God's violent killing of 15 million people...
Monday, March 23, 2009
The movie/comic book is just another example of one death cult's ideas competing among many others in this world for supremacy.
As a standalone movie it was a great work.
sure zack needs to tone down the slow mo-then sped up- then slowed down again action scenes
and malin ackerman might have given a poor performance
and maybe i agree with alan moores statement of a watchmen movie cant be done
(even tho chapters 1-4 are gold)
but hopefully this movie draws people to graphic novels
and isnt that the most important part?
I would just like to say that I can die happy knowing that a comic book has inspired this level of philisophical debate, and TWO comic book-derived movies received Oscar nods this year.
The nerds are taking over, my friends, and I couldn't be happier.
Yeah man. The casting was brilliant in most cases. My only wha--was Ozy. NOT. THREATENING. AT. ALL. I was more afraid of ole' Silky than goldie-locks. His intelligence also came of as pure arrogance. That's not the deep part of that character. Ozy is confident, but not cocky. The odd thing is, he's so great that his confidence often comes off as cockiness. The proof is in the pudding though. At the end of the comic series, the big "O" turns to Dr. Manhattan and says "Did I do the right thing?"
I'd like to start out by saying that Zack Snyder is to violence what Michael Bay is to explosions. By this I mean the violence Snyder portrays must be what he thinks true human expression is, much like Michael Bay thinks explosions are plot lines.
However, I will say that Snyder has a point in making this world hyper-violent. In a world of cruel uncertainty where masked vigilantes take it upon themselves to face violent criminals, what else should there be but lots and lots of blood? The whole point of Watchmen for me was the fact that the reader (viewer...whatever) has to not only accept that the world these characters are a reality that has devolved to a horrible nightmare (Nixon as a dictator, Dr. Manhattan doing whatever he wants, Cold War politics, etc.). Nightmares are supposed to be jarring and the world they live in has to resonate with audiences in a way that goes just beyond their imagination but stays realistic with its consequences. The bulk of the graphic novel is about consequences and the choices made by these characters, right or wrong. If Nite Owl II decides to break a guy's arm there is going to be an awful sound. That sound and that visual is important to look at not only consequences of an action but of a reflection of the superhero character in general: the people they fight get hurt (and don't just stylishly fall over and pass out to fight another day). To censor that would lose the soul of the comic. These are 'good' people who do ugly things.
The role of God in this world is exactly what it is in ours. There really is no indirect way God is portrayed even with Dr. Manhattan disassembling matter and making glass windchime-buildings on Mars. God isn't good, God isn't evil but the people who contribute to both sides (and the many inbetweens) are constantly at odds with an idea of a perfect being who does not stop horrible things happening. If one truly believes in free will, then one can understand how God doesn't make the events of the world happen or stop them from happening. Good and evil are words defined by situation and those participating.
There is one thing that I disliked about the movie ending, though. At the end of the graphic novel, Ozymandias asks Dr. Manhattan if what he did will permanently save mankind. Manhattan remarks that there is no end, just as there is no beginning. To me, that was the most important thing Alan Moore wrote in the whole series and it was taken out. The ends don't justify the means because there is no end and even though Ozymandias is the smartest man alive (supposedly), he cannot see that. The cycle of life will go on, no matter how many heroes there are to save it and villains to destroy it.
Last thing: we live in a post-Indiana Jones IV world. You can't have an alien just show up at the end. Thanks a lot, Spielberg.
@minusr Thank you, I also wanted to point out that the comic was every bit as violent as the movie. Perhaps it seems more graphic to some when they see it on the big screen, as opposed to on the page.
I found both the comic and the movie stretched my tolerance for violence and gore. However I thought both were excellent products. For the first time ever, I thought the movie was better than the book.
@cquinto I'm going to stir the pot just a little bit more. If we are created in God's image, and we are a violent breed, wouldn't you therefore have to conclude that God is violent in nature? Have you read the Old Testament? Killing mother's first born? I'd say that's violent. And if God created all things, then He (or She) created the Devil and death and everything else you can imagine. Just playing devil's advocate.
@cquinto I must respectfully disagree with you,and I chose to reply to you because you were the most succinct in your opinion. I haven't seen this movie,but I don't feel that I need to see it,since it is a mere distraction from the point. Everyone is assuming that there is a god that exists. Faith,as beautiful a concept that it may be,does not apply to me. I struggle to understand your reasoning behind absolute nonsense. I don't mean you any disrespect in saying so,yet it seems an impossibility. Enlighten me.
Honestly I didn't have the patience to read this RIGHT NOW so don't think im stupid...i'll read it later probably....but my little opinion of watchmen....is.......i wandered about its existance in 1999 when i was like...7...and thats when i honestly and truly fell inlove with its awesome..ness
I saw the movie in theatres and at the very first instance i was somewhat disappointed and i didnt really like malin akerman as silk spectre2....
BUT seriously and honestly by the time i saw it in IMAX with fellow watchmen lovers, i smacked myself in the face for doubting it when i first saw it
Watchmen really is one of those things where the graphic novel tells all
and the movie isn't as deep and complex due to timing reasons obviously
......and by reading some of the other responses i'm pretty sure im off the subject, but i've been waiting for someone to bring up watchmen on here
i will try really hard not to be the person that says, "well, I(!!!) read the book!" but that will probably affect my response. sorry, kids.
the director Snyder seems to have had a different worldview than the writer Moore, which is not surprising (isn't Moore an anarchist?). it's a very extreme position: if God exists, then he must be doing a crappy job, because he is a murdering devil. Snyder doesn't leae that out, but definitely twists the less-than-hopeful end in the film to be a little more hopeful. i'm all about endings, so that was what stood out to me. the non-God Ozymandias who kills millions with the power of the "God" Manhattan tries to make his evil act seem justifiable, even noble, because it's for the "good" of everyone. the world has been spared from nuclear holocaust! whoopee! but the problem that our antiheroes face is, do the ends justify the means?
i took an ethics class in college, and while there was a smattering of opinions on this, most of us decided that they don't. true, most of us were from a similar social demographic, but no one except the most committed egomaniac can deny that the Holocaust was a bad idea, to put it mildly. i think we can readily call it, as well as similar atrocities, evil.
one of the points that Moore has on his side is that God allows these things to happen. there is suffering in the world; there is pain; and there is even mild discomfort, which in itself over a period of time can feel like hell. but one must ask what the causes are.
as far back as history goes, we see the effects of man's bad decisions being the cause of most suffering. even many natural disasters can now be attributed to mankind's inability to take care of the world we live in. God forbid we spread our contagion to other worlds, if there be any! but i digress.
here's where i think Moore misses the point: if there is a God, is it his responsibility to fix our mistakes? is he supposed to keep us from making mistakes in the first place? that would be to take away what makes us sentient beings, the ability to choose, free will. i would rather have the option to choose, personally. in that way i may find myself in God's hands, after trying everything else i can think of. the Qur'an says "we are all returning." i'm not Muslim but i hope this is true because that means we're heading back to the source. i believe that the source of everything is God, because he made the world and those of us in it. thus everything with even a hint of the original beauty of God in it can point us to the Source. i believe God is a person so i pray to him, and this draws me closer to understanding who he is, getting me closer to the returning, and in the end i believe God can prove himself right, even if every man is misled and confused.
As a long-time fan of Watchmen, I loved the film. Never before have I seen as realistic a depiction of
a God-like super-being like Dr. Manhattan. What would it be like to be God-like, to transcend space, time and matter? We think we can imagine what that would be like, but we really are physically and mentally incapable of it. As the old Kabbalah saying about the face of God goes: "he is hidden, he is hidden, he is hidden". From such a vantage point, why would you care one iota about the innumerable miseries and follies in which we ant-people are daily immersed? You wouldn't--it is inconceivable. Without some sort of theological "road map", such as given by the world's major religions, there would simply be nothing binding a God-being to humanity. I find this idea to be very profound and a lot more has been said about it.
Like the old koan goes, "Who is the master who makes the grass green?".
The Zen master's answer, just after striking us with his cane: it is us.
Our whole world is our doing, and through our existence in the world, we are forced to make imperfect choices to solve problems which are only relevant to us. I personally interpret this as being the moral of Watchmen. Dr. Manhattan is shown to allow us to see that we cannot depend on an external God, but only on ourselves--"Deus est Homo". This atheist choice is our great moral dilemma, compared to any specific choices we are called upon to make in life--justifying whatever ends is the best we can do on our own.
Schopenhauer famously said it is impermissible to second-guess with hypothetical outcomes, since only a God-like being could forsee the infinite number of permutations of outcomes and pick the choice achieving Mill's "greatest good for the greatest number." So the question of killing millions to achieve a greater good becomes irrelevant due to our limitations as humans--we can only make the best of whatever happens in life. If groups of people inflict great evil upon the world, only we are individually responsible for stopping them, but we can never know ultimately which choice was best, and we have to accept that and live with. The Philosopher's Stone was famously said to simply be "contentment." I can buy that.
