‘Watchmen’: Tough on Liberal Sensibilities
by Chris YogerstThere has been a lot written about vigilantism and conservatism in film lately. My friend David Swindle wrote a piece for American Thinker “What’s So Conservative About Vigilantism?” Big Hollywood contributor John T. Simpson wrote “Story and the Power of Conservative Themes in Film” and I wrote about vigilantism for Parcbench.com.
Conservative’s favorite vigilantes know that no justice system is perfect just like “Dirty Harry” Callahan knows there is no time for due process when people’s lives are at stake. These heroes always draw a distinct line between good and evil, and we trust them to do the right thing.
Watchmen, which was recently released on DVD, gives us a darker view of our heroes. It suggests that maybe we shouldn’t trust them, and takes a very cynical view of the fight of good versus evil. The characters are pitched as superheroes but most of them are as human as any of us.
The film takes place in a fictional 1985 where Richard Nixon is still the president. Over the years, “watchmen” had been working with the government to keep the world a safe place but eventually became outlawed. While President Nixon is trying to avoid nuclear warfare with the soviets, some “watchmen” see a world that is not worth saving anymore while others continue to operate as vigilantes.
The story is driven by the murder of Edward Blake/The Comedian (Jeffery Dean Morgan), who was a cynical hero who felt that there was no point to fighting anymore. Blake represents the kind of “reality of heroism” that liberals want to push on the rest of us. Too often it seems that they feel there are no truly good people or heroes.
Edward Blake was the most corrupt superhero, with a past of heartless murder of women and children. Once he realized there was a plan in place to kill thousands of innocent people to save millions, he decided to right his past by alerting his fellow “watchmen.” This decision ultimately leads to his murder.
The hunt for Blake’s murderer was spearheaded by Walter Kovacs/Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), who refused to give up the fight for the greater good. He has zero tolerance for those who are soft on crime, often complaining about “liberal sensibilities.” In one scene he confronts a man who murdered and hacked up a child. When the man admits his crime and says “Take me in. I need help,” Rorschach puts a meat cleaver through his skull.
Some characters fell out of the crime fighting business because they managed to lose faith in humans as well as their own ability to rid the world of evil. This explains why the diegetic world is so dark and corrupt and also shows us what the world will be if criminals continue to be treated like victims.
Parts of this story do not want us to look up at any one person or group to “save us.” The original graphic novel was written as a critique to those looking up at Ronald Reagan as a superhero. Ironically, the same critique can be placed towards those who look up at President Obama as some sort of all knowing producer of good.
Most certainly a conservative’s favorite character will be Rorschach, whose actions are anything but soft on crime. He is programmed to fight evil, both foreign and domestic. Rorschach eventually sacrificed himself since he could not live with the decision to sacrifice thousands to save millions.
In the end, the “watchmen” decide to let the plan continue, or else the end result will surely be a nuclear apocalypse. This decision was a tough one and was in no way one of self interest. Regardless, film still tries to leave us questioning our heroes on some level.
Of course, anyone who believes the world has no heroes is looking through a polarized lens. There actually are people who fight for good and succeed. The USA hasn’t had a terrorist attack since 2001, and that is because we have our own heroes fighting for the greater good of the free world both here and abroad.
We don’t have one single hero, but rather hundreds of thousands of them. They are at every military base, fire station, police station, and every other institution that helps keep us safe every day. Without them, we would live in the dystopic world that occurs in the film once “watchmen” are outlawed.
Obviously no one is perfect and we all have flaws, but I want to believe that most of us know the difference between good and evil. The line between the two is not always blurred, like those on the left want you to think. Certain elements of Watchmen want us to believe the world is not worth fighting for, however, it most certainly is.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
47 Comments
I don't know that we trust our fictional vigilante heroes to do the right thing so much as we are fascinated by imagining someone in the situation where they are forced or compelled to take that authority on to themselves because of the extreme moral danger involved, because of the risk or sense of individual moral jeopardy.
Rorschach, speaking of Watchmen, was actually the one member who refused to make that moral judgment for others. In a sense he actually refrained. For a vigilante he had a very simple understanding of the moral decisions he was allowed to make for others. The super smart guy who ended up being the "villain" , in my opinion, failed the test that Rorschach passed. He decided that he was able to decide for others… to take their volition and self-determination even, in the cause of the greater good.
I liked the recent Punisher movie. Unless I misremember the Punisher was shown to go to great lengths not to use innocent people for his ends, though he did end up getting some help.
I'm sure I could think of other examples.
I have seen Watchmen only once so far. It as great as some claim and as bad others protest. This movie has incredible breadth, almost frenzied content. Overwhelming graphic action, challenging subtext, complex sub sub text. Violence, sex, violent sex, fascinating alternative time line concepts, simplistic liberal and conservative preconceptions, insight and myopic delusions. At the heart is a well executed story with out a satisfying conclusion, (much like real life). If you are put off by nudity, rape, stupid liberal misunderstanding of reality this is not your movie. This is a movie you will love or hate, but you will not be unmoved.
If you hate it and consider it an insulting demeaning waste of your time, I understand. If you find it a challenging alternative of what it means to be a hero, I understand
Is it a great movie? I'll tell you in a coulpe of years after watching it a couple more times after the hype has worn off.
My experience of Watchmen in the 20 years since it came out has been a shift in which of the story's heroes I wanted to succeed. In that time I went from college freshman to family man. I no longer imagine that the world's evil originates with the West nor do I equate our country or our foreign policy goals with others. We really are the white hats.
I was glad in whatever form Watchmen's story was presented to people for a lot of the same reasons you mention. It does show heroes with feet of clay and extremes of their own humanity. And it does show the lengths at which some might be willing to go to make a "better world". It also shows us the lengths some will go to protect us and reasons for the extreme. In the end it is not about the vigilante or hero making some harsh decision to protect right from wrong. It's that they are the only ones willing to make the decision in a society so inept that they can't make it for themselves.
Our hero and our voice in the Watchmen is Rorschach. He is angry at the system and what life has given him. Life gave him lemons and he made lemonade out of it the best he could. He deals with people as equal to how they deal with him. When treated with civility and respect he responds with civility. His very nature is his response to his environment. They created him and he proves the addage "be careful what you wish for". He is us. It's why he ultimately wins out. He is that voice that says I will not remain silent.
[...] original post here: ‘Watchmen’: Tough on Liberal Sensibilities This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Rorschach was the only reason I watched Watchmen, and although he wasn't the only reason I enjoyed it, the character was a big part of my enjoyment. Rorschach and The Comedian were the only characters that resonated with clarity, the former with an idealistic absolutism (basically a violent objectivism), the latter with a cynical brutality. I've not clocked it, but I thought the film, overall, spent far too much time on the others – Rorschach and The Comedian dominate the film, and as much time as they had, they should have had more.
I've not read the GN, so maybe it comes off different, or maybe they were staying close to the material.
The film is very close to the comic, down to a shot level in many cases. And a truly slavish adaptation will be coming out when they link the theatrical film with material they shot of a fake comic book that was featured within the Watchmen comics.
I always liked the Night Owl b/c he was the only classic hero of the bunch and the cynicism of the word knocked the hell out of him as I think it does to most decent people from time to time. And he performed better (in all ways) when he was able to gear up and get the clarity of the fight.
Yeah, I thought Nite Owl came the closest to being an Everyman character that the readers were supposed to identify with. He was basically a good guy who wanted to do good things but the world he lived in wouldn't let him so he just gave up.
What struck me most in the novel was that at the end, a fragment of one of the characters notes (a quote from Revelation) is found, leading the scripture aware reader to believe that Ozymandias is the antichrist. No one mentions that in reviewing the movie. If you take that fact in context, and Ozymandias IS the antichrist, then credence is given to scripture, and ultimately to the concept that there is an ultimate Judge of right and wrong.
You know how some movies are unintentionally funny? "Watchmen" was unintentionally brilliant.
To the liberal mind, there were only two ways the Cold War could end (if it ever did): nuclear apocalypse, or some kind of Ozymandian "solution" like that proposed in the movie. The result? Reality proved liberalism — and Alan Moore — wrong.
And yet, by some bizarre miracle, the movie still works. And yes, it's Rorschach. Certainly he's everybody's favorite character. Why? Every Hollywood movie of the last twenty years at least has depicted conservatives the same way: as mustache-twirling, flag-lapel-pin-wearing villains like Tom Cruise in "Lions for Lambs." And that, indeed, is the role that "Nixon" plays in "Watchmen."
But Rorschach… Despite his conservatism, Rorschach is a real, three-dimensional character, with a real voice — a voice that deserves, and gets, a hearing. Name another movie of the last twenty years about which you can say that. ("Team America" doesn't count!)
And yes, Rorschach is us. In a world where heroes have been outlawed — like Hollywood — real heroes have to wear masks. Indeed, if John Wayne were still around, the only role he could authentically play in a Hollywood movie today would be the villain.
In this respect, "Watchmen" got things right. Ultimately, the artist in Alan Moore triumphed over the ideologue.
"Some characters fell out of the crime fighting business because they managed to lose faith in humans as well as their own ability to rid the world of evil."
Ironically, liberals create their own disillusionment. Liberals put their faith in the basic goodness and perfectability of man. You perfect the man then you will perfect the world. The problem is that man is not inherently good and he is not perfectable. And thus, the world is not perfectable either. Either a liberal figures this out and dispairs or he continues to chase the next solution.
The Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that man is fallen and he cannot reach perfection on his own. Evil exists and it must be fought but it cannot ultimately be destroyed by humans. Each generation, each person, must take his own personal stand against evil but ultmately God himself has to intervene to destory it. The hope is that one day all will be made right, not by me, but by an ultimate power.
The movie ruined one of my favorite gags in the Comics: There are numerous campaign signs/newspaper articles in the background that say "RR '88" and you go through the whole comic series thinking it's Reagan, only it turns out to be Robert Redford '88.
If loving Rorschach is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Without him, this movie would've been another CGI-laden overblown leftist piece of s**t.
The Comedian was just a senseless butcher and rapist. He was a piece of garbage who represents what liberals think of actual conservatives – and America.
But Rorschach had a CODE.
"An attack on one of us is an attack on ALL of us."
'What are we supposed to do?'
"Retribution."
Watching this in the theater for the first time, when Rorschach was killed at the end of the movie, I yelled out loud in the theater, "WHAT THE F**K?!!!"
Some people looked back at me – I didn't care.
Rorschach we hardly knew ye.
Allen Moore says again and again that Rorschach isn't a heroic character, yet the audience constantly gravitates to him. Perhaps, putting conservative vs. liberal values aside, it's because Rorschach is the only character in the whole movie who actually gets off his ass and does anything to move the plot along?
I would say that the character of Rorschach is really a mental "Freudian slip" from Alan Moore's mind. He wouldn't admit that he has a conservative soul.
–"Obviously no one is perfect and we all have flaws, …"
Of course no one is perfect and we all have flaws. But isn't it interesting how we ALWAYS have to add qualifiers like that whenever we praise our troops or defend America lest some L-tard mentally deficient thinks we're claiming our troops and country are perfect and without any flaws. You gotta love their "nuance".
I watched this bewildering, overlong, badly in need of editing, disaster of a film last night. It's sort of like that last sentence. I'll admit there are some nice moments but there are far too many embarrassingly bad moments, as well. And yes Rorshach is the only interesting character amid some truly ridiculous ones. Except for the big blue guy, there are no origins for the other "superheroes". No explanation of who they are or how they came by their powers. If you can call them powers. They have tights and gadgets. Most of them just fight really well, although the bad guy is really fast, not superman fast but fast. None of that makes any sense. It wasn't kill thousands to save millions, it was millions to save billions, btw. The politics and the religion were typical drivel. I asked myself if only communists make movies these days. It turned into a snorefest. Don't waste your time.
