not directly seen in the book, but they captured its essence perfectly. (Whether or not one appreciates the tragic cameo of Lee Iacocca is another question, but I was willing to accept his presence for a little while. ) There was a bit too much Richard Nixon for my taste throughout the remainder of the film, but this was mostly because I thought his impression was only fair and most of his scenes did little to substantively drive the plot.
3. Rorschach remains the star of the story retaining all the laconic wisecracks you loved without losing the worldweary and cynical delivery. While Jackie Haley may not earn an Academy Award for the role, I defy anyone else to emote so effectively through a computer generated mask covering the entirety of one's face.
4. At the same time, I'm not a huge fan of the way the script presented Rorschach's origin story. Part of this was a matter of pacing; I would have liked to have spread it out over several scenes with the pscyhologist, showing how their dynamic changed over time. More importantly, was the manner in which Snyder decided to amp up the violence in an origin that I had thought was already plenty brutal. Some have claimed that the specific changes (which I'll abstain from getting into here, both due to matters of taste and out of respect for those who haven't seen the film) were done due to the existence of more recent horror films, particularly the Saw franchise. While I respect that opinion, there is a rationale to the way Rorschach (or was it Kovacs at that point?) treats the guilty party in the Roche kidnapping. He wants this criminal to suffer. The changes cut that suffering short and make Rorschach's actions seem bound to his emotions rather than reflecting his own carefully thought out sense of "justice."
5. The same criticism--that a heroes in this story been amped up to become more violent and physical than their comic book counterparts--could be applied to almost all of the other characters in the story. This trend is perhaps most noticeable with Nite-Owl, who is supposed to be a technology-based hero who, while capable of holding his own in a fight, does not go out of his way to seek it. During the prison breakout scene in the comic, Nite-Owl goes out of his way to avoid violence. In the movie, it's an extended action montage, admittedly with some nice choreography.
6. There is perhaps one exception to this rule: Dr. Manhattan. I don't quite understand how Snyder managed this trick, but the good doctor somehow avoided falling too deeply into the Uncanny Valley. People unfamiliar with the comic were probably wondering why he had a circle on his head (it's a hydrogen atom) and may have missed that his progressive lack of clothing signifies his growing distance from mankind.
7. Still, even Manhattan has his shortcomings. In particular, his relationship with Laurie seemed far more awkward than it seemed in the comics. I particularly found their conversation on Mars, though visually breathtaking, to be far less effectively handled, in part because they had to cram into a much shorter timeframe and avoid the use of flashbacks. Instead, they granted Manhattan the ability to let people perceive time the way he does by touching them. Thus the revelations which emerged organically through the course of the original, are pounded in with a jackhammer here by the scriptwriters. I sympathize...this is a dense story and cuts need to be made...but I can imagine Alan Moore's frustration were he ever to see this film. The nuance is sorely lacking.
8. Which brings me to Ozymandias, a character whose actions in the movie are far less surprising than in the book, not because of their results, but because of the heavy-handed use of foreshadowing. Here's a tip for aspiring directors: If you don't want to reveal that someone has a devious plan, perhaps you should stop having them stare out ominously into the distance all the time. Also, the Germanic accent was a bit much.
9. And speaking of Ozymandias, if you're going to keep Bubastis in the film, it might be wise to at least mention her existence or explain who she is to people who have not read the graphic novel. Otherwise, people will see this genetically modified lynx-creature and get confused. (Or at least, such was the case with my girlfriend.)
10. One other thing my girlfriend noted is that this is a very depressing movie. There are very few people with whom the audience can feel much of a connection. I think part of this problem is pacing and part of it is with the denouement of each character's storylines. We don't have the conversation between Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan about how things never end or the revelation that Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre will be staying together and starting a new life. This is not meant to be a cheerful book, I'll grant that, but I can see how someone who has not read the book would feel that this was a completely grim tale filled with seemingly complex, but largely unremarkable personalities.
11. I will give this to the movie, however...it did open my eyes to something I missed in the book, even after years of reading and rereading it. I was unaware of the relationship between Ozymandias and Moloch, particularly with regard to how the latter was involved in setting up Rorschach. (Can anyone give me a page reference to confirm this?)
12. Finally, I'm not a huge fan of the ending. Not only is it less emotionally resonant due to the lack of time spent on secondary characters, but it relies upon a series of assumptions which are tenuous at best. (While avoiding spoilers, I will merely state that the deterrent in question is far less effective when linked to a specific national interest, no matter how tenuous that connection may be.)
In short, this was an interesting adaptation, and perhaps the best one could do given the length of a feature film. In my ideal world, I would have used the same budget to finance a 12 part miniseries, giving each issue the time and characterization it deserved, but I'm not a big shot director. But this is not a perfect world. Meanwhile, I encourage people to see the film, but only after reading the book first. Otherwise you'll hardly know what it is you're watching.
(0) comments
A dozen thoughts on Zack Snyder's cinematic adaptation of Watchmen:
1. The opening sequence showcasing the murder of the Comedian was masterfully shot. Even if I found it hard to believe that one would be in much of a state to continue defending oneself after being slammed into a marble countertop so hard that said countertop breaks, Snyder won me over by including dozens of little references throughout the scene. Everything from the TV commercials to the art on the wall.
