Wonderful. I love your thoughts. I think you hit the nail on the head.
It really is one of the best books ever written.
Part of Moore's genius is that Rorschach is perversely likable. Even lovable. I had to consciously stop myself from rooting for him. It's such a well-written, entertaining book that when the movie was announced I thought, how could a faithful adaptation go wrong?
But audiences do not want their heroes torn down. At least, not these kinds of heroes. Audiences turn to superheroes because no mortal is capable of doing a superhero's job. If the SUPERHEROES are hopelessly corrupt, there's no one left, and no hope for a just society.
Superhero deconstructions onscreen are notoriously tough, though I've never spent any time contemplating why. It's a subject that suddenly sounds interesting to me. Thanks for opining here, Peter.
I genuinely think the difficulty superANTIhero for cinema faces is just executive fear of failure. Stuff like HANCOCK falls apart in insistence for a heroic ending. SuperANTIhero stuff tends to live in the indie realm, and wherever the indie stuff gets dragged into pop culture, the ANTI gets scrapped off.
WATCHMEN, as you point out, is extremely cinematic. Snyder's version is practically frame for frame. But all you have to do is remind the actors that they're horrible, damaged people who are the victims of media exploitation and state control, remove "bone-crunching" impact sound effects and switch it with flaccid meat slaps, and get rid of the epic slo-mo and heroic music and clean, designery CG and you have the movie. I believe Snyder was hired because he was the one who pitched without talking about the ambiguity and moral questions, but he has the deep love of comic book visuals, and that's all they wanted. The images, not the meaning.
A great example of how to fail WATCHMEN is Rorschach 's line, "You don't understand. I'm not trapped in here with you. You're trapped in here with me." I assume Moore, in his wisdom, understood that that was a GREAT line, just outstanding. He probably couldn't get rid of it, but it's power is undeniable.
So... Rorschach doesn't deliver it. Not in the comic book. Rorschach's sad, burnt out, horrified prison therapist delivers it. It's supposed to be delivered with horror and resignation, a shaky-voiced, tired old soul delivery.
Nope. Movie has Rorschach deliver it, because it's powerful. And thus Rorschach is powerful. And thus he actually has powers, and so forth.
Wow. I could have sworn that Rorschach delivered that line in the comic. And I only saw the movie once, 15 years ago. Such is the power of the larger-than-life cinematic medium. It's so, so powerful, and so, so misdirected.
I once saw Terry Gilliam speak in person, and he talked about his attempts to make a Watchmen adaptation. This was back in the days when he was still making really good movies. He said he gave up when he realized that there was no way to fit the plot into a single movie, and of course he was right. I would have given anything to have seen his version, and thank God it was never made.
Watchmen was written for a very specific medium. Maybe if the film had shifted the target, and gone after superhero MOVIES, the themes from the book could have resonated. But that would have taken a lot of work and vision...and risk.
I had the same Mandala Effect response when I reread the comic book and saw Rorschach didn't deliver the line. It's because even though it doesn't show that frame, at that point in the comic you're so immersed you can see it happening in your mind's eye, how Gibbons would have drawn it.
What?! My brain's shouting “lies” but the books are here in front of me, and just checked. Wow. Great observation.
Also, this: “SuperANTIhero stuff tends to live in the indie realm, and wherever the indie stuff gets dragged into pop culture, the ANTI gets scrapped off.” on point.
What do you think will happen to Dune if it’s continued in the cinemas?
I love how the book goes on with Paul, but will be interesting to see how a bigger audience reacts.
I think DUNE beyond MESSIAH will present challenges to the audiences that loved Villeneuve's films. I love CHILDREN OF DUNE and GOD EMPEROR...but then, even I lose interest and I'm a fanatic for the world.
I think anything written by Frank Herbert is quite good, even when it's not as good as the early stuff. I've reread a lot of these books, so that's my metric - do I need to return to them? I can only say that about the first four books (and not even really about MESSIAH, which I do find disappointing in the context of this quartet).
A brilliant analysis as usual, Cole. Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, and Kingdom Come are, of course, the three greatest comic book stories of all time, and not so coincidentally, all of them address police states, vigilantism, a complacent and fearful American public, and as you adroitly noted, the ambiguity of the tyranny of the just.
Scratch it all away, all the culture and the art and the stellar writing, and it comes down to those same old base monkey-brained primordial impulses...I Am Afraid, and What Can Somebody Do About It.
One wonders what our best literature might morph into, in a world without fear.
As I implied not so subtly in the essay, I think there are a lot of similarities between what we seek from religion and from superheroes. It's a relationship that I find very concerning...but, unlike religioun, I can still enjoy superheroes. Probably because they make no claim of being fact. But yes, both are predicated on fear - just like for-profit news, which must sell a black-and-white world of "regular people" and the terror that goes bump in the night or whatever you want to call it.
great book and great commentary ... however, every time i see a Rorschach Test i’m reminded of this exchange from the classic tv comedy, *Get Smart* in which Maxwell Smart is being tested (from memory):
the Psychiatrist holds up and inkblot: “Tell me, what do you see?”