I left this film thinking about an age-old question: Can one do evil in order to bring about good? This is arises from the Vietnam-era Modern Liberal trope that Americans would "burn down the village to save it." That Liberals come to the larger question over doing evil for good is beside the point. It should, however, make anyone pause to rethink act of vigilantism.
Watchmen's closing forced me to rethink the rest of the film, i.e. Rorschach's hunt for the Comedian's killer. Rorschach spent the entire film doing evil thinking that he was bringing about a greater good. One cannot look at the end of Watchmen and say that it is right thing to forestall nuclear annihilation and the same time condemn Rorschach for being one murderer's judge, jury and executioner. Nor can you say that Rorschach was "just doing what needed to be done" concerning the murderer, but than say that stopping nuclear war "by any means necessary" goes to far.
The obvious response is that the murderers Rorschach went after were being dealt with based on their individual behavior. Using the same tactics against innocents is never justified. This brings us back to the issue of vigilantism, which this movie put on display in both large and small scale. I thought Watchmen forced people to seriously examine the idea that one can "burn down the village in order to save it," and that did not sit well with a lot of people.
That is exactly my take on Watchmen. It's as if Moore, somewhat of a leftist, got to the end, and thought "damn — I can't believe this is how it played out" and just went with it.
I'm a died-in-the-wool Reagan conservative, and I actually loved his name getting thrown in at the end.
To me — and this was most likely unintentional — but it was almost Zack Snyder's way of throwing in his opinion of what happens after the story.
For a moment, consider the premise of the film as complete bullsh*t. A group of highly-trained vigilantes standing in the way of Soviet aggression and nuclear annihilation? Come on … we know that in the real timeline, it was three people, Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul who stared down communism.
Now consider the end of Watchmen: The weird leftist intellectual, hybrid-car pushing, metro villain detonates a sets off a weapon that seemingly brings global harmony. BUT Rorschach's journal detailing the ENTIRE fallacy sits in a newspaper office.
In essence, the alternate timeline actually lines up with real events. Reagan is coming to put a a real end to this. To me, it was profound.
Somewhat of a leftist? I can't imagine anyone being more disappointed about that ending than Alan Moore. On the other hand, he claimed that he knew what was going to be on the last page of the series long before he wrote the first page.
Not strictly conservative. I'd actually slot him in as a center-left libertarian.
I'm not sure what to think of the changed ending. The implication of the original is that Reagan never became a political power. We have a conservative newspaperman talking sarcastically about the possibility of a Hollywood actor (Redford) in the White House; his assistant doesn't raise the argument that, hey, they've got an actor for governor out in California. Which would seem to mean that Reagan's a nobody in the Watchmen universe as originally written.
Now I have to see it.
What I really loved about "Watchmen" is the paradox of the two main characters – the pinnacle of all the characters is Dr. Manhattan, because of his omnipotent powers and godlike nature, and the nadir of all the characters is Rorschach, because of his unsavory, hard-hitting and violent nature. When it comes to the paradox between the two, especially you read the book toward the end, my question is this:
Who was the most RIGHTEOUS character, morally, at the end?
Your answer?
Dr. Manhattan left. Rorschach did something.
I´d slot him as a talented idiot.
No, Chris, "Obviously no one is perfect and we all have flaws, but I want to believe that most of us know the difference between good and evil.", most do not know the difference, could care less and wouldn't waste their time. Like the Uberleftys in this country, those folks that are the parents and/or children of all of the 60's Drugs/Sex/and Rock and Roll generation. The left is only interested in their ideology, they will achieve it at any cost and in the process we will discover the corruption that has grown like a terminal melanoma all over the government. But, I digress….as a senior I have seen the changes wrought in this country most not to the good. I wish you all good luck with your future.
