Who watches, indeed
There is one particular scene in Watchmen, the film version, that illustrates the difference between, not just between the book it's based on and the film but director Zack Snyder's appraoch and Alan Moore's, and the way Snyder approaches storytelling, like few others. In both Watchmen the graphic novel and in the film (at that point) retired superheroes Dan and Laurie, after having had dinner, walk a bit, get cornered by thugs, wannabe muggers who think a couple emerging from a diner is easy game, and defeat their attackers. There is an adrenaline high that is part of the arc of these particular two characters and their return to superheroing. However. In the book, there is no reason to assume Dan and Laurie did anything lethal or particularly gruesome to said muggers, who appear to be alive, if on the floor and groaning. And believe me, this is not because Watchmen, the novel, is in any way coy about violence - when elsewhere people get crippled or killed, you're left in no doubt that this is what happens. In the film, Snyder not only heightened the number of attackers, but in the fight sequence that ensues, he has Dan and Laurie snapping necks and crunching bones like no one's business. It makes for a big action scene, to be sure, but it utterly ruins a couple of characterisation points, not just for Dan and Laurie but for Rorschach. (Seeing as it is a big turning point for Rorschach's backstory to go from the Dan style of superheroing to his own take-no-prisoners approach, and that there is a reason why the surviving superheroes, not the most stable bunch of characters themselves, do regard Rorschach as kind of crazy.) Not to mention that people who hadn't read the book probably thought that Dan and Laurie were superstrong (as opposed to be being your avarage human being who is trained in martial arts), whereas it's really important that in the Watchmenverse the only one with superpowers is Jon Osterman, aka Dr. Manhattan. Bear in mind I didn't hate the film, absolutely not. But at that point I thought, Snyder, I don't think you really get it, no.
Which brings me to Man of Steel, in which Zack Snyder as the director and Christopher Nolan as the producer give Superman the operatic treatment. I didn't hate that film, either. It had several elements I really enjoyed, an engaging cast not the least, and also, I can get behind several of the twists, such as Lois knowing from the get go that Clark is Superman because she tracked him down with her reporter skills, thus understandably ditching the old Lois is the best reporter yet doesn't realise who Clark is screwball comedy concept. Also this is arguably the first time I was actually interested in the Krypton backstory, which is good since it occupies a sizable portion of the film. And this Zod had a plausible motivation (as opposed to the standard I Wanna Rule The Universe one, that is). Oh, and one of the flashbacks, in which Clark as a child gets overwhelmed by all the sensory input until Martha manages to teach him how to deal with that reminded me in a good way of mutant origin stories. As for Henry Cavill, who was good as Charles Brandon (aka Henry VIII.s best buddy and brother-in-law) in The Tudors but never did anything for me there in terms of attraction, looks-wise (nor did anyone else, I hasten to add, at least among the men), he's suitably gorgeous here and does his valiant best with a script that's, err, well. Um. It could be worse? At least it means well? (BTW, the first trailer had made me afraid we'd get a "Clark is the mask, only Kal-El is real" interpretation, but not so, both sides of him are presented as real. But. The equivalent of The Watchmen's rendition of the Dan-and-Laurie-against-the-muggers sequence would be the endless grand action climax (not a spoiler, this; it's a Superman movie, of course there'll be a grand action climax). In which the fights between Superman and the other Kryptonians, mainly Foara and Zod, demolish first most of Smallville and then most of Metropolis, and at no point does it seem to occur to our hero he should maybe try to lure his opponents away from heavily populated areas. Look: it's been decades since I watched that film, but I dimly recall that in the equivalent situation in Superman II, Clark did realize the necessity and even went for pretense of cowardice in order to get the fight away from the people. More recent superhero films (not directed by Zack Snyder, that is) also made a point of establishing the need to keep civilians safe when duking it out with the megalomaniacs while still delivering the requisite fight scenes (the Marvelverse films did that rather well, notably Thor, The Avengers and Iron Man III). Greakt Maker, as my beloved Londo Mollari would say, even Supreme Power, which is essentially a Superman dark fic of the darkest kind by JMS, has a very effective sequence early on where when Mark Milton (the equivalent to Clark Kent) for the first time has a no holds bared fight with another super powered person - in an unpopulated area, btw, but there are lots of animals - afterwards looks up in shock upon seeing they've managed to create a disaster zone with trees flattened into nothingness and animals dead galore. It's a very effective "what have I done?" moment (and also has consequences the next time a situation like this arises). But Man of Steel does not want to waste a few screen seconds to even an aborted attempt to take the fight elsewhere, or, say, a dialogue line to the effect Metropolis got evacuated. It is too entranced by the shiny spectacle of skyscrapers going down.
In conclusion, I'm going back to my Lois & Clark rewatch. Or I would, if I weren't packing and organizing, but more about that in a later post.
This entry was originally posted at http://selenak.dreamwidth.org/907347.html. Comment there or here, as you wish.
Which brings me to Man of Steel, in which Zack Snyder as the director and Christopher Nolan as the producer give Superman the operatic treatment. I didn't hate that film, either. It had several elements I really enjoyed, an engaging cast not the least, and also, I can get behind several of the twists, such as Lois knowing from the get go that Clark is Superman because she tracked him down with her reporter skills, thus understandably ditching the old Lois is the best reporter yet doesn't realise who Clark is screwball comedy concept. Also this is arguably the first time I was actually interested in the Krypton backstory, which is good since it occupies a sizable portion of the film. And this Zod had a plausible motivation (as opposed to the standard I Wanna Rule The Universe one, that is). Oh, and one of the flashbacks, in which Clark as a child gets overwhelmed by all the sensory input until Martha manages to teach him how to deal with that reminded me in a good way of mutant origin stories. As for Henry Cavill, who was good as Charles Brandon (aka Henry VIII.s best buddy and brother-in-law) in The Tudors but never did anything for me there in terms of attraction, looks-wise (nor did anyone else, I hasten to add, at least among the men), he's suitably gorgeous here and does his valiant best with a script that's, err, well. Um. It could be worse? At least it means well? (BTW, the first trailer had made me afraid we'd get a "Clark is the mask, only Kal-El is real" interpretation, but not so, both sides of him are presented as real. But. The equivalent of The Watchmen's rendition of the Dan-and-Laurie-against-the-muggers sequence would be the endless grand action climax (not a spoiler, this; it's a Superman movie, of course there'll be a grand action climax). In which the fights between Superman and the other Kryptonians, mainly Foara and Zod, demolish first most of Smallville and then most of Metropolis, and at no point does it seem to occur to our hero he should maybe try to lure his opponents away from heavily populated areas. Look: it's been decades since I watched that film, but I dimly recall that in the equivalent situation in Superman II, Clark did realize the necessity and even went for pretense of cowardice in order to get the fight away from the people. More recent superhero films (not directed by Zack Snyder, that is) also made a point of establishing the need to keep civilians safe when duking it out with the megalomaniacs while still delivering the requisite fight scenes (the Marvelverse films did that rather well, notably Thor, The Avengers and Iron Man III). Greakt Maker, as my beloved Londo Mollari would say, even Supreme Power, which is essentially a Superman dark fic of the darkest kind by JMS, has a very effective sequence early on where when Mark Milton (the equivalent to Clark Kent) for the first time has a no holds bared fight with another super powered person - in an unpopulated area, btw, but there are lots of animals - afterwards looks up in shock upon seeing they've managed to create a disaster zone with trees flattened into nothingness and animals dead galore. It's a very effective "what have I done?" moment (and also has consequences the next time a situation like this arises). But Man of Steel does not want to waste a few screen seconds to even an aborted attempt to take the fight elsewhere, or, say, a dialogue line to the effect Metropolis got evacuated. It is too entranced by the shiny spectacle of skyscrapers going down.
In conclusion, I'm going back to my Lois & Clark rewatch. Or I would, if I weren't packing and organizing, but more about that in a later post.
This entry was originally posted at http://selenak.dreamwidth.org/907347.html. Comment there or here, as you wish.