Watchmen (2009)

Directed by Zack Snyder. Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup, Matthew Goode, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Patrick Wilson, Carla Gugino. Warner Bros.

Decent Films Ratings

Overall
Recommendability
?D
Artistic/
Entertainment Value
?
Moral/Spiritual
Value (+4/-4)
? -3
Age
Appropriateness
?Adults*

External Ratings

MPAA ?R USCCB ?NA

Content advisory: Recurring graphic, often murderous violence; some sexuality including a lesbian kiss and an extended sex scene with partial male and female nudity; violence against women including an attempted rape and a murder of a pregnant woman; profanity and much obscene and coarse language.

By Steven D. Greydanus

Along with Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns, also released in the late 1980s, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’s graphic novel Watchmen redefined what comic-book art was capable of being and accomplishing. I was an art student studying cartooning when Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns first appeared; heady times for comic-book enthusiasts.

In my review of Miller’s ill-advised recent cinematic take on Will Eisner’s The Spirit, I wrote that The Spirit had been the Citizen Kane of comic-book art, and The Dark Knight Returns had been The Godfather. Watchmen does not suggest a similar cinematic analogy, but reading it one might be at turns reminded of Dr. Strangelove, Bonnie and Clyde, Dirty Harry, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Taxi Driver.

It is a work of remarkable density and sophistication, a deconstruction of the superhero genre rather than, like Dark Knight Returns, a reinvention and a deepening of it. Subversive, cynical and nihilistic, Watchmen paints a universe in which Heath Ledger’s Joker from last year’s cinematic The Dark Knight would feel right at home — in fact, he might just find it a world in which there was nothing for him to do.

In this world, the amoral Comedian, who regards life as a meaningless joke, is one of the so-called heroes. The psychotic Rorschach schizophrenically sees the world in morally black and white terms while simultaneously regarding morality as a projection of human meaning onto meaningless patterns. Dr. Manhattan, the only figure in the story with obvious super-powers, is so detached from humanity by his godlike status and quantum perspective that he has a hard time seeing a meaningful difference between life and death. Then there’s an Olympian figure who sets out to save the world by an act more monstrous than the Joker’s wildest machinations.

On one level, Moore sought to craft a narrative exploring what masked vigilanteism might look like in the real world, with flawed and marginal characters rather than the altruistic do-gooders of traditional comic-book mythology. On another level, although he made some effort to imbue his characters with varying outlooks, Moore’s anarchic, atheistic worldview clearly informs the narrative as a whole.

The story could be called a critique of super-hero hubris, of those who in setting out to help mankind set themselves above the rest of humanity. The title alludes to the Roman poet Juvenal’s pointed query, “Who watches the watchmen?” (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?) The climax threatens to rip the rug from under traditional heroism altogether — until a final twist rips the rug from under the climax, and the story seems to end as it began, with a meaningless, deadly joke.

Why have I spent six paragraphs of a movie review talking about the source material? Because Zack Snyder’s Watchmen is not only the most faithful cinematic comic-book adaptation ever created, it is possibly the single most faithful cinematic adaptation of any source material, ever.

No medium other than comic book–style sequential art could ever inform a film adaptation to the same degree, since movies and comics are uniquely fusions of visual and literary art. The most faithful imaginable film version of a novel could never owe as much to its source as Snyder’s Watchmen owes to the graphic novel, since composition, visual point of view, set and character design, even physical details of casting choices have all been influenced to a degree beyond the novelist’s art.

This isn’t to say there was no opportunity for creative choices on the part of the filmmakers. To begin with, the book is a work of such density that choices had to be made what to include. The need for compression has led to new images and sequences, especially in the striking title sequence. Adjustments have been made here and there, sometimes to good effect — most notably regarding a climactic device, where the spirit of the original is honored in the breach by a clever twist. In a word, Watchmen is the anti-Spirit, and that can only be a good thing.

Some choices are less welcome than others. The creative title sequence, offering iconic snapshots of the movie’s alternate history set to the strains of Dylan’s “The Times They are A-Changin’,” restages the famous Life magazine V‑J Day photo of a sailor kissing a nurse with a masked hero in the sailor role, but makes it a lesbian heroine named Silhouette who never appears onscreen in the book — and then depicts Silhouette and a female lover murdered in bed with the words “lesbian whores” blazoned on the walls.

This psycho-homophobia motif is original to the film (the novel refers to the unseen Silhouette as a lesbian and mentions her murder by a revenge-seeking enemy). For a moment it seems Watchmen might go the way of V for Vendetta, another Alan Moore adaptation in which persecution of homosexuals was a major theme — but it ends there, with maximum gratuitous effect. Wasn’t Rorschach’s bloviating against homosexuals and liberals enough for Snyder?