2. I could watch that opening credits sequence again and again and again. Part of the reason I love Watchmen is that in addition to being a great murder mystery, it's also an alternate history. Seeing little details like Andy Warhol's artistic take on the rise of the costumed hero or the Comedian hanging out on the grassy knoll...these things were not directly seen in the book, but they captured its essence perfectly. (Whether or not one appreciates the tragic cameo of Lee Iacocca is another question, but I was willing to accept his presence for a little while. ) There was a bit too much Richard Nixon for my taste throughout the remainder of the film, but this was mostly because I thought his impression was only fair and most of his scenes did little to substantively drive the plot.
3. Rorschach remains the star of the story retaining all the laconic wisecracks you loved without losing the worldweary and cynical delivery. While Jackie Haley may not earn an Academy Award for the role, I defy anyone else to emote so effectively through a computer generated mask covering the entirety of one's face.
4. At the same time, I'm not a huge fan of the way the script presented Rorschach's origin story. Part of this was a matter of pacing; I would have liked to have spread it out over several scenes with the pscyhologist, showing how their dynamic changed over time. More importantly, was the manner in which Snyder decided to amp up the violence in an origin that I had thought was already plenty brutal. Some have claimed that the specific changes (which I'll abstain from getting into here, both due to matters of taste and out of respect for those who haven't seen the film) were done due to the existence of more recent horror films, particularly the Saw franchise. While I respect that opinion, there is a rationale to the way Rorschach (or was it Kovacs at that point?) treats the guilty party in the Roche kidnapping. He wants this criminal to suffer. The changes cut that suffering short and make Rorschach's actions seem bound to his emotions rather than reflecting his own carefully thought out sense of "justice."
5. The same criticism--that a heroes in this story been amped up to become more violent and physical than their comic book counterparts--could be applied to almost all of the other characters in the story. This trend is perhaps most noticeable with Nite-Owl, who is supposed to be a technology-based hero who, while capable of holding his own in a fight, does not go out of his way to seek it. During the prison breakout scene in the comic, Nite-Owl goes out of his way to avoid violence. In the movie, it's an extended action montage, admittedly with some nice choreography.
6. There is perhaps one exception to this rule: Dr. Manhattan. I don't quite understand how Snyder managed this trick, but the good doctor somehow avoided falling too deeply into the Uncanny Valley. People unfamiliar with the comic were probably wondering why he had a circle on his head (it's a hydrogen atom) and may have missed that his progressive lack of clothing signifies his growing distance from mankind.
7. Still, even Manhattan has his shortcomings. In particular, his relationship with Laurie seemed far more awkward than it seemed in the comics. I particularly found their conversation on Mars, though visually breathtaking, to be far less effectively handled, in part because they had to cram into a much shorter timeframe and avoid the use of flashbacks. Instead, they granted Manhattan the ability to let people perceive time the way he does by touching them. Thus the revelations which emerged organically through the course of the original, are pounded in with a jackhammer here by the scriptwriters. I sympathize...this is a dense story and cuts need to be made...but I can imagine Alan Moore's frustration were he ever to see this film. The nuance is sorely lacking.
8. Which brings me to Ozymandias, a character whose actions in the movie are far less surprising than in the book, not because of their results, but because of the heavy-handed use of foreshadowing. Here's a tip for aspiring directors: If you don't want to reveal that someone has a devious plan, perhaps you should stop having them stare out ominously into the distance all the time. Also, the Germanic accent was a bit much.
9. And speaking of Ozymandias, if you're going to keep Bubastis in the film, it might be wise to at least mention her existence or explain who she is to people who have not read the graphic novel. Otherwise, people will see this genetically modified lynx-creature and get confused. (Or at least, such was the case with my girlfriend.)
10. One other thing my girlfriend noted is that this is a very depressing movie. There are very few people with whom the audience can feel much of a connection. I think part of this problem is pacing and part of it is with the denouement of each character's storylines. We don't have the conversation between Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan about how things never end or the revelation that Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre will be staying together and starting a new life. This is not meant to be a cheerful book, I'll grant that, but I can see how someone who has not read the book would feel that this was a completely grim tale filled with seemingly complex, but largely unremarkable personalities.
11. I will give this to the movie, however...it did open my eyes to something I missed in the book, even after years of reading and rereading it. I was unaware of the relationship between Ozymandias and Moloch, particularly with regard to how the latter was involved in setting up Rorschach. (Can anyone give me a page reference to confirm this?)
12. Finally, I'm not a huge fan of the ending. Not only is it less emotionally resonant due to the lack of time spent on secondary characters, but it relies upon a series of assumptions which are tenuous at best. (While avoiding spoilers, I will merely state that the deterrent in question is far less effective when linked to a specific national interest, no matter how tenuous that connection may be.)
In short, this was an interesting adaptation, and perhaps the best one could do given the length of a feature film. In my ideal world, I would have used the same budget to finance a 12 part miniseries, giving each issue the time and characterization it deserved, but I'm not a big shot director. But this is not a perfect world. Meanwhile, I encourage people to see the film, but only after reading the book first. Otherwise you'll hardly know what it is you're watching.
