Inside many superhero stories is a Greek tragedy in hiding. There is the godlike hero, and he is flawed. In early days his weaknesses were simplistic, like Superman's vulnerability to Kryptonite. Then Spider-Man was created as an insecure teenager, and comic books began to peer deeper. Now comes the "Watchmen," with their origins as 1940s goofballs, their development into modern costumed vigilantes, and the laws against them as public nuisances. They are human. Although they have extraordinary physical powers, they aren't superheroes in the usual sense. Then everything changes for Jon Osterman, remade after a nuclear accident as Dr. Manhattan. He isn't as human as Batman, but that can be excused because he isn't human at all.
He is the most metaphysically intriguing character in modern superhero movies. He not only lives in a quantum universe, but is aware that he does, and reflects about it. He says, "This world's smartest man means no more to me than does its smartest termite." He lives outside time and space. He explains that he doesn't see the past and the future, but he does see his
own past and his own future. He can apparently go anywhere in the universe, and take any shape. He can be many places at the same time, his attention fully focused in each of those places. He sees the big picture, and it is so vast that it's hard for him to be concerned about the fate of the earth.I wonder how many audience members will know much about quantum mechanics. Some will interpret it simply in terms of Dr. Manhattan's powers. It's one of those story devices like the warp drive in "Star Trek." Dr. Manhattan, however, views it in a much more complex way, from the inside, and apparently in terms consistent with current science. So let's ask what we understand about quantum mechanics. We'll start with me. I understand nothing.
Oh, I've read a lot about it. Here is what I think I know: At a basic level, the universe is composed of infinitesimal bits, I think they're called strings, which seem to transcend our ideas about space and time. One of these bits can be in two places at once, or, if two bits are at a distance, can somehow communicate with one another. Now I have just looked it all up in Wikipedia, and find that not only don't I understand quantum mechanics, I don't understand the article either. So never mind. Let's just say my notions are close to the general popular delusions about the subject, and those are what Dr. Manhattan understands.So. I've just come from seeing "Watchmen" a second time, this time on an IMAX screen, which was an awesome experience. Not having read the graphic novel, I found my first viewing somewhat confusing. There were allusions and connections I suspected I was missing. I had to think back and take inventory of the characters. On the second viewing I was better prepared, and found the movie does make perfect sense on the narrative level. It takes place in 1985 in an alternate timeline, where Richard Nixon is still president, we won in Vietnam, Dr. Manhattan took the photo of Aldrin and Armstrong planting the American flag on the Moon, and so on. When the helicopters made their fateful flight to "March of the Valkyries" in "Apocalypse Now," Dr. Manhattan was there too.
The plot (very) briefly. In1985, America and the USSR are at the brink of nuclear war. Perhaps the Watchmen could save the planet. But someone seems to be trying to kill them, retired though they may be. This danger inspires them to reunite for the first time in years. On the second viewing, I realized something I missed the first time through: The Watchmen assassination plot makes no sense, because the only Watchman who could possibly save the planet is Dr. Manhattan, and his disinterest is cosmic. There is only one of the other Watchmen who might possibly persuade him.
The second time through I found myself really listening to what Manhattan says, and it is actually thought-provoking. I didn't care as deeply about the characters on the human level as I did with those in "The Dark Knight," but I cared surprisingly about the technically inhuman Manhattan. He doesn't lack emotion as the alien did in the recent remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still Fire." He has simply moved far, far beyond its reach. From where he stands, he might as well be regarding a termite. Why does he even bother to make love with Laurie Jupiter? Not for his own pleasure, I'm convinced. And not to father a Little Manhattan, either, because as I understand his body he would ejaculate only energy. Could be fun for Laurie, but no precautions needed, except not to be grounded at the time.
A spoiler follows. At the end of "The Day the Earth Stood Still," the alien decides not to destroy life on earth because he is convinced that humans do love one another. Nothing that sentimental motivates Manhattan. Listen carefully to what he says. He tells Laurie she exists because, "your mother loves a man she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you, that emerged. To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability, like turning air to gold!" He is intellectually amazed by her uniqueness, and by the workings of genetics. Her father and mother, were the last two people you expect, and from their unlikely coupling Laurie, specifically Laurie and no one else, was created. Manhattan is not saying he may save the planet because Laurie is so wonderful. He is saying he may save the planet because of the sheer wonder of the workings of DNA.
Safe now to read again. The next detail is not important to the plot of "Watchmen," but I found it fascinating: Manhattan thinks he might leave this planet altogether, travel to a distant galaxy, and there, he suggests, might try his hand at creating some life himself. He would then, would he not, be the Intelligent Designer of life in that place?
Left unanswered is the question of how life was created here on this planet, and indeed the question of whether Manhattan as he now exists constitutes life. Always remaining is the much larger question, Why is there something instead of nothing? These are questions Manhattan might fruitfully meditate upon, although if you exist on a quantum level, as he himself observes, life and non-life are all the same thing, just nanoscale bits of not much more than nothing, all busily humming about for reasons we cannot comprehend. As he puts it, "A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there's no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?"
Whoa. I have come all this way, and forgotten all the things I meant to say about "Watchmen," its visual strategy, its acting, and so on. I know from many reports that the film is unusually faithful to the graphic novel written by Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons, importing some dialogue and frames literally. Faithfulness in adaptation is not necessarily a virtue; this is a movie and not a marriage. But I think it has use here, because it helps to evoke the film noir vision which so many comic-based movies inhabit. Looking at page grabs from the book, I can see Gibbons' drawing style is often essentially storyboarding.
The acting? Very effective. Yes, these characters are preposterous, beginning with their need to wear costumes and continuing with their willingness to retire them. But within the terms of the story and the screenplay by David Hayter and Alex Tse, the performances create a certain poignancy. These are not superheroes with human flaws. They are flawed humans all the time--some of them possibly mad (Rorschach is "crazier than a snake's armpit," a cop says.)
You can see Matthew Goode, as Ozymandias, using an interesting tactic: He adopts a manner that leads us to think one thing about him at the first, and another thing later. Jackie Earle Haley, as Rorschach, the raspy narrator, is tortured both in and out of his mask. Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl) needs his costume to even really even possess a personality. And so on, including Malin Akerman as Laurie, whose affection for Manhattan seems oddly plausible under the circumstances.
The graphic novel as storyboard
Zack Snyder's "300" (2006) showed a similar mastery of CGI imagery as "Watchmen" does. Most of both films is not really there. But "300" struck me as fevered overkill, literally; there wasn't a character I cared about. It involved, I wrote, "one-dimensional caricatures who talk like professional wrestlers plugging their next feud." In "Watchmen," maybe it's the material, maybe it's a growing discernment on Snyder's part, but there's substance here.
On a conventional screen "Watchmen" will have considerable power, so don't be at all reluctant to see it that way. If there was ever a film not intended to be seen for the first time on DVD, this is that film. But IMAX intensifies Snyder's visual strategy and the cinematography of Larry Fong. In its sometimes grungy way, it's beautiful. And look at the way Snyder creates its most spectacular artifact, Manhattan's crystal structure on Mars that seems to be a timepiece without hands--or time. Of course it's made with CGI and of course it looks phony. But after all, it isn't really there.
¶
Manhattan'sHamlet's soliloquy¶
Dr. Manhattan's case study, by James Kakalios, author of The Physics of Superheroes
¶Quantum mechanics : "You and I do not exist"
¶Quantum mechanics made relatively clear
I was telling my friends that the fanboys would love this movie no matter what, but the real critics' opinions would prove whether it was any good or not... I'm glad to know Mr. Ebert likes it, even after seeing it twice. He was a real virgin to this flick, and that it was able to affect him so much both times gives me a lot of hope for it.
John Milton describes God in his poetry as an entity that sees the past, present, and future all at the same time. This is a way of reconciling God’s omnipotence with human free will (ie God knows what color shirt you will decide to wear tomorrow, but He is not making you put it on).
I’d wager that Alan Moore was aware of this when he created the Dr. Manhattan character and his narration. Whether he discusses an event that happened 20 years ago or one that will happen 20 years from now, he speaks in the present tense. Not only is this a further emphasis on the connection between Manhattan and God, it further alienates the character by placing his interpretation of events and time completely beyond the realm of human perception.
The idea of “real people with superpowers” has been around since, well, Spider-Man in the early 60s and has since then been a tidy little theme repeated ad nauseum in every superhero narrative, from X-Men to the godawful and boring Heroes. I’ve always appreciated how Moore takes this idea and elevates it; in some of his best superhero work, he’s interested in the way the acquisition of superpowers distorts people not only physically but emotionally and mentally. And not just because you have to fight crime and get home in time to study for a physics exam. In Miracleman, one former hero becomes a homicidal psychopath whereas another achieves a Manhattan-like apotheosis, at the expense of his humanity. In Moore’s early issues of Swamp Thing, the title character embarks on a quest to retain his humanity despite the fact that he’s (don’t laugh) essentially a walking, talking compost heap. And in Promethea, a college student tries to reconcile herself with this strange goddess persona that she “inherited.”
Watchmen, though, is really where Moore went stir crazy with this stuff. Your blog entry focuses on Manhattan’s detachment, but it’s really not just him. Laurie and Dan Dreiberg are the most neurotic and, because of that, human members of the Watchmen. Rorschach becomes infused with his superhero persona, and loses his humanity. A similar thing happens to Adrian Veidt, the smartest (and possibly most inhumane) man in the world.
(on a side note, I’ve always enjoyed how Manhattan’s and Rorschach’s origins are such contrasts; They’re the only two origins Moore shows in-scene, and Manhattan’s is a miraculous reconstruction of his body whereas Rorschach’s comes from the complete destruction of his personality)
Ebert: Veidt certainly does believe in brinksmanship.
I'm sure I won't be the first person to mention this, but a slight correction: Laurie was not conceived DURING the rape, but later when her mother and the rapist got together consensually. This isn't very obvious in the film, but it becomes apparent in the book and suggests a bit more about the complexity of human nature. I strongly recommend you read the book (it did make the Time top 100 novels list after all!) but the movie certainly stands up on it's own.
Thanks for the IMAX tip - I saw it at a sneak preview on Monday but I have tickets for opening night tomorrow at a local IMAX theater. I'm looking forward to be blown even further away.
Just curious: did you have any thoughts about the emphasis placed on the brutality of physical combat? Unlike almost any other action film, this one included enough snapping bones and wet impacts to make me a bit queasy. I thought it cast a long shadow of doubt over how 'heroic' our protagonists really were...
(love the blog, BTW - I've been a fan for years, but this is a whole new level!)
Ebert: The violence is graphic, and the heroes are not always very heroic. The prison thug with his arms through the bars has a really, really bad day.
Hi Roger,
I haven't seen the movie yet and don't know how much this applies to the film, but re. the assassination plot not making sense, it does in the book, at least.
Possible spoilers follow
Dr. Manhattan has to be chased from Earth because he might substantially interfere with the grand scheme (prior to his leaving Earth, he's still active as a federal employee, though increasingly detached). The Comedian discovers the plan in progress, and similarly has to be removed as a potential obstacle so that he can't go public with what he knows, since the plan's success depends on secrecy and misdirection. Rorschach is in danger of discovering it via Moloch, and is framed and imprisoned so that he can't effectively investigate further.
During the escape (in the book), Rorschach mentions in passing that it's interesting that neither Laurie nor Dan were ever targeted, but I think that's simply because they never seemed to pose any kind of realistic threat.
Ebert: If there was ever a film not intended to be seen for the first time on DVD, this is that film.
That comment, and your positive review might be enough to get me to see this one in the theater. I absolutely love seeing a movie that works well on the big screen, and all too often I find myself uncovering a movie on DVD or TV that I wish I had taken the time to see in the theater. Aside from Dark Knight last year, the most recent movie I saw in the theater and was very pleased about having done so was 'V For Vendetta.' I was excited for 'The Spirit' last year, but it ended up getting poor reviews, so I sort of expected this one to follow suit. I'm assuming this will be playing in an IMAX somewhere around here soon, if not already, so I'll keep an eye out.
As for the quantum mechanics aspect, I did take a Physics class on Astronomy last year, so maybe that will help out a little bit.
Oh Roger, just when I thought I couldn't love you any more, you throw in that brilliant clip from Withnail and I.
Having recently read the graphic novel, I can affirm that Dr. Manhattan's character is an anomaly, a character so inhuman that he transcends our human understanding (like quantum mechanics for me), yet is such a fascinating character that he remains relatable. I like him and hate him in the same moment. His very existence raises so many moral and spiritual questions in the novel: Is Manhattan the equivalent of God? Can he actually experience emotions or pleasure or friendship when there are no surprises and nothing to be learned? If we're puppets, like he says, then what or who is beyond Manhattan that actually pulls those strings? How can you create meaning and purpose when you're beyond time and space...and have glowing blue skin?
Rorschach is equally fascinating for me, as his black-and-white worldview is perfectly symbolized by his bizarre amorphous mask. His interactions with Manhattan in the novel are some of the most profound, as two distinct and immovable paradigms slam into each other and have to find a way to reconcile. I'm encouraged by your thoughts on Manhattan, and now even more eager to see the film on the big screen.
Thanks for your thoughts on this. It sounds like you should buy a copy of the comic to see what all the fuss was about in the first place.
Small note about the penultimate paragraph: this film used mostly practical sets instead of the extensive green screen of "300" and "Sin City," with the only location that was entirely invented being the Mars landscape.
Ebert: What about Antarctica? The skyscraper plunge? The rescue from the burning building? Laurie's plunge into the building? The skycraft? The backgrounds of Nixon and Kennedy? Dr. Manhattan? Rorschach's mask? The explosions? The hole in the middle of Manhattan? The helicopters?
Great review. Covers all aspects of the movie, but focuses on the most important part - the characters.
Without reading the graphic novel before hand you got the real meaning of the story - "the technically inhuman Manhattan" and his realization about humanity; the other 'superheroes' as nothing but "flawed humans". Great job explaining the rather contemplative side of the story. Plus, you actually saw it a second time to get a better understanding(which most other reviewers don't do).
You've been the best movie reviewer for as long as I can remember Mr. Ebert. Keep up the good work.
If you've not yet done so, I would suggest you pick up a copy of the Graphic Novel. While I have also heard that the movie very closely replicates much of the source material, I am also told that the ending deviates significantly from the book. The conclusion is intact, but the means for arriving at the conclusion is vastly different. (There is also a "book within a book" called "The Tales of the Black Freighter" which -- for valid reasons -- was nixed from the movie. A standalone animated film of that story is due on DVD at the end of this month.)
If nothing else, it's worth taking in what is routinely described as *the* seminal Graphic Novel.
As an aside, the "motion comic" is available on iTunes:
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewTVSeason?id=284790710&s=143441
This version includes every frame of the comic in a semi-animated form, with all of the dialogue read by a narrator. A neat twist on the audio-book concept, adapted for Graphic Novels.
Roger -- Let me start by expressing my sympathy for the inundation you are soon to receive about current views on string theory! I am a liberal arts graduate with virtually no scientific training. I am not close to having the mathematics necessary to comprehend even the most basic equations that explain our current understanding of nature. But I have tried hard in the last few years to understand relativity and quantum mechanics.
As you have found it, I find the latter virtually impenetrable. But if you want to understand a slice of it, do a bit of reading on the "double split" experiments. Even if you cannot really get your arms around quantum physics -- as I cannot -- the basic implications of these experiments are staggering.
Essentially, it comes down to this, and you'll need to take my word for it because I cannot explain it although I understand it intuitively. If you take the smallest constituents of light -- it's smallest pieces or packets -- and you send them from one side of the room to another, these experiments dispositively confirm that these little pieces of light were not, during their trip across the room, ever in one particular place. In fact, they were really in many different places at once. We can confirm this by looking at a special piece of metal at the end of the room where they leave a mark, basically. I know that seems unfathomable and inconsistent with what we know about the universe that our senses can perceive, but it's confirmed over and over by experiments. Moreover, it turns out that each of these little pieces of light will be shown to distribute a pattern commensurate with the probability that they were in a particular place -- basically a wave. I know that last sentence is difficult to understand, but forget about it. Just read it, and then move on to the next paragraph where it takes on a bit more meaning.
Ok, so here's the mind blowing part. (If you're with me so far.) While the little piece of light is traveling across the room, you can set up a way to measure exactly where it is during its journey. This may seem strange, since I've already said it's been proven that it is in multiple places at the same time. But, as it turns out, although we know this is true, once we undertake to measure exactly where it is, we come up with an answer, and it looks as though it's only in one place. Phew. Order is restored. This is what we thought all along! A piece of light seems to behave just like a baseball thrown across the room. If we know how fast it was thrown, where it was released, etc., we can predict with absolute certainty where it will be at any point in its travels across the room. And experiment after experiment confirms we are right. And when we measure a little piece of light traveling across the room, it's more complex, but the same thing happens. Just like the baseball we find it is only in one place not several. So, hooray. The universe is not super freaky like the previous paragraph suggested. But hold on. What we find is that when we run the same experiment twice in a row, and only change one thing -- whether or not we measure the little piece of light on its way across the room -- we come up with very different final results. In the first experiment when we do not measure the piece of light as it travels across the room, we find the weird result -- it was NOT in just one place but was in multiple places. Yet, when we do measure, it turns out after the fact that the particle was in only one place. The experiment changes based on whether or not we measured it. Huh? Huh indeed. Which reminds me of a joke. A little boy and girl are sitting at lunch at school. The little boy points to the neat looking bottle that the girl has taken her soup from and says, "what is that?" The girl says, "it's a thermos." "A thermos," says the boy, "what's that?" "Well," says the girl, "it keeps the hot stuff hot and the cold stuff cold." To which the boy replies, "how does it know?"
If you are genuinely interested in the quantum world, forget about strings and all that other stuff. Just find some good pieces about the double-slit experiments written for the layman.
Ebert: Now you've got me worrying about thermos bottles.
i'm a huge fan of yours mr.ebert, and i'm glad you loved the movie! you really need to pick up a copy of the graphic novel, it truly is a unique experience all it's own. keep up the good mr.ebert!
Don't feel bad, Roger. I studied Quantum Mechanics in college and read several other textbooks along with that class and I still don't get it.
Maybe I'll try again one of these days.
I read the Watchmen comic book (Illustrated novel? Whatever they call it) and based on that, I have NO interest in seeing the movie. It was rated one of the 100 best books of the 20th Century, so I read it, but I kept having to force myself to continue in the hopes that it would get better. It never did. It seemed like the stories we used to write in 5th grade.
/I didn't like the Dark Knight all that much, either. I thought it was OK, though. The only real "superhero" movies I liked were the original Batman and The Shadow. (Unless you count Indiana Jones as a superhero - those are my favorite movies!)
Great companion piece to your review. Always enjoy your work. I highly recommend the original graphic novel, as it adds more characterization and background to the "normal" superheroes.
When I heard this movie was being made, I went through the comic - which I had heard about and never read - and simply devoured its content. It was fantastic and I can't wait for the movie.
The most terrifying thing, I think, about this alternate 1985, was the idea of President Nixon For Life!
Roger - I have been waiting for this film for over a decade. With the brilliance of "The Dark Knight", my expectations were raised to a fever pitch. I have already purchased my tickets for tomorrow's early show (my job prevents tonight's midnight premiere--that, or a sense of responsibility [after all, it is only a movie]).
I am pleased to hear you enjoyed the movie, and that it was a thought-provoking experience for you. While I share your depth of understanding of quantum mechanics, I do remember my first reading of "Watchmen" causing a similar pause in my thinking. On more of a pop culture note, similar to the locker scene in "Men In Black".
As for the rest, "Better Dead than Red!"? Really?
What were we thinking? How did we let that endure for so long, to the brink of disaster?
And are we thinking that again now?
I've been told for years that I can't call myself a geek if I haven't read WATCHMEN - the HAMLET of the comic book genre. I finally picked it up about eight years ago, and was quite impressed at how insanely dense this piece of literature is. I wasn't expecting the impact it had on me, since I was a child in the eighties, and felt its themes may not hold up in our post 9/11 age. How wrong I was. I've heard that the ending of the film has been altered slightly, but I truly hope the essence of what the book is getting at is still there.
I've loaned out my copy of the book so often it's falling apart - especially to those who don't take the genre very seriously. It made Time Magazine's list of the top 100 novels of the 20th century for a reason. For better or for worse, this book changed the way we see superheroes (the closest thing our culture has to shared mythology, in my opinion) and you can see its influence everywhere. I recommend picking it up and giving it a read. It's well worth your time.
Roger and others, when I said Shanley, the author of "Doubt," didn't try very hard, I was in the middle of the "Watchmen" graphic novel. Was that comment unfair? No more unfair than Dr. Manhattan's lofty observations. I was viewing it FROM a different place.
Do we have to keep saying Spoilers? The graphic novel has been out there for decades. A major fault of the movie was trying to follow a story from 1987, when the world has moved on. And moved on in a big way. String theory had taken a few knocks.
Roger: The Watchmen assassination plot makes no sense, because the only Watchman who could possibly save the planet is Dr. Manhattan, and his disinterest is cosmic.
The Comedian committed a lot of war crimes during the Vietnam War. I liked the idea that the government of Vietnam exchanged POWs for the right to kill The Comedian.
When they wrote the original comic, the boss said, "I like the story, but I don't want you to use any of our existing characters. Create new ones." Was The comedian based on Marvel Comics' Captain America, who fought in World War II? Wrong company, but yeah. He's a super-soldier without the super-soldier serum. After his war ends, was he ever put on trial for war crimes? Like Kate winslet was in "The Reader"? Puting Captain America on trial for winning the war in Vietnam? Unthinkable.
Before The Incredible Spider-Man and X-Men, most superhero movies were underachievers. The Adam West version of Batman, or the earlier serials. This graphic novel was written to change all that, by taking Dr. Manhattan to the next level. But then, superhero movies got better. They got better than "The Watchmen." Which means "The Watchmen" no longer had a point. To avoid being pointless, the story needed a new draft. The story should have grown organically out of the personalities of The Watchmen. We should have felt more between The Comedian and the original Silk Spectre. As Roger said once, superhero sex can be truly frightening to oridnary mortals.
Do we judge "The Watchmen" by what it is, or what it could have been? Both. The movie takes us into an alternative timeline of deep despair. Humanity is on the verge of World War III. why? Well, the only reason is, back in 1960, the Soviet Union was going to use nuclear weapons if we tried to kick a communist government out of Cuba, or China, or some place. After the Minutemen kicked the communists out of Vietnam, there should have been a reaction. Accusations of war crimes, I would suspect. If we beat North Vietnam, we must have cheated. If a communist government fell, we must have cheated. If the world thought their superheroes were super-Nazis, would everything fall apart?
But there were a dozen other great possibilities, equally ignored, because the director decided the fan base wanted to see the graphic novel as written. Maybe he was too cheap to hire writers who could do great work. Maybe he thought Dr. Manhattan's life on Mars would be enough. Personally (this is just me) I think getting rid of the Doomsday Clock would have improved the movie. If our planet ends with nuclear devastation, it won't be Russia starting it. But it will be our fault because we didn't stop China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq and other coutnries from building nuclear weapons. If those countries knew about Dr. Manhattan, they wouldn't stop until they had created their own Dr. Manhattans. And if they couldn't figure out how to create a Dr. Manhattain, they might start killing the Watchmen out of... OK, yes, the path NOT taken.
I'll talk about the stuff that worked later.
I suspect Alan Moore, author of WATCHMEN, doesn't know beans about quantum mechanics--not that I don't have the greatest respect for him. His Swamp Thing got around in some pocket-frammistat ylem called "the green;" internal consistency in the story made it buyable. As archy the cockroach said, sort of, the real question is whether or not the stuff is literature . . .
. . . because as I understand his body he would ejaculate only energy.
And that's nothing to be ashamed of. We've all been there.
Roger just likes superheroes. And, generally, he likes all movies about superheroes. In my personal, and, therefore, dismissable, opinion, his reviews of superhero movies are always the least trustworthy of his reviews. He liked BATMAN FOREVER. Shudder.
WATCHMEN isn't horrible, but it isn't good, either. It is generic, except in the parts where it is gory, gratuitous and overwrought. The book read as subversive. The movie is just simplistic.
Sure, there are comic panels literally transferred to the screen. Like the one of Dr. Manhattan sitting in lotus position, hovering above the surface of Mars. Thing is, when reading a comic book, one has to invest a lot of their own imagination to get from panel to panel, and I never once imagined that sequence should begin with its focus up the crack of Manhattan's rear end.
Those predisposed to like it - like Roger - or manuevering for greek cred, will love it. Those who have read and re-read the book will be disappointed to varying degrees. Everyone else will wonder what the blue tiger with big ears has to do with anything.
As for superhero movies, please, please, please, somebody stop them before they make a movie about the one that can talk to fish.
In the Communist Manfesto, Marx famously proclaims, "All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind." For Marx, what the "sober senses" face is something beautiful: the dialectical circle, in which the thesis, in asserting itself, unconsciously creates the very thing that will undo it--only to make a third, new thing.
How far is that from the "infinite complexity" Darwin asks us to gaze at, a decade after the Manifesto? And how small a step is that to Heisenbergian uncertainty, in which not-knowing is the only reliable step to knowing? Uncertainty is not an anxious but a joyful state: perfect freedom meets immutable laws, and anything's possible.
Not puppets, Roger, but creators, changing things with the act of seeing them. We're all Dr. Manhattans--if only they'd let us play with the particle accelerator.
Really good article. One thing, though: Laurie wasn't conceived during the rape. Sally and Comedian later got together consensually, and Laurie was a product of that. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I've heard that part isn't really made as clear as it is in the comic.
Ebert: Help me out here. Doesn't a flashback indicate Laurie witnesses the Comedian assaulting her mother, or was I hallucinating, which is quite possible?
I'm currently a student studying physics in London, and I don't really understand quantum mechanics either. I am reminded of the now cliche Feynman quote "Nobody understands Quantum mechanics". Despite this, it is still excruciating to see quantum mechanics used to justify the most inane ideas. I suppose it has a suitable mystique which makes it attractive, but quantum mechanics now is to science fiction what magic is to fantasy.
I'm still somewhat reticent to watch this film, I read the graphic two years ago and really liked it, and I've yet to watch a film that doesn't cheapen the experience of the source novel.
Roger, your blog entries are usually as focused as a laser beam, but this one meanders quite a bit. It's like a real-time MRI as The Watchmen gets turned over and over in your brain. I love movies like that, that you think about for days afterward.
