Skip to main content

You're reading a comic book? What are you, retarded?

Watchmen: The Ultimate Cut
(2009)

(SPOILERS) It’s a decade since the holy grail of comic books finally fought through decades of development hell to land on the big screen, via Zack Snyder’s faithful but not faithful enough for the devoted adaptation. Many then held the director’s skills with a much more open mind than they do now – following the ravages he has inflicted on the DCEU – coming as he was off the back of the well-received 300. Many subsequently held that his Watchmen, while visually impressive, had entirely missed the point (not least in some of its stylistic and aesthetic choices). I wouldn’t go that far – indeed, for a director whose bombastic approach is often only a few notches down from Michael Bay (who was, alarmingly, also considered to direct at one point), there are sequences in Watchmen that show tremendous sensitivity – but it’s certainly the case that, even or especially in its Ultimate Cut form and for all the furore the change to the end of the story provoked, respect for the comic book at times gets in the way of telling a good movie.

The most mystifying thing in hindsight is the thought that this cult property would make enough dough (at least initially) to justify the expense lavished on it; this is the kind of thinking that leads to disappointed studios tutting “Never again” when a TRON: Legacy of Blade Runner 2049 doesn’t make the kind of waves expected (both did decent business – indeed, I’d say surprisingly so given the cult branding – but they simply cost too much). Watchmen’s second week drop suggests a sizeable portion of the audience though they were getting a superhero movie of the kind they most definitely were not, whatever lustrous sheen Snyder may have worked across the surface.

I managed not to read the graphic novel until the year leading up to the movie’s release, so I didn’t come to Snyder’s adaptation with the decades of expectations and preconditions I might have; I certainly appreciated the uniqueness of Alan Moore (and Dave Gibbons’) work, but I wasn’t blown away by it, nor did I recognise it as some kind of hallowed object. So I was open-minded in terms of changes to the text, or even the dynamics of the material.

Terry Gilliam (who threw out a Sam Hamm time-altering draft) famously reached the conclusion that Watchmen was unfilmable, and that if it wasdone, it would probably best be a limited series for HBO (cue this year’s “sequel” to the comic). The notoriously disdainful (and disinterested) Moore commented around the time of the comic’s original release “what I’d like to explore is the areas that comics succeed in where no other media is capable of operating”, which didn’t bode well for an adaptation that could sum up its essence. Elsewhere, his collaborator, artist Gibbons, suggested it “became much more about the telling than the tale itself”, which, if Snyder – and those concentrating on the altered ending – misses something, it’s very much that. Because he treats the telling in a very literal, nuts-and-bolts fashion, in order to get that tale told. As a consequence, it does at times feel like “a thing of bits and pieces” as Richard Corliss put it, the irony being that Snyder is so clearly attempting to make it as much of “a whole” as possible (to the extent that there are three different cuts available).

To touch on some of the more salient issues with Snyder’s take, firstly and most famously, there’s the squid, or absence thereof, and it’s easy to see why it was shown the door. I’m not wholly convinced of the idea Moore appropriated from The Outer LimitsArchitects of Fear (but also found in Kurt Vonnegut’s Sirens of Titan and Theodore Sturgeon’s Unite and Conquer), which he even references in the comic book – a cheap way of saying “I know, I know” before anyone else calls him out on it – whereby warring humanity unites in the face of a more salient threat (even with a fake alien invasion backstop conspiracy theorised for years now as a card in the elite’s arsenal). And that’s simply because there’s a “What happens then?” hanging over it – it’s nice for a punchy Outer Limits plot (where itdoesn’thappen), but if you have to spend time thinking about how long a truce would actually last… Well, it doesn’t vouch for either Veidt or Dr Manhattan as all that bright, really. The original leaves the problem of how Veidt will sustain the pretence (so they’ve got a giant dead squid... Are there any more in storage?) while the movie shifts the blame on Dr Manhattan, who absconds into the greater universe from Earth and so doesn’t leave the superpowers much to maintain their unified focus on. Which is essentially to say, I think Snyder swaps out a problematic ending for a problematic ending, but at least one that doesn’t invite immediate ridicule.

Then there’s the aesthetic, which on the one hand feels verycomic book, but on the other, works against the premise of depositing superheroes in a credible, faux-real world. Arguably, the latter’s veryfar from Snyder’s vision, slathered as it is in heightened, kinetic action and bold, vibrant cinematography. Which is to say, I enjoy watching his Watchmen world, but it provides no opportunity to explore the contrasts Moore was aiming for. An element of this is simply being realistic about trying to make Watchmen commercially viable (in which case, you get back to “Should it have been adapted at all?” – one might expect that Paul Greengrass’s version, for all the changes he sought to exact, would have been tonally closer to Moore). So bring on the speed-ramping as Night Owl and Silk Spectre beat the shit out of various assailants and hoodlums. There needs to be some recognisable superhero beats in a movie with this kind of budget; to expect otherwise would have been delusional. But it means that what we have is both out of place and well done for what it is (Snyder is nothing if not a decent action director, that is, when he’s not completely at a loss about what he’s trying to achieve – see Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice).

That’s only one part of it, though. The other is the violence. It’s perhaps unsurprising, given the chainsaw grue of the Dawn of the Dead remake (an all-time classic, edge-of-the-seat, heart-in-mouth opening sequence though) and hyper-violence of 300, but for some reason Snyder decided this would also be appropriate to Watchmen, a comic with very limited levels of “in panel” violence. Certainly, no bones snapping through flesh, chip-fat fryers in the face or arms severed at the elbow with a chainsaw. It’s not only gratuitous, it’s jarring and distracting, and more illustrative of the frat-splatter mentality he approaches Moore with than probably anything else in the movie, a kind of imaginative short circuit whereby everything reduces to the blunt and obvious (it’s there in the music cues too, since every choice is pretty much an over-used classic, rather limiting the opportunity to create new associations due to the baggage involved).

And yet, there are sequences where he gets the balance exactly right – the demise of the first Nite Owl, for example (not present in the cinema cut) has exactly the kind of necessary impact and restraint. Both the areas of action dynamics and violence rather highlight – as if it needs emphasising, given the broad cross section of his comic adaptations – that Snyder has a passion for the aesthetics over storytelling. And yet, the guy who sounds like an idiot when he talks about Batman’s motivation for killing in BvS also put Philip Glass to the sequence of Dr Manhattan’s genesis, whereby you can only remark upon a talent for the sublime (and to be honest, I don’t even object enormously to other choices here, like 99 Red Balloons or the clearly ironic Hallelujah to Night Owl and Silk Spectre’s admittedly rather adolescently staged sex scene). The opening montage to The Times They Are A Changing, over-obvious as it is, is also highly effective.

And as if it needs saying, two thirds of the leads are spot-on casting. Jackie Earle Haley is a perfect Rorschach – some have complained he’s turned into a more identifiably heroic character here, but I agree with those who put that essentially down to Moore coming up with a “hero” defined by a code and skillset, even if he isunhygienic – Patrick Wilson a reliably doughy Night Owl who looks straight out of Gibbons’ illustrations, Billy Crudup as Dr Manhattan gets to say he’s had at least twodecent big screen roles (Almost Famous’s golden god being the other), and Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian illustrates the blip that comes with a TV actor having a rare great movie role but entirely failing to develop it into anything further (he’s his generation’s Tom Selleck, basically, although Three Men and a Baby was more a big success than a great part). In each case, I don’t think you could have hoped for better personifications.

I’m not as down on Malin Ackerman as many either; I just don’t think she’s very well served by the adaption and what ends up on screen. The reveal about her parentage is rather perfunctory, lacking sufficient lead-in to make it impactive (and I’m never that convinced by its cachet in sparking Manhattan’s reinterest in humanity anyway). So it’s Matthew Goode’s Adrian Veidt/ Ozymandias where the movie really suffers. Goode’s good in other stuff, but here he’s giving off creepy potential bad guy vibes from his first scene. In addition to which, we don’t get enough of the character to explore his internal motivation; he’s wheeled on as an exposition engine at the appropriate moment, and that’s basically it.

But scene by scene, revisiting Watchmen reveals a movie awash with elements to like, much more so, I think, than dislike, even as the two opposing forces sometimes cohabit the same scene. I like the Dr Strangelove war room just as I don’t like those Nixon prosthetics. I like The Black Freighter animation hugely, but with hindsight, I don’t think Snyder’s found a way for it to seem sufficiently relevant to the main story (that may in part be because I don’t fully buy into it as an effective means of paralleling Veidt’s path, an antagonist fully aware of his actions and their effects, where as the Sea Captain is not, until it is too late).

On balance, I’d rather revisit Watchmen than most of the Marvel or the “proper” DC properties. If the former are very reliable, they’re rarely very surprising, and if the latter are tentatively finding their feet now they’re going in a non-uniform approach, that inevitably means they’re going to vary wildly in effectiveness. It’s a shame Snyder wore out his welcome by getting sucked into the “mainstream” comic properties, as he was perversely enable to display his tin ear for the characters (a gore hound is possibly not going to be the best benefactor for the Man of Steel). I doubt Watchmen is the best version of bringing an impossible property to the screen, but it still gets a lot more right than could have been realistically expected. I’m quite sure Damon Lindelof’s re-envisioning will be just as divisive, if for very different reasons, but the consideration in all these things should be, is it doing something interesting or worthwhile with the material, rather than whether it’s slaying a sacred cow. I’d say Watchmen: The Ultimate Cut is.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism

Now listen, I don’t give diddley shit about Jews and Nazis.

  The Boys from Brazil (1978) (SPOILERS) Nazis, Nazis everywhere! The Boys from Brazil has one distinct advantage over its fascist-antagonist predecessor Marathon Man ; it has no delusions that it is anything other than garish, crass pulp fiction. John Schlesinger attempted to dress his Dustin Hoffman-starrer up with an art-house veneer and in so doing succeeded in emphasising how ridiculous it was in the wrong way. On the other hand, Schlesinger at least brought a demonstrable skill set to the table. For all its faults, Marathon Man moves , and is highly entertaining. The Boys from Brazil is hampered by Franklin J Schaffner’s sluggish literalism. Where that was fine for an Oscar-strewn biopic ( Patton ), or keeping one foot on the ground with material that might easily have induced derision ( Planet of the Apes ), here the eccentric-but-catchy conceit ensures The Boys from Brazil veers unfavourably into the territory of farce played straight.

Yeah, it’s just, why would we wannabe be X-Men?

The New Mutants (2020) (SPOILERS) I feel a little sorry for The New Mutants . It’s far from a great movie, but Josh Boone at least has a clear vision for that far-from-great movie. Its major problem is that it’s so overwhelmingly familiar and derivative. For an X-Men movie, it’s a different spin, but in all other respects it’s wearisomely old hat.

I can always tell the buttered side from the dry.

The Molly Maguires (1970) (SPOILERS) The undercover cop is a dramatic evergreen, but it typically finds him infiltrating a mob organisation ( Donnie Brasco , The Departed ). Which means that, whatever rumblings of snitch-iness, concomitant paranoia and feelings of betrayal there may be, the lines are nevertheless drawn quite clearly on the criminality front. The Molly Maguires at least ostensibly finds its protagonist infiltrating an Irish secret society out to bring justice for the workers. However, where violence is concerned, there’s rarely room for moral high ground. It’s an interesting picture, but one ultimately more enraptured by soaking in its grey-area stew than driven storytelling.

Never underestimate the wiles of a crooked European state.

The Mouse on the Moon (1963) (SPOILERS) Amiable sequel to an amiably underpowered original. And that, despite the presence of frequent powerhouse Peter Sellers in three roles. This time, he’s conspicuously absent and replaced actually or effectively by Margaret Rutherford, Ron Moody and Bernard Cribbins. All of whom are absolutely funny, but the real pep that makes The Mouse on the Moon an improvement on The Mouse that Roared is a frequently sharp-ish Michael Pertwee screenplay and a more energetic approach from director Richard Lester (making his feature debut-ish, if you choose to discount jazz festival performer parade It’s Trad, Dad! )

Yes, exactly so. I’m a humbug.

The Wizard of Oz (1939) (SPOILERS) There are undoubtedly some bullet-proof movies, such is their lauded reputation. The Wizard of Oz will remain a classic no matter how many people – and I’m sure they are legion – aren’t really all that fussed by it. I’m one of their number. I hadn’t given it my time in forty or more years – barring the odd clip – but with all the things I’ve heard suggested since, from MKUltra allusions to Pink Floyd timing The Dark Side of the Moon to it, to the Mandela Effect, I decided it was ripe for a reappraisal. Unfortunately, the experience proved less than revelatory in any way, shape or form. Although, it does suggest Sam Raimi might have been advised to add a few songs, a spot of camp and a scare or two, had he seriously wished to stand a chance of treading in venerated L Frank Baum cinematic territory with Oz the Great and Powerful.

It’s always open season on princesses!

Roman Holiday (1953) (SPOILERS) If only every Disney princess movie were this good. Of course, Roman Holiday lacks the prerequisite happily ever after. But then again, neither could it be said to end on an entirely downbeat note (that the mooted sequel never happened would be unthinkable today). William Wyler’s movie is hugely charming. Audrey Hepburn is utterly enchanting. The Rome scenery is perfectly romantic. And – now this is a surprise – Gregory Peck is really very likeable, managing to loosen up just enough that you root for these too and their unlikely canoodle.

Dad's wearing a bunch of hotdogs.

White of the Eye (1987) (SPOILERS) It was with increasing irritation that I noted the extras for Arrow’s White of the Eye Blu-ray release continually returning to the idea that Nicolas Roeg somehow “stole” the career that was rightfully Donald Cammell’s through appropriating his stylistic innovations and taking all the credit for Performance . And that the arrival of White of the Eye , after Demon Seed was so compromised by meddlesome MGM, suddenly shone a light on Cammell as the true innovator behind Performance and indeed the inspiration for Roeg’s entire schtick. Neither assessment is at all fair. But then, I suspect those making these assertions are coming from the position that White of the Eye is a work of unrecognised genius. Which it is not. Distinctive, memorable, with flashes of brilliance, but also uneven in both production and performance. It’s very much a Cannon movie, for all that it’s a Cannon arthouse movie.

Farewell, dear shithead, farewell.

Highlander II: The Quickening (1991) (SPOILERS) I saw Highlander II: The Quickening at the cinema. Yes, I actually paid money to see one of the worst mainstream sequels ever on the big screen. I didn’t bother investigating the Director’s Cut until now, since the movie struck me as entirely unsalvageable. I was sufficiently disenchanted with all things Highlander that I skipped the TV series and slipshod sequels, eventually catching Christopher Lambert’s last appearance as Connor MacLeod in Highlander: End Game by accident rather than design. But Highlander II ’s on YouTube , and the quality is decent, so maybe the Director’s Cut improve matters and is worth a reappraisal? Not really. It’s still a fundamentally, mystifyingly botched retcon enabling the further adventures of MacLeod, just not quite as transparently shredded in the editing room.

Have you betrayed us? Have you betrayed me?!

Blake's 7 4.13: Blake The best you can hope for the end of a series is that it leaves you wanting more. Blake certainly does that, so much so that I lapped up Tony Attwood’s Afterlife when it came out. I recall his speculation over who survived and who didn’t in his Programme Guide (curious that he thought Tarrant was unlikely to make it and then had him turn up in his continuation). Blake follows the template of previous season finales, piling incident upon incident until it reaches a crescendo.