WATCHMEN
Directed by Zack Snyder
Starring Malin Akerman, Bill Crudup, Matthew Goode, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Patrick Wilson, Carla Guigino
A bit of history first…
The journey to get writer
Alan Moore’s 1980s groundbreaker “Watchmen” to the big screen has been problematic. There were legalese, pitfalls, and, most notoriously, the author himself publicly denouncing any attempt to adapt his comic book mini-series. The book, which off and on has been the top selling graphic novel since its original printing, was deemed by frustrated and capable filmmakers as “unfilmable.” Now that I’ve seen the movie, I still conform to that logic. Yet “Watchmen,” as it exist in its celluloid form, has the makings of a cult classic.
After much trial and error, director Zack Snyder suited up for a task that was seemingly unfitting. Re-creating the painstakingly detailed “Watchmen” for, both, the popcorn and the Doritos crowd was a slippery-slope. His take was to do what he had done with “300” and what had become the fanboy mantra for years: “Just make the damn comic book.” Well, that is exactly what Snyder has done and the final product is 60% brill’ and 40% mechanized. Snyder has gone out his way to embrace Alan Moore’s writings, going as far as to keep the story centered during the Cold War, and (digitally) copying and pasting the images of the book’s artist
Dave Gibbons (who, stubbornly, Moore signed over all his rights to in lieu of the movie being made).
Unjustly, I’ll say that “Watchmen” is a murder mystery. No…wait. (I have to do it justice.) It’s also a murder mystery that takes place in an alternate 1980s --- It’s also a murder mystery that takes place in an alternate 1980s that focuses on the world’s reaction to the emerging presence of superheroes. (Hm, let me try that again) It’s also a murder mystery that takes place in an alternate 1980s that focuses on the world’s reaction to the emerging presence of superheroes that is intertwined heavily with sex, political commentary, and violence. It stands to reason that something had to give, and a lot did…but a lot didn’t. I’m taking the long way around to explain to you that “Watchmen,” as a film, is a strange purple-stripped animal. The argument that it couldn’t be made is truly understandable when you factor in the audience. There is no solid demographic for the bean-counters to cater this to. Even the comic fans that will plop down money for a ticket on opening weekend have a tendency to be fickle about beloved properties (if you recall, most fans didn’t gel to “
Spider-Man 3” or “
Superman Returns” but both those movies had significantly different reactions in box office dollars).
I’m sorry. You just want to know if it was any good. Well, yes it was. But a simple “yes” deserves to be challenged. Not because it’s not what Alan Moore wanted, not because fans will examine it in the same way they examined the book, but because it’s the comic film that we’ve always wanted. (Not necessarily the “Watchmen” film you always wanted --- I didn’t really want one to be honest), it exemplifies a comic book’s spirit, the way we the fans perceive them. A lot of this has to do with Snyder taking repeated handfuls out of the source material (though he sets the stage perfectly with a much needed opening credit sequence). Unlike “
300” or “
Sin City,” which are equally deliberate in their xeroxing of the comic book originals, “Watchmen” doesn’t exist in some photocopied gimmicky world. It, like most contemporary comics, exists in our world (granted 23 years back). And while I can’t give Snyder too much credit, because of how he safely adapts, I can credit him with providing the truest realization of that pulpy, Benday dot aesthetic. That unsaid thing (though I’m sure someone else can verbalize it better) that makes a comic a comic. This is what I think polarizes critics on the “Watchmen” movie. Comic books and film come from two decidedly different tones (especially in “Watchmen’s” case). Comics can imitate movies, but movies cannot imitate comic books. Their mannerisms are different. Story-wise they can come to the same conclusion but the journey they use to get there is not the same. Tonally, comics are not quite films and not quite novels; they are the bridge between the two realms.
With that understood, seeing “Watchmen” this weekend reminded me a lot of
Gus Van Sant’s 1990s remake of “Psycho.” Van Sant attempted to just duplicate shot for shot, word for word. The end result was never going to compare to the original, but it called to attention the nuances of Alfred Hitchcock’s masterpiece --- symbolism and subtleties that Hitch wanted for you to understand subconsciously or draw your own conclusions on. Hitchcock, like Alan Moore, was a stickler for detail. Hitchcock would cast actors based, not just on their performances, but their height. Unassuming psychopath, Norman Bates was shorter than the detective who tried to intimidate him. Visually, the shift in physical stature throws you off. Norman can’t be the knife-welding, cross-dressing title character…can he?
Van Sant, like Snyder, was under the impression that duplicating was the safest path to recreation, yet some of the content got lost in all the visualizations. At times, the effects, the dialogue, and the fights in “Watchmen” are sensationalistic when, given the characters familiarity with their chaotic world, it probably should feel practical. The flashbacks are too many, when in the confines of a comic book they feel quite natural, and the movie may come off misogynistic when the book’s female characters seemed intriguingly tormented. There is also the issue of the film’s grand finale. (**SPOILER**) The concept of a manufactured terrorist attack is more impressive in a forward-thinking comic book from 20+ years ago. Making yet another political film commentary on the heels of the Bush administration just seems tiresome. (**END SPOILER**)
Yeah, this is all fanboy hearsay seeing how the film is in theatres now, but I’m not so much concerned about how the fans will respond to it (in fact, I think they will really like it), I’m more concerned with how John Q. Public perceives it. The success of such a “weird” film like “Watchmen” will dictate how movie studios gamble on future comic book properties. Is the fanboy dollar enough to sustain this? Will we start to see more comic adaptations stay faithful in spite of their eccentricities? Will we see more comic films so uncompromising that they will be rightfully rated R (‘cause let’s face it, plenty of comic book content would give the MPAA a collective heart attack and spit directly in the face of political correctness)? Hopefully a film like this finds the box office and DVD strength to inspire the future of comic book adaptations. For a nerd like me, someone who revels in consistent entertainment, that’s an intriguing alternative. I can’t make Alan Moore support it, but as for you…well, to quote the gravely-voiced Rorschach, “I leave it entirely in your hands.”