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 Zach 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

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You killed my sandwich!

Birds of Prey (and the Fanatabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020)
(SPOILERS) One has to wonder at Bird of Prey’s 79% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I mean, such things are to be taken with a pinch of salt at the best of times, but it would be easy, given the disparity between such evident approval and the actually quality of the movie, to suspect insincere motives on the part of critics, that they’re actually responding to its nominally progressive credentials – female protagonists in a superhero flick! – rather than its content. Which I’m quite sure couldn’t possibly be the case. Birds of Prey (and the Fanatabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) isn’t very good. The trailers did not lie, even if the positive reviews might have misled you into thinking they were misleading.

Afraid, me? A man who’s licked his weight in wild caterpillars? You bet I’m afraid.

Monkey Business (1931)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers’ first feature possessed of a wholly original screenplay, Monkey Business is almost brazenly dismissive towards notions of coherence, just as long as it loosely supports their trademark antics. And it does so in spades, depositing them as stowaways bound for America who fall in with a couple of mutually antagonistic racketeers/ gangsters while attempting to avoid being cast in irons. There’s no Margaret Dumont this time out, but Groucho is more than matched by flirtation-interest Thelma Todd.

Remember, you're fighting for this woman's honour – which is probably more than she ever did.

Duck Soup (1933)
(SPOILERS) Not for nothing is Duck Soup acclaimed as one of the greatest comedies ever, and while you’d never hold it against Marx Brothers movies for having little in the way of coherent plotting in – indeed, it’s pretty much essential to their approach – the presence of actual thematic content this time helps sharpen the edges of both their slapstick and their satire.

You’re a disgrace to the family name of Wagstaff, if such a thing is possible.

Horse Feathers (1932)
(SPOILERS) After a scenario that seemed feasible in Monkey Business – the brothers as stowaways – Horse Feathers opts for a massive stretch. Somehow, Groucho (Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff) has been appointed as the president of Huxley University, proceeding to offer the trustees and assembled throng a few suggestions on how he’ll run things (by way of anarchistic creed “Whatever it is, I’m against it”). There’s a reasonably coherent mission statement in this one, however, at least until inevitably it devolves into gleeful incoherence.

To defeat the darkness out there, you must defeat the darkness inside yourself.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
Easily the best of the Narnia films, which is maybe damning it with faint praise. 

Michael Apted does a competent job directing (certainly compared to his Bond film - maybe he talked to his second unit this time), Dante Spinotti's cinematography is stunning and the CGI mostly well-integrated with the action. 

Performance-wise, Will Poulter is a stand-out as a tremendously obnoxious little toff, so charismatic you're almost rooting for him. Simon Pegg replaces Eddie Izzard as the voice of Reepicheep and delivers a touching performance.
***

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Bad luck to kill a seabird.

The Lighthouse (2019)
(SPOILERS) Robert Eggers’ acclaimed – and Oscar-nominated – second feature is, in some respects, a similar beast to his previous The Witch, whereby isolated individuals of bygone eras are subjected to the unsparing attentions of nature. In his scheme of things, nature becomes an active, embodied force, one that has no respect for the line between imaginings and reality and which proceeds to test its targets’ sanity by means of both elements and elementals. All helped along by unhealthy doses of superstition. But where The Witch sustained itself, and the gradual unravelling of the family unit led to a germane climax, The Lighthouse becomes, well, rather silly.