I get into film discussions on a regular basis with Josh, My Cinematic Junky Compadre. I respect his opinions because he respects mine, and because he admits that he is far more forgiving to the flaws and cracks that often ruin the experience for me.
We recently attended the majority of a Stanley Kubrick retrospective, and in between films one of our chats touched on the fact that Kubrick was the master of adapting novels to the screen. It never seemed to faze the director that he was deviating from the original outline, because the director was able to effectively convey the emotion and message of the book even if he didn’t stick entirely to the plot. Did we really need to see the animated hedge-animals in THE SHINING? The Made-For-TV remake in 1997 answered that question quite effectively.
Furthermore, Josh and I agreed that because of Kubrick, the time has come to stop comparing books to their cinematic counterparts, because the director had shown Hollywood once and for all that a film could stand on its’ own from it’s source material. Perhaps it could even improve upon it. A book is a book and a movie is a movie. Let each stand up for itself.
Imagine what Kubrick could have done with WATCHMEN.
Director Zack Snyder has been adamant about acquitting himself of plot changes and lost moments in WATCHMEN. It seems to me that if this is true, we will be seeing a more competent, exciting, faithful adaptation of what many consider to be the Greatest Graphic Novel Of All Time. Perhaps we will see one where the emotion and message of the original story comes through. All that I know for certain is that they are lost in this cut of the film.
The original WATCHMEN also gave us a cautionary tale about fear, and the fragile precipice of sanity, and it suggested that we ask ourselves “what kind of a person WOULD dress up like a moth and try to fight crime in a big city?”
You know how awesome you think Batman is? You wouldn’t recognize him before WATCHMEN was written. Do you know why Spiderman began to fight Venom? Read WATCHMEN. The dark realities were out there before Alan Moore & David Gibbons created Nite Owl and Rorschach, but WATCHMEN galvanized it, and set it in darkness, and gave it some sort of reality.
Enough of me waxing poetic. Zack Snyder’s filmed adaptation of WATCHMEN is released. And it is almost a great movie. But he left out some very important details in his interpretation, and it is exactly like creating a stew without any seasoning... the ingredients are fine and good, but ultimately you have a bland dish that leaves you wanting more.
What’s great about WATCHMEN? The actors. Every last one of them is fine. Carla Gugino is getting some flack for not adding much to her interpretation of Sally Jupiter, the world’s first Silk Spectre, but she’s fine. Fanboys are gushing over Jackie Earle Haley’s dark, brooding Rorschach, and rightly so as he handles every word and nuance perfectly. The actors don’t miss a step, and they gel wonderfully with each other. No complaints.
Another great thing about WATCHMEN is it’s decision to fill in the gaps with exposition that works: the opening credit sequence is by and far the best example of how to bring an audience up to speed with a comic-book-reality I have ever seen. And the way it introduces each character in the first act of the film is truly impressive.
But sadly, there is never any sort of payoff by the third act.
I truly believe that there was enough material and information shot that, when edited together properly, will give us an acceptable version of WATCHMEN that might convey the depth of emotion and intellectual investment that the original graphic novel evoked. But it’s lost here, and it is caught under a ton of unnecessary garbage and unreasonable filler. I found myself adoring the first half of the movie and fearing what they were going to do next with the story after the first 90 minutes.
The Top Five Things That Disappointed Me About WATCHMEN:
5- “The Watchmen” moniker
So this is a little thing, but it was the first thing that unsettled me when I was watching and it goes towards my “this is a pot of beef stew without any seasoning at all” theory. In the film, Dan Dreiberg and others refer to themselves as “The Watchmen”- it is implied that they were an organization in the 60‘s that followed after “The Minutemen” in the 40’s. In fact, the organization that was proposed in the 60’s was going to be called “The Crimebusters” and it never happened because The Comedian made such a mockery of it during its’ first meeting. The title WATCHMEN refers to each and every costumed vigilante and superhero that encompassed the scope of the story, from the 40’s on through. It might seem fanboyish to wish for a detail like that to remain in the film, but it adds more depth and symbolism to the story when it is left ambiguously out of the crime fighters’ vernacular. When they refer to themselves as “The Watchmen” it makes the casual viewer understand that there was a group of superheroes out there, but it also implies that it was a small group and that they were unified. That’s the first step in misleading the viewer from the original message.
