Who’s Watching the “Watchmen” Reviewers?
by John Nolte
This is somewhat anecdotal, but when you look at the Metacritic scores below it boosts my theory that truly awful leftist films frequently get better reviews than deserved while solid, entertaining conservative films (now that the left’s ceded “liberty” to the right) get worse reviews than deserved and films critics didn’t understand were pro-Bush receive fantastic reviews, but once found out, no Oscar nominations.
Metacritic scores:
Redacted -52; The Lucky Ones – 53; Rendition – 55; Stop Loss – 61; In the Valley of Elah – 65; Grace is Gone – 65.
Taken – 50: 300 – 51: The Dark Knight – 82.
As of right now, Metacritic shows “Watchmen” getting killed with a score of 30, but that’s with only 5 reviews in — albeit from the big boys like Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and the New Yorker…. On the other hand, Rotten Tomatoes has over 30 reviews in and the film sits with a fresh rating of 78%.
The Rotten Tomatoes split appears to be among the more elite critics (Cream of the Crop) and their less creamcroppy counterparts. Among the cream is Anthony Lane’s devastating pan in the New Yorker, which is especially interesting:
“Watchmen,” like “V for Vendetta,” harbors ambitions of political satire, and, to be fair, it should meet the needs of any leering nineteen-year-old who believes that America is ruled by the military-industrial complex, and whose deepest fear-deeper even than that of meeting a woman who requests intelligent conversation-is that the Warren Commission may have been right all along. The problem is that Snyder, following Moore, is so insanely aroused by the look of vengeance, and by the stylized application of physical power, that the film ends up twice as fascistic as the forces it wishes to lampoon. The result is perfectly calibrated for its target group: nobody over twenty-five could take any joy from the savagery that is fleshed out onscreen, just as nobody under eighteen should be allowed to witness it. You want to see Rorschach swing a meat cleaver repeatedly into the skull of a pedophile, and two dogs wrestle over the leg bone of his young victim? Go ahead.
I’m not familiar with the source material, but “Watchmen” director Zack Snyder’s “300″ was a grand surprise both in its embrace and understanding of the idea of liberty and from a pure storytelling stance. That’s not to say “Watchmen” doesn’t look a little campy, overlong, and overblown. It does, but so did “300.” And Snyder’s storytelling gifts also managed to melt the huge chip on my shoulder for his daring to remake “Dawn of the Dead,” which remains one of the best horror films in years.
As much as I respect Snyder, however, I wasn’t excited about “Watchmen” until the New Yorker used the words ”twice as fascistic.” As someone proudly “aroused by the look of vengeance, and by the stylized application of physical power,” — which in non-elite terms probably means: kicks unholy ass — Friday can’t get here soon enough.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
175 Comments
I'll be Watching the Watchmen this week, Snyder may give the story the force the comic never had.
I did read the source material. The ending will -blow your mind-. But I will say this, the action is intense and there are some good parts of "Stylizied application of power"
Just 4 days…
"You want to see Rorschach swing a meat cleaver repeatedly into the skull of a pedophile…"
Actually, yeah.
And how interesting that after Jackie Earle Haley got a big star boost by playing a sympathetic pedophile in Little Children, he takes this role as a follow-up.
The graphic novel is great and I am really looking forward to this film. It doesn't surprise me that these left wing critics are against the Watchmen because the main villian of the book is an ultra leftist. Even though the graphic doesn't take any sides politically, some of the most liked and sympathetic characters are a bit more right wing, like Rorshach.
Odd how he writes: "You want to see Rorschach swing a meat cleaver repeatedly into the skull of a pedophile…" — as though that were a bad thing.
I hope Rorschach's first words of the book make it into the film. If I remember correctly, he's talking about how the city has lost its morals, and failed to choose the path of "decent men who believed in a day's work for a day's pay" they chose
I think he went on to say "… instead they followed the droppings lechers and communists." "And all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers … had nothing to say."
If that's all kept in the beginning, then some critics will definitely have a bad taste in their mouth.
*You want to see Rorschach swing a meat cleaver repeatedly into the skull of a pedophile…*
You mean, as opposed to try to understand the pedophile ? I'll take the meat cleaver appoach. In fact, if the meat cleaver approach was more prevalent, I'll lay odds there would be far less pedophiles.
The graphic novel was a masterstroke and I thought, pretty well balanced, as it takes shots at both sides of the aisle. Arguably, Rorsharch is the hero of the piece and his refusal to back down in the face of evil and compromise is inspiring.
No matter what the critics think, Watchman is going to do serious bank.
Unless Snyder has COMPLETELY failed to translate the point of the story (which happened with "V for Vendetta") I get the strong sense you're going to HATE this, at least on a thematic level. In fact, I'd hazard that most of the "conservative" film writers who were so deeply in love with Dark Knight will DESPISE Watchmen.
I furthermore predict (speaking now of the right-wing press as a whole) multiple instances of "Rorscharch is the only character I liked!" without a shred of irony or understanding of what that's meant to say about the speaker, cartoonishly livid indignation about at least one character's costume, and copious variations on the theme "this is the anti-Dark Knight"… which, at least, it kinda is.
It will be interesting to see how Snyder brings it all to the screen, especially keeping in mind his work on "300." After reading the source material, I can see how Moore (and the other guy–I can't remember his name) had conservative ideology at least partially in their crosshairs (the whole Nixon-for-life thing, the criticism of Vietnam militarism, etc.). Plus, their anti-Thatcherism is obvious in "V for Vendetta." Rorschach is clearly depicted as fascistic (though I'd say that his fierce aggression doesn't always make him so sympathetic a character as others have stated in their posts–at least for me), but Ozymandias is clearly a utopian health freak leftist. So, it's all an interesting interplay of political ideologies. I'm looking forward to it.
What's amusing is these liberal dolts don't even know what fascist means; in their dilapidated minds “fascist” is synonymous with Republicans. But we shouldn't be surprised, these intellectual retrogrades don't even realize that nazi was short for Socialist German Workers' Party. The real hilarity is listening to the affirmative action president and the braindead troglodytes in congress espouse fascist policies like card-check, the “fairness” doctrine, abolition of guns, nationalizing banks, threatening to nationalize oil companies, nationalizing healthcare, etc. The historical illiterates on the left will probably start wearing brown shirts and roaming the streets looking for dissenters.
If the dorks and geeks in hollywood hate the Watchmen I’ll undoubtedly love it. Thanks for selling me on the movie you leftist cretins.
Wait wait wait wait
So you guys think "Watchmen" is conservative?
There's a greatr quote from an early ad for the comic. Rorschach says: " I wish all the scum of the world had one throat and I had my hands around it"
Rorscach was portrayed as this crazed Ayn Rand influenced type hero. But he's the breakout star of the comic, the most popular character and no matter how crazy Alan Moore tried to make him, people liked him more. Because he had an unfiltered morality and idea of how things were, and in a sense, he was the one who saw things the most accurately in that he figured out what was going on (even when the villain denies it, Rorchscah was in fact correct).
Moore is an anarchist who doesn't like the left or the right. But a lot of his work has a conservative undercurrent whether he would admit that or not. He comes from working class roots and that kind of morality comes into play in his stories sometimes. Watchmen is largely an attack on liberal intervention and social engineering. I suspect the film (depending on what Snyder did to the ending, which he changed) will stand as another conservative film like 300.
Because basically, while Moore tries to say that superheroes in the real world would be crazy or deluded people in costumes, he fails to show that they would be a bad thing. In many respects all he does is show they would have human failings like everyone else.
I slavishly bought and read the Watchmen comic 22 years ago. It was wonderful then. But as an adult with life experience, I found that, upon rereading it, the comic was very sophomoric. It's politics were steeped in the liberal psychoses that were all the rage in the '80's. Nixon as a dictator? C'mon.
Whereas, Dark Knight remains most germane.
I cut together some interviews about Watchmen here:
http://www.hitfix.com/video
BTW, I will still see the darn thing!
Obviously Watchmen comes from a pretty heavily left wing bent, but its a little old school left wing where they still allowed some semblance of a positive portrayal to characters like Rorschach. That sort of passes for open minded compared to the left wing of today which will brook not even a second of positivity towards anything not explicitly left wing.
Watchmen is very left wing. Allen Moore, the author, is a self-proclaimed socialist. Nixon is the dictator for life in Watchmen. V for Vendetta was a reaction to Thacherite England and Watchmen is a reaction to Reaganite America. However, it is still a great story that I would definitely recommend.
I'm seeing it in iMax this weekend. I'm sure it'll be great.
"…You want to see Rorschach swing a meat cleaver repeatedly into the skull of a pedophile"?
Well, I don't know who "Rorschach" is, but, yeah. I take it this is only a movie, though…
Watchmen's canonization is an example of the Left's ability to take drek mixed with a few good bits, and turn it into diamonds by the sheer force of their will. Its their comic book superpower. There are thousands of better stories in comic books than this. Its moderately clever, and it has a flow to it that catches you, and Rorshach is cool.
Watchmen is a booster of Determinism, nihilism, anti-Vietnamese War, and the art is just okay.
Tim Allen's Galaxy Quest is not greater than Star Trek, and the great comics that frequently lame Watchmen parodies still shine brighter. Except this is not a kindly parody like GQ, but an attempt at deconstruction of something good.
I read Watchmen this year for the first time and really could not understand the hoopla, sort cool but I agree, very sophomoric ( high school sophomoric in fact ), but I could see the appeal of the story ( and the artwork, the most basic uninteresting comic book art imagineable, glad the book survived it).
Just the same excited about the movie, but then again, I'll watch RD-Jr in anything ….
and I'll see it in IMAX, big and LOUD will be great
See, the thing is, I think Moore is serious when he had an insane clown murder a Viet girl for no real good reason, and the demigod who could stop him with a flick of his finger instead chooses to tell us that its determined already, and then give us a lame sermon on determinism which I guess was determined too…
Now, if Moore was trying to show how idiotic determinism was, then kudos, but I thought he was being serious. The demigod never repents from his determinism, and he does have superior sources of knowledge compared to mortals.
It's weird how liberals keep trying to make films depicting fascists as right-wingers, and then right-wingers like the anti-fascist message more than liberals do. They want right-wingers to be fascists so that they have someone against which they can rebel. That's why their favorite anti-fascist movies are ridiculous self-parodies (e.g. V for Vendetta). They don't want to rebel against oppression; they only want to rebel against conservatism.
I don't think Robert Downey Jr. is in Watchmen.
For the conservatives out there, SPOILER AHEAD, The villain is once again a business guy. At least what I remember his job to be. The comic also seemed to say that you had to break 3 million eggs to make an omelet and that Rorshach was wrong to not understand the need to make that omelet.
Also, the character wearing the american flag on his costume comits atrocities in the vietnam war of the comic book. Thats another reason why I think conservatives will dislike this movie. To say that the heroes in this comic were flawed is an understatement. Rape and murder are two of the "flaws" that these heroes participate in.
Sounds like a truly awful film. Anthony Lane is a terrific writer and critic, btw.
I'll be interested to see if this generation 'gets' the context that the comics were written in. When 'Watchmen' was released, I was in high school and we were all sure there was as much of a chance of getting nuked accidentally or otherwise as there was getting accepted into the college of our choice. It puts a damper on perspective.
This mania is a pivotal context for the comic and I'm wondering if folks can "get it" some 25 years 'out of context'.
Spoiler Warning, read no more. Please do not read the following spoiler if you haven't read 'Watchmen' or seen the film.
Second, the idea that a central enemy needed to be concocted to unify humanity seemed an interesting pretext when I first read the comic, but the global failure to unite against Islam in reality today makes the appearance of a giant ESP powered cephalopod even more of a fantastical contrivance than the 'deus ex machina' it originally was in the comics.
That said, I'm very excited to see how it's brough to screen.
I haven't seen the movie, but the comic is an attack on liberals whether Moore intended that or not. The Comedian is supposed to be this terrible "fascist" right winger, but he ends up being sympathetic and understandable in the end because Moore fully develops him as a person. And Rorschach is the most popular character of the story. He's also the characer that drives it forward and serves as the narrator.
But how it's an attack on liberals is:
SPOILER:
The most liberal character in the story is the villain. He does something like cause a 9/11 type event, claiming he does it for world peace. We all know how well that worked for for 9/11. The ends justify the means mentality does not get validated. If anything it's repudiated (though Moore leaves it to the reader to come to theri own conclusions).
We have to see what Snyder does to the ending, but from what I've heard he just takes out the squid
Mr. Nolte apparently misses Lane's point about the film being sophomorically LEFTIST (portraying the world as being ruled by the fascist military-industrial complex), not conservative – a point corroborated by several commenters here.
But it features lots of blood-and-guts action, so it must be cool. Who doesn't enjoy a good cleaver-to-the-brain scene? I mean, that's real entertainment!
moore's watchmen and frank miller's dark knight came out at about the same time. or at least that's how they came to me. both showed dystopian futures. both looked at the reaction of heroes.
i understood the ending of watchmen for what it was, the imposition of a fascist order based on a lie. but at the time just assumed that moore had written a downer ending on purpose. 1984 ended poorly as well to make the point. it's only recently that i've met people who say that he saw ozymandius as doing the right thing.
anyway, the new generation of batman movies trace back directly to frank miller. infinitely superior.
Having just seen the movie at a reviewer's screening, I can say that movie is not at all conservative. The movie faithfully translates the misguided politics of the comic onto the screen, and that may actually be its biggest failing — it is too faithful to its source material (even though the ending is changed, and not in a good way) and the politics of the early 1980's (the cold war stalemate) are just not relevant in today's world. Alan Moore's politics are orthodox leftist. His 1985 graphic novel presented his view of society at that time, which was defined by the cold war stalemate with the Soviets. Alan Moore did not believe that the West could break the grip of that stalemate without destroying the world, so he imagined a world that needed an outside threat to "unify" the planet into a peaceful whole. That story idea, however, just doesn't play today. We didn't need an "outside threat" to end the cold war, we needed Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, leaders that Moore absolutely despised.
The movie also adds an anti-business element (Lee Iacoca gets shot in the head) to try and make the theme of the movie a little more contemporary, but the thrust of the movie is that only a liberal fantasy can save the world. While the movie's liberal paragon "feels" the millions of deaths he has caused in his efforts to "save" the world, the caricature of a conservative character is obliterated because he cannot compromise his principles in order to maintain the new "world peace" that is brought about by the murder of millions committed by the liberal paragon character.
"But it features lots of blood-and-guts action, so it must be cool. Who doesn't enjoy a good cleaver-to-the-brain scene? I mean, that's real entertainment!"
And he answers his own question… Genius.
True, but Reagan himself rather famously told Gorbachev that they would have an easier time working together if confronted by some alien force.
What I meant was that liberals only want to rebel against conservatives. They don't really care about fighting for freedom per se. As such, unless they go completely off the wall as they did in V for Vendetta, they can only have their characters rebelling against some kind of fascist dictator. Since conservatism is inherently anti-fascist, conservatives see the anti-fascist message as a good thing, which angers liberals who intended to their message to be anti-conservative. Conservatives hate oppression, but the only thing liberals hate is conservatism, which leads to some interesting results as liberals try to portray conservatives as oppressive.
Remember that the they have already stated that the ending in the movie is different from the ending in the comic book. Now I don't know if that applies to the meaning of the ending, but definately the method.
James said: "The Comedian is supposed to be this terrible "fascist" right winger, but he ends up being sympathetic and understandable in the end because Moore fully develops him as a person."
I think that you will agree that he's not completely sympathetic. Yes, we understand why he does the things he does for his government and how it changes him on that level, but he is still a disgusting human being for his personal life/actions. In that way, he is a commentary on those that do great things/ perform sacrfices, yet are flawed/disgusting people because of their private lives and how do we evaluate that type of person. How much are we willing to overlook because of the benefit they provide to others.
