previous post
next post
Who Watches The Watchmen (or How Much Do You Need To Feed Your Cynical Streak).
(A movie review by Denizen Ry)
For those who simply want the ratings, fine. I’ll tell you what they are: 2.75 yessss, my precioussssesss (out of four possible) for my how much I enjoyed it and a 3.25 yessss, my preciousssess when I take myself and my own biases out of the grading the film as much as I possibly can. It is rated R after all, and this is not, I cannot be emphatic enough in saying this, NOT a movie for kids however much they clamor to go. If you’ve got a very mature and metropolitan 13(+) year old, fine; but if not, stay the helk away as this is not starter material for discussions on topics.
(More below the fold)
For those who simply want the ratings, fine. I’ll tell you what they are: 2.75 yessss, my precioussssesss (out of four possible) for my how much I enjoyed it and a 3.25 yessss, my preciousssess when I take myself and my own biases out of the grading the film as much as I possibly can. It is rated R after all, and this is not, I cannot be emphatic enough in saying this, NOT a movie for kids however much they clamor to go. If you’ve got a very mature and metropolitan 13(+) year old, fine; but if not, stay the helk away as this is not starter material for discussions on topics.
(More below the fold)
This is very much, like the graphic novel, one for the cynical at heart. It’s as if the original author, Moore, was channeling Oliver Stone when he penned this. In that I mean there’s an obvious element that he’s upset that heroes---and the world in general--- are not paragons of virtue and he’s letting us all in on the secret. You get the same thing from ‘Platoon’ and ‘Born on the 4th of July’. The good-guys aren’t that good as one of them kills JFK and does some *very questionable stuff* beyond that. The bad guys are hard to truly label as bad based on their motivations and citing of a moral calculus that actually makes sense. Paranoia seems to be at the heart of it all since it is a criticism of the Cold War---shades of Stone’s The Good Shepherd---- is a major theme. Essentially, that there are no heroes because they’re all flawed is the cynical point that gets driven home over and over, whether the person in question is omnipotent or the most hard-core progressive.
You’re not going to get clear-cut good triumphs with this. It simply wasn’t designed to work that way. It has a kind of Seven Samurai of sorts ending, and if that type of ending bugs you stay away.
But that doesn’t mean it cannot be done well---which Stone’s Shepherd is *not* an example of. Moore’s original did it very well. The movie comes close, but not quite. Granted, the medium doesn’t allow for it. There was simply too much material in the original to transpose onto the screen and not have something like a LOTR trilogy on your hands.
The major take away points (of the film): heroes are, ultimately, human; with all the failings and foibles thereby; all common archetypes of comics and literature leave you with someone, well, you wouldn’t want to live with whether that be the dispassionate rationalist, the realist, the idealist, the cynic, or the committed justice seeker. Not because they aren’t paragons but because, well, they’re not easy to live with period. Idealism seems to be for suckers, and those who don’t accept some compromise, at some point, are dangerous fanatics. The real danger/evil in life, isn’t some person, but Man himself and his inability to put the sword down (for once).
Now, I don’t mind books or movies taking philosophical stances. I actually prefer it. But this isn’t quite my cup of tea. It wasn’t my cup in the graphic novel and wasn’t on-screen. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think these types of things cannot be done well (really, ask Terry Teachout about this kind of thing, finding something to be Art despite not having one’s self or philosophy reflected back in the given piece). For the most part, I thought the novel did this excellently, but the movie only middling so. It’s unfortunate, but expected. It’s very hard to take a very rich and well crafted piece and put it on the screen. We’ve seen it with literary adaptations. Johnny Mnemonic being an example—kick-butt short story that was not a very good movie----, or Portrait of a Lady being another, or The Haunting (Liam Neeson version), or, probably the most glaring example being Room 101 from ANY film adaptation of Orwell’s 1984. Some stuff simply cannot translate over, internal dialogue, and sometimes the feel that leapt off a page while it was prose doesn’t work because all the little details the mind fills in to make it better or cooler are commandeered and forced into one, set scene that doesn’t appeal to all.
The movie does try very hard to be faithful to the source, but splits itself in the attempt of what to be faithful to detrimentally (more on this later). The most major plot elements make it into the movie. Some of the more fan favorite sub-plots and exchanges between characters, things that in some ways defined the source material, don’t make it onto the screen. For that the movie suffers. The rich, well developed characters that Moore crafted for the graphic novel don’t make it onto the screen. We don’t get the full character, and, hence, some of the major contradictions he was shoving with the gn don’t quite make it either. The character Rorschach, portrayed as more Batman from the Dark Knight series than he was in the novel--- a man with only his Cause, no other life, just his Cause--- where he had a normal life, a wife, things he went to when he wasn’t single mindedly dispensing Justice as he saw it. The contradiction of psychopath vs. totally normal man living in the same mind was totally lost, and, with it, the better character.
It fails miserably at a moment in the movie when I should’ve felt rather choked up when a character died, but because the fullness suffered it felt rushed and the ‘oh, no, they can’t be doing that!’ didn’t get felt. Unlike in Dark Knight where the unfairness of the ending, the Good triumphs anyways, the good as an end in itself sans rewards themes resonated so amazingly with me. It is so much harder with hero teams to develop that because of how much time and effort needs be spent on a wider array of characters. That’s something I think Hollywood should take note of: team movies almost always don’t satisfy as well as individual character ones do.
At nearly 3 hours long you’d think a lot happens. A lot *does* happen, but it doesn’t really build into much of a climax. The dedication to the developing of intra-hero relationships and the characters comes at the cost of developing the feeling of the larger plot. Lots of things happen, but not much happens---if you see what I mean. So the movie has a very un-even feeling. Things happen at breakneck speed, but you don’t feel you’re going anywhere with so much action. Hence, the movie at times drags.
What *does* make it across is some of the comic book insider/aficionado stuff (I’m mostly a hanger on, just like I am with anime). Like the criticism of the Superman/omnipotent archetype, in this case that being Dr. Manhattan. You get a mocking of The Punisher, and all the other anti-hero heroes along with him. There’s a lot more. Some of the bigger fantasies, like what would it be like to actually live in a world with, say, a Dark Knight Returns Batman like character or a Wolverine would be like, or actually, being the Batman and the psychic toll that takes, get put on the screen. My favorite fantasy buzzkill has to be the Punisher mockery.
RBBH---Ry’s Brilliant Better Half, John’s moniker for The Wife---- is far more the one who pays attention to the ‘pretty factor’, and she dubbed this ‘Very Pretty’. There will be some who disagree with that assessment, typically the hard core cinophiles who know everything about CG, but I had to agree. It looked good. The fight scene’s had that polished choreography one now expects and the quasi Bullet-Time pan arounds. The gritty, quasi-real alternate reality feel made it over and is fun to watch.
To be fair, the group responsible for this did a good job of trying to put a 20 lb object in a 10 lb bag. That it wasn’t as satisfying stems from how little time they could spend on things. Yet, had they gone the LOTR route with a sequel or trilogy they might have found themselves spreading material too thin in a project that many people don’t believe the built in audience is loyal enough to make it financially successful.
But, why does it get two different scores? Well, that comes down to the fact that I never liked the political views that got represented in the graphic novel, and many of them made it over. Moore and I don’t see eye to eye, and that colors how I receive his work. For one, I never felt that the Cold War and nuclear war were the height of evil. They simply were things I lived with. I never feared nuclear war as a child, I still don’t know (as any who remember my back and forth with Kat over Iran during the summer can attest to), and nuclear war is the manifestation of inherent evil in both works so the villain I’m supposed to see in Vader-esque form never takes that mantle on, he remains just a “pop-corn” villain for me(For clarity, pop-corn is stuff that blows up real nicely in gaming and it’s meant to. A pop-corn villain is one that heroes would mow thru with no difficulty. An in movie example would be all but two of the fights.). A heavy cynical outlook on the world colors both works, and that doesn’t work for me. The realism works, but the cynicism has always left me not liking the work as much.
When you can get beyond the political stances Moore takes, and the movie HAS to take to remain faithful, or simply agree with them from the outset, and the cynicism—or, as with the political philo that you simply already agreed---- you’re left with a much better work. I often can’t much the same way some people can’t get past it with The Dark Knight Returns graphic novel’s rather conservative theme. Both try to take swipes at both sides of the political spectrum, but both largely heap most blows on one side---the left side for DKR and right side for Watchmen--- which isn’t to say that they don’t land some serious blows in the balance--- the treatment of Sons of The Batman in DKR or what the obvious liberal character in Watchmen winds up doing) ---because they do. But, if you’re political skin is a little thin it’s going to detract from your fun, much the way that some people couldn’t enjoy 300 because they had to view the film thru a political lens.
I deplored much of the sound track, though this added a sweet slap at progressives. I can’t stand Simon and Garfunkle and could do without Bob Dylan. The songs fit where they’re used, and quite well, actually. I just cannot stand it, never have and never will. Why’s it a slap at progressives? The major complaint of conservatism is that it is backward looking to some golden time. Yet, what do many progressives point to as signs of what they want: Some golden past that’s embodied in this music and other iconography. I found *that* enjoyable because it was logically consistent, and because of the subtlety. Subtle can be lost on me sometimes, but this is one I enjoyed because of the cleverness in the employment---and likely because I got it, for once.
Hence, I give it 2.75, above average, for how much I enjoyed it and how much I believe people who tend to be similar to me will enjoy it; but someone without my prejudices could find themselves really enjoying it so it got the 3.25 rating in a ‘leave the political baggage at the door’ rating. I think you’re going to see a complete reversal of who loved it/hated it to that which we saw over 300. Which is kind of sad since 300 wasn’t overtly political, but people made it so thru their individual needs and prism. Watchmen is a little bit more blatantly political minded, not horrendously so, but the real draw was the characters and plot anyway. The characters sort of make the cross over, and the Big Plot does, in a very visually satisfying and almost 3 hour package. For that, it’s getting a much higher than merely above avg score, since the source material is so good to begin with.
--Ry
You’re not going to get clear-cut good triumphs with this. It simply wasn’t designed to work that way. It has a kind of Seven Samurai of sorts ending, and if that type of ending bugs you stay away.
But that doesn’t mean it cannot be done well---which Stone’s Shepherd is *not* an example of. Moore’s original did it very well. The movie comes close, but not quite. Granted, the medium doesn’t allow for it. There was simply too much material in the original to transpose onto the screen and not have something like a LOTR trilogy on your hands.
