Something that excited me, and sparked a lot of debate among my friends this month was the release of Alan Moore's "Watchmen" in a film adaptation directed by none other than Zack Snyder, of "300" fame. The story follows the ex-members of a disbanded vigilante group in a kind of alternate history where Nixon is in his third or fourth term of presidency (maybe even fifth, I forget) in 1985. With the exception of the atomically enhanced Doctor Manhattan, none of the Watchmen bear any discernible superpowers; we see them as everyday people, each with their own motives and struggles. Moore's frank, politically rife graphic novel takes the ordinary citizen with his complexities and vulnerabilities (and in some cases his sociopathic tendencies), and puts him in a mask and a silly costume, sending him out to fight crime and aid the government. It considers how the "superhero" might manifest himself, were he to exist in our world.
I loved the movie. I saw it twice, read the novel, and re-watched the opening credits an obscene number of times on the internet (it's not the same but it still makes me happy). The plot is layered, manic, and frighteningly intricate. It takes a lot of risks and is bound to attract a few negative responses, but for me, the great thing about Snyder's interpretation is how perfectly it is adapted for a movie audience. It manages to stay admirably faithful to the novel, and doesn't lose any of the grimey atmosphere that the book evokes. The dialogue is smoothly translated, taking as much as possible directly from the text; the casting is excellent on all counts; and the visuals, too, are of noteworthy importance. Great care has been taken over costume, and many of the shots - most notably the opening scene in which we look down at Eddie "the Comedian" Blake's body from the window through which he was thrown - are meticulously constructed to match the exact appearance and proportions of Dave Gibbons' original illustrations.
Perhaps the biggest stroke of genius though, is the major alteration made to the ending of the plot, which I think is actually an improvement on the ending in the novel. I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen/read it, but the movie ending threads everything together more easily. It still gives a sense of moral dilemma and ambiguity that is so important in the novel, but it requires less of a recap than the original would have done. As Snyder said in interview, reading the graphic novel allows you to flick back and piece together the information you need to make sense of the story; but in a film you'd need to have somebody explain everything at length, or use flashbacks, which is a "clumsy technique" for a filmmaker. With the new improved ending, there are far fewer puzzle pieces to put together, and while still fairly complex, the justification feels more comfortable.
But the film belongs to Jackie Earle Haley, whose performance as the psychotic and vigilant Rorschach, is the strongest of the bunch. Rorschach's dialogue is potentially quite jarring (he speaks in a kind of diary-esque shorthand) but Haley's slow, gravelly voice lets it flow naturally through the narrative, delivering some of the best lines in the movie with a vein-popping intensity that chills you to your core. Billy Crudup also does well as the apathetic Doctor Manhattan, but his big realisation about the miracle of life falls a little flat. It's not particularly well explained and Crudups's almost dead-pan acting (which works well in other scenes, just not here) doesn't invest much emotion in the audience. Also, the CGI used on his glowing blue face is somewhat disappointing; as someone said to me, "I just with they'd given as much attention to his face as they did to his penis" (he spends most of the film naked). Having said that, the laboratory accident (which left him with his abilities) and subsequent restructuring of his body are visually fairly impressive.
For anyone worried that it could just be two and a half hours of "300"-style super slow motion, rest assured, it is (to some extent) kept to a minimum. Snyder obviously throws in some trademark slowmo to emphasise some of the more important moments, but it doesn't feel overused. The best example is in the explosive opening credits that take you through the events preceding the film, from the original Watchmen lineup in the 40s, apprehending bad guys; to a series of pop culture references and figures like Bowie and Warhol; to important political moments like JFK's assassination (in which The Comedian is perched on the grassy knoll); to the "present day" pseudo-1985 where masked vigilantes have been outlawed and the most recent team of watchmen are no more. The super slowmo creates a resounding poignance, complimented by the perfectly chosen "The Times They Are A Changing" by Bob Dylan, which is played over the whole sequence.
The entire soundtrack, in fact (with the exception of "Hallelujah" over the sex scene - terrible decision), is a strength. The period-appropriate pop songs are carefully selected and are touching in a kind of of-the-moment way that adds to the sense of that diverted history - highlights include Simon and Garfunkel's "The Sound Of Silence" at The Comedians's funeral, and the Hendrix version of "All Along The Watchtower" during the climax in Antarctica.
I think the film's downfall is probably its unavoidable dependance on the novel. It's packed with complex thematics and layers within the plot - as well as raising a lot of questions about religion, politics, and the superhero genre - the full extent of which is difficult to grasp in just one watch. Much of the dense layering, satire, and irony of "Watchmen" is lost on anybody who doesn't have some kind of background knowledge regarding the novel and its significance to comic book culture. Unless you know that the book was written 20 years ago and was absolutely the first of it's kind, some of the themes and relationships can appear unoriginal. Unless you've been made aware of the assumptions that Moore was trying to challenge at that time, and the importance of sex and violence in challenging those assumptions, the graphic nature of the film can come across as base, cheap entertainment, or an exciting filler to keep the audience interested. This puts the film at risk of bad reception, and makes it easy for an audience to completely miss the point. Perhaps it has missed its opportunity, and, 20 years after the book was written, the message has lost its resonance, creating difficulty for the audience in recognising its depth.
All in all, while to some extent it may struggle to stand alone as a film, away from the novel, in my eyes, "Watchmen" is a triumph. It is a stark depiction of the brutal, sociopathic violence of a group of unavoidably flawed individuals, and a thought-provoking consideration of the consequence and dilemma of power. It's bloody (but necessarily so), it's sexy, and it's masterfully stylish. Trust me, it's Awesome.
Oh, and get tickets for an imax showing, even if just for those opening credits. But don't turn up late or you'll be put in the front row. That's rubbish.
