I'm trying not to say "resonant", but it was

[freckles_and_doubt]

Things that have recently made me happy:

• A warm, fresh, squishy chocolate doughnut for breakfast. I feel entitled, because I came in to work later than usual and the traffic made me grumpy. Grumping burns calories. Fact.
  
• Dave McKean - not just the beautiful, incredible images here, but his somewhat irreligious views on religion:

  ... a place called Heaven is only ever going to exist as an overpriced nightclub, so I guess I would hope to hear God say, “this margarita’s on me.”

• Watchmen. Gawsh.
  
  First off, in almost all respects I loved Watchmen. The mood, tone, feel, look of the film were, I thought, spot on, a slavishly faithful reproduction of Alan Moore's vision - in fact, I hope he actually gets off his sanctimoniously irritable butt and sees this one, it might restore his faith in the ability of contemporary cinema to do anything worthwhile with his graphic novels. (I like and respect most aspects of Alan Moore's work at the same time as not particularly liking him as a person, at least in the interviews and what have you I've come across. He takes himself waaaaay too seriously).
  
  The film is beautifully staged and shot, especially in period detail, and I thought it was immaculately cast - so refreshing to have an ensemble of interesting people rather than The Usual Obvious Big Names With Pretty Bodies. The Comedian, Nite Owl/Dan Drieberg, Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach were particularly good, pretty much inhabiting and animating Moore's character constructs - the Comedian, in particular, was horribly compelling. (I liked Ozymandias, he was compelling and believable, but just a tad fey. It's also, incidentally, telling that the strongest characters are male - that's Moore's fault as much as anything, he doesn't give the women much depth or agency. Nonetheless, the awkward insecurity and general lameness of the Nite Owl/Silk Spectre romance really worked for me). The film also managed to reproduce the dense texture of the graphic novel, the incredible amount of throw-away commentary, detail and reference which pack the frames - for this reason alone I'm going to have to acquire the DVD for re-watching, it'll almost certainly keep on giving on the detail front. It's also going to be an education in period reference as much as anything else, a lot of the nods to famous figures went straight over my head. (I'll swear Andy Warhol was in there somewhere, though).
  
  There were, however, some things I didn't like, which somewhat flawed the experience for me.
  
  • The violence. The graphic novel is gritty, nasty and violent, but the depiction of gore is understated and emblematic, quite often represented by implication rather than explicitly. Zach Snyder wouldn't know restraint if it wrapped him up in chains and latex and nailed him to the table - I basically didn't look at the screen during some of the nastier moments (Rorschach and the child-killer, or the prison scenes). More fundamentally, though, Synder obviously didn't get the very important focus in the graphic novel on the idea of vigilante superheroes who are actually normal people, albeit highly trained or, in the case of Ozymandias, highly intelligent. The whole point is the giant chasm between Dr. Manhattan's genuine superpowers, and the fading abilities and agency of the normal humans. Fights in the film were hyper-real, the force, effect and sound of blows way beyond the physically possible. Whole textual and thematic complexities are lost when Rorschach floats rather than jumps, or Silk Spectre can disintegrate a limb with a punch. It was stylish, sexy, extremely superheroic, and completely wrong.
    
  • The ending. They bloody left out the giant telepathic squid. I love that squid, and the whole baroque improbability of Ozymandias's plot, and I really didn't think it worked to shuffle the whole thing off onto Dr. Manhattan. It made him into the big blue teacher with the ruler ready to slap humanity's wrist if they didn't clean up their act, rather than the far more terrifying and inexplicable nest of implications which the creature brings. Also, I really don't think it was necessary to nuke that many cities. Snyder, restraint, chains, nailed to the table, yadda yadda.
    
  • Richard Nixon's conk. Also baroque and improbable, and horribly distracting.
  
  Nonetheless, flaws aside, I think it worked, I don't think it betrayed the novel, and I think Alan Moore should count his blessings, frankly.

Things that have recently made me cross: traffic. Also, my bloody glands are all sore again, which means the total exhaustion of the last couple of days, and concomitant desire to murder my alarm clock, are probably glandular fever doing its happy thing again. Bollocks.

Comments

Putting the Man in Manhattan

[(Anonymous)]

Heaven is expensive, but the shirtless barmen are nice. ;-)

Glad you also liked Watchmen. You're right - the Nite Owl Warhol-esque print was a neat twist.

pK.

Trivial pursuits

[first-fallen.livejournal.com]

Have you read the trivia on IMDB? It's fascinating! Tom Cruise, Simon Pegg and Jude Law possibilities for Rorshach!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/trivia

Re: Trivial pursuits

[extemporanea.livejournal.com]

Tom Cruise and Jude Law for Ozymandias, Simon Pegg for Rorschach. It's a testament to the good casting/acting in the film that I can't imagine anyone else doing justice to the roles. Jude Law may have worked, but the Cruiser? Please! You're right, though - fascinating trivia. It's solidifying my need to find a DVD copy and watch with lots of pausing to pick up the background detail.