After avoiding drinking anything for a number of hours before, this past weekend I went to see the IMAX presentation of Watchmen. A few months ago I had bought and read the graphic novel, and when I finished it I had resolved not to go see the movie. However, there were hints the ending had been changed, and that was enough to pique my curiosity. Still I hesitated because the previews made it obvious the movie was going to follow the graphic novel almost panel by panel.
And that it did. I was impressed by the previews, but even more so by the movie. The casting was dead on, the pace was perfect, and the visuals as fantastic as depicted in the graphic novel.
But…
The ending was not really changed, and just like when I read the novel, I walked away from the movie feeling cheated. This is not a review of the cinematic art, directing, or acting of the movie, all of which were beyond reproach… except maybe we could have done with fewer genitalia shots (one of the few things that departed from the novel).
No, what I want to touch on is an ending that fails to punctuate the vision of an imaginative and intriguing alternative timeline.
The novel uses a slightly different approach to come to the same plot point, but in both cases the premise rings hollow as a viable resolution, and particularly in the message that the end to justify the means. Thinking only massive loss of human life will bring about world peace might be acceptable if one looks at natural threats such as killer asteroids, or the sun threatening to go nova, or some Earth-borne cataclysmic event like Yellowstone or some other super volcano deciding it has slept long enough. But that is not the case here. In this case you have the smartest man alive (!) deciding to kill millions on the belief this will be perceived as a threat against humanity and thereby cementing humans across the world into solidarity of purpose.
Both in the novel and in the movie the premise is flawed. The graphic novel uses the fake attack from an alien race to spur governments into uniting, and the movie uses the fake attack from Dr. Manhattan to spur governments into uniting. But uniting for what? In neither case are any demands made of humans. The premise would perhaps be plausible if there were an actual threat of certain destruction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, first edition), but even then it would be human nature not to sit idly by and submit to being dictated to by force.
In the Watchmen universe the case is even more absurd. There has just been a massive attack destroying major cities, killing millions, or possibly billions if you count collateral damage from the associated destruction of infrastructure. Just how would humans respond to an attack where no one is making any demands of them? World peace? Please! In that scenario the world would see unprecedented efforts toward militarization, the establishing of draconian laws forcing compliance to the common purpose, and that common purpose would focus on research into weapons capable of meeting the perceived threat. In other words, those attacks would have the complete opposite effect to what was presented in the novel and movie. Not peace and prosperity, but a unification into a fully militarized society bent on never having to suffer such casualties again. Hardly the paradise one might aspire to.
This is not idle speculation on my part. We have plenty of examples from the history of humankind of exactly those scenarios. While it is true unprovoked attacks are nearly always met with unity of purpose, that purpose is not world peace, but military reprisal. The only exceptions are when the targets are forcibly subjugated, and even then it is often just a matter of time before hostilities break out. They say elephants have long memories, but elephants have nothing on humans, some of which have been fighting multi-generational wars since recorded history.
As repulsive as the “end justifies the means” argument is, there is also the matter of Rorschach. Dr. Manhattan spares the life of the man responsible for millions of human deaths, responsible for the death of some of his closest friends, but does not hesitate killing an arguably demented man because he might go out and tell people of what has happened. First of all, no one would have listened to him. But more than that, Rorschach represents uncompromising purpose to an ideal; an ideal that holds a mirror to human nature and asks for accountability as a path to change. Destroying Rorschach is an admission that ideal is unsustainable. It is an admission human nature will never achieve or even come close to the ideal, and must rather be controlled by fear and deception. Nice.
Let me say ending aside I liked both the novel and the movie. But that is the rub; that is a lot of travel along a long road to get to a destination that diminishes the overall experience. Personally, while visually stunning, I believe the movie will fail to capture the hearts of any but people who are already fans. For unlike the vision promised by the Star Trek universe, this vision will ring hollow and untrue to most people. Were it not so, we would not have need of such a messages in the first place.
Indiana Jim says
Wow, great piece. I have to say I completely agree with his assessment that the “unity of purpose leading to peace” idea is patently ridiculous. Hello, Patriot Act. Hello, War on Terror. And I don’t necessarily think those were bad things on the face of it. I agree with the ideal presented by Rorschach, accountability as a path to change.
When I heard that The Watchmen allow Dr. Manhattan to conduct this false attack for “the greater good,” I realized this was a story I wanted nothing to do with. I don’t buy the darkness of Alan Moore’s worldview, or that of his characters. And I certainly don’t get off on his or Frank Miller’s graphic novels brought to life. What Miller did with Batman and 300 I dig, because with those there seems to be a moral clarity. With The Watchmen, there seems to be a complete moral vacuum.
Michel Daw says
Thanks. You have clearly identified what I saw as the key flaw.
All the right ingredients for a beautiful recipe, then just bunged into a bowl and dashed on the sidewalk. I am not looking for pie in the sky, but something we could at least sink our teeth into and chew for a while would have been nice. Instead we are left with a bitter pill indeed.
Sam Sloan says
Another fantastic introspection and look into what makes humans……well, human, even if those humans are superheroes.
