The House Next Door has moved.

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/
and update your bookmarks. Thank you!

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

"...it ejaculates FIRE!": Watchmen

By Adrian de la Touche

[Editor's Note: This is one of several Watchmen reviews/articles by House contributors. Check throughout the week for more.]

When I hear "American Girl," I am reminded, immediately, of Buffalo Bill, and his bumptious endorsement of skin lotion. A few bars from "Don’t Stop Believing," and there it is, that final look of anxiety in Tony Soprano’s eyes, drawn to the minacious ringing of a bell. And now, thanks to Zach Snyder’s Watchmen, I shall forever identify Leonard Cohen’s oft-misused "Hallelujah" with the aciculate heel of a leather boot as it gently massages a pale butt cheek. During that one subversive, and hilarious, sequence, juxtaposed as it is with an absurdly apropos song, the superheroes Nite Owl aka Dan Dreiberg (Patrick Wilson) and The Silk Spectre aka Laurie Jupiter (Malin Akerman) passionately make love among the clouds in the confines of an airship, and the director proves his mettle, displaying the sort of visual wit and panache that one hardly expects from a Hollywood blockbuster anymore. Even the ship climaxes, for heaven’s sake—but it ejaculates FIRE! Mazel tov!

Based on Alan Moore (as reclusive a pop-culture figure as Britney Spears) and Dave Gibbons’s seminal comic of the same name, Watchmen is, if nothing else, an incredibly rich experience, not to mention a jaw-dropping exercise in adaptation (props must go to Jim Emerson for honing in on this in his initial comments on the movie). It is a microcosm of unique images and ideas, inspired by its source material, sure, but vivaciously breaking through its confines—a cinematic vision of an alternate world of masked vigilantes, supermen (or -man, I suppose), and constant brinkmanship.

Some have found it impossible to consider the film on its own terms. In fact, the main criticism leveled against it on both sides—the furious online-fanboys and the disinterested critics—is the degree of the film’s connection to the source material. I can’t fault this approach (I recently saw the turgid Revolutionary Road, and my opinion was based as much on the heavy-handed direction as my impression of the original novel), but I must tell you that, here, it is unwarranted. This is not the ultimate adaptation of the source novel. Instead, it is merely one particular view of the book by an obviously dedicated fan. The original novel is a parable—no, a Rorschach test. And this is what Snyder sees when he looks at it.

The film is set in an alternate 1985, where Nixon has just begun his fifth term, and superheroes thrive—or used to thrive, until they were outlawed by Tricky Dick in 1977. Only two remain active, under the watchful eyes of the US government: The god-like Dr Manhattan (Billy Crudup), who was transformed into a living atom-bomb and imbued with the power to command the elements of the universe to his will, and The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), a nihilistic and cynical walking metaphor for the US military-industrial complex (he is the second gunman—you’ll see what I mean). The latter’s assassination kicks the plot into motion. He is sitting home alone, flicking though the channels, when an intruder breaks down the door, feeds him a healthy dose of shoe-pie, and summarily throws him out of the window of his high-rise apartment (the film’s possibly worst technical failure is in this sequence—it’s almost as if William Hoy, the editor, made sure to pick up all the shots where the camera got a full-on view of Morgan’s stunt-double’s face, and for a good few seconds, too. Incredible in a movie of this caliber).

The Comedian was a senior member of the Watchmen, a second-generation group of baby boomer superheroes, intent on continuing the good fight started by their predecessors, The Minutemen, a 1940s outfit of masked vigilantes, of which he was a founding member. (Any visual allusion to Robin The Boy Wonder is quickly discarded when The Comedian tries to rape the original Silk Spectre, Laurie’s mother, played by a sultry Carla Gugino). His assassination sparks the interest of his former teammate, the psychotic Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley, brilliant), so named for his white mask on which two ever-changing patterns of ink blots do a parallel dance. He decides someone has it in for superheroes and pays a visit to Dan Dreiberg aka The Nite Owl, who, in turn, warns Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandias (the self-proclaimed smartest man in the world, one of the few superheroes who revealed his identity to the public, and who went on to make a fortune on research, energy and, erm, action figures). As the heroes reluctantly start to put the band back together, they realize something much bigger, and more cataclysmic, is at stake.