Regarding your comments about Snyder, perhaps it is not only the depth of this material, but the lack of depth with 300. Here, he condenses 360 very dense pages into 3 hours; there, he expanded a very skimpy 88 pages into a feature movie adding subplots and characters.
Also, if you haven't by now, you must order The Watchmen graphic novel and read it post-haste.
I think it's wonderful that you've come to see this movie without any preconceived notions of what a (superhero) comic movie *should* be (I guess that's why you've become the critic that you are). I think it's great that you've watched the movie again because that's the biggest difference between the mediums of film and comics: You experience movies at the pacing of the director at 24 frames per second. Just like Dr. Manhattan, with comics you're able to flip back and forth through time at your whim and experience it again in a new way.
I hope to see another journal entry on your 3rd viewing. Or perhaps after reading the original material.
"Not having read the graphic novel, I found my first viewing somewhat confusing... On the second viewing I was better prepared, and found the movie does make perfect sense on the narrative level."
Do you simply mean that the second time around you already had the basics down, or did you read the graphic novel before seeing the film a second time?
Ebert: Wouldn't that be cheating?
You should consider reading the graphic novel. Despite it being a glorified comic book (and my saying this will lead fanboys to want to set me aflame), it really is fantastic. Alan Moore has a great gift. What limits his appeal is his use of a non-traditional medium for displaying it.
As a fan of the graphic novel, I was fully expecting this movie to be a major disappointment, both because I saw the comic as unfilmable, and because I found Zack Snyder's 300 to be nearly intolerable, a sexist, racist, repetative slog through a series of boring fight scenes (even though I liked Miller's original comic, albeit with some caveats). The initial reviews confirmed my suspicion, but the enthsiasm you and Jim Emerson show for the film gives me hope. I'm still a bit concerned but I'm very much looking forward to seeing it.
Ebert, your mentioning of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is pretty spot on, considering the end of the graphic novel references that both visually (a movie theater is playing it) and thematically.
*Spoiler Warning*
I haven't seen the movie yet, but in the graphic novel there is definitely logic behind Adrian Veidt's decision to murder The Comedian and Moloch and to ensure that Rorschach ends up behind bars. And the reason is not that Veidt was concerned that they would thwart his plan, but rather that they would reveal his plan and in so doing make it ineffective. Both The Comedian and Moloch knew about Veidt's plan, and Veidt's plan would not be successful if people discovered that Veidt was behind it. Similarly, Rorschach's investigations could have led him to discover Veidt's plan, so Rorschach was a liability, as well. It's true that Dr. Manhattan was the only one who could "save the world," and that is why Veidt ensured that Dr. Manhattan went into exile.
A great deconstruction of the movie. I feel, however, that you would benefit greatly from reading the comic. The comic is an absolute visual feast - every frame is a carefully considered work of art - where every page reveals some new detail with each revisitation.
For example, in the comic, Manhattan starts out wearing something approximating human attire, but as his humanity ebbs, so does his clothing. Eventually he simply walks around nude. He appears human, because he has only known human form.
He remembers being in love with a young woman. Perhaps this is why he left his first girlfriend and started seeing Laurie? As his first mate aged, he no longer had the human memories to draw upon.
He's a very interesting characted, I think his 'humanity' is purely based on his memories from his birth until his transformation. He's also an excellent reminder of the terrible cost of the immortality and transhumanity that some people strive for - we lose touch with the shortness of our existence, and our drive to share it with someone.
I'm really glad to see your reaction to the movie, Roger, as someone who had NOT read the graphic novel beforehand. Most of the criticism revolving around this movie talk a lot about the accuracies of the adaptation, and whether or not Snyder did justice to Moore's ideas, Gibbons's tone, etc. Frankly, a lot of those reviews are useless, because I think it's more interesting to know how Watchmen stands on its own, and frankly, the g.novel is so affecting that it's practically impossible to separate one's self from the fact that you have read it, once you watch the movie. If that makes any sense.
Your fascination with Dr. Manhattan is revealing, because, honestly, after I had the book, I was having the same kind of fascination. This means that the material is translating to the screen successfully in at least some of its avenues, because your reaction to the character could very easily have come from reading the g.novel as well. And I think this is quite telling. No matter the exact mode Snyder has used to tell Moore's story, he's still told it in a way that translates the ideas across to the viewers. Very interesting.
Thanks for the reviews, Roger!
Ebert: Of course a movie should stand on its own, which is why if I haven't read the book that inspired a movie, I make no effort to--before I see the movie, anyway. When I have read the book, it tends to sidetrack me.
I never thought I would live to see the day I read an article written by Roger Ebert, about Dr. Manhattan. It was excellent as always, sir.
Watchmen is one of my favorite books, and I've been pretty reticent about the film, but this article, as well as your review, have done much to alleviate my concerns.
Glad you had the guts to give Watchmen a high rating. Most of your peers have been trashing the movie, preferring happier fare like Iron Man and even gag, the last Superman movie. I blame a Watchmen backlash, coming from an industry that's too afraid to accept an R-rated, morally ambiguous fairy tale.
While I'm sure the movie is flawed, this is the kind of movie that should be encouraged. How many big budget Hollywood movies can you say so faithfully adhered to a dark source material--even too a fault? (Yes, that's one of Watchmen's biggest criticisms, that it's too faithful to the novel) I'll tell you what happens, you bury this movie and you get another ten years of cliche-ridden feel good epics, or at least something like "The Dark Knight", which had strong realism but still absolute definitions of good and evil.
Watchmen may have flaws in some of its performances, and may be (gasp) inferior to the novel, but I still prefer to spend time in this universe than in familiar ones that we've already seen from DC and Marvel. As for Zach Snyder, I do think he needs to mature a little bit (he's not up to Christopher Nolan's level, in that he's able to confidently jettison material to make a better film than a comic permits) but for a third-time effort how seriously can you find fault? Can you imagine what would have happened if Joel Schumacher, Bryan Singer, Brett Ratner or Tim Burton got a hold of this project?
From reading your review, I got the feeling that you never really looked at the graphic novel, or at least didn't worship it as much as the hardcore fan-base. That to me is a good sign that new moviegoers (and not just comic fans) will be able to comprehend the movie...provided they are looking for more than a traditional superhero story. I suppose Week 2 will tell us just how well this un-American fable goes over with America.
Spoilers contained in this comment: I had an opportunity to see an advanced screening earlier in the week and agree with your assessment on most points. I have read the book twice, however, so I went in armed with more knowledge than a viewer who has not. While in the movie the assassination plot may not make sense, this is because Veidt never fully explains, as he does in the book. There, he points out that the assassination plot was a smokescreen to cover up the Comedian's murder. His only true goals were to 1) dispose of the Comedian, who had uncovered his plot, and 2) sever Dr. Manhattan's tenuous connection to Earth so that he wouldn't bother to intercede. That this kept the remaining superheroes (who were never actually called Watchmen in the book, where the title is more symbolic than literal) distracted on a wild goose chase was a fortuitous side effect that the "assassination attempt" on Veidt's own life helped keep going.
Roger, you may not wish to get deeper into string theory, after all you may have not real need to do so, but your mind is clearly a questing one always seeking greater understanding. If you wish to know more, there is a popularized skimming you might find enjoyable. Let me recommend the two DVD set "The Elegant Universe", a NOVA production. I found the program not only informative, but also highly interesting and visually compelling. There is more information available here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
Mr. Ebert, do you have plans to read Watchmen now that you've seen the movie? You really must. I've yet to see the movie and i'm sure it's going to be great, but, having read the book, i know that there is no possible way to adapt the true and full watchmen experience to the screen. The book is simply too dense, too emotionally and psychologically complex to be condensed into roughly 3 hours of film - the material demands a comic book form. You'll see what i mean if you start reading it.
"In "Watchmen," maybe it's the material, maybe it's a growing discernment on Snyder's part, but there's substance here."
Maybe it's the material? 300 is to Watchmen what Dick and Jane primers are to War and Peace. What's sad is that Snyder made this film against the express wishes of the comic's writer, Alan Moore. (And what is this recent hang up on the pretentious label "graphic novel"? Watchmen was originally published in 12 separate 32 page comic book issues and only later on collected into a trade paperback. Moore himself called the whole "graphic novel" thing something that someone in a marketing department dreamed up. They're comics! Why should we be ashamed to call them what they are?)
Anyway, I find it a little irksome to see movie posters that say "from visionary director Zack Snyder" when every word, frame, and second of that film was ripped off and commodified from Alan Moore's brilliant original creation. If I were Dr. Manhattan, I would disassemble this film on a molecular level. I know that Moore doesn't want his name mentioned in the same sentence as this film, but how bout throwing a couple props to the writer, Roger?
You know... you could've just said
'I really enjoyed the movie'
Ebert: And my editor could have said, "I really enjoyed not paying you this week."
I have just started reading the Graphic Novel (have to wait until Sunday to watch "Watchmen" in our IMAX Theater) and so I really do not know all of the characters yet, but I agree with you that there is this unique mystic around Manhattan. In a flashback he is with the Comedian and they are about to leave 'Nam I believe and then the Comedian gets into a fight with a Vietnamese woman that he impregnates and plans on leaving her and the baby the first chance he gets. When she tears at his face he pulls out a gun and shoots her in the head. Manhattan says something along the lines of "you killed her" and the Comedian responds "and you could have stopped the bullet or transported us to different places but you didn't. You just stood there and watched ... you and I both know this world is a joke" all of that is a rough paraphrase and I have no idea if it is in the movie or not. I was kind of surprised to find out you didn’t read the graphic novel. Usually you have read the material before watching the movie; I just thought that to be a little bit ironic. You said something about already seeing the film a second time at an IMAX Theater and I was wondering where do you think is the best seat to watch an IMAX feature?
Ebert: The middle of the back row.
As a big fan of yours and Watchmen, I was very interested in seeing what you thought of the film, even breaking one of my own rules by reading your review before I saw the film itself. And yet between your review and this blog entry there is little mention of my favorite aspects of the novel. What about the Comedian? What about the joke? It's a very postmodern look at the human condition in addition to being a look at humanity, or life's, place in the universe. It sounds like this is Manhattan's movie, which in some ways the book is too. But the novel is also Rorschach's. And even The Comedian's. I wonder if the difference comes from your relationship to the movie or the movie's relationship to the source. Guess I'll find out tomorrow.
Time magazine listed The Watchmen as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present. Have you ever read the graphic novel?
I suppose most of this is why "Watchmen" is said to be the most celebrated graphic novel of all time. My friend recently bought all of the comics, in a collector's edition book.
I've been eagerly awaiting this movie since he started telling me about the characters and stories from the comic.
It's definitely the material, lots of the dialogue are lifted verbatim from the comic book. Personally I dislike the film, mainly for Snyder's direction but I can understand one coming in loving this film if they haven't read the graphic novel. The movie is basically a cinematic photocopy of the book, with as little defects as possible
A truly justified review of the enigma of purpose. What Ebert seemed to be hinting at is the discernment of significance of matter v. consciousness.
I would just like to commend him for being so intrigued by Manhattan's ontological perceptions. However, there are other human relations and emotions which need much attention and dialogue as well. Such as Ozzymandias' motive and is it justified or Rorschach's indignation and morality and is that justified? \
Very nice insight. Two Thumbs Up!
Roger, I am glad you liked the movie. However, even though I have not seen the movie yet (And I am excited to do so), I HIGHLY reccomend you read the Graphic Novel, and then perhaps go back and watch Watchmen. There are some differences and Moore hides things and frames things that are too hard to capture within 24 frames of film. The Watchmen Graphic Novel is the first "comic book" to actually make use of the art and turn it into a literary masterpiece.
There are spoilers a'coming:
First, and I'm going off the book and not the movie, so apologies if they've changed this, but Laurie was not conceived during the rape. In fact, I don't believe the actual rape proceeded to its completion (that's always been my understanding, at any rate).
Some time afterward, however, her mother found herself with her father, one thing led to another, etc., etc. Again, if they've changed this for the movie (or, if this is something that will be restored in Snyder's Director's Cut), it's always seemed an important distinction.
Second, the point in the book is that nobody was actually trying to kill masked adventurers. That conspiracy is all in Rorschach's head.
The Comedian is killed for discovering Veidt's plan. Rorschach is set up for murder because he's probing into the Comedian's discovery of Veidt's plan. Veidt set up his own "assassination" as a way to protect himself from suspicion.
Presumably, in the film, The Comedian somehow discovers Veidt's plan to use the technology he's developing (I believe with Dr. Manhattan) as a weapon to trick the world into peace, similar to his discovery of the "squid island" in the comic book.
So, there you go, I guess.
Rog, you are hereby knighted as a hero to the geeks, the same group who you (rightly, I think) razzed in your FANBOYS review. The reason for this coming lionization is that you are the first mainstream critic to treat this film, WATCHMEN (which I dug just as much as you did) with something approaching respect.