4- The Violence
It’s not that I don’t like blood and gore. That’s crazy. I have been a gorehound since the days of renting VHS tapes and fast-forwarding them to the parts where the bad guys all melt. But I was flabbergasted at how gleefully and mercilessly Snyder decided to let fly with the carnage. Bones don’t just get broken, they fly out of a person’s skin when they crack. Knives are thrust into bad guys’ necks. Cleavers split heads open, arms are out-and-out amputated. Entrails hit the ceiling and stay there. Here is my question:
WHY?
Is it because Snyder wanted to add a level of depth and reality to the story? Did he want to remind us that these are “real people and that they are really doing these horrible things, and that blood and gore is a result of it?” Is this part of the underlying theme of the story... that this is what would really be happening when costumed vigilantes get violent with real flesh-and-blood criminals?
If so, then why do people soar 20 feet through the air when they get kicked in the chest?
3- That Sex Scene
I love tits. LOVE em. There, I said it. If there was any doubt, let that be the closer, right there. Naked boobs? They are A-O.K. in my very long, very detailed book.
Therefore it is with a heavy soul that I proclaim the very moment when WATCHMEN became less-than-great for me was during the 3-minute extended sex scene between Dan and Laurie in the hovership. Did we REALLY need to see Dan’s ass thrusting enthusiastically and triumphantly between Laurie’s legs? My inner pervert says “Yes indeed!” but believe it or not... it was unnecessary. And silly, and uncomfortable, and stupid. This marks TWO occasions where Zack Snyder has taken me OUT of a movie-watching experience because of a too-long, too-goofy sex scene (see 300).
2- The Pacing
It should have been faster, smarter and tighter. Nobody said that 300 was over too quickly. And considering what I am about to complain about, one would think it could have been accomplished with a heavier hand in the editing bay. By the last half hour you felt like it needed to be over. What a shame... SUPERMAN came out at 143 minutes in it’s initial release... felt like a half hour. Hmm...
1- That Ending
SPOILERS AHOY!
The biggest bone of contention against WATCHMEN is the fact that they changed the ending. (highlight the following if you want, I don’t want to destroy this for the rest of you) In the book, Veidt’s plot involves a band of scientists, artists and designers who have been exiled on an island for months-to-years designing an authentic alien squidlike-creature that they believe will be a prop for a science fiction movie. Veidt teleports the creature to the center of Manhattan, where it explodes on arrival (Dr. Manhattan can teleport objects and allow them to remain intact, but Veidt’s technology can’t). The creature’s arrival in New York City implies an impending alien invasion, and the countdown to Armageddon ceases to be an issue between The US and Soviets as they unite towards a common cause. Sure, a few million people die... but Veidt insists that it was necessary in order to save billions.
Snyder’s version instead has Veidt constructing complicated bomb-like mechanisms that imply, when detonated in SEVERAL cities across the globe, that Dr. Manhattan has attacked more than one area as revenge or an act of aggression towards the human race.
(OKAY I AM DONE SPOILING IT)
They claim the resolution is the same: unity and an end to impending nuclear war. But there couldn’t be a larger gap between the intent of the implications in the original story and the implications of the film. I’m not religious, but the overall message of “Fear God’s Wrath” is WAAAAY, WAAAAAAAAY off the mark here. And it ruins everything that came before it.
Snyder claims that there simply wasn’t enough time to provide the exposition necessary to keep the original ending intact.
Let me get this straight... there was enough time to show two characters humping like teenagers for three minutes... there was enough time to change a scene where a convict gets his throat slit to a scene where he gets his arms hacked off with a power tool... there was enough time to change a scene dealing with burning a building down with a killer inside it into a scene where a beloved character butchers him with a meat cleaver... but we couldn’t effectively convey the original climax because there just wasn’t enough time to do it right?
Try harder. Alan Moore did. And with all the technology you had at your fingertips, you could have done it for us, and left the original message intact.
You went for a big Hollywood ka-boom ending. Enjoy the paycheck. Let’s see the ‘Director’s cut”.
No comments:
Post a Comment