Further observations on Watchmen
Mar. 15th, 2009 02:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jack* I had the impression many people might have found the idea of the doomsday clock a little ridiculous. I felt an urge to remind the cinema, just in case no-one knew, that there had been an actual doomsday clock, and that several times, people had actually expected the end of the world right then. But I just looked it up on wikipedia, and see that while I grew up in a 20-year period of relative quiet, that the clock never was further that quarter to midnight, and now is back to where it was initialized and from where it slowly crept forward.
* Watchmen used several pieces of music in a very cliched way, but seemed to use them at just the right point where they were really effective: the most appropriate moment for that music, but also one where a feeling of tired repetition would be perfect. (I've now talked myself into a position where I can't know if that's deliberate or not.)
* There's a difference between an evil character who is interesting and has good characterisation, and a good character. But many films, even/especially superhero films, tend not to have that. Watchmen is a portrayal of the mix of fucked up characters you'd get if you actually have masked vigilantes, but I'm so used to sympathising with main characters that idea slowly sank, and for many people didn't even get there.
* Specifically, notice that the Watchmen are not actually especially effective. Most of their vigilantism is in a past only shown very incidentally in the film. But in essence, Dr Manhattan is very important, so important that he turns his attention to world-wide problems rather than crime-fighting. Ozy less so. And for the rest, their relationship with Manhattan is much more important than anything else they actually do.
* Indeed, Manhattan leaves Superman in the shade. Superman has some handy extras like super-hearing, but Manhattan can rearrange the universe. He's a sort of character often represented as a mentor or similar, except that in an ongoing story the character has to see-saw back and forth over the dividing line between "cosmic wisdom" and "awww! human emotions make me human" in order to stay in the story. Whereas Manhattan can grow freely to the point where he actually does abandon humanity.
* Apparently the fights in the alley and prison where mostly inserted in the film. (And I do think are more violent than necessary, even with good reasons to be violent.) One problem was that after the "hero" has beaten up the first mook, there's no tension, as you're sure they'll be unthreatened by all the others. That helpfully establishes them as dark vigilantes. But it would have more tension if after beating up three gang members they were, eg. attacked by a gang member with a chainsaw.
* I feel the violence had a good reason -- to emphasise that these characters were grimy in a grimy world. For instance, Dr Manhattan makes people explode, which is much more appropriate to the unpalatable nature of killing people than other omnipotent being's preferred method of "just vanish". But there was more than there needed to be, and more than would be perfect for me to enjoy.
* Regarding my comments on Manhattan above, I loved the quote about God. "I didn't say, Superman exists, and he is American. I said, God exists, and he is American. And don't worry, if that fills you with a feeling of religious dread, that just shows you're still sane." It seemed a very appropriate description of the film's theme that "this sounds cool for a moment, but actually is really, really ominous..."
* I hear the comic was split into four volumes or similar. In the film it's slightly problematical pacing, in that we're 2/3 in before we really know what we want to find out. I love exploring the back history before that, but the first time I saw it, was slightly less engaged than I might be, not yet knowing if anything important was going on.
* Watching it again was interesting. Most noticeably for the introduction, now knowing who all the characters were and what was going to happen to them. And watching everything Dr Manhattan says, knowing what he knows will happen afterwards!
* The charicaturical portrayal of Nixon was ruined for me by seeing the (to me) very good portrayal in Frost/Nixon.
* Some people objected to the sex scene in the Nightowlmobile on the grounds that it was too silly. Deliberate or not, I thought that was utterly hilarious, and one of the best moments! :)
* As several people pointed out, the introductory montage was really, really good, possibly the best bit. Although apparently more of the rest of the film was invented than I'd realised. I've read a few pages of the comic and was interested to see what was amplified, and what invented: the comic had a greater dry wit, but of the first scene, I think the film made some good choices on what to show. But I mainly want to wait to read the book before expressing any more opinions.
* Watchmen used several pieces of music in a very cliched way, but seemed to use them at just the right point where they were really effective: the most appropriate moment for that music, but also one where a feeling of tired repetition would be perfect. (I've now talked myself into a position where I can't know if that's deliberate or not.)
* There's a difference between an evil character who is interesting and has good characterisation, and a good character. But many films, even/especially superhero films, tend not to have that. Watchmen is a portrayal of the mix of fucked up characters you'd get if you actually have masked vigilantes, but I'm so used to sympathising with main characters that idea slowly sank, and for many people didn't even get there.
* Specifically, notice that the Watchmen are not actually especially effective. Most of their vigilantism is in a past only shown very incidentally in the film. But in essence, Dr Manhattan is very important, so important that he turns his attention to world-wide problems rather than crime-fighting. Ozy less so. And for the rest, their relationship with Manhattan is much more important than anything else they actually do.