Moore in the 80s had a habit of writing characters that "got away from him" in terms of perception: Both Rorschach and "V" from V for Vendetta are vigilante's we're not supposed to "like" very much – in that they're both clearly psychopaths who's supposed codes of honor are just self-justification for sadism and self-righteousness. Rorschach doesn't exist to protect good, but to inflict pain on evil. V says he wants to "liberate" the people of London, but he really doesn't care about them – he's just out to revel in anarchy as a mode of revenge. Problem is, Moore writes them both so well that the "likable" aspects of their play-acting still comes through. Rorschach is a cruel, hateful, awful human being… but his vigilante justice is still "cool" in the way fictional vigilantism is always cool.
(continued)
BUT Manhattan's innaction is taken (or, rather, not taken) out of a desire to prevent a greater disaster; whereas Rorschach's action is taken for his own self-edification – he doesn't give a damn what happens to everyone else (hence, "even in the face of armageddon.")
I'm with Rorschach, too, just sayin'…
You're absolutely right. Rorschach drives the plot. Without him, there'd have been no investigation. No investigation, no forward movement to the narrative.
That said, it IS somewhat odd that he sees a "pattern" in the killing of a single member of the team.
It's ridiculous for anyone to claim this movie is conservative. It's a Leftists wet dream come alive. Killing millions 'for the greater good' and allying the United States with the Soviet Union in a Kumbaya fantasy is precisely what the leftist cranks would sell their children for.
"Most certainly a conservative’s favorite character will be Rorschach, whose actions are anything but soft on crime. He is programmed to fight evil, both foreign and domestic. Rorschach eventually sacrificed himself since he could not live with the decision to sacrifice thousands to save millions."
Rorschach did not 'sacrifice' himself, he offed himself. Self-sacrifice is what liberals do.
Thank's for the plot spoilers,guys!
"Rorschach is a cruel, hateful, awful human being"
The Hell you say, sir.
Cite an example of this from the GN or film.
"Self-sacrifice is what liberals do"
No, they don't!
Have you not been paying attention? Liberals exempt themselves from any consequence of their philosophy.
In my four years in the Marine Corps, I only met one positive "Liberal"…and he was a Reservist.
Self-sacrifice is the way of us conservatives.
This is the most poorly-written post I've ever seen on this blog, counting Yogerst's previous Public Enemies review. It reads like a freshman comp paper. What's the thesis here? That "no one is perfect?" What was your final opinion on the film? And please, for the love of god, lose the scare quotes: you only need to type "watchmen" once.
Um.. well, for starters, he commits violent assault for the pleasure of it (yes, on criminals, so he can justify it to himself) he's an animal-murderer (no reason to take out the dogs – who can hardly be blamed for something they were starved into doing – other than to mess with their evil owner) he claims that two women who were brutally slaughtered in their home basically "deserved it" because they were lesbians, he's verbally abusive to his only friends AFTER they rescue him, and he happily fantasizes about most of the world dying around him while he refuses to help. All that, plus once we get his origin it's clear that his "code" is bull, only existing to allow himself psychological cover to work out his mommy issues on "bad people."
There's a scene in the GN and in the directors-cut that I wish was in the movie, where Rorschach espouses how glad he is that the "generous" night has provided him an encounter with a woman who's being raped. He doesn't care about her, other than being GLAD for the assault because it gives him chance to brutalize the rapist.
Um.. well, for starters, he commits violent assault for the pleasure of it (yes, on criminals, so he can justify it to himself) he's an animal-murderer (no reason to take out the dogs – who can hardly be blamed for something they were starved into doing – other than to mess with their evil owner) he claims that two women who were brutally slaughtered in their home basically "deserved it" because they were lesbians, he's verbally abusive to his only friends AFTER they rescue him, and he happily fantasizes about most of the world dying around him while he refuses to help. All that, plus once we get his origin it's clear that his "code" is bull, only existing to allow himself psychological cover to work out his mommy issues on "bad people."
There's a scene in the GN and in the directors-cut that I wish was in the movie, where Rorschach espouses how glad he is that the "generous" night has provided him an encounter with a woman who's being raped. He doesn't care about her, other than being GLAD for the assault because it gives him chance to brutalize the rapist. But, is he still cool? Of course he's cool! Bullies usually are
Whether he intended it or not, Moore's Watchmen is a study in the conflict of value systems and power.