The major take away points (of the film): heroes are, ultimately, human; with all the failings and foibles thereby; all common archetypes of comics and literature leave you with someone, well, you wouldn’t want to live with whether that be the dispassionate rationalist, the realist, the idealist, the cynic, or the committed justice seeker. Not because they aren’t paragons but because, well, they’re not easy to live with period. Idealism seems to be for suckers, and those who don’t accept some compromise, at some point, are dangerous fanatics. The real danger/evil in life, isn’t some person, but Man himself and his inability to put the sword down (for once).
Now, I don’t mind books or movies taking philosophical stances. I actually prefer it. But this isn’t quite my cup of tea. It wasn’t my cup in the graphic novel and wasn’t on-screen. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think these types of things cannot be done well (really, ask Terry Teachout about this kind of thing, finding something to be Art despite not having one’s self or philosophy reflected back in the given piece). For the most part, I thought the novel did this excellently, but the movie only middling so. It’s unfortunate, but expected. It’s very hard to take a very rich and well crafted piece and put it on the screen. We’ve seen it with literary adaptations. Johnny Mnemonic being an example—kick-butt short story that was not a very good movie----, or Portrait of a Lady being another, or The Haunting (Liam Neeson version), or, probably the most glaring example being Room 101 from ANY film adaptation of Orwell’s 1984. Some stuff simply cannot translate over, internal dialogue, and sometimes the feel that leapt off a page while it was prose doesn’t work because all the little details the mind fills in to make it better or cooler are commandeered and forced into one, set scene that doesn’t appeal to all.
The movie does try very hard to be faithful to the source, but splits itself in the attempt of what to be faithful to detrimentally (more on this later). The most major plot elements make it into the movie. Some of the more fan favorite sub-plots and exchanges between characters, things that in some ways defined the source material, don’t make it onto the screen. For that the movie suffers. The rich, well developed characters that Moore crafted for the graphic novel don’t make it onto the screen. We don’t get the full character, and, hence, some of the major contradictions he was shoving with the gn don’t quite make it either. The character Rorschach, portrayed as more Batman from the Dark Knight series than he was in the novel--- a man with only his Cause, no other life, just his Cause--- where he had a normal life, a wife, things he went to when he wasn’t single mindedly dispensing Justice as he saw it. The contradiction of psychopath vs. totally normal man living in the same mind was totally lost, and, with it, the better character.
It fails miserably at a moment in the movie when I should’ve felt rather choked up when a character died, but because the fullness suffered it felt rushed and the ‘oh, no, they can’t be doing that!’ didn’t get felt. Unlike in Dark Knight where the unfairness of the ending, the Good triumphs anyways, the good as an end in itself sans rewards themes resonated so amazingly with me. It is so much harder with hero teams to develop that because of how much time and effort needs be spent on a wider array of characters. That’s something I think Hollywood should take note of: team movies almost always don’t satisfy as well as individual character ones do.
At nearly 3 hours long you’d think a lot happens. A lot *does* happen, but it doesn’t really build into much of a climax. The dedication to the developing of intra-hero relationships and the characters comes at the cost of developing the feeling of the larger plot. Lots of things happen, but not much happens---if you see what I mean. So the movie has a very un-even feeling. Things happen at breakneck speed, but you don’t feel you’re going anywhere with so much action. Hence, the movie at times drags.
What *does* make it across is some of the comic book insider/aficionado stuff (I’m mostly a hanger on, just like I am with anime). Like the criticism of the Superman/omnipotent archetype, in this case that being Dr. Manhattan. You get a mocking of The Punisher, and all the other anti-hero heroes along with him. There’s a lot more. Some of the bigger fantasies, like what would it be like to actually live in a world with, say, a Dark Knight Returns Batman like character or a Wolverine would be like, or actually, being the Batman and the psychic toll that takes, get put on the screen. My favorite fantasy buzzkill has to be the Punisher mockery.
RBBH---Ry’s Brilliant Better Half, John’s moniker for The Wife---- is far more the one who pays attention to the ‘pretty factor’, and she dubbed this ‘Very Pretty’. There will be some who disagree with that assessment, typically the hard core cinophiles who know everything about CG, but I had to agree. It looked good. The fight scene’s had that polished choreography one now expects and the quasi Bullet-Time pan arounds. The gritty, quasi-real alternate reality feel made it over and is fun to watch.
To be fair, the group responsible for this did a good job of trying to put a 20 lb object in a 10 lb bag. That it wasn’t as satisfying stems from how little time they could spend on things. Yet, had they gone the LOTR route with a sequel or trilogy they might have found themselves spreading material too thin in a project that many people don’t believe the built in audience is loyal enough to make it financially successful.
But, why does it get two different scores? Well, that comes down to the fact that I never liked the political views that got represented in the graphic novel, and many of them made it over. Moore and I don’t see eye to eye, and that colors how I receive his work. For one, I never felt that the Cold War and nuclear war were the height of evil. They simply were things I lived with. I never feared nuclear war as a child, I still don’t know (as any who remember my back and forth with Kat over Iran during the summer can attest to), and nuclear war is the manifestation of inherent evil in both works so the villain I’m supposed to see in Vader-esque form never takes that mantle on, he remains just a “pop-corn” villain for me(For clarity, pop-corn is stuff that blows up real nicely in gaming and it’s meant to. A pop-corn villain is one that heroes would mow thru with no difficulty. An in movie example would be all but two of the fights.). A heavy cynical outlook on the world colors both works, and that doesn’t work for me. The realism works, but the cynicism has always left me not liking the work as much.
