A Gates of Vienna reader named Gryffilion sent us this movie review. We don’t get out to the movies very often, so posting a review of one counts as a vicarious thrill.
Who’s Watching “The Watchmen”? Why Watch “The Watchmen”?
by Gryffilion
This weekend, I had the misfortune to watch the film adaptation of the famous graphic novel The Watchmen. It was a movie I had every intention of enjoying — the trailers looked fantastic and everything pointed to it being a thrilling, if gruesome, ride through yet another untapped franchise. Sadly, it proved to be nothing more than a pretentiously dark and high-mindedly nihilistic piece that would be more forgettable if its images weren’t so pervasively disturbing.
This abominably empty film is set in an alternate 1985 during which Richard Nixon is serving his fifth term as president. How exactly he got Congress to repeal the 22nd Amendment is never explained, but don’t let’s fret our pretty little heads about that. American scientists and military leaders have put together a Doomsday Clock which counts down towards inevitable nuclear war with the Soviet Union. (The method by which the clock is turned towards Midnight — Mutually Assured Destruction — is another plot device left maddeningly unexplained.) Former superheroes, hamstrung by a bill (the Keane Act) which prohibits anonymous vigilantism, have turned reclusive, like the terminally nice Nite Owl/Daniel Dreiberg, or gone rogue, like the raspy, violent Rorschach/Walter Kovacs. All in all, it is — was — a nice set-up for a grimy crusade through a Gothamesque New York, with the idea of superheroes made obsolete providing the bittersweet leitmotif.
However, it all goes downhill pretty damned fast as we find out more about superheroes past and present:
– – – – – – – – –
The aging Comedian, thrown out of his apartment window in the first scene of the movie, is revealed to be a sexually and physically abusive, murderous scumbag who began working for right-wing nationalist third-world governments (the worst kind) after the Keane Act restricted his ability to beat up on hippie scum with impunity.
Rorschach was designed by his writers (both film and print) to be a “realistic” interpretation of what a Batman-type character might have turned out like — sociopathic, merciless, scornful of the very people he allegedly protects.
The Silk Spectre is an aging, promiscuous lush living in a retirement home, and her daughter, the Silk Spectre II, has basically no other purpose than to be The Girl Superhero. Jokes are made about her latex costume, but they would ring truer if said outfit were less ridiculously revealing in the most stereotypical way imaginable.
Dr. Manhattan has been stripped of his humanity by a scientific accident that left him gigantic, blue, and imbued with godlike powers; however, his bald pate and robotically tormented demeanor evoke images of a fretfully indecisive Charlie Brown.
Dan Dreiberg, as the Nite Owl, comes close to being a sympathetic character. Like the rest of the movie, however, he tries too hard and ultimately fails, often sounding less like a retired superhero struggling to find his way in a world that doesn’t want him and more like a parody of Jughead saying “Aw, jeepers!”
That’s the rub of this entire movie — the world doesn’t want its superheroes. And who would want this motley crew, anyway? All of them are fascistic embodiments of the ultimate abusive parents — brutalizing and beating the people who supposedly look to them for protection, and then bitterly lamenting the fact that hey aren’t loved and idolized. The graphic portrayals of violence reach several ham-fisted climaxes throughout the movie. One scene in an alleyway that results in Nite Owl and the Silk Spectre II maiming or killing an entire Asian street gang was probably intended to be balletic and artistic, but instead comes across as embarrassingly pornographic, and raises the question of whether violence is just another form of foreplay for these purported superheroes.
I could go on for hours about the ways in which this movie displays an apparent contempt for humanity. Out of all of them, however, I was the most disgusted by the lack of any characters with whom we can empathize. One of the “heroes” is murdered, quite violently and graphically (and in the least subtly ironic way possible), towards the close of the movie, and I found myself thinking that I cared as little about his death as I would about the death of pretty much any of the rest of the main cast. My sympathies, such as they were, lay with the Unnamed Public, on whom the unasked-for “protection” of these “heroes” was foisted the way similar “protection” was foisted on Chicago shopkeepers by the mob.