Much like Moore's personal beliefs, I think it is less of being anti one ideology, than being anti all ideologies and his belief in the individual, dare I say objectionist.
Please put a spoiler warning on the link to that review, IT GIVES AWAY THE ENDING OF THE MOVIE.
Part of its appeal and popularity is based on timing. When this came out, the idea of a graphic novel was very new. The dark undertones, and deconstruction of superhero books were things that had never been done by a mainstream company before. Like alot of pop culture icons the popularity is a blend of quality, novelty, and timing.
Apparently they do. I'm not sure how they're getting the notion that the "villain" is liberal.
Watchmen is kind of impossible to categorize as left or right. It is a complex, multi-facted work that more than anything challenges the reader, no matter where the reader approaches it from.
To take just one example, you could argue that the climax reveals that the villain is really the hero of the entire piece — with the blood of millions on his hands. Contrariwise, you could argue that the villain really is the villain — but that he saved the world (maybe). Either way, he asks whether he did the right thing, and never gets an answer. Both he and the reader are left to work through it on their own.
The graphic novel is a strange attempt at a liberal message that ended up being far more conservative than either its writer or artist intended. The character of Rorschach fails to be seen as the insane right-wing madman we're supposed to see him as and instead becomes the only man unwilling to compromise everything he stands for in the name of the 'greater good'. If Snyder stays close enough to the original work to keep that concept alive, Watchmen will be a winner.
Since it's being perceived as both liberal and conservative, suffice it to say Alan Moore has done his job. I'm an old school comic reader who remembers how this and the Dark Knight Returns revolutionized comics in the 80's. Watchmen was considered unfilmable for so long because of the effects and the dense story, which is what I think the snootier reviewers are confused by, and they probably don't like comics to begin with. The Watchmen comic is actually extremely static for long periods–it's a superhero story without a whole lot of superheroics, so I don't know if mainstream–and by that I mean people who haven't read AND enjoyed the graphic novel–will want to settle into a nearly 3-hour epic with an unrelentingly grim tone and even grimmer ending. In contrast, "300" was a fight scene broken up by bombastic soliloquies. (and it was great) Watchmen is a much more cerebral, philosophical story. Personally I didn't (and on recent reading STILL didn't) waste energy pigeonholing the villain's political stripe. He's just evil. Doesn't matter what his politics are.
they will look and shout, "SAVE US!" I will look down and whisper, "No."
Ever hear of a rhetorical question? I was being sarcastic.
My take on the graphic novel was always that they were trying to make the point that the US could not win the cold war. Reagan's build-up of the military and approaching the Soviets from a position of strength would fail, if not outright lead to nuclear holocaust. A point that was shattered a scant few years later.
That said I still reread it every few years and can't wait to see the movie
This reminds me of Starship Troopers. Most people thought Heinlein was engaging in a serious thought experiment, but a few (liberals) thought he was making a joke. The moview ST thought it was a joke, and thats why ST was terrible.
Here we have a divide between those who think that Moore was sophomoric lefty in love with some pretty terrible ideas, and those who think he was really trying to jab those ideas (and some like Nick A who think the material got away from Moore). I still go with Theory #1 because even though I hate to say it, there are some really awful people out there. However, show me a link where Moore unreservedly blasts his villain, and slams Dr. Manhattan too as compleat moron, and I'll reconsider.
You are both right…
Moore, despite the crazy, hill-billy, wildman beard, is a gigantic liberal (And I make that comment as some one with a beard whose father had one of those crazy, hill-billy, wildman beards). If conservatives don't dig too deep into it, then yes, they'll hate it, one conservative character is a horrible person, the other is crazier than Rosie O'Donnel rampaging after twinkies.
But if James is right, and you dig a little deeper, Moore, most likely unwittingly, attacks liberals. Its the classic difference between conservative, "The people should make their own choices." and the liberal, "The people are too stupid to decide for themselves, I should decide for them"
SPOILER: If they keep Rorschach's decision at the end than I think most people will continue to love Rorschach. And Ozy will most certianly come off as liberal, I dont' know how you could play it any other way without compeltley bastardizing the plot.
Well said. This is a very important point to make. When the Watchmen comic came out, it was one of the very first comics to do deconstructionist superheroes. I think that the movie-viewing public may now be familiar enough with "traditional" superhero stories in film to appreciate that aspect of the movie version of Watchmen.
By the way, Andrew Lane – if you read the linked article in full – has no qualms about giving away the ending, or even of giving a spoiler warning before spilling it. So if you're not familiar with the graphic novel and want to see the movie, do yourself more than one favor and skip his New Yorker article entirely.
True. I am not saying he's lovable. But Moore never makes any caricatures. And the Comedian isn't really right wing exactly. He's more like if Rambo worked for the government and became corrupted by the association.
The Comedian isn't really that central to the story other than his death sets things in motion and we learn he plays an important role in the history of that world and one character's life. He's kind of an example of what Captain America would have been if America was as bad as Howard Zinn depicts it. Fortunately, why Moore is better than most comics writers is he doesn't resort to simple, hackneyed reasons for people's motivations. He writes realistic people. Even his V for Vendetta made the evil government officials out to be very human once you get to know them.
Even conservatives can agree the government does bad things on occasion. The Comedian is sort of a representation of that side of things. He's an opportunist who is not it in to fight for truth or justice. He just gets off on chaos. He's an adrenaline junkie. And then he becomes a sad old man living alone until he's murdered.
That's fair dinkum, because the Watchmen will be watching YOU this weekend too!
Didn't Andrew Klavan just write an article about liberal writers unwittingly attacking liberals?
"You mean, as opposed to try to understand the pedophile ? I'll take the meat cleaver appoach. In fact, if the meat cleaver approach was more prevalent, I'll lay odds there would be far less pedophiles."
Even if it doesn't deter pedophilia, it would decrease the numbers by the simple fact that we could lodge cleavers into their brains faster than their numbers grow. Not that i'm advocating Rorschach's particualr brand of justice, but its only a matter of time before it happens if the courts don't toughen up on them.
If I see this movie, it will be because of Rorschach is beating a pedophile with a meat cleaver! If I don't see it, it'll be because of the book's (reported) slanted (and kind of wrong, it would seem in hindsight) worldview, and because it's essentially a character assassination against the Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, and the Peacemaker….
SPOILER:
Because you probably think he was doing mass murder for the "right reasons". You don't get the bit at the end where Dr. Manhattan tells him it wonk make a difference in the end.
Therefore, he murders a lot of innocent people because he thinks he's smart enough to play god. It's a typical left wing conceit that you can save the world by believing in nonsense.
O is the villain of the story because all stories have a POV that is usually the heroes. In this case it's Rorschach who drives the story forward, narrates it and is proven correct in the end when his theories more or less gel. The villain of every story works counter to the hero and has a counter argument. R. believes you have to rid the world of evil people to make it better O. believes you have to scare people with lies into acting properly by killing innocents.
Who did you think was the villain?
I'd go see it if it wasn't rated R; I'm sure the rating won't affect the quality of the story, it'll just pump in a lot of extra crap that isn't necessary. Rorschach was such a great character, seeing everything in black and white; nobody else would.
The villian is an elite intellectual trying to create a planned utopia-on-earth.
The Comedian had his reasons, they were just horrible. I normally can relate on some level to diety like beings, like Darksied's desire to bring order to the universe, but Dr. Manhattan just annoyed me, and its because of, like you said, the predeterminism.
We are waiting with breath that is baited. I know Moore is having kittens his baby was made into a movie which is intriguing in itself but when a craptacular film reviewer from the New Yorker calls it twice as fascist well….that coming from a card carrying member of said organization….that means we will like it.
Yes we also know about the guy who wrote it. Maybe Zack will bring a different idea to the issue? You know? Lets just sit back and have fun. Maybe the real Americans, billc not being one, will have another film in which to thumb our fingers at YOU Bill. But then I don't know. Or Bill did you think maybe Zack felt like making the movie because he just liked the comic book? Or can you actually make that leap?
Moore is/was closer to Libertarian than anything when he wrote Watchmen. Over the years, he's strayed into the world of "progressivism" out of a reaction to Bush and Blair. And soon enough, he'll drift away from progressive and back to Libertarian because of Obama's nanny state. As great of a writer as he is, he has that George Carlin instinct of polar opposition to whatever is the mainstream.
Was Watchmen meant as a screed against Regan and Thatcher? Yes, but even Moore has admitted that the metaphor has changed post-9/11. And what Snyder has done to change the story actually works against a progressive, socialist message. Was Snyder aware of this? Probably not because because of the two years he's been developing this version could not have accounted for what's happened recently. But that speaks to the power of Moore's original work. The themes are universal and can be adapted to current history.
John
The leftists are fascists. The way they talk, all the same, the way they act, and everything they believe in. A herd of sheeple, automatons. Hardly rebels. Hardly free spirits. And very narrow minded and bigoted.
Equal parts Ozy, Rorshach, and Dr. Manhattan. The only remotely sympathetic character is Nite Owl
I felt Watchmen (the comic) tried too hard to mix separate themes together, without doing either of them very well. Moore should've stuck with either the "Superhero Deconstructed" concept, or another one of his political turds. Either one would've been a more refined product than what Watchmen turned out to be. Marvel had their own deconstructed superhero comic in the mid-80's in the vastly superior Star Brand series. It even featured a superpowered Democrat President villain, who brainwashed the electorate into voting for him (sound familiar?). Unfortunately, all three of us that read it were unable to convince others that it was worthwhile, so it failed. It was recently resurrected. But I suspect it has been heavily modified for modern liberal sensitivities.
That's why leftists fail at making movies like this. As soon as you present evil, it makes allowances for there to be good. When good and evil exist, their arguments fall apart and conservatism wins simply by default.
That must be because he is a successful businessman.
It's "bated" breath, actually. If your breath is baited, well, you have a mouth full of night crawlers. And there's nothing wrong with that.
SPOILER:
How is Dr Manhattan a villain? He is the most passive character in the story. He just doies what 's told and finally has enough and leaves Earth. .
Here's something funny. I haven't read the comic book – only saw the trailer. And the trailer didn't give a good impression – it seemed muddled to me, the characters were flat and boring, making it impossible for me to care about them. As a result, I was going to give this film a pass – until I read Lane's bitchy slapdown. THAT decided it!
ANY critic who gets his panties in a twist because a pedophile gets hurt is a critic whose opinion I don't trust for beans! Ergo – if Lane says I shouldn't see this film, I'm seeing it!
Actually, Moore is not a liberal. He detests liberals. I know him.
He's a anarchist which is anti-statist. And Nixon isn't a dictator for life, just elected to three terms. Which they abolished with FDR, but they reversed in the story. He's president, but not a dictator. The only thing dictator like is the Keene act which outlaws vigilantes. Something that wwould probably happen in real life.
I didn't read this comic book (and it's called a comic book, okay, not a 'graphic novel') – I only saw the trailer. And frankly, the trailer didn't give me a good impression of the characters. The superheroes (or whatever) were flat and confusing and boring – I couldn't get a handle on them, and consequently couldn't bring myself to care. Which meant I was going to give this movie a pass.
UNTIL Lane got in a snit about it. That tears it. Any critic who gets his panties in a twist because a paedophile gets hurt is a critic whose opinion is totally warped. If Lane says I shouldn't see, I am so definitely not following Lane's advice.
ummm…so you think vigilantes SHOULD be legal?
Well, ya. But they don't know that. They've been taught that even questioning liberalism is heresy. They don't think they're being closed-minded; they just start with the assumption that conservatives are evil, and everything kind of flows from there.
Kind of like Paulbots (or Ronulans). They just assume that the problem is that everyone else is too idiotic to understand, and so they never question their own premises.
He may have, I don't get to check the site every day, only when we're not busy at work. If he did, then I'm sure his post is probably better then mine.
His passivity and willingness to cooperate with the "plot" after the fact makes him a villain
Thanks for the response. I can see where he could be labeled an adrenaline junkie. However, how does that fit in with his treatment of the women in this story. To me, that just seemed to be Moore's way of ensuring the readers wouldn't sympathize with him and in fact he deserved his lonely existence and his death, if not deserved, was somewhat justified.
Actually, if I remember correctly (and I am sure James can correct me) Alan Moore is a self-proclaimed magician. To say he is a socialist is putting him in a box that he doesn't fit in. Based on his works, I would say he is closer to an anarchist, but only in the sense that it is personal freedom that is the greatest ideal. If you truely want to see what Moore believes in, pickup the series "Promethea". It is his exploration of his ideas and beliefs and it is a heck of a ride.
The fact that the villain is a business guy doesn't automatically mean conservative to me the way it does to others. It depends on his motivations. If his evil actions are simply for money and power, then he's probably a liberal's idea of a conservative. If it is for some greater good like here, then he can be either a liberal fascist or a conservative.
"Even conservatives can agree the government does bad things on occasion."
Don't know which "conservatives" you hang around with but its my take that we feel the government does very little that is good. The whole reason for the "limited government" is because it is assumed the government is the worst way to do things.
Sorry the comment got me going. Had to put this out. Thanks
The only thing I hope is there is not the obligatory anyone who is a priest or a minister is a monstrous hypocritical pedophile with delusions of grandeur like in Sin City and 300. I am so tired of that nonsense.
Moore isn't liberal, actually. He's a little… unorthodox. From what I've heard, he hates liberals as much as he hates conservatives, and the closest one could come to an accurate description of his politics is something resembling anarchism. His attacks on liberal ideology in Watchmen are entirely deliberate.
As one of those who read Star Brand, I think it was a less a decontruction and more of trying to emulate what it would be like in real life to see appear with powers and abilities that defy convention physics. When I think of deconstruction, I think of stories that examine what makes a superhero, faults and all. In most of the New Universe books, the idea was how would 'real' people react to being given/develop powers and how would our world react to them. I don't remember the Democratic president. I do remember from "The Draft" when they revealed that the Reagan analogue was a powered individual. The book universe itself was pretty good and had a lot of great, then lesser known talent working on those books.
"I refuse to believe that God plays Dice with the Universe"
Albert Eistein to Oppenheimer (sp) (I believe) regarding the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics.
Much better written Thank you
Pssst1 So was John……..
Pssst So was John……..
As a film based on a comic..Uh…Graphic Novel, whose title is taken from a commentary of the general untrustworthiness of rent-a-cops at whore houses, what could there be not to like?
One thing that is forgotten by critics, who watch films looking for reasons to dislike them, is that people who drop a fist full of sawbucks on a ticket and a Dixie cup full of popcorn go to movies to be entertained. They actually expect action from action movies.
While critics toy with their crème brulees, sip their half-caf and goat’s milk lattes and search for scenes that reinforce their world view or …gasp… contradict it, ever ready to strike with the full force of their magnificently cosmopolitan intellects, and symbolically keel-haul those films that dare to disregard them, the guardians of proper taste. We the groundlings, the madding crowd, the great unwashed, just want to see Hollywood do what it once did so well, entertain us. It is only after this key requirement to a movie’s utility as a capitalistic economic venture will we look deeper into the film for its hidden aspects. Will the “Watchmen” be a smash hit or a fizzle? That depends on how the movie plays on the rippled screen down at the megaplex in Peoria and how many Americans will be willing to sit in wallowed out grease stained seats while their shoes adhere to the sloped concrete floor for the cost of half a day’s wage, to watch an action flick. Like the Dude says,”Man, that movie was kinda preachy but that dude who wore those stained panty hose over his face and the dirty raincoat, that dude is THE DUDE!” If words to that effect are said, then it is a box office hit, if not we all let Netflix buy it and we put in our queue.
I didn't say that. I said IRL they would be. They are. So it's more real that they are illegal in teh story than if they weren't like they are in most comics.
I think Dennis Miller said it best on SNL when the walls of Germany were coming down.