When you can get beyond the political stances Moore takes, and the movie HAS to take to remain faithful, or simply agree with them from the outset, and the cynicism—or, as with the political philo that you simply already agreed---- you’re left with a much better work. I often can’t much the same way some people can’t get past it with The Dark Knight Returns graphic novel’s rather conservative theme. Both try to take swipes at both sides of the political spectrum, but both largely heap most blows on one side---the left side for DKR and right side for Watchmen--- which isn’t to say that they don’t land some serious blows in the balance--- the treatment of Sons of The Batman in DKR or what the obvious liberal character in Watchmen winds up doing) ---because they do. But, if you’re political skin is a little thin it’s going to detract from your fun, much the way that some people couldn’t enjoy 300 because they had to view the film thru a political lens.
I deplored much of the sound track, though this added a sweet slap at progressives. I can’t stand Simon and Garfunkle and could do without Bob Dylan. The songs fit where they’re used, and quite well, actually. I just cannot stand it, never have and never will. Why’s it a slap at progressives? The major complaint of conservatism is that it is backward looking to some golden time. Yet, what do many progressives point to as signs of what they want: Some golden past that’s embodied in this music and other iconography. I found *that* enjoyable because it was logically consistent, and because of the subtlety. Subtle can be lost on me sometimes, but this is one I enjoyed because of the cleverness in the employment---and likely because I got it, for once.
Hence, I give it 2.75, above average, for how much I enjoyed it and how much I believe people who tend to be similar to me will enjoy it; but someone without my prejudices could find themselves really enjoying it so it got the 3.25 rating in a ‘leave the political baggage at the door’ rating. I think you’re going to see a complete reversal of who loved it/hated it to that which we saw over 300. Which is kind of sad since 300 wasn’t overtly political, but people made it so thru their individual needs and prism. Watchmen is a little bit more blatantly political minded, not horrendously so, but the real draw was the characters and plot anyway. The characters sort of make the cross over, and the Big Plot does, in a very visually satisfying and almost 3 hour package. For that, it’s getting a much higher than merely above avg score, since the source material is so good to begin with.
--Ry
Which character did you 'identify with', which character did you feel was the 'main character', and why?
I get very different, very interesting answers from people.
Which was something I liked about the gn. For a team to have a 'golden two' about which everything revolves kinda pushes the rest to 'lackey' status. Watchmen doesn't have lackeys.
Who do I ID with? Manhattan, Rorschach, and Night Owl. Why? They're all representations of facets that make up my personality. In the mess that is ry is a mixture of dispassionate rationalist; bitter, angry, damaged, and mean psychopathic cause-head; and a dude with a conscience 3 sizes too big, wants desperately to be a boy-scout, who deplores some of what he's done in life and what's going on around him.
I think I might see this movie. Despite the entire social network going ballistic about it, which usually turns me off. I'm not sure I will like it after I see it. I can quite live with heroes with flaws but from what I hear the flaws are rather WIDE. Ben also tells me that there's craploads of willy in the movie not that I could really follow why.
All the "deconstruction" of the super-hero paradigm is so 1961. Stan Lee brought the world flawed, human, imperfect superheros a good quarter-century before Alan Moore. Spiderman, the Fantastic Four, the Hulk, the X-Men... Iron Man was an alcoholic (something I expect to surface in the Iron Man sequel). Hercules/Heracles is (literally) a classic example of the flawed hero. He killed his music tutor, his own children, and the King of Oechalia when said monarch refused to marry his daughter to Hercules. Wikipedia has this to say:
Some things never change.
Today, we not only have "deconstructed" super-heros, but we get to argue about their glowing-blue CGI genitalia on-screen. That's the price you pay, I suppose, for a "gritty" and "realistic" drama...
Wow. That's, well, rather harsh there, Casey.
I get where you're going, and why. But all Watchmen was an update on old themes. It actually was just another salvo in a centuries old fight between cynics and non-cynics(and probably classic liberals(aka modern conservatives) and progressivism). But to say that the game didn't change after the rise of postmodernism or Dada-ism? That's just a bit off the mark.
It simply is a new vehicle for old ideas. What's the huhu? Everyone has to get to the same place by reading dusty old tomes about mythical Greeks? Cannot have a package that's relevant to the times one lives in? Look, I grew up reading the X-men and this stuff when I first came out in the mid-1980s(the Golden Era of 'Da Anti-Hero(namely: Wolverine, Spawn, Cable, and a highly violent Batman)). Even the comics of the 1960s didn't really speak so much to me(hey, the Green Arrow/Green Lantern team ups about racial issues and drugs were nice, but, well, they didn't really speak about the issues of latchkey kids with alcoholic and detached parents, violent and mentally unstable siblings, and the accoutrements of a wildly changing society. So, what, the complaint is that it's narcissistic? Sorry, the same old stories weren't getting thru, and Monsignor Scanal was the one who put the first comic in my hand, knowing he had to do something before I was lost forever in a world of confusion and anger.).