As ridiculous as the plot sounds (and it is as droll here as it is in the book), it is nothing but a flimsy excuse to delve into the psyche of the characters themselves, while deconstructing not just superhero mythology but also man’s lust for, and fetishistic admiration of, power. With another director, this could have been heavy-handed and dull, but Snyder makes it witty and fun. The film’s opening credits, set to Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changing,” are nothing short of magnificent, meticulously reconstructing familiar moments and iconic images from post-war America as taking place in a world with superheroes (this is only one of the many welcome instances of deviation from the source novel). A wealthy socialite couple are saved from a masked mugger by the original Nite Owl (the cover to the first Batman comic plastered all over the wall in the background to hammer the point home). An Alberto Vargas pin-up of The Silk Spectre adorns The Enola Gay. On V-J Day, it is the dominatrix-like Silhouette who kisses a nurse in Times Square, the moment captured for posterity once again by Alfred Eisenstaedt, who is one of countless real-life figures that make cameos: Mick Jagger, David Bowie, Annie Leibovitz, Andy Warhol, Truman Capote, etc.

Alan Moore is a bit like William Goldman since both represent, for many, the first instances of breaking the fourth wall in their respective craft. My former infatuation with comics was never as comprehensive as it was (and is) with cinema, so even though I grew out of my “GOLDMAN IS AWESOME FOR HE TELLS THE TRUTH” phase some ten years ago, I still think of Moore as a bit of a god (irrespective of his blatantly false recollection of modern history). So does Snyder, who displays slavish dedication to not only Moore and Gibbons, like many have suggested, but to their ideas.

Yet this is not a literal adaptation. One of the great ways the film diverts from the source novel is the villain’s central plan, and, thus, the ending. Giant psychic vaginas with tentacles belong squarely in a comic book (trust Moore to make the symbolic female the ultimate weapon in a comic—no wonder so many fanboys got upset at its excision). Snyder, and his writers Alex Tse and David Hayter, complement the source material with inspired original scenes, as well as some very funny, albeit admittedly self-indulgent, lines (“Who wants to see a cowboy in The White House”). The one choice addition is a scene later on in the film when Veidt explains his scheme to provide free energy to the world to a bunch of fatcats from the energy industry, one of whom proclaims “'free' is another word for 'socialist.'” As the original comic tapped into the zeitgeist of mid-80s England, the energy motif in the film is indicative of current hang-ups in American society. Then the film goes even further and implies that doing good deeds due to a fear of God is as absurd as doing the same for fear of extra-dimensional invasion. (That takes balls the size of Dr Manhattan’s.) There's also a choice musical cue in Nena’s “99 Luftballons”, which is used to wonderfully ironic, and bizarrely touching, effect (not to mention, it’s a great foreshadowing of the film’s finale). In fact, the film manages to be funny as well as poignant at the same time. And a lot of the credit must go to the cast.

Patrick Wilson does a sterling job of portraying an affable has-been, wonderfully capturing the character's inherent sadness, longing and nostalgia. Haley manages to turn the psychopathic Rorschach into a hopelessly pathetic figure, despite the occasional head-hacking and bone-breaking (the violence is over the top, but it makes the masks look like what they are: nutjobs). Malin Akerman gives the best performance of her career despite a hairstyle that makes her face look like a donut. Goode plays Ozymandias as a man who has appropriated Wittgenstein’s famous line, “if people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done” a bit too literally. And Jeffrey Dean Morgan proves to the world that he has to be a movie star. Like, now!

If there is one standout performance, though, it's that of Billy Crudup, who lends his voice to Dr. Manhattan, though the motion capture has done a great job of replicating Crudup’s quiet charisma, at times oddly reminiscent of David Bowie’s Thomas Jerome Newton from The Man Who Fell to Earth. In what is possibly the film’s best sequence, he goes on a self-imposed exile on Mars, strung out on heaven’s high, hitting an all time low as he embarks on a hazy cosmic jive—the then and now, and the there and here, colliding, somehow mercilessly, in his panoptic mind. Memories have become forever for him, and the film achieves a transcendent beauty in visualizing this sequence, as it remains fairly accurate to the book.

