About three months ago during the previews of the much anticipated film The Dark Knight, Legendary Pictures gave movie goers a glimpse of the next highly anticipated comic book inspired film that was waiting in the wings. That film of course was The Watchmen. The stunning visual effects and haunting Billy Corgan vocals were enough to peak the interest of this comic book nerd. However, when I was finally able to see it, a litany of reactions resulted. The first thing I remember thinking after the opening scene was this not your ordinary Hollywood comic book movie. After further thought, I decided that it may or may not be successful for four reasons:
1. The movie stuck to the original story more than any movie of its kind in my experience.
I have seen just about every comic inspired movie that has been made in the last 5 years and none of them were able to escape the firm grip of Hollywood’s manipulative hand. I hate to say it but I now understand why big movie execs often opt to change a few things to make a film more palatable to main stream audiences. Although I don’t necessary think it makes them better, it does address the fact that Americans get bored or scared quite easily (more on this later). Is it because the current trend of media that passes for entertainment today has shortened our attention spans?
2. It was extremely wordy. I have never seen this much dialog in a comic inspired flick. It was as if I was really watching a live action graphic novel without the text bubbles. Please note that the book which inspired this film was the most celebrated of its kind for a reason. Its courageous handling of themes like the pathology of costumed heroes, their role in a modern society and the various ways in which governments would undoubtedly manipulate their power was ahead of it’s time when it was written 25 years ago. Therefore, in my view the dialog was necessary. In the view of the mainstream consumer however, I would venture to say it was just overkill. I could hear the moans and groans in the climax when the character Dr. Manhattan decided to explain why life really did matter and why he decided to be its salvation. In his soliloquy this character revealed in my opinion the raison d’être for the story as a whole. The unexpected ending then of course further asserts his point that life is most essential when it is seen for its uniqueness and aesthetic value. Dr. Manhattan points out that these values are profound because often they are produced from the harshest and most impossible circumstances. He later proves as all of the heroes do with their indiscriminant violence that any part of humanity outside of this paradigm is expendable. Kind of deep for a comic book movie…right?
3. The running theme of human nature and its discontents was extremely heavy for a mainstream film. This movie was chock full of harsh criticisms of American culture, especially the urban squalor that was often expressed by the film’s narrator Rorschach. Throughout the film, he vocalized his contempt for the city and it’s penchant for feeding upon itself. His example of inner dialog throughout the film which was first introduced in two other Legendary Pictures releases; 300 and Sin City was brilliantly executed because it translated the character’s mental state much like an actual comic book. However, judging from the reactions around me, this was just another annoyance.
4. It was dark...very dark. The Watchmen is not a movie for the optimist. This point in my opinion is what makes it truly revolutionary. What has made films such as Superman, Spiderman and the Fantastic Four so popular is like their predecessors they have always focused on some boogie man who is external to our collective consciousness. Older comics even went as far as depicting actual villains such as Hitler and the Nazi Party in their features. Although The Watchman also presents the Soviet Union as an external villain they are only a smokescreen. The true enemy presented in contrast to the old paradigm is the darkest part of the human psyche; the most fearful part of ourselves that wants to be kept safe from harm without being privy to all of the dirty details that go into keeping us that way. I wonder in this age of war and its atrocities if Americans are truly ready for this kind of entertainment.
Frankly, this was a movie that was just way too heavy for the layperson who only wants to be dazzled with loose story lines and gaudy special effects. Yet, I still have confidence in its intellect. I am not saying that the mainstream wouldn’t get it. I am simply saying that in these bleak times most people would rather stick with what is safe. The fluorescent lights of cell phones, idle chatter and incessant fidgeting of some of the watchers of these watchmen suggested that the mainstream’s attention span is too short at this juncture to observe the insights they have to offer. My hope is that many will be patient enough to see its message. If the fate of this movie is bleak however, it will not be because it sucked. It will only be because it was ahead of its time.
3 comments:
From a screenwriter's perspective, only a lazy or self-conscious screenwriter grabs completely from the source they are adapting without changing to reflect the medium. Having seen this movie too, I (the writer of all - fiction, screenwriting and playwrighting) saw many many many places where one could achieve the same intent that the graphic novel gave the literary world. I'm not saying it's easy. Nobody has succesfully adapted anything Ayn Rand has done (sorry Patricia Neal, I adored you in "Hud" but not so much with Ayn's faux words coming out of your mouth). However, it is very possible.
A movie is not a graphic novel. It's an entirely different artistic perspective of the same story so it should be able to stand on its own without falling back on what the graphic novel did. I wish I could say I think it was ahead of its time as I thought the graphics, much like the director's "300" did, were pretty great except there wasn't a lot of it to go around the wordy dialogue. I'm also thinking that some of the actors (aside Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach) were just not strong enough to carry the material. Case in point "The Matrix." I can imagine the director brothers (or even the black woman who has claim to have written it first) pitching this very deep intellectual experience about self sacrifice, stepping out on faith when there appears to be none, the return of a Messiah like figure, etc. While deep, the script is great because the movie was able to cross the divide of heady and not so heady alike while keeping the integrity of the story. There is a fine balance of deep thoughts and fantastic action. I think this is what many hoped "The Watchmen" would achieve however it feel flat with the idea that you must dialogue in order to convey. Film is simply the wrong medium to prove that theory. In fact, in my own opinion, they should've taken much longer to do the film as many great films have been passed around lots for decades before the made their debut. To simply release it in order to capitalize on Slurpie cups or action figures is not fair to the fans of the film. While reading this, I totally think your well placed confidence is more in the novel and not so much the movie that pales in comparison.
Oh man...you're deep thinking is contagious! Thanks, Merc. Jeez! j/k
I hear you on that. I think that from the very first time I saw the preview my hopes were high and when I saw it. The general tone made me change the way I viewed it. I removed the lens that i used to view the matrix and 300 and replaced it with my Hurly Hurly/Waking Life lens. The dialog and message became what mattered most. And these were the vehicles that I jumped on to take me through. I realize that the average movie goer doesn't want to work that hard and frankly, why should they? I'm still hopeful that those who see it will be patient enough to get the message no matter what medium they use.
Thanks to you to too Turk! Keep the comments coming!
oops. I meant Hurly Burly.
Post a Comment