Reading you mini-manifesto on the importance of art somewhat checked my cynicism, as well as my unbridled glee in the afterglow of seeing what I personally would say is the best and least compromised film-adaptation of a comic book ever produced(with the only possible exceptions being 1987 Batman and Dark Knight),and I do agree with everything that you've said here in principle Jacob. The fact is, however, that you don't want the mis-en-scene on Mars to be off-broadway quality either. Not really. This was an expensive production, and it was always going to be an expensive production if it was going to happen at all. That means that somebody had to cover their overhead. So, yes,the film does pander to some of our baser knee-jerk aesthetic instincts, and of course somethings didn't tranlate well. And yes the acting left something to be desired. But I think that its a fucking miracle that they managed to keep the story as intact as they did. That's all I'm saying. I went to the movie with extremely low-expectations--I assumed that they would gloss over the character studies of Rorschach and Doctor Manhattan. I was terrified by the possibility that they might even try something as stupid as trying to take the story out of the historical context of the 1980's, or that they might downplay the historical ambience. They didn't do any of these things. And I was extremely pleased that they didn't. So what if the soundtrack left something to be desired? It could have been infinitely worse--they could have used contemporary music. If you want to do a story like this in a fully, tastefully realized and cost-effective way then you would pretty much have to abandon the idea of making it into a film. You would pretty much have to make it into a comic-book--which is what it already was. Obviously reading the graphic novel is a richer and more luxurious experience--you have time to contemplate and re-read. Therefore there's a greater potential for the artist to introduce and develop a broader range themes and motifs and manifest them in subtler and more nuanced ways. I'm just saying: if you don't want to see the comic book butchered, don't see the movie at all--ever. But you're review did crack me up.
Thanks for your comment, my dear anonymous. As much as I would like to deny it, I'm sure the sacred cow status that Watchmen-the-comic has to me does nothing to temper my already substantial vitriol. Indeed, it does occur to me that from a studio perspective, it is pretty hard to see how they would come up with the money for this beast without packaging it for very very broad appeal and assuring the return of their dollars. But as a person who is actually watching the film, this really isn't my concern, nor should it be.
Simply put, I feel that it is not adequate comfort for me to see that the film was not as bad as it could have been. My demands are in fact pretty simple; in essence, that the film be good, and in my very very humble opinion, I felt that it was not.
I find it difficult even to find enough sympathy with the director and producers to offer a nice-effort-pat-on-the-back. Perhaps it is overly idealistic or ivory tower to say, but it is my feeling that if one intends to make art righteously, it must come first from an interest in making art. I don't think this is mutually exclusive with the business end of things...I'm thinking here of accounts of working with moguls like Mel Brooks, or later Dino DeLaurentis. It is hard for me to conceive of this project as much more than a money scheme, or, at best, some kind of masturbatory urge.
The key comment for me is this: "If you want to do a story like this in a fully, tastefully realized and cost-effective way then you would pretty much have to abandon the idea of making it into a film. You would pretty much have to make it into a comic-book--which is what it already was." Ahem...
Anyway, that's just my opinion, and as I said, I am a pretty notorious grouch. I mean, you're talking to a dude who thinks action movies peaked out at John Boorman's Point Blank, which was made in 1967! Talk about a dinosaur!
The fact is, however, that you don't want the mis-en-scene on Mars to be off-broadway quality either. Not really. This was an expensive production, and it was always going to be an expensive production if it was going to happen at all. That means that somebody had to cover their overhead. So, yes,the film does pander to some of our baser knee-jerk aesthetic instincts, and of course somethings didn't tranlate well. And yes the acting left something to be desired. But I think that its a fucking miracle that they managed to keep the story as intact as they did. That's all I'm saying. I went to the movie with extremely low-expectations--I assumed that they would gloss over the character studies of Rorschach and Doctor Manhattan. I was terrified by the possibility that they might even try something as stupid as trying to take the story out of the historical context of the 1980's, or that they might downplay the historical ambience. They didn't do any of these things. And I was extremely pleased that they didn't. So what if the soundtrack left something to be desired? It could have been infinitely worse--they could have used contemporary music.
If you want to do a story like this in a fully, tastefully realized and cost-effective way then you would pretty much have to abandon the idea of making it into a film. You would pretty much have to make it into a comic-book--which is what it already was.
Obviously reading the graphic novel is a richer and more luxurious experience--you have time to contemplate and re-read. Therefore there's a greater potential for the artist to introduce and develop a broader range themes and motifs and manifest them in subtler and more nuanced ways.
I'm just saying: if you don't want to see the comic book butchered, don't see the movie at all--ever.
But you're review did crack me up.
Reply
Simply put, I feel that it is not adequate comfort for me to see that the film was not as bad as it could have been. My demands are in fact pretty simple; in essence, that the film be good, and in my very very humble opinion, I felt that it was not.
I find it difficult even to find enough sympathy with the director and producers to offer a nice-effort-pat-on-the-back. Perhaps it is overly idealistic or ivory tower to say, but it is my feeling that if one intends to make art righteously, it must come first from an interest in making art. I don't think this is mutually exclusive with the business end of things...I'm thinking here of accounts of working with moguls like Mel Brooks, or later Dino DeLaurentis. It is hard for me to conceive of this project as much more than a money scheme, or, at best, some kind of masturbatory urge.
The key comment for me is this: "If you want to do a story like this in a fully, tastefully realized and cost-effective way then you would pretty much have to abandon the idea of making it into a film. You would pretty much have to make it into a comic-book--which is what it already was." Ahem...
Anyway, that's just my opinion, and as I said, I am a pretty notorious grouch. I mean, you're talking to a dude who thinks action movies peaked out at John Boorman's Point Blank, which was made in 1967! Talk about a dinosaur!
Reply
Leave a comment