Up until your double-pronged review, the pattern had gone like this:
1) Geek/internet critics love it; the Tomatometer is high and sunny
2) Mainstream press (perhaps feeling a tad bit of superiority over a film based on a comic book that Time magazine listed as one of the best novels of the last century) begin to rather disingenuously slam the film, using a lot of the same techniques I used last year to take a little wind out of the sales of THE DARK KNIGHT (a movie I liked a lot, but it ain't the best movie ever made, or even of last year) - namely, they refused to even begin to take the material seriously, because these are super heroes in tights, etc. The Tomatometer begins to drop, forcing Rotten Tomatoes to rewrite their too-hastily posted "consensus"
3) "Day-of" critics (including blessedly sensible Roger, thank you, thank you) do another 180 (based perhaps on the unearned and harsh slams of the week leading up to release) and are kinder. The Tomatometer begins to shunt upwards again, imperceptibly. (Does "shunt" work there? If not, you know what i mean)
Anyway, I'm not sure what I'm writing about, except that there needs to be a new addition or addendum to this newly discovered human emotion of "elevation", and that's the kind of elevation one experiences when one really, really likes a movie - and then has his feelings "ratified" by discovering that a critic he really, really admires simiilarly enjoyed the film.
But why should it matter that you like it? You're a human with your own windows leading in, and the info that passes into you (by necessity) has a very different gauntlet to run once inside your head than it does inside mine. So it shouldn't matter that you liked it... but it made my night: a buddy texted me at 1 o'clock last night, "Ebert gave it four stars!" (An admission on my part: I knew you would like it, as the most open-minded and least angry/grumpy of all major film writers.)
Oh, and off-topic a bit here, but there's another "new word" we need, another off-shoot of "elevation" (or addendum to), and that's the feeling of utter elation one gets after seeing something as brilliantly sad as (you were right about this one, Rog) SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK. I mean, we're talking 1% of the population that could dig this movie... and yet I screened the blu-ray and was ECSTATIC at witnessing such a rich piece of art (simlilar to my feelings about WATCHMEN, sort of - big, messy, ambitious, beautiful)... Thrilled, dancing around like to a rock and roll song, all because of this expose on loneliness, ego, death, illness. Brilliant film, that SYNECDOCHE, but one to which the average person might respond, "My life is hard enough, why do I want to see someone else's problems?"... And while they miss the point, I continue bopping around my apartment on a rock and roll high, now a fan of Charlie Kaufman after so much trying and failing.
And back to WATCHMEN and quantum physics: Knowing as we do that particles can be in two places at once, how can we be sure about anything at all? Why fear death when a bit of info like that hints at a huge world of wonders beyond our understanding?
Anyway, really glad you dug WATCHMEN. Did you like it more the second time? Sounds like you did...
Ebert: To admire "Synecdoche" and "Watchmen." Yes. Because quality is not defined by genre.
Regarding quantum mechanics, I think a good place to turn to for some better understanding is some of Brain Greene's work, such as "The Fabric of the Cosmos." Even after reading it, my understanding of QM remains pedestrian, but that's due to my intelligence and not to Greene's writing, for he is an excellent layman explainer of a bafflingly complex and technical subject.
As for Dr. Manhattan's reason for not caring (at least I think that was his intent) about humans or the planet: "Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts." It may very well be true that a dead body and a live one have the same molecules. But, so what? It misses the point: it's not about quanitity, but quality. The difference between a living and dead person is a profound qualitative difference. It's the very animation--the way in which the molecules inside the body interact--that gives rise to life, and imparts the meaning of it. That's what counts. Maybe he feels that way because he exists at the quantum level, but nevertheless those quantum aspects animate in such a way to give rise to his being, so in that case the qualitative distinction is important even for him. So, Dr. Manhattan's argument (or rather, sentiment) fails.
Moon must have been one smart 5th grader.
Watchmen seems, dispite its outlandishness, to portrey superheroes in the most realistic light--that is, superheroes are a neurosis. Moore scrutinizes the disfunctions inherent with putting on a mask and harboring a messiah complex. Having not yet seen the film, I'm worried that it will capitalize on America's recent fetishism, and that Moore's scathing deconstruction of America's own neurosis--our predilection to worship our supermen and thereby disavow our own insecurities--will be swept under the flashy carpet. The film seems timely: superhero stories are being adapted every summer to create blockbusters, and maybe Snyder's adaptation will shed the proper, scrutinizing spotlight on our favorite summer fetish.
Ebert: None of the Watchmen made me want to dress up like them--or in the case of Manhattan, to undress.
Watchmen and quantum mechanics are two subjects I like to talk about too much (and I look forward to seeing the movie with guarded anticipation), but there is an aspect of Dr. Manhattan's existence that hasn't been discussed-- and that may not have occurred to his creator, which must be a sign of something.
The famous "uncertainty" of quantum mechanics is partly due to our human tendency to ask crude and innapropriate questions-- if I'm accustomed to dividing a pile of sand into two equal piles, and then I try it with a pile consisting of just three grains, I'm going to get strange results. But more fundamentally it's because we're part of the picture we're trying to study. It's easy to imagine physical systems from a godlike perspective (quick-- imagine an asteroid hitting a planet), but one of the discoveries of quantum is that in very small systems, the information itself is a physically important part of the system, and if you partake of that information you become part of the experiment. To use a very clumsy metaphor, suppose you have a duplicating machine: one person walks in, two walk out, identical except that one gets a black hat and the other a white hat. This system is perfectly predictable. But the twins are invisible to each other -- it is almost impossible for them ever to communicate -- and for many years the people playing with the machine were unaware that it was a duplicator at all, and were baffled by the results. "This time I got a white hat, but last time I got a black one, and I can't see any pattern. Is it truly random?" In Watchmen it's clear that Dr. Manhattan sees time and space from an inhuman perspective, and maybe he's the only sentient being who doesn't have the illusion of freedom, but if he can perceive both results of a coin toss then he could inhabit a whole new realm of fatalistic indifference.
You haven't read the graphic novel? Or did you read before your second viewing? If the movie intrigued you, the novel will fascinate you. The comic book is taken to it's all time height in Watchmen.
Roger my good man: Imagine if James Joyce and Thomas Pynchon had a conversation about comics, and someone transcribed it. That's Watchmen. It's so hard to describe, even with seeing the film adaptation, the experience of the story, inventive use of panels to add deeper layers of meaning that you might not even catch the first time through, and all of the supplemental material, truly stands up to a great "normal" book reading event.
Ebert: How about Albert Einstein and Stan Lee?
Hello Mr Ebert,
I have read the graphic novel three times now, and from the trailers shown, the film is very identical to the graphic novel.
I am from northern Canada, and I love your Roger Ebert site, your reviews of movies are the only reviews I really look forward to and are identical to my own criticisms of motion pictures.
I just like to say that you are greatest film critic of all time.
I'm actually going to write my own reviews soon,
and you have inspired me to do that.
Your star system style is the best!!!
Felix Kargegie
Ebert: Of all time? Remember, time is relative.
Quantum mechanics often is understood either through inspired analogy or directly through the math itself, which is amazingly elegant once you get that far. (I apologize for not having had a chance to view the video clips yet...)
One concept that is a little hard to articulate is one of "dimensionality" if I can phrase it that way.
Here's an example: you are in a dark room with a laser pointer. You turn it on and see two dots moving away from each other, but the movement seems to be coordinated in some way. How can this be? there's no way two dots could communicate yet these are clearly linked.
you turn on the light. Aha, there is a balloon in the room that is inflating. what you thought were two dots was the intersection of the light from the laser pointer and the surface of the balloon.
for me, i understood qm more like music than anything else. it is astonishing that the math can be expressed either in matrix form or in wave form yet somehow both expressions articulate the same underlying phenomena (and through an excruciating series of transformations, the math itself can be shown to be equivalent).
Roger, do take the time to read the original graphic novel of The Watchmen. It is a fascinating read, and as you noted, does read like movie storyboards. The Watchmen is also interesting in all of the little details you didn't notice the first, second, or fourth time reading pop out after you give it a rest and reread it again at a later date. Much like a great film noir, the more layers you peel back the more fascinating the book becomes.
Having read your review this morning and your blog also validates that this movie was worth the effort to make, and that the criticism of some that this story could not translate to film be put to rest. I have not read the graphic novel either, but look forward to viewing it on the big screen.
Quantum mechanics is a lot of advanced math that forms a pretty good model of certain parts of the physical world that are very far from human experience. Only when you try to "understand" it, to come up with analogies that ordinary film critics can understand, does it all seems messy and confusing and philosophically uncomfortable.
Saying Dr. Manhattan's worldview is "quantum" isn't really relevant. The point is that he's quite literally looking at the universe - all four dimensions of it - as an outside observer. Imagining what it would be like to see the world that way is one of the great joys of reading Watchmen, and from the sound of your review, of seeing the film as well.
I'll be seeing the movie this weekend, Roger, but if you loved Manhattan then you should really find a copy of the graphic novel and give it a read! He was my favorite character in the book and the entire thing is incredibly well-written.
Ebert: At least 23 readers have now told me to read the book. Where were you when I reviewed "Hamlet 2?"
For a great read on the human-quantum interface check out Neal Stephenson's Anathem.
Sure as shootin it's stimulatin!
http://www.nealstephenson.com/anathem/
Ebert: How about Albert Einstein and Stan Lee?
Heh. Yeah, I can see that too. Mainly, I was thinking of the stylistic choices of Ulysses and Pynchon's zany/brilliant hodpodge of genres (including physics and mathematics)in his best work...and both Einstein and Lee seem too good natured for much of the goings on in Moore and Gibbons' monster.
As a long time admirer of Alan Moore's magnificent comic book one of my primary concerns with the film adaptation (I have not yet seen the film) has been with how Snyder would handle the character of Adrian "Ozymandias" Veidt. In the comic he is the most complex of the Watchmen after Dr. Manhattan and one of the few with a very strong moral code. His claim to have made himself "feel every death" is so believable yet so at odds with his detachment from the normal bonds of humanity. His actions - which are highly moral - are also unspeakable. He's a holy monster. Rorshchach idolizes Harry Truman but his black-and-white world view simply cannot process the complexity of such a horrific moral dilemma. Truman is an American hero. He can do no wrong. Yet when Veidt acts Rorscach cannot accept it. "No compromise." I certainly hope the unlikely Mathew Goode is up to the part.
I do hope that you'll read the graphic novel and share your thoughts on it. It's an experience.
Hey Roger,
I saw Watchmen last night and loved it. But I have a couple of thoughts. The gore and violence was over the top, I couldn't for the life of me figure out it's purpose. Snyder has already explained himself, saying he feels it is irresponsible not to show the consequences of violence. I don't believe that covers it when the violence and gore is unrealistic. I wasn't personally offended or queezy over it, at one time I even enjoyed the first Saw film, I was just baffled by its inclusion because it was distracting.
On another note, I was pleasantly surprised by the soundtrack used by Snyder. I expected to find the use of such well-known songs to feel awkward but I think it worked very well. Particularly Dylan's Times they are a Changing. What did you think of the violence and music?
Ebert: I also liked his use of Leonard Cohen.
***Not Quite a Spoiler*****
The young Laurie witnesses her mother fighting with the man she _thought_ was her father, Sally Jupiter's husband. In the graphic novel, he's her talent manager as well, and strongly intimated that he's gay and she's bearding for him.
The fight they're having in the film indicates that the husband is fully aware that Silk Spectre I and the Comedian had an affair (post-rape attempt), and it's a festering wound in their marriage.
So that's the scene you're thinking of.
Ebert: Now I understand.
Time is only relative from now and before now. The seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, decades, centuries, etc. don't exist yet.
So I'd say that until the future proves otherwise, you're the greatest critic of all time :)
Ebert: I don't agree with you about up to this point, and can only add that I've always had great faith in the future.
My major concern was that it was getting so much hype from fanboys who hadn't read the comics, and I was worried about how much of the film is conventional and how much isn't. Whats your say? Also you made a statement about the drawings of Dave Gibbons being like storyboards, did you like his drawing also?
And when you saw it in a regular theatre, where did you sit?
for those of us who can't afford IMAX. :)
Ebert: I always sit toward the back on an outboard aisle.
Although I'm not the biggest fan of comic book movies, I loved The Dark Knight and plan on seeing Watchman soon.
Thanks for posting the link to Withnail & I. My favorite scene from one of my favorite films.
This post is what I consider to be one of the best movie reviews I have read, though formally it may not be. Thanks you so much for your fascinating ruminations.
That said, I really think you should post more of your musings of a stirring film, primarily on its secrets or key moments which cause much buzz (in whatever form that may be). You have many reviews where you say you cannot reveal much because it would take away from the film experience.
But there are many films which we have seen where we would adore your perspective. One instance was the (at the time) vague ending of Spielberg's ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. I believe you had an idea about it then but did not share it in your printed review because of the spoilers.
Of course, you've probably thought about this, and considered that it could be a disservice for many as abusers would be flocking to your blog posts/articles on spoilers to justify not to seeing movie you reviewed. It would be a delicate balancing act to say the least, but for many of your learned readers, it would be a treasure.
Hi, big fan of your work. Your review of Watchmen was excellent-I'm quite obsessed with the book, and can't wait to see the film. Question though--what do you think of Moore's theme of superheroes reasons for being somewhat sexual or their problems being sexually neurotic? For example, Nite Owl is completely impotent without his costume. Anyway, tell us when you read the book-I suspect you'll appreciate it's complexity.
Ebert: So many superheroes have been sexually ambiguous. Why was Clark Kent so terrified of Lois Lane discovering his "real" identity? Could Superman have been his closet? The closeness of Batman and Robin has long been snickered about. Did Wonder Woman have a boyfriend?
