Watchmen: Inspiring Idiocy Across the Country
Filed under: Action, New Releases, Warner Brothers, Fandom, Newsstand, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Fan Rant
I know, I know -- we're on Watchmen overload this week, and the last thing you probably want to do is read anything else about the film. But I can't resist. You see, I finally discovered the reason Watchmen should never have been filmed, and left on bookshelves to be discovered by generations upon generations of readers ... the film reviews.
Or specifically, the really idiotic reviews. Like Anthony Lane's piece in The New Yorker, which has had fandom all riled up since yesterday. I think Lane has been waiting a long time for this moment, sharpening his knife in slow, delicious pleasure in order to plunge it into the heart of geekdom. Lane is proud of the fact that he didn't get it; in fact he relishes it. He "never quite worked out" whether the costumed heroes had superpowers or not, and he's puzzled as to why the film is serious when it's based on a comic book. " "Incoherent, overblown, and grimy with misogyny, Watchmen marks the final demolition of the comic strip, and it leaves you wondering: where did the comedy go?"
So what the book was one of Time Magazine's 100 Best Novels? Poo to that! It's a geek thing, worse because it's a smart geek thing, and only the most pathetic of individuals could enjoy it: "Watchmen, like V for Vendetta, harbors ambitions of political satire, and, to be fair, it should meet the needs of any leering nineteen-year-old who believes that America is ruled by the military-industrial complex, and whose deepest fear-deeper even than that of meeting a woman who requests intelligent conversation-is that the Warren Commission may have been right all along."
I'm not sure which is more amusing -- the thought of The Village Voice, Rolling Stone, and Time Magazine* being staffed entirely by anxious virgins or that implication Mr. Lane would like us to know he doesn't fear women of intelligence.
Or specifically, the really idiotic reviews. Like Anthony Lane's piece in The New Yorker, which has had fandom all riled up since yesterday. I think Lane has been waiting a long time for this moment, sharpening his knife in slow, delicious pleasure in order to plunge it into the heart of geekdom. Lane is proud of the fact that he didn't get it; in fact he relishes it. He "never quite worked out" whether the costumed heroes had superpowers or not, and he's puzzled as to why the film is serious when it's based on a comic book. " "Incoherent, overblown, and grimy with misogyny, Watchmen marks the final demolition of the comic strip, and it leaves you wondering: where did the comedy go?"
So what the book was one of Time Magazine's 100 Best Novels? Poo to that! It's a geek thing, worse because it's a smart geek thing, and only the most pathetic of individuals could enjoy it: "Watchmen, like V for Vendetta, harbors ambitions of political satire, and, to be fair, it should meet the needs of any leering nineteen-year-old who believes that America is ruled by the military-industrial complex, and whose deepest fear-deeper even than that of meeting a woman who requests intelligent conversation-is that the Warren Commission may have been right all along."
I'm not sure which is more amusing -- the thought of The Village Voice, Rolling Stone, and Time Magazine* being staffed entirely by anxious virgins or that implication Mr. Lane would like us to know he doesn't fear women of intelligence.
Before you think I'm complaining because Lane gave it a negative review, let's look at the flip side of the coin from our favorite reviewer, Ben Lyons: "The Watchmen [sic] works for the same reasons that Batman and Iron Man did last year. The movie makes you think while simultaneously entertaining you. Sounds simple, but it's always the sign of a good film. And it seems like this is going to be the one film we're gonna see of this franchise. It wasn't like Zack Snyder was trying to setup the sequel. I really appreciate that." So do we, Mr. Lyons. So do we. Personally, I'm glad that you won't be spending sleepness nights wondering how the next installment of Watchmen will wrap things up.
So I'm sorry, Mr. Snyder. I'm in your corner, but I think Alan Moore might have been right on this one -- story complexities aside, the novel was unfilmable because the end result (good, bad, or ugly) is a gleeful ignorance. No one should revel in that (especially at The New Yorker) and film criticism is poorer for this kind of dreck. And the week is early. There's undoubtedly more to come.
* These are the publications quoted on the back of my copy of the book. Many intelligent and cultured individuals have praised it over the years, but they're all afraid of brainy women.
Indie Roundup: 'Sweetgrass,' 'Clarkworld,' 'Broken Embraces'
Shelf Life: Fight Club_thumbnail.jpg)
Watch: Famous 'Matrix' Scene Re-Created with LEGOs
Peter Jackson Says Spielberg's 'Tintin' is Done Filming, but...
Interracial Harmony: 'Ninja Assassin' vs. 'Blind Side'
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
3-04-2009 @ 12:34PM
dukrous said...
Why are we surprised about this? It's just like the previous generation's parents lamenting the end is nigh when Presley was dancing the Beatles had long hair.
Personally, I can't wait to see what we're complaining about when it's our kids doing weird stuff. I wonder if we'll remember the irony.
