Who watches the Watchmen?
Many, many people. That is who. But, for those unitiated to the story, they need to realize: this film is vulgar, it is violent, and it portrays heroes whose personal qualities make them to be more like villians than heroes. Indeed the main villain of the story is one of the Watchmen; his desire is to save the world by destroying much of it, causing the rest of the world to come together to rebuild and deal with a common threat (of course, one could say he is a deconstructed form of what we find in Western ideology, exaggerated for the sake of making the viewer question their own ethical code). And the Comedian, the one who is killed at the beginning of the movie? He’s a murderer, a rapist, someone who thinks life itself is a joke, and yet, because he has worked for the government, he was given the freedom to live out his darkest desires and use them for the sake of the “greater good.” Other heroes have their own foibles; perhaps the central, and most important of them, Doctor Manhattan, is becoming godlike, and he is used to show how remote a God must be to humanity, and to ask why any God would care for us.
As one can see, much of the story is morally questionable. This is not to say there are not elements of true beauty and grace within it; there are, but they are hidden in a residue of filth that it would be difficult for one to find it without aid. And the trouble is, for the general audience, I wonder how much they would be able to wrestle with the issues and find that good; I expect most would take out of it the bad.
Despite being a “superhero” film, it’s not for kids. Rape is treated here, and is a significant thread throughout the film. How it deals with rape is complex, and disturbing (although, it also offers a place where one could, if one worked with the story, find a point of grace, which is why what comes out of it is seen by Doctor Manhattan to be a miracle). But I think worst of all about the film is its image of humanity, which is dark and sinister; the image of God within is nearly wiped out and lost, turning everyone into animals of one sort or another. In one important scene, when a crowd of protesters is taken out by a couple of the Watchmen, the Comedian looks to the carnage and cheers it on, saying, “The American Dream.” While trying to offer a critical idea of what is wrong with America, the movie fails, because, as with the story itself, it has difficulties in showing us what is good within it as well. Not very uplifting, is it?
How do I rate this film? I will have to do so with many different categories.
Visual imagery, I would give it 8/1o (though, one has to beware, Doctor Manhattan is nude for much of the film).
Direction, I would give it 7/10. It’s not bad, not great. A bit slow at times, but acceptable.
Morality: 4/10. Very poor morality, though a couple places leave room for possibilities, and as such, not entirely without merit. But again, it would require someone to think things out and reject the message of the film itself.
Complexity: 8/10. It’s a complex story, and that makes it much more difficult for someone to deal with the issues within.
Story: 6/10 While complex, there is something lacking in the telling of the plot. I found much of the dialogue wooden, and, much left out.
Overall, I could not say I would recommend this film, but I do think, if one is interested in it, and one knows full well what they are getting themselves into, it is worth seeing once.
I hope to see it this weekend. I read the graphic novel a few months ago and thought it was marvelous.
Kyle
It’s definately post-modern, but I find it to be post-modern in the nihilistic sense; it’s grim and has no sense of the heart of humanity. I think that’s one of the problems with the film. It lacks real heart. It doesn’t understand it. It doesn’t understand what it is for humanity, and therefore, why God would have it either. And this makes the characters themselves seem to be without soul, and people you have a difficult time appreciating. Nonetheless, in that sense, it is marvelous. While I don’t think it intends to do so, it shows us more of the inner core of a certain way of thinking than it does with humanity itself. It’s why I do think one can struggle with it and rise above the message, and see through it, deconstruct the deconstruction; but I don’t think most will, and I think it will reinforce many bad ideas in the viewing audience, making it more difficult for them to reason out why life itself is worth anything.
Just as a comparison: both Slumdog and Watchmen show the dark side of humanity; but Slumgdog really shows us the miracle within it (not someone winning the grand prize on a quiz show, but that humanity can and does remain, even when confronted with the worst humanity can offer). Both are quite post-modern, but one, I think, really hits the right center, while the other just wallows in its own meaninglessness without going further.
Henry-
Have you seen “A Beautiful Life”?
No, I’ve not, Feddie. Tell me about it.
Whoops! I got the name wrong. It’s “Life is Beautiful,” and it’s a wonderful film about seeing the beauty of life in even the most horrible circumstances imaginable. Here’s the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_vita_%C3%A8_bella
Your previous comment made me think of it. If you haven’t LIB, you really should.
Ok, no, I’ve not seen it (I know of it); but I thought you meant one of the other films with the name you originally gave. Some movies I wait for when I catch them on tv (and this one is one I’ve not caught). Some genres I tend to see more at the theatre (and Watchmen is one such genre; of course, not all such films, but it had enough of a resume to go see it when I did).
Fwiw, I saw Watchmen this weekend and loathed it. As Henry says, the morality is terrible and the storytelling is painfully slow. The first 1.5 hours (which, by the way, is only half of the movie) is basically exposition. There are some interesting moral questions raised by the movie, but the treatment of these issues is superficial and ambiguous. I don’t consider myself particularly prudish, but there was far too much sex for my taste. I was going to do a review as a post, but I didn’t like enough of it to write a balanced take.
John Henry
I had never read the graphic novel, but I knew the general plot outline (from discussions before the movie came out). As one who appreciates post-modernism and deconstruction, if done well, I thought there was potential with the film. There were so many areas where, if the story was not so superficial, it could have ended up being good. I won’t judge the graphic novel based upon the movie (every film based upon his work, like this, he has rejected putting his name to it, like V for Vendetta), although I think I would find the same problems in his story as well (it’s clear he has an issue with sexuality). Still, there is something within this, a diamond in the rough, which could have been good, which is what makes it difficult to entirely dismiss the story, even if, as a whole, it is, as we both see it, something which is quite difficult to write a balanced review.
