The Devil's Avocado

I think it’s a very strange thing for Alan Moore to disown (automatically) any movie version of his graphic novels.  True, history has been unkind to them - the atrocious, pukingly awful League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, for example, must have been disheartening.  However, he not only disowns them (and publicly admonishes them), but he refuses any acknowledgement or any money.

The strange thing to me, then: why does he allow the movie adaptations at all? Perhaps he is not as powerful as I think, perhaps it is ultimately up to the publisher whether or not the movie is sold to Hollywood.  But even in that case: why doesn’t he at least try to help in the process, assist in making the movie something he can be at least modestly proud of?

You’ve probably heard that he has condemned Watchmen as unfilmable.  That seems to be a fair assessment, actually - even if it comes from someone who apparently has a prejudice against the medium of Film.  There are some storytelling techniques used in comic books/graphic novels/whatever you want to call them that can only be used to full effectiveness in comic books/graphic novels/whatever you want to call them.  There is something inherently exciting about moving from panel to panel, chapter to chapter, watching action in freeze frame and so forth that is exclusive to comic books/yada yada yada/yada.

Watchmen, particularly, is a book of such bizarre complexity, such grotesque sci-fi twists, such unsettling brutality and awkward sexuality, such blatantly operatic musings on the meaning and darkness of heroics, humanity, space and time that you sort of need the removed format of bubble dialogue and stationary illustrations boasting muscled tights and impossible cleavage in order to give it any credence.  A real human on real celluloid (or real digital video, as the case often is nowadays) might have a more difficult time selling this stuff sincerely.

Certainly, many critics have decided not to swallow any of it.  Some have read the source material, some have not - but most have dismissed the thing as grim silliness, as immature…as sadistically, pointlessly, revoltingly violent.  It’s an understandable viewpoint, and this movie treads a fine line in retelling an outrageous story with an OUTRAGEOUS conclusion (slightly tweaked here to surprisingly welcome success, according to me).  It is a thorny pill to swallow indeed.

One thing I’ve found interesting is how critics seem convinced that the movie is completely under the spell of all the viewpoints of the troubled characters involved.  There are some messed-up, extreme viewpoints to be found, sure - some right-wing, totalitarian, eye-for-an-eye, individualistic, God complexes…yeah.  The solution at the end is completely that of an insane radical (however calm and genius the radical may seem). 

But it is the conclusion of ONE character (a very powerful person, yes, the “smartest man in the world”), not everyone involved.  He does eventually sway one other EXTREMELY powerful character to go along with the plan, absolutely, and it even seems to have accomplished its goal in creating worldwide peace.  I can understand if someone is appalled by the horrendous act committed to create said peace, it is appalling…but, really, I don’t think the story feels one way or the other towards it.  And that is the key.

Dr. Manhattan (the EXTREMELY powerful character described in the situation above) neither condemns nor condones the act - he says that; he says those words.  Yes, the solution seems to have succeeded (for the time-being), but another character does, in fact, argue that the solution actually deranges society, humanity.  The argument against the solution is very clearly shown with warts and all - the darkness of it might not shine through as some critics might hope, but neither is it publicized as perfectly spruce-clean.  It is a solution.  That is all.  It is something that happens, it is something that somebody does, that somebody (with great power) has faith in - that is all. 

That is all. 

The world can be good, it can produce good things - but the characters in this story have a hard time believing it…even though it is kinda their job to make good things happen.  They deal in the business of grimy, horrifying crime.  And during years and years of battling it, they slowly become infected by it.  They do not see the world as a good place, though some try to.  When a few of the characters believe in totalitarianism or savage justice - it is not the view of the story or the writer or the director being conveyed: it is the view of a character, an infected person, someone whose view of reality has been badly skewed.  Watchmen is a collection of ideas and characters and viewpoints and disagreeable activity compiled by a writer genuinely curious about what the powers and weaknesses of heroism can do to a person…and what giant consequences may develop from them.  

And, most devastatingly, it wonders aloud if any of it - the fire rescues, the conception of babies, the molestation and murder of children, the gruesome revenge, the nuclear ravaging of Earth - if any of that at all actually matters in the big picture.  Dr. Manhattan - a good guy, probably, and the ultimate superpower - finds it difficult to care about the well-being of fleeting humanity when everything ancient in the universe seems so much more profound and fascinating.  What a brilliant addition to the story this is by Moore.  If there is a moral to this story, it might come from Dr. Manhattan’s point of view:

Everything may be fleeting.  Everything may be good or may be wrong.  Everything might just have no meaning at all.  But the fact that any of it is happening is a miracle. 

Also, it’s a pretty cool soap opera action comic book stuff.  Silly and long and bloated, overcomplicated, overstuffed…gross.  But cool.

The movie version:

a) The actors all do a fine job trying to be serious and compelling whilst wearing tights and sputtering bubble dialogue. Zack Snyder also does a fine job bringing the book’s visuals to life, but could have tightened some of the narration’s drive.

b) The song choices are predictable and easy and a little bit cheesy, but I loved them all - it was as though this movie were a demented version of Forrest Gump!

c) It suffers a bit from the episodic nature of the story; it often needs to restart its engines after each of the “chapters”; it’s probably too long, maybe even too loyal - but isn’t awesome to see all this stuff played out on the big screen?

Alan Moore might not care for it, but I really really dig this movie.