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 12:43PM
Rolando said...
I don't know, Elisabeth. I can agree that Lane is out for blood here, but having seen the first 18 minutes of the movie, I don't think he's too off base. The movie really does seem from the footage I've seen to be the teenage boy version of Watchmen. In the book a good deal of the violence takes place off panel and we're only witness to glimpses. This is what makes it so horrifying. You see one panel of the dog Rorschach has butchered. That's enough to send your imagination reeling. Snyder seems to relish and enjoy the violence in detail. A perfect example I can speak to because I've seen it is the murder of the Comedian. In the novel we see the aftermath, narrated by detectives with glimpses of what happened. Snyder shows the whole thing in bloody detail, mostly in his patent slo-mo. And here I can even agree with Lane's questioning of who has superpowers. As we've all seen in the trailer, the Comedian punches through a brick wall like it were nothing. If you didn't know he was supposed to be powerless because you'd read the book, the logical conclusion is he must have some super strength. After all, in TDK it took Bruce Wayne, already a paradigm of human perfection, a thick drill to cut bricks.
Obviously Lane doesn't want to get it. But you know what? I think Snyder wants to get it but doesn't. He's made just another superhero movie only with more violence and stylized shots than most. As of right now, while I can't agree with Lane's analysis of the book, everything I've seen leads me to believe his analysis of the movie is unfortunately accurate. A distinction which fandom isn't making and I'm not sure you are either.
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 1:18PM
Seraphflux said...
Rolando, too violent, regarding to an Alan Moore adaptation? And give me a break man...maybe it's you who has problems recollecting the graphic novel.
O.K., guys, we get it, Snyder is bad because his movies are violent, therefore we can watch 18 minutes of a film and argue with someone who has seens the movie in its entirety that they really didn't get it like we did, because they're fanboys...
And really, Nolan's Bruce Wayne is the paradigm if human perfection? Maybe you can't remember Batman Begins and TDK that well either...
3-04-2009 @ 2:23PM
Rolando said...
Seraphflux, if you must know my reading/watching habits, I just finished re-reading Watchmen this morning and I've seen Nolan's Batman movies more than I care to admit in public.
You may have misunderstood me on somethings and I admittedly may have hyperbolized. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and explain.
Obviously I can't tell you what the whole movie will be like. I'm just saying that based on what I did see, I understand where Lane is coming from.
On the subject of violence: I didn't say "too violent" I specifically pointed out examples about how they treated violence differently. Moore tends to give you one horrific image and let you extrapolate the rest. Snyder shows you the act of violence in detail. And yes, I think Moore's approach is far more effective and less childish than Snyder's. It's that approach, in fact, that makes Watchmen so powerful. We're forced to deal not with the violent act itself but the horrific aftermath, the part most comics (until then, at least) would leave out.
And obviously I meant a PHYSICAL paradigm of human perfection, being in shape, athletic, etc. not emotionally.
But really, in the end, all I'm saying is you can't use the graphic novel's brilliance or awards to defend the movie -- they're two different things.
3-04-2009 @ 3:24PM
Elisabeth said...
I'm not trying to defend the film by way of the book -- again, I haven't seen it yet, and I'm not going to make a judgment call based on a few clips. I could love it, I could hate it. Who knows.
My problem is actually what you're accusing me of ... Lane *didn't* make a distinction between the book and the film. The way he knocks Moore's dialogue and appearance while sneering at the film suggests he shares the same disdain for both. If he hated the book, I could respect that if he wasn't name-dropping "Maus" while simultaneously complaining that a comic "strip" movie isn't funny.
He's clearly out of touch, but rather than admitting it, he thinks it's a point of pride.
What I find really funny is that the last line of his review sums up exactly what Moore was trying to do with Watchmen -- but Lane stubbornly refuses to put 2 and 2 together.
3-06-2009 @ 4:13PM
aikenrc89 said...
"PHYSICAL paradigm"? Do you mean "paragon"? I don't see how a paradigm could be physical.
3-12-2009 @ 9:03AM
Mr. Stratford said...
I just can't believe Ben Lyons is one of your favorite reviewers. You had a good argument going until that point. The guy's a total d-bag.
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 12:49PM
Dash said...
So, what does he means by "where did the comedy go"? No, really, I just don`t understand. Does he want Adam West as Batman?
At least he said good things about Persepolis and Maus...
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 1:01PM
Kurt Munro said...
"she is played by Malin Akerman, whose line readings suggest that she is slightly defeated by the pressure of pretending to be one person, let alone two."
Best line ever in a movie review. Awesome.
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 1:11PM
temjinx1 said...