Who'd of thought that the downfall of Communism would be that there was no money in it!
Lola, I do not know why Zack Snyder took on the film. Perhaps he likes adapting things from comics so that he can make the film the way the comic book was created by the writer as opposed to imposing his views on the material. I like directors who can do that. They are also usually more successful, Lord of the Rings vs. the first Hulk for example. Personally, I did not like the comic. It is obvious that moore does not like conservatives, he has said as much in interviews about the creation of Rorshach. He does not seem to like the superhero as a role model for what is good. I think from my take on his view of ozymandius that he reluctantly agrees with what he did. He shows this with the way the other hero characters fall in line with the lie. Rorshach takes a stand against it but you know what happens to him. I am a proud Limbaugh conservative and I love everything Ann Coulter does. I think the character Rorshach rises above Moores attempt to discredit him, as anyone can see by Rorshachs popularity. Liberals just do not understand the silliness of their positions. Read Andrew Klavans new piece here on Big Hollywood about the book, soon to be a movie, "Blindness."
Well, yes. I am not a fan of the government, I don't know who is. What I meant was, the left likes to paint the US as deliberately oppressing and killing people for right wing reasons (as long as a Republican is president, but not when a Democrat is). Yet they seem to think more government is the solution to everything (that and taxes).
While a lot of real conservatives (as opposed to most Republican politicians apparently) are for limited government, I don't think they believe the government deliberately sets out to murder and torture people, etc. Which is what the Comedian does as an agent of the US.
Ok well having read everything here my mind is still not changed. I have never read the comic so don't have a basis there. From just the trailers my take was that this was written by some math geek who did not have the intellectual stamina to stick it out in his college science classes, got a polisci degree instead and then went into making comics.
Instead of making cool comics he tried to be "all intelectual" but in reality the characters just spout nonsense. "The world will ask me to save it and I'll just say NO!" or "why should I save a world I know longer have any stake in" "Do it for me" —- GAG the SNL mock commercial Compulsion had better lines.
I guess this might be the thought provoking artwork everyone says it is but so far I am not seeing it.
Oh well to each his own!
Individualist – I echo your sentiments. I haven't read the comic and I didnt' care for the trailer. It was infantile 'aren't I clever?' dialogue. My only reason for seeing it would be to piss off the leftist reviewer who trashed it. That being said, however – wait for John's review of it. That will totally let you know whether this film is worth seeing.
And it amazes me that those words were written by English counter-cutlure maven Alan Moore. I can't decide if he wrote those "conservative" words with sincerity, or if he was mocking their very notion.
Moore is a libertarian?
Has anyone here read any of his work? Other than watchmen?
Look The comic Watchmen was an interesting read with fascinating characters and an idiotic plot/message. The movie will hopefully be an interesting read with fascinating characters and an idiotic plot/message.
I really have no idea how people on the site have time to actually enjoy a movie while at the same time always making sure the material is Conservatively Correct. It's a bizarre exercise. I remember watching '300' and not at any time did I care if the film catered to my particular political views. I just enjoyed it for what it was and understood people were going to interpret it multiple ways, as good art is supposed to do. Sit back and enjoy (or not enjoy) the film for what it is.
G.S.- wish you'd quit equivocating, and told us what you really thought.
All this repression isn't healthy, man.
"..the imposition of a fascist order based on a lie. "
Coming soon to a reality near you, sadly.
Also, as to the "villain"" being liberal. Yes, to us hes the villain, but make no mistake, in the GN at least, he is the hero of the story. Moore has a history of turing villains into heroes and vice versa. As anyone whose read "the killing joke" can attest. In that story, it would seem Btaman is the hero and The joker is the villain, but when you really analyses the subtext, you find its the exact opposite. The Joker is the "real victim" and Batman is the real villain.
When I think of deconstruction, I think of un-mything. You see someone trying to burn down the creation of greater men than themselves.
Star Brand was indeed pretty cool. Psi-force, the dream guy, Justice Inc.? (until they rewrote the back story) were all cool. I think they didn't know what to do with Star Brand after a while.
I don't know if you remember all of the book then, because there is a scene about halfway through in which you've pretty much quoted Rorschach in saying you need to break some eggs to make an omelet. His view is to break the "bad eggs" being the vile and truly evil people in the world, while Ozy's view is to drop a giant bowling ball on one carton of eggs (good and bad eggs) while the rest of the aisle of eggs has to watch it happen and live in constant fear for the rest of their existences.
My computer likes to ambush me by reformatting when my hand wanders the keyboard. And then my post vanished when I sent it in. But that did give me a chance to rewrite things so it may be all to the good.
MILD SPOILERS:
The "trick" to Watchmen is that it's more about it's medium (superhero comics) than it is about it's politics – or lack thereof. ALL of it's characters – the "liberals" and the "conservatives" AND the just-plain-crazies – are deeply flawed, broken, mentally-unwell people largely doing more harm than good to themselves and those around them. In it's world, there aren't any comic book heroes to be idealized role models for kids, the "superheroes" are walking the streets as flesh-and-blood humans where they can ONLY dissapoint us. And THAT'S why I stand by my prediction that most of the conservative movie-press will ultimately dislike the film: Because at the end of the day it IS a direct assault on the idea of moral absolutes existing in the real world…
CONTINUED:
…"in the real world," says the overriding theme of the story, "you wouldn't like superheroes. You wouldn't want them around." Because in the real world, a righteous, upright avenger with a black-and-white moral code like Batman doesn't exist. In the real world, a guy who sees morality as absolute black-and-white is usually Rorscharch: A moralistic sadist sociopath, a developmentally-arrested psycho enforcing his childlike view of right and wrong upon the world with brute force while working out his mommy-issues on the bodies of villians so he can get away with it.
Haven't read the ongoing discussion here, so maybe this stuff has been covered, I dunno.
Watchmen is a decent read, but it is definitely overrated, in my opinion. It certainly doesn't deserve to be on Time's 100 best list (But there's plenty on Time's various 100 best lists that don't deserve to be there.) Personally, I think Alan Moore's best work (and by best, I mean 'most enjoyable to read') is the stuff he did ten years ago for America's Best Comics – Tom Strong, Top Ten, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (oh, so abused), Promethea, and Tomorrow Stories.
That said, I agree that selective squeamishness coming from critics bugs me. And, I kinda hope he gets hit by a car. You can make fun of geeks in that whole 'not know the touch of woman' way, OR, you can decry their art forms as being inferior – one or the other. If you do both, you deserve to get the crap kicked out of you.
(continued)
(continued)
Aside from this, while I trust Snyder's directing ability, I know the source material well enough to not have any big expectations. It'll be interesting, for sure. And there is something to the idea that the public may be 'primed' to get the deconstructionist elements, but there is definitely a certain zeitgeist to Moore's 1980s works, which may translate to the screen wierdly.
The BETTER 1980s deconstructionist superhero story is Squadron Supreme – a superhero team in the Justice League style (okay, they were just the Justice League with serial numbers filed off) decides, after a huge crisis, to simply take over the world, to run it better. One of them splits off to try and stop them. Lots of issues, like brainwashing, uncontrollable powers, terminal illness, and so forth come up, and it culminates in one of the biggest, bloodiest superbattles ever. Note that I'm talking about 'Squadron Supreme', not 'Supreme Power', the crappy-as-hell remake by J Michael Strazynski, which completely sucks, because JMS completely sucks.
(continued)
What the HELL are you talking about re: Killing Joke? Honestly.
I remeber sitting up right during Dark Knight, noticing something my boyfriend didn't. I kept my "accidental conservative" theory to myself but then over the weekend people started to chatter about it and I realized I was right. I was nervous about Watchmen because I knew that the novel had a political undertone and…I just don't trust Hollywood anymore. But now that the liberal critics have taken an axe to it, I can't wait.
So you're going to see the film to spite someone you don't know even though you didn't like the trailer. Makes sense.
I don't think Lane was objecting to the pedophile getting "hurt". He was expressing distaste for the almost pornographic display of extreme violence present in so many Hollywood movies today – a distaste I share wholeheartedly.
In 1985, liberals like Moore thought nuclear annihilation was imminent, especially with the cowboy Reagan manning the White House.
Having the benefit of 22 years of hindsight, that Reagan was indeed not the third term of Nixon, that all those right-wing fascists like Thatcher helped liberate millions, the book says more about the liberal Moore than it does of the supposed right-wing push to eventual Armageddon. On one hand, we have a bizarre liberal solution to the crisis. Over here, we had Reagan's. Who won?
I'm not really sure how this movie is going to be made relevant. Maybe it won't be and this is just a love letter to the original work. Whatever it is, if Snyder can make it all work (not just make the cash, because that looks like it's inevitable) with all going against it, he's proved his worth.
There needs to be a realization, in the conservative base, that maybe conservative films are panned, not because of its ideals, but because it's a bad movie. Not everything revolves around politics. Am I supposed to view the Madea movies as masterpieces, just because it preaches moral values ?
The comic bored the daylights out of me- pretentious and derivative at the same time- therefore I wont be watching this until it's on dvd, even though i quite liked 300, which as i recall was panned by the left wing critics and praised by the right wing critics. Coincidence i'm sure…
Watchmen wasn't a graphic novel, it was a twelve issue limited series, later collected in a trade paperback.
Alan Moore is an author – an extremely good one, and he made Rorschach as a character – it doesn't mean he liked or disliked him, just that in the story, Rorschach is a product of his upbringing and society's ills. Let's not lose track of the fact that Rorschach is also clearly a psychopath.
Yeah, he is and I have. Friends of his have described him as such before. He's a cross between Penn Gillette and Hitchens.
I read Watchmen this year for the first time and really could not understand the hoopla, sort cool but I agree, very sophomoric ( high school sophomoric in fact ), but I could see the appeal of the story ( and the artwork, the most basic uninteresting comic book art imagineable, glad the book survived it).
read elsewhere that Moore essentially screenplays his comics (and yes is was a comic not a graphic novel ), meaning he provides exhaustive descriptions of each page.frame/formatting , etc., the artwork was districtingly poor and uninsprired, but maybe the control freak aspect of the process is partly to blame.
"And it amazes me that those words were written by English counter-cutlure maven Alan Moore. I can't decide if he wrote those "conservative" words with sincerity, or if he was mocking their very notion"
Yes. He was mocking their very notion.
Here is a little bit of background from a comic geek:
The character Rorschach is Alan Moore's thinly-disguised take-off on a character named 'The Question' (a faceless man in a trenchcoat) made famous by Steve Dikto, the creator of Marvel staples Spiderman and Dr. Strange. Dikto was a libertarian, and used The Question as a soapboax to preach libertarian homilies. Moore thought The Question was a fascist, and a madman, and so his portrayal of Rorschach is a leftist's idea of a rightwing nutjob. Moore was quick surprised — Pauline Kael levels of surprise — when it turned out that Rorschach was widely regarded as a favorite character.
This is not speculation on my part: Moore has said as much in public interviews.
Here is my speculation: I suspect that Moore is a better artist than he is a polemicist, so when he, with no intention on his part, portrays the anger of the Right at the crime-encouraging policies of the Left in the figure of a vigilante, he portrays it accurately enough that the Right — and anyone with a normal non-corrupt attitude toward justice — responds positively: the very last thing he wanted or expected.
"How is Dr Manhattan a villain?"
SPOILER:
Dr. Manhattan murders Rorschach in cold blood, for the express purpose of allowing Ozymandias to succeed in his criminal master plot. He is certainly would be a villain in anything but an 80's comic.
Um, at the time you wrote this post there were VERY few reviews at Metacritics and only a handful on the "cream of the crop" side at Rotten Tomatoes. At those numbers one or two reviews can really skew the numbers – you really should have waited a bit for more reviews to come in before posting this.
Vic
Wow! typical lefty answer… Nite Owl is a passive "go along get along" guy (not even really a hero as it takes Silk Spectre to get him (pardon the pun) motivated).
Loved the graphic novel when I was a kid. I was excited when I saw the tag line on the movie poster because when I read it in the novel, it sent chills down my spine. What a terrific opening.
Reminds me of our current situation; the mask has slipped, more and more people see the true agenda, and this is why things are being rammed through, power is being seized.
We have tix for a Friday matinee.
I haven't re-read the novel so I can be surprised; I vaguely remember the ending, but I heard that's been changed. We'll see.
Hmmm… People must have missed the way Watchmen attacks both the Right and the Left when it comes to politics.
It's all about differing political ideologies attempting to do the same thing: remake humanity into something supposedly better. The obvious conclusion to the story parallels real life in that "making humanity better" always results in totalitarianism. Humanity is flawed, and attempts by the State to fix those flaws (as perceived through a Right-wing or Left-wing bias) always squash liberty and individualism.
And it happens every single time–because the folks trying to fix humanity's flaws are humans themselves.
Ozymandias, as I recall from reading Watchmen years and years ago, was billed as the smartest man in the world. His goal is to create a terrible situation that will force all global inhabitants to recognize his wisdom. No doubt, how he is perceived politcally will be judged based upon the person that is watching the movie. What every civilized movie-goer will agree upon is that he is wrong. The ends will not justify his means. He is the villian of the story, unless you yourself subscibe to terrorist philosophies. I have a hard time seeing O as conservative in any way. He has money, and runs a big company. Sorry, that one doesn't hold water. So do a lot of liberals. He wants the world to bend to his vision of Utopia. That seems more in line with todays Democratic party platform.
Rorschach, on the other hand, driven mad by a world of low morals and depravity, the only man willing to fight the good fight, a criminal vigilante, despite being a pitiful character on most levels, will be seen as a good guy. Maybe THE good guy. This will indeed be a paradox for most liberal movie critics. But I would submit that most movie critics, as with most modern day liberals, are vastly out of touch with questions of right and wrong.
Rorschach is obviously the character we're supposed to identify with, but we're supposed to feel a bit squeamish about it, at least until the end of the story. At that point, he is quite obviously the "good guy," as he doesn't believe in fixing humanity, especially the way Ozymandias wants to do it.
The moral is: Humanity can't be "fixed," and attempts to do so always end in horror.
Just because flawed humans can't reach a standard doesn't mean the standard doesn't exist. I've never been to Mars, but I'm fairly sure it exists, and in the Real World too. However, I agree with you that Watchmen is poison. Happily, this pill is not covered in all that attractive a disguise.
I don't think we're "supposed to" feel anymore squamish about Rorschach than we would if the simply supplanted Rorschack with Batman. Watchmen simply paints a more realistic picture of what a world might be like if there were people in costumes out there fighting crime in our streets. The moral that Humanity can't be fixed is a very sad point of view, in that we must assume that humanity is evil to begin with. I would say a more accurate way of saying it is that Inhumanity can't be fixed.
"However, I agree with you that Watchmen is poison."
I love Watchmen, can't wait to see the movie. We do not agree
Batman doesn't just kill, though, which is where Rorschach is different. We obviously feel the story through him, but we should feel a bit of discomfort with his brand of justice. We think he's right and wrong at the same, which is the whole point.
Also, a lot of "humanity's flaws" are of a personal nature, which is what I mean when I say humanity can't be fixed by the State. That doesn't presuppose that humanity is evil, as you say, as that lies in the realm of personal morality. Issues of inhumanity (i.e. violence against other human beings) obviously should and can be addressed by the State (and often fixed); it is when the State attempts to impose an arbitrary set of "righteousness" (usually guided by personal morality) on the populace that all goes to hell.
Bravo, very true and articulate.
Rorschach's monologue after that scene was one of the highlights of the book and it really gave the character and the story more depth. I'm hoping they kept it in the film.
=== A moralistic sadist sociopath, a developmentally-arrested psycho enforcing his childlike view of right and wrong upon the world with brute force while working out his mommy-issues on the bodies of villians so he can get away with it. ===
Sold. I'll take two tickets.