@misteraaronlee re: "I truly appreciate seeing my arguments supported AND torn to shreds!"
I guess that's one of the points of Watchmen, to challenge our former ideas about the way things are (in this case, the role of a super-hero) and sometimes find it supported and sometimes torn apart.
I'm glad to see you re-engage in this discussion, it would be pretty easy for someone to just sit back satisfied that their article will remain at the top while all the comments will eventually get filtered out into obscurity. Thanks for putting your neck out, twice.
Also, @phibian I think your final paragraph is a brilliant interpretation, that has enriched my understanding of the source material. Many of our Gods (arguably all) are of our own making, and therefore are made in our image, rather than the other way around.
God is not a servant to man. He is God and just because we don't understand why He allows things to happen, like hurricanes, tsunamis, and events like 9-11, doesn't mean God doesn't care. It is as simple as the fact that when mankind first sinned, death came into the world. With death came disease, natural disasters and murder. God will not intrude on our free will, or the free will choices that were made by our predecessors. God does exist, and is a loving God who hurts when we hurt. But he still must stay true to His character and that is what He does when He does not always do exactly what we want Him to do.
Hey, this is Aaron Lee. Thanks for all the amazing responses to this piece so far - to everyone who seems to dig it, and to everyone who's done a great job of poking holes in it! I wrote it with a lot of emotion, and I want to resist the urge to come on here and get into a point-by-point debate. But I will say that reading this feedback has made me reconsider a lot of Alan Moore's original intentions in the graphic novel. In writing this review, I did NOT want to get into an endless round of, "The movie does it like THIS, but the graphic novel did it like THIS." So I think it may come off like I'm unfairly attacking Snyder's film for material that was in Moore's original work.
However, my main point would be one of tone. Watchmen's very careful, structured graphic scheme never struck me as an "in-your-face" assault. Watchmen the Movie is an adrenalized, rock 'n' roll piece of work; I don't know if it could have been anything else (are you really going to make a quiet, subtle $200 million art film?). Zack Snyder may not have been the best director, but he is the director who was able to get it done, after many others failed.
But to argue for how the exact same story events can, indeed, have different meanings, look at the ending. Rorschach's journal waits to be discovered. In the graphic novel, this played as a sign that Ozymandias' fascist scheme will not succeed; that violence is an unsuccessful strategy for world peace, and a dead-end. In the movie, after two and a half hours of lingering, slow-motion celebration of violence, it feels more like the end of a "Friday the 13th" movie ("Don't worry! We know it looks like everything's back to normal, but there's still more kick-ass violence to come!"). It feels more like "Crank" or "Punisher: War Zone" or any of the current wave of meta-action movies where the entire point is the over-the-top, adrenalized nature of the violence, to levels that were previously only the territory of extreme horror films.
Anyway, that's just the way the movie struck me; as some people have written here, maybe a lot of that IS to be chalked up to Alan Moore. Again, I truly appreciate seeing my arguments supported AND torn to shreds!
Okay. Here we go...
If I were Zach Snyder, I would hope that everyone viewing my brand spanking new film would understand "Hey, I'm adapting a massive work of sequential art that was designed to be read (yes there's a difference) not passively watched. The original source material had not only comic-style storytelling, but also prose, another comic, newspaper clippings and a ton of other details that are simply not possible to be "filmed." Maybe that's why Alan Moore (the writer) states the work is absolutely 'unfilmable.'"
That being said, this film does just about everything a 2-3 hour dose of WATCHMEN can do. It tells the story. Characters are introduced, justice is dealt, squid is omitted. Based on the fact that no amount of comparison between the "graphic novel" (not accurate, it was a comic series (but that's an insult in Hollywood).) and the film will ever be realistic or relevant I've decided to be totally unrealistic and irrelevant. Here's what I perceive as the core differences, failings, and successes of the film as compared to the comic:
1. Amped up violence prevents Rorschach from being the truly horrifying creature the graphic novel creates. Yes, he's still scary. The problem is that in the comic ole Rorry was an extremist that flew only by his own rabid-dog tenacity and inability to let anything "go." In films, emotional content is a commodity. In this film that commodity is spent (in the form of violence) with such wreckless abandon that it makes the big "R" look as if he's just the most extreme, not the most insanely extreme. That creates a slight weakening of his purpose to the story. "R" as I'll call him (cuz we're tight, and he wouldn't mind) is heroism distilled down to it's essence and mixed with ultimate unwillingness to negotiate with ANYONE. He's an archetype, and an important one. Elevating the other "heroes" to even a similar level of violence erases a part of what makes his perspective different and previously unique.
2. The squid. While this isn't a real problem for me, the absence and replacement of the squid does change things. For me, the use of Manhattan as the bowtie shifts a story focused primarily on the ethical condition of man onto a vein about religion and it's purpose in humanity. I am however a much deeper person than you, so I'm sure you won't notice the shift. :)
3. Night Owl. He should have been chubby. Night Owl's weight is an important visualization of his mental state and overall normalcy. Patrick Wilson was great. He shoulda had a gut though.
Overall, I enjoyed the film a great deal. It does not, however match or even emulate the experience of the comic. For my effort, the comic was a new experience that completely caused me to rethink storytelling. With few exceptions (Zot, Batman:Year One) I would place it among the most influential books in my short and unnoticed time drawing comics. Lastly, Dave Gibbons eye for design and layout have yet to be matched. If you don't believe me, just look at ALL the marketing for the film just before you read the comics.
So, in short I had a blast watching the movie. As an experience though, the WATCHMEN series stands on it's own unfilmable or not.
I've already commented, but I'd just like to agree with a few others that this article is full of errors (citations and facts, not even opinions). I think minusr pointed out all of them.
With a nod to minusr, I have to say that Lee's argument is hole-y, much like the plotline. Having read much of Moore's work and much of his comments about it, it is easy to see that his intention was a deconstruction (not a parody) of the superhero archetype.
Like many who grew up reading the Marvel/DC canon, I never had the capacity to question the premise of these characters until I came across his Marvelman series. It was at once epic and fragile, monstrous and all too human, and it made me finally see my cherished childhood comic book myths for the small empty power fantasies that they were. His storytelling made me grow up, uneasily.
Reading Moore, one reads both the fragile good and the monstrous that is writ large in us all, the capacity for greatness, and its overthrow by hubris...and beyond that the emptiness that is true evil. If there was a subtext in all those Jack Kirby/Stan Lee creations, it was reflexive rather than reflective, possessing an enforced, external morality that even then rang hollow to my ears.
If there were such a thing as a superhero, someone gifted with extraordinary abilities yet cut from the same fabric of human potential and flaws as the rest of us, what sort of person would that be? When humans are given godlike abilities, and the normal consequences of human conduct do not apply, what sort of morality would such a creature possess? Most importantly, what could it tell us about human nature? In the grand tradition of the finest Greek tragedies (I say this without irony) Moore gives us just such a bitter pill to swallow. Our gods and heroes are always in our image. Time to put away childish things.
I read the book, and thought the movie was fantastic. I'm not an uber-fanatic when it comes to "superhero" comics, so my "authority" isn't exactly there, but whatever. I'm just a fan. They did make changes to the movie, but in my opinion they were simple things to help the movie progress faster/require less backstory. I thought the opening sequence was great - it brought a smile to my face, and brought me into the Watchmen universe. The ending was tastefully done as well. They /could/ have brought in the threat from aliens idea, but I think that would have just confused the parts of the audience that hadn't read the book.
I guess my thoughts on the movie boil down to how I felt when it was over. I was utterly depressed, fearful of people and human nature, and knew that in the watchmen universe (and ours here) we are doomed with our violent nature and will just repeat the cycle of violence. This was my exact same reaction to the book, so I consider it a job well done. (This also reminds me of the BSG finale, but I think that is too much dorkiness for one post.) :)
First of all, I think the novel is just as violent as the movie, if not more so. I read the novel first, then saw the movie. I've got to say, I took a whole lot more away from reading the novel than I took away from the movie. I think the interesting thing about Watchmen for me is, I personally feel that I can relate to the characters. You have to remember that the characters are NOT superheroes. They are "normal" people with an exceptional skill. Dr. Manhattan is the only superhero in the novel. So when you think of these characters in terms of them being "average", you might find yourself relating to the different personalities more than you thought you might. I really feel like Moore just took these characters and used them to reflect different aspects or our society and our world. I think if you really let yourself go and let yourself really get involved while you read the novel, you'll see that there is more there than you probably first realized. I could talk about this all day!!!