(possible spoilers)
You liked this movie, I get that. Seriously though, given the idea that they were faithful to the source material (haven't seen it yet), if the movie's good that's because the source material is so damn strong. Manhattan and Rorschach were the most interesting characters of the graphic novel to me. The best chapters are the two that focus on Manhattan and Rorschach and their respective views of the world.
I've actually read somewhere that different characters in the graphic novel represent different philosophical schools (Rorschach/nihilism Manhattan/existentialism?). Anybody have any thoughts on that?
"Ebert: ...The prison thug with his arms through the bars has a really, really bad day."
Lol, I can imagine. Rorschach is not exactly a very... forgiving type, is he?
" In a flashback he is with the Comedian and they are about to leave 'Nam I believe and then the Comedian gets into a fight with a Vietnamese woman that he impregnates and plans on leaving her and the baby the first chance he gets. When she tears at his face he pulls out a gun and shoots her in the head. Manhattan says something along the lines of "you killed her" and the Comedian responds "and you could have stopped the bullet or transported us to different places but you didn't. You just stood there and watched ... you and I both know this world is a joke" "
That's a pretty crazy part. Better yet is what Dr. Manhattan says about the Comedian (in the comic): "As I come to understand Vietnam and what it implies about the human condition, I also realize that few humans will permit themselves such an understanding. Blake's different. He understands perfectly...and he doesn't care." Yikes. Bet he's fun at parties. Maybe it depends on what kind of party we're talking about.
Sounds like Manhattan's viewpoint is more akin to humanism at the point in the story. Never realized until I read all this, but it sounds like he's becoming more like The Comedian as things progress.
Speaking of Rorschach, for those who have read the graphic novel and seen this movie, is the chapter with his nihilistic pontifications on the universe in the movie without too much cuts? I don't expect they put much of it in there, but I'm very curious. I love that chapter. One of the grimmest things I've ever read in a comic (except for the original comic of The Crow, man that's dark stuff).
In the spirit of The Clash, if you ever need one, here is what I think your official slogan should be:
Roger Ebert. The Only Review That Matters.
Not that I really have a personal stake in it, but I'm delighted that you gave "Watchmen" a four-star review. I've been eagerly waiting to see this movie since it was announced and feel better knowing that you loved it. Your journal entry was even more interesting and an excellent companion to your official review. Thank you!!
So Roger Ebert made a review after watching the movie, and then this blog after watching it again on IMAX. How about he post something after reading ME!?
Ebert: I vowed not to publish another post telling me to read the novel, but since your appeal is so personal...
We view things as Dr. Manhattan does--as a series of simultaneous moments, which we are not obligated to perceive in chronological order--anytime we open a comic book.
Manhattan's 4th dimensional view of the universe is certainly one of his unique qualities, but its presence in the story is also a deliberate commentary on the unique qualities of the comics medium itself. This is one of the notorious unfilmable aspects of Watchmen. The medium, as they say, is the message.
Roger, thanks so much for your review of "Watchman". I am glad that you liked the film. I appreciate that you decide to view movies on their own terms, regardless of their subject matter and not allow your personality to get in the way of analyzing the story. Many reviews of Watchmen that I've read have all been based upon its aesthetics and not its spirit. Other reviews I've read I just find insulting, like: "Those not accustomed to the violence may be in for a shock, this is better suited for hard-core fans..." I happen to think people are a lot smarter than that these days. As for yourself, I've noticed that you can write a review for a movie like Watchman and not feel that you have to apologize for your admiration of different kinds of films. That's one thing I've never understood about many critics; they automatically think that only certain types of people watch certain types of films all the time. Fans of Watchmen/300 type movies can sit through stuff like "Milk" and "The Reader" too; after all, we're not just action/comic junkies. I feel that people should see movies first before they start reading what others said about them. Reading too many reviews can skew your thinking and ruin your movie going experience.
I think that comic book films are finally getting their due. Studios are beginning to understand that they can be just as involved and powerful as any other genre of film. In fact, your review of Watchmen made me want to see it more; since I wasn't really planning on it right away. I will try to see this in I-MAX. Still, having blockbuster/event film upon blockbuster/event film does get rather tiring. But then again, that's what the summer season is for.
I love Manhattan. The chapter of the novel solely devoted to him is deceptive. On its face its an origin story, but its really a brilliant way to explain his worldview. When he appears to not act and then decide to act, one must remember that his experience of time isn't on a line, so hes not really deciding at all. He's just doing what he knew he'd do at the time he knew he'd do it. He's a brilliant character because he seems like the only being with any real power in the comic, but his perception cripples him to the point of impotence. Can he really be said to have powers if all of his actions are known to him before he acts? Doesn't he, instead of being a powerful force, just become a self-aware cog in the machine?
Moore getting into pre-destination, fate, choice, all that rot.
Just thought I'd mention another graphic novel which might interest you, Mr. Ebert: Hiyao Miyazaki's "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind." In my opinion, it's the only graphic novel which equals "Watchmen."
I thought this link gave a good simple start in explaining quantum theory.
http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.html?quid=961
And I still vividly remember Carl Sagan's 'Flatland' demonstration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KT4M7kiSw
I haven't seen this movie but it sounds like the story tellers are presenting some interesting ideas with this latest crop of heroes. I like most comic books and I'm not sure why. I do know that they are exaggerations of true things. Samuel Jackson's character had something to say about this in Unbreakable. Even better, the DVD extras had some experts talking about the importance of heroes and villains in comic books. They're all metaphors and instruments for examining the world around us. Or at least our perceptions of the world around us. After reading Roger's comments on Dr. Manhattan, I'll be paying close attention to what he says when I do finally see the movie. Quantum theory is a hard nut to crack, but it's suppose to contain hugely important answers for science. What does Dr. Manhattan's character represent? He is a doctor and a scientist that has become quantum. Quantum mechanics is supposed to be powerful enough to explain vast unknowns in the universe. Things like blackholes and the big bang. Does he represent us? Does he represent humankind when we finally, fully understand this difficult theory? What will we do with the new powers this knowledge gives us? What does he do with his powers, his knowledge? Isn't it really a movie about humanities choices when we too gain the powers that science promises us? Do comic books and myths give us a way to work out these ideas before we have to face them in reality?
Roger I liked your review and you probably wont get around to seeing this or reading it because so many people have already posted a comment. But it is about what you said (The assination plot makes no sense?) It does, it was constructed to confuse what the real situation was. It was put in place to send the watchmen on a wild goose chase, and to keep them from actually knowing what was taking place.
Ebert: I'm not sure that was clear in the movie.
Mr. Ebert, even before I spent a week in Boulder watching JFK in the auditorium with you I've wanted to bring up what appears to be your negative view of comics (obviously, focus was elsewhere, the opportunity never arose). Oh, how things have changed. Moving forward, I at least hope you'll not use "comic book" as a negative. Your view of video games, who knows...
I have tickets tomorrow at IMAX and my partner is finishing her first reading of the book.
As an avid fan of the book I hope you are spot on. My expectations were mediocre until I read your review. I now look forward to an evening of solid thoughtful and well crafted entertainment.
"Watchmen", the comic, has an interesting little side-aspect to it: Every time you read it, you pick up on something new. I wonder if Snyder was able to re-create this effect, that is, fill it with easily dismissed elements of foreshadowing that might slip by an unsuspecting viewer. *Possible kinda-sorta spoiler ahead* I'll admit to being a little disappointed, for example, if nowhere in the film do we see an advertisement for "The Veidt Method", which flat-out made my jaw drop when I finally picked up on it my third or fourth time through the graphic novel.
In case no one else has done this, I just thought I would point out that in the books the heroes did not call themselves the "Watchmen"; that title instead comes from a public outcry (and obscure allusion): "who watches the watchmen?" This maybe changes the way we can interpret the title subtly.
Sorry if that has been pointed out in your review or in the (doubtless insightful) blog comments, which I have not completed reading, or made obvious in the movie, which I have not yet seen.
And please add another tally in the Read The Book column. To the question of whether comics can be literature, Watchmen is the definitive answer. A well-constructed, richly symbolic, thoughtful and precise narrative. It belongs on Time's list, and those who say otherwise likely need to stop trying to convince themselves they've grown up.
It's still a bit early to talk about spoiler material.
Here's a question: Are the Watchmen losers?
In the backstory, there were some ordinary guys in New York in the 1940's who put on costumes to fight crime.
One was named "Dollar Bill." Of course, he's my favorite. His cape got caught in a door, and he was shot while trying to stop a bank robbery.
if you saw one of these guys by himself, you would have asked, "Where's the Halloween party?" Guys wearing capes and boots and their underwear on the outside of their pants. So, they formed a group. A group they called the Minutemen.
Ebert: None of the Watchmen made me want to dress up like them--or in the case of Manhattan, to undress.
None of the Minutemen had superpowers. Or high school diplomas. They had the perfect look for radio. Except for Sally Jupiter, a cheesecake model who appeared on the side of World War II bombers.
Then, we move forward from the 1940's to 1987. Nite-Owl has a flying ship that's advanced by 2009's standards. (He might be the son of the original Nite Owl.)
Reply to: Rorschach is not exactly a very... forgiving type, is he?
We also have The Comedian, a lot of Ernie Kovacs with a little GI Joe. He's only a small step above the scum who have taken over the streets of New York City at night. The Comedian was one of the original Minutemen, and he also fired the shots that killed President Kennedy.
Veldt: I'm the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this world.
You do get a sense of "Let's nuke this timeline and start over with a better one." And maybe that's what Dr. Manhattan is reacting to. He realizes that he's living in the slumdog sinkhole of possible alternate--Earths, and he's ambivalent about rescuing it.
It's hard to get excited about these guys. Or, am I wrong?
spoiler... why did Veidt teleport the thing to New York? Why not to the aggressor Russia? Or just anywhere where it isn't so populated??
Roger I respect you immensely and I agree that (in theory) two of the characters in the comic book (NOT graphic novel, sorry, there is no such thing) are interesting, or suggest interesting things - Manhattan and Rorschach. And it seems to me that, along with some visual splendor, won you over.
Watchmen, the comic book, is badly written and childish. And for a long time it got away with it, because none of the real arbiters of taste, on any level, seemed willing to step up and stop its momentum. So comic geeks (it is, in a way, the Citizen Kane of comic books, using every means at its disposal to tell a story - only, it's not good, unlike Citizen Kane - and actually represents, in many ways, a step back, or an ending) worshipped it to the top, till it became seemingly stuck there - respected. Time Magazine, hardly a bastion of good taste or sound aesthetic judgment, but a fair barometer of general cultural opinion, listed it in their top 100 novels of whatever, from wherever. Which again is fascinating as a novel is a very distinct art form and Watchmen is not a novel, but the point is, they put it there. Its place seemed secure, and would have remained so, except -
This movie. And the most intelligent, literate, respected film writers - other than you - have seemingly relished the opportunity to get off their chests just how plain bad, or at least not very good, this particular sacred cow actually is, and has always been. It really is badly written and childish; AO Scott's saying a college kid deep in Nietzsche and other such poses common to young people would love the comic, and the movie, is spot on. And so such people did, and still do. Alan Moore is an emperor with no clothes, IMO. And I for one am grateful this clunker of a movie was released so that such arbiters of taste as we still have in this nation (Anthony Lane, come on down) had occasion to correct a longstanding error. This bad, juvenile art very nearly entered the canon. Me, I want Frank Miller and Alan Moore, and the legions of fanboy man-children currently freaking out on messageboards all over the net, OUT of the canon, where they belong. I don't know which review said it (many have included variations on it) but those people need to grow up - as do Miller and Moore, two grown children who really are writing comic books for a reason, but - merely my opinion - would have been better served by staying within their limitations.
But yes I would like to thank Mr Snyder (whose 300 I loathed, but whose zombie movie was fun) for giving the culture the opportunity to put this particular work in its proper place. Watchmen is like something I'd have written at 18 or 19, only I'd have abandoned it because I'd have seen how childish and embarrassing it all really was. Moore didn't, he persisted, and got away with it for 20+ years. Good on Anthony Lane, Walter Chaw, AO Scott and others for taking this charlatan and his arrested-development fan(boys) down a peg.
End rant.
Ebert: Is it so bad to have a comic book that might appeal to a college kid deep in Nietzsche? For starters, we could use a lot more such college kids.
Also, to quote Corinthians, which gets to the heart of it -
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things
The work itself is childish. The possible implications of a couple of the characters, are not - but the conception of the characters themselves, the manner in which they're handled, their every word and deed, is. I think it's even a compliment to Moore to say so, otherwise it's just bad, and there's no hope for him ever getting better. To say he's childish is at least to grant that he might some day grow up. No hope for his fans, however.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
I claim all ignorance on the course of Watchmen, quantum physics, and philosophy below as mine own.
Anyways, I've never actually read the books or seen the movie, but I do know a little bit about quantum mechanics and if Dr. Manhattan, as Steve M. suggested above, is an existentialist, that may be rightly true. Existentialism is a philosophy that covers a wide variety of concepts, including free will and humanness. Part of existentialism states that we humans live in an absurd world that is beyond our power to either control or mold. This could possibly relate to quantum mechanics, wherein there is the smallest probability that an electron emitted from a point behind a solid barrier will appear on the other side.
