| A wordier, less enthusiastic Watchmen review. |
[Mar. 16th, 2009|09:47 pm] |
| [ | Current Mood |
| |  critical | ] |
| [ | Current Music |
| | Barrio Love -- Manic Hispanic | ] |
Okay...my initial review of the Watchmen film may have been hastily overenthusiastic. I've had some time to actually reflect on the movie some, instead of just my initial, tired, wowed impression. This isn't such an about-face that I'm saying you shouldn't see the movie, it's just more reserved. (Incidentally, I really wish more people would treat films as things to be reflected upon, rather than just something to pass an hour and half, give or take. With books, for example, even if people tend toward just-for-entertainment reading, they don't so quickly assert that books only exist for that purpose and shouldn't be judged in any other manner.)
First, let me set the stage for my initial enthusiasm: I expected pure, worthless crap. I psyched myself into thinking I was about to see a typical "worst film ever made" movie based on a source I love. In the opening sequence, I thought that it was decently done...the violence was unfortunately exaggerated, but not atypically so, and the accusations of just filming comic panels seemed unwarranted. I was cautiously considering that it could be a craftsmanly movie that happens to be bad because of overstretching itself. (There's just no way to encompass the story in a single film's time without recognizing that you need to find a radically different way to tell it.) Then the opening credits started. That radically different way of telling the story that I parenthetically alluded to? That was delivered in those opening credits. Whether or not The Times, They Are A-Changin' is on the nose, the broad story of masked vigilantes and their strangely familiar world was being creatively told so that that background would be there for the "main" part of the story. I was satisfied at that point to just keep watching uncritically.
Rorschach’s performance was very good, I was particularly afraid, going into the movie, that they were trying to turn him into the Dark Knight. In advertising, he really sounded like Christian Bale’s Batman voice, so I was very pleased to hear him voiced with flat affect (a lack of emotional expression) as the comic book subtly suggested. In general, I found the performances good or decent, but I really don’t have much else to say about them.
The age makeup for the Comedian and Silk Specter I was ridiculous and cartoon-y. Even in the midst of completely enjoying the film, it looked silly, but it is, in itself, excusable. What’s really crappy about the poor makeup effect is that aging makeup effects are well-established, regularly much better, and not particularly expensive; yet, despite the abundance of funds for digital effects and attention to set detail, they couldn’t be bothered to have age makeup that can’t be upstaged by amateur theater.
It took my dad and Josh, neither of whom have read the book, talking about getting lost about what was going on and why at various points to realize that a great deal of coherence that I saw when first watching it com from knowing the source material. I have considered since then that in other media (I’m thinking literature, primarily) one wouldn’t criticize a work for relying on knowledge of another work to fully understand and that it is unfair to hold film to a different standard. However, knowledge of the other should not be required to simply understand what is happening in a story, it should simply add greater depth. That being said, I am not entirely prepared to call the film out on incoherence without seeing it again with a more attentive eye.
Having said that, it does not bode well for its coherency that the director (Zack Snyder) seemed to lack a real understanding of the story. The majority of changes he made were changes for the worse. (As one case, the stupid button-pushing incident of my previous review-lette.) Another example is deciding that Nite Owl II should witness Rorschach’s death. Snyder has said he thought it would be a good moment for them to have. (I know, I know, I’m not backing anything up with links, you’ll just have to take my word for things or search out interviews yourself.) In theory, maybe it could…but it wasn’t…and honestly, I think he thought about it in terms of how cool Nite Owl’s reaction would be rather than any other reasons. His reaction is bizarre and out of character and the change doesn’t add to the story in any way.
The sex scene has drawn a lot of criticism. On the one hand, it was kind of silly (especially with Hallelujah revving up the overdramatic), but not as silly as many people keep saying. I personally think that criticism has more to do with people’s discomfort seeing sex on a large screen in a large crowd. It was gratuitous, but no more so than any of the overdone fight scenes. (With the exception of Dr. Manhattan, these aren’t supposed to be super heroes and the over-the-top action belies Snyder’s misunderstanding of Watchmen.) The very serious offense of this scene (which I have not heard mentioned elsewhere) is that the sex itself was elaborated on, while the surrounding discussion relating Nite Owl’s impotence to his feelings of impotence, and how being Nite Owl frees him from it by giving him a sense of agency (you know, the whole reason why someone would dress up like an owl to fight crime in a story about what sort of people would actually try to be superheroes) is completely dropped.
Another sexual criticism is the gratuitous over-presence of Dr. Manhattan’s dick. It’s true that it has more screen-time than it had page-space. That’s because, contrary to the allegations that Snyder is just copying the comic book, the film is different than the comic. Framing is different in the film than in the book. Strangely, there is not nearly as much outcry about the amped up feminine T&A. I can only conclude the discomfort with Dr. Manhattan’s dick is simply that: Discomfort with seeing a penis on a large screen in a large crowd, particularly if it not presented for shock value. (Seriously, you can get away with much more taboo-breaking if you do it way over the top and openly to shock.)
I could go on (a whole lot) but this is already pretty long. (I was considering also reviewing Slumdog Millionaire, but I think I’ll pass for now. You’re welcome.) So, in summing up, I’d say Watchmen turned out to be pretty much what I’d started to suspect before its excellent opening credit sequence: A strong attempt to capture a story that was just too big for it. (If that sounds overly harsh, compare it to V for Vendetta, which was just a crap, crap, crap butchering of a story that was too big for it, but much less so than Watchmen.)
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
syphilis_jane's journal
