Comments on: Watchmen: A Clone without a Soul

By: sallyfw

sallyfw — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:08:12 +0000

I have never read the book, and I hadn't even heard of it until I started to see posters for the film. To me, the character of Rorschach is like his mask, black and white, but also, like the rorschach test, he sees what everyone else sees, but interprets it his own way.
In the scene mentioned above where he takes out vengeance on the murderer and child molester, I don't think that people were cheering for the fact that we were seeing brutal violence. I believe that people have a dented view of justice and are tired out with stories of the actual justice system and due process so often failing. I think that watching that scene, we assume that if the guy goes to jail, he'll somehow be on the street again in a short while. Rorschach, like so many super heroes is able to give swift justice, and he gives the audience closure, a feeling that something was done. I don't think that our culture has yet become so completely twisted that we would cheer at how violent that scene is just because it was so brutal. I had to turn away while it was happening, and in doing so saw many others doing the same. It was horrific, but I think people still enjoyed it because of the satisfaction that it brought.
In the scene with the final confrontation between Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach you see his intensely unyielding picture of life in his refusal to compromise even the slightest in the face of death. He stands there knowing he's about to die, but still refuses to allow for any gray area in his morals.
Even though I felt he should have behaved differently, or allowed for some compromise, I had to side with him because of the distaste of what Dr. Manhattan and the others were proposing. It's sad to me that it was plausible for the people of the world to need a higher power to blame for all of their problems and mistakes. I found myself wondering if people actually view the world that way, if people actually want a scapegoat to persecute … and if they actually think that would solve their problems.
On a lighter note, the visuals were stunning, and the acting was phenomenal.

By: sallyfw

sallyfw — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:08:12 +0000

By: RichardFannon

RichardFannon — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:28:45 +0000

Gratuitous? It's in the book. However, the flame-thrower metaphor at the end of the scene just doesn't work in the movie

By: goldenj

goldenj — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:26:34 +0000

I disagree with Dr. Higgin's, though, as usual, I respect his opinion. Aspects of the movie heightened the portrayal of the moral and ethical aspects of the story as compared with the book. Jackie Earle Haley's portrayal of Rorschach, for example, brought his character's point of view to life for me. The final confrontation between Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach really resonated for me in a way the page didn't.

I do think the amazing visual obscures the morality play, as Dave Gibbon's (book artist and movie consultant) restrained page structure leaves the reader free to contemplate where as the movie's visuals are enthralling. (Really, in most cases, Gibbon's vision set free of boundaries.) The revised ending emphasized all the heroes part in the narrative and was an improvement over the book as well as a good movie decision.

The audience's cheering at the Rorschach's act of violence is more about us and our culture's love of vengeance than about a director's decision. The act of violence is actual less brutal than that in the book, and contextualized by a character's justification.

I'd love to hear in the comments here from someone who has seen the movie but not read the book.

By: kevin47

kevin47 — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:41:55 +0000

This is why it makes no sense to cater to the comic fanboyz who insist that every film be “true” to the original. The result is always anything but.

That said, I hear the film did throw in some gratuitous sex. Nary a peep from the geeks on that one.