Who Watches the Filmmakers?

So I finally saw "Watchmen" last night, and I feel compelled as a die-hard fanboy to give it a very thorough review.

However before I do the Watchmen review I want to comment on a few other films:

1) Children of Heaven--It's often nice to see a film from a foreign country that isn't known for its cinema style, because the filmmakers there don't know the rules. They can't be "bold" or "daring" (words overused when describing movies these days), because they have nothing to compare to. "The Band's Visit," for example, was enjoyable for these reasons.
This was also the case with "Children of Heaven," a very sweet and simple Iranian film. No flashy camera tricks, no tricky editing, no eye-popping cinematography that detracts from the narrative because the shot is so pretty--nothing like that. Just very solid storytelling.
I also like movies like this because it's neat to see another culture. One of the joys of watching a fantasy film is that it often takes a while for you to get your bearings and learn the rules of the universe. Movies in other countries can be fun for the same reasons--because as Americans we don't always know the way their world works.
That having been said, I liked "Children of Heaven" but found it thoroughly unfulfilling at the end. One extra scene wrapping up the loose ends was really needed to make it work, but there were too many unanswered questions.

2) Coraline--I didn't have a very lovey-dovey Valentine's Day this year, but I did make the best of it regardless. I went whale-watching in SB in the morning (by myself, thank you very much), and then went out to eat and saw "Coraline" with my parents.
As you likely know, I am a huge claymation fanatic, and "Coraline" is possibly the most technically amazing stop-motion film I've ever seen. And, I would also qualify it as the first 3-D movie experience I've had that actually qualifies as "art" ("Journey to the Center of the Earth" was still a lot of fun, though). I can sometimes be a grumpy gus about when computer animation is used to facilitate the "pure" process of stop-motion animation, but I didn’t feel that way this time. The technical mastery of the animation was entirely engrossing and unlike anything I've ever seen before.
I also love that the movie actually had the balls to be legitimately CREEPY. I'm tired of people freaking out and saying that certain movies are "too scary" for kids in these PC times (not Mac?...ha!). When I was a kid, a lot of my favorite movies scared the shit out me. Even classic Disney such as "The Little Mermaid," "Aladdin," and "The Lion King" have their truly frightening moments. And children's fairy tales from old days are full of kids tossing witches into burning ovens. A little danger goes a long way for a kid, and it's healthy for them. Much (but not all) of today's sugar-coated children's entertainment doesn't have the guts to show kids any sort of danger. I liked "Bolt" a lot, but it was fairly lacking in terms of any real threat to anyone. I love watching movies with kids because I love to see their reactions, but I'm always disappointed when kids talk constantly and are distracted throughout a film because they are not engaged. And one of the best ways to engage a kid is to scare the bejeezus out of them! When "Coraline" started, a few kids around me were a little antsy and chatty, but about a quarter of the way through, they stopped. I kept glancing over at them, and they were staring at the screen, transfixed. Not a lot of movies can do that these days.
Now, I'm not saying all you parents should traumatize your kids as early as possible. "Coraline" is far too freaky for the youngest of children. But if your kid is a tad older, maybe heading into the pre-teen years (about the age of Coraline herself, actually), this is one for them.
My only complaint is that while I loved the main story (sort of a twisted "Alice in Wonderland") and the relationship with Coraline and her parents (both real and fake), there were a lot of ancillary characters that were too cartoonish and over-the-top for me. I disliked the old ladies with the Scottish Terriers and the weird circus performer. And the character of Wybie was so twitchy and strange I kept wondering if it was going to be revealed that he was a victim of domestic child abuse. Several plot strands are also left hanging--I could never figure out exactly what the deal was with Wybie's mother or how Coraline got the doll in the first place (how were they linked to the Other-Mother exactly?), but that's fine with me. It sort of goes against everything I usually stand for with movies, but I really didn't MIND plot inconsistencies in this one because it was such an arresting visual experience.
For me, Selick's best still has to be "The Nightmare Before Christmas" (which Burton gets all the credit for), but “Coraline” was still a great work of art. And in a world where claymation (perhaps my favorite art form) is being more and more forgotten, I'm glad that I was so dazzled.