Yes.
Having read the comic book, I suspect that the movie WON'T go over very well with the movie-going public, liberal or conservative, simply because it's got the mother of all downer endings.
[...] the New Yorker has already denounced the Watchmen movie as “fascistic”, so it’s probably going to be pretty [...]
- "The ends justify the means mentality does not get validated. If anything it's repudiated (though Moore leaves it to the reader to come to theri own conclusions)."
I disagree. Rorschach wins in the end. His story will be told, Ozymandias will be exposed, and that leads indirectly to nuclear annihilation. Therefore, Ozymandias is justified. I can't see how Moore left it up to the reader, unless each reader has to choose for himself whether nuclear war is a bad thing.
As much as I respect Moore's achievement in making both conservatives and liberals simultaneously sympathetic and scary, he had a particulay view to promote as regards the spectre of nuclear war. The allegory in the pirate comic explains it all.
- "I saw Times mag advert saying it was in the top 100 novels. I sincerely hope they didn't say that"
Yeah, they did. If it wasn't a PR trick (i.e. sucking comics fans in by including them among the dusty, old favorites), I suppose the list's creators just got bored. I'm not competent to discuss Watchmen's place in the comic pantheon, but it is pretty poor literature. The dialogue is not much better than what I could catch on any random night of television. The excerpts from fictitious memoirs, newspaper articles, textbooks, etc. were noticably amateurish. Certainly, they wouldn't be published if they were individually submitted in some alternate reality. The symbolism doesn't go much beyond smiley faces. The end is outlandish.
One thing that can be said for it is that it has some compelling characters, namely Rorschach and The Comedian. Also, the pirate comic is a fine allegory (for a particularly clueless understanding of nuclear war. I'd like to see what it beat out.
My thoughts exactly.
- "People must have missed the way Watchmen attacks both the Right and the Left when it comes to politics."
You must have missed how thoroughly the end justified Ozzymandias and condemned Rorschach.
Not to say that the theme you speak to isn't in the book. It's there, among other lessons. But what's that tell us? If I ever wrote a political allegory, I'd be sure to poke holes in Republicans. But I'd certainly save my ammo for liberals, because they're my bette noire. Though I can accept Moore is an anarchist and hates all versions of statism, that does not mean he hates them equally.
Nor was he just playing conservatives and liberals off against eachother. He had an ideological axe to grind. He meant to show how Reagan-esque Cold War politics could (would?) lead to nuclear war. Any other reading of the material is misguided. Anarchist or not, Moore fell on the leftist side, back then. If anyone can point me to a comic where he tore into liberal figures like he did Reagn (Watchmen) and Thatcher (V is for Vendetta), I'll gladly entertain the idea that he was an equal opportunity offender.
- "I don't think they believe the government deliberately sets out to murder and torture people, etc"
Well of course it does, in times of war. That's what wars are for, to kill people.
The difference in the case of the famous scene featuring The Comedian cold-bloodedly killing the pregnant woman (if I recall correctly) is that it had nothing to do with the war (again, if I recall correctly). Just like his attempted rape had nothing to do with crime fighting.
That's kinda the whole point, though. If you give leeway to Power, you have to take the good with the bad.
Moore isn't a leftist. He's an anarchist, which means he hates governments. Therefore he could not be a leftist, since they are for a socialist state. While Moore does spout some left wing homilies, he is more of a deconstructionist. At least, he was when he did Watchmen. But he changed his tune and recanted that in his later work which sought to do positive kinds of heroes and stories (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and From Hell non withstanding).
Moore is a good writer because no matter how unlikeable he makes a character, he treats them with respect and shows us their other sides. Therefore, we come to understand where they are coming from better (which doesn't mean we are supposed to sympathize with them).
I disagree with some of his world view, and some of it in Watchmen is laughable (like Russia sweeping across Afghanistan so they can invade Pakistan. Ha! That would work.) Moore said stuff about Ror because he didn't want people seeing him as cool. The problem for him is no matter how you may see someone, there will be someone else who seems them differently based on their own worldview.
BTW: Ditko was an Ayn Rand follower. Another Question like character he created was Mr. A who actually quoted Randian philosophy to bad guys before he punishs them.
He shoots a Vietnamese woman who is carrying his child. She he pisses her off she cuts his face so he shoots her. It was an act of passion, like I suppose the rape. He has an extreme control problem.
Uh, no…the pirate comic is a mood setter which shows a character becoming as bad as the pirates he despises because he becomes so extreme in his paranoia and desire to stop them. It's a comment on
superheroes like Rorschach and the comedian not on Nuclear war.
SPOILER:
As for there being a nuclear war, that is one possibility, but as Dr. Manhattan says at the close of the story, O says "Did I do the right thing in the end?" and Dr. Manhattan says: "Nothing ever ends". I don't think that's where he was going. Only that the status quo will probably continue no matter what O did.
That 's a profound observation.
"It's a comment on
superheroes like Rorschach and the comedian not on Nuclear war."
It's both, really. It is very easy to read the hero in the Black Freighter story as a stand-in for Ozy, Dr. Manhattan, Rorschach, or who you will. But enough with character development. there's also a plot to deal with. As the superhero deconstruction theme runs through the whole book, so does the anti-nuke theme (evidenced by the ever-present doomsday clock). The avoidance of nuclear war is what inspires Ozy to start killing superheroes, which both puts the plot into motion and sets up the climax. I don't think I'm reading too much into things to realize that "Marooned" serves as an anti-nuke allegory, and therefore tells us a whole lot about what's happening in the plot at the end of the story.
(Continued…)
Before I go into any detail, let me lay out what I understand to be the conventional liberal theory of nuclear war, which I can only assume is Moore's theory as well. in fact, it is identical to the liberal view of war in general. It's been called the Sarajevo Fallacy, or the accidental war. The general consensus among academics is that none of the belligerent nations wanted WWI, but it happened anyway. How? Well, each country was afraid of the other, so afraid that they prepared for the worst. And the more they prepared, the higher their paranoia. The more weapons they stockpiled and the more troops they called up, the greater was the likelihood that they'd use them. Imagine Europe as one giant barrel, with Britain, France, Germany, Russia, etc., shoveling in gun powder. All that was needed was a spark.
(Continued…)
Never mind whether there are agressors or not, whether or not anyone's paranoia is justified or not. All that's important is that when the perception of threat fulfills its own prophecy. When you act as if there is a threat, you act to bring an actual threat into being. That's the theory, anyway. The arms race, apparently, had nothing to do with worldwide revolution or the Truman Doctrine. It was a self-perpetuating entity. The more paranoid America was, the more nukes it'd build. The more nukes we built, the more we scared the Soviets. Therefore, the more we used nukes to act in our own self-interest, the more we hurt ourselves.
Which brings us to the Black Freighter. Here we have a guy who perceives a looming threat (in this case a big, black warship), rushes back to his people to warn them, and ends up murdering innocents, including his own wife. In an effort to prevent catastrophe, he brings catastrophe upon himself. It's more complicated than that, but that's it in a nutshell.
There's also the fact that in assuming the mantle of savior he goes mad and becomes what he most fears, much like Moore's superheroes. But like I said, both themes are present.
I think the entire idea of regular people becoming costumed vigilantes to fight crime is right wing in general. What would people want next, concealed handgun permits?
I also think Rorschach was popular because he brilliantly demonstrated a realistic psychology. He had a logic that people could identify with, mixed with some ideas that were disturbing. It creates a bridge from the reader to the mind of a psycho.
Yes, it's also a comment on the cold war. But the earlier comment that it was saying a nuclear war is going to happen is something I disagreed with. In the comic, there is an essay by some fictional magazine writer saying that the soviets only invaded the eastern bloc as hold over paranoid from WWII They wanted a buffer zone so enemies would have to fight through those nations to get to them. The logic of his cold war argument falls apart when for no reason Russia invades Afghanistan to get to Pakistan. The reason seems to be the ticking clock which is represented all through the story. We're inching toward Armageddon. It was kind of a conceit by Reagan haters in the early 80s taht he was going to cause WW3.
