Dave’s Review for Watchmen

Good review. I’ll look for the things you saw.

I did read a dissenting opinion about Goode’s Veidt: someone said he found him sympathetic, something which he had not anticipated.

I’ve been re-reading Watchmen, before seeing the movie. Find myself fascinated by Rorschach. Not quite sure where to place that final, tormented “Do it!” I love Ostermann’s relationship with time. And I’m beginning to think that the perspective Moore shares most closely is Dr. Manhattan’s. Which is a trifle disturbing.

As disturbing is Dr. Manhattan’s judgement that Veidt’s solution is the right one. Because, of course, he himself could have implemented many other alternatives (rendering all the nukes inoperative, for example.) My point is that Moore, speaking through Manhattan, chose this solution because it reflects his view of mankind as incapable of doing the right thing except at the point of a gun. Whether one shares his view of mankind or not, the story he tells is forced by by this view of human nature.

Moore may not sympatize with any of the characters – although we can see a lot of compassion for all of his “heroes” – but I do think that he expresses a lot of his thoughts about the nature of the universe and mankind’s place in it through Dr. M. The musings on Mars, and especially his conversation with Laurie while on Mars, are someone’s well thought out perspective. If not the author’s, then who else?

I know that to a certain extent, that statement is redundant: all the characters are expressing the author’s thoughts and feelings about the nature of reality. But Dr. M in particular seems to me a lot like how a pessimistic intellectual, faced with the possibility of atomic annhilation in the ’80’s, might have been thinking. As in: in the overall order of the universe, what does the mess that we’ve made here on earth matter? And when confronted with the fragile humanity of the woman he loves, the rapid turnaround: human kind does matter.

BTW, although Laurie does eventually convince Dr. M to come back and try and help, the next time the fate of mankind rests on a single conversation between a God-like being and a human, I’d personally appreciate it if our spokesperson was a little bit more eloquent on the subject of what it all means. I realize the point was Laurie herself, rather than anything she said, but still, could he not have found someone with a little bit more knowledge and awareness?

As for Moore’s point, I don’t think it was about deconstructing superheroes per se, and critiquing our tendency to believe in heroes – the hero ideal, as you say. I think that it was about the more general existential dilemma: in the overall order of the universe, what do we matter? And the answer: as flawed as we are, we matter because – well, I’m still unclear on the because. The superheroes just made a more interesting canvas on which to ask – and answer – that eternal question.

I posted my comments on Dave’s blog:

http://ohioriverutopia.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/saw-watchmen-last-night/

Only comment I want to make here is this.

My 8-year old saw the trailers on tv and wanted to see it. I told him that was not a good idea – too violent. When I went to see it tonight he asked me to tell him when he’d be old enough to watch it.

I enjoyed the movie. It was well done and visually stunning. But based on what I saw tonight, I’m guessing the answer I’d give him would be: never.

revgeorge my first impulse is to say that you have no idea how bad the violence is in Watchmen I went with a friend who enjoys violence, but even she had to turn away at some of the more graphic depictions of the impact of sharp or blunt metallic objects on the human body. I had not seen 300 – and I have no desire to – but I can guess what that must have looked like.

As for violence being ok, well, I think that we all have our own levels of tolerance for it. And that level is influenced by many factors. Personally, I’m not much into amputation, mutilation, people beating people up (vs. fighting), rape, torture, cannibalism, or death by burning. But if a movie is otherwise enjoyable, I will tolerate those things by turning away from those scenes. On the other hand, if those scenes end up being the main part of the movie, or even the actual point of the movie, then I wouldn’t go.

Here’s my personal list of what is or is not acceptable. I loved Kill Bill (both parts). I loved the Bourne movies, although the hand-to-hand combat, especially in the last one, is pretty realistic and hence disturbing. I enjoyed Sin City although there were scenes which were repulsive and which I turned away from. I will not go to any of the Saw movies, or The Last House on the Left. I will not go to Taken because the set-up is to give the hero enough provocation in the first 15 minutes to justify any amount of suspension of morals and inhibitions for the next 75. I will not go to 300. I would still have gone to Watchmen knowing what I do now, because of the story, but it doesn’t mean that I enjoyed the violence.

Ah, the debate over acceptable kinds/levels of violence in movies.

Red, for the most part, I agree with you. I just don’t understand my students’ interest in torture movies, like Saw or Hostel. Haven’t seen ‘em, never will. Dropping people into pits of dirty hypodermic needles, or cutting off limbs to prove its a wonderful world… just not my thing, and I can’t find the artistic value in it. Never been into overwhelming amounts of gore, but I wouldn’t shy away from some if it serves the movie’s purposes.