Max: “A man and a woman kissing.”
the Psychiatrist holds up another: “And this?”
Max: “A man and a woman kissing.”
this continues a few more times with the Psychiatrist becoming more and more concerned ...
Psychiatrist: “I have to be honest, I’m worried about your fixation with kissing.”
Max: “My fixation? I’m not the one with all the dirty pictures!”
That was interesting. I'm not a comics reader and I don't watch superhero movies, but I once, long ago, bought Watchmen (as a book) to see if the whole comic culture was for me, and because this was supposed to be the best representative of that culture. I was very puzzled after reading it, and never read another superhero comic, deciding that I'm not the right audience for that kind of thing. After reading your article, I think that I understand why, since the reader is not SUPPOSED to understand the story in a conventional way. I guess I'll have to read it again, not as straight entertainment, but keeping in mind your points. Thanks!
I think it's a book that requires you to bring something to the experience, but that isn't something that ever reader does or wants to, and it's something that can certainly be handicapped by a lack of experience reading comic books. You have to be comfortable with the language of them, to some degree, to have a conversation with them at the level of WATCHMEN. I'll be curious to hear what you think if you return to it.
Entertaining and (even after living with Watchmen since publication in monthly issues) informative piece! Guess we all bring something to everything we read, even comic books where so much is shown and less implied. Now how about a piece on Alan Moore’s Jerusalem? 😉
But after reading: Wow, I always forget that nuance is so hard to understand. Definitely missed many of the clues in Watchmen, too. Thank you for the reminder.
I think it is changing, though, morally ambiguous characters are becoming more popular. But what do you think, is it the kind of be-my-god-affection still?
I think morally ambiguous characters have always been popular, but they're rarely set in worlds where everyone is morally ambiguous along with the plot and theme. Everything about WATCHMEN demands that you fill in blanks with your own worldview. I just don't see that elsewhere in any consistency I would call change...but I'm not sure that's a bad thing either. Not every story can be as ambiguous as WATCHMEN is.
Your piece today offers an exceptional exploration of the complexities within Watchmen. I particularly appreciate how you dissect Rorschach’s role in challenging our perceptions of heroism. Your ability to draw parallels between the comic and real-world issues adds a natural layer of depth, too; it's just fantastic.
Wonderful. I love your thoughts. I think you hit the nail on the head.
It really is one of the best books ever written.
Part of Moore's genius is that Rorschach is perversely likable. Even lovable. I had to consciously stop myself from rooting for him. It's such a well-written, entertaining book that when the movie was announced I thought, how could a faithful adaptation go wrong?
But audiences do not want their heroes torn down. At least, not these kinds of heroes. Audiences turn to superheroes because no mortal is capable of doing a superhero's job. If the SUPERHEROES are hopelessly corrupt, there's no one left, and no hope for a just society.
So movies that subvert the genre always fail.
Superhero deconstructions onscreen are notoriously tough, though I've never spent any time contemplating why. It's a subject that suddenly sounds interesting to me. Thanks for opining here, Peter.
I genuinely think the difficulty superANTIhero for cinema faces is just executive fear of failure. Stuff like HANCOCK falls apart in insistence for a heroic ending. SuperANTIhero stuff tends to live in the indie realm, and wherever the indie stuff gets dragged into pop culture, the ANTI gets scrapped off.
WATCHMEN, as you point out, is extremely cinematic. Snyder's version is practically frame for frame. But all you have to do is remind the actors that they're horrible, damaged people who are the victims of media exploitation and state control, remove "bone-crunching" impact sound effects and switch it with flaccid meat slaps, and get rid of the epic slo-mo and heroic music and clean, designery CG and you have the movie. I believe Snyder was hired because he was the one who pitched without talking about the ambiguity and moral questions, but he has the deep love of comic book visuals, and that's all they wanted. The images, not the meaning.
A great example of how to fail WATCHMEN is Rorschach 's line, "You don't understand. I'm not trapped in here with you. You're trapped in here with me." I assume Moore, in his wisdom, understood that that was a GREAT line, just outstanding. He probably couldn't get rid of it, but it's power is undeniable.
So... Rorschach doesn't deliver it. Not in the comic book. Rorschach's sad, burnt out, horrified prison therapist delivers it. It's supposed to be delivered with horror and resignation, a shaky-voiced, tired old soul delivery.
Nope. Movie has Rorschach deliver it, because it's powerful. And thus Rorschach is powerful. And thus he actually has powers, and so forth.
Wow. I could have sworn that Rorschach delivered that line in the comic. And I only saw the movie once, 15 years ago. Such is the power of the larger-than-life cinematic medium. It's so, so powerful, and so, so misdirected.
I once saw Terry Gilliam speak in person, and he talked about his attempts to make a Watchmen adaptation. This was back in the days when he was still making really good movies. He said he gave up when he realized that there was no way to fit the plot into a single movie, and of course he was right. I would have given anything to have seen his version, and thank God it was never made.
Watchmen was written for a very specific medium. Maybe if the film had shifted the target, and gone after superhero MOVIES, the themes from the book could have resonated. But that would have taken a lot of work and vision...and risk.