Rorschach is described as a psychopath, but in fact he is the movie’s legalist, the deontologist who adheres ruthlessly to the strict letter of the law. The Comedian is perhaps a hedonist, doing only that which gives him pleasure, though it may not be “good” for him. Nite Owl, like his doppelganger, Batman, is an aretaic; he wants to do the right thing in any given situation, as does Silk Specter, although that sometimes means crossing the law. Ozymandias is a utilitarian, willing to sacrifice some to save many. And Dr. Manhattan is the ultimate existential materialist: he exists in Time, not Space, and sees life itself as matter.
In an interview, Alan Moore stated, “And yes, Watchmen came to be about power. About power and about the idea of the superman manifest within society.” The idea of a Nitzschean “superman” is perfect for the conception of a superhero. Similarly, power and the “superman” is what “The Dark Knight” is about as well. In that film, power is wielded by criminal gangs, by the police, by Batman, and by the Joker. Each of them has a different ethic in their use of violence. The police are deontological, placing the law above all other considerations. The criminal gangs and corrupt police officers are utilitarians: whatever action benefits them the most is the best action. Batman operates on virtue theory: the action must be “right” because it is intrinsically the right thing to do, whether it is legal (deontological) in the eyes of the law or beneficial (utilitarian) to him doesn’t matter. The Joker is non-ethical. He is the supreme nihilist and doesn’t even recognize a value system with “good” or “bad” as descriptors. Seen from this perspective, societal conflict is a conflict of value systems and force.
http://christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2009...
The bad guy in the Watchmen is the quickest, smartest guy in the world. He is also a liiberal. He feels so badly for the poor masses who cannot control themselves that he enacts a plan where he murders his friends, alienates them, breaks up relationships, has one of them imprisoned so that he can enact his pland to effectivey "nuke" several major cities in a cataclysm. Why because he can blame it on the friend he alienated who likes it better living on Mars anyways. In this way everyone will be scared of the straw man that they will all cooperate and the world will be a hippy commune.
It is a classic case of PCS. Plato's Chosen Syndrome. This is where someone gets power and decides they are smarter than everyone else and then controlls everyone exactly like a tyrant would but consoles themselves that it is becasse no one else understands their genious.
Liberals are Nero.
The bad guy in the Watchmen is the quickest, smartest guy in the world. He is also a liiberal. He feels so badly for the poor masses who cannot control themselves that he enacts a plan where he murders his friends, alienates them, breaks up relationships, has one of them imprisoned so that he can enact his pland to effectivey "nuke" several major cities in a cataclysm. Why because he can blame it on the friend he alienated who likes it better living on Mars anyways. In this way everyone will be scared of the straw man that they will all cooperate and the world will be a hippy commune.
It is a classic case of PCS. Plato's Chosen Syndrome. This is where someone gets power and decides they are smarter than everyone else and then controlls everyone exactly like a tyrant would but consoles themselves that it is becasse no one else understands their genius.
Liberals are Nero.
I didn't like "V". He was sadistic and horrible and justified torture of Portman's character. His revenge was fine with me, the killing of all those involved. But it wasn't at all enough to make me like him.
Rorschach was a horrible, morally crippled person and if he enjoyed killing those who deserved it. The thing is, I think, that he knew he was a monster. Which is perhaps why he didn't feel that he had the right to make moral decisions for all of humanity the way the other guy did.
Interesting thought… maybe the Comedian understood that he was a monster, too, which is why he refused to cooperate at the beginning.
[...] third 'Punisher' movie, or is it second 'Punisher: War Zone' movie? … 'Watchmen': Tough on Liberal SensibilitiesI liked the recent Punisher movie. Unless I misremember the Punisher was shown to go to great [...]
No you defend the country and our liberties. Life without liberty is a slow death for the country. Sacrifice is something you do to animals.
Internet trolls are no fun for anyone. If you don't agree with his work that is your problem.
It's not that I don't agree with it, it's that it's poorly done. There is a difference.
You must be logged in to post a comment.