The comics of the 1980s DID do that in ways that the nerdy Spiderman of the 1960s didn't, nor the early versions of the X-men. So, the question is, what's the beef? TIme didn't stand still and lessons learned weren't passed down the same fashion in the same stories? Cultural drift *has* to happen. One's that don't allow for change *die*.
The Matrix *did* put forth philosophical arguments. Some were good, some were pure sheet-uh. But they were a packaging for a new audience. Remember the old adage, "Everything old is new again?" You've gotta have a way to get the messages across, and, y'know, sometimes having it in a culturally relevant format isn't heretical. I mean, hey, the question of faith vs. reason isn't a legitimate philosophical question? Did we decide that religion has no place in pubic life then(if so, when?)?
I wasn't too big on the big blue schlong. So? Part of Moore's point was to push conventional boundaries. Much as the Greek comic writers did so long ago. Everything old is new again. I didn't like it, but we're not talking Mapplethorpe here. I mean, good lord, in Shakespeare of all places you've got phallus references and play! You gotta move past that.
Sorry, but Heracles doesn't speak to this generation. Believe me, I read much Greek mythology starting in the 3rd grade. It didn't move me. Not the same way that the death of Guardian in Alpha Flight in issue 7 or 8 did(I have those around here somewhere, at least for a little while, depends on how close to the bone we get before I have to look at selling a lot of that stuff). Wolverine is in many ways a modern interpretation of the drunk Heracles. So? If it does the same thing to a new generation, without having to spend so much time having it dissected for us by authority, well, what's the problem?
Nothing's stopping anyone from getting it the old fashioned way. I mean, come on, we just came off of the whole Kevin Sorbo launched interest in the Hellenic mythology that spanned the 90s.
I'm kinda suspecting that it's more than the blue phallus. I think John hit pretty close to the mark about the fear of losing relevance in his post earlier today. Let me let people in on something: I'm not relevant anymore, and I'm in my early-to-mid-thirties. Get over it. (A little of that dispassionate rationalist, with a touch of the mean cause-head as 'English on the ball' there.)
And, hey, don't for a minute think I'm an anything-goes type. There's stuff I don't like. RBBH has this fascination with Southern Vampire Romance and stuff like that(Tonya Huff, Charlaine Harris, stuff like that). I can't STAND that stuff, and, man, I'd love it if the more occultish of her manga (angels in S&M gear kinda pisses me off) reads weren't in my house (at least we've an arrangement where they're not where I can see them). I refused to go see Brokeback Mountain.
Just 'cause I don't like it, or it doesn't speak to me, doesn't make it evil or stupid. Mapplethorpe and the dude who did Piss Christ made stupid and evil works. They did it purely as thumbs in the eye and urine in the face of others. There's no real message beyond a neon 'fruck you' in them. That's about what it takes to make something evil. I can deal with people not liking it and leaving it at the 'just 'cause' level. Why do some sports families love baseball and deplore football? Typically, it's just because. Kinda like vanilla or chocolate arguments. At the very heart of it it's because, well, you do or don't like it.
Ultimately, I find the 'damn kids, stay off my lawn' argument unpersuasive or even coherent. I mean, what's next, burning all copies of Lolita? Uncle Tom's Cabin? Not everything will or can be written to include a given, self-selecting or non-self-selecting, demographic. There's no point being *bitter* about it.
Gritty? Well, it's gritty in the same way the Die Hard is (are we gonna slag that flaming train wreck of a film now too?). The realistic stuff comes mostly from the believable alternate reality, the inclusion of real-life cultural touchstones--the death of JFK, the Vietnam War, HUAC, and the Cold War--- than super powers or blue penii. Granted, Moore went out of his way to push boundaries. That's part of the shtick, but it's no worse than 24, or the Die Hard series, or the American Pie (pieces of crap) that're out there. Now, those three weren't for me, I didn't like them much, but, hey, that doesn't make them stupid or evil. Just stuff I find really crappy.
Argent, that the flaws are wide is kinda the point. I was somewhat disappointed with this. It had such possibility. I think you'll get it. And, honestly, not that you need this as incentive to go, Moore's works are consistently gay friendly. That's part of the politics he does. In Hellblazer there's some man-on-man stuff. In the works that became the movie Constantine there's gay sex and drug use. There's stuff obvious in Watchmen about homosexual relations. Moore's kinda the Kevin Smith of comics, gays have a home in his works and a rather prominent one.
Some of the rest of your argument is hard to follow, as it seems to have followed a stream-of-consciousness style expression.
I never said that one had "to get to the same place by reading dusty old tomes," nor did I mean to imply that. I just wanted to point out that the imperfect hero is a very, very old concept. From what I've seen of the Watchmen fanboys, they act like the entire concept of deconstructed heroes popped out of Moore's head full-blown. And, yes, I'm deliberately throwing in Yet Another Classic Reference. Heh.
I gotcher "golden era," and raise. Wolverine was originally a one-shot whackjob cameo in the Incredible Hulk. Cockrum/Claremont added him to the new Uncanny X-Men, where Chris Claremont gradually transformed him from a psycho bar-fighter to a warrior struggling to find inner peace, as exemplified by Miller's <i>Wolverine</i> mini series. Using Logan as an example of the anti-hero is counter productive, as he eventually became famous as a man who constantly fought to control his inner demons, as opposed to the more typical type who ignored, justified, or glorified his/her inner demons.