Reading the graphic novel now….
I thought the film proved a faithful but somewhat less dramatic adaptation. The story depicts the absurdity of trying to save the world by means of killing. The question of whether there is a better hope for mankind’s salvation resides outside the vision of the Watchmen, who seem blind to common experiences such as loving self-sacrifice. Even Dr. Manhattan, who rejects the idea that he is like God, doesn’t save the world through use of his superhuman powers: his “saving” act is murdering a fellow watchman.
The theme of Watchmen isn’t the absurdity of salvation itself, but the absurdity of trying to “save” human nature – or at least establish lasting peace – by killing human beings.
There were so many areas where, if the story was not so superficial, it could have ended up being good. I won’t judge the graphic novel based upon the movie
I agree. There were some interesting themes, and I wouldn’t necessarily write off the book. But I would recommend against seeing the movie (unless you’ve read the book and really liked it).
Ideally, movies are nuanced and enjoyable even when they are morally problematic. Watchmen was neither subtle, nor particularly enjoyable; and, as you said, the traces of truth/beauty/goodness were few and far between. The vision of humanity was unrelentingly bleak, which I think undermined the dramatic force of the narrative. Is humanity, as portrayed in the movie, even worth saving? I saw it with four friends; we all disliked it and one, a priest, walked out midway through. In fairness, none of us had read the book. But it wasn’t a great movie.
Kyle
The issue in the movie is far more than that one incident (as I pointed out in my review, it is deconstructing the modern Western idea, such as in the use of Nagasaki); however, it doesn’t really raise what the real solution is. Instead, it points to the absurdity of even trying; that there is nothing to save — life is a joke. The image of God in humanity, the good within humanity, is rejected. And that makes it a dangerous story. I can accept the deconstruction of the war imperative (as you would guess), but, I also think exaggeration without showing the good only leads to nihilism. Which is, to me, something seen throughout the film. Manhattan was used to deconstruct religion, and God, making God best used as a monster to control humanity, since God would be so different from us, he couldn’t love us…
I didn’t see the character Dr. Manhattan as a statement about God per se, but a depiction of what becoming godlike might have on a human person. He loses touch with humanity, his own and those he loved. He might serve as an example of what man’s attempt to be like God might look like, but I didn’t see him as making some statement about, say, the God of Abraham.
While I agree that the vision of Watchmen is almost entirely devoid of light and goodness – unrelentingly bleak in the words of John Henry – I didn’t get the sense that this vision is being proposed as an accurate statement about reality. My small encounters with people in the movie theater show me otherwise. Rather, I think the story is purposefully inaccurate. It doesn’t present the light, but not presenting something isn’t the same as rejecting or denying something. The ways of the Watchmen may not work, but that doesn’t mean there are not alternatives worth trying. The story seems meant to subvert the superhero mythology, not everything. More precisely, what is reveals as absurd is Adrien’s statement, “We can save this world.”
I recently finished a book called An End to Evil by David Frum and Richard Perle. They conclude the book with the following: “A world at peace; a world governed by law; a world in which all peoples are free to find their own destinies: That dream has not yet come true, it will not come true soon, but if it ever does come true, it will be brought into being by American armed might and defended by American might, too. America’s vocation is not an imperial vocation. Our vocation is to support justice with power. It is a vocation that has earned us terrible enemies. It is a vocation that has made us, at our best moments, the hope of the world.”
That’s the kind of nonsense that Watchmen characterizes as absurd.
I finished the graphic novel tonight. I wasn’t all that excited about the film, but after reading the graphic novel, I’ll definitely see it. My reading of the story is like Kyle’s – it’s a statement about the soteriological claims of governments (and hero figures of all kinds) and the false peace that comes from the practice of redemptive violence and scapegoating.
Michael
I agree that is one of the themes, but as it is done in the movie, I feel the value is lost, because the deconstruction is done without reconstruction (so to speak). The deconstruction of the hero was done far better by Frank Herbert (and was done keeping the humanity intact). What got to me was not the rejection of heroes as such, or the soteriological claims of government (as most know, both are issues I would agree with), but the imbalance in which I see it done in the film, which included no real redeeming feature in humanity itself. The ideology of the Comedian becomes the ideology of the film, making the deconstruction half-done, for if you are going to show why heroes are not soteriological, your ultimate position should not be that of one of those heroes you are using to show this. Again, my criticism is with the movie on this part (having not read the graphic novel, and knowing Moore himself was critical of the movie).
I see. Well, I look forward to seeing the film and making comparisons.
I did see a short scene in the graphic novel — not sure if it made it into the movie — involving the psychiatrist/analyst who was interviewing Rorschach in an earlier scene… The analyst’s wife ends up leaving him because he is putting himself too much into his job, starting to care too much about about his patients. She confronts him later saying that she will come back to him if he transfers to a different type of patient, because she “can’t live with someone who feels driven to help hopeless cases.” She insists that she’s “not going to share [her] life with them.” As they’re talking, he notices another couple on the street beating each other up and he moves to help them. His wife says “don’t you dare get involved,” testing him. He replies, “I have to. In a world like this, I mean, it’s all we can do, try to help each other. It’s all that means anything. I’m sorry. It’s the world. I can’t run from it.”
I thought that scene, in the graphic novel at least, was part of the “reconstruction” of heroism and of humanity.
That scene wasn’t in the movie; it would have helped if it had been.