Attempts to make the surviving main characters more likeable and human are much too little and far too late, and come across as implausible and forced. The Silk Spectre, justifying her rape and impregnation by the misogynistically violent Comedian, says to her daughter and successor, “I can’t hate him for what he did because he gave me you.” In a movie as devoid of the milk of human kindness as this one, one can only assume that some hack assistant writer got his scripts mixed up. It’s less insulting to our intelligence as viewers than assuming the directors and producers thought we’d buy such a mawkish line after having pure, distilled nihilism shoved down our throats for almost three hours.
It is necessary to pause here and answer the unheard-yet-foreseen voices, crying out in indignation that while everything I’ve said is true, my arguments are rendered moot by the fact that the writers of both the graphic novel and the movie set out to do just what has been described. It’s just like every other apocalyptic story: create a terrifying future by turning an established norm (in this case, the superhero as a projected ideal of human virtue) on its head (the superhero as a fascist enforcer of Order at any cost). To which I would reply: if you set out to make a salad out of broken glass, garbage, and the tears of infants, you still have a depressing meal that no one wants to eat. Even if it’s the BEST salad made out of refuse and lachrymation, and moreover made in an ironic way.
Somewhere in the interminable middle of this movie, the Keane Act-flouting Rorschach is framed for murder and put in prison. He ends up foiling an attempt on his life by savagely beating and dumping hot grease all over an inmate who tries to stab him. As the guards drag him away, he yells “You all don’t understand! I’m not locked up in here with you! You’re locked up in here with me!”
Indeed.
And later on, when he is freed, the entire world is locked up with him. We are left to ponder the question: with heroes like these, who needs villains?
I would say, you are correct in the main thesis of the story. Whether or not you actually enjoy such a thing in any way, is entirely indicative of your own world view…trite as that might be to say. Though admittedly, that’s an over simplification of the range of feelings concerning the graphic novel and movie that is evoked in those that actually read/watch it. I’m not quite getting out what I want to say about it, though again, you are correct in assuming it’s very much a story of the rubbing of the face of humanity in its own fetid filth.
I would say also, unless my mind is going more than it likely is, you’ve gotten several of the details wrong. What you got wrong will not change your opinion in the slightest, and even if you did get it right, it would only rearrange the events of the story in a slight fashion for you. Though honestly some of your gaffes make me wonder if you were too busy banging your head on the wall over one scene to see the next…IE, you weren’t paying as close attention as you usually do about well…everything.
I won’t go line for line about it. Like I said, it wouldn’t change your view in the least. Still, I would recommend at least a run through the Graphic Novel to iron out all the little gaffs that not only you made, but over what you saw in the movie as compared to the original story. The theme is the same, but there were some interpretations and scenes that bespoke of the writer, director, and/or producer just not getting it completely either, heh.
Though I get the impression you probably don’t want to get the full effect of it.
“I would say also, unless my mind is going more than it likely is, you’ve gotten several of the details wrong. What you got wrong will not change your opinion in the slightest, and even if you did get it right, it would only rearrange the events of the story in a slight fashion for you. Though honestly some of your gaffes make me wonder if you were too busy banging your head on the wall over one scene to see the next.”
I’m not really sure how to parse that section. If I got what right, it would rearrange the events of the story?
Also, if you’re not going to “line-for-line” point out where I am wrong, and instead smugly point from the sidelines and simply tell me I’m wrong, then I’m going to have to invoke Solomon’s Law:
“Now, I know that some of you belong to the school of thought that says anything can be s*** and that’s okay if it’s their style, but that doesn’t fly. Sorry. I’m willing to bet that years of studying literature both modern and classical kinda trumps your inability to discern trash from gold. You could call me an amateur expert, I certainly don’t have a job that involves me having to analyse stories for a living, but I certainly know enough on the subject to use big words and fancy terms.
Also it’s funny how what I say is an opinion, but what you say to the contrary isn’t. That’s fantastic, that truly is.”
Well, now I get how you missed the details. I’ll try to be more plain.
I didn’t say you were wrong. In fact, I said you were RIGHT!
What I also said was that you didn’t pay enough attention to the details so us nitpickers wouldn’t get annoyed. I also know that even if I DID go point for point in the details you got wrong it wouldn’t change your view of the show, because your problem was with the main thesis (as I too understood it) and that you got right. All it would do would be to clarify details and certain events in the story would be shuffled around. A completely meaningless enterprise when you’ve already expressed such disdain at the main point.
