On Watchmen...How This Fan Watches the Watchmen by A. Gates

About a half hour into Watchmen, as the rude and crude Comedian was being laid to rest with Simon and Garfunkel's "The Sounds of Silence" playing sweetly in the background I thought to myself, "Oh, no. This is self-important pretentious posturing." Then, fairly, I thought back to the source graphic novel - the comic geek's War and Peace if you will. "Was that self-important pretentious posturing as well?"

The truth is, these concerns quickly subsided as I again surrendered myself to the story and, in this oddest of cases for this comic geek. the incredibly reverent storytelling. Watchmen, the graphic novel and the film, are self-important pieces of fiction stemming from the arrogance of the brillant weirdo Alan Moore. But, as anyone who really works through the deconstruction of the superhero myth that Alan Moore laid out 20+ years ago, it is objectively important. A social commentary, epically told superhero story with heroes afflicted with the human condition in all its debilitating glory.

Rorshach, easily my favorite character in both mediums, is a psychopathic sleuth with a brutal, uncompromising sense of justice. He's a jarring character, an socially inept weirdo in a costume who is also a mentally and emotionally scarred deviant working outside the law. On the page, his words are put in scratchy, sketchy balloons and we as readers are left to imagine what sort of unusual voice would deliver such oddly drawn speech patterns. And perhaps that's where the gift of the film begins. Jackie Earle Haley, that newly rediscovered talent from the 70s, was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 2006 for his work in Little Children. I thought the whole performance was overrated. After seeing his work as Rorshach, I reconsider. You see, his characters, although both scarred social outcasts, are on opposite ends of the performance spectrum. His brutality, his growl, his stiff anger as Rorshach is the foil for his Little Children's character's weakness, sadness, and quiet anger. And that growl(!), I am more than pleased to say, is exactly how I imagined Rorshach would sound even if it never occurred to me until I heard Haley's first words in the trailer.

But each of these performers in the movie playing these characters firmly placed in my memory is for better or for worse the perfect person to play their part (save maybe Carla Gugino as Sally Jupiter, playing it campy). I say for better or for worse because naturally some of these characters work better on the page than on the screen. Laurie Jupiter (aka Silk Spekter II), is one of those characters. And I won't fault Malin Akerman for any of it, though many reviews I have read turn quickly on her. She fits the part to a tee and executes it wholley reverently. But something about Laurie fits within comic panels better than the confines of the silver screen. As the naive and sweetly sexy ingenue heroine acting as knowing commentary on the comic book medium, Laurie Jupiter works. But that role in a film, that medium where we haven't seen that obligatory gal in spandex to the same effect, the character seems an odd fit. And to see her and her mother as the transition from the Golden Age to whatever the geeks are calling this age makes eerie sense in the comics and very little on film where the Golden Age has all but been ignored completely.

Kudos to Patrick Wilson, Haley, Billy Crudup, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and Matthew Goode for their insight into bringing the pages and characters to life. Each is an uncanny fit for their character counterparts and whomever cast this film has to be pat on the back. Haley and Crudup are the standouts receiving all scant critical praise, and deservedly so. Crudup, in particular, delivers a performance of tremendous subtlety and restraint (albeit through a CGI avatar). His character is more than a comment on superheroes. Dr. Manhattan is a comment on religion and on God seen through a glass darkly. The insights, while not my own on this subject, are fascinating and bracing. It's a difficult character to bring to life, but Crudup and Snyder's team of special effects wizards more than conquer the challenge. Crudup's Dr. Manhattan, perhaps even more so than in his graphic novel incarnation, is an indelible film creation.

Zach Snyder and his screenwriters David Hayter and Alex Tse are aware of how to tell the story in this medium. The unnecessary parts of the graphic novel (or, for the fanboys who just gasped at the hint of anything in Watchmen being unnecessary, "medium-specific") are left out and the good stuff is left in. The big change to the ending pleased me the most. The crux of the graphic novel is perfect for that medium - a ugly monster spelling possible doom for the world and our heroes. But that doesn't work on the big screen where even the most outlandish of villains (I'm looking at you, Willem Dafoe as Green Goblin, and you, Colin Farrell as Bullseye) are more real than what is depicted in the last fourth of the graphic novel. So, bravo for the change. There's the fact that it is minor yet still makes the whole calamity at end actually work. The Black Freighter allergorical interludes and newstand gang on that iconic corner are largely absent from the big screen version. Good. These were my least favorite parts of the graphic novel and have no place in the big screen story. After all, we're watching the story of the Watchmen and there's enough of that story to adequately fill its runtime and more.

I like Zach Snyder. With Dawn of the Dead and now Watchmen, he has proven to be a visually savvy storyteller with a leaning towards the sensational. But anyone who has seen 300, fans and non-fans alike, can tell you he knows nothing of subtlety. His fetishizing of slo-motion and violence in 300 isn't at full-throttle in Watchmen, but he certainly isn't afraid to push the limits. The violence is brutal and graphic, but he eases up on his slo-mo habit enough to keep Watchmen watchable.

I was worried after I finished reading Watchmen for the first time last Spring. "How can they make this movie? No one will want to see it?" I say this knowing that, like me, there were leagues of fanboys frothing at the mouth at the mere prospect of a big screen adaptation. The "no one" in question is the general public, the ones who go to see the Spider-man, Batman, or (Heaven forbid) the Fantastic Four movies but more than likely would not care to see their heroes deconstructed. There was talk of this public being ready for a movie like Watchmen after the success of The Dark Knight, but I knew and you will know that this is a hasty comparison. Bruce Wayne as Batman is haunted and conflicted, but he is not the deranged Rorshach. If you could love the Joker (and some of us really did), then maybe you'd like Rorshach, but not as hero. In the end of the Dark Knight, after all the darkness and despair, Batman rides off as the "hero" in every sense of the word. In Watchmen, "hero" takes on its own meaning and the term "anti-hero" doesn't fully capture the complexity of its characters. Watchmen is not The Dark Knight, and I expect to see a sharp drop off in box office after all the marketing hoopla and hype dies down and that general public tells their general public pals it wasn't what they wanted.

This calls into question the audience. Who is this movie for? Zach Snyder has said that the movie is for fans first. I believe him. An editor for Rottentomatoes.com, after being told by another reviewer that non-fans won't be able to follow the epic story and mythology, said something along the lines that they, like she, won't care to. That's probably the case. So, what do we have? We have Warner Brothers thinking a $150 million dollar (reportedly) production budget (along with anywhere from 20-35+ million dollars for marketing) for a film taken from a cult comic book with critical acclaim will appeal to its targeting ticket paying audience. And they're wrong. The movie is good for me. I love the movie. And Warner Brothers will likely make enough money through box office receipts and DVD sales and countless special editions to make a profit. But in today's Hollywood, making $100 million dollars domestically isn't enough. Time will tell if Watchmen is viewed as a success for Warner Brothers. My question is what happens when they want to make something faithfully for us fanboys next time? I don't think it'll happen so easily (a joke if you consider Watchmen's 20 year production hell).

Let's just say for now, for me, I love it. I got chills several times. The kind where you see something imagined realized for the first time. And that's a special feeling Watchmen offers me and my geek brethren that we might have to wait another 20to feel again. Watchmen has always been something you finish with your emotions deflated and exhausted and your head spinning around the implications of it ending. Hopefully, not every one will leave the theater talking about what's in the movie and what isn't or what they wish it would have been like, but rather discussing that ending. After all the hoopla and hype are gone, that ending resonates over even the harshest of critics.

****


Joe Morgenstern Wall Street Journal Watchmen Review 3/6/09
Roger Ebert Watchmen Review 3/4/09
Box Office Mojo Weekend Report 3/8/09

The Good German "(Maguire's) adhering too much to the contemporary view of classic cinema - no subtlety, scenery chewing, melodrama."

They don't make 'em like they used to, but that sure doesn't stop them from trying. I am more a fan of contemporary cinema than any of the black and white Hollywood hey day movies. I've tried to branch out in recent years, even making a summer noir series of my own with Laura, The Maltese Falcon, The Third Man, and Casablanca. I mention Casablanca not because it's a great example of noir, but because The Good German wants to be like it so very, very much (only with more swearing). It's a lofty goal it cannot reach.

The Good German is really only an excellent imitation of those melodramatic, love torn, post- and pre-war film noirs. It offers nothing to set it apart from anything that has ever preceded it. Instead, it boldly goes where many, many films have gone before it. Normally, this would be a major detraction (and it still kind of is), but The Good German really wants to be those movies you saw before. It loves those movies. It hopes to Moses you love those movies, too.

I had problems from the start with Tobey Maguire. He must have been told to "explore the studio space" because he's adhering too much to the contemporary view of classic cinema - no subtlety, scenery chewing, melodrama. He plays an unsavory character with constant strain in his voice and face. He can't handle the dialogue or the character. It's outside the realm of his abilities. Hey, I love the guy (Go, James Leer!), but he's pretty awful in this movie. Luckily, he doesn't factor much into the major storyline later in the movie.

Thankfully, George Clooney and Cate Blanchett know what they're doing...most of the time. They handle the dialogue pretty well, save the normal difficulties you'd expect from actors trying to speak old timey/edgy/cool dialogue from a script emulating someone else's script. Clooney and Blanchett's scenes together are the best in the movie and I think everybody knows it because they get tossed in each others way a lot.

Clooney doesn't have to do anything he hasn't had to do before, and he appears to be the most comfortable in the world of the film. And the world of the film and the camera love him...a little too much. The camera almost fetishizes Clooney in that soldier uniform and hat - from behind, from afar, from above, from the ground, from the front (oh, it loves looking at ol' Clooney's dashing hero gaze). Clooney does have trouble in one scene in particular where he has to grab Blanchett by the arms and shake her and say, "Why won't you let me me help you!" in his best noir impression. That's the thing with The Good German - it's more than happy just to be an impression of anything real though its depict real moments in history.

Blanchett has a German accent throughout and it's really only a glaring bump because it's Cate Blanchett speaking in it. The same could be said for her Katherine Hepburn accent in The Aviator. I just think the accents are "so not her" that they remove me from the world of the movie. She does deliver the most consistent performance. She knows how to milk a scene for all it's simmering heat (milk the heat?). I never really think of females as brooding, but Blanchett certainly does brood.

Story stuff: Blanchett plays Lena, this German femme fatale that was so memorable and alluring in a pre-war affair with Jake (Clooney) that he purposefully heads back to Germany after the war to find her. The big problem for me is that she's not really all that great. I can't really imagine what's so great about her that all these men are wanting her so much. For Tully (Maguire), it's clear his thrill is in possessing her; but for Jake, it seems he's helping her out of some nostalgia for feelings that I can't imagine pretty much anyone having for her.
(edit: Perhaps this is the point the movie is trying to make - the woman Jake fell in love with has been ruined by the war.)

Also, Clooney gets involved in three skirmishes in his hunt for a mysterious man everyone's after. He gets beat up pretty bad by his assailants, but they just leave him there writhing in pain or knocked out or what have you. Nobody ever really gets the idea that "Hey, this guy's always turning up and gumming up the works...maybe we oughtta kill the jerk." He dusts himself off and goes back to the search.

Also, that ending! No! Don't do it! It involves a revelation that should have happened earlier, and not so awkwardly spoken or located. The movie should have ending in the crowd of all the people. Whenever I watch the movie again, I'm going to stop it there. That's a decent movie. It's still pretty decent anyways, but it would have been decenter (decenter?).

But, lo and behold, I am recommending this movie. I really enjoyed the entire second act and much of the third. Once Maguire faded into the background and the intrigue really started, I committed to the movie and was mostly satisfied despite all the words above to the contrary. It's a solid movie. I commend its ambition. It's hard to call a movie that emulates other movies ambitious, but it's really quite an undertaking in this day and age to evoke the atmosphere and spirit of another day and age.