See, the easiest way I can explain quantum physics (I apologize if any physicist comes and reads this and is horrified at any misunderstanding), is from Schroedinger's Cat. Erwin Schroedinger posed his very famous thought experiment.
Basically, you have a cat in a box. Inside the box is a vial of poison, wherein a hammer is poised over it. Attached to the hammer is a Geiger counter, and a bit of radioactive blob sits (both it and the counter are outside the box). The entire experiment could hypothetically be set up to ensure a 50/50 chance of the radioactive material decaying (or not), setting off the Geiger counter and killing the cat.
Now, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, once you see something, it changes. Therefore, once you open the box to check to see if the cat is dead, it has changed and your experiment results are null and void. This shows a problem with the Copenhagen interpretation.
The multiverse (many-worlds) interpretation states that once the cat is observed, the universe splits in half, with one having a dead cat and the other with a live one.
Objective collapse theory thinks that the cat settles into a definite state of 'reality' upon 'observing itself', as in sitting there for awhile until a physical or environmental threshold is reached, eventually settling into said definite state.
Again, this could possibly be linked to existentialist thought, notably the mentioning of free will. Quantum theory states that all reality does not exist until it is observed. Ontologically, this could have devastating consequences -- of course, what do some care about the behavior of small particles? Existentialism and certain interpretations of quantum theory reject determinism.
Of course, I am no professor of physics nor philosophy. My reasoning may be flawed. I suggest you talk to those more knowledgeable in the field and come to your own conclusions.
And Manhattan as Hamlet is an interesting idea. I haven't read nearly enough of Shakespeare -- I just bought a few of his plays today to read. But is Manhattan as mad as Hamlet was...? Or was Hamlet's madness faked, in the end? From what I've read of Manhattan, he sounds like he could be rebuffed as Hamlet does to Horatio: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I think Rorschach has his face-mask based off the Rorschach inkblots, correct? I wouldn't know how they'd link to nihilism, which I believe is a philosophy that there is no value, and in the existential form that life has no meaning.
Ah well. I leave my thoughts for them to be mulled over, dissected, and perhaps extrapolated upon.
- A kid.
Ebert: Well, the meaning of a Rorschach blot is in the eye of the observer. There is no correct interpretation, and it has no meaning until the observer gives it one. In that sense it has no existence until that moment.
Ebert: There is a lot of Hamlet in Manhattan. Especially the sadness.
I think that the difference between "300" and "Watchmen" can be directly tied to the difference between Frank Miller and Alan Moore. Miller tends to be glib, bombastic, and full of machismo; Moore is only just short of a true philosopher, writing in narrative form.
Mr. Ebert.
I'm really glad that you liked the movie. As an usual reader of your reviews I can feel reassured that this movie (I was expecting it since I read Watchmen at some point in the late 90's), will gain a new respect for the material that actually you can find in the comics media. Keep up the work! And greetings from La Paz, Bolivia!
Ebert: Bolivia! Visitors from all over. "Watchmen" seems to be a global interest.
Gary in Phoenix, Arizona: I suspect Alan Moore, author of WATCHMEN, doesn't know beans about quantum mechanics.
Actually, I have always been impressed by Alan Moore's use of science in his comics. He often blends hard science with fantasy to great effect.
(Possible spoilers) In Watchmen, the geography of Mars is also described in some detail. Dr. Manhattan's power of precognition is attributed to his ability to sense tachyons, and this is actually a plot point.
The technology in Watchmen's alternate reality is also explained in good scientific terms. For example, electric cars are powered by batteries that use lithium mass-produced by Dr. Manhattan (and this is a work written in the mid-80s).
If there's one thing I liked about Mr. Ebert's review, it is that he is speaking from the perspective of one who hasn't read the novel. A lot of the reviews I have read (particularly the negative ones), have come from those who have either read the novel (and thus, may have expected too much out of the movie) and felt that the movie was too faithful/faithless to the novel.
Ultimately, a movie has to be judged on its merits alone, and less on how well it adapts its source material. I myself have read the novel, but this was on the anticipation of seeing the movie, and intend to judge the movie as being seperate from the film, the way Jackson's LotR was somewhat different from Tolkien's original epic.
~
Another thing that comes to mind is the inevitable comparison between this movie and the Dark Knight which came out last year. The inclusion of Manhattan as a true superhuman helps seperate the two, but there are also other things that makes Watchmen different from the Dark Knight. Watchmen doesn't have a true villain, even the person who came closest to being so was morally amibguous at best. The Dark Knight can postulate a reality where masked vigilantes fight crime, it takes a story like Watchmen to show what would happen if these sort of people existed since 1930s, and how much that would change the world.
And lastly, there's nothing really special about TDK's Gotham City, itself being just another city ala Superman's Metropolis and so on. The New York of Watchmen, however, is a completely different kind of city, its differences stemming from the appearances of people lie Veidt and Manhattan. Look out for the blimps - Manhattan made them possible.
~
Btw, Ebert, I hope you can get your chance to watch the Ultimate cut of the movie on DVD. Snyder left out some things from the theatrical version due to studio limitations, but he will be putting them in the movie: those include the shots from the "Tales of the Black Freighter" (since nobody read superhero comics in Watchmen, they read pirate comics, and the story had an allegory to events in the comic), as well as more footage on Hollis Mason (the original Nite Owl, who inspired Dan Dreiberg the way Bruce Wayne inspired Dick Grayson) and two Bernies (the owner of the newstand and the boy read the pirate comic were important secondary characters to some extent)
However, if the theatrical cut of the movie alone is effective as it is, then Snyder ahs done a really commendable job.
I just got back from seeing Watchmen myself. I didn't really have high expectations going in. The trailers were goofy fun, and since I'd never even heard of the graphic novel before then, I assumed I would be in for a popcorn-flick.
For 2 hours and 20 minutes, this movie consistently, triumphantly proved me wrong. What I saw did go for easy comedy more than I'd have liked, but at the same time, I appreciate the oddball twist of the knife. Beyond that, beyond the silly costumes and special effects was a wounded story of personal failure. Batman is tragic, but his failure to stop the Joker can at least be pitied for the fact that Batman has no superpowers. For all of his gadgets and cunning, he tripped and fell under the weight of his morals. Here, even the gods are powerless against the sting of truth.
As the final shot neared, I thought to myself: "This is better than The Dark Knight! This is an accomplishment!"
Then someone in the audience farted.
...At that point, the last 2 and a half hours of cinematic brilliance died, years of effort and millions of dollars murdered into an unintentional punchline.
And it happened at the worst possible scene, with perfect timing so as to mutilate the experience. Right as two of the characters express their commitment to trying to pick up the pieces, followed by a silent, sentimental look in their eyes. That golden silence was broken, along with the wind. And it has left a rank cloud over my judgment on everything that happened prior.
If the "venting" had occurred during the credits, no one would have heard or noticed. If it had happened sooner in the film, it would have been a slight amusement, quickly washed away by a continuous roll of film that swept an engaged audience along. It would be forgotten. But no, it happened at precisely the point in time where it sticks in the mind, an uninvited guest who never leaves.
Do I still think Watchmen is better than The Dark Knight? I don't know anymore. I almost can't even remember what happened. All I can see vividly is Zack Snyder's efforts given a quick and cruel death by some butthole(literally) who couldn't hold it in until the immediate applause when the executive producer's yellow name stamped a black screen. Heath Ledger's performance haunts The Dark Knight, but my experience Watchmen is forever haunted by that ghost-fart.
Roger, in your years of watching movies, has an audience ever deliberately or unknowingly ruined a film for you? What do you do? How do you separate a stunning work from the stinking mass experience? How can I convince myself to ever go back to a movie theatre again after this?
Ebert: Somehow your unfortunate experience reminds me of Mort Sahl's Most Unforgettable Statement Ever Overheard in a Movie Theater: "You pissed on my wife, but you're sorry?"
I'm pleased that you liked the film, and honestly would have loved to have seen it with virgin eyes. I was so busy looking for things that were familiar to me from the novel that I ended up focusing on details and not, like Dr. Manhattan, taking in the bigger picture.
The only difference that I noticed between the film (other than outright, completely sensible omissions of side-stories and side-narration for time's sake) are the innumerable pieces of sushi Ozy used while executing his master scheme.
If you will, Roger, remember that hole in Manhattan? Now picture it littered with chunks of giant squid. This was his bid to unite the world in peace against a larger threat - a race of inter-dimensional aliens.
While the device worked well within the context the novel set up, it would have just looked damnably silly on screen. The way it played out in the movie just made more sense from a screen adaptation point and I commend them for it.
And aside from flavor and *slightly* deeper characterization, you have now essentially read the novel. The rest is faithfully reproduced.
In all honesty, it really doesn't matter whether you've read it or not after two viewings. You took away from the movie exactly what the author intended you to glean from the book. Due to diligent and adoring translation on the part of the screenwriters, all the core ideas and complex characterization was left intact.
Edit: After having read probably 30 reviews of this film while writing this, I'd have to say yours is the only one where the critic either didn't fall asleep or actually got the subtexts of the film. I'm honestly not surprised - it's marketed as mass-media popcorn, and it's going to disappoint anyone viewing it as such.
Dear Roger,
A minor caveat to begin, I don't think that the group of 'superheroes' in Watchmen are ever referred to collectively as "The Watchmen". As you are no doubt aware the title comes from the infamous phrase (I'm paraphrasing here): 'Who watches the Watchmen?'.
I was initially very skeptical with Snyder helming the project and although Watchmen has never been my favourite 'graphic novel' I didn't feel that the director of '300' could do justice to the scope and intellectual depth of the book. Hopefully, I'll be proven wrong when I enjoy the movie.
Comic book movies do seem to be stepping up to the plate nowadays, at least trying to dispel the aura of camp (although not completely of course, camp and nostalgia are an important part of the superhero experience) that people seem to associate with the medium. Iron Man like the second Spider-Man movie was one which was driven at least in part by its characters. The Dark Knight set lofty expectations for itself providing a plotline of surprising complexity for a man in a bat suit (though the movie was more obsessed with the Joker, as was everyone else). And Watchmen will I hope analyse the inherent madness of 'superheroes' as did the book (Alan Moore really doesn't seem to like superheroes).
However my main hope is that people will be encouraged to explore the comic book medium which is the home of many gems (some fo my favourite being Ghost World, which made a great movie, the heartfelt pseudo-autobiography of Craig T. Thompson Blankets and my personal favourite Neil Gaiman's Sandman).
On a related note Mr. Gaiman is hoping to direct the next two adaptations of his work (the previous two theatrical adaptations being a flawed Stardust and Coraline, which I have yet to see) the deliciouisly twisted Snow, Glass and Apples and Death: The High Cost of Living (a spinoff from the Sandman series directed at Gen X-ers and their worldview), which has been stuck in developement hell for eons.
Hopefully Mr. Gaiman's efforts will emerge successful and increase interest in the medium. I hope you will support this if it comes to pass(provided the movies are good, of course, :).
People always favor Rorschach because I think (hopefully) they recognize his beliefs and at least sympathize. He has the reassured attitude of an older comic book hero who lives in a black and white world, and fans can relate to the prejudices he has, even though they know better.
But, I've always liked Dr. Manhattan more. He isn't like any character I've ever read about, and speaks to my own beliefs.
The final confrontation between these two characters seems to reverberate even stronger in these recent years.
Spoilers; Just an observation. In the comic, Laurie believes the Comedian is her father. But the ending seems to imply that the first Nite Owl might of fathered her. Why does no one seem to point this out? Is it just me misinterpreting things?
Dear Roger:
I'm a big fan of yours. Since you've never answered any question of mine on your website (Answer Man column), maybe this would be one of my most unforgettable experiences in life, since finally a great critic like yourself has answered a question of mine--you know, something I could brag about to my grandkids someday if I would have any.
You said earlier that you could get sidetracked if you read a book that has inspired a movie. Was there ever a time when you gave a movie inspired by a book you have read two stars or less, and later regretted that review because you sensed that the book had such a strong impact on you? That if only you have never read the book, you would have given the movie adaptation, say, a two thumbs up?
Ebert: How can I really speculate about that?
With Iron Man (which my son commented as missable), Dark Knight and Synecdoche in queue I could not figure out a reason to watch the Watchmen ,certainly not its making a joke out of science----the net outcome would probably be a headache.
The mystique around science is perhaps similar to that around law, finance, medicine or for that matter movies with all those "shots".
I know just enough science to understand its methodolgy and that it has limits, and not to be awed ----nature ofcourse is awesome, but science for all its beauty and intellectual challenge must remain a handmaiden rather than a mistress-----with the gods tumbling ,soome people tend to deify knowledge ----seems so here in India at least.
You know, I get what Moore is doing with demythologizing superheroes and such. Certainly he produced one of the most literary graphic novels. But I still enjoyed Iron Man, and the Christopher Reeve Superman, and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and quite frankly, I'm sick of having my intelligence belittled for enjoying such things. G.K. Chesterton once wrote, "The simple need for some kind of ideal world in which fictitious persons play an unhampered part is infinitely deeper and older than the rules of good art, and much more important. Every one of us in childhood has constructed such an invisible dramatis personae, but it never occurred to our nurses to correct the composition by careful comparison with Balzac."
Hi Ebert, I just saw the midnight screening of Watchmen and it's 4 in the morning now. While my post will most assuredly be lost in the sea of comments and will not mean very much so late in your career, I felt it necessary to tell you that you've made a fan out of me.