IE, watching you get some of the minor stuff, so hard to miss…so easily seen, wrong, was immensely annoying to me, and I expressed that. I critique stories so I try to be exacting in the details (I am not always successful); seeing a review that doesn’t and doesn’t get it consistently makes me roll my eyes.
I also said you didn’t enjoy what you got right. It’s fine, you don’t have it in you to enjoy something that has this deeply a seated loathing…both of itself and of humanity.
I actually did, and I know what that says about my character.
I also know Solomon’s Law too…yeah, ain’t it a grand thing?
“Though honestly some of your gaffes make me wonder if you were too busy banging your head on the wall over one scene to see the next…”
I didn’t say you were wrong. In fact, I said you were RIGHT!
One of these two sentences must needs be wrong. I’ll leave it up to you to decide which one.
What I also said was that you didn’t pay enough attention to the details so us nitpickers wouldn’t get annoyed.
Buddy, if I went into every detail of why this movie was eight kinds of terrible, we’d be here for months and I’d have to teach you basic elocution along the way.
IE, watching you get some of the minor stuff, so hard to miss…so easily seen, wrong, was immensely annoying to me, and I expressed that.
It’s a real drag when us mere mortals can’t comprehend the combined majesty of Alan Moore and Zack Snyder, huh?
All it would do would be to clarify details and certain events in the story would be shuffled around. A completely meaningless enterprise when you’ve already expressed such disdain at the main point.
1) If it’s a meaningless enterprise, why are you here? Are you a troll, a masochist, or both?
2) What IS the main point? You have yet to elaborate on any of the details that my puny, ADD-ridden brain missed out on. Maybe I missed some character development when I left for three minutes to visit the restroom.
It’s fine, you don’t have it in you to enjoy something that has this deeply a seated loathing…both of itself and of humanity.
…
…..
I’m fairly certain I can sleep pretty well knowing that I didn’t enjoy something that hates both itself and humanity.
I’ll try to be more plain.
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.
“Though honestly some of your gaffes make me wonder if you were too busy banging your head on the wall over one scene to see the next…”
I didn’t say you were wrong. In fact, I said you were RIGHT!
One of these two sentences must needs be wrong. I’ll leave it up to you to decide which one.
These two sentences have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The first one is regarding your mistaking certain details, IE, I’m fairly certain in the movie it was Nixon’s THIRD term (I could be mistaken on that…I know, the math doesn’t quite add up), and that also the Comedian was mentioned to be employed by some United States entity to take OUT marxist dictatorships down in South America, not fighting for them.
Am I finally clear enough? These are not the only details you screwed up, but here’s a couple.
Now the second sentence deals with the main thesis of the story where you say…hang on, let me go check the original post right quick…oh here we go:
Sadly, it proved to be nothing more than a pretentiously dark and high-mindedly nihilistic piece that would be more forgettable if its images weren’t so pervasively disturbing.
Which my tenuous grasp of the English language leads me to conclude is similar to what I said:
I’m not quite getting out what I want to say about it, though again, you are correct in assuming it’s very much a story of the rubbing of the face of humanity in its own fetid filth.
I could be mistaken. Could be a case of “I don’t believe that word means what you think it means.” I’m open to just about any possibility.
Buddy, if I went into every detail of why this movie was eight kinds of terrible, we’d be here for months and I’d have to teach you basic elocution along the way.
Considering you and I are approaching the story from two fundamentally differing points of view, we’d be shooting at each other before too long before any such attempt from either side reached any sort of mutual understanding much less fruition. Also, bullets are expensive, and I have far more worthy targets in mind than someone who’s disagreeing with me over a %$%#ing movie.
It’s a real drag when us mere mortals can’t comprehend the combined majesty of Alan Moore and Zack Snyder, huh?
Again, it was the small stuff you missed…the little details you got wrong, a couple of which I mentioned. I’m getting very tired of repeating myself. You wouldn’t by any chance be from the AFC Message board would you? They did that a lot there too.
1) If it’s a meaningless enterprise, why are you here? Are you a troll, a masochist, or both?
Because I don’t want people to read this review and think one thing happened when really another did. I thought it was a good enough movie that it deserves better than some half *%$ed review from someone who couldn’t even be bothered to get minor details right even if he didn’t like the thing. I find this website informative. I don’t care that the review was negative, it was simply filled with minor inaccuracies that make me wonder how much attention you really paid it.
Though you paid it enough to get the main gist. At least you did that.