While casting choices are generally excellent, some of the comic-book characters are actually more ordinary-looking than their movie counterparts. As Nite Owl, Patrick Wilson is fitter and more conventionally handsome than Gibbons’s slightly dumpy rendering of the character, and Matthew Goode is both prettier and more lightweight than Gibbons’s Ozymandias/Veidt, who’s supposed to be the world’s smartest human (my friend Lawrence Toppman cracks that Goode’s Veidt is only the smartest runway model). On the other hand, Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s Comedian and Malin Akerman’s Silk Spectre seem to have walked off the comic-book page, and Jackie Earle Haley makes a splendid Rorschach, growling like Clint Eastwood by way of Christian Bale’s Dark Knight, which is just what he should sound like. (He actually sounds better than Bale, darn it — doesn’t sound like he’s trying, or digitally enhanced.)

Billy Crudup provides the tranquil voice and motion-capture physical performance for the computer-generated Dr. Manhattan, who’s a splendid special effect — light-years beyond, say, the second Fantastic Four’s Silver Surfer — though his bulging, ripped CGI muscles go beyond even the perfect physique of his comic-book counterpart. More crudely, the movie vulgarizes Manhattan’s habitual nudity; where Gibbons’s rare full-frontal shots are as matter-of-fact and “understated” (Gibbons’s word) as classical statuary, in the movie the doctor lets it hang out all over the place — and he’s endowed like a blue CGI porn star, in marked contrast to the comic book.

Other comparatively subtle choices in the book have been coarsened in the film. Where sex in the book is all offscreen, the film offers an extended, fairly explicit sex scene in Nite Owl’s flying ship. The violence, too, has been tarted up for the screen. The graphic novel has a horror-stricken young Rorschach, snapping after making a grisly discovery, chain a human monster inside his apartment, splash kerosene around, drop a match, and walk away, leaving him to burn to death offscreen. In the movie, after chaining him up, Rorschach splits his skull with a meat cleaver, then continues to whack at the skull again and again, all in closeup. Another scene in which a thug’s throat is slit in the comic book becomes a double amputation with a buzz saw.

Last year’s brilliant The Dark Knight showed how effective implied violence and menace could be without spurting blood or unnaturally draped limbs. The R-rated Watchmen is more explicit, but much less effective.

Snyder’s direction is professional but uninspired, especially when it comes to action scenes. Two big scenes, a rescue from a burning building and a prison break, could have been thrilling, but merely go through the motions. A much built-up sequence in which convicts attack the imprisoned Rorschach in his cell peters out in anticlimactically rote action rather than building to a kinetically stunning finale.

Though an impressive achievement on many levels, Watchmen doesn’t connect emotionally. Characters and situations remain distant and uninvolving, a problem not entirely absent in the source material, but aggravated by the compression of the film which necessarily leaves out some of the human detail of the original.

More elusively, as reverently as Watchmen treats its source material, what was groundbreaking in a 1980s graphic novel is old hat in a 2009 action film. Dystopian apocalyptic scenarios, violent antiheroes, graphic violence (and here sex) and so forth had never been seen in mainstream super-hero comic-book art — but there’s nothing new about seeing it on the big screen.

I admire Moore and Gibbons’s work in the graphic novel. I can’t say I like the work as a whole. It’s a super-hero story without heroism — not a story of ambiguous or flawed heroism, like The Dark Knight, but simply non-heroism. A key character in a key scene debunks what he calls the “obvious,” “schoolboy” heroics of a simpler time — but then his own vision is debunked as well in a closing conceit that seems to depict humanity lurching randomly toward meaningless annihilation.

The movie is an impressive work of transposition, but I can’t recommend it. Excessively brutal and sexually graphic as well as nihilistic and and antiheroic, it’s a thoroughgoing deconstruction of humanity as well as heroism, one that takes its world apart without putting it back together again. There are things to admire here, but Watchmen doesn’t make me care. If you can’t care about characters facing the end of the world, perhaps it’s time to turn back the clock and move on.

Tags: DC Comics, Superheroes & Comic Book Movies, Action

Related Content

Mail: Re: Watchmen

In your review of Watchmen you wrote:

The graphic novel has a horror-stricken young Rorschach, snapping after making a grisly discovery, chain a human monster inside his apartment, splash kerosene around, drop a match, and walk away, leaving him to burn to death offscreen. In the movie, after chaining him up, Rorschach splits his skull with a meat cleaver, then continues to whack at the skull again and again, all in closeup.

I think the movie scene is far less violent than the graphic-novel scene. In the original graphic novel, while you don’t see this, the implication is far more cruel and violent; the killer has to saw through his arm or get burned; he burned.

In this version he’s dead in the first blow; I thought the film treatment of the child killer is much less violent and kinder since he died instantly. You see gore, but it doesn’t mean as much as the guy is dead and Rorschach is clearly crazy. In the graphic novel the guy’s death is agonizing and makes Rorschach seem crueler.

By the way, I understand some people don’t like depressing works, but I found Light in the story; I found Light in Dan Dreiberg and Laurie Jupiter. I like and sympathize with those characters.

The graphic-novel scene = character development.

The movie scene = grossout / shock value.

