Empire Online Review here.
It’s a troubling thought this. Troubling because I will admit to rampant, bigoted fanboyism when it comes to Alan Moore’s Watchmen. Some consider it the best comic book ever. I would add the caveat that it’s the best superhero comic book ever, which is something quite different.
So mea culpa. Criticism of Watchmen is something I take very seriously. Fanboys are known for their inability to engage in debate, their passion for their chosen topic excluding any possibility of argument. I will try to tread carefully here. For me Watchmen is an extremely well-written work. It takes as its central theme the idea of absolute power and how it relates to morality. If you could save the world at the expense of a few, could you do it? The plot is concerned with the death of a morally questionable superhero. Those other ‘heroes’ that survive him (the sociopathic Rorschach; defeated Night-Owl; reluctant Silk Spectre; calculating Ozymandias; and omnipotent Dr. Manhattan) each react differently to the demise of The Comedian, with only Rorschach immediately assuming that there is potential threat to them all. Who would want to kill a superhero and a patriot?
The story takes in an overarching conspiracy that seems to confirm Rorschach’s fears. Many readers assume that he is actually the main character of the book. However, Rorschach it is made clear is also mentally disturbed and violent, an unredeemed version of the Batman archetypal ‘vigilante’. With heroes like these, who needs enemies? Indeed each of the titular Watchmen (a term which is never applied within the story itself) fail to live up to the heroic ideal established by American superhero comic books. They are psychologically disturbed, alienated and/or disenchanted with their ‘mission’. This is Moore’s vision of the superhero as related to the ‘real world’, more a Weapon of Mass Destruction than a fighter for justice and truth. America’s political history takes a different turn. Richard Nixon holds on to power by successfully winning the Vietnam War thanks to the godlike Dr. Manhattan. The Watergate Scandal never occurs – it is implied that The Comedian had a role in the assassination of Woodward and Bernstein. The Cold War is escalating, with an immanent conflict between Soviet and US forces in Afghanistan. There are hints that techonological advances have also been made, evidenced by everyday items like bulbs at the end of smoking implements that circulate air, or clean energy station pumps on the sidewalk.
Reading the book one is reminded on its themes at every point. Background details reinforce some of the central ideas and spring out upon repeated readings (look out for references to Alexander’s ’Gordian Knot’). There is an interesting use of repetitious symbolic images, that frequently take on the appearance of an atomic Doomsday Clock counting down to annhilation. The title refers to a translation of the classical aphorism ‘Who watches the watchmen’ and time becomes a measure of power. Dr. Manhattan exists partially outside of time, but cannot influence the course of events beyond their predetermined nature. Ozymandias has a plan for how to avert the end of time, but none as to what he will do next. Rorschach sees history through a narrow prism, as black and white as his shifting mask (Moore attaches a psychological report from the childhood of the character, wherein he describes the bombing of Hiroshima as necessary to end the war). Time is edging the world ever closer to atomic destruction and Einstein’s regret that he would have rather been a watchmaker is quoted to express the guilty conscience of the 20th century.
Phew. Bearing all that in mind – why make a film of this book? Watchmen was released as a limited series comic book that serves as a self-contained story. The book itself contains appendixes in the form of biographical extracts, scientific journal essays, celebrity interviews, psychological reports, a recurring pirate comic book (the play within the play) and even an ornithological article – all serving to deepen our understanding of this alternate world burdened with real-life superheroes. How can all of that content be summarised by a film? Indeed why should it? The book is enough. Hollywood does not agree and for 23 years has tried to turn Watchmen into a ‘real’ commercial concern. Wired has an interesting potted history of this project’s duration. The worth of the book itself, it’s success as a brilliantly produced comic book, is not enough. That prestige can be capitalised upon by fashioning it into a mainstream movie, which would presumably make more money for Warner Brothers than the minuscule comic book readership could ever do. Is there a need to make a movie about Watchmen because a director has a vision that he or she feels could improve upon the text? No. The only ‘need’, is to sell a lot of tickets and here’s the most important point. Watchmen is not for everyone. It’s a difficult read, very dense and also carries with it a sense of its own importance. Comic fans who have enjoyed it often describe a sense of being unable to read superhero comics in the same way again. The word ‘deconstruction’, gets thrown around a lot. There is also, however, a strong feeling of resentment by certain ‘fans’, towards the book for the same reason. Watchmen ruined superhero comics.
When the term ”grim ‘n’ gritty” is used in relation to the comic industry, Alan Moore and Frank Miller (Dark Knight Returns) are mentioned as the responsible parties. There is another way of looking at the post-Watchmen malaise though, the sudden upsurge of extreme violence, titillating sex and moral depravity evident in the ‘funny pages’. They didn’t get it. Much like Nietzsche being accused of nihilism when he set out to decry it, Moore has been hung by his own petard. The positive Empire review above mentions the shocking violence of the film, the horrifying ending that Snyder has construed to replace the ’silly’, conclusion of the book, the kinky sex enjoyed by Silk Spectre and Night-Owl. I’m beginning to feel a strong sense of deja vu. For if the movie is unable to convey the breath of references and emotion of the book, are we not looking at a repeat of the same superficial homaging that plagued the comic book industry (and some would argue still does - Mark Millar’s scatalogogical Wanted, already adapted into a declawed movie, is yet another culprit). When I think of Rorschach, the first scene from the book I remember is not him scalding a fellow prison inmate with hot fat, but his interviews with the troubled psychologist. Quiet, measured scenes that express the lonely horror of being Rorschach.
If I had to see an adaptation of Watchmen, I would have preferred a television series, perhaps animated. In the Wired article linked above there is an interesting description of Zack Snyder as a ‘nerd-jock’. I think that is a very telling phrase. It signifies how comic culture and nerdy pursuits have been assimilated into the mainstream. That it’s ok to watch a film about men and women punching each other while wearing tights, because this is badass and hardcore! Awesome!
Except when I read it on the page, these characters were all faintly ridiculous. They were meant to be. Watchmen was a comic book that demonstrated stern and knowing tough love to the industry that spawned it. Watchmen the movie hopes to imitate the commercial success of the similarly morose Dark Knight and get lots of bums on seats. Somehow I don’t think that’s enough.