And yes, it takes a certain degree of masochism to do what I’m doing now. Mind you, I had enough back when I was younger to know when to quit.
2) What IS the main point? You have yet to elaborate on any of the details that my puny, ADD-ridden brain missed out on. Maybe I missed some character development when I left for three minutes to visit the restroom.
I’m hoping this post clears that up. If not, too bad for us both. I am, however, done here. I will not reply again. Feel free to have the final word if you wish.
I’m fairly certain I can sleep pretty well knowing that I didn’t enjoy something that hates both itself and humanity.
Fair enough.
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.
I can only make myself so clear, and I don’t do semaphore. As you note, I should have better things to do…and I do. So if this doesn’t do it, I’ll leave you to it and whatever you’ll make of it.
A Hollywood blockbuster fight on GoV. Now I’ve seen everything!
The words of Dr Manhattan toward the end of the film are the big clue as to what the writer was trying to achieve, behind all the violence and disgusting … disgust.
Distilled down, he was saying that the world is a terrible place but it’s also beautiful. It produces bin laden and hitler, but it also produces monet and the Eiffel tower.
The book was written as a critique of the callous lack of regard humans have for each other but it wasn’t necessarily aiming to be a nihilistic screed as some people assume on seeing it. Two lessons I took from it are, there is always hope, and there are no simple solutions.
Also, never trust vegetarians. 🙂
Oh, incidentally the doomsday clock does exist and has done for several decades. A year or so back they moved it to three minutes to midnight because of global warming.
IE, I’m fairly certain in the movie it was Nixon’s THIRD term (I could be mistaken on that…I know, the math doesn’t quite add up)…
If I’m wrong, so is everyone else.
Considering you and I are approaching the story from two fundamentally differing points of view, we’d be shooting at each other before too long before any such attempt from either side reached any sort of mutual understanding much less fruition. Also, bullets are expensive, and I have far more worthy targets in mind than someone who’s disagreeing with me over a %$%#ing movie.
The message that really sticks out of this paragraph is “All my debates end in gunfire.”
I’m getting very tired of repeating myself.
Not tired fast enough, sadly.
I don’t want people to read this review and think one thing happened when really another did. I thought it was a good enough movie that it deserves better than some half *%$ed review from someone who couldn’t even be bothered to get minor details right even if he didn’t like the thing.
Until you point out how my getting the two details you have bothered to mention in any way whatsoever detracts from the message of my review, then I am going to have to chalk this up as fanboy rage.
Distilled down, he was saying that the world is a terrible place but it’s also beautiful. It produces bin laden and hitler, but it also produces monet and the Eiffel tower.
Like I said, any attempts at redemption, kindness, or optimism seem forced, trite, and unbelievable. I’m supposed to believe that someone as powerful as Dr. Manhattan, who can see backwards and forwards in time, didn’t find something worth saving in humanity until he discovered that a brutal psychopath fathered his ex-girlfriend? Doesn’t fly. If the characters are worth caring about, they should have been so much earlier in the movie, not shoehorned into a “sympathetic” role thirty minutes before the credits roll.
The book was written as a critique of the callous lack of regard humans have for each other but it wasn’t necessarily aiming to be a nihilistic screed as some people assume on seeing it.
As Baron Bodissey once said to me, “Responding to a critical movie review with ‘The book was better’ isn’t applicable, because the film is an entity unto itself.” It stands or falls on its own merits. As yet, I’ve not read the book, so I am content to condemn the movie without having the slightest clue if it’s clue to the story or not.
Oh, incidentally the doomsday clock does exist and has done for several decades. A year or so back they moved it to three minutes to midnight because of global warming.
I’m willing to bet that the Doomsday Clock is moved forward based on predictions in a given days’ New York Times editorial section.
Or maybe The Nation.
A Hollywood blockbuster fight on GoV. Now I’ve seen everything!
A little flame war now and then
Is relished by the wisest men.
My 11:30 AM comment should read “TRUE to the story,” not “clue to the story.” This’ll teach me to respond without putting my glasses on first.
How anybody can get worked up about a spandex hero comic (“Graphic Novel” my gluteus), because some leftie author succeeded in including some 1st year undergrad philosophy and psychology, is a symptom of the decline of postmodern society, and western literatures death by a thousand cuts of neglect. In a sane world, noone of any intellect would have noticed, or cared particularly if they did notice.