Crudup’s voice, and his CGI enhanced face, perfectly deliver the juxtaposition of Dr. Manhattan’s rational solipsism with his latent humane idealism. Like many of the little touches that made the comic stand out, the enduring motif of Manhattan dropping the only known photo of his erstwhile self on the red sands is, wisely, discarded—nothing now but a punctuating beat. What works in sequential art does not necessarily work in a medium that conveys meaning through, as David Mamet astutely observes, the juxtaposition of uninflected images. There are sequences akin to a film’s storyboards in Dave Gibbons’ original compositions, sure, as there are cinematic cuts and dissolves. But what makes the comic exemplary is its complete mastery of the language of its own medium. There’s a reason they call it adaptation.

And this is a daring, beautiful, powerful one. You can go to this film, and watch a talented—fuck it, I’ll bite—visionary filmmaker’s passionate take on a seminal work of fiction. Or you can spend three hours obsessing about the degree of its kinship to the book.

I leave it entirely in your hands.

________________________________________

Adrian de la Touche is a cineaste from London who writes for various online journals under various names. He's like James Bond, only sexier.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just wanted to say that the cowboy president line is actually from the novel, although there they call him a cowboy actor. I thought dropping "actor" in order to reference Bush was kind of easy, actually.

Tony Dayoub said...

Adrian,

Your review is so well written it almost made me forget how mediocre the actual film is. Hats off to you.

As to the film's "degree of kinship" to the source, I don't think an adaptation has to be slavish to the material. I think it's nice he captured some of the art from the panels in the shots. But that is just a display of technical proficiency which I've come to expect from Snyder.

I DO believe that an adaptation has to preserve the author's thematic intent, and in this the film fails. Where Moore was trying to deconstruct our notions of superheroes, presenting them as psycho vigilantes to some extent (and if not, certainly with some implication of fetishistic tendencies), the film instead elevates this Wild Bunch in much the same way Peckinpah did in his own film. He excuses their violent tendencies by bestowing an implied code of honor that unites them. And like Peckinpah, Snyder beautifys the violence, lingering on shots of snapping bones and gore, using his now-trademark start-then-stop fast-then-slow-motion cinematography to heighten the brutality and prettify it.

Moore, who used Watchmen to comment on the increasing brutality in comic books of the 80s, certainly did not intend for his characters to be elevated to the level of heroes.

Actionman said...

I never read the book (have had the chance but was never motivated). Snyder's vision worked for me in a big and daring way.

Actionman said...

Oh, and fantastic review.

Mattson Tomlin said...

I was extremely disappointed with Watchmen. I went into it, really, really hoping to like it. Unfortunately, I felt like the major themes were really thrown out the window, sacrificed for being "faithful" to the images.

While it did very accurately remake the visuals, and adhered to Dave Gibbon's side of the story, Alan Moore's contribution of the writing seemed pretty left out. I know that you can't even begin to encompass the material of Watchmen into 2 1/2 hours, but I felt like the root of the material, the themes were sacrificed, ironically, in an attempt to remain as faithful to the source material as possible.

Josh said...

it seems that a lot of the criticisms against the film are due to it's thematic inaccuracies versus the book. i know this is bound to happen when being compared against a classic, but how does the film work as a stand-alone piece? if the comic never existed, what would we think of this film? i know that in some ways it's a silly question, but sometimes i wonder.

i guess i ask because i haven't read the book or seen the film yet. being in that (seemingly) unique position, i'm contemplating which way to go about it. while i would usually go for the book first, i wonder if seeing the film without even knowing the basic story-line would create an immeasurable experience that i couldn't even think to receive if i read the book first. if the book is indeed the classic as it's hailed to be, it shouldn't matter that the storyline is not a complete surprise, right? but then again, maybe it should be given the full respect and read first. oh, i just don't know.

M.Chavez said...

@ Josh

I don't think I've ever been disappointed when I've seen a movie and then read the book. So my advice (not that you asked of course) is to fight the urge to read it, just see the film, enjoy it on its own terms, and then read the comic and you'll get to see it all fleshed out.

Steven Boone said...