3) Sunshine--Sci-fi is without a doubt my favorite genre, but it's been a long time since we had any movie that actually broke away from its conventions to really become a great film (thank goodness I've recently found my fix with "Battlestar Galactica"). Even the possibility of the Star Wars prequels turned out to be overall disappointments. The sad truth is that the golden age of great sci-fi films has been over since the late 70s and 80s.
But Danny Boyle just won the Oscar, and even though I didn't love "28 Days Later" as much as everyone else, he's clearly a talented dude. Maybe "Sunshine" would be good!
It starts out OK (but not great), as a bunch of astronauts head out into space to re-ignite the sun and warm things up on our chilling planet. As a former planetarium show presenter, I should take a moment here to say that I'm pretty sure such a thing will NEVER actually happen to our sun.
It's a pretty decent ride until the final act, when the entire film spirals downward to become every clichéd sci-fi spaceship horror movie you've ever seen, after the crew picks up a hitchhiker who then goes on to kill everybody. Danny Boyle could have still gone this route and partially saved his film if he had offered a bit of explanation for the hitchhiker's motives, but he doesn't, and what could have been a solid film becomes stupid ridiculously quickly.
After seeing Boyle at the Oscars, I'm also convinced that he might be just a tad legitimately insane, but that's fine. I'll never forget what my old roomie Kevin said after watching a David Lynch film: "Many filmmakers try to emulate Lynch's style, but they never pull it off. Because they aren't insane, and David Lynch actually IS." I don't like David Lynch, but I do agree completely with Kevin; nobody can do crazy like Lynch can.
And that might be the case with Boyle. He's made some masterworks because he has such a tweaked way of looking at the world. On the other hand, being crazy also means you can also make a film that you might think is very good, but actually isn't.
I do also want to touch on one technique used in “Sunshine” that was particularly effective. When the crew enters a derelict spacecraft, they start looking around the ship with their flashlights. Every time the flashlight is aimed directly at the camera, instead of using a flash of white, Boyle uses flash frames of inverted pictures of the people who have died on the ship. These ghostly, almost subliminal images stuck with me and REALLY made my skin crawl. I was creeped out.
However, aside from the typical astounding Boyle-style cinematography and editing, this movie ended up being nothing more than a slasher in space. It reminded me a bit of “Event Horizon” and the underrated “2010.” “Event Horizon” is not a great film, but I actually enjoyed it more than “Sunshine” because I knew exactly what I was getting into, and it delivered on its promise. “Sunshine” did not. Sorry Danny…I still love you for “Slumdog”!