Clooney's good. Blanchett's good. Maguire's bad, but the rest of the supporting cast is good in spite of him. I actually even liked the story for its simplistic storyline that masqueraded as a complicated web.

I LOVED the cinematography. If I loved the movie, I'd find a way to make a poster of some of the shots and put them up on my wall. Gorgeous black and white picture.

So...

***

Hollywoodland

I was hoping, deeply hoping, that the hype surrounding Ben Affleck's performance in Hollywoodland was earned rather than the product of the a comeback-hungry press. It turns out it was the latter. All the performances are sub par, including the capable stars (Adrien Brody, Ben Affleck, Diane Lane). The film takes place in the late 50's-era Hollywood. It seems as though the actors watched a couple movies, checked out TV shows, and read a couple books from the era that were supposed to teach them how to sound authentic. Instead, they ended up so concerned with their characters accents and posturing that they neglected to invest themselves in what is not readily seen in the mannerisms and voice inflections. The performances are not above the acting we would see in a TV movie of the week depicting the same story. Certainly, this is not the kind of work I expect from the stars of this film. I can say that Bob Hoskins was good in a small role.

This is a bit cold, but the film didn't make me care about George Reeves death, the mysteries of which the movie revolves around. Even if I didn't care about George Reeves, a basic demand for justice and truth should have been awakened by the film. It wasn't. The performances distanced me from the characters. I didn't want to know about them. I just wanted Ben Affleck and Diane Lane to tone it down, to look at each other like they meant what they were saying to each other. The only character I developed any sort of positive feelings for was the private investigator looking for answers concerning the Reeves death. Brody sort of coasts by on typical down and out P.I. charm, tricks, and dialogue. There wasn't really anything about the character as it was written or the performance that made me root for the guy. I was more on board with the guy because I liked the actor playing him.

The acting must have taken a cue from the writing because it too has all the markings of an impersonation of the time rather than an act of bringing it to life. The dialogue is awkward at times, especially when somebody tries to be tough or angry.

Don't watch this movie.

**

Milwaukee, Minnesota

I picked up this independent film from the library mostly because Troy Garity is in it. I wanted to get a sense of the actor before I saw his performance in Sunshine this weekend. I had low expectations, and the small movie failed to reach them.

The film follows a mentally challenged man as he sifts through lies and truths after his mother dies and two sets of people go after his championship fishing winnings after his controlling mother is killed. It's an interesting premise, but I wasn't aware of this information until I had already started watching the film. I became wary of the possibility for an awkward performance from Garity. After all, it can be a very thin line between authenticity and condescension. Luckily, Garity delivers the strongest performance in the film. Too bad everybody else fails miserably at feining believabilty.

Case in point: Allison Folland as one of the people trying to con Garity's character out of his money. She is always too much - too venomous, too vulnerable, too too. Her performance never stays on any level of authenticity, but rather punches every line and snarl 'til it's dead. She really bothered me. Same goes for her character's brother played by Hank Harris.

The film also has two Academy Award nominees among its ranks. Randy Quaid and Bruce Dern plod through the movie like shaky charactures masquarading as characters you cannot believe as people in that place, time, and situation.

There is an awkwardness to the script that leads me to believe the writer, Richard Murphy spent all his time plotting and no time thinking through dialogue that could naturally flow from well-developed characters.

There is a twist that got me. Like most good twists, the writer and director present you with the necessary information to predict the outcome but disguise it with a lack of importance placed on the deciding details earlier in the script. The old switcheroo always gets me, and it really never should.

I do love the final shot as well. Color against a dull white canvas.

**

Casablanca

Casablanca is a classic for a reason. It is well written and well acted. It's fun and dramatic at the same time. Bogart basically plays the Bogart persona, but that's okay because Bogart is cool. The real thrill is the script. It is full of all these famous lines, but they are truly lines that deliver upon their promises. The film is truly satisfying as entertainment. But real skill is obviously involved in the staging of all this intrigue and character development.

