Look on my works, ye mighty...

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my works. Ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Percy Bysshe Shelley, Ozymandias

I talked to Terry Gilliam in the '80s, and he asked me how I would make Watchmen into a film. I said, ''Well actually, Terry, if anybody asked me, I would have said, 'I wouldn't.'''

Alan Moore

Who watches the Watchmen? Well, last week it was me. Equipped with a bag of dry popcorn (damn you Laurie, for having ruined buttered popcorn for me) I settled in for the almost three hour marathon of Zack Snyder's take on what has arguably been called "the best comic book story of all time". However, it's also been referred to as arguably being unadaptable, and Alan Moore, who wrote the comic book, has refused to allow his name to be associated with the project.

The terrible thing about having read the original series in the late 80's is that when watching the adaptation there was always a hint of checklist in the background. This constant little voice compared the film to the comic: "Right ... yes .... no ... yes ... no ... yes ... yes ... what? ... perfect ... nonono!!". As with The Lord of the Rings movies, I'm going to have to wait for a non-believer to see The Watchmen in order to find out if it makes any sense on its own. *

That being said, I have to admit that the movie completely captured my attention, to the point that, when it ended, my first thought was, "Wait, I thought it was supposed to be almost three hours long?". The odd thing is that I'm not sure it deserved that sort of immersion - as above, I'll have to ask someone who doesn't know the original material.

The Watchmen wavers between moments of complete imitation of the comic book and points of complete departure. Some plot elements are diminished or removed entirely, others are magnified from their original significance. For example, the character of the Comedian holds a larger part of the stage than he did in the comic, whereas Rorschach seems reduced, and a subplot revolving around the original Night Owl has vanished completely. The Ozymandias portrayed in the original series came across as a perfect man, a physical and intellectual paragon who sincerely believes that his actions are in the best interests of humanity and that the end will justify his means, but I found the movie character to be much colder, almost repellent - it's interesting that they made his costume black rather than the comic book character's golden outfit.

There were a number of visual elements of that nature that bothered me on an almost subliminal level, little changes from the comics that weren't vital but which were a bit distracting in combination with the elements that were faithfully duplicated. Rorschach, the Comedian, and Dr. Manhattan are portrayed exactly as in the comic, whereas Ozymandias, Night Owl and Silk Spectre have their costumes changed to a greater or lesser extent.

But I have to say that I was astonished by how much some of the people resembled the characters as drawn by Dave Gibbons. Jackie Earle Haley perfectly evokes Rorschach in the scenes where he appears without his mask, and the Night Owl's alter ego of Dan Dreiburg as portrayed by Patrick Wilson is flawless. There were some minor flaws in the Comedian's progression in age, but Jeffrey Dean Morgan gives the role exactly the right kind of cynical, brutal amusement.

Overall, I found The Watchmen to be a good attempt to adapt something so widely considered to be unadaptable. I say "attempt" because I'm not sure that it succeeds as a whole, but the sum of the parts involved compensates for the places where it fails. Oh, and as per my previous posting on the topic, yes, the ending is radically different in its direction if not in its result. I can understand why they would make the changes they made, and I admit that the ending of the comic book version has been subjected to a certain amount of criticism as having elements of absurdity, but I don't agree with the spin that the new ending forces onto the reactions of the other characters.

One of the elements that made The Watchmen a difficult work for adaptation is the episodic nature of the original story. The logical breaks at the end of each issue allowed for a chapter-based rhythm to the plot structure and for the inclusion of a wide variety of supporting textual material - excerpts from the original Night Owl's biography, Rorschach's psychiatric profile, interviews with Jon Veidt/Ozymandias, and so on - that would be impossible to include in a movie. However, I look forward to seeing if the Watchmen DVD will re-introduce any of those elements once the story has been removed from the exigencies of commercial release. Who knows, if they put some work into that, Alan Moore may even allow them to put his name on it.