I must parenthetically comment here that I really don't get the latter part of the graf about latch-key kids and such. Since when are legends supposed to address contemporary "concerns," and/or act as public service messengers? Or do you, specifically, expect that as part of hero story?
Have the same issue with the remark with respect to "lessons learned." What lessons? Who learned them? How does this relate to entertainment, and legendary myths or stories?
The original issue that I mentioned was that the Watchmen was supposed to be some sort of brilliant, original deconstruction of the hero-myth. Alas -as I pointed out- many of our classical heroes never were that perfect to begin with, and a more modest deconstruction took place long before Mr. Moore ever wore long pants. The fact that you found Spiderman apparently lacking in social relevance is (sorry for the pun) not relevant. The point is that Stan Lee highlighted the feet of clay of an entire generation of super-heroes; something you seemed to deliberately ignore by focusing only on Spiderman. I repeat: the Fantastic Four was a squabbling, dysfunctional family, Spiderman was an angst-ridden teen vilified by J. Jonah Jameson, the Hulk was persecuted as an evil beast, and the original X-Men were seen as hideous freaks.
You mention "lessons learned," and complain that the 60s comics didn't address issues you as an individual found relevant. Sorry Stan Lee forgot to consult you on that. Maybe he should have taken a cultural sensitivities course from Yale or Harvard. {/snerk} That's not to mention the unsupported claim that "Cultural drift *has* to happen." What drift, and why does it have to happen? Please explain?
As for the Matrix, pu-lease. I never said it didn't put forth philosophical arguments. I merely ridiculed the arguments set forth. Quite frankly, the Matrix doesn't even rise to the level of college sophomore gee-this-is-so-exciting-I've-never-heard-of-this interest. Bishop Berkeley spent a lot of time fussing about the nature of sensory experience, while Dr. Johnson neatly refuted him by stubbing his toe on a rock. I would love, by the way, to hear about just which philosophical propositions in that movie were new.
Not only was the Matrix philosophically moribund, it was devoid of logic. Using human bodies as heat sources to generate electricity? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!? You're going to tell me that a machine civilization capable of all the nifty tricks shown in the trilogy (anti-gravity, extensive robotics, and so on) are too freaking stupid to build a fission power plant? Or develop offshore geo-thermal power systems? Wind farms? The best they could do was grow human bodies for freaking heat?? They have to be the dumbest A.I.'s in existence. Even then, why endow the bodies with self-consciousness? After that, why spend the time, energy, and resources to establish a literal neural network in order to create the false society?
True, one may say that everything old is new again, but that's just as true for communism and socialism as it is for other ideas. One may claim that "You've gotta have a way to get the messages across," but that begs the question with respect to what that message is.
The Matrix wasn't about religion, it was about hoary old college sophomore ideas about reality which sound great during an alcohol- or fatigue-driven bull session at oh-dark-thirty, but not so much under the harsh light of day. What faith was discussed in those movies? What reason? Besides the cardboard-cutouts the scriptwriters manipulated in order to make their point? The reason that one should trust one's eye's and ears (and other senses) for day-to-day decisions? Do you, Ry, look at rush-hour traffic and decide that it isn't really there? Or do you decide to have "faith" in some ersatz religion/philosophy espoused in the Matrix, or Scientology? What does this have to do with the real world, Western Society, and millennia-old genuine philosophical systems? Is that just too "old school," or boring, or non-relevant to modern society?
Quite a long time ago, James Blish wrote A Case of Conscience, a science fiction novel which managed to pack far more genuine philosophy in a single book than several dozen Matrix-style movies will ever contain. Of course, he forgot to include rilly kewl slo-mo gun battles and octopus-shaped robots, so it's probably not as relevant.
So far all you've pushed forward is the complaint that 1960s comics weren't socially-relevant enough for your satisfaction, and the repeated slogan that "everything old is new again." Ecclesiastes said that as "there's nothing new under the sun," and considering that I'm quoting the Bible, even the idea that "everything old is new again," is in itself a very,very old idea.
Whoops, sorry, I forgot that "pushing boundaries" is an honored tradition in Hollywood. As with your above reference to "cultural drift," what boundaries are we talking about, and should they, in fact, be pushed? Take (for example) explicit portrayal of rape on stage or film? Is that a good or a bad thing? What? It's necessary to advance the story? Ok. What if the author feels it's necessary to portray an explicit child rape on stage or screen? Still want to push the boundaries? What if a screenwriter wanted to address torture? Do we accept explicit scenes of torture? Why? Do people really need to see torture scenes to understand the underlying evil? Taking that argument further (the recent controversy with respect to photographing returning coffins) American screenwriters and/or reporters are morally obligated to show those coffins, in order to highlight the horror of war.
The point is that just because boundaries exist, there is no compelling reason to push them. Sometimes there are very good reasons for observing certain boundaries, which raises the question: which boundaries should we push, and why should we push them? Your post does not address this at all.
Your objection that the movie "isn't Maplethorpe" again begs the question: why should we be subjected to genitalia at all? How does that advance the plot? True, Shakespeare mentioned penises, but IIRC they were never shown during his plays.
This goes back to my original objection that neither the book nor the movie raises any new points. That in fact neither novelty nor shock value confer any special status on a work, despite your fetish for "old is new again," or pushing boundaries.