I can deal with “realistic” violence in movies. I think the new Bond movies are all the better for their adoption of a more realistic tone, although the fight choreography is clearly ripping from Bourne. Despite its violence and gore, I found Saving Private Ryan a profound movie precisely because of its uncompromising vision (one of the few recent Spielberg epics that didn’t drive me crazy).

What bothered me about the violence in Watchmen is that it just 1) isn’t necessary, and 2) seemed far too over-the-top. The book doesn’t shy away from violence, but it never feels gratuitous, as in it’s just there to be lurid. But in the movie, the spectacle is all Snyder was after, and he seems to revel in it. Which is why the sanitized ending surprised me, and felt incongruous.

Red, given your explanations above, I don’t know that you’d like 300, but its violence is not on Watchmen’s level. The best demonstration of this comes from my wife. She often found Watchmen too bloody to endure, but she thought there was something quite beautiful about 300. The stylization is very different. Granted, the story can be boiled down to about 30 minutes, but Snyder’s eye for staging fight scenes and violence works on his behalf here. He finds a kind of terrifying ballet and grace in it all — which makes sense with a Frank Miller adaptation.

But, Watchmen just isn’t an action story, and I wonder if Snyder was really the best option available. Although, admittedly, it’s hard to envision how the movie would have turned out in the hands of another (big name) director:

“Stephen Spielberg’s Watchmen“…? Ozy would have had a turn of heart, and Rorschach would have searched his soul to find the beauty in a plural, multi-cultural society.

“Watchmen, a film by Ridley Scott”…? Russell Crowe as Dr. Manhattan in a film whose color is so desaturated that Dr. M looks the color of an easter egg.

The vision is just so singular, it’s hard to imagine in anyone else’s hands. And I’m just not convinced Snyder fully imagined it in his.

Dave said, “rev, never heard anybody look forward to Dumbledore’s death before… nice and creepy… ; D”

Oh, is that what I was referring to? Well, I’m not so much looking forward to Dumbledore’s death as to the vicarious vision of the person who currently butchers the portrayal of Dumbledore being blasted off the tower. I’ll excuse any amount of violence for that.

I look forward to that scene with as much certainty & much more joy than I look forward to another disappointing year for the Cubs.

I deplore almost all movie gore and violence, but hey, revgeorge, can we share a popcorn while yelling “yahoo!” when Gambon takes the flying leap? Let the theater throw us out; I’m sure we’ll not be the only ones cheering.

That said, it just occured to me why DD’s descent was so slow and gentle (much speculated upon at the time). I think it was due to Snape AKing him; perhaps Severus did a Floating Charm or something, to not further increase student and staff trauma with a smushed, bloody body, and out of his respect for DD. Thoughts?

Oh, Fudge! I forgot you’re preveiwing it for us at Azkatrazamataz. No I won’t be there, getting broomsticks in the eye. Well, enjoy the popcorn for me. And who knows, perhaps you’ll have others to cheer with you.

I checked HBP. DD was blasted, “seemed to hang suspended,” “and then he fell slowly backward, like a great rag doll, over the battlements and out of sight.”

When Harry reaches him, DD is “spread-eagled, broken…but for the strange angle of his arms and legs, he might have been sleeping.” His spectacles are still on, there’s a trickle of blood from his mouth.

Okay, so there was some damage. But from a fall that high, I think there would have been more, and he would have landed on his head, not back; but then, it might well have been too disturbing for kids.

Not to hijack Dave’s Watchmen review, but I’m guessing, Rocker, that you think Gambon will botch the death scene in addition to all the other ones?

I’m sorry revgeorge, I don’t mean to blather on and on about a lost cause. But I do. It’s like an itch that won’t go away. What sets it off is not thinking about Gambon, but thinking about the amazing character that JKR gave us, how much fun a good actor could have had portraying him (witness Sir Richard), how much fun it would have been to watch a really good actor pull out DD’s contradictions and hypocrisies and self-pity and the whole tangled, amazing mess he made of his life. It’s my enjoyment of Dumbledore that sustains my dislike of Gambon.

I can start a page at my blog devoted only to:

“Red’s and rev’s Rants”

But, one catch… You both have to get Statler and Waldorf gravatars!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGfx3QAV64M&feature=related

What am I? Chopped liver? I want to rant too. First, apologies–I didn’t mean to hijack the thread. Second, Travis, please give us a Gambon thread, because I have time for only two blogs, and John and you are it. Thanks, but sorry, Dave.

Until I zoomed way up, rev g, I couldn’t tell your gravatar was Godzilla. I thought it was a lumbering, mysterious fat guy in a hard hat. And Dave the LW, your kitten with a gun is hilarious (hadn’t seen it closely, either); Luscious Badboy will pout till he gets one. I need to set up my own gravatar soon–just busy.

I suppose I could always switch to the Stay-puft Marshmallow man, if he’d be more recognizable.