- Sid

* Fortunately my friend Alan in Toronto, who hasn't read the comic - and who doesn't read this blog, as far as I know - will likely be able to act as a neutral observer. (He performed a similar role for the Lord of the Rings movies, with which he was also unfamiliar in their written form. Sadly, young Alan is not a big fan of reading.)

"I have been faithful to thee, o Watchmen! in my fashion."

 Many years ago, there was a Jesus comic book.

Written and drawn by Frank Stack under the pseudonym of Foolbert Sturgeon, the concept for this early 70's underground creation was that Jesus had come back to Earth, as had been long awaited, but unfortunately no one cared. And, sadly, Jesus had the same problems with modern life that any long-haired sandal-wearing peace-loving hippy would have, albeit with the ability to turn abusive police officers into actual pigs.

In one issue of The New Adventures of Jesus, Christ goes to the movies to see a film adaptation of the New Testament. He sits enthralled as a muscular, almost Hulk-like screen Jesus fights an equally buff John the Baptist in the early stages of the movie, in the traditional Marvel Comics style hero-meets-hero combat. And, at the end of the movie, when the celluloid Christ uses his cross as a massive weapon to fight the legions, then rallies the Jews and defeats the Roman invaders, Jesus applauds wildly with the rest of the audience.

As the theatre empties, two people behind Jesus are discussing the film. One of them says, "The end's not like the book..."

And so, to the upcoming screen adaptation of The Watchmen.

For readers unfamiliar with The Watchmen in its original comic book form, it was a 12 issue limited series originally published by DC in 1986. Written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, it took place in an alternate universe, one where Batman-like vigilantes have been fighting crime for decades, until they are finally declared to be as illegal as their criminal adversaries. In addition, another hero has appeared on the scene, one whose powers are literally godlike. The plot starts with the death of one of the retired heroes (who may not have been that retired) and follows the various characters of the disbanded Watchmen group as they attempt to solve the mystery behind the death, only to uncover a massive conspiracy.

However, that quick summary does an enormous injustice to the series. The Watchmen is considered to be a seminal work, "a comic about comics". Alan Moore's script was intended to turn the myth of the masked avenger on its head, to "show a reality that was very different to the general public image of the super-hero", as Moore himself explained. Every element of the story was planned and considered, from the creation of the archetypal heroes to the development of the style of colouring through the twelve issues, and down to the 9-panel layout and the type of line used to draw the illustrations.

More interestingly, it was also planned to be a demonstration of the unique nature of the comic medium. In fact, it could be said that The Watchmen was deliberately created in opposition to movies, which might explain why a movie adaptation was considered impossible for many years, in spite of the popularity of the series.

But time marches on, and comic books have now become a gold mine for the movie industry. As such, it was inevitable that someone would take up the challenge of The Watchmen. The question, of course, was how they would undertake that challenge.

There are three major points on the curve of comic book adaptation. At one end, you have complete, slavish obedience to the source material - Sin City, 300 - wherein the movie is as close to a one-to-one reproduction of the comic as possible. The middle position involves some compromise, but does its best to be true to the spirit of the original material - the Spiderman and X-Men movies, Hellboy, Iron Man. And at the far end of the curve? Presumably with the best intentions, liberty after liberty is taken, and you end up with Elektra, V, The Hulk, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - and maybe Constantine.


Early evidence is that the Watchmen movie falls between slavishness and compromise, with critical scenes being extracted with complete faithfulness to the look of the comic panels. Initial reactions to trailers have been quite positive because of that, with fans of the comic applauding the accuracy with which they see the comic transferred to the screen. There are some differences - some of the costumes have been altered, some of the faces aren't perfect matches for their four-colour counterparts - but so far, people are seeing what they want to see.

However, I recently learned that director Zack Snyder had changed the ending of the film from the apocalyptic conclusion of the comic. I gather that there's still some form of deus ex machina to pull the scattered threads of the conspiracy plot together, but not the one written by Alan Moore.

Personally, I find it to be an odd decision for Snyder to have made, and, to be honest, learning that the ending has been changed casts the whole project into doubt for me. The Watchmen comics present an intensely detailed and layered story, with a wealth of supporting material. Why be careful in ensuring that all the details are accurate if you're not using those details to reach the same conclusion? It's like doing a completely historically accurate presentation of Romeo and Juliet, at the end of which the lovers elope to Mantua.

However, I have to be fair. It could be argued that the plot of the comic series was almost irrelevant, more an excuse for the interaction and development of the characters than an attempt at brilliance. As Dave Gibbons himself commented regarding the plot, "...it just really isn't the most interesting thing about Watchmen. As we actually came to tell the tale, that's where the real creativity came in."

On that basis, any ending that allows for the same degree of depth and creativity in the telling of the tale and the exploration of the characters might turn out to be just as acceptable. And who knows, it may be an improvement on the original. After all, Jesus seemed quite pleased with the Rambo version of His story.

- Sid

"See, there were these two guys in a lunatic asylum..."

Batman: "I don't know what it was that bent your life out of shape, but who knows? Maybe I've been there too. Maybe I can help. We could work together. I could rehabilitate you. You needn't be out there on the edge any more. You needn't be alone. We don't have to kill each other."

"What do you say?"

The Joker: "No. I'm sorry, but... No. It's too late for that. Far too late. Hahaha. Y'know, it's funny. This situation. It reminds me of a joke..."

"See, there were these two guys in a lunatic asylum..."

Alan Moore, The Killing Joke

Great things are being said about the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight, with a lot of attention being given to the late Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker. I was surprised to discover that the look of the original Joker was inspired by a 1928 silent film entitled The Man Who Laughs, based on a 1869 Victor Hugo novel and starring Conrad Veidt in the title role. The bizarre grin sported by the protagonist is caused by deliberate mutilation when he is only two years old.

I haven't seen the new movie yet (I like to give it a couple of weeks in order to let the fanboy community get out of the way) but I've heard a couple of people comment with surprise on how the Joker is portrayed as a complete anarchist, a villain with no motive other than the creation of chaos. I've also heard some media commentary on how the Batman is presented in a darker fashion, more brutal than previous incarnations.

Really? My god, where have you people been? Oh, sorry, I tend to forgot that the mainstream only knows Batman from the 60's TV series and the movies - which is unfortunate, since they really haven't done justice to any of the characters. In fact, the closest that the popular media have come to a satisfactory portrayal of the Batman and his villains is in the three animated series done over the last few years. (For you trivia fans, Mark Hamill of Star Wars fame was the creator of the superb Joker voice in Batman: The Animated Series.)

Recommended reading would have to be DC Comic's The Killing Joke, now celebrating its 20th anniversary. Brian Bolland, the artist, is not at his best with Batman, but his portrayal of the Joker as a grotesque clown is perfect. Alan Moore's script is equally perfect, and leads one to wonder about the difficulties of writing from the perspective of a character who is insane.

Less approachable is the 1989 graphic novel Arkham Asylum, written by Grant Morrison and illustrated by Dave McKean. This experimental work, done with a combination of illustrative techniques, points out the essential truth of the Batman series: all of the characters, including Batman himself, are insane.

Notice that no one ever goes to prison - the criminals are all incarcerated in an asylum for the criminally insane. And Batman, as much as any of his opponents, is psychotic: the product of a childhood trauma that created an obsession with cold, hard, rigorous justice that has extended to a schizoid alter ego that dresses like a bat and stalks the night in search of criminals, each of whom represents, in some way, the man who killed his parents. As the Joker observes in Arkham Asylum when one of the other inmates says that they should take off Batman's mask and see his real face, "Oh, don't be so predictable, for Christ's sake! That is his real face."

- Sid

P.S. I feel like someone who's gone into the supermarket for milk and come out with $200 of groceries. Originally all I was going to do was mention the Conrad Veidt connection for the look of the Joker, but an hour later, which included digging out The Killing Joke and scanning the cover, I end up with a psychological treatise...