I found both of your articles on Watchmen to be interesting if not insightful (mostly because I feel I lack the credentials to qualify what is insightful) and your approach to be fair and evenhanded. It's rare to find a critic who might not be a fan of a genre but will still give a movie a benefit of the doubt and find something substantial to say about the direction/subject matter/presentation. It almost makes me wish you'd spent a line or two warning people how long or confusing this movie is, or inaccessible some of the conventions and themes might be to casual movie goers.
It's obvious that you're enamored with the character of Dr. Manhattan and how concepts of god-hood and quantum mechanics are explored through him, and your examination of those themes are most entertaining. I thank you for the relevant Hamelet soliloquy and hope to read more from you again, preferably something that I can rail against as trite and absurdly misguided, instead of something as genuinely pleasing as your Watchmen review. Something I can use as evidence of your growing senility and incompetence for daring to voice an opinion that differs from mine. Perhaps you can review Kingdom of the Crystal Skull again, for me?
Sorry to be the anal retentive geek here. But, in the book, the crime fighting team wasn't named the Watchmen. I believe it was called The Minutemen. The "Watchmen" referred to these crime fighters in a more symbolic sense.
Of course, this might have changed in the movie
I'm happy that you decided to write an extra blog on this topic. Mainly because it's a topic I'm interested in written by yourself. I'm sure if you re-wrote the phone book I'd have a go at reading that too.
In the midst of the torrent of negative reviews towards this movie I was waiting for your comment on it, mainly because I had hoped that you wouldn't make the mistake so many others have been making by thinking that Watchmen is an imitation of superheroes rather than a comment on them. I think the plot of the movie is tricking everyone, up until a point it's a very conventional (structure aside) story of superheroes banding together to uncover a conspiracy which ends in a showdown at a megalomaniac's secret hideout.
One critic said that the book didn't deserve to be on TIME's list, merely because it's pop culture trying to be pretentious. Which, to me, came across as "It's a comic, comics are kiddy books". So, I asked myself if Watchmen would have worked as a traditional novel, of course it wouldn't, because for something to deconstruct something it must mimic it to a certain degree. I don't think you can deconstruct anything without referring to it. The only reason this film has any potential to work is because comic books have been adapted into films enough now for Watchmen to be compared to them. It was the most interesting aspect for me for Watchmen to point holes in the genre, but if it's pointing at nothing then it would be useless. I think that's one of the reasons people haven't taken to this film so well, because they don't know what it's pointing at. Which is arguably a flaw, I suppose, if you need to know the material to strengthen its point then is it any good? (The reason I won't read Finnegan's Wake. If it can't make its point without all the research required then is it a good book or a homework assignment?)
On a separate note, I'm not the world's biggest Rorschach fan, whereas everyone else seems to admire him. He's a racist, he's homophobic and he's essentially an objectivist fascist with a troubled past. I suppose people find his determination admirable, but then several terrible people have been determined.
You need to read "I Am a Strange Loop" by Douglas Hofstader. He deals with the idea of how dead matter can be assembled to yield a person with (seemingly) free will.
Neat stuff.
Great review and companion blog -- it's reassuring to know that a knowledgeable and disinterested (read: non-Watchmen-the-graphic-novel-worshiper) party finds that the movie succeeds on so many levels.
Briefly dipping my toe in the quantum sub-discussion going on here, let me recommend David Deutsch's explication of what's really going on with quantum phenomena. (For an overview, see http://www.geocities.com/iona_m/Cosmology/DeutschPhysics.html ).
Building on the work of Hugh Everett (1957), Deutsch argues for the "many worlds" or multiple universe ("multiverse") interpretation of quantum theory. In a nutshell, this theory holds that every possible reality really exists in one or more parallel universes. Probability is a measure of the number of universes where a given event happens -- so Barack Obama was elected president in a very high number of universes, but John McCain won in a smaller percentage of universes (and, indeed, Roger Ebert was elected in a few). If I flip a coin, it comes up "tails" in 50% of the parallel universes and "heads" in the other 50%. Photons of light travel every possible path from where they are emitted to where they hit a wall, each path existing in a different universe. When we measure the "actual" location of a photon-in-transit, we are determining its position in the universe the observer occupies (while copies of the scientist in other universes are measuring copies of the photon and coming up with different positions).
The multiverse interpretation allows for free will, unlike classical physics (where the future is absolutely determined by the past due to interactions between all of the particles in the universe). In a "many worlds" view, however, each choice is a "branching" point -- my decision to post this entry puts me in a different universe than the one I would occupy if I decided to make coffee instead.
Unlike the rest of us, Dr. Manhattan can "see" the whole of the multiverse, inhabit consciously all of the different "worlds" that comprise the different possible "realities." It is easy to see why this perspective would profoundly affect his outlook on human choices -- since all possible outcomes already exist, in one universe or another, why would one be preferable to another? Interfering in human affairs would, at most, affect the percentage of universes where a given outcome occurs -- there will still be universes where the U.S. loses the Viet Nam War, even if Dr. Manhattan is able to increase the percentage of universes in which the U.S. wins.
[SPOILERS]: The ultimate resolution of this dilemma -- his realization that Laurie's existence is highly improbable (which equals "occurs in few parallel universes"), given all of the contingent human choices and biological interactions necessary -- represents an appreciation of the unique. Life, and the agency of human actors, shapes the multiverse in countless ways that (relatively) predicable interactions according to physical laws lack. In this way, the message of "Watchmen" is profoundly humanist, celebrating the value of human life in what might otherwise seem a vast (multi-)verse in which life is a miniscule, almost insignificant presence.
Hopefully the film will live up to the lofty themes of the book (I have no doubt it will be a visual marvel, but communicating ideas is a lot trickier than CGI).
My favorite sequence in the book and in the movie was Jon's origin story. That concept of time perception is just so beautifully told. In the movie, the sequence made me tear up a little in a way good. But it was a little bit better in the book (however they didn't change a word of dialogue, just left a few details that I thought would important like him actually saying that he's on Mars) and I walked out of the movie theater feeling slightly disappointed, I was just in shock from what I had just seen. I think this is the weirdest movie I've ever seen and I read and love the novel. I do like the movie but it didn't meet the level of expectation that I was expecting.
P.S. Dark City is one of my all time favorite films, I'm so glad that you actually got that movie, too. Which is your preference; the director's cut or the original version? Are you going to see Snyder's three hour plus cut of the film?
Spoofing QM--an old (since 1914) and well established area of knowledge----is about the same as being disinformational about evolution. Plain fairy tales are preferable to those that resort to mumbo jumbo. Even if it is entertaining, which it may be, I doubt if it is a service to the community, if film is meant to be---or is it "that's entertainment" as the raging bull famously says.
Oh how I'd love an Ebert commentary for the DVD... maybe one of those subtitle commentary track thingies? (Crossing fingers.)
Let me try to explain a couple of the plot points you've asked about, and with that, some of the intentions behind the book. Obviously, this needs a SPOILER ALERT!
One of the intentions behind the book was to deconstruct the idea of society needing heroes. The cold war imagery and ideas are necessary to show how leaders don't necessarily make the correct decisions, and neither does Ozymandius. There's always a bit of a fascist element to superhero comics -- the costumes, the absolutes in terms of morality, etc. -- but Moore takes these ideas to their logical extremes in order to criticize the cold war mentality of Us vs. Them. Besides the obvious archetypes of the heroes involved in Watchmen, each of the major characters represents a philosophical position: nihilism, phenomenology, anarchy. The clash of philosophies also represents the idea of an absolute being true.
Dr. Manhattan initially recreates himself in human form because he is still attached to that level of humanity within himself, but that begins to disappear as he grows more and more detached from humanity because of his "cosmic consciousness". This is illustrated in the book by having him wear less and less clothes, until he just wanders around naked, not caring about what people think of his nakedness. His connection to Laurie, while possibly emotional at first, is based more on the "miraculous" nature of her existence. Yes, her mother is raped by The Comedian, but eventually they have some sort of affair, which leads to this exchange:
"You raped my mother!"
"Only once."
This would seem to show The Comedian's utterly selfish nature, but is instead a reveal; he is her father from a past romantic liaison that occurred after the rape. Her existence, then, is the equivalent of a cosmic occurrence to Manhattan, and why he stays attached until she leaves. Once he loses his last connection to humanity, he leaves, until his realization on Mars that all our very personal, individual existences are "miracles" or a sort.
AGAIN, SPOILER ALERT!
The apparent success of Ozy's plot hinges on humanity being forced to come together to fight a common cause, and that forcing means it is fated to collapse, thus the ending -- in the book, I haven't seen the film yet -- with Rorshach's diary about to be read by the conspiracy theorists, who will probably publish it.
As a final note, Rorshach's death in the comic is one of the most moving moments in fiction for me, because he has been proved right, and wants to do the right thing -- inform humanity that they have been duped. As he rips his mask off, tears streaming down his face, telling Manhattan to kill him, it comes off more as an attempt to get Manhattan to kill him because he cannot exist in a world without absolutes, and knows what he must do according to his philosophy will endanger humanity.
I highly recommend reading the collected work. It's a wonderful read that seems dark and horrifying, and much of it is, but Manhattan's realization about humanity, and Moore's ultimate idea that humanity must willingly, voluntarily work for and with itself to save itself comes across quite strongly.
PS: Moore was originally granted the rights to use comic characters from the Charlton comics line, which DC Comics had purchased. Once they found out what he was going to do, they decided to use those characters in their own DC stories, and Moore created newer characters based on those original comic heroes: Rorshach: The Question, Dr. Manhattan: Capt. Atom, The Comedian: Peacemaker.
The tragedy of this movie is that it could translate only in severely truncated form what I think is the most interesting part of it and what you rightfully put in the title of this blog entry: the bit about being a puppet that can see the strings.
In the comic book series, the fifth of twelve issues is solely about Dr. Manhattan meditating on mars. (For comparison, the whole Antarctica showdown is just one issue as well.) It switches between time periods in rapid succession along chains of symbolic association. It explores the idea of being Dr. Manhattan with both seriousness and poetic skill. And I believe it is one of the most original and insightful comments on the human condition.
We are, as a species, only starting to see the strings. Our growing knowledge of the universe creates entirely new intellectual challenges to deal with. H.P. Lovecraft wrote: "The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." Dr. Manhattan doesn't become mad, and he doesn't retreat into his memories of humanity either. Instead, he chooses to face his new understanding of the universe as a source of infinite wonder and melancholic poetry. Although Alan Moore is far too sophisticated to put it this bluntly, I believe he is very consciously stating that the ever-increasing complexity of our times does not necessarily call for either the arbitrariness of postmodern pop culture or the stupidity of fundamentalism, but that it can be faced intellectually upright if we just dare to lose what we thought were the limits of our imagination.
Dr. Manhattan is a superhuman in the original Nietzschean sense: not a Nazi, not a macho fantasy, not something that can exist in any conceivable form, but an aspiration to guide us in the absence of outside guidance (i.e. God). This is the positively spiritual dimension of the book, although I hesitate to say that because "spiritual" has become such a cheap term these days. The movie retains bits of it (such as the speech about life being infinitely wonderful even without some imaginary qualitative difference between life and non-life), but most of it is frankly too incompatible with the Three Acts Logic of cinema.
Still, an excellent movie.
I have not seen Watchmen, nor read the novel, but I will definitely be seeing it in the future. This novel came out almost at the exact same time as Frank (Sin City, 300) Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, a graphic novle absolutely on equal ground with Watchmen, and was responsible for Batman's metamorphosis in comics from superhero to The Dark Knight. If you enjoyed The Dark Knight, Returns is where it all began. Both these stories did the unthinkable and decided not to do what had been done before. Miller making a 180 change with an icon 50 years old, Moore with completely new material. Both changed the way comic fans felt about comics, and it's only taken twenty years to make others feel differentlky about comics.
Great stories are great stories, period. To say comics are drivel is to defend all novels as higher grade material. Poe was a great artist, so they say, and a magnificent story teller, he would have done comics had they existed, at least as a lark, and it would have been brilliant. A critic for CNN blasted the movie for lifting the images from the comic, thus voiding consideration for being 'visionary'. It had been done before. A narrow outlook if ever there was one, as if story boards in pre-production were discarded as out of date once filming started. Few in film can compose a scene as well as Miller, and it's nice to see him getting mainstream credit. Any fan of comics knows the name Jim Steranko, who illustrated one hell of a good story arc in Captain Americas in the early 70's. Discard it as kid stuff if you will, but the imagery is breathtaking, and this is a guy who was an escape artist and once held a man out an open window in New York City over a plot choice.
Rambling I know, and sorry. It's just that Hollywood can be elitist, and know genius only when it discovers it itself, no one else can bring it to them. Just as sad as it took this long to take some great stories to the big screen, we will now have to ride out everything from a Captain Marvel movie to a Prince Valient Trilogy because these guys think they're onto something.
If you read this whole thing you deserve a tootsie roll.
Ebert: Hey, Tootsies are made right here in Chicago. Sometimes late at night in the Loop you can smell the chocolate.
You don't really need to get into quantum mechanics to understand the view of someone living in higher dimensions. Edwin A Abbott's 1884 classic "Flatland" is an excellent intro. (See Wikipedia: Flatland.)
