jobloffski
Posts: 1837
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: adambatman82
quote:
ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King
quote:
ORIGINAL: BobM70
Never read the Graphic Novel. I went in expecting a rather intelligent take on superhero genre, with a lot of political irony and references.
Well, what I got was a mess. Clearly Snyder has done his best to come up with something different and meaningful.
The story - from what I've learned - was trimmed to make it suitable for a featurelength film. I had to do my best to follow it. There are a lot of characters, but actually nothing sticks. I don't need a large backstory for every character but here I was completely lost. The setting was interesting but never developped. Nixon as president in the 80's, the staus of some retired ssuperheroes in society was left hanging. the relationship between the heroes never made me care. The best character (The Comedian) was in it for a few short scenes.
The point of the film (and novel?) never is clear. What does it try to say about society? It's rather pretentious and lacks some true poignant ideas. Alan Moore is hailed by many as a great thinker, but what if he's just a washed up writer with some nice ideas that get lost in a rather stupid comicbookstyle universe?
Bob
It's a relief to find an individual who shares the same view as me. Deftly put as well if I may say so sir. I do cringe when I have the unfortunate timing of seeing Alan Moore choir boys violently climaxing as they discuss the supposed intellectual and engaging material found in the Watchmen 'tome'. I've never read the graphic novel and I certainly do not intend on doing so. However, given that the film is a slavish adaptation of the graphic novel (some have said to its detriment and to my merriment) there is no need on my part to waste time and effort on pouring over the countless pages of this nu testament [sic]. I will say the premise is intriguing. How can vigilantes function in society? How politicians are complicit in their existence so long as it is politically expedient. How vigilantes contribute to and exacerbate the ceasless cycle of violence and more . However, I remember: debauchery, fetishistic violence, attempted rape (whereby the woman willingly had intercourse with her attacker at a later date, producing a child), a man made of energy (ironically a rather lifeless character), profanity to fill out insipid dialogue, more sex, more violence and so forth. The one character that at least interested me was Rorschach. The film (and presumably the graphic novel) does delve into his background, his history and the reason why he became a vigilante. There is at least empathy for the character although any such understanding is tempered by his sociopathic nature. Which is why I could not fathom (as the above poster) why he was killed by another Watchman for merely choosing a moral course of action (indeed one that would redeem his prior misdemeanours) yet without thought he is coldy disposed (yes I know blue-tac has lost his humanity). It is laughable that an above post in essence considered the story (both in literature and film) to be some sort of treatise on superheroes. I saw no such thing, only drivel and a sycophantic ode to a man who wanted nothing to do with film in the first place. No, whilst flawed, I much preferred the Dark Knight.
While this film may look like the novel, it lacks the tone completely. Im not going to attempt to persuade you to read it, but just wanted you to realise that the book and film are very different beasts. I loved the book, but couldn't have felt more different about the film.
SPOILER
Rorschach's sociopathic state meant he couldn't live in a world where he had to compromise his principles so he ASKED to be killed ("DO IT!!"). He would have been killed anyway, due to the 'logical morality' being employed that took the viewpoint sacrifice of a proportion of humanity to save the majority was worth it. The world had come to the brink of destroying itself because of political leaders who ALSO could not compromise (implying they too are spociopathic). Rorschach's journal, having been sent to a paper, will be published, reveal that Ozy was behind the things that happened and because of this the scheme is destined to fail. His 'no compromise' stance towards ridding the world of monsters made him the monster that would be responsible for the inevitable path of human self destruction (paved by 'no compromise') being the path the world be set back upon, by his actions.
The lack of willingness to compromise, either from political leaders or self appointed heroes, according to Moore's 'message' will bring about the end of the world. And any attempt to wipe out 'evil' whether by leaders or heroes can only inevitably lead to acts perceived as evil by others, if that pursuit of evil is not tempered with a basic love for humanity. Ozy and Rorschach, both acted from a belief their actions were motivated by love for humanity and used it to justify everything they did. Ironically, the dark scheme that will be exposed by Rorschach's journal would have worked, a a result of the harsh truth that the world only seems to show its humanity at times of disaster and suffering, and people are essentially selfish, each person is basically concerned about justfying their own individual existence and ideology, unless there is some threat that would make doing so obviously self destructive (ie, a bigger, more powerful force that will kill you if you don't treat each other better).
Only the two characters who fall in (long overdue) love don't end up dead, logical to the point of inhumanity or divorced from humanity altogether.
Alan Moore suggesting love is what will save us? Yes, but the suggestion is a whisper, among shouts of chaos and death. Love, for it to survive, requires a willingness to compromise. An absolute refusal to compromise may feel (and look) like a principled stance, but pushed to its logical conclusion...on a personal level, isolation and on a global level, leaders who want to present an image of strength with the consequence that the little people concerned with the little details of their little lives (the perception of the leaders) are the ones who pay the price.
However, in the black freighter stuff, one man's love for his home/family makes him the very monster he thinks he is trying to save others from. So perhaps Moore both believes in the possibilty of love saving the world AND has to cast doubt on the idea, in order to preserve the doom laden atmos. Or perhaps it is literary stuff after all, and Rorschach's theme (taking out those who hurt the innocent) is being explored from another angle...the sociopath trying to rid the world of evil, incapable of being close to people contrasted with the mariner believing he's acting out of love not noticing himself become kind of monster he wants to save others from. It's all a joke. The joke partially being that our ideals, pursued with blinkers of self righteousness make us the evil in this world.
I would also suggest that part of Moore's point is an implication that when people need heroes they love and embrace what heroes do. When the crisis has passed, the human psyche doesn't like the fact someone else did the heroic stuff they were incapable of, and the continued presence of the particular someone else reminds them they couldn't deal with particular situation themselves, feel weak as a result, and hate/despise the heroes they previously adored.
< Message edited by jobloffski -- 19/1/2010 9:28:38 AM >
_____________________________
Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.
|
Printable Version
RE: Banal - 
Good, despite Akerman - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread