Who's Watching the Watchmen?

[crowwitch]

Well, Me. Last night at midnight.

I read the novel for the first time about a year ago. And yes, as many say, it is probably the best Graphic Novel ever written, and one of the great pieces of 20th century literature, period. I finished reading it again a few days ago, and every time I read it I just fall more in love with it... it's subtlety, layers, complexity, and irony. It's just a great work. Really.

So, last night I was really excited to go to the midnight showing with a friend last night. My overall opinion is that it wasn't perfect. That there are things that I did have a problem with, and not the "ZOMG On page three of issue nine he clearly goes into the second door on the right but in the movie it's the third door. What were they THINKING!" but I mean actual real issues.

But, I thought it was overall amazingly well cast. Most of the leads were flawless. It was visually everything we could have hoped for, and while we of course lost some of its beloved complexity and subtlety, I think the movie was an overall a win. A-.


First, the issues.

1. Extended violence. More than once throughout the movie, scenes of maybe one or two panels of violence was dragged out into long, involved, drawn out fight scenes. I'm not objecting in an "Oooooo! Too much VIOLENCE!" kind of way. It is freaking WATCHMEN after all. But there were cases when I felt that it was actually detrimental to the plot and characters.

For example: The rape scene with the Comedian and Sally... the story is already in dangerous territory when it asks us to accept that Sally had feelings for him after he tried to rape her. I accept this in the book, though. But when his punching her back after she punches him and kicking her in the stomach and undoing his belt is dragged out by the movie into a long, brutal scene of him beating the crap out of her, then cuts back to her saying the years have away of making these things looks less important, it's almost offensive.

Another example: What makes Ozymandias so chilling in the climax of the story is the ease with which he incapacitates Night Owl and Rorschach with almost no effort at all, only a few movements on his part, like they're nothing. Turn him dispatching Rorschach with a mere flick of his wrist and a salad fork into a big drawn out fight sequence, you actually loose a lot of his character.

2. In their effort to add in sounds and music from the decades involved, the sound track became distracting and at times unintentionally humorous. I admit not being able to repress a laugh when Dr. Manhattan was overtaking the Vietcong army to "Ride of the Valkyries", and when "99 Red Baloons" reared its head... well...

3. I understand fully that when you turn a long and detailed book into a movie, minor plots and characters need to be dropped. It happens. I cope. I understand for the sake of run-time and keeping the story tight and focused and maintaining the emotional impact of the main storyline, smaller storylines fall by the wayside. This is legitimate and not something I complain about.

However, DO NOT leave in scenes that SET UP minor storylines and characters and then drop them and leave loose ends. Seriously. Don't. You'd to better to leave them out entirely. Hollis Mason was there and just got lost, and he's not the only one.

4. Wire work? really? Deconstructing the superhero, making superheroes real people who have taken to being vigilantes, no super powers, and you want Ozymandias to lift The Comedian over his head Incredible Hulk style before he throws him out the window, and Rorschach clambering around like Hallie Berry in Catwoman? Really?

5. His acting was good, but just could not buy Matthew Goode as Ozymandias. I'm sorry. I just couldn't. I could not take the Aryan superman out of Hitler's wet dream that is our Ozzy being played by someone who looks like Dana Carvey and Bill Gates had a kid. That being said the man can act, he was just miscast. Not only did he not look the part, he just didn't have the ancient king presence that an Ozzy needs. Just wasn't going with them on that.

6. Another cast beef: Malin Akerman was annoying as hell, playing bitter and frustrated Laurie as a doe eyed perpetual 15 year old through the whole movie, with no development or even age. Who plays a character at both 16 and 35 with no visible effort to show some kind of age or development? Boring performance with no nuances or life to the character.

On the upside, here are the good things about the movie. Continuing with the Cast:

1. Dr. Manhattan: A character that could have looked truly ridiculous translated onto the big screen was pulled off perfectly. He was beautiful, frightening, disturbingly indifferent yet so touching when reached. And Billy Crudup's delivery of the lines was so wonderful with his bored and uninterested tones but with touches of emotion creeping in so delicately. Wonderful.

2. Possibly my favorite, Patrick Wilson as Night Owl. With the weight gain, bad haircut and bad glasses he looked so much like the drawings of Daniel in the comic book it was startling, yet when he smiled or they hit him at the right angle you could see an attractive man gone to seed. His performance was touching as the self-doubting superhero so uncomfortable in his own skin that he needs to cover it with an owl suit. Charming performance.

3. I'll mention Jackie Earle Haley and Jeffrey Dean Morgan in one go, saying that they both gave spot on performances. They both demonstrated really strong understandings of their characters from the source material and both created powerful and emotional moments with their characters. Morgan managed to make us eventually come to care for The Comedian in spite of the things he had done, and Haley... I have nothing to say but I felt like he was spot on with his performance throughout the entire movie... really... perfect. Wouldn't have had anyone else in either character.

4. Art Design: The director, while imperfect, recreated panels from the novel with startling accuracy. Visually, it was spectacular.


Anyway, I'm sure that was all TL;DR but... oh well.

Enjoy your weekend everybody.

Comments

[auspeople.livejournal.com]

Thought I'd take this to your actual LJ and leave poor Sushi alone for a last thought:

Loosing Laurie was the straw that broke the camel's back, but it's pretty clear that he was lost long before that. Janey knew it after the accident. The Comedian knew it in Vietnam. Laurie missed it because she was young and naive, but she learned quickly.

These are good points! I missed a lot of details of the characterizations on my first read because I was so busy cumming over the way the panels interacted and some of the metapoints.

But they still don't discount my points at least to me, because I still read a lot of people not "getting" what it means to be who he is after the accident. But what I really think is interesting is that I was disappointed in the movie with how Dr. M was played, and reading your analysis here, it's because he was played EXACTLY as you see him.

I do have a tendency in my readings to see things that others don't. It could mean I'm wrong (sometimes I am). It could mean that I see subtexts that others miss. I do think that often people bring things to texts that enable them to see things differently... it's part of that grayness I love/hate so much about humanity. It may be eventually I'll decide that initial reading was wrong. But I think I'll have a fondness for it always, because it is one of the many reasons I found the book so exciting.