* Indeed, Manhattan leaves Superman in the shade. Superman has some handy extras like super-hearing, but Manhattan can rearrange the universe. He's a sort of character often represented as a mentor or similar, except that in an ongoing story the character has to see-saw back and forth over the dividing line between "cosmic wisdom" and "awww! human emotions make me human" in order to stay in the story. Whereas Manhattan can grow freely to the point where he actually does abandon humanity.
* Apparently the fights in the alley and prison where mostly inserted in the film. (And I do think are more violent than necessary, even with good reasons to be violent.) One problem was that after the "hero" has beaten up the first mook, there's no tension, as you're sure they'll be unthreatened by all the others. That helpfully establishes them as dark vigilantes. But it would have more tension if after beating up three gang members they were, eg. attacked by a gang member with a chainsaw.
* I feel the violence had a good reason -- to emphasise that these characters were grimy in a grimy world. For instance, Dr Manhattan makes people explode, which is much more appropriate to the unpalatable nature of killing people than other omnipotent being's preferred method of "just vanish". But there was more than there needed to be, and more than would be perfect for me to enjoy.
* Regarding my comments on Manhattan above, I loved the quote about God. "I didn't say, Superman exists, and he is American. I said, God exists, and he is American. And don't worry, if that fills you with a feeling of religious dread, that just shows you're still sane." It seemed a very appropriate description of the film's theme that "this sounds cool for a moment, but actually is really, really ominous..."
* I hear the comic was split into four volumes or similar. In the film it's slightly problematical pacing, in that we're 2/3 in before we really know what we want to find out. I love exploring the back history before that, but the first time I saw it, was slightly less engaged than I might be, not yet knowing if anything important was going on.
* Watching it again was interesting. Most noticeably for the introduction, now knowing who all the characters were and what was going to happen to them. And watching everything Dr Manhattan says, knowing what he knows will happen afterwards!
* The charicaturical portrayal of Nixon was ruined for me by seeing the (to me) very good portrayal in Frost/Nixon.
* Some people objected to the sex scene in the Nightowlmobile on the grounds that it was too silly. Deliberate or not, I thought that was utterly hilarious, and one of the best moments! :)
* As several people pointed out, the introductory montage was really, really good, possibly the best bit. Although apparently more of the rest of the film was invented than I'd realised. I've read a few pages of the comic and was interested to see what was amplified, and what invented: the comic had a greater dry wit, but of the first scene, I think the film made some good choices on what to show. But I mainly want to wait to read the book before expressing any more opinions.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-15 11:18 pm (UTC)12. One a month.
Apparently the fights in the alley and prison where mostly inserted in the film.
More lengthened than inserted.
It's worth reading the original.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-16 02:36 pm (UTC)I'd slightly question the idea that the Watchmen were ineffective. Rorschach's activities, while generally disproportionate, could be argued to have the effect of reducing crime (at least repeat offences).
Also, while the violence was there (possibly even worse) in the comic, it was mostly between screens, somehow. It was... more depressing, than visceral. I certainly found the film violence more unpleasant than the book violence.
I also loved the introductory montage and quite liked the sex scene in Archie. Which I think was always meant to be a bit... silly. The story is that Dan can only, er, perform in costume - which is fairly silly or at least un-superheroly!
no subject
Date: 2009-03-16 08:35 pm (UTC)Oh, I totally agree. I didn't mean completely ineffective, just that in other comics I imagine the focus as traditionally on the effect of the "hero" fighting crime, which exists here, but is much less wideranging than Manhattan's war efforts and energy research.
I also have to admit that most of what the watchmen used to do was only alluded to; it's implicit that they used to act as vigilantes, and Rorschach continues to do so, but I sort of filled it in in my head later on rather than at the time. So it's possible my impression isn't really how the comic would describe what actually did happen.
Also, while the violence was there (possibly even worse) in the comic, it was mostly between screens, somehow. It was... more depressing, than visceral. I certainly found the film violence more unpleasant than the book violence.
I've only seen the first couple of pages, so can't say for sure, but that sounds right. I guess "violence" means two things: both what happens, and what's depicted. And I sort of mean both, but in retrospect I think my comments might have been more about depicting more violence.
I also loved the introductory montage and quite liked the sex scene in Archie. Which I think was always meant to be a bit... silly.
:) Ah, exactly.
The story is that Dan can only, er, perform in costume - which is fairly silly or at least un-superheroly!
ROFL. Oh, I see. That is very thematic :)
I dread to admit the amount of time I and people I know spent discussing the depiction of Doctor Manhattan's penis, and deploring the amount of time other people had spend discussing same.