Literary Adaptations Week: Watchmen (2009)

2 years ago

Literary Adaptations Week: Watchmen (2009)

BUDDY, THIS AIN’T NO DUCK

by Chris Cantoni

Let’s get something out of the way right from the get-go. Don’t ever say “the movie wasn’t as good as the book.” Movies and books are different media, and therefore exist on different levels. Imagine if I complained that the apple I was eating wasn’t very good because it didn’t have the citrus-y flavor of a good orange. As apples are to oranges, so then are books to movies. Look at Jurassic Park: The film is a masterpiece of both visual effects and storytelling. Sure, the book is a bit different - a bit deeper - but it’s not better, because they’re both just so damn well put together. So, let’s dispense with that nonsensical notion of one medium’s superiority over another.

Which, if we get right down to it, is exactly what’s wrong with Watchmen (2009), the Zack Snyder directed epic, once considered (by no less than Terry Gilliam) to be unfilmable. Snyder had found success previously with 300, another comic book adaptation, and thus, armed with confidence, set out to adapt what’s long been considered one of the very best comic books of all time.

Adapting comic books to the screen can’t be all that hard. In Understanding Comics, his transcendent masterpiece on the subject, Scott Mccloud laid out the notion that, at least visually, comics are simply the series of frames you’d see if you were to take a movie off its reel. When we watch a film, the frames are just moving too fast for us to tell. In essence, you could argue that the comic book is the bridge between literature and film, although I’m not going to say that, because it undermines the strength and importance of the medium, which is wholly distinct from either.

Watchmen, based on the graphic novel written by Alan Moore, takes place in an alternate 1985 where Nixon is still president, we were victorious in Vietnam, and all vigilantes have been officially outlawed. There’s only one dude left with superpowers - and he walks around naked, glowing blue penis and all. The comic broke ground by exploring complex concepts like power and morality, as well as deconstructing the superhero genre into something much more human. Additionally, the art direction stays with an omniscient, unbiased view so we never quite know who we should be rooting for (for an example of the exact opposite approach, view any Michael Moore film).

The film, however, doesn’t really do any of that. With a relentless dedication to the comic - often panel for panel - Watchmen does its best to exactly emulate its source material. It sounds like a duck. It looks like a duck. But, buddy, this ain’t no duck. Aside from the standout, incredible performance of Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach (truly one of the most interesting moralities ever put to page or screen), we suffer through some atrocious acting (Malin Akerman is nice to look at but painful in every other capacity). And don’t even get me started on casting the MasterCard guy (Billy Crudup) as Dr. Manhattan (I swear, every time he started talking, I was completely taken out of the film, waiting for that stupid logo to show up. Omnipotent being indeed!). What I mean to say is the film lacks most of the flavor of the comic.

Now, that’s not to say I hated it. I didn’t. Visually stunning, with an incredible soundtrack, Synder actually does an admirable job getting this behemoth of a comic legend up onto the screen. But that’s all he does. Any exploration of moral absolutism or the corruption of power takes a back seat to slow motion action shots and yet another song. The superheroes, who have no superpowers whatsoever in the original comic - illustrating both their humanity and lack thereof at the same time - are frequently lost to over-the-top action sequences during which they seem completely immune to any kind of injury.

To be fair, I haven’t seen the Director’s Cut, which apparently contains some 25 or so additional minutes. Then again, I went to the theatre to see Watchmen, not Watchmen beta. I will see it, someday, but I don’t think my opinion will change. The movie often feels like a series of music videos: stylistically flashy, with a bunch of slow-motion over music. In a gritty alternate past, it is decidedly not gritty. Synder’s style is more MTV than meaning, and the loss of that meaning is perceived.

The point is, if you are ever going to create a piece of art based on another piece of art, you must do so with your own vision and purpose. Watchmen is a distillation of the comic, not a stand alone work. It’s as if Snyder and Co. were so afraid of rocking the boisterous boat of “true fans” that they never bothered to put the sails up. A brave adaptation is one that refuses to be the same old thing. It stands up, it takes a chance and attempts to create something we have never experienced in quite the same way before. Watchmen the film does none of this - and loses any coherence, flow, or character that would allow it to stand beside Watchmen the graphic novel as a complimentary work.

Someone, I think Stephen King (although I couldn’t find a source) was once asked how he felt about his work being “tainted by poor movie adaptations. He wisely responded, “It isn’t as if the original is gone, its sitting right there on the shelf, waiting for you” and this time, I’m quite thankful for that.