That said, as hero films go it wasn’t bad. Buy popcorn and beer*, enjoy special effects. But I must be a bad person, cause I found myself emphasising with both Rorschah and the Comedian most of the time. I never really trusted vegetarians anyway.
*THIS IS LATVIA. The plush cinemas here sell beer at the snacks stand.
I haven’t read the book either. I was able to glean this from watching the movie in isolation though, having seen some of Alan Moore’s other work I can tell you that the expectations you apparently had on entering the cinema were probably unrealistic.
You’re looking for sympathetic characters where there were never meant to be any, and it’s as simple as that. The characters are not sympathetic but all too human in their motivations.
And if you can’t appreciate the realisation of something beautiful coming from something so dreadful then I feel sorry for you. The most beautiful rose has thorns and grew out of sh*t, and is all the more beautiful as a consequence. You’re apparently taking the stance that to appreciate something good resulting from a rape is the same as condoning that rape. It is not.
The world created in the movie is purposefully dystopic to an almost parodic degree; the worst aspects of the 1980s on overdrive. We’re taken through this world in order to learn about the very worst elements of the human condition because, in doing so, we learn that these very worst elements, far from detracting from the most beautiful creations of our race, enhance their beauty and remind us to appreciate them all the more.
A lot of people misunderstand the character of Rorschach, assuming that he’s either a sociopath using vigilantiism as an excuse to exercise his violent nature, or that he’s a good role model (yes, some people actually believe this…). Rorschach had good intentions. He was an idealist, in contrast to the Comedian’s nihilistic “realism” and Nightowl’s fearful “realism” that prevented him from acting out of fear. When you understand that his intentions were initially pure it becomes a lot easier to see him for what he is; a warning, that idealism without moral boundaries is inevitably destructive.
And so Ozymandias, who was as much an idealist as Rorschach, but who took a different path. Both of these characters commited horrendous crimes in the name of saving people and doing what they believed was the right thing. The Comedian boiled it down when he said “we’re saving them from themselves” as he shot someone in the back. He spoke this out of cynicism, but Ozymandias and Rorschach ended with the same belief through idealism. The ultimate act of Ozymandias was intended to bring about world peace. His idealism, an overwhelming force untempered by the morality of “normal people” which, given he was often called the smartest man on the planet, was just about everyone else, drove him to make that ultimate choice of sacrificing the few for the sake of the many. It was not a moral decision but it got the result he wanted, by the creation of an external threat sufficiently large enough to unite people.
Taken in this light the film is a warning that ideals must be tempered with reality, but that “reality” must also be guided by ideals. The Comedian and Dr Manhattan were both “realists” in different senses; The Comedian, as a nihilist, thought he understood the human condition and took the path that his sort of understanding often indicates, of debauchery and destruction because it’s “fun”, coupled with a belief that nothing matters because mankind is inherently amoral; whilst Dr Manhattan, living in his altered state, could no longer appreciate the human condition at all and was unmoved by it, believing mankind to be unworthy of his attention because it was self-destructive and inconsequential. He took this path until he had the revelation that the very best humanity produces is made precious precisely because it grew out of something so imperfect.
It’s obvious you’ve gone in expecting a super-hero romp. Given the advertising that’s not a surprise but you’ve allowed your disappointment to colour your judgement of the message behind all of the cartoonish violence and apparent lack of sympathetic characters. The characters Aren’t worth caring about, which I feel is by design.
It’s a very cynical film at first glance, presenting five very different, often mutually exclusive and quite extreme points of view, but a little thought about the constant trends in the movie reveals the lesson that the very best and the very worst of humanity is often contained in the same package. Rather than rejecting everything because of the very worst we should treasure it because of the very best.
Bust out the horn rimmed glasses and allergy medecine. This has officially reached Geekville. Whats next? Who’s smarter, Kirk or Picard? Sheesh.
Sorry, the media “analysis” portion of my undergrad degree tends to kick in when people start talking about films for more than a few lines.
Archonix
That comment wasnt directed at you. It was more towards those who get pissy over topics such as these. I am a film freak myself (mostly foreign and classic American). But I would find it hard to get really worked up about a bad review or interpretation of “The Searchers” or “A man escaped”. It just gets into catty geek territory and becomes a parody.
