Friday, 4 December 2009

WATCHMEN

The first thing to say about Watchmen, is that if you have not already done so, I would beg you to read the book first.  Your first experience of Watchmen should without a doubt be the book. Then approach the film without pre-judging it.

A few years ago, when Paul Greengrass’s Watchmen movie had just been kyboshed, and it seemed destined to never happen, I met Watchmen artist Dave Gibbons at a comic convention. Having bided my time, whilst sweaty ebay enthusiasts got him to autograph every single comic book they could conceivably carry, I got him to sign my well thumbed copy of Watchmen, and as he did so I asked him what his opinions on a Watchmen movie were. He said he was fine with it, because at the end of the day the book is the book. That is the work. So if it was great he could enjoy it, and if it was rubbish it still would not tarnish Watchmen in his eyes. I thought this was a good attitude, and a much more open minded one than fusty old Alan Moore's (although in fairness to Alan Moore, the previous cinematic treatment of his work gives him more than reason enough to tell Hollywood to go fuck itself). Incidentally, not only did Dave Gibbons good naturedly sign everything put in front of him, but he sketched a quick version of Rorschach in my book! It remains one of my most prized possessions to this day.

So on to the Watchmen movie then. I am reviewing the theatrical cut as we Euros are still awaiting a release of a non blu ray directors cut (and now Ultimate Edition) that Region One got a fair few months ago. In the first instance I think the movie is very good. Whilst it is flawed by some measures, it is also spot on perfect in others. I understand that the Directors Cut is to address some of the problems, and as such when I finally get to see it I will expand upon this review accordingly.

During a cracking opening sequence we are treated to an alternate history of the World where masked superheroes/vigilantes exist and fight crime. Set up in an alternate 1985, against the backdrop of a USA where Nixon never lost office, and in turn escalated the Cold War as he played nuclear brinkmanship with his opposite number in the (still existent) Soviet Union.

With masked vigilantism now outlawed, the many threaded plot begins with the investigations into the murder of former crime fighter The Comedian (who’s blood stained smiley badge gives both book and film it’s most iconic image), and it’s trail of clues leading to a much bigger and overwhelming threat. We follow the gone to seed Night Owl, the new Silk Spectre, the self made rich and powerful Ozymandias, the godlike and truly superpowered Dr Manhatten, and the dangerously unstable and unremittingly violent Rorschach.

The point of Watchmen is that they aren’t really superheroes in the conventional sense. Apart from Dr Manhatten, they are all just costumed vigilantes. So it kind of lends a ‘reality’ to the superhero genre. As reaction to the marvel and DC superhero books it’s more along the lines of what it would actually be like if these people existed. They’re in the Batman side of things. Tough and hard, but not superpowered.

As far as the things that didn’t work go, in part I don't know if that's because they weren't properly handled, or if it was just a symptom of the fact I knew what was coming. But for starters, I felt there wasn’t much of sense of peril or nuclear fear. This would have been far better conveyed from showing the man on the street – newspaper seller and young kid from the book – rather than Nixon and his cronies.

Conversely, and on the plus side, they made Night Owl and the Owl ship seem a lot cooler than in the comic, and much of the film is devotedly faithful to the source material.

Ultimately what makes and saves the movie for me is Rorschach. He was so perfect it blew my mind. Jackie Earle Hayley even LOOKS like Dave Gibbons drawing! I can forgive most of the things that weren't right about this film simply because he was so utterly fantastic.

To the uninitiated the presence of a nude Dr Manhatten, with his blue dork dangling all over the shop, was the source of titillation and amusement. But what it gives more of an indication of is Zak Snyder's dogged pursuit of putting every authentic detail up on the screen.


Spoilers:
But it is this determination to be so faithful that initially makes the direction of the ending so alarming. To those who know and love the book it is indeed a shock. I certainly felt indignant to start off with. How could they do this?

But after a while, with the time to reflect and to actually think about it, I felt it really wasn't too bad. With the film weighing in at 2 1/2 hours already, a further subplot about the squid and its invention would have just bogged it down. And hey, Bubastis was still in it!

The end provokes more thought in you as to who and what Dr Manhatten is. He is the only person in the whole film with superpowers. Rendered omnipotent by a Hulk styled laboratory accident. Unlike Superman who was empowered not only by the Earth's yellow sun, but also by an unwavering desire to help, Manhatten doesn't want to help. He doesn't care. The convention of the benevolent superhero bestowed with fabulous powers, working to save humanity, is flipped on its head. Unlike Spiderman's mantra of "with great power comes great responsibility", for Manhatten, with great power comes no responsibility. He is the complete opposite of the conventional superhero. Humanity is of no consequence to him any more. He has such power that the human race has become insignificant. Although Dr Manhatten had no part in engineering Veidts masterplan, he was wholly complicit in perpetuating its lies. For the greater good or not, Manhatten could as much be considered a supervillain as he could a superhero. His loss of compassion and humanity would make him a monster in any other story. You almost wonder why Veidt simply did not ask him to do it in the first place.

For all intents and purposes the Dr Manhatten ending was the same as the book. As humanity is united against a common enemy, all their previous conflicts pale in comparison. Petty and inconsequential in the cold blue light of this new threat. For all the complaints, the spirit and objective is the same. It is the one thing in this movie that has taken a liberty with the book. And it IS a big liberty. But it’s not a disaster by any means. I think it works.


At the end of the day Dave Gibbons was right. The book is the book, and the film is the film, but it's a pretty great one at that.

IMDB: WATCHMEN