Who Watches the Watchmen?
I'm home for the weekend. Left on Saturday, going back to school on Monday morning.
This weekend, I found a very nice suit which screams "PROFESSIONAL" and I got my eyebrows threaded, which hurt very much, but, as I was informed by the woman doing the threading, would not hurt so much the next time.
Much against better judgment (because I had other things that needed to be done), I also re-read "The Watchmen". It took me a few hours of serious reading on Saturday and Sunday to plow through it, simply because there's so much going on. For example, there's a comic book-within-a-comic book, which serves as both a Greek chorus and a parallel to several characters; this comic book is being read at the same time as the main story. Then, there's additional material at the end of each chapter that further develops the world of the story; this is written media - articles, book chapters, letters, interviews. And finally, there are various visual intricacies going on; for example, the chapter entitled "Fearful Symmetry" is nearly symmetrical, as far as structure (panels, colors, etc) is concerned. Despite it's thematic and structural heaviness, it remains an excellent comic book with a competent plot and coherent story. Always a joy to read :)
They're making a Watchmen film. After re-reading the series, I don't think the movie will share the same intricacies or complexities its source. First, it's difficult to do in movies, and second its source is just way too long to be compressed into two and a half hours, while still maintaining a few of its more interesting features, like the comic-within-a-comic or various characters' back stories. I'll see it, of course, but I won't be surprised if it's not exactly like the comic book. I will be disappointed, however, if it fails for capture the esprit of the comic book and decides to take a less controversial route with the ending. The resolution of the conflict in the comic book is very shocking and subversive.
Honestly, however, I don't think "The Watchmen" should be made into a movie. Part of the point of the comic book was to display what the comic book medium was capable of doing. As I pointed out early, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons do some intricate stuff, which is, frankly, ingenious. The best part about reading "The Watchmen" is that you can go back and see how it all fits together - the function of everything in the comic, from structure to subplots. Moore and Gibbons prove that comics aren't just pictures with words in tiny boxes, while at the same time exploring the development of the superhero genre and providing commentary. A movie, unless equally subversive and vocal to the point where it creates a dialogue with other material, just wouldn't be the same.
Another point of "The Watchmen" is its commentary of the usefulness/necessity of vigilantes in a system where crime is more complex than the typical black and white notions of good and evil, which the superhero genre relies on to identify its characters with archetypes and thus help its readers identify correctly with its heroes. Also (and this seems to be a favorite theme in Moore's more famous works), what makes a superhero/masked vigilante any different from a villain [if background and personal history is taken into account] is very heavily explored. By convention, Rorschach should have been a villain, and the second Nite Owl should never have been a vigilante (his motive lacks the personal trauma that propels most in the business). Moore's characters parody the tropes of the superhero genre or disregard them entirely.
Also, Zack Snyder is directing the film adaptation. This is the guy who directed 300, with which I have many problems, namely its blatant racism and sexism. I hope Snyder chooses not to go down the "heterosexual white American male wet dream" path with "The Watchmen".
This weekend, I found a very nice suit which screams "PROFESSIONAL" and I got my eyebrows threaded, which hurt very much, but, as I was informed by the woman doing the threading, would not hurt so much the next time.
Much against better judgment (because I had other things that needed to be done), I also re-read "The Watchmen". It took me a few hours of serious reading on Saturday and Sunday to plow through it, simply because there's so much going on. For example, there's a comic book-within-a-comic book, which serves as both a Greek chorus and a parallel to several characters; this comic book is being read at the same time as the main story. Then, there's additional material at the end of each chapter that further develops the world of the story; this is written media - articles, book chapters, letters, interviews. And finally, there are various visual intricacies going on; for example, the chapter entitled "Fearful Symmetry" is nearly symmetrical, as far as structure (panels, colors, etc) is concerned. Despite it's thematic and structural heaviness, it remains an excellent comic book with a competent plot and coherent story. Always a joy to read :)
They're making a Watchmen film. After re-reading the series, I don't think the movie will share the same intricacies or complexities its source. First, it's difficult to do in movies, and second its source is just way too long to be compressed into two and a half hours, while still maintaining a few of its more interesting features, like the comic-within-a-comic or various characters' back stories. I'll see it, of course, but I won't be surprised if it's not exactly like the comic book. I will be disappointed, however, if it fails for capture the esprit of the comic book and decides to take a less controversial route with the ending. The resolution of the conflict in the comic book is very shocking and subversive.
Honestly, however, I don't think "The Watchmen" should be made into a movie. Part of the point of the comic book was to display what the comic book medium was capable of doing. As I pointed out early, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons do some intricate stuff, which is, frankly, ingenious. The best part about reading "The Watchmen" is that you can go back and see how it all fits together - the function of everything in the comic, from structure to subplots. Moore and Gibbons prove that comics aren't just pictures with words in tiny boxes, while at the same time exploring the development of the superhero genre and providing commentary. A movie, unless equally subversive and vocal to the point where it creates a dialogue with other material, just wouldn't be the same.
Another point of "The Watchmen" is its commentary of the usefulness/necessity of vigilantes in a system where crime is more complex than the typical black and white notions of good and evil, which the superhero genre relies on to identify its characters with archetypes and thus help its readers identify correctly with its heroes. Also (and this seems to be a favorite theme in Moore's more famous works), what makes a superhero/masked vigilante any different from a villain [if background and personal history is taken into account] is very heavily explored. By convention, Rorschach should have been a villain, and the second Nite Owl should never have been a vigilante (his motive lacks the personal trauma that propels most in the business). Moore's characters parody the tropes of the superhero genre or disregard them entirely.
Also, Zack Snyder is directing the film adaptation. This is the guy who directed 300, with which I have many problems, namely its blatant racism and sexism. I hope Snyder chooses not to go down the "heterosexual white American male wet dream" path with "The Watchmen".