The rest of your argument seems to ramble rather incoherently after this point. Sorry, not an attack, but an observation of syntax, subject matter, and lack of focus.
A well-written story will always be relevant, which is why we can still enjoy the Iliad today. The fact that it was created a couple thousand years ago is irrelevant, as is your objections to "old" or "outdated" stories. Some of James Joyce's stuff is now pushing a century old; is it any less relevant? Same question for Hemingway, or Kipling. Is "Tommy Atkinson" less relevant because it was written in the late 19th century? I would make the case that it was so well-written that it is still vibrantly relevant today.
Sorry, never paid attention to Kevin Sorbo, or any varieties of modern "Vampyre" genres. As far as I'm concerned, they're at the same level as the bodice-ripper novels.
At this point, I have no idea what you're talking about with the "damn kids, stay off my lawn" reference. Could you please clarify? Ditto for the reference to Lolita and Uncle Tom's Cabin. What does this have to do with my position that the Watchmen is an unoriginal, highly-derivative, and shallow reworking of earlier "deconstructive" works?
I admit my remark with respect to "gritty" was sarcastic, in that today's youth seem to see explicit sexuality as "gritty" or "realistic." This goes back to envelope-pushing, and (again) begs the question as to why the glowing blue phallus is on the screen, and how that image drives the plot. Recall that -according to classic drama, anyway- all elements of a scene exist only to drive the plot forward. The Die Hard series is ironically realistic in that in every episode (except #2) John McClane gets his butt kicked up one side and down the other before he prevails. That he suffers. That is victory is, in fact, a product of grit, courage, and determination. Not to mention bull-headed cussedness. This has nothing to do with the events of Watchmen.
"Believable alternate reality!?" Which part? Where JFK was killed by "superheros?" Or the part where "Tricky" Dick Nixon gets elected to four terms? And how did the 22nd Amendment get annulled? At least one reviewer (sorry, didn't bookmark 'em) compared Moore's take to Oliver Stone's, a comparison I find quite apt. Both are extreme, and both have little to do with the real world.
Citing 24, Die Hard, or American Pie as crap (again) begs the question as to why anyone should regard Watchmen as anything but tired, old recycled second-rate ideas. Sure, those movies may be crap (although I could make a good case that -thematically- the first three American Pie movies are far more original, and demonstrate a richer thread of characterization than does Watchmen), but they don't pose as anything but entertainment. Watchmen, on the other hand, poses as something greater; and people like, well, you Ry hold it up as something greater than Yet Another Hollywood Summer Movie.
I hold to an older, and much simpler premise. Stories about heroes should be just that; heroic. To go back to an earlier cite, Wolverine didn't really take root until Chris Claremont (and later Frank Miller) transformed him from a standard anti-hero into a flawed would-be hero actively trying to improve himself. Instead of glorying in the shades-of-grey of the deconstructed hero, they rather emphasized his struggle to follow a higher set of ideals.
Watchmen contains no such ideals, merely justifications.
P.S. Please take this post as vigorous assault on the Watchmen, and not yourself, Ry. If nothing else I respect your generous physical contribution to the Castle Argghhh!, not to mention your admirable affection for Cheetohs. :) The world would be far more boring without you.
Pressed for time, but, this is actually very easy. Rome. The plebians and the patricians, and the way fides worked. The pats refused to change, citing 'The Old Ways'. It lead to a revolution amounfst the plebes. Had the pats *not* changed, well, Rome's not around then, is it, what with all the being torn apart by civil war and all? The South? Are we *still* fighting a civil war, or did the un-Reconstructed bits of the South eventually learn their lesson and get with the rest of us?
Things need to change. A static equilibrium is untennable. That's just extrapolation from science(chemistry and biology, mostly) and engineering. Dynamic eq can be maintained, sometimes, but even then you're dealing with *shifts* in the system.
I'm not done with this, but I simply haven't time right now.
(Um, Casey, if you look back at the post the reviewer who compared Moore to Stone might actually have been me, y'know. Like maybe paragraph three or four?)
Dude, American Pie is a pile. It's cliched coming of age stories with edgy sex scenes, which aren't that edgy when you go back and watch things like Kentucky Fried Move, Airplane, and a laundry list of bad 1970s- 1980s B movies(can't remember the name but has a rather well endowed heroin junky/car saleswoman, who refuses to wear a bra for some reason doing some rather freaky things to her costumers, and it was an 1980s rated R movie). The point I was trying to make is: you like it and hence no matter what you'll say it's great and no matter what you'll say Watchmen is terrible because it does things you don't like. That's where your analysis begins and ends, and it's very apparent.
Believable alternate reality. Yes, Watchmen has a believable alternate reality, more so than say, Blade Runner. THe things you'd have to suspend belief on are much fewer and easier. No amalgum of languages and cultures. No space flight. No outright dystopian future. And the conspiracy theorism(JFK was shot from the grassy knoll)? Dude, that's part of what makes it so much more believable. It takes elements from our own very real existence and says, "Okay, let's play it as if this were true/" It doesn't go real far in searching for stuff to make up. It takes pre-existing stuff we've been bombarded with much of our lives(there was a gov't conspiracy to kill Kennedy). and simply acts as if it were true.