I've been noticing a disturbing trend today with movie review sites getting riled up about the negative reviews garnered by Watchmen so far. Granted the review by the guy mentioned is a bit off base but then thats his opinion that he is entitled to. I dont think that every bad review for this movie is a vendetta by critics to get revenge on comic/ graphic novel adaptions. Look so everyone doesnt absolutely love watchmen, big deal! Watch it and enjoy it if thats your thing but whats the point in dog piling on the reviews just because they dont share your view on the movie. I think that demeans the internet blogs as a source of good info and comes off as bit juvenile. This movie will not live or die by the critics we all know that. if people love it then they will tell their friends and family and they will go see it. thats what happened for V for Vendetta, Iron man and the dark knight.
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 3:03PM
Elisabeth said...
This post wasn't really about negative reviews though -- Watchmen is garnering about half and half, and I didn't curse the unborn children of anyone who didn't like it. I haven't even seen it yet. I could be one of those negative reviews.
But I do have a problem with a review like The New Yorker's, which is less about the film, and more about Lane delighting in being nasty and ignorant. I think it's important to call that kind of stuff out because we here on the Internet take a ton of flak for being ignorant, and not wanting to do journalistic research. If we published a review like that, it would be held up as an example of the idiocy and immaturity of bloggers,and seen as "flame bait" for hits.
If "Watchmen" the movie doesn't function on its own, that's what Lane should be concentrating on explaining. He's paid a lot of money to REVIEW the film, not to be lazy and fall back on snarking on the "virgin fanboys" because he's been asleep culturally for the last few years. If a reviewer is that out of touch with cinema and culture (hello, The Dark Knight?) then he has no business writing about either.
3-05-2009 @ 2:29AM
Andre Vanhorn said...
Without a doubt this guys review is a bit thick in the head, the comedy in comic strip thing is..."special" but what concerned me was at the same time your post went up I also read a hate filled view point from cinema blend as well that was calling for the death knell to print media journalism because none of them get it so it just seemed like a lot of fanboyism (fangirlism?) going around that were mad when their trophy movie wasnt loved by the masses. I appreciate the response to clear this all up. Love the site.
3-04-2009 @ 1:20PM
Cyhort said...
First of all I hated the Watchmen graphic novel. I thought it was complete garbage, so I'm not complaining that he trashed the film based off that comic. I'm complaining about how that reviewer is a complete idiot. Complaining that it's not FUNNY? Seriously? Does he think we're still in the 30's where every comic needs to be cute and funny-wait a second, in the 30's Batman had a gun and shot people so there goes that theory. Maybe he's just one of those stuck up "critics" that thinks video games and comic books are for children and/or retards and the only truly sophisticated form of entertainment is reading poetry from the beginning of last century while sipping a snifter of brandy and mentally composing his graduation speech about Karl Marx for Berkley.
Ok maybe that last one is reaching a bit but I could easily see someone as stupid as that reviewer being a fan of Marx.
Either way the guy should stick to reviewing things he at least knows SOMETHING about.
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 1:21PM
jack said...
I think that Lane is being closed minded about Watchmen. Just because something is a comic book doesn't mean it must be funny. I think that Elizabeth is completely right that this movie will be ruined by film reviews. And I am very disappointed that that is what will destroy this movie.
http://www.beyondrace.com
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 1:24PM
BloodwerK said...
I couldn't care less what he thinks about it. Him, or anybody else...
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 1:40PM
StanleyNickels said...
It reads a lot like he knew he was going to take a lot of heat from the fandom for not liking it and figured he may as well give them something to be offended about.
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 1:44PM
Sam said...
After reading Lane's review I am completely turned off by the whole thing. I won't be going to 'watch' any such half assed fanboy piece of garbage.
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 4:46PM
The Colonel said...
I think it's kind of ironic that now one has mentioned the money factor here... Watchmen is big business right now. In case you haven't noticed all the radio, print, internet, and televion ads out there already, not to mention all the press, the world wants to watch the Watchmen, and hollywood is looking to cash in (along with anyone else who can figure out an angle to play).
Most critics (and the publications they write for) are probably expecting a flood of gushingly positive reviews for this film and most of the press talks about how rabid the fanboys are about Watchmen, so what would sell papers more than writting something negative about it? Just think about how many people have visited The New Yorker website to read this guy's review. Think about all the hits that site is getting from people who would never normally even glance at it, but are curious to see what this idiot is saying about their sacred Watchmen.
It seems to me like it's business strategy, plain and simple.
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 2:38PM
Dave said...
Obviously we need more detailed violence than what is shown in the comic, it's a movie for gods sake, it's the visual representation of what we imagined as we read the source material.
Let's stop for a moment people, at the end of the day this is a money making vehicle and to make money the film has to be enjoyable. It doesn't have to be funny or stupid just because it's based on a comic it just has to be good. Can a reviewer simply tell us if they enjoyed the movie or not without trying to be clever? Who reads reviews anyway? (Except on cinematical) Reviews are worthless.
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 2:57PM
Larry Rocha said...
Any who is bitching go read Guapo's review....
www.latinoreview.com
Reply