But I don't think the story is meant to be a critique of Reagan, more of a comment on how paranoia leads to war and extremism and Superheroes serve as a human face to it all. He uses characters on different sides of an argument.
SPOILER:
Well, the way I saw it, the Doc saw Ror as stirring up more trouble which would prevent O's experiment from working. The Doc was willing to give it a chance since he couldn't unring that bell. But of course, Ror manages to upset the apple cart anyway.
You and I agree that Watchmen is poison. You just think poison is healthy for you. Smirk.
Hey folks if the whole thing is a bit fuzzy or you don't want to have your kids laugh at you for reading a "comic Book" while wearing your "reading" (or BCGs) glasses pop off to your local video establishment and drop twenty bucks at the register for a brand new DVD (or BRD) of the Watchmen, and watch,read,look at it on your flat screen.
/ weird I know, a comic-graphic novel-dvd
Watchmen focuses on six characters, but two of them are the most relevent: Ozymandius and Rorschach. The two are ideological and thematical opposites.
Ozymandius is the perfect man. Born rich, raised well, he has trained his mind and body to human perfection. He is the smartest and most beautiful man in the world. Naturally, he's a liberal.
Rorschach was born to a poor whore. His costume is a trenchcoat and a mask he fished out of a dumpster. He is not especially clever or physically skilled (as heroes go), but he is tenacious and a lunatic who scares what few friends he has And he smells bad. Naturally, he is a conservative.
It is between these poles that the drama of Watchmen takes place- Ozymandius dream of an enlightened world versus Rorschach's world filled with people that simply don't deserve to be saved.
To say more would spoil the story. Suffice it to say that between Ozymandius, Rorschach and the Comedian (a "right wing" mercenary), there will be plenty to give conservatives pause, but I think if you look at the villain, look at his/her/its plot, it can do nothing but reinforce (what I believe to be) the conservative viewpoint.
You are right except for being completely wrong.
The story does not justify Ozymandius. It undermines him. THe story ends with the truth ready to come out, and if you take any time at all to think about human nature, you know that the peace that he has won will be a temporary one.
Watchmen was written, in part, as a critique of hero worship, of waiting for "great men" (Reagan, Obama, Doc Manhattan, Ozymandius) to solve our problems for us. I know Moore is somewhere to the left of Mao, and likely shares little political philosophy with myself, but knowing what he was trying to say makes it impossible for me to believe the ending should be read in a manner that completely contradicts the points he wanted to make.
MAJOR MOVIE SPOILER WARNING
What Snyder did to the ending was replace the Squid with Manhattan. Rather than take distant and imaginary aliens, he makes it appear that Manhattan has struck at AND DISARMED humanity, creating an enforced peace rather than nudging us into an alliance against a common threat. Personally I think this is a more effective solution, as even the world's smartest liberal should have seen the rallying to the alien threat would be undermined once the aliens failed to materialize.
Of course Einstein was wrong.
As for Doc Manhattan, did you guys just completely miss issue 10 (or was it 11?) in which his world view is completely changed by Silk Specter?
That makes sense. I always felt Moore missed an obvious point in the story, that his pending nuclear war could easily be fixed by Dr Manhattan and the Soviets could do nothing about it. The only thing that seems to hold him back is his apparent apathy and distance. And sa you say, the alien menace thing would onlyt work for a month at best.
"But I don't think the story is meant to be a critique of Reagan, more of a comment on how paranoia leads to war and extremism and Superheroes serve as a human face to it all. He uses characters on different sides of an argument."
Okay, maybe not a critique of Reagan personally, but what Reagan stood for. Let's call it right-wing saber-rattling. It doesn't matter whether it's Soviet right-wingers or American right-wingers. Those who would use their nation's nuclear capabilities to defend themselves will lead us to Armageddon. That is the message. The only alternative strategy offered in the film is Ozymandias' internationalism. And since the very conservative Rorschach is clearly (in my mind) blamed for the holocaust to follow the last page, I have to assume that Moore sided with Ozymandias and against the logic of deterrence.
"The story ends with the truth ready to come out, and if you take any time at all to think about human nature, you know that the peace that he has won will be a temporary one."
Yes, the peace certainly will be short-lived. That's because Ozymandias loses. He manages to get Rorschach killed, but it's all for naught, since, as you say, the truth will out. Am I delusional, or are we not to believe that nuclear war will directly follow the last page? The doomsday clock tells us so!
Who's to blame for Armegeddon? Rorschach, of course. Who was the only one to offer an alternative strategy? Ozymandias. I credit Moore for making Ozy a monster; I never held that he was a sentimental leftist. He's wise enough not to trust implicitly in either side. But the fact remains that Reaganites get the worst of it. That's by design.
Moreover, Ozy the insane leftist is justified. Not in every aspect of his being, but definitely as regards geopolitics. There is no manner in which to read the book that justifies Rorschach, unless you're okay with nuclear war.
"I think if you look at the villain, look at his/her/its plot, it can do nothing but reinforce (what I believe to be) the conservative viewpoint."
It's very tempting to call Ozymandias the villain. He certainly fills the traditional villain role at the book's climax. He schemes to conquer the wolrd and fends off a plucky band of heroes in his secret lair during the climax. But this up is down and down is up in Moore's dark deconstruction. Remember what The Comedian says, it's all a joke. As monstrous as Ozymandias is, his scheme works. It apparently turns the U.S. into a Soviet satellite, but it works. Rorschach screws it up. His heroic defiance of Ozy's madness leads to nuclear war.
The movie, Blindness, is already out on DVD. Long, boring leftist-escapist fantasy justifying dictatorship of the weak and the raping of women as a mean to survive to eat.
The last year's Batman movie, the Dark Knight, is almost based on The Killing Joke, an one-shot comic by Alan Moore and Brian Bollard on the origin of the Joker.
Hey, Debbie Schlussel posted her review of the Watchmen movie and it's all negative. Four Marxes and a plus.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2009/03/t...
Crikey!
God reads the book of the universe from outside time. And yes, Misterd, I agree with point #1.
I believe I read the graphic novel, not the series. Long time ago so …. I do remember Manhattan getting all excited about not being able to tell the future in a tunnel, and getting excited about the unlikelihood of a particular sperm meeting a particular egg….I thought he was trying to keep people from being angry at him for his determinism or just trying to soften the blow. Like…let me break your jaw, and here's a bag of ice. Typical tricks….he gives the 'stupid' a fig leaf to let them hide their quivering minds behind.
If you think Rorschach is remotely sympathetic, you're completely psychologically damaged, just FYI.
The New York Times doesn't like it–too long and TOO faithful to the book, which seems to be the consensus among most critics, at least those who claim to have read the book, but don't appear to be fans of it. But themes aside, I think the length and graphic violence may be the deal breaker that keeps families away. I fear this may have a great Friday/Saturday, then crash on Sunday.
i mean i don't know what he's talking about regarding the Joker being the real victim and Batman being the real villain. The Joker is never more villainous than he is in Killing Joke, just because he has a sad backstory doesn't change that.
- "Rather than take distant and imaginary aliens, he makes it appear that Manhattan has struck at AND DISARMED humanity, creating an enforced peace rather than nudging us into an alliance against a common threat"
So they've decided to rip off "The Day the Earth Stood Still," "I, Robot," and who knows what else?
gb8898, you make me not want to talk about this movie. You make me just want to tell you your not very smart. Although you like to try to sound brilliant. You say, "Humanity's flaws are of a personal nature? … it is when the State attempts to impose an arbitrary set of "righteousness" (usually guided by personal morality) on the populace that all goes to hell." Personal morality?. Do you actually think that our society and ALL other societies do not impose a moral behavior on the populace? They're called laws, and they're kind of important. Your "personal morality" suggests that we should all live by our own set of rules. Murder? Why not!? Stop trying to sound smart. You're not. I can't wait for your response dummy.
That observation would work if the world of Watchmen was a binary good/evil one. It isn't and thus this does not apply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.