You’re looking for sympathetic characters where there were never meant to be any, and it’s as simple as that.
I will quote John Solomon until my voice gives out or people start to listen: if you set out to make a really big pile of manure, it’s still a pile of manure even if it’s the BEST pile of manure. It’s still a pile of manure even if people insist that it’s NOT. I can no more convince anyone that this movie is bad than I can convince someone who asserts that the sky is red that it is, in fact, blue. That, however, does not make me wrong about the color of the sky.
We are arguing from different standpoints. Your argument is basically that because Snyder et al set out to make a movie with no sympathetic characters, and indeed made a movie with no sympathetic characters, that they have succeeded at what they set out to do. I am arguing that even if they accomplished what they set out to do–which was to make a film with no sympathetic characters, and a multitude of other flaws as well–that the film has no real value because it has not met the standards of its genre.
I have grown tired of movies, or indeed any form of entertainment, where redemption is not present. Redemption, and redemptive acts, are prevalent within human culture. The moments in The Watchmen where characters were given a chance to redeem themselves do NOT ring with any sort of authenticity. No redemption action seems realistic in the universe that Snyder and Moore envisioned.
If the world worked the way it did in the film The Watchmen, there would be no superheroes. No one would see the point. People would hole up in their houses and hope the muggers, rapists, and looters didn’t show up tonight. The very concept for the movie is contradicted by the premise upon which it builds.
Archonix
That comment wasnt directed at you. It was more towards those who get pissy over topics such as these. I am a film freak myself (mostly foreign and classic American). But I would find it hard to get really worked up about a bad review or interpretation of “The Searchers” or “A man escaped”. It just gets into catty geek territory and becomes a parody.
I suppose after living with and among geeks all my life, I just haven’t noticed the fanboy froth around bared fangs anymore. It all seems normal to me.
*THIS IS LATVIA. The plush cinemas here sell beer at the snacks stand.
Then your country is awesome, and should feel good about itself. (Seriously.)
Haven’t seen the movie, haven’t read the comic book.
Haven’t liked the art in any of these indulgent exercises since Jim Steranko’s early classic “Chandler”.
When they do a “graphic novel” of the life of Hypatia of Alexandria (based on the Charles Kingley novel), maybe I’ll spring for the $10.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I suspect that the biggest problem here is that the film was wrongly advertised as just another super-hero romp, when it’s actually a set of fairly comprehensive character studies using the super hero genre as a frame. I don’t blame people for being disappointed in that light but I do think that it’s a little stubborn to hold onto the disappointment once the revelation of the film’s true intent is provided. Treating Watchmen like a super-hero film in the vein of Batman or Superman when it’s obviously not that sort of film is a bit like going into Rush Hour 2 and expecting a serious drama.
This is a constant problem in movies though. The execs seem averse to advertising films properly and like to highlight some minor element as a major piece of the film, or just make crap up out of whole cloth. I’ve lost count of the number of films I’ve been to that were advertised as something diametrically opposed to the reality of the piece.
Tuan Jim —
Please don’t paste long URLs into the comments; they make the post page too wide and mess up the appearance of the permalink page.
Use link tags; the instructions are at the top of the full post’s comment section.
———————-
Tuan Jim said…
They sell beer in nice theatres here in the US. Been in some in NC like that – and here in DC, the Landmark and AFI theatres let you drink as well.
“Watchmen” was interesting as a film. On the one hand, it’s a very faithful interpretation of the book – barring the fact that they tried to cram 12 issues into a single film – a lot of the “errata” and additional “contextual material” is being separately released on dvd Mar 22 (“The Black Freighter” and “Behind the Mask” – which were both meta-narratives included in the original comics but definitely better off outside the main story framework for movie purposes).
Like others have said, Watchmen is really a product of it’s time – as a comic book, it was the first real post-modern deconstruction of the superhero – you have the iconic Superman, Batman, Question characters – although obviously set outside the “official” DC universe.
Of course I didn’t first read it till a couple of years ago – long after many of the “pretenders” and further deconstructionist sorts of stories (mostly by Warren Ellis, Mike Millar). As another movie fan, I tend to compare it to watching many late 90’s early 00’s films before finally getting around to watching “Pulp Fiction” – and not being as impressed with some of the stylistic and storytelling techniques originally displayed there.
