By Jim Lakely

I saw Watchmen yesterday. And since I’m not a fanboy, — I’m only now beginning to read Alan Moore’s graphic novel — I came into the movie unaffected by comparisons between the film and the source material.

Watchmen seems to have polarized the movie critic world. Count me among the admirers.

(NOTE: Some spoliers ahead, but nothing I think will ruin your enjoyment of the film.) 

The film is visually stunning from the opening credits on, as one would expect from Zack Snyder, the director of 300. (Though, in a gentle criticism, Snyder’s ultra-slo-mo depictions of violent acts is starting to reach the level of a Matrix-like cliche; there’s a fine line between establishing one’s unique cinematic signature and pounding the audience over the head with it). Ultra-violent, grim, dark, brooding — and with couple of gratuitous sex scenes to … um … lighten things up and insert some humanity — Watchmen earned its "R" rating, which I understand the director had to fight to keep. As I write this, Watchmen is on pace to have one of the biggest opening weekends for an R-rated film in history.

Some conservatives aren’t too happy about all that — screaming that this adult-themed comic book, "super hero movie" is being marketed to children. There’s some truth to that argument, and John Nolte over at Big Hollywood makes the case better than others. But it’s not a super hero movie. There is hardly a heroic act to be found in this film. In fact, the only "costumed hero" with any super-human power (Dr. Manhattan) is largely indifferent to the plight of humans — costumed or otherwise. (Let’s leave the marketing/children/parents discussion for another post.)

Like The Dark Night, this film is about the intractable flaws of human nature. The costumed heroes, all forcibly retired, are resigned to the fact that the world probably needs them, but just doesn’t want them anymore. Only one hero who refused to retire from his calling — a cynical, deranged, caricature of a right-wing nut-job named Rorschach — cares much about the fate of humanity.

Maybe "cares" is the wrong word. Rorschach has contempt for the underbelly of society, which he projects on everyone. What he cares about is right and wrong, fighting injustice — even in his own, flawed, psychotic way. Rorschach has soldiered on alone all these years because he refuses to passively accept evil as something humans just have to live with. It must be actively opposed, and he’ll do it even if no one else will. It is in that sense, mainly, that Watchmen is like The Dark Knight.

I don’t know if Moore wanted to make Rorschach into an admirable folk hero. But Rorschach is one nonetheless because as the plot unfolds you see that he was right all along. Rorschach is the moral center of the film. Life to him is not varying shades of gray; it is black and white, right and wrong. And Rorschach is willing to die for his principles — indeed, would rather die than violate them.

And, in terms of pure viewing pleasure, it is hard not to love Rorschach — brilliantly played by Jackie Earl Haley. He is just so cool to watch — a masked Dirty Harry with highly refined skills in the vigilante arts.

This site is dedicated to discussing the intersection of pop culture and politics from the right, so something must be said on that front. Let’s see … well … it’s actually hard to say. Watchmen is obviously a very political film, but it’s a dated, irrelevant kind of politics. Set in an imaginary Cold War world of the mid-80s that is heating up fast, potential nuclear annihilation (strangely enough) just doesn’t have the frightening umph it used to have as a dramatic device. A 20-year-old today was still in diapers when the Berlin Wall fell, so they have no point of reference. And a "nuclear hair-trigger" world has now fallen into the realm of odd nostalgia for those of us near 40 and older.

It would be impossible re-write that central plot driver to make it more relevant, yet also be faithful to the graphic novel. But the inability to do so gives the the viewer a feeling of detachment that even allowing yourself to fall into the fantasy world of Watchmen can’t quite bridge. (Philip Kennicott of The Washington Post notes in his relentlessly negative review that in the two-decade effort to get Watchmen made, prospective director Paul Greengrass suggested updating the plot to apply to the War on Terror. That idea was a non-starter.)

To me, the political aspects of Watchmen were superfluous to the larger question of whether collective humanity is capable of ever rising above its instincts of decadence, selfishness and potentially catastrophic foolishness — and, if not, why should anyone intercede? Why avert today’s Armageddon when ungrateful mankind, by nature, will simply walk to the precipice again tomorrow? Those questions are still relevant.

Frankly, it’s a little difficult to wrap your head around what you just saw when exiting Watchmen. It leaves you entertained and stimulated by Snyder’s visual genius. Yet you leave a bit puzzled, as I was when I left the theater after seeing No Country For Old Men. You’re moved by a unique cinematic experience, but not entirely clear about all the reasons why. I’ll see Watchmen again. And likely leave with new perspectives.

(NOTE: I saw Watchmen with my former writing colleague and good friend Ben Boychuk, who had much to say about the critical reaction to the film over at Infinite Monkeys before we even saw it ourselves. He’s rather lukewarm about the film, which he admits is partially due to reading Kennicott’s review before seeing it, because he might have had unreasonable expectations going in, and dissatisfaction with an ending that differs from the novel. He’s promised a review later, which I will link to from here when it’s ready.)