4) Watchmen--Oh boy, here we go...
A while back, I wrote on my fears upon seeing the teaser trailer, which you can read here.
First off, I have a confession to make. Even as a (reluctant but admitting) nerd, I never really got into comic books until my sophomore year of college. I had read a few, but for the most part I considered them sub-par and juvenile compared to the average novel you could pick up from the bestseller list. And to be honest, I generally still feel this way. The majority of comic books out there are really, really stupid (then again, so are a fair amount of novels…touché!). However it was only when Will started introducing me to some of the “classic” graphic novels that I really realized what I was missing, and came to understand that in some circumstances, comic books could be considered real art. And at the very least, a lot of them could still be escapist fun that I didn’t have to feel too guilty about.
Without a doubt, the graphic novel that transcended the medium more than any other was Alan Moore’s exquisite “Watchmen.”
And so…
I was very nervous about them making a “Watchmen” feature film. The scope of the story was too broad, and the material too deep and complex to serve the filmic format. While reading a book (of any kind) you can always sit back and reflect on the words contained in the text, in order to sort through the intricacies of what happened. In a movie, you don’t have this luxury, especially with “Watchmen,” where there is so much rich plot to get through. At nearly three hours, the length of the film is exhausting (and I prefer longer movies). I won’t say the film ever drags exactly, but it is so DENSE with so much happening all the time that when it was all over I felt drained. And I’m someone who actually knew the story.
I also think Zach Snyder was the wrong choice for director. While it’s clear Snyder respects the material on fanboyish levels, fanboys need to learn that adhering strictly to the source material doesn’t always make the best film. While I actually prefer the new Doc Manhattan ending (I hated the squid…sue me), too much of everything else seems so pulled right out from the comic that all it does is remind me how much better the comic is.
And unfortunately, most of the alterations Snyder does make are not for the better. All the over and under-cranking for the fast/slow-mo stylization that peppers his action scenes defeat the purpose of proving that these superheroes aren’t cool. “Watchmen” is a violent comic book too, but Snyder takes it to the extreme, causing the moments that should be violent surprises to lose their impact.
In one particular example, an assassin tries to shoot Adrian Veidt. In the comic, Veidt uses his physical prowess to stop the guy, and the guy dies. In the movie, the guy shoots a bullet, which goes through a girl’s leg. The girl stupidly screams in slow-motion. Veidt then spectacularly dodges a couple more bullets, as a couple more guys get shot and go down. What should have been a simple scene with simple execution becomes a pointless action sequence with senseless violence, ultimately causing the senseless violence that should be there (such as The Comedian’s taste for bloodshed) to lose its impact. The same holds for some added bloodshed when Rorschach is sprung from jail. There’s a whole stupid bit where a guy gets his arms sawed off that I’m pretty sure wasn’t in the book (please correct me if I’m wrong). The whole thing was gratuitous and should instead have been thrown in the next Tarantino film.
I would have rather seen “Watchmen” filmed as a straight drama, but I’m not sure that would have worked either. Unfortunately because of the movie’s length, scenes where characters talk about the weighty end-of-the-world stuff seem drawn out and hokey, which is a shame. Reading a monologue on the page can be gripping, but in a long and overly ambitious film, it just bogs things down. A lot of the “Rorschach’s Journal” stuff, which was sublime in the novel, seems almost campy on the big screen.
However what is almost more frustrating is that the movie gets certain things SO perfect that it is a disappointment when the rest of the film doesn’t meet those expectations. I absolutely ADORED the amazing opening title montage to Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’”, which so deftly explains the alternate history of costumed adventurers in America (how cool was it to see Comedian as one of the guys on the grassy knoll?). This is what Snyder needed more of…creative abridging that has the feel of the novel, while still being filmic.
Also, I felt the first sequence with Dr. Manhattan on Mars, where he flashes back to his origin story, was nothing short of transcendent. You could feel the awe of the audience in the theater. The use of music by Philip Glass, which is often thrown in movies for the wrong reasons, was a perfect fit here. Had the rest of the movie been equal to this scene, Snyder would have had a masterpiece on his hands.
In fact, small praise must be given to the use of music in the movie. Tyler Bates’ score was fine, although Bates has yet to really find a way to make any score “his own” yet (I actually met him last year, and he’s a very nice guy, so I have high hopes for his future). But I loved the use of so many classic rock tunes to set the tone of certain decades and scenes. Aside from what I already mentioned, I liked the use of “I’m Your Boogieman,” “Ride of the Valkyries” (for Vietnam of course), and especially “All Along the Watchtower” during the approach to Antarctica. Even Simon & Garfunkel’s “The Sound of Silence” worked for me.
Actually, the “All Along the Watchtower” bit was especially cool, since the song was quoted in the book, and the scene also had no dialogue. It was a purely filmic moment of the Owlship shooting towards the cold expanse of ice, and Snyder needed way more of this basic, visceral, visual stuff (that didn’t involve violence).
As a whole, it was also interesting that “Watchmen” still holds relevance today, and I must applaud Snyder for trying to make us aware of that. I liked that the New York skyline of Veidt’s corporate headquarters showed the twin towers in clear view, and I also really dug that when characters talked about the impending doom and the current state of the world, I couldn’t help but think about today’s economic crisis. Billy Joel was right…we didn’t start the fire…the world’s always been pretty fucked up. And even so-called “superheroes” can’t save us from that.
I now want to take some time to directly critique each of the performances by the main characters. I thought some of them did a great job, while others didn’t fit the bill:

1) Dr. Manhattan (played by Billy Crudup)—This was by far the most difficult of all the characters to pull off, and yet for me it wound up being the best performance of the bunch. I loved how Crudup managed to somehow portray Manhattan’s growing detachment from humankind, while still hinting at his haunted humanity lying underneath. It was an understated, yet brilliant performance, that for me was one of the few things the movie nailed (and I think all Crudup deserves all the credit). The line, “Why should I save a world I no longer have any stake in?” just WORKED in every way it should have. Bravo.

2) Rorschach (played by Jackie Earle Haley)—I could be wrong, but I always pictured Rorschach differently in the novel. I imagined him much more like a wild animal—quiet and whispery, but ready to pounce. That way, when he did lash out, you felt it more.
However many friends of mine told me this is exactly how they imagined Rorschach, so I’m willing to forgive. I just thought his constant growly voice was over-the-top and tiresome. However in the novel he is given that scratchy-looking lettering, so maybe I was incorrect about Moore’s intention. I do think that Haley was best as Rorschach once the mask came off and we saw him in prison. That’s where his performance really shined.

3) The Comedian (played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan)—Of all the performances in the movie, this was the one that surprised me the most. I found The Comedian despicable in the comic book (rightly so), but I actually came to love him in he movie. Movie-wise, he probably was my favorite of the bunch (after Manhattan), and I really think that after his presence is gone about an hour into the movie, the film really lost some steam. Morgan imbues the Comedian with a sad sense of self-awareness (he knows what a dick he is), so that his “life is a big joke” ideals really shine through. In the scene where Nite Owl and Comedian disperse a crowd of protestors, the scene is again handled in lame-o Snyder-action fashion. However, in a golden moment, the sequence ends with Comedian turning around and giving Nite Owl the perfect look of smugness and sadness, while framed by an American flag tainted with graffiti. “I am the American Dream!” he shouts. Nice.

4) Nite Owl II (played by Patrick Wilson)—This one was a bit of a bummer for me. In the book, Nite Owl was probably tied with Rorschach for my favorite character. I often fantasized that in a perfect acting world, I’d have a chance to play him someday. Then again, I also had the same fantasy about Rorschach. But I still really loved the guy.
Unfortunately, Patrick Wilson was sort of…blah. He went for Dreiberg’s geeky aspects, but never really pulled them off. He just looked too damn good in that redesigned Nite Owl suit, and his frumpiness was lost (as an aside, I really DO want that suit, though). I’m not sure if it was all entirely Wilson’s fault though, since I think one of the weakest cast members was probably the girl he had to work closely with, being…

5) Silk Spectre (played by Malin Akerman)—To be fair, Silk Spectre was also one of the weaker characters in the comic book. And it’s tough to be the only superheroine in such a boys’ club. Even so, I think it is fairly clear that Akerman was in over her head from the beginning. Any scenes with her instantly fell down a notch. When she was with Dr. Manhattan on Mars, what had before been amazing (when he was alone) shifted to become standard. And I think it was likely mostly her fault that the stuff with Nite Owl didn’t come together. Also, I must admit I spent very little time actually watching her performance, since I spent most of the time watching her butt. So for that she was well-cast.
Also, shame on Snyder for the soft-core porn scene. I know we’re trying to tap in on the superhero fetishism, but come on! You had the same issue with that ridiculous sex scene in 300. I am starting to wonder whether Snyder really respects women much at all--perhaps that’s why Silk Spectre didn’t feel right. Maybe it’s not all Akerman’s fault…it’s Snyder’s (naw, it’s probably still Akerman’s).

6) Old Silk Spectre (played by Carla Gugino)—I admit I have a milf-crush on Carla Gugino, and I normally love her in just about anything. And I thought she did a great job channeling her inner pin-up girl as young Sally Jupiter.
Unfortunately, Gugino did nothing to change her performance when she got older, and this was a big failing. No alteration in voice or movement…nothing. Also, for such a big budget film, the makeup artistry on her was terrible. Not just on her in her older years, but also on Richard Nixon, who looked more like Pinocchio. Seriously, what were they thinking?

7) Ozymandias (played by Matthew Goode)—I found Ozymandias to be the weakest link of the group. In the comic book, Ozymandias is not only super-intelligent, but is also physically exquisite as well (sort of like the god Apollo in human form). However I’m all for changing things in a film for the right reasons. The film’s Ozymandias is very willowy, almost fragile. I suppose the idea was that you wouldn’t expect him to be the (SPOILER) villain, but unfortunately it didn’t work. The final showdown in his Antarctic lair was probably the weakest scene of the film, made worse by chaotic pointless fight scenes. And as an aside, while I don’t like to gripe about omissions from the novel, where was his awesome arboretum? It was one of my favorite images from the book! I also was really dying to see the Nite Owl’s sweet snow scooters (a stupid wish, I know), but they were absent too.
Pretty much the only thing I liked about Ozymandias was his pet kitty Bubastis, whose recreation was actually pretty cool.

So there you (mostly) have it. When the film was over, I turned to David and Sean, and commented, “Well…good hustle.” I really think the filmmakers tried. They gave it their all. They cared about what they were doing. They were (perhaps too) respectful of the source material.
But my fears for Snyder as director were correct. His “Ooo super-cool” style of filmmaking didn’t fit, and he is too early in his career to handle really heavy stuff just yet. He’s still too much into cool visuals, and not as into actors right now.
So is “Watchmen” unfilmmable then? I think so, and am fairly convinced it should never have been made into a movie in the first place. But it will make money, and sadly, that is what drives studios these days. I mean, Warner Bros. And Paramount practically killed themselves over this film. It’s a harsh reality that is causing me to become a tad bitter about Hollywood. Even many of the people I work with, at a freaking trailer house full of editors who, for all intents and purposes, should still be budding artists of some kind, tend to judge the quality of a film by how much money it has made. One friend of mine from work, only my age (and at my level, just out of school), likes to take bets on how much dough the latest big budget release will make over the weekend. A part of me wants to scream “Who cares about how much money it will make?! Will it touch anybody? Make anyone feel anything genuine?”
I’d rather make a film that only reaches a handful of people, but reaches them deeply and genuinely, than cast a wide net and try to please everyone (and take their money). Because if you do the latter, you reach no one, and your film is hollow. I wish studios would understand this.
But back to my earlier question…is “Watchmen” unfilmmable? Probably, but then again, people said the same thing about “The Lord of the Rings,” and I think those turned out awesome. It’s pointless (but fun!) to speculate, and I wonder how “Watchmen” would have done as a mini-series. Or what would have happened if they had handed it off to a director who knows how to balance special effects with dramatic performances. What would David Fincher have done, as a guy who knows how to make an incredibly long film actually work? Hell, even Steven Spielberg might have been a worthy choice.
Sadly, they gave it to Synder, and while I think he is talented, I wish he hadn’t taken this project. Because while the “Watchmen” movie got some things right, it tended to skimp out on the overall themes, and severely lacked the impact the book had. Ultimately, that just winds up cheapening the source material, not respecting it.
But oh well. I still have my yellow hard copy, sitting on my bookshelf. Squid and all.

Also, if my rant wasn’t enough, I wanted to point out a great review from comingsoon.net. They gave the movie a higher star rating than I would have, but I think the reviewer and I agreed on a lot of stuff. Check it out.

And I also thought this was pretty funny.