Ok first it's just a comic book. Second why do you say "Gods killing of 15 million people"? All written pieces of literature express themes. When they all decided they have to keep the fact that this was all caused by Veidt quite, Rorschach refuses. Why does he do this? Rorschach is the kind of person who believes that you should never be in "Do the ends justify the means?" kind of situation. This whole Veidt thing is "Do the ends justify the means?" Do the deaths of 15 million people result in world peace? They did; in tragic times it's apparent that humanity pulls together, and that was the plan all along. The reason that Dr. Manhattan kills Rorschach because he wants to go tell everyone what happened, he realizes that if Rorschach goes out and tells everyone world peace will be gone, the deaths of 15 million people undone. He couldn't let that happen. At the end of the day it was just a comic though.
~Nothing is true and everything is permitted
@MrConcinnity Thank you for your thanks for my review of this review, I do what I can.
Something else just occurred to me. Lee seems to suggest in the "God..." section of his review that Snyder (surprisingly Moore remains free of blame) condones the actions of "his" characters, and would suggest that an elaborate ruse which results in millions of deaths is a good way to provide peace.
Just because it was shown in the movie does not mean that is what Snyder (or Moore) believes. Watchmen is not "the call for self-destruction", it is the opposite. It is like those safety cartoons that tell you what not to do by showing what will go wrong if you do all of them at once. My evidence is the closing scene (of both movie and book) where the intern of the New Frontiersman discovers Rors' journal, implying that the truth eventually will leak out and the basis for the fragile peace will evaporate.
Watchmen admittedly does not offer up any solutions for overcoming our baser instincts, but to imply that it celebrates this abasement is not only untrue, it shows a crucial and basic misreading of the text, as well as the juvenile belief that just because it was written by someone (in a work of FICTION) it was their opinion.
Lee's second to last statement is (accidentally) right on the money: "to deny that impulse is what truly makes a hero". Exactly. That is exactly the point of Watchmen. It makes that point by saying in bright neon letters "HEY, THESE GUYS ARE BAD PEOPLE. DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY. THEY THINK THEY'RE DOING GOOD BUT THEY ARE BAD OKAY? THEY ONLY GIVE IN TO THEIR IMPULSES, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT HEROES" and then Gibbons draws a couple flashing arrows pointing at all the protagonists heads. Did you miss that page?
@minusr Thank you for your review of this review, minusr. Aaron Lee seems well spoken and rational, but is -frustratingly- guilty of severe revisionism and, therefore, his words are rendered worthless. It's been a while since I read the graphic novel, but I felt the movie was pretty 'sensationally' accurate to it from what I could remember. When I read Lee's review, I started to feel disappointed in it. Your take on this really cleared up my disappointment by taking it from the movie (as Lee falsely tried to direct it) and put it squarely on the shoulders of the revisionist -where it belongs.
I felt that the view of God portrayed by Watchmen was of a being who was fascinated by humanity, but ultimately ambivalent about its fate, and I can understand that point of view.
God is usually portrayed as an omnipresent, all-powerful being. If we assume that's true, then the bad things that happen in life seem to suggest that God doesn't care about our suffering. Even if He has "given us free will" or "has a larger plan," that would seem to suggest that our own personal suffering is meaningless within that larger framework.
I do think it's regrettable the movie amplified the violence, because the significance of the story gets lost behind it. Some of the question the story raised for me is: Does God "exist" without humanity? If we were to destroy ourselves, would the world go on? If God does exist, then how bad do things have to get before he intervenes? These are all fundamentally egotistical questions, but ones which are at the very root of trying to understand what the "relationship" is between God and ourselves, or if one even does exist.
I would also point out that in the comic, Comedian's head is described as being pushed up into his stomach, whereas in the movie he looks like he tripped and fell into a puddle of jam. Far less violent
I think you and I read different comics called Watchmen.
In the comic you see the little girl's leg in all it's gory detail.
Rorschach is blasted in an identical manner, bloody left-behinds and all, for the same reasons.
The comic emphasizes Silk Spectre's form in the leadup to the attempted rape. Also present in the comic is the Comedian battering her.
The Owl-Ship's "ejaculation" sight gag is carried over directly from the comic.
The sex scene in both the comic and the movie does not follow acts of violence, but rather the altruistic act of saving people from the tenement fires.
This version of the movie did not even contain the most visceral scenes from the book, the Tales From the Black Freighter, where the lead character cannibalizes his crew mates and then murders three innocents, one of which being his wife. This was in your angelic comic, but noticeably missing from this monstrous movie.
Your citations are wrong, and therefore the conclusions you base from them are also wrong. I believe this review is a disservice for anyone who has not seen the movie or read the comic.
There are more disparities, I feel, in your review, but those that remain are more of an interpretive nature, and not simply a false reading of the text. Your review of the movie based off of your "loved" graphic novel would be like a fan of Shakespeare's works coming out of a film version of Romeo and Juliet and complaining that it didn't have a happy ending. "Oh yeah, even though everyone dies in the movie in the exact same manner and circumstances which leads to their death in the play" you moan "that's not what Shakespeare MEANT".
Maybe it's time to blow the dust off of that yellow cover and read Watchmen. It's a gut-wrenching, brutal, psychotic look at human nature, that I personally found chilling and highly uncomfortable to read. At least they toned that down for the movie.
I purposefully didn't read the book before I watched the movie so I wouldn't have a colored view of what the movie should be. There usually is a lot of differences in a movie version of written works. Anyway, I would expect more violence in a movie version of anything these days. But I find it keeping with the violent nature of the characters. They're the hand of a fictional Nixon trying to keep an iron grip on society. That doesn't sound like a pleasant process to me. I don't know.
Three thoughts.
1. In the comic, after it's all over and Dr. Manhattan is just about to leave, Veidt asks him something like, "I did the right thing, right? I put an end to it?" Or something, and Jon replies, "Nothing ever ends." Veidt is then left alone, with a reflective and introspective look on his face, as I recall. I don't think Manhattan supported Veidt's plan at all. After all, he tried to stop him.
2. As for killing Rorschach, I'm pretty sure he wanted to die. That guy was so freaking messed up in the head that the only thing stopping him from killing himself was his psychotic, faux-moral-fortitude that he used as an excuse to take his frustration out on the world.
3. To your point about the violence, I would say it is really a symptom of a greater problem, the reason why Zach Snyder was the wrong person to direct Watchmen. As evidenced by 300, and by the trailers and interviews I've seen about Watchmen (I haven't seen the movie), I have a problem with his "hollywoodization" of the story. Besides being crazy, Alan Moore's superheroes were also NOT superheroes at all. They were "masked vigilantes." They were ordinary, severly flawed, down-to-earth human beings. Except for Dr. Manhattan, these characters are supposed to be regular people, not "totally awesome," and not larger-than-life. Watchmen is an un-superhero story, but what I've seen of the movie suggests that it's actually not "You've Never Seen Superheroes Like This," and more like The Matrix 4, or 300 2. Punching through walls and leaping into windows and excessive visual effects and slow motion all suggest to me that Zach Snyder didn't actually understand what Alan Moore's comic was really about, regardless of the fact that he took certain shots right out of the comic panels. Aaron mentions that the story played out the same way in the movie, but what makes a story great or terrible is not just what happens. It's how the story is told, as well. The "why" and "how" are as important as the "who," "what," "when," and "where," combined.
I apologize for the excessive length, I didn't think I would have this much to say about a movie I've never even seen!
aaron you are a gifted writer. this is almost exactly my thoughts and feelings about the watchmen movie, only i never could have written it in such a succinct manner.
While I share many of your opinions regarding the pointless violence upgrades added by Snyder, I think you give him and his team too much credit. I think Snyder did with Watchmen as he did with 300--take a thought-provoking comic, add slick production values and eye-popping visuals, crank up the sex & violence (hey, it sells), and laugh all the way to the bank. The film seemed to capture all of the images but none of the soul. I left the theater feeling as if I had just watched the greatest storyboard pitch in history, delivered before the script had been written.
I think the problem is that Watchmen is not a story for the masses. I don't mean this in a condescending, "I get it and you don't" way--I just mean that most people don't want to pay $10 to watch a 2 1/2 hour movie about moral relativism. Snyder tried to turn a deeply philisophical story into a roller coaster ride, and the effect, at least in my opinion, was unsatisfying.
I grew up LOVING superhero comics, and at nearly 51 years old, I'm getting pretty close to being a female Stan Lee, without the money and fame. :) My friends keep waiting for me to grow out of it, and it hasn't happened yet. I still read them (but I don't collect them anymore), and I've watched nearly every superhero movie (both good and horrendously awful, of which there are plenty) that's come out except The Watchmen. Just haven't made it to theater yet!
And I do believe that a lot of what is going on in these comic books does reflect the need for human beings to discover our "super power", or higher selves. Alan Moore (a crazy man but brilliant writer) may thumb his nose at religion, and the comic books don't always directly give credence to a Divine Source or Originator of the Universe. The characters have mutations, or they are of alien origin, or they are just plain geniuses who fight better than the average human. But what is the source of this power, ultimately? (Hey, you probably already suspect where I'm going with this.)
Yes, I do believe that we humans have not reached the zenith of our full capacity. We really DON'T know what our minds and bodies can do, which is probably a lot more than we've ever imagined. But we don't do a very good job of using the capacities we DO have. My theory is that until we have attained a level of acceptance that every human life is precious and we can live without prejudices, extremes of wealth and poverty, and everyone on this planet is ALLOWED access to education that would enhance their innate capabilities, we will not find out what our true human capabilities are. We are simply not spiritually, intellectually and emotionally evolved enough to handle any increase of "power".
I believe that the Source of all Power in the Universe is God. And yes, I am a Baha'i. But even before I became a Baha'i, I've had an experience that has shown me that maybe this superhero stuff isn't just science fiction. It can be a reality, but only if it is used for the good of people other than ourselves. And we as a species have a long way to go before we are more concerned about the welfare of others over ourselves.
This is what I'm talking about: when I was about 19 years old, I drove to a local shopping mall to pick something up to wear to a party. As I got out of my car, I saw a group of boys running across the parking lot at top speed, and police cars racing toward them. Some of the boys had some merchandise that they had lifted and consequently tossed during the chase. Three of them got away. The fourth one wasn't so lucky. He was very skinny black kid; couldn't have been more than eleven years old. He was trapped by the cars, and the police got out their squad cars with guns drawn. Please keep in mind that this was in the late 70s, before gangs became prevalent in the U.S. And the other boys who got away looked like they were white and Latino. These weren't Crips or Bloods; they were just bored, naughty little boys who shouldn't have been shoplifting. And they were wrong for doing so. I took no issue with that.
What I had a problem with was the police drawing guns on a terrified little boy who couldn't have had a weapon on him. And I took issue with them throwing him down on the ground, eagle-spreading him and snapping handcuffs on him. He hit his mouth on the pavement, and started crying. Then they told him to shut up, dragged him into a standing position and slammed him up against one of the cars. The boy started shrieking, probably from fear and pain. He was bleeding, after all.
I can't exactly tell you what happened next.
All I can remember is that I saw flash of red, then flash of brilliant white before my eyes. My entire body felt like it was surging with some kind of energy. Adrenaline and endorphins were more than likely a part of it. But the eternal tomboy that I am, I've felt those chemicals rushing through my body many times before, especially while playing dodge ball or baseball as a kid. This was something different. I didn't feel at all like myself.
Somehow, I ran across the parking lot, picked the policeman up by his shirt, and I was holding him above my head. Then this voice that didn't sound anything like me was telling him that the handcuffs didn't have to be so tight, and the boy needed medical attention immediately. Then the voice told the policeman that he should take care of those things right away.
The next thing I can remember was walking toward the mall entrance, shaking uncontrollably. I wasn't scared; it was just that I had this energy running through me, and I wanted it to stop. I didn't know people had gathered around to watch the whole thing, either. They gave me a wide berth as I went by.
I don't know what happened. And I wouldn't be able to recreate that experience even if I tried. Was that just a biological reaction to protect a helpless little boy? I had no consciousness about wanting to save him. In fact, I don't remember any thoughts or feelings, which is really scary. And why wasn't I arrested? I assaulted an officer; I should have caught jail time!
Was it just a biological response? Or was there something "higher" going on that I was totally unaware of at the time? It's not like I asked God to make me superhuman for a minute. But there are many people who have had similar experiences involving feats of enhanced strength and/or speed when it comes to helping someone in trouble. And trust me, there have been times when I WISHED I had enough strength to lift a 200+ pound man over my head--I would have tossed my ex-husband through our living room window!
I guess that's exactly why we humans don't have access to that ability all time. Talk about abuse of power, or the Magneto/Dr. Doom/Apocalypse syndrome! I definitely would have misused it during my divorce!
Alan Moore might worship a snake god which he recognizes as a hoax, but he also describes his practice of magic as synonymous with art: the use of words, images, and actions to affect people and the way they think. Gee, that sounds similar to the message of a certain website...
Super credible source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore#Magic
When I read the title, I immediately thought of Noah's Ark.
I never read the Watchmen (or any comics really) but I did see the movie recently, and it did give me a lot to think about. I'm still thinking about it. It's nice to hear some background.
I love this piece Aaron - thanks for sharing it.
A lot of people don't take comic books seriously. They pass they off as kid cartoons and nothing more.
As a 34 year old mother - i respectfully disagree. I give all of the credit to my love for superheros to my late brother Jimmy. My brother suffered from mental issues, and while he was never diagnosed, we believe he was schitzophrenic and so intelligent, he was almost too well read to the point of paranoia.
My brother used the superhero world as a way to normalize the injustices of the real world. He believed there was a superhero in us all - we just had to find it. During the last few years of his life - he would often dress in costume, and leave food by the homeless while they slept on the streets on NYC. THAT to me is a superhero.
My brother instilled the love for Marvel and DC characters in me - so much that I enjoy them now in a way I never did before, in hopes to find a part of my lost brother, in them. I realize now these heros showed him things mankind couldnt, and truly helped him "hang on" until the perils of the world got too much for him to be able to save on his own, and he took his own life.
He had a period where he enjoyed what he called "dark" comics - which mostly were Watchmen. He explained this comic to me as "The anti heros and the comics for his DARK side". So I honestly went INTO it knowing thats how it would be - so I wasnt disappointed in the movie, however I had just heard about it from him - never having read the novel.
So basically Aaron, I agree with you 100%. Superheros in their TRUE form are amazing ways for us to look into ourselves and find our own "powers". And by this I mean our powers to serve and help humanity - because if you really READ a comic - you see thats all these heros did - was help mankind.
Before he died - my brother gave us each a superhero - one that he had researched and believed we were MOST similar to in real life and that if we read up on it - we could help the world if we learned about our heros. Mine was The Scarlet Witch. My husbands was The Vision. We are enjoying doing our hero research. Its a great way to inspire you do want to do service to other people.
Isnt that what we are all here for?
Find me on twitter if you want to continue the comic talk! I love it! http://www.twitter.com/MAbeo
are we really basing our beliefs on God off of comic books from the 80's? c'mon people
Bravo, Aaron.
I found myself for the next few days caught up in the logic behind Ozzimandius' actions. How else would humankind reach peace?
Sometimes we fall victim to the logic of the "greater good."
I am very grateful that you've published this. Because being a hero doesn't mean winning. It sometimes means taking the lonely path. And it sometimes means dying.
When we turn away from God, humanity kills. Any killing, war, hatreds, infamy, barbarism, genocide, terrorism, depravity etc. is manmade...man divorced from God. God is the Spriit of love, unity and empathy. Any negative or ignoble heinous upheaval is the base instinct of the lowest of human nature.
I don't think acceptance of the idea of "life on life's terms" is completely synonymous with believing that if there is a god, he is just going to destroy everything. As an Agnostic, I do believe that if there is a god up there, he/she's going about this universe/world/etc. thing in a very cruel, hard-to-understand way; but, in no way do I (nor should anyone else) believe that humanity is royally fucked because of a diety who just wants to beat us down to show us a lesson.
DISCUSSION TOOLSET
How do we explain God, one that is all in all? There is always the conundrum of good versus evil. But if God is everything then God is also evil, the negative, the alternative. Now our own evolution into some higher consciousness entails many choices, many paths that determine our destiny. This journey to the Godhead is our torment and our salvation. The eternal struggle, the violence in this film could have been done more subtle and yet conveyed the same message. Similarly with effects that leave nothing to the imagination in the end stimulate little in the way of conscious thought or better yet a new paradigm.
The judge at judgement day is ultimately oneself, as we look into the mirror and face our demons or our saviors. The sins of the father become our own as we come to realize our interdependcy. Did Dr. Manhatten come to any real catharsis, or shift of thinking. The film depicted the most obvious physical transformations, yet did not reflect the transendental and perhaps for the intended audience that would have not gotten across. I try not to underestimate youth as your website here too, is valiantly spurring creative imagination and reflection.
Life is taken, yet it is also sacrificed, we evolve by assuming both roles, all roles, life, death, man, woman, good, evil, and in that end become at one or atone. Grace is given. Reflections are seen everywhere, as the clouds are parted the path becomes each conscious moment, each breath, not in fear but in acceptance to what is this awakening light in you.
Ego, boredom, awake yet unconscious is the distractor, the temptress and antithesis to living. Making choices the characters in Watchman are no different that any others throughout time, in that existence is not just standing on the sidelines but becoming more self-aware. And it is that truth, your own truth which you must discover.
How many times has the universe expanded and collapsed, how many times do we die to live again, for what purpose other than to evolve to a higher spiritual plane. The salmon gives up its life so that others may live, as we too shed our physical bodies, our disparate emotions, ego driven compulsions to go somewhere else.
The Watchman went to Mars, I suspect that our individual journeys will take us much farther. Revel in the journey.