THe Matrix as believable alternate reality? No. Ditto the Terminator. Still doesn't mean their not fun, but believable alt reality? No. They're utterly fantastic, much like a normal man who can sprint after having his feet cut to ribbons and moving on out of sheer cussedness. Total BS. Isiah Thomas had a class two sprain of his ankle in the 1988 NBA championships, and needed round the clock care and goobs and goobs of cortizone and tape to simply play basketball for 25 minutes. Inhumanly possible to be running around like that after being burned, shot, and cut up, yet, because it exemplifies something you like it's now realistic and cool.
Watchmen creates an alternate reality I greatly dislike. But it is a lot more believable that a gov't agent shot Kennedy than it is that a mere mortal man could absorb that much damage and stay moving out of sheer cussedness, however tightly held a belief that is it isn't believable.
Mapplethorpe. There's a difference between Watchmen's use of peni and sex and Mapplethorpe. Mapple simply wanted to shock, to give the finger so to speak, and little else. Watchmen and Moore had something more involved: pro-gay rights, point out the then fresh idea of the double standard about utlization of female body but not male(or did you fail to not that the female characters had very revealing and suggestive costumes? THe Shadows chest was about ready to fall out. Both Silk SPecters wore exposed garter belts, in a rather 'naughty nurse' fashion. But, hey, their just *breasts* and female objectification we're slinging like crack cocain, not a blue penis so it's okay.). He had a point other than giving you the finger. It was asking the question, "why are you so pissed off about having a penis flaunted in your face but you're totally okay with the objectification of a woman as a sex object and having *her* private parts flaunted in your face if your objection is that it's indecent or prurient?' But, of course, it's the begging the question fallacy I'm so obviously guilty of here, isn't it?/end sarcasm.
It is something greater. It asks the fundemental question: what is a hero and why is he that? You say you like a simpler and older story of heroism, but which one? Do you hold to the Norse where the hero must die to be a hero? THe chivalric hero? Which one. That's the point, sorta, of both the comics and the movie: define heroism in a way that's consistent and honest. You don't even try because someone dared say something contrary to your own world view. For that, it must be hated, apparently. Watchmen asks you to ask yourself some very difficult questions. For that, it is good, regardless of where Moore tries to take me politically. I can hate where he wants me to go as much as I hate Phiilip K Dicks communalism and hatred of the 'Military Industrial COmplex' while enjoying the questions of 'what's real?' and 'what's it mean to be human?'. It asks you to answer the question of 'can someone be a hero while doing something unchivalric?' The answer Moore leaves you with is yes, if you can get beyond shooting Kennedy and blue penises. And how is that NOT a virtue we need in this world when you've got the Beret and Biscoti crowd with their knickers in a twist over each and every case of collateral damage? Would the charge of animalistic baby killers Unka Bill had to put up with be so prevelant if one understood that heroes can be heroic even if they sometimes do something unchivalric? Nah. All this stuff sucks and who needs it anyways? It doesn't give a simple story that leaves me with the good guys win and evil sucks diseased moose wang.
And get it right. I didn't hold up Wolverine as an example of a deconstructed hero. I called him what he was/is: an anti-hero. Go back and read, please("Look, I grew up reading the X-men and this stuff when I first came out in the mid-1980s(the Golden Era of 'Da Anti-Hero(namely: Wolverine, Spawn, Cable, and a highly violent Batman))."). His popularity still exists not because he over came but because he flaunts the rules. He's the guy who makes things go 'right' by not following the rules, by enjoying killing, by being psychopathically committed to an action, by being ignoble when it's convenient(and let's not forget it took almost 30 years for him to undergo that change from Logan the Psycho to Logan the Remorseful to James the normal healthy guy without/with/without/with/without/with adamantium claws). He's a bad-boy, He wasn't deconstructed. He was a hero with an issue. Much the same way Spiderman and the Hulk are guys with issues instead of deconstructed people, a mind of irreconcilable contradictions. Wolverine rarely was contradictory about his battle rage---he never deplored himself for it while at the same time extoling the virtues of being a matchless warrior, instead you got a guy who needed therapy to accept himself and work thru inner demons instead of dealing with inherent contradictions about himself, nor the Hulk/Banner about what happens as Hulk---Banner simply never wants to be Hulk and seeks to divest himself of it at every turn. Nor is Ironman trully deconstructed: what contradiction exists within him? He's always driven by his vanity, he just finds constructive outlets for it. Just because he has a flaw doesn't make him deconstructed.
What makes Night Owl2 deconstructed? He deplores the levels of violence he himself sees as necessary. He hates that he *is* a super while enjoying the thrill. Rohrshak, at least in the comic, is a bifurcated mind wanting to live a very normal, quiet, mundane life while at the same time wanting an uncomprimising Justice he will enforce with his own two hands. Those two are in stark opposition to each other. Being flawed does not mean deconstructed.
The US and the West were easily understood to be 'deconstructed'. We didn't want to give into the SovUn, but we feared nuclear war. Giving into the Russians avoided nuclear war. Incompatible goals. We claimed to be agents of peace, but we were an armed camp. actions didn't quite match rhetoric(and, dude, I'm not saying anything beyond that, there's no lines to read between the fact that while we said we weren't interventionist and didn't start shiite we actually were and did). A hero with a drug problem isn't a deconstructed human being.