This is another review of Watchmen that I found fairly interesting:
link
Ebert has also done some interesting reviews and journal entries on it – worth reading.
link
Graham —
I haven’t seen this movie, so I have no opinion on it. However, I agree with Gryffilion’s general point that a work of art is of no interest without clearly-depicted redemptive value — and redemptive value that is not evident, but can be inferred by redemption-minded viewers from the content as presented, is not sufficient.
It doesn’t matter to me if the film is superbly made, with sumptuous photography, perfectly-crafted sets, and effectively-drawn characters. If the characters are all cynical, corrupt, and without identifiable redeeming traits, and if the underlying philosophy of the film is nihilistic, then the movie is worthless.
American Beauty is a case in point. It was highly acclaimed, even by many conservatives, so I had great expectations when I went to see it. It turned out to be vile and mean-spirited. It celebrated despair and self-hatred. For me it moved beyond the “worthless” category into “actively evil”.
I know the hip, campy tendencies that movies display these days. Cool, ironic, retro, and self-referential. Detached from any affirmation of transcendent or transformative experience that lifts the a human being out of the noir mire.
It’s easy to be hip and cool and ironic. It’s safe. You risk nothing. In contrast, a writer or director who puts his deepest spiritual aspirations into his work becomes an easy target for ridicule. Given the current climate in the field, it’s no wonder that such content rarely appears in any well-crafted movies for grownups.
But I’m having nothing to do with nihilistic and non-redemptive art. I won’t encourage it by using my dollars to patronize it.
I realize that my attitude brands me as an unreconstructed philistine, but so be it.
I’m glad I read the comments before I replied. I am pretty much in complete accord with the Baron (surprise, that!), and can only re-quote one of my earlier remarks on the subject:
“We are arguing from different standpoints. Your argument is basically that because Snyder et al set out to make a movie with no sympathetic characters, and indeed made a movie with no sympathetic characters, that they have succeeded at what they set out to do. I am arguing that even if they accomplished what they set out to do–which was to make a film with no sympathetic characters, and a multitude of other flaws as well–that the film has no real value because it has not met the standards of its genre.
I have grown tired of movies, or indeed any form of entertainment, where redemption is not present. Redemption, and redemptive acts, are prevalent within human culture. The moments in The Watchmen where characters were given a chance to redeem themselves do NOT ring with any sort of authenticity. No redemptive action seems realistic in the universe that Snyder and Moore envisioned.”
I should further elaborate that I am not referring to a specific genre of film in my previous comment(s). I am referring to the ENTIRE genre of film as it has come to be, and the criteria therein that we, as consumers and critics, have established as the benchmarks for quality. A film that fails to portray the redemption inherent in the human experience has failed as a film, even if it succeeds beautifully in all other areas.
Looking at any disaster that has confronted mankind, we are greeted with story upon story about the needless, unpredictable, and ever-present kindness that humans save for the darkest moments. It is easy to laugh at that impulse, that Grace. It is easy to write it off as the random firings of neurons and chemicals, and not ascribe it to the very human nature that is so blisteringly derided and indicted by the today’s self-appointed cognoscenti. (The same people who will tell you, bafflingly, that good and evil are really just “constructs” and are all relative anyway.)
I, however, will not stand with those people. I refuse to believe that a travelogue of Hell reads anything like the human condition. Furthermore, I believe that until we start calling the purveyors of our “art” on their foul deeds that we’re going to continue to have post-modern garbage fed to us and be expected to say “Thank you” for the privilege.
It’s not the most dangerous way to nail my colors to the mast, but as David’s comments prove, it doesn’t lack for entertainment–something that The Watchmen failed to provide.
Well that’s fair enough. If you don’t like it, then you don’t like it. I’m not going to fall into the trap of trying to browbeat you into agreeing with me just because I happened to appreciate particular elements of the film at a personal level.
No traps. People often mistake my vehemence for anger or venom-filled hatred. If only they could see my languid pose and the half-finished glass of lager sitting on my computer table while I type.
I’m more of a whisky man myself. I never could get into lager. Something about the smell makes my nose itch.
Gryffilion’s Trifecta:
Beer is recreational.
Liquor is therapeutic.
Wine is life.
I had a nagging feeling throughout the movie that the they chose the wrong girl for the (younger) Silk Spectre; all the other character choices were perfect tho