I’m a writer. That’s the kind of gambit that gets people in trouble – Rip Torn in ‘Wonder Boys’ comes to mind, the appellation apparently being evoked as the beginning and end of his vocation: he seems to believe that ‘being’ a writer is more important than ever actually writing anything. So I know I am stumbling where angels fear to tread.
My reason, however, for saying that I’m a writer is that in a few minutes’ time I will go to an opening day screening of the most talked-about literary adaptation of the year: ‘Watchmen’.
As I writer, I am also a reader; and I was generously granted Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ extraordinary piece of work as a Christmas gift. It’s magnificent – so detailed, so rich with psychological nuance, so serious, so honest – a hyper-realised vision of what a world with real superheroes would really be like.
I’ve read half of it.
I put it aside a few weeks ago, in the cause of an experiment for you, Dear TFT listener. My genial co-host Jett has apparently devoured all things ‘Watchmen’ since the dawn of time. So I imagine the film pleasing his highly tuned critical faculties will be a long shot. I will read the novel next week. But between now and then, I’ll see it – on an IMAX screen – this afternoon; think about it tomorrow; record the next episode with Jett on Sunday; and you’ll be able to hear it on Monday.
So, to discuss: Should you read the book (any book) before you see the film based on it? If we assume that ‘novelizations’ of films are usually superficial, why shouldn’t it always work the other way? Given that the experience of reading a book is so profoundly different to watching a film (words are different than images of course, but also you’re alone, you’re in space you control, it takes longer, for a start), is any comparison between the two media purposeless? In short, even if, as has been rumoured, ‘Watchmen’ departs from the original novel’s plotline, isn’t it possible that I could enjoy them both equally anyway?
- – -
UPDATE: Our 40 minute podcast analysis on the failure of ‘Watchmen’ is now online.
posted in forum Miscellaneous by zad1138
posted in forum Miscellaneous by seanpdudley
posted in forum General Movie Stuff by seanpdudley
posted in forum General Movie Stuff by Jett Loe
posted in forum General Movie Stuff by prawnman
Wait – so what you're telling me Dr. Higgins – is that you're going to see the film before reading the rest of the book?
Please don't.
Really.
The film looks…oh, how shall I say it?
Awful.
If you can please read the second half of the book before you see…whatever it is up on the screen.
You absolutely MUST finish reading it before seeing Watchmen. If it was at all possible I would suggest reading it multiple times before seeing the… film.
Even if it is just so you can define the characters voices and nuance in your own head before seeing Snyder's interpretation. As a writer, I would imagine you can appreciate that the film adaptation is so.. shallow, and that reading the book after will be destroying any hope you have of experiencing the 3 or 4 best moments of the book.
Plus after seeing this mashup… I am tempted to avoid the film all together: http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2009/03/every-watch… and may just watch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0426592/
and then of course there's this:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797#
+ on second thought one might regard Dr. Higgins' actions as heroism = he's sacrificing his experience reading that fine book as an experiment for us, his readers.
Still wish he wouldn't do it though.
You can also check out director of 'Watchmen' Zack Synder's analysis of a scene in the film:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/05/m…
notice how he doesn't actually say anything other than, 'yeah we had extras, and stuff going on, some dialogue here'…
sigh.
oh Gilliam = what if?
http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/02/21/the-imagi…
“Oh, look a ship!!”
yeah.
sigh.
Sounds like not reading the book is the only way to enjoy the film.
Roger Ebert gave it an “A”. I have the feeling I will enjoy the movie, possibly because I haven't read the book.
Roger Ebert thinks Spiderman 2 is the best superhero movie ever.
I think you may be onto something there Phil –
does mean that Gareth won't like the first half, but enjoy the second?
we shall see…
Ebert's been generous in doling out the 4 stars – but I understand where he's coming from, it's hard to make a movie!
In short, I think the answer would be – Possibly. Personally, I can think of movies I've seen before having read the books, and I enjoy them each on their own merits. Though, there are also movies I've seen after I've read the books they were based on that I have enjoyed and some I was very disappointed with.
Of course it's different for adaptations from straight 'text' = if you see the film first the 'visualisation' will influence how you see the book in your mind while reading –
whereas 'Watchmen' is a moving illustrated version of the comic..kind of –
seems to be a kitsch storyboard translation – the book as Thomas Kinkade painting
no.
and one question: how could you NOT finish it?! ;)
I enjoyed the film version of Wonder Boys more than the book, so sometimes it works that way round.
Read Watchmen earlier this year, just the once. Saw the film last night and thought that they made a pretty decent stab at nailing the tone and the characters (particularly Nite Owl). But that's me speaking as someone who was suitably impressed with book rather than a life long devotee.
..and I think that's the reason that I will really enjoy the movie – I have never seen the book, and the movie will be my first exposure to the story, which I'm very intrigued by.
I remember reading Jurassic Park after seeing the movie and thinking how much more frightening the book was (and how much different the movie could have been).
Yes indeed – I read the book first and the first director that sprang to mind was James Cameron, if he had adapted it his version would have retained the ick factor. As much as I love Spielberg's work, Jurassic Park not a great film on reflection. And the sequel I think he made in his sleep!
Ok friends of TFT. I can announce that I have now seen the film, at a packed IMAX theatre north of Atlanta, yesterday afternoon. I don't want to pre-empt the episode that my genial co-host and I will be recording tomorrow; but I shall say this – I always fully intended to read the book, and chose to postpone completion so that I could watch it as an experiment in reflecting on literary adaptations. That experiment will only be complete when I finish reading the book and see the film again. Which I will do. Gladly. But don't be misled – I think there's a lot wrong with this movie. But there's a whole lot right with it too.
I look forward to finding out what you think is right the film. I found it execrable – the strongest parts of the book – the ones that really touched you – the most human – were, all, to a scene, NOT in the film, (the murder of Hollis Mason, the relationship of the Cab driver and her lover, the story of the young man and the newspaper vendor, the death of the 3 assistants in the snow etc.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AratTMGrHaQ
That moment is the picture maybe when I actually yelled out at the screen.
Hallelujah?
Are you kidding me?
Universally regarded as the most overused contemporary piece of music in movies… so yeah.
What a depressing experience.
I would love to have the “Jett Loe Experience” at a movie somtime – witnessing Jett becoming so agitated that he shouts at the screen…deciding whether to storm off or not….fantastic.
And Gareth, I'm guessing you were at one of our 400 malls called the Mall of Georgia? If so, I hope you enjoyed the merry-go-round inside, which my friend Tac built.
I'm trying get better Phil – really I am…
but…
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vi…
Yeah OK — it's bad enough he's still on MySpace (that should probably be warning enough)…and perhaps he's just a cooler version of Michael Bay.
At any rate, am going to Watch The Watchmen today – am going in with a positive attitude.
Watchmen vs Zack Snyder
I had tried to read watchmen back in the 90's, and I'll be honest I never really got into it… But when I heard that they were making a movie I read it, and reread it over the last few years and I can truly appreciate it.
The comic itself was a turning point, and it wasnt that it was unique – but instead that it both critiqued and analysed everything that came before it.
- what would it actually take in a real world for someone to dress up in a costume. If they did wouldnt that person literally become a sociopath?
- If someone was superpowered – how would that impact their lovelife and connections with humanity?
- How would the rest of humanity truly look at heroes?
- What is the connection between violence/power/control and sex?
- What is the role of homesexuality and fetishism in comics
- As we age and mature – how do we pass that on to our children and avoid damaging or controlling them?
- How do we deal with a world that is changing so fast, and that uses us up, spits us out and in the end will destroy us.. How do we find hope and joy in this world.. or even a sense of purpose or meaning?
- And despite however amazing the world is – we will always have a need and desire for escapism. You see this in the black frieghter comic
- How politicians and people of power will always seek to control and win and dominate – they are reactionary and respond only to fear. Fear of losing thier power.. fear.. fear.. and more fear. and in the end it wasnt hope or a sense of higher purpose or ideals that saved us… but a very very delicate balance based on a greater fear.
This comic is praised so much, and over the past few weeks critics just say that it is a great comic universally – but never actually say why it is great. The comic is over 20 years old and the themes of Watchmen have been used and reused from Heroes, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and in some degree I will say that there is a part of me.. somewhere.. that says that this truly is the best Watchmen film that could possibly ever be made – but then there are also so many other things that absolutely made me shake my head. Now I will say that I feel snyder did a decent job, and in a way I almost don't feel that it is even fair to critique or judge this movie at all. This movie cannot be made. Its as if you tried to make Six Feet Under, The Wire or the Sopranos into a 2hr movie. Its too broad. its too epic.. and I know that they wanted to do it on HBO, but HBO said no. When the 3.5-4hr extended cut is released I will rewatch it, but even then I feel that you cant fix a bad recipe by making more of it.
Snyder seems to have largely traded the subtext, nuance and social exploration aspects of the work for an excuse to just make the most brutal and dark superhero movie he could. This isnt a terrible film… its amazingly reverent and loyal to the book – but it does so in a way that has actually misrepresented the original.
Imagine if you went to a art gallery and it had posters and lithographs of Michelangelo, Degas and Picaso all over the walls… you may take 4-5 minuites and walk around and look at them, and comment that they are nice… However, you can never call them art.. they have no soul, they reflect the light completely differently and they will miss all of the texture, nuance and history that the original have that make it a true work of art. Most importantly, you should never miss the opportunity to actualy see an original in Paris – and if you did, you would say, without any doubt – “Wow, I had no idea, it does look completely different”.. the complexity of the colrs and the entire experience of seeing it would be completely different.
Snyder's film in dozens of ways has actually misreperesed the classic, and had traded substance for style, and is in a way satiring itself – which unfortunately becomes confusing and sloppy.
For instance, just to take a single aspect – Violence in the original work was the exact opposite of every other comic book. Violence was a poor sad desperate result of fear or desperation. It was a central pillar of every character.
Ozymandius killed the comedian because he was afraid his plan would get out. He was the Smartest man in the world… but like a paroah, or King.. he was completely alone. Like a machine.. a reflection of Dr Manhattan – he will do what is logical in order to save the world but his plan, and the violence was pure logic. It was not out of love or ethics… but just a mathmatical desperate decision.
Dr Manhattan was the mirror to Ozymandius in the fact that he was a central representation of love all thru the book. He truly loved Janey Slater. – but by being transformed into Dr Manhattan.. by actually being the representation of wish fullfillment an dhaving all of teh pwer in the world, he lost/chose to stop loving her. He abandoned his role as a husband and chose the love of another woman, Laurie – who ironicly did the same to him with Dan. It is only on Mars when Dr Manhattan see's the true complex beauty in Laurie that he begins to love again and becomes almost human again. Manhattan does several amazing things at the end of the book, all related to violence.
1. He choses to not stop or condemn Veidt. He literally choses pacifism. Just moments after reconnecting with his humanity, this is not his apathy or ambivilence – but he absolutely choses to stop the violence, both on Earth and in Antarica.
2. He murders Rorschach, or more accurately commits Euthanasia to end his tragic life. He could have left him out in the snow, of course he would have died and would have no opportunity to tell anyone. But he kills him to ease his pain. Again mirroring the sacrifice of millions in NYC
3. He doesnt attempt to reunite or reconcile with Laurie, he steps aside and literally disapears. He leaves to allow her and Dan to mature into fully functional adults. All 3 of them have now left their twisted violent/heroic ways and are now true mature adults and can have a relationship that isnt based on violence, S&M or approval of their mother/Hollis.
The comedian was a weak sociopath who used violece to control, dominate others – to the point of it becoming his career – in the end he realizes what a joke he is. He is mirrored by Rorschach whom shows how a life or repeated violence is literally so tragic and meaningless that he literally begs to be killed at the end of the story. Both men tried to find meaning in their life by dominating violence thru violence – ultimately both men were destroyed by it.
Violence is literaly a replacement for love or spiitual connection for both Nite Owl and the Silk Spectre. Hollis has actually moved on and found fullfillment in restoring old cars, mentoring Dan, and with the neighborhood kids. Hollis literally tells Dan to move on and he doesnt need to keep coming around, and Dan blows him off… not to be polite… but because Dan NEEDS Hollis.. Dan is so empty and is missing something in his life. All of his money has been given to him, he has no one to share his life with – and is so desperate for companionship he has named his ship, and is in twisted disfunctional relationships with both Rorshach and Sally (which eventually mature into more meaningful relationships).
I could write about this for hours but the violence in the book is a conscious tragic substitute for life and meaning. As the characters mature they either chose to change, or be destroyed by it. Unfortunately the movie doesnt truly illustrate this arc, but instead it celebrates the violence, amps it up and doesnt add to or make the connections.. but instead it blurs them and this can be said about several aspects of the fil such as the music, sex, and dialogue.
Just got back from seeing it.
I am inclined to go along w/ the good Prof. Dr. – some good/some bad.
I laughed out loud at “hallelujah”.
Loved every scene that “The Comedian” was in, loved every scene that <strike>Kelly Leak</strike> Jackie Earl Haley was in (but not as Rorschach).
Loved the brief backstory on the Minutemen.
Agree with you that so much more of the story could have been put in (from what I've gathered outside the movie) and less “mile high club” — also think one old man walked out of the theater due to too much Dr. Manhattan, if you know what I mean.
This is a great discussion… I wonder if TFT blog could host a poll about people's preferences regarding reading the book before or after seeing the movie (not just pertaining to the Watchman, but in general).
For me, I refuse to go back and read a book if I've already seen the film version. I've done it a handful of times and I've always felt as though the book becomes less powerful after seeing the film. I think its because after seeing the movie version I envision the images of the movie when reading. As opposed to reading a book first means I have to create my own images in my head and then seeing the film is just someone else's “version” of the images. Does that make sense?
The only problem with doing it this way is that once I find out a movie was a book first, I'll almost never watch it until I finish the book. Then I have stacks upon stacks of books from the library and I don't get to the movie until after it leaves the theater. Its quite the quagmire.
[...] An Experiment in (not) Reading a Film [...]
Agree.
Agree.