My big complaint is the flashback of Elsa and Rick's romance in Paris. It's the worst acted scene of the film and only takes me out of the incredibly interesting present. I understand that the flashback sets up much of the background of both Rick and Elsa's current personalities, but the execution of the scene is just too much of a bump for me. This, along with the place in the present the flashback occurs, takes me out of the story too much.

But a classic is a classic and no amount of my nitpicking is really going to blemish a film deserving of that designation. Casablanca is just such a film.

****

Laura

I've been watching quite a few noir films lately. I've noticed a convention of the genre worth noting. There's usually a protagonist looking for something. What they actually find usually ends up to be much more than they had imagined. That's the case with Laura. I like the movie. I just wish I hadn't seen it right after I watched The Third Man because any movie after that would pale in comparison. Laura has some good performances and some wonderfully sharp dialogue, but it isn't as tight of a plot or production as The Maltese Falcon was. The hero and heroine's chemistry was obvious, which helped string me along, but the hero's love obsession never felt real. The guy kind of leaped head first without any real reason or motivation. None of what he (and we as the audience through his investigation) learned was enough to get anybody that hot and bothered about a “dame.”

***

The Third Man

The Third Man is one of the best movies I have ever seen. Unlike the initial over- admiration that eventually turns into general acceptance of a job well done that seems to plague my movie critiques, I foresee a long love affair with The Third Man. Style out the wazoo. Those camera angles. That lighting. Orson Welles underplaying it for a change. One of the best endings ever. I think it's all there, preserved for those of us waiting to see an old film that truly stands the test of time. The cinematography alone makes the film one of the best cinema has to offer.

*****

The Maltese Falcon

The Maltese Falcon was a really fun movie to watch. The dialogue is quick and sharp, full of phrasings not used in everyday life, but ever present in the noir genre. The Maltese Falcon screams noir, but does so in a calm, cool manner. I am not personally one who subscribes to the Bogart is a god form of a parasocial relationship. He's always been a relic of the classic era that I have distanced from myself over recent years. But he is good, no, very good, in The Maltese Falcon. I never thought of the man as being capable of cool, but he is so cool that sheep count him (yo, Mamet).

The Femme Fatale, the gun heavy, and the mysterious man behind it all (in this case, “The Fat Man”) are all present. Twists and turns abound. Loyalties change as quickly as the words shoot out of Bogart's mouth. Truth be told, the film shows some age. It fits perfectly with the genre and the time of its release, but the slow pacing and long revelatory speeches don't generally happen or work well in modern films. Indeed, attention spans must have been longer 60 odd years ago. That having been said, I was interested in this film the whole way through, though the final payoff was not as big as I had anticipated or hoped for.

Side note: it was fun to see all the references Brick (2005) had made to The Maltese Falcon. There are several homages in Rian Johnson's film. The long-short-long-short horn signal was the same as a knocking signal in The Maltese Falcon. A conversation with the Principal in Brick held the same spirit as a conversation with the D.A. In The Maltese Falcon. There were others as well.

So, The Maltese Falcon was fun. I loved the script's crackling dialogue and Bogart's performance. I wish the payoff had been better. But it still gets a big recommendation from me. That's saying a lot because I don't usually tout the merits of older films. So, take heart, readers.

***1/2

Brick

Brick was one of my highest anticipated films of the year. It's trailer was dynamite, a gasoline soaked rag waiting for a match. And the movie's pretty good, too. I guess the question with this film is whether its viewers will be able to suspend disbelief long enough to really enjoy the noir dialogue pouring out of high schooler's mouths. I was able to. Once I did, I had a grand time. The twisty mystery is pretty confusing, to the point where I'm not sure the explanations offered actually satisfy my curiosities. But it's a highly sylized, well made film with good performances and creative cinematography and direction. Joseph Gordon Levitt isn't the most talented actor of his generation, but darnit if he's not the most charismatic.

***1/2