Adrian,

I'm ejaculating fire over this statement: it’s almost as if William Hoy, the editor, made sure to pick up all the shots where the camera got a full-on view of Morgan’s stunt-double’s face, and for a good few seconds, too. Incredible in a movie of this caliber.

Not so incredible to my eyes. (paranoid old-timer/outsider rant ahoy--->) These days, editors cut for the ipod screen and millisecond attention span gamers on desktops crowded with Mac apps while Twittering and taking conference calls. I'l bet you wouldn't even notice that stuntman on a google phone screen.

What works in sequential art does not necessarily work in a medium that conveys meaning through, as David Mamet astutely observes, the juxtaposition of uninflected images. There are sequences akin to a film’s storyboards in Dave Gibbons’ original compositions, sure, as there are cinematic cuts and dissolves. But what makes the comic exemplary is its complete mastery of the language of its own medium. There’s a reason they call it adaptation.

Amen, though I know of at least one comics artist who does a beautiful job of juxtaposing uninflected images: http://www.bookslut.com/fiction/2007_07_011451.php

Excellent review, the first positive one persuasive enough to get me into a theater.

odienator said...

Great review, even if I disagree with practically everything in it! The music usage is too pseudo-Quentin Tarantino cute, the acting outside of Haley is uniformly awful (Billy Crudup gives the worst naked performance since Liz Berkeley in Showgirls), and the film completely lacks depth, emotion and soul. It just lays there, basking in its own CGI and Zach Snyder's sometimes-I-fight-slow-sometimes-I-fight-fast fetish. Alan Moore was right to disown this movie. Slavish devotion to the book does not a good movie make. I'm glad I saw it for free. Snyder actually expected me to take this shit seriously; his ending change is a prime example.

Josh, I second M.Chavez's notion that you should go see the movie and then read the book. You'll have less baggage going in, and you'll probably have an interesting reaction to the book's ending vis-a-vis the movie's.

Here's the only reason I'm glad this movie got made: It's pissing off the the religious right! They had nothing to say about the graphic violence and sadism, but man oh man, do they have dick issues.

Steven Boone said...

Psst, Odie: nice one.

coffee said...

I kept thinking that the guy who played the Comedian was Javier Bardem (I found out later that it's actually Jeffrey Dean Morgan), but the two actors definitely look alike

Ali Arikan said...

coffee - I thought the same thing. They're like doppelgangers.

Matt Schneider said...

I think I enjoyed this review more than the actual film. It wasn't hard for me to set the comic aside while watching the film (mostly because it's been years since I read it), and one of the biggest problems the film has is that it's so sprawling that it doesn't feel self-contained, even if you discount the source material. Attempts to flesh out the story are more indulgent than insightful, and I would only be tempted to regard Snyder as visionary if I didn't know he was working from the comic like a 400 page storyboard. Even so, it's easier to be more impressed with the set dressing than the storytelling.

William said...

I know it's been months since this film was reviewed, and I am one who was not endoctrinated before seeing the film. So my comments here come after seeing the film in one sitting and then reading the reviews here. Here were the impressions as they came to me.

Killing the Comedian: Beautifully filmed and scored to show the tragic end of a tragic figure. I found the Comedian, even at this point, far more twisted and psychotic than any of the other heros we would meet as the film progressed. This insanity would be further defined by the many flashbacks used by the film to contextualize the moments of life we witness among these superbeings.

It's the dialogues of Rorschach that drives the film, however. I think he holds this position because he has become conscious of his psychoses, and finds the appropriate outlets for them; in this way, he doesn't become one of the asylum dwellers.

The rest of the gang has settled into lives of normal abnormity. Nite Owl is submerged in normal life while his costumes and devices live in the basement . . . much as my unused Sportbike does. The 'smartest man in the world' is doing what you would expect, at least at first; it takes longer to find out what is going on in his basement. Manhattan is working for the Government, and Laurie has become an appendage; not unlike the wives of many highly successful men. Only Rorschach has remained who he was. Uncompromising, harsh, but with more integrity than all the rest.

The death of the Comedian catalized a movement toward consciousness for all of them. As the rest of them moved towards new realizations of themselves, Rorschach continued to drive forward to what he knew would be his ultimate end, the end that truth demanded. In the end, with all his brutality, he was the most sane of any of them.