(Disclosure: I have not read the acclaimed graphic novel, but it is sitting on my nightstand as I write this.)
Though many probably predicted Zack Snyder's adaptation of Watchmen to be DOA - based on a troubled production, a questionable director and a history of failed attempts by Hollywood - it has quickly become the most divisive film of 2009, causing wild disagreement among fans of the book and film critics alike. It's opening weekend box office ($55 million) was generally considered a disappointment, based on the film's large budget and high expectations (though a hard-R rating should've prepared the studio for it). Word of mouth may or may not help the film - casual filmgoers will likely be frustrated, but continuing debate about it might spark some additional curiosity. I initially thought re-watching would be a chore - it's nearly three hours, after all - but I now find myself thinking about checking it out in IMAX. So what's going on here?
First off, I'm sure many critics will (rightly) be wary of director Zack Snyder. Despite being a big hit, I thought 300 was absolutely horrible, just one long, bloody comic book. Snyder is obviously has a great technical vision, but judging by that film, I'd say he isn't much of a director. In that respect, Watchmen is a great improvement. Though it has its problems, Snyder has included much more character development and subtlety (no, really) in this adaptation. The film is, by all accounts, almost slavishly faithful to its source material. Snyder makes a number of choices (more on those later) that are being called out by critics, and I can't blame them for their skepticism. But in many respects, I think those choices are deliberate and even crucial to the film and the story.
(WARNING: Spoilers ahead!!!)
Let's take this criticism - Watchmen is unnecessarily gory and violent. Yes and no. Some of the violence does, indeed, feel tacked on as it pops up only sporadically and probably is the most Snyder-esque aspect of the film. But in one particular scene, probably the most violent, I think it's actually quite crucial. In a flashback, we see Rorschach hunt down and kill the murderer of a young girl. This is presented as a turning point for Rorschach because, in my mind, it's the point at which he gives himself over to pure vigilantism, pure justice. The scene is so brutal and bloody that it feels like way too much, despite the heinousness of the crime. Too often in films, we're allowed to root for revenge but without feeling the impact. In the scene, Rorschach becomes much more than an avenging angel; he also becomes a murderer. The rest of his story hinges on the idea that Rorschach's motivation is justice, with no signs of mercy or context or any other societal norm. He despises humanity and doles out judgment accordingly. In many ways, he is the film's anti-hero, so pure in his conviction but also so doomed by it. Just as Dr. Manhattan is a being so apart from humanity that he ultimately has to split with it, Rorschach ultimately can't coexist with society. His need for justice is so unadulterated that it lacks a moral compass and finally becomes his undoing.
Another scene that has been singled out for its ham-handedness is the sex scene between Dan and Laurie. It follows their decision to don their costumes once again and save people, this time from a burning a building. The rescue scene is the most cliche superhero scene you've ever scene (what, no cats stuck in a tree?); the sex scene is just about as bad. But, of course, Dan couldn't get it up with Laurie in an earlier scene. Their costumes - also nearly ridiculous because they are so stereotypical comic-y - get them all hot and bothered because they think the outfits are part of their true indentities. But these two characters are as lost with their costumes as without. Think about it: Nite Owl II; Silk Spectre II. Even as superheroes, they are just knockoffs, bad sequels.
They are obviously the least powerful of the Watchmen, and they lack any kind of larger vision -- Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias want to save the world (sort of); Rorschach wants justice; The Comedian wants to get paid and have fun. Dan and Laurie have issues. Dan is lost without his goofy getup and all his gadgets; Laurie has Mommy and Daddy issues (which accounts for her relationship with Dr. Manhattan). Dan and Laurie are drawn to each other because they are equally screwed up. They're not even very good superheroes. In a flashback, Dan and The Comedian try to control a riot. Dan impotently pilots his Owlship, while The Comedian attacks rioters. Dan finally whines, "What happened to us??" The Comedian has long since abandoned his illusions of heroism. Dan's just along for the ride, unable to do much about it.
In short, Dan and Laurie are us. They are the most human of the characters, with all of their insecurities and debilitating flaws. Even the sex scene - which is gloriously stupid - is a sendup. It's like we're watching Nite Owl and Silk Spectre's bad porno. It's a tongue-in-cheek nod to fanboys (after all, Laurie's costume is tailor-made to be unzipped in boyish fantasies), and a final confirmation of the couple's problems. At the end of the film, there's hope for these two but only at the end. Maybe I'm cutting Snyder too much slack here. Maybe he's just inept when it comes to sex scenes. But there's a ton of subtext in both the graphic novel and the film. I think there's some here as well.
There's plenty more to say about Watchmen. Some have complained that these "superheroes" lack redemption, which is true. But I think that is the point. Alan Moore has always been subversive about superheroes, even as he's made a career writing them. All of the Watchmen have been corrupted by their power. The point is driven home by the parallel universe in which Nixon is in his third term. The story sets our pop culture superhero myths on their ear. Watchmen directly challenges the idea of a benevolent vigilante, Batman being the most obvious example. The current line of Batman films are darker and show Batman at the edge of morality, but he ultimately does the right thing. This story seems to me to challenge that idea, that a man can have that power and wield it responsibly (The Dark Knight toyed with this idea, but ultimately absolved Bruce Wayne). It's notable that most of the Watchmen's "superpowers" are somewhat ill-defined - are they superstrong, or supersmart, or what? Moore doesn't get caught up in the specifics, and neither does the film. Power is power. Nixon has it; the Watchmen have it. It is dangerous and it is corrupting. That seems to be a common thread in Moore's work, and I don't think I'm stretching to reach those conclusions.
Watchmen is butt-number, and Snyder admirably takes his time telling the story. A Director's Cut DVD has already been announced, and that will definitely be worth checking out. Those with only a passing interest should probably skip the movie - this is not Ironman or Spider-man, trust me. Last year's The Dark Knight supposedly ushered in a new era of superhero films, blockbusters that dare to be more than mere popcorn flicks for teenage boys. Watchmen is not much like The Dark Knight in most respects, but it certainly strives to be more than just another comic book adaptation.
(The House Next Door is running a series of reviews of Watchmen this week; Roger Ebert has had some interesting thoughts on the film - here and here.)