As I'm sure others have mentioned/will mention (multiple tenses being appropriate here when discussing a character who exists outside normal time), it's not necessary to understand quantum mechanics to follow the story in Watchmen -- you just have to hit the "I believe" button and move onwards. The thing about the superhero genre that separates it from "mainstream" science fiction is that it often depends on phenomena or processes that are little understood by the audience. Hence, many of Stan Lee's original characters were exposed to gamma radiation or cosmic rays or toxic waste, and rather than dying of excruciating radiation burns or cascading organ failure, they turn green, are gifted with superhuman strength, speed, or agility, or simply sprout wings and fly. Now that we have (one may argue) become more sophisticated in the sciences, we have to move on to pseudoscience or the next unanswered question in physics -- Spiderman has been updated so that a metagenic spider bit him, not a radioactive one. Same thing with the Hulk -- gamma rays just don't do that, but some mysterious genetic experimentation coupled with exotic particles just might... we don't know. So it's natural that some aspect of quantum mechanics would inevitably become a plot point in a modern superhero tale, because 1) most of us don't really understand any of it, even on the most basic level, and 2) even for those of us who do, the reality is so strange and counterintuitive that it can be considered a half-step removed from pure magic and fiction, anyway.
By the way, while quantum mechanics and superstring theory (or M theory, as I believe they call it now) are related, they are not the same... superstring theory is an attempt to tie quantum mechanics and special relativity together into one big theory of everything, and not a 100% successful attempt at that. I'm sure you'll receive a full graduate-level education in theoretical physics from the mass of readers responding to this one, so I'll leave it at that.
You know... you could've just said
'I really enjoyed the movie'
Ebert: And my editor could have said, "I really enjoyed not paying you this week."
Roger... Ok, I almost blew coffee on my computer laughing at your comeback... (channeling Raul Julia) Good riposte, old man!
It's odd,
I've been following this movie for years, i read the Sam Hamm script that Terry Gilliam was going to direct back in highschool, payed attention when Daren Aronofsky was going to make it, and then Greenegrass. when Zach Snyder was anounced as the director, my heart sank, because he has a habit of dumbing things down, and what i loved most about Watchmen was it's intelligence.
I believe that he genuinely loved the comic, but i was sure he understood it, and I worried that he would make it into a stupid action movie. I didn't like the writers, and wasn't a fan of anyone in the cast save for Jackey Earl Haley. I didn't like the trailers, didn't like the scene's they released online, hated the whole "visionary director" aspect of the marketing. But i was always going to see it.
Until I read your review.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you loved it, I am. And I don't think that there's anything wrong with you for loving it. But I really respect you, and the fact that you did love it means that the thing I love has been sucsessfuly altered into something that that doesn't look apealing to me at all, and that makes me really sad. Because I know I'm not going to like it.
It's like the screen capture and comic panel you have of Rorschach climbing into the window. I assume that's there to show how faithful Snyder was to the comic, but all I see is how different they are.
In the comic page I see a man lifting himself over a railing. In the screen capture I see a gymnist balancing on a bar. The comic panel is a human, the movie image is a superhero. I can't look at that without getting upset, not like "I have to take medication to calm down" upset, but still, it feels off to me. It's not what I cherished about Watchmen.
What made Watchmen truly special (among many, many other things) was that the hero's got tired after they fought, and they were hurt in the fights. Blake didn't fight back when he was attacked in the comics, and there was a reason for that: he was tired. Tired of fighting and living the life that he did, he didn't have the energy to put up a struggle when attacked. If he fights back, it changes the a crucial element of the story, namely the warrior see's something so big that he loses the will to fight. If he fight's back, that's gone, and if he punches through walls and get's thrown into tables, then he's not a man anymore, he's a superhero, like Rorschach on the railing.
I've been saying that the motto of Watchmen the comic should have been: You will believe a hero can slouch.
Anyway, I could go on and on about the differences and why I don't like them, but I think I've made my point. To me, it's not Watchmen, and the fact that the examples of it's faithfulness look to me like betrayal demonstrate that I couldn't enjoy three hours of that kind of fidelity.
Which brings us back to your review. If you had hated the movie, or just not liked it, or even given it a sorta-positive review, I probably would have gone to see it. I would have gone because I would have been interested in understanding how someone could set out to do something good, and fail. But you loved it, which means that the flaws I see, are beeing embraced by others as triumphs. And I can't be a part of that.
It's like sports. If your team makes it to the championship and wins, you can be all magnanamous about how the other team was a really good team and they'll get 'em next time and all that. But if your team loses, then those other guys are jerks and you hates them forever. It's not fair, and you get over it, but it still hurts. My team lost.
So anyway, I am glad that you had such a good time at the movie, and like everyone else, I urge you to read them book, because it's truly something special. I will keep looking to you for wisdom and perspective, but I'm gonna have to sit this one out. Maybe we'll agree next time.
OK, I'm going to be the spoiler at this particular love-fest.
I haven't seen WATCHMEN, nor have I read the graphic novel. So I admit to speaking from complete ignorance. However, I have read quite a bit about the story and seen excerpts from the novel on Jim Emerson's blog, and almost everything I've read is leaving an incredibly bad taste in my mouth.
I can understand the desire to make superheroes more human. But they are superHEROES. Therefore, I expect them to act heroic. Nothing I'm hearing about sounds particularly heroic in any way, shape or fashion. Killing people in Vietnam? Raping women? (And the woman later falls in love with the rapist...Can NO ONE else see the misogyny here?) How do you define these people as role models for others to aspire to? These are not super heroes; they're people who have dressed up in costumes to act as vigilantes.
I had similar problems with the portrayal of Batman in THE DARK KNIGHT (which I *have* seen) because the Batman I grew up with would never have beaten up a cuffed prisoner, or threatened a villain with death, or used technology to eavesdrop on innocent citizens of Gotham.
IRON MAN I loved. That actually involved a person learning how to become a hero by casting aside monetary considerations in favor of doing the right thing. Tony Stark became a hero, despite his flaws. I'm not getting that sense from the Watchmen. You need to give me a reason why their struggle matters.
Perhaps this is why so many critics who are unfamiliar with the novel are giving the movie unfavorable reviews: because the material is not inspiring or heroic.
I was a pretty bad physics major in college, but quantum mechanics was my best subject, so I'll weigh in here like I'm an expert.
You've got to understand that quantum mechanics can't be explained without the math BECAUSE IT IS THE MATH. Even gifted science writers trying to translate QM into a subject of general interest do a lot of violence to it. At the worst, you end up with something like "The Secret," which grafts a lot of pseudo-QM hogwash onto an age-old scam.
As someone noted above, trying to translate the math into real world analogies often results in mind-bogglingly weirdness, and that weirdness gets reported a lot. But most of it is restricted to the atomic or sub-atomic level. Despite what you've read in the papers, you're never going to be able to teleport (like Star Trek's "transporter"), you're never going to go through a "wormhole," and the uncertainty principle doesn't mean that the world only exists if you believe in it or that it's somehow created by the power of your mind.
The fascinating thing about quantum mechanics is that it is such a weird and purely mathematical beast but, at the same time, it is the most accurate science ever devised by humanity. In ancient times, mystics and alchemists tried to use numerology and other kinds of math to predict the future, but it didn't actually work. QM is almost like those old practices -- mathematical, subject to its own esoteric rules -- but it accurately predicts the emissions spectrum of the elements to 10 decimal places. Even the scientists that created it were at a loss to explain how something so abstract reflected the physical world so accurately.
The answer, man, is that we're all totally living in the Matrix....
This review was refreshing amidst the ever-increasing number of critics who dislike the film for the strangest reasons and come across as disliking the comic book at the same time. Supposedly, they are fans of the comic book but their attacks could be made against the novel as well. Interestingly enough, you admit that you haven't read the comic book yet seem to understand the themes of the story that Snyder transplanted onto the screen, taken directly from Moore's original. This would suggest that Snyder did a good job of putting across the major themes of the novel so that a 'virgin' to the story can understand them. I'm merely stating some thoughts considering that I'm always confused when it comes to most comic-book film reviews. Either the critic views comic-books as too childish, too misanthropic or ultimately misunderstands the comic-book if they are a 'fan'.
Now, a few comments about Watchmen. The two characters that I find most fascinating (and apparently, so do most people) are Manhattan and Rorschach. You and many other people who have commented on here have made some very adequate comments about Manhattan, so I will just make a few about Rorschach.
He's clearly a man who thinks of morality in terms of black-and-white. He spends the entirety of the plot trying to uncover the 'mask killer conspiracy' and then ultimately stop Ozymandias from fulfilling his plot for world peace. In his opening monologue, there is a surprising amount of foreshadowing (I really enjoyed Emerson's discussion of the 'opening shot') and many inconsistencies are revealed about his character. He comments on how eventually all the "vermin will drown" and that when they shout up for him to save them, he will "whisper: No". As well, he makes some comments about how President Truman was a good man.
Regarding the first comment, Rorschach seems to suggest the idea that he refuses to help the filth of New York even though he spends the whole course of the novel and gives his life to try to save them from destruction at the hands of Ozymandias. He constantly strives to save these filthy masses from their doom. I find this interesting for it suggests that Rorschach is not conscious of his own helping of the people of New York. In his private journal, he writes about how he wishes for their ultimate destruction but then his actions prove that he would never allow such a thing to happen.
Regarding his Truman comment, it seems that he thinks Truman was a great, moral man for dropping the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and thus killing thousands to save millions. Ozymandias's plot is almost the exact same thing. He sacrifices the millions in New York to save the billions worldwide. Yet Rorschach approves of one and not the other. It seems that Rorschach's skewed vision of morality is not as cut-and-dry as it seems. Is Rorschach aware of this inconsistencies himself? I doubt it.
Just sharing a few observations that have been floating around my mind. Perhaps they were extremely obvious and in that case, discard them. Regardless, I thought I needed to share them.
Once again, great review. I enjoy your blog here quite a bit. Even when I don't agree with your opinion, you put across your opinions respectfully. I enjoy that. If only more intellectuals could be as gracious and respectful in their opinions.
Roger:
Fanboy of Watchmen here. Got my tickets in hand to see tonight. I am not going to tell you to read the book because, quite frankly, I am sure you have a greater calling of literature than a graphic comic.
Interesting fact about the graphic novel (I am sure true fanboys will bludgeon me over the specifics here but I am trying to illustrate a point): when comics are written, there is a certain amount of advertising that goes into comic like upcoming features, or other nerdtastic items such as trading cards, posters, etc. Apparently, Watchmen was having trouble selling ad space, so Alan Moore, in order to fill the comic, included extras such as excerpts of Hollis Mason's autobiography (the original Nite Owl), a piece on Dr. Manhattan and his god-like abilities, Rorschach's psychiatric report, and other letters and such. For the true fan, this material is prized because it gives us a third-party view of what motivates these characters. It' does not just explain "the what" that drives the characters into motion, it explains "the why." It is much more complex then "bad guy killed my uncle and now I am going to be Spider-man" or "bad guy killed my parents and now I am going to be Batman". I think that reading this would provide you with a greater understanding of the characters in the movie.
As a reader of Watchmen, it will be interesting to see how the material gets worked into the story. And, knowing how Hollywood could extract blood from a stone, there is so much that could be done in prequel form. As it is, there is a videogame featuring Rorschach and Nite Owl during their partnership years.
I acknowledge that you are only working from page grabs, Mr. Ebert, but I think that you do Moore and Gibbons a disservice by describing the layout of the artwork in Watchmen as 'essentially storyboarding'.
Storyboards are occasionally very beautiful, but their purpose is essentially that of a blueprint; as long as they convey the information required by the production team, they have fulfilled their purpose. Comics, on the other hand, are the final product. They need to convey all the information that is required by the audience, and if this is to be done well, there is a need for the authors to possess a full understanding of the relationship between different images as the appear on the printed page. Watchmen achieves this marvellously.
Rather than reading Watchmen, though, I've got a better idea. First, you should read Hamlet. After that, read From Hell, a later comic by Moore, this time drawn by Eddie Campbell.
It's Moore's best work - at least within the medium of comics - and I think you may find it more interesting. Don't be fooled by the cinema adaptation; that was a moderately entertaining piece of fluff, but it really had no business associating itself with the comic. Rather than crafting yet another whodunnit around the Jack the Ripper tale, Moore reveals his chosen culprit early in his story, and instead uses the killings as a jumping-off point to examine a series of fascinating themes. London itself - a city of which I believe you are fond - is not least amongst said themes, which is one of the reasons I think you'd particularly enjoy the work.
Seeing as this post has already grown self-indulgently long, I may as well make it even longer by recommending this thoroughly entertaining interview which Moore gave to the brilliant stand-up comedian Stewart Lee a few years ago, as part of a Radio 4 program. Any one who has garnered the impression - based upon his comments about the Watchmen film - that Moore is a grumpy old sod would do well to take half-an-hour out of their lives and listen to it.
Ebert: I didn't mean arttwork was "essentially storyboarding." I meant that it sometimes served Snyder as storyboarding.
Synecdoche NY which I just waded across (first time) seemed like quantum mechanics inspite of Mr. Ebert's enthusiastic review and blog.I agree that everyone is everyone, but do we all inhabit this dark and labyrinthine shadowland ? I do not even have much appetite for the recommended second time. I am sure I missed the point. Marienbad, to which it was compared was far different and the Bergman films are stark and powerