Anthony Lane, Watchmen, and Just Not Getting It
This week's New Yorker has Anthony Lane's brutal review of Watchmen--and let me start by saying that I won't be linking to it here. It's clueless, sure, and reveals that its author utterly fails to understand what the source material (let alone, one assumes, the movie) is trying to do. But worse than that, Lane quite offhandedly spoils several major plot points in the film. Criticize a movie all you like, but unnecessary spoilage just seems pettily spiteful to me.
In the first paragraph, Lane cannily insulates himself against criticism by painting graphic novel fans as "masonically loyal, prickling with a defensiveness and an ardor that not even Wagnerians can match." No question these fans exist (especially wrt Watchmen), but bringing this up as one of the first points in the piece appears to be a needless jab at the book/film's perceived audience. I mean, those weird, obsessive kids and their superhero stories, right? Oh, did I mention that Alan Moore is a "glowering, hairy Englishman"?
Lane's cluelessness really comes out in this much remarked-upon sentence: "There is Dan (Patrick Wilson), better known as Nite Owl, who keeps his old superhero outfit, rubbery and sharp-eared, locked away in his basement, presumably for fear of being sued for plagiarism by Bruce Wayne." Why, it's almost as if Lane didn't realize that the source material is a comment upon comic book convention!
"Whether [Dr. Manhattan's] fellow Watchmen have true superpowers, as opposed to a pathological bent for fisticuffs, I never quite worked out..." Isn't the answer to this blindingly obvious? Isn't this one of the main points of Dr. Manhattan's character and, indeed, of the book?
Perhaps most alarmingly: "You want to hear Moore's attempt at an urban jeremiad? 'This awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children.' That line from the book may be meant as a punky retread of James Ellroy, but it sounds to me like a writer trying much, much too hard." Now, I admit that, as the line is used in the movie, it may come off as insanely over-the-top, but Lane is clearly unaware that Moore does not sympathize with Rorschach or endorse his views in any way. He is depicted as dangerously psychotic, delusional, misogynistic, homophobic and fascistic. I will fully admit that he may very well be lionized in the film, and that critical distance may be lost. But, in a way, that's not the point. By that stage in the review, Lane isn't talking about the movie anymore, he's talking about the book (note his reference to Moore, not Snyder), which he clearly does not grasp. Watchmen the movie may very well be slickly vapid and completely awful, but Lane is using his review to slap around Watchmen the graphic novel.
Lane concludes on a strange note: "'Watchmen' marks the final demolition of the comic strip, and it leaves you wondering: where did the comedy go?" WHAT? In the first paragraph, he approving cites graphic novel "masterworks" Persepolis and Maus. Those aren't exactly laugh riots. And nobody's talking about comic strips here; this isn't a dark and gritty film adaptation of Hi and Lois.
In short: Lane doesn't get it. And I don't say this as a slavish defender of the graphic novel and all related properties. I'm skeptical of the film, though I will go see it. Even if Bergman had directed it, of course, it will lack the polyvalent nature of the original by virtue of the fact that it is not in comic form. Still, there's immense value in Watchmen in terms of a comment on the nature of the superhero genre, the role of comic books in life, and, indeed, as a historical document. Lane merely gripes about violence and displays his incomprehension. Why he bothered to review a film so antithetical to his sensibilities in the first place I have no idea.
In the first paragraph, Lane cannily insulates himself against criticism by painting graphic novel fans as "masonically loyal, prickling with a defensiveness and an ardor that not even Wagnerians can match." No question these fans exist (especially wrt Watchmen), but bringing this up as one of the first points in the piece appears to be a needless jab at the book/film's perceived audience. I mean, those weird, obsessive kids and their superhero stories, right? Oh, did I mention that Alan Moore is a "glowering, hairy Englishman"?
Lane's cluelessness really comes out in this much remarked-upon sentence: "There is Dan (Patrick Wilson), better known as Nite Owl, who keeps his old superhero outfit, rubbery and sharp-eared, locked away in his basement, presumably for fear of being sued for plagiarism by Bruce Wayne." Why, it's almost as if Lane didn't realize that the source material is a comment upon comic book convention!
"Whether [Dr. Manhattan's] fellow Watchmen have true superpowers, as opposed to a pathological bent for fisticuffs, I never quite worked out..." Isn't the answer to this blindingly obvious? Isn't this one of the main points of Dr. Manhattan's character and, indeed, of the book?
Perhaps most alarmingly: "You want to hear Moore's attempt at an urban jeremiad? 'This awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children.' That line from the book may be meant as a punky retread of James Ellroy, but it sounds to me like a writer trying much, much too hard." Now, I admit that, as the line is used in the movie, it may come off as insanely over-the-top, but Lane is clearly unaware that Moore does not sympathize with Rorschach or endorse his views in any way. He is depicted as dangerously psychotic, delusional, misogynistic, homophobic and fascistic. I will fully admit that he may very well be lionized in the film, and that critical distance may be lost. But, in a way, that's not the point. By that stage in the review, Lane isn't talking about the movie anymore, he's talking about the book (note his reference to Moore, not Snyder), which he clearly does not grasp. Watchmen the movie may very well be slickly vapid and completely awful, but Lane is using his review to slap around Watchmen the graphic novel.
Lane concludes on a strange note: "'Watchmen' marks the final demolition of the comic strip, and it leaves you wondering: where did the comedy go?" WHAT? In the first paragraph, he approving cites graphic novel "masterworks" Persepolis and Maus. Those aren't exactly laugh riots. And nobody's talking about comic strips here; this isn't a dark and gritty film adaptation of Hi and Lois.
In short: Lane doesn't get it. And I don't say this as a slavish defender of the graphic novel and all related properties. I'm skeptical of the film, though I will go see it. Even if Bergman had directed it, of course, it will lack the polyvalent nature of the original by virtue of the fact that it is not in comic form. Still, there's immense value in Watchmen in terms of a comment on the nature of the superhero genre, the role of comic books in life, and, indeed, as a historical document. Lane merely gripes about violence and displays his incomprehension. Why he bothered to review a film so antithetical to his sensibilities in the first place I have no idea.