Who watches the Watchmen? Me!

[annathepiper]

Saturday afternoon, solarbird, spazzkat, and I went out for an afternoon matinee of Watchmen... and now I know, decades after the actual graphic novel came out, what it's actually all about.

I remember when the graphic novel came out, of course; I remember that my and Dara's housemate in Kentucky, amethyst_dancer, had a copy. But I never read it that I recall. And though Paul does have a copy in the house now, I specifically avoided reading i just because I wanted to go into the movie without any preconceptions of what to expect.

So I got a fairly clean impression, over all. It is therefore a bit of a shame that my first gut reaction to the whole story was "geez, I don't like any of these people." More rationally, I suppose that that's part of the whole point of the story--i.e., to show us some superheroes with very real human frailties and flaws. But in some respects the story takes this goal too far for my own enjoyment. I really loathed the Comedian, and in particular the part of his backstory involving what happened between him and Silk Specter I. That was a big kick in the gut of my ability to really get into the story.

On the other hand, Doctor Manhattan as the only genuinely superpowered being in the cast was pretty awesome, and I did like how the world in general reacted to him, and how he was asked to intervene in Vietnam in this timeline. His increasing emotional detachment from humanity played pretty true for me. Also: Rorschach? Pure looney tunes. But his signature line in the prison was perfect. And I got quite a bit of amusement out of finding out that Rorschach was modeled quite a bit on the Question--who I'd always liked in the animated Justice League cartoon. For bonus fun, I read further that the specific version of the Question in said cartoon took quite a bit of inspiration from Rorschach in the Watchmen graphic novel, too.

And, I gotta say, I really liked how the big climax dealt with the twist on the traditional Villain Soliloquy. Ozymandias really was the smartest guy on the planet. ;)

All in all not a bad watch. I still don't particularly like any of these characters, but I do rather get now what role the Watchmen played in the superhero genre when they first appeared. Picking up on that, even this late to the game, was a win.

Comments

[avram]

Seriously, you don't know what Watchmen is like, or about, until you've read the comic. The movie was an OK movie, nothing ground-breaking. The comic was revolutionary, and knocked the whole comics industry on its ass. Not just because it was a more complex and multi-layered story than had ever been told in the comics format before, but also because it used the medium in ways that hadn't been done before. There are all sorts of recurring visual motifs, cross-panel thematic relationships, and other complicated things going on. The movie only gives you the faintest hint of it.

Also, Laurie (the younger Silk Spectre) is a much better character in the comic. She's funnier, we get more and longer conversations showing her relationship with her mother. The movie really didn't do her justice.

[annathepiper]

I've been sternly informed that I should have read the comic first, yes. ;) But I've been sternly informed I should read a lot of things, and I've only got so much brain to spare! But yeah, I figure I'll get around eventually to looking at spazzkat's copy of the graphic novel.

My main overall problem I guess is that aside from Elfquest, I've never been hugely into comics and graphic novels. I do appreciate them, but I am not familiar enough with a lot of them to have a really solid understanding of why exactly what Watchmen did was so groundbreakingly awesome. So I could read it now, sure, but I don't really have a history of reading other things to compare it to, so there's only so much I'll grok it all.

Duly noted about Laurie, though. :) I'll look for that.

[annathepiper]

Well, as I'm saying to the other comments on the thread--I'll get to it eventually. spazzkat owns the copy we have in the house, and I need to read the other things I've borrowed from him before I get around to reading that, I think!

But okay yeah fine I'll read it. ;)

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

I am not familiar enough with a lot of them to have a really solid understanding of why exactly what Watchmen did was so groundbreakingly awesome.

I am hugely familiar w/them and w/Alan Moore's earlier work, and honestly, I always thought Watchmen was a bit overrated -- a good work by a talented author w/the second best hype machine any comic every had (the best hype machine probably going to Miller's Batman reworking). I don't really buy the whole idea that you have to have something wrong with you or be more neurotic/psychotic than the norm to want to put on a uniform and go fight crime, which was what most people were praising so much about the great psychological insight of the book. And the whole "we must band together to fight the menace of the other to save ourselves" thing is a dumbass idea (assuming I remember this right after more than a decade).

Yah to not the most likable bunch of characters , tho I think that's how we're supposed to view them, and as someone already said, I dearly hope we're supposed to hate the Comedian and consider him a psychopathic villain who just happens to work for our government. And the whole thing was kinda white male centric -- even back in my pre-feminist days I noticed the relative passivity of women and were there *any* heroes-of-color? There was some good character complexity, tho. Rorschach was a nutjob, but an awesome character, and ITA w/you bout Manhattan's gradual detachment from humanity.

Re: Graphic novels -- you've read the Sandman collections by Gaiman, or some of them? Or for something short and self-contained, something called "Pride" from a couple of years ago by (I think) Brian K Vaughn was good.

If you read more Moore, I'd say go with his Swamp Thing run (starting w/the whole American Gothic 30 issue or so thing), silly as it might sound to say he did better w/someone else's characters than he did with his own.

[avram]

I don't really buy the whole idea that you have to have something wrong with you or be more neurotic/psychotic than the norm to want to put on a uniform and go fight crime, which was what most people were praising so much about the great psychological insight of the book.

This thing here that you just said has nothing to do with why Watchmen is great. The fact that most people fixated on the grim grittiness of the book is why Moore feels some amount of regret at writing it.

Watchmen is a brilliant work of comics formalism, by which I mean that it advanced the possibilities of the comics form farther than anything else had at the time. As I mentioned above, there are recurring visual motifs, relationships established across adjacent panels that depict different scenes, and extensive use of visual symbolism (note, for example, the recurrence of mirrors and symmetry).

Watchmen is also significant for having as much thematic depth as a novel. Moore decided on his theme -- vigilantism, or more generally, one person taking responsibility for another's actions -- and created a group of characters who would each explore this theme from a different angle. Further, structurally, each chapter of the book stands by itself as a formal sub-unit of the whole, generally bookended by images that reinforce the theme or events of that chapter, and resonate with the chapter title.

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

Watchmen is a brilliant work of comics formalism, by which I mean that it advanced the possibilities of the comics form farther than anything else had at the time. As I mentioned above, there are recurring visual motifs, relationships established across adjacent panels that depict different scenes, and extensive use of visual symbolism (note, for example, the recurrence of mirrors and symmetry).

This may be one reason a *lot* of people loved it more than I did. (keeping in mind over 20 years since I read this, and I might notice/would probably appreciate more now the things you are talking about) While I admire the kind of craft you are talking about here, and it would be interesting to go back and reread after having this pointed out to me, unless the artwork is just incredibly moving and beautiful aside from the motifs (and I remember the art as good but nothing that overwhelmed me, which is probably entirely my failing -- I didn't really start appreciating a lot of great visual art, whether painting, sculpture, what have you-- until mid-20's; that circuit in my brain just didn't click till then), even now I suspect this would still be a work where I admired some of the things he was doing without finding it as deeply moving or as profound as a lot of people did.

[annathepiper]

Okay, all of this gives me an idea of what to look for when I'm able to check it out. Thanks for this!

[batyatoon]

I don't really buy the whole idea that you have to have something wrong with you or be more neurotic/psychotic than the norm to want to put on a uniform and go fight crime, which was what most people were praising so much about the great psychological insight of the book.

What agrumer said, but also -- to say that's the point of the original book is to completely lose sight of Hollis Mason, the original Nite Owl, who was more well-adjusted and sane than most of the non-costumed people we see in the story, and who put on the costume and fought crime "because it was fun and because it needed doing and because [he] goddamn felt like it".

And Dan Dreiberg is at worst mildly neurotic, and at best the most decent person we meet throughout.

[avram]

I'd put in a good word for Dr Malcolm Long, the psychiatrist Rorschach talks to in prison. By the end of the book he'd depressed, his marriage falling apart, but he's still taking the effort to try and help random strangers.

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

My memory may be off on this, but I thought Moore said that was one of the main points of the original book? Or maybe I'm remembering what others said and mixing it up with interviews of him; it's been a while.

Hollis Mason -- I barely remember the character, so I did lose sight of him.

Agreed about Dan. I liked him and thought he was a good guy but had the idea the author thought him rather pathetic, which interfered with rather than helped my enjoyment of the book.

[annathepiper]

I do agree that Dan was least annoying of the characters we saw in the movie, yeah. And when I get to reading the graphic novel, I'll keep a lookout for Mason.

[zeekar.livejournal.com]

were there *any* heroes-of-color?

Hm. I was all set to say Hooded Justice was black under his hood, but no. German, actually. I seem to have him confused with someone else, perhaps from Astro City. So yeah, the Minutemen and Watchmen are a whole bunch of white guys.

OTOH, HJ and Captain Metropolis are gay. As of course are the ladies shown onscreen taking the place of the famous V-J Day in Times Square couple. So there are at least people of colorfulness, if not people of color per se...

[avram]

It's not absolutely established that Rolf Mueller was Hooded Justice, but it is strongly implied. And given that HJ's costume was a black KKK hood with a noose, I have a hard time thinking he was black under there.

I think the whiff of racism around the costumed heroes was deliberate. Moore draws attention to it a couple of times: "black unrest" as one of the trouble items on Captain Metropolis's map at the Crimebusters meeting, and the New Frontiersman article that compares the masked heroes to the Klan.

[zeekar.livejournal.com]

It does seem an odd omission. To be true to the source material, there wouldn't have been any Superheroes of Color (SOC's?) in the 1940's - but by the 80's they'd been kicking around real comics for 20 years. And at least a few had even started to shake off the old stereotypes.

Some things take longer., We're only now seeing Asian superheroes who aren't defined by being martial arts masters (e.g. the new Atom). I still can't think of one who happens to be Native American but whose powers aren't tied to nature magic. Even Dawnstar, a spacefaring superhero in a far-future setting, has a power that boils down to being a super-tracker.

[avram]

Given how things work in Watchmen, I'd guess that there were probably a few African Americans who put on costumes to protect their neighborhoods -- and were promptly defined as "supervillains" and taken down by the cops or the white superheroes. Like the Black Panthers. (The Black Panthers were founded in 1966, the same year as the Crimebusters meeting.)

The more I think about this, the more obvious it seems. I'm amazed Moore didn't include a storyline about this, or at least hint at it.

[annathepiper]

Are we supposed to actively loathe the Comedian, enough that we want to punch him in the face every second he's getting camera time? 'Cause really, that's the strength of reaction I had to him, and it was strong enough to actively interfere with my ability to enjoy the story. I dunno. I'll read the graphic novel eventually, and I'll see whether I feel differently after I compare.

I have not actually read any of the Sandman stuff, no. I am not kidding when I say that my only real comics background at all is Elfquest; aside from a tiny sampling of early X-Men when I was in middle school, and graphic novels I've bought since of the recent comic adaptations of Buffy and Firefly, Elfquest has been pretty much it for me.

Mind you, it's not that I'm disinterested per se, it's mostly just that I'm less interested in checking out comics in general than I am in reading books. :)

Well, *I* actively loathed him . . .

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

Something about the whole sociopathic rapist & uncaring murderer of innocents thing and generally being a big unpleasant jerk made me hate him. I thought it was 'spose to be a sign of Rorschach's obsessiveness that he actually *cared* that the dipshit got offed.

Sort of like a symbol of everything that was wrong with certain visions of America and masculinity at the time . . .

If you like Gaiman's novels, I expect you'll love his grahic novels; if you want something shorter than Sandman, try "Death: The High Cost of Living" .

Re: Well, *I* actively loathed him . . .

[annathepiper]

Something about the whole sociopathic rapist & uncaring murderer of innocents thing and generally being a big unpleasant jerk made me hate him. I thought it was 'spose to be a sign of Rorschach's obsessiveness that he actually *cared* that the dipshit got offed.

And this is my entire point. I so actively loathed the character that it damaged my ability to respect any of the other characters--because I just can't understand why people who are interested in fighting crime, for fuck's sake, would put up with this asshole for an instant. Since my respect for them was damaged, this in turn damaged my ability to give a shit about anything they were doing in the story. I spent just as much time thinking during the movie "y'know, I really don't like ANY of these people" as I did admitting "okay, that bit as cool".

I'm willing to see if the graphic novel presents me with a reason to change my mind. But we'll see.

Re: Gaiman's novels and graphic novels... again, please understand that I'm not actually looking for other graphic novels to read. I don't go out of my way to find them; if any happen to be sitting around and I have reason to believe they'll entertain me, sure, I'll glance at 'em, but I'm not actively looking for more to read. The only graphic novels I'm buying at all right now are the ones that tell new Firefly stories and the ones for Buffy season 8, and this is more because I'm a Joss Whedon fan than I am a fan of graphic novels in general. ;)

I'll only be reading Watchmen eventually because we do actually have a copy in the house. We've also got some Sandman in the house, for that matter. But, see previous commentary. I'm so backlogged on all the things I want to read that I have no idea when I'll get to either.

Re: Well, *I* actively loathed him . . .

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

And this is my entire point. I so actively loathed the character that it damaged my ability to respect any of the other characters--because I just can't understand why people who are interested in fighting crime, for fuck's sake, would put up with this asshole for an instant. Since my respect for them was damaged, this in turn damaged my ability to give a shit about anything they were doing in the story. I spent just as much time thinking during the movie "y'know, I really don't like ANY of these people"

Oh, ITA. I believe this was also deliberate by the author, as I *really* got the impression he thought all the biologically human norm characters were pathetic, crazy, hatable, or some combination of these things. Their puting up with the Comedian *did* make them at best morally compromised & weak, or, well, pathetic.

Got it with the no new recs; I'll forego that list of "35 comics you must read" I'd just typed up. =)

Re: Well, *I* actively loathed him . . .

[annathepiper]

*grin* You're too kind. ;)

To go along with this entire discussion, I'll also note that I totally acknowledge that Rorschach for example is also a complete psychotic asshole. But he's an example of a character who, although I don't like him, I nonetheless still find compelling and interesting to watch. He at least had a strong and obvious streak of moral fiber in the midst of his general batshittery, and he's definitely the main point of interest for me in the movie. solarbird says he's a lot more batshit in the graphic novel, so I'll also keep a look out for whether that changes my perception of him.

[sianmink.livejournal.com]

You don't really like Comedian in the comic either, but when you come down to it, he's really the only character who understands what it's all about, and is totally honest with himself and others over it.

It's just that he's a dick, too.

And Rorschach was cast and acted perfectly.

[annathepiper]

See, for me, he was enough of a reprehensible dick that it was actively interfering with my ability to enjoy the story in general. Rationally, I get the function his character is performing. It's just that I had that intense a reaction to him that it made me enjoy the story less.

I don't need to like every character I meet, mind you. But if I'm going to be presented a major character I'm not supposed to like, for me as a reader or a viewer, it'll work better if there's some other aspect of that character that balances out his or her reprehensible traits. The character needs to be compelling enough that even if I'm really not liking them very much, or even if I'm actively hating them, I want to know more about what's happening with them.

The Comedian never pulled this off for me--and it didn't help in the slightest that I found his entire history with Silk Specter I absolutely loathsome. I don't know if this is a fault of the movie or a fault of the story in general. I suppose I'll have to actually read the graphic novel for a proper comparison.

[cafiorello.livejournal.com]

I'm a novice in the graphic novel genre, myself, but I got a lot out of Watchmen. Especially since I was discussing it with Derek, who pointed out some of the visual stuff I was missing, while I was able to give him more of the philosophy/cultural background stuff (like pulling out the poem Ozymandias for him to read). There are more subplots in the novel, and a lot more character depth. Plus because some of the non-protagonists are featured more, you have some characters that you can identify with, even through the existential angst.

And yeah, Best. Villain Soliloquy. Evar.

Cathy

[batyatoon]

There is always more visual stuff you're missing.

I've read it maybe twenty times, and didn't notice until a friend pointed it out to me that the panel arrangement and the page-by-page content in the chapter called "Fearful Symmetry" ... is symmetrical, from the center of the chapter outward.

So many tiny subtle touches like that. So many. There's always more visual stuff you're missing.

[annathepiper]

This is helpful and will give me an idea of what to look for in the reading. Thanks!

[annathepiper]

Heh, glad you had an opportunity to share it with Derek, that sounds neat. And, we'll see if I get a chance to check it out. It'll have to be rather far down the queue; spazzkat owns the copy that's in the house and before I read it, I really ought to read the other books of his I've borrowed, not to mention the 7th book of Harry Potter, which I keep swearing I'll read and never actually get to. *^_^*;;

[tiggymalvern.livejournal.com]

Another vote here for you reading the graphic novel :-) There's so much more background detail in there - a whole bunch on the original Minutemen which is missing from the film, more Rorschach background, and more on Jon too, which is a really lovely touch. The film was fun, but it was missing a whole lot of metaphor and political commentary that was dropped in the details.

You're supposed to hate the Comedian. I mean, even his fellow costumed adventurers call him a Nazi XD

There were one or two things in the film I actually liked better, but on the whole the graphic novel definitely wins out! Though I'm really looking forward to seeing the extended DVD version, and finding out how much more of the missing detail was filmed.

[annathepiper]

You don't understand: I really actively loathed the character and his entire storyline. Enough that it made it actively annoying for me every single second he was on the screen, and it diminished all of the other characters in my eyes that they put up with any of his general bullshit. I especially hated his entire history with Silk Specter I.

I don't know if the hard hate-on reaction I had to the character is the fault of the movie, or of the story in general. I'll have to read the graphic novel, I suppose, for a proper comparison. But I've got a bunch of other stuff way ahead of it on my reading queue; if nothing else, spazzkat owns the only copy in the house, and I really ought to read all the other things I've borrowed from him before I read that too. ;)

[avram]

The fact that Edward Blake, the Comedian, is unlikeable is thematically important. It's his death, and Rorschach's investigation of it, that kicks off the story, and one of the themes of the story is that individual human lives have worth, even if they're evil murdering bastards.

If Ozymandias's murder of Blake is justified because Blake was a rapist and assassin, then the mass-murder Ozymandias perpetrates is also justified if it prevents WW3.

Which reminds me that one of the ways Watchmen is a different book in 2009 than it was in 1986 is that we, nowadays, know that we got through the Cold War without blowing the world up, and we didn't need Dr Manhattan or Ozymandias's super-science plot to do it. We know for a fact that Ozymandias was wrong.

[zeekar.livejournal.com]

we, nowadays, know that we got through the Cold War without blowing the world up

...although certain world leaders seem to be trying to move us into a second Cold War, so stay tuned! Plus, of course, we could always blow the world up without needing a Cold War.

Not that I think the threat of a giant space squid or a rogue Dr. Manhattan would work to unite the world in peace and harmony anyway, you understand.

Gosh, I'm cheery. :)