In a visual medium like comics or film, what the story asks us to look at is at least as important critically as what happens.

I can understand liking and sympathizing with Dreiberg and Jupiter. I’m not totally sure Alan Moore sympathizes with them. Be that as it may, they may be sympathetic characters, but they don’t bring a genuinely heroic dynamic to the story. Watchmen — in either the graphic novel or the film version — is a super hero story without heroism.

Dreiberg is the most traditionally heroic (by disposition) character in the story, and the only one of the half-dozen major male characters who doesn’t have a nihilistic worldview. Tellingly, he’s also the most benighted and ineffectual.

Comedian, Dr. Manhattan, Rorschach and Ozymandias are each in their own ways more “enlightened” than Nite Owl, and they all have some sort of nihilistic worldview. Veidt debunks heroism — and then his vision is debunked.

Not shades of grey, but stark black and white — in meaningless patterns, onto which we only project meaning. There is no meaning, no fate, no God; just us, and the horrors we visit on ourselves. Ultimately, we are all in the dark — and there’s plenty of pitch-black darkness (child rape and dismemberment, etc.), but little if anything that could be called light. Well, maybe if a woman has consensual sex with a man who once tried to rape her, someone might contrive to see some sort of light in that.

The story is about a countdown to doomsday. One character has a horrifically nihilistic plan to avert it, and in the end he succeeds in enacting his plan — yet the outcome is ultimately thwarted by an unforeseen consequence of the actions of another nihilistic character. The most unimaginable of sacrifices is enacted, to no avail. The fate of the world turns on a meaningless chain of events, and continues it career toward annihilation. If that’s not nihilistic, what is?

Link To This Item >

Mail: Re: Watchmen

While fully aware that this is a Christian website with a Christian world view, I wish you wouldn’t use either “atheist” or “anarchist” as immediate synonyms for “nihilistic”, as you seem to do in your review of Watchmen:

On another level, although he made some effort to imbue his characters with varying outlooks, Moore’s anarchic, atheistic worldview clearly informs the narrative as a whole.

Neither anarchism nor atheism imply nihilism, despite how the labels have been abused in the media. One can be both and still find meaning and value in things beyond government or God. I’d guess you would dispute that they are right in doing so, of course, but that’s beside the point.

Your point is well taken. It wasn’t my intention to imply — what I certainly do not believe — that an atheistic and/or anarchic outlook is ipso facto nihilistic. I do see, on rereading in context the sentence you cite, that I wasn’t as clear as I could have been, and the sentence could suggest the reading you indicate, and object to.

What I think I was trying to do in that sentence is this. I characterized the overarching authorial outlook of Watchmen as “anarchic” and “atheistic” because I understand that Moore self-identifies as an anarchist and an atheist, and I think that comes through in Watchmen. On the other hand, I refrained from specifying “nihilistic” in that particular connection, not because I thought it was implicit in the two adjectives I did use, but because even though I think that Watchmen as a work is nihilistic, I have no reason to think that Moore is or considers himself to be a nihilist.

So, far from intending to equate either anarchy or atheism with nihilism, I actually meant to bracket nihilism as a distinct issue that arises in the work in ways that do not necessarily directly reflect Moore’s personal outlook. I could have been clearer on that point, though, and can see why you felt it worth clarifying.

It does get a bit more complex than that, because while I agree that in practice anarchy and atheism don’t entail nihilism, I do think that in Watchmen the story’s nihilistic tendencies are not unrelated to the atheistic and anarchic outlook.

Going beyond the critical question, converging with your guess, I would at least say that I can’t begin to see what sense the categories of meaning and value would hold for me if I ceased to believe in some sort of transcendent reality and saw the deterministic/random cosmos as all that is. In other words, if I were an atheist, I think I would be forced to be a moral nihilist. I do understand that many atheists reject that conclusion — and blessings on them, they are the better for it — but to me the nihilists’ critique of morality seems compelling, absent something we can call “divinity” or “heaven” or something of the sort.

Such considerations, though, would be of very tertiary significance in responding to a work like Watchmen where my primary aim is to understand the work as it is, and to offer a critical response that reflects my worldview (in the values I presuppose), rather than imposing my worldview (by spinning the author’s world to conform to reality as I see it). So while I might argue philosophically that atheism in fact undermines meaning, I wouldn’t argue that an artist’s imaginative vision is nihilistic just because it is atheistic. Quite the contrary.

Hope that helps. Thanks again for writing.

Link To This Item >

Review: The Spirit (2008)

F | 0 | -1| Teens & Up

The movie version of The Spirit is a straightforward excursion into the Frank Miller Universe at its most reductionist, self-parodying and content-free. There are no characters or relationships, only placeholders where characters ought to be. There is no drama or conflict, only dueling line readings and cartoony brutality. There is nothing at stake and nothing and no one to care about, only a pointless, shapeless exercise in wildly veering moods and styles.

Continue reading this review >

Coming Soon

Recently Added

In Theaters – Latest

In Theaters – All