One of the most interesting elements of the graphic novel "Watchmen" is Dr. Manhattan's comprehension of the universe. A nuclear accident has redefined the parameters of his vision, how he sees time as a mostly unalterable spacial dimension, how his scientific knowledge now fuels his disinterest in mankind. Whereas human beings are confined by their relativity, he's able to experience the universe as it is. Imagine the Earth's entire population situated on a cliff in the Rocky Mountains, and then imagine Dr. Manhattan standing a couple miles away, able to see the whole range.
As both a hardcore fan of the graphic novel and a proponent of comic book movies, I feel very similar to Dr. Manhattan when discussing Zack Snyder's film version of "Watchmen." All my friends have talked about how cool it looks, and how it's going to be a more intellectual comic book movie, and how it's going to work on film in its own way. After seeing it in Burbank in glorious IMAX, I can't do anything more than shake my head.
So before I start my rant, I apologize. I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to see the totality of this film adaptation like I do. I'm equally sorry that I can't just chill the fuck out and enjoy the movie like you did. I truly am.
With that in mind, I'll begin at the end.
The truth is that most of the movie is incredibly faithful to the graphic novel, from the dialogue to the details of each shot. But the changes made to the ending tear down the fundamental nature of Ozymandias' plan. (By the way, if you want to avoid spoilers about both the book and the movie, you should get lost pronto. And if you haven't read the book or seen the movie, you won't have any clue what I'm talking about.)
While Ozymandias didn't necessarily embrace the Keene Act (the legislation that outlawed costumed heroes), he did embrace the opportunity it gave him to become a hero of a different sort. As a man who started out with nothing, Adrian Veidt trained his mind and body to become a remarkable human being. The mask and costume only helped him be louder about it. After the Keene Act, he became the ultimate philanthropist, helping people through the same honest, hard-working means that built his global company. There wasn't much bitterness in his crusade, except bitterness toward mankind's inevitably savage nature.
Well, the way the movie pins his plot to destroy several major cities on Dr. Manhattan seems fairly bitter to me. Shifting the blame -- along with some hostile words for Dan Dreiberg, aka Nite Owl II -- cuts the legs out from under the plan. In the novel, Veidt teleports a giant squid-like creature to New York City that explodes upon arrival, killing more than three million people. The Americans and Soviets are both tricked into thinking that aliens have attacked Earth, and they suspend their hostilities in order to work together to combat the new threat. The whole scenario is somewhat ridiculous, yes, but as Veidt notes, Hitler proved that people will believe a lie if it's big enough.
In the book, Veidt is a man who reveres ancient cultures and their leaders and believes he can transplant their ideology into conflicts of the atomic age. In the film, he's a ferocious dickhole whose far more dictatorial than benevolent. He seems less like the bravura and arrogantly altruistic figure created by Alan Moore and more like the spiteful Richard Nixon who's stayed in power for his own benefit.
As part of his reworked ending, Snyder also chooses to cut the brief exchange between Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias, which contains Dr. Manhattan's immortal final line: "Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends." It's one of the cruxes of the novel delivered in understated fashion. It's also the kind of subtler storytelling that Snyder apparently doesn't believe in.
The movie is loud, perversely violent and more than happy to wallow in its own excrement. Because the central plot is crammed into 163 minutes, there's no space for the fictional literature that follows each chapter and provides necessary depth to the characters and world of "Watchmen." There's no way to duplicate the 30-some pages of symmetrical panels in the chapter "Fearful Symmetry." There's no room to intersperse the irony of the "Black Freighter" comic. There's no time to ponder Dr. Manhattan's intriguing suppositions about time and space, or any of the characters' opposing viewpoints for that matter. There's no time to spend with the citizens of New York at the newstand, and that may be the worst omission of all. Their interactions in the novel remind us that humanity isn't entirely dishonest or irresponsible. Since the movie focuses solely on costumed adventurers in a fucked-up world, it feels like the people they're trying to save deserve to die, anyway.
All that can be summed up in one sentence: The storytelling of "Watchmen" doesn't translate to the screen. It's that simple. It's what Moore's been saying for two decades. It's what people who don't understand storytelling can't comprehend. Snyder was as faithful to the graphic novel as one could hope, and that's a big reason why the movie doesn't work.
That said, the movie isn't totally without merit. The title sequence is excellent, with Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" playing as the events of the alternate timeline are detailed. Juxtaposing Billy Crudup's soft voice with Dr. Manhattan's towering figure is the only time the movie approaches the irony of the book. Jackie Earle Haley absolutely steals the show as Rorschach, who's probably one of the five greatest characters in comic book history. Haley is unrecognizable with his mask on, and somehow even less recognizable with his mask off. He fully inhabits the role and seems to channel a frequency separate from the proceedings. His performance isn't much different than the one that just landed Heath Ledger an Oscar.
But those are really the only things the movie carves out for itself. Of course these are great characters. Of course the dialogue is pulp-tastic. Of course the story is brilliant and relevant. It was written that way 20 years ago.
And please, don't be an idiot who claims I'd feel differently if I hadn't read the book. The film's ad campaigns have labeled Snyder as a "visionary" director, and the movie looks good. But it's also way too crowded and incoherent (I can't imagine how people who haven't read the book actually keep up with everything). The pacing is terrible, the atmosphere is one-note and some of the performances are incredibly amateurish (Malin Akerman, I'm talking to you). These are fundamental flaws that would be noticeable without ever reading a word of Moore's work.
These flaws exist because you can't film "Watchmen." Too bad Snyder didn't have the vision to see that.
No comments:
Post a Comment