GoblinRevolution says
Am I alone in thinking that everyone who finds the ending flawed is so obviously missing the point? Of course Viedt’s solution to inevitable nuclear war is flawed, that’s the point. To kill millions in an attempt to stave off a war that will kill billions is his solution, but even the smartest man in the world is wrong. It does not, cannot and will not stop humanity from doing away with itself. That is what readers are supposed to realize. Therein lies the tragedy. Did you really expect a graphic novel so dark and hopeless to have a happy, successful ending?
John Fletcher says
While I agree with your review overall, to me in movies there is always something to be said for the flawed ending. It is a long movie, and wrapping up a movie (that has all the possibilities that sci-fi allows) into a grand and glorious jig-saw puzzle solution tying the details up with the ideal can be its own limitation. Often one can see it coming. A messy ending like this is more likely to be a surprise, and in this case goes nicely with all the flaws these superheroes had (and the fact its a screwed up world)..
Then again, I never read the graphic novel and had no preconceptions. As a sci-fi fan, the movie was GREAT.
Trekscribbler says
Erm … I found the movie equally as slow as I found the graphic novel. Both were visionary, in their own way, but I can understand (and see) flaws in both presentations. Still, I’m glad both were made (the graphic novel and the movie) b/c I think intelligent fiction — especially when it comes to genre — is needed in order for the subculture to capture more and more fans.
ejdalise says
@Goblin . . . it would have been easier for me to accept the vision you present, but I just did not see in either the novel or the movie any hint humanity would eventually do away with itself.
Someone like me might conjure that to be the case, but the story ended with the plan having worked, and worked so well newspapers do not have anything to write about (I guess criminals also saw the error of their ways, and there are no more fires, etc. etc.).
There are lots of nuances and things I could go on about, but I’ll stick to my initial assessment that the “plan” (either one) would not have worked for even an instant. Ultimately that’s my objection. It’s a movie, one based on a comic, and I would have reacted less strongly to the fairy-book ending had it not been for the demise of Rorschach. The combination of the two left me a bitter wreck of a man, a mere shell of what I once was . . . no, wait . . . that’s from a story I’m writing.
Seriously, the combination of the two events, at least for me, diminishes the enjoyment of the whole.
fred says
Interesting review. Creative screen writing had an excellent podcast interview with the screen writers. Don’t know of any direct links, but it can be found on itunes.
tallgrrl says
Say WHAT????
Maybe you need to see the movie again and listen more carefully.
I’m with Michael Daw on this one.
I think some of y’all are completely missing the point.
I read, and really liked, the graphic novel.
I saw, and really liked the film adaptation and completely understand the re-written ending.
Maybe it’s because I’m a little bit more…um…”mature”…than some of you younglings, but I, too, think you’ve missed the point.
ejdalise says
I appreciate the “youngling” label, misplaced as it is, but I’m not sure what point you refer to. Let me summarize and you tell me where I am wrong.
Smart person plots and executes a plan to kill millions.
Demi-god approves/agrees (we presume he can see the future once no longer impeded by tachyons(!?!)).
Demi-god punishes person who is appalled by the action and wants to expose it. (why do that unless he thought the plan would/has worked)?
Dr Manhattan’s cryptic answer to Viedt’s question notwithstanding (in the novel), we see the “better world” in both the novel and the movie. If the answer was negative, why bother with turning Rorschach into a snow-blot?
The world is shown as brighter in both the novel and the movie, with messages of peace and hope all over.
The finding of Rorschach’s journal changes little as the journal ends before Rorschach knew what the plan was, and it’s writings are sketchy at best. Aside from appealing to the delusional Nostradamus crowd, who would take it seriously even if it were published?
Being a novel, I understand it is open to interpretations, and being a novel it is not something of big import in my life (entertainment value is about it). And being a novel, it does not form my world opinion or outlook in life. But, all that said . . . they killed Rorschach!! Not since the skewering of (!!! SPOILER ALERT !!!) Wash was I moved to write about it. Wash was a part of a fantasy world that became dear to many.
Rorschach was the representation of an uncompromising conscience. Something these old eyes sees as severely lacking in the world that surrounds us.
But besides that, if the “plot” was not going to work, then Rorschach was killed on a whim for no reason. If the reason to kill Rorschach was to protect the outcome of the plan, then it implies the callous killing of millions was justified. I find either message lacking.
perry says
Admittedly I am new to the Watchman world. From my naive perspective, the ending was little more than a trite, hodge-podge literary device. I stopped counting at 3 obvious sources. 1) The biggy – The Holy Bible! The Bible is positively soaked in the perquisites of blood sacrifice, atonement, and expiation. 2) The American Army officer quote regarding the razing of a Vietnam village: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” And of course 3) That corny “good of the many” quote from Spock as he gazed all too lovingly into the eyes of Kirk while expiring in the Wrath of Khan.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t object to utilizing literary devices. I do it all the time. The only problem is, Emilio is correct. Humanity’s collective paranoia would eventually turn each against the other. Peace and paranoia are incompatible.