Few films spark the kind of discussion and intrigue of Watchmen. The mysterious trailer debuting in front of The Dark Knight, the sudden realization of the classic status of the source material, the incomprehensibility of the explanation of the narrative from a Watchmen fan to a lay person, even dainty girls wondering if they’d be able to stomach it – all these things begged the big question: will it translate to a successful film? After three weekends in cinemas and rapidly-dropping box-office results, it would appear that Warner Bros. will be lucky to break even after marketing is factored in. Not quite what we expected from a property at the center of a high-profile legal battle between two studios.
But here’s a better question, which is the only pertinent one now: does the movie work? Oddly enough, the people best equipped to answer the question are not the fans. Watchmen is not a franchise; it’s a stand-alone graphic novel using all original characters in a story and structure unlike any superhero adventure ever created, with a potent political message and way more complexities than could ever fit on a movie screen in a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, those who have read the graphic novel, by their own admissions, are unable to judge how the movie holds up simply as a film. Fans are actually looking to the average moviegoer to judge this for them. Well, my friends, as it happens, I have not read Watchmen. Yet. I’m a fan of comics and their movies, but I haven’t gotten around to this one yet, which puts me in a rare position in which to judge this film.
And now, my verdict: It doesn’t work.
I’m told by countless sources that the Watchmen film stays very close to the course material, even down to specific angles and dialogue. It’s the same way the director, Zach Snyder, made Frank Miller’s 300 two years ago, and how Robert Rodriguez made Sin City. I would argue that such an approach fit both of those works, but doesn’t really work for Watchmen.
First of all, the original graphic novel is over 400 pages, complete with flashbacks, a 40-year timespan, and an ensemble of characters in three (four?) different incarnations. And that’s just scratching the surface. That’s an awful lot of heft for a commercial film, especially since it also has to establish an alternate 1985 timeline (kind of like Back to the Future Part II, except… well, nothing like it at all). The unfortunate result is that, even with an opening montage that’s designed to fill us in, the audience spends more time trying to make connections and understand what’s going on than they do understanding the characters and investing in their lives. Notable exceptions are Rorschach, who is a little too badass until his mask comes off and Jackie Earle Haley is given the chance to really shine, and Dr. Manhattan, whose fantastical story and unique plight actually make him easier to relate to.
Some fans and nonfans alike claim that the film is incomprehensible to anyone not familiar with the graphic novel. I don’t think that’s true at all. There are obvious places where the narrative is incomplete for time reasons, but the overall story and themes remain intact and don’t quite leave the viewers behind. However, when removed from the pages of the novel and not given time to grow, the characters still lack a certain depth, especially Nite Owl and Silk Spectre II, which is a shame considering their centrality to the narrative. The movie tells the audience how to feel about these characters rather than evoking a response, which leaves viewers in their seats instead of drawing them in.
This inability to pull viewers in is deterimental to the entire experience, and author Alan Moore would likely agree. The Watchmen graphic novel is a watershed comic because it portrayed “superheroes” doing things people weren’t used to, like killing indiscriminently, swearing at each other, and engaging in all manner of sexual escapades. This isn’t lost on the filmmakers, but when these scenes are translated from illustrated panels to moving images, the results just seem gratuitous and over-the-top. The audience is so far removed from the characters and events that much of the shock value, on which the entire climax hinges, is nonexistent, even with 163 minutes of running time. After watching the whole movie, with all its expensive effects, huge ensemble cast, and unique storyline, the reaction it induces is an underwhelming “…meh.”
What could they have done differently? Frankly, the only way to save the film would have destroyed it. The graphic novel just isn’t structured to be a film; it’s structured to be a graphic novel. The entire thing needed a fresh approach with a completely different storytelling method than the book provides. One way to do it would have be to frame the whole story within the entries of Rorschach’s journal, streamlining and focusing the entire story. Another solution would have been to just tell the story linearly in chronological order, starting in the 1940s, although that would likely made the whole experience rather bland. What I probably would have done is remove the flashbacks and let the entire backstory be filled in with exposition in the first Act, save for a couple pivotal moments, such as the rape scene and Dr. Manhattan’s origin. Everything else could be explained via dialogue and pictures and a variety of other methods a clever filmmaker could use.
I’m of the opinion that the best way to do a novel justice is to make it into a great movie. Inevitably, certain plotlines will be sacrificed and certain methods changed, but all in the name of making a great theater experience. (I could run this point into the ground with example after example, but that would take all day.) But had Watchmen been tampered with in the adaptation process, the fans would have cried foul, and you can bet there would have been at least an attempted boycott. The only other solution? Just don’t film it. The only way to experience a graphic novel is to read it. You won’t find it in a movie.
In the end, Watchmen succeeds in sticking close to its source material, but in doing so, the classic “unfilmable” comic sinks its own film. Just goes to show that you can’t judge a book by its movie.
Recent Comments