I had the same Mandala Effect response when I reread the comic book and saw Rorschach didn't deliver the line. It's because even though it doesn't show that frame, at that point in the comic you're so immersed you can see it happening in your mind's eye, how Gibbons would have drawn it.
What?! My brain's shouting “lies” but the books are here in front of me, and just checked. Wow. Great observation.
Also, this: “SuperANTIhero stuff tends to live in the indie realm, and wherever the indie stuff gets dragged into pop culture, the ANTI gets scrapped off.” on point.
What do you think will happen to Dune if it’s continued in the cinemas?
I love how the book goes on with Paul, but will be interesting to see how a bigger audience reacts.
I don't know much about Dune myself.
This should be rectified immediately.
I think DUNE beyond MESSIAH will present challenges to the audiences that loved Villeneuve's films. I love CHILDREN OF DUNE and GOD EMPEROR...but then, even I lose interest and I'm a fanatic for the world.
I agree, I am taking a break after reading from the beginning till Children of Dune. Still looking forward to God Emperor, will see how it goes...
I think anything written by Frank Herbert is quite good, even when it's not as good as the early stuff. I've reread a lot of these books, so that's my metric - do I need to return to them? I can only say that about the first four books (and not even really about MESSIAH, which I do find disappointing in the context of this quartet).
A brilliant analysis as usual, Cole. Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, and Kingdom Come are, of course, the three greatest comic book stories of all time, and not so coincidentally, all of them address police states, vigilantism, a complacent and fearful American public, and as you adroitly noted, the ambiguity of the tyranny of the just.
Scratch it all away, all the culture and the art and the stellar writing, and it comes down to those same old base monkey-brained primordial impulses...I Am Afraid, and What Can Somebody Do About It.
One wonders what our best literature might morph into, in a world without fear.
As I implied not so subtly in the essay, I think there are a lot of similarities between what we seek from religion and from superheroes. It's a relationship that I find very concerning...but, unlike religioun, I can still enjoy superheroes. Probably because they make no claim of being fact. But yes, both are predicated on fear - just like for-profit news, which must sell a black-and-white world of "regular people" and the terror that goes bump in the night or whatever you want to call it.
great book and great commentary ... however, every time i see a Rorschach Test i’m reminded of this exchange from the classic tv comedy, *Get Smart* in which Maxwell Smart is being tested (from memory):
the Psychiatrist holds up and inkblot: “Tell me, what do you see?”
Max: “A man and a woman kissing.”
the Psychiatrist holds up another: “And this?”
Max: “A man and a woman kissing.”
this continues a few more times with the Psychiatrist becoming more and more concerned ...
Psychiatrist: “I have to be honest, I’m worried about your fixation with kissing.”
Max: “My fixation? I’m not the one with all the dirty pictures!”
God, I can actually remember this scene from my childhood, which is saying a lot about how funny it was.
That was interesting. I'm not a comics reader and I don't watch superhero movies, but I once, long ago, bought Watchmen (as a book) to see if the whole comic culture was for me, and because this was supposed to be the best representative of that culture. I was very puzzled after reading it, and never read another superhero comic, deciding that I'm not the right audience for that kind of thing. After reading your article, I think that I understand why, since the reader is not SUPPOSED to understand the story in a conventional way. I guess I'll have to read it again, not as straight entertainment, but keeping in mind your points. Thanks!
I think it's a book that requires you to bring something to the experience, but that isn't something that ever reader does or wants to, and it's something that can certainly be handicapped by a lack of experience reading comic books. You have to be comfortable with the language of them, to some degree, to have a conversation with them at the level of WATCHMEN. I'll be curious to hear what you think if you return to it.
Entertaining and (even after living with Watchmen since publication in monthly issues) informative piece! Guess we all bring something to everything we read, even comic books where so much is shown and less implied. Now how about a piece on Alan Moore’s Jerusalem? 😉
First, I was like: Is that still a question?!
But after reading: Wow, I always forget that nuance is so hard to understand. Definitely missed many of the clues in Watchmen, too. Thank you for the reminder.
I think it is changing, though, morally ambiguous characters are becoming more popular. But what do you think, is it the kind of be-my-god-affection still?
I think morally ambiguous characters have always been popular, but they're rarely set in worlds where everyone is morally ambiguous along with the plot and theme. Everything about WATCHMEN demands that you fill in blanks with your own worldview. I just don't see that elsewhere in any consistency I would call change...but I'm not sure that's a bad thing either. Not every story can be as ambiguous as WATCHMEN is.
Cole This was a very interesting read. Also I would like to read that 50 page essay on Watchmen you said you could write.
I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the read, Eli. I'm sure I'll write about the series again. Also, thank you for becoming a paid subscriber!
Your piece today offers an exceptional exploration of the complexities within Watchmen. I particularly appreciate how you dissect Rorschach’s role in challenging our perceptions of heroism. Your ability to draw parallels between the comic and real-world issues adds a natural layer of depth, too; it's just fantastic.
Thanks, Jon, I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the read and took anything from it.