Watchmen
How to describe this movie? Phil called it a high concept film...but I think it is the complete opposite. Yes, it is from a comic book and yes, it can be advertised as a big studio blockbuster movie. It also has a one-liner (all movies have one liners) - Someone is killing Super heroes...but to me a high concept movie is a movie you "get" in one line or very short description. A perfect example is The 40 Year Old Virgin. The tone, plot, and character are summed up in the title. That is a high concept movie. Batman Begins is a high concept movie - we know Batman and we get it will be about his origins. You cannot accurately describe The Watchmen in one sentence. It is a super hero movie, with super heroes you've never heard of (unless you've read the book) and without super powers (save one). Narratively, you are introduced to these characters like any other characters in movies...it's not like Superman or Sonny Crocket or Batman or Spiderman where the character is already embedded into popular culture.
Watchmen is a lot of things - a super hero movie, an ensemble story, an alternative history, and a detective story. It fits squarely into post modern american literature and could be read in a college course with Don DeLillo and Thomas Pynchon. At risk of being too much of a blowhard, I'd argue this type of literature eschews the pleasures of story in favor of something someone more "intelligent" than me might call deconstruction. The 'ole unwriting the story (with a dashing preoccupation with nuclear holocaust). I myself prefer my stories straight - I'll take Grapes of Wrath over White Noise any day - but if you like your milk warm and your cocktails ironic and footnotes and references and Ornette Coleman, this is a pretty damn good one. So to the extent the Watchmen - as a movie - fails, I think, has to do with two things - 1) the general failure of post modern stories to deliver narrative pleasure and 2) an oddly long anatomy of scenes, sequences, and overall story. I'll try to explain 2 via the opening credit sequence. It begins with the first few chords of Bob Dylan's "Times They Are A Changin," and my initial reaction was - Really? Are they seriously going to use this song...are we in Forest Gump or something...and then it builds and builds and builds and we learn through a very arty, original, and cool way about the alternative history and the "world" of the Watchmen. And during it, I suddenly realize, HOLY SHIT, this is freaking awesome! I'm watching a goddamn art movie disguised as a comic book blockbuster.* And then, it goes on too long and for my taste and a bit over the top. But I still appreciate the effort, like watching a basketball team work their ass off only to clumsily turn the ball over. It's not the same as hitting the game winning shot, but I still enjoy watching.
Watchmen is a challenging film. I noticed three people walk out of the movie around the midpoint. It is incredibly violent. You will see boobs. The characters are flawed - even repulsive at times. The ending is famously unsatisfactory. But let's be clear - this is a movie is worth talking about. The film entrusts the audience enough to pose some difficult questions and refuses to wrap everything up in a neat tidy bow. Unlike the other celebrated comic book film this year - The Dark Knight - the discussion will not be a shouting contest centered around how freaking awesome the movie was - this was a movie and not a ride. Most comic book movies don't want to be discussed or engage with their audience. They are an experience - a ride - that you simply go on and are supposed to jump up and down afterwards like a geeky virgin after Space Mountain. Watchmen is not this - it willingly distances itself at times and is not readily accessible** - this is seafood, not McDonalds.
I stand up and lightly clap for this movie, "bravo, bravo." Good work.
*side note to write about the impulse to make art movies and with the over-saturation and underfunding of the indy film market, how this impulse ends up creeping into main stream hollywood fare such as miami vice, the watchmen, and pirates of the carribean 3 and how similar problems that occur with indy art movies can be found equally found in these art movies disguised as pop culture.
**there is a cost to making a commercial, 4 quad, movie...in that, by trying to appeal to everyone, you must, by definition appeal to baser qualities. see david foster wallace's essay on entertainment in a supposedly funny thing i'll never do again.
10 comments:
he was failing upwards; and i totally liked it. zack snyder is martin scorsese plus paul verhoeven. doesnt get better than that.
unfortunately, the myopic people up here hated it.
cw hates the gay area. racist you are.
i think the scorcese and verhoeven comparison is interesting...i don't honestly think i've seen enough from synder to be able to qualify. the narratives are incredibly different in 300 and Watchmen and both are based on super specific source material. and the visual stuff is hyper stylized - particularly 300 - and involves this new computer technology i frankly, don't really understand...it's almost hard to compare to scorcese's early work shooting in cramped space in new york.
verhoeven is an interesting comparison. both certainly have a right-wing political orientation, but verhoeven (and granted i haven't seen his lesser known work) is kinda a futurist filmmaker whereas you could call synder's work historical epics or reimaginings. i think these are pretty different spaces to explore.
anyhow, i suppose the discussion could also be about violence. obviously, synder's violence is a bit cartoony, whereas scorcese is more rooted in reality. i'd also argue verhoeven has a more "real" quality to it. when clarence spits blood on the police report - man, that was crazy nasty and human - despite being escorted by a giant robot-cop. snyder's violence is a bit more john woo-ish and choreographed.
Ok, mister, we're just going to have this discussion in person. how can i squander an opportunity for one of our famous bar fights about movies? i will be in town soon; and i will call upon you over a cold, light beer!
before i go, i have to say that i frown upon your vaguely racist and anti-gay last sentence :)
I haven't seen The Watchmen yet so I'm not going to comment on that, but I did want to say something about Verhoeven. He's not a right-wing filmmaker at all; he's quite the opposite.
In ROBOCOP and TOTAL RECALL -- two of his most enduring (and commercial) movies -- they're both leftist examinations on how corporate America (or the "corporate earth," in the case of TR) has fucked things up royally.
Just wanted to make that clarification. Not trying to be smug, or anything.
Anyhow, carry on.
thank you, naveen.
first off, i'll acknowledge right-wing/left-wing distinctions with respect to filmmakers is a pretty limited exercise - and maybe a bit pointless. fact is, both left and right will claim ownership over good movies and find their political orientation validated by enduring movies. but i started it...so i'll keeping going with it.
corporation bashing is not the sole province of the left. in robocop, the corruption is from a single man trying to get his version - ed 209 into operation over robocop. but robocop is also a product of the corporation. i'd argue the right wing aspect of robocop is more about the vigilante justice fantasy of a super cop kicking criminals asses - the quintessential examples being when robocop shoots the rapist in the nuts and when he decides to kill clarence at the end.
i wasn't thinking so much total recall, but starship troopers is quasi-celebration of fascism where the state is revered against the evil bugs. this one is pretty obvious.
but yes, i agree to a movie beer discussion. i have no idea why it must be light beer.
I get that the right and left can read into a text/film/piece of art and co-opt it to their own political viewpoint.
But that wasn't my point.
Your specific statement from earlier, that Verhoeven has "a right-wing political orientation" is inaccurate. He's a lefty and makes no bones about it.
Regarding ROBOCOP: the point of corruption isn't simply that one man -- the Dick Jones character. He's merely a representation of the larger corporate menace: privatization at any and all costs. As Jones himself says, "Good business is where you find it." In any case, ROBOCOP is really about a machine who's trying to reclaim a vestige of his humanity. His soul, if you will.
I haven't seen STARSHIP TROOPERS in over a decade (I skipped out on that one screening at the Aero a couple years ago, which I regret). Anyhow, given that that movie was written by the same guys who wrote ROBOCOP, I'm guessing that the film is really about blind allegiances, as opposed to a more pro-fascist "support the state" movie. But, like I said, it's been a while...
And finally, I respectfully disagree with your point on discussing a filmmaker's political persuasion. I think that kind of discussion can give one a deeper insight into the motivation behind a filmmaker's work -- how he/she approaches a particular subject matter, how that work goes on to influence other filmmakers, and how it engenders further discussions (as we're doing here), and so on. It's far from a pointless and limited exercise.
But I also know that those discussions may not always be palatable, and -- to crib Freud's phrase about cigars -- sometimes a movie is just a movie.
but is jones representative of the larger menace or the aberration? if i remember correctly, the end moment is when the old man screams out "dick. you're fired!" and robocop blows him away. isn't that a reaffirmation of the corporation? a return to the status quo? the corporation saves itself from corruption and survives.
starship troopers isn't a parable warning about blind allegiance - it's really a kick ass popcorn - us vs. them, let's kick the shit out of the bugs movie. there is rivalry between the branches of armed forces, but there is no voice of dissent about the blatant militarism of the film. doogie howser is dressed like himmler late in the movie for chrissake - and he's the one who orchestrates the brain bug slaying. (there is also a celebration of sacrificing the few for the many, etc).
as for the political persuasion of filmmakers being worthwhile or pointless...i guess my point is more of a criticism of the limits of the right/left discussion and the general manichean view of politics. the narrative impulse and enjoyment from stories (assuming movies as a subset of stories/narrative) precedes political orientation. in general, stories and movies, tend towards a universalism and humanism because we watch characters with whom we empathize, whereas talking politics is a discussion of power, ideology, right and wrong, etc.
to further complicate - the whole left/right distinction is in constant flux. and in general, extremist viewpoints on both sides seem to have more in common than narrow differences in the middle.
not to mention that people are neither left or right - although they may temporarily tag themselves that way.
or that artists/filmmakers often operate on a subconscious level rather than in concert with their intentions. and that movies are sometimes mysterious, organic creations, like a great meal. could you say of a meal that it has has left or right wing orientation?
The end of ROBOCOP is actually:
Old Man: Nice shooting, son. What's your name?
Robocop: ...Murphy.
End titles. Reclamation of humanity, on account of Murphy's character.
Indeed, OCP does "survive," but its product -- Robocop -- is no longer assumed to be within its control (this ignores the terrible sequels), and there is a new status quo, one where the corporation is weaker than it was at the film's beginning. But again, that's all a viewer-response assumption...
I do agree with you on your larger point about movies: that we respond more to the humanistic side of the film and its characters because we have an empathy (and sometimes even sympathy) for them. That totally trumps the political/ideological-based discussions...
But you can't possibly say that movies are organic in their construction. The writing and editing process -- yes, I'll give you that (especially the former).
But the production? Hell no. It's work.
There's nothing "mysterious" about it. It's nuts and bolts planning, execution, and adaptation when the shit inevitably hits the fan. I mean, you've been on sets before -- when you're in the suck, you don't think about all the other fru-fru shit. I have to go back to my boy Herzog and say that it's more akin to a sporting event than an artistic expression. At least the production...
The stuff beforehand -- the early brainstorming and the writing -- yeah, I'll agree with you there. That process can be incredibly organic, and often, quite sub-conscious (and better off for it).
Now, I'll get off my high horse and in the morning, make myself an anarchist omelet, followed by a Gestapo-flavored meal at dinner time.
P.S. I totally forgot that Neil Patrick Harris was in fucking STARSHIP TROOPERS. Hilarious!
i like light beer. i thought you did too? no?
btw, i will not be discussing the right or left wing orientations of verhoeven as a filmmaker over this beer.
but my 2 cents right now is to urge you to watch zack snyder's dawn of the dead, if you havent yet. that might clarify for you the distinctions and comparisons i am hinting at between the two.
Post a Comment