The Portrait of Zool Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 SPOILER ALERT If you haven't seen the movie "Watchmen" or plan on seeing it then stop reading right here as discussion of all details will potentially be in the posts to come. I will only say at this point HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Portrait of Zool Posted March 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) Last night I saw the movie "Watchmen", and I really enjoyed it. It is a really great movie. The characterization is well done, the plot riveting, the action well paced, and the visuals as stunning as they come, amply vindicating the decision to cinematize the graphic novel, and their efforts as well. One of the major plot points, if not THE major plot point, on which the stunning main story resolution is built, however, gave me pause. As I thought about it later that night the thought actually occurred to me, "Have the terrorists won?" I discarded the thought as fast as it arose - but the question was a natural one, IMO, which had to be asked in order to be discarded. I'm talking of course about the idea in the movie that the wholesale slaughter of innocent human lives ( if I recall, the number in the movie is 50 million?) is justified for a greater good. So - is the wholesale slaughter of human lives justified for a greater good - namely, in the movie, the potentially peaceful future of the rest of humanity? I would be more than a bit surprised if this isn't more widely discussed as more people see this movie. It is a very timely post 9/11 issue, IMO, and needs to be discussed. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if privately that consideration isn't what helped drive the producers to make the movie, if even in a small way. Ultimately I wouldn't say the movie is condoning any of these things, it just tells the story, ending with the world 'of course' pulling together against a common enemy. It doesn't say if the Utopian world envisioned by Adrian is actually realized or not - though convincing the God-like Dr. Manhattan, with his atomically expanded intellect and consciousness could be construed as a powerful argument in itself. In fact, convincing Dr. Manhattan of the correctness of the plan was undoubtedly the most difficult aspect of the whole movie - but because that perspective really hinges on the judging person's values the story does work, presenting it as a judgment call. After all, the deed was already done - what else could be done now but hope Adrian's plan works? Turning back time was never mentioned in any of Dr. Manhattan's prodigious powers. At the heart of the story's justification though is a characterization of human nature as basically violent. This is where I disagree. Would such a grand and dark scheme actually work out? I don't think so. It may work for a while, but ultimately what the movie is talking about is a world living in fear - fear of reprisals for not working together. Historically, people living in fear eventually revolt or break, period. Fear is not a stable status quo throughout humanity's history. I think that human nature is many things. Sure, humanity has a dark side, but saying that implies, rightfully so, that we have a light side too - a coherent, loving, creative, synergistic side. Which side is manifested at any time depends on many things; Current circumstance, education, individual temperament, family, social, and physical environment, etc, etc, etc - thus my point. Thinking about it, I think the 'smartest man in the world' could have found a better way to find world peace than 50 million human sacrifices - a strategy that went out with the Mayans, at least for the most part - but it sure does make for a good story! Interestingly, Adrian isn't the only one with a 'world peace' iron in the fire. Dr. Manhattan also is working for world peace, which Adrian takes full advantage of in his plans. Isn't it just a howler how the most powerful super hero in Watchmen is also the biggest tool? Most of the Watchmen just gave up on humanity it seems, though their individually coming to terms with that drives much of the story. Mothman, only briefly mentioned a couple times in the movie, is actually stated to have had to be put in an asylum. One can only imagine the seriousness with which he took the situation. The Comedian, of course, was the original cynic. Rorschach, the darkest of them all, is ironically the one who clung most steadfastly to the highest ideals, and may even have 'won' in the end - again, the movie doesn't ultimately say. Edited March 14, 2009 by The Portrait of Zool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincunx Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 I haven't seen the movie--passed up an opportunity to do so--so tell me if the watchers of the watchmen have any ability to interfere with what they're watching? It's a thankless task to watch and record, impotent to change matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Portrait of Zool Posted March 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 (edited) Ah yes - just what is the reward of the Watchmen watchers - and who in turn is watching the Watchmen watchers... ;P Fiction, I maintain, is analogous to a universe in test tube form. One tries various combinations of elements and conditions, shakes gently, and invariably watches. Further, IMO there is no more failure in art than in science. One can speak of validation or invalidation of hypotheses and correlation of data - but just as important is the observation of something completely unexpected. The Watchmen does make a heck of a bang though. Edited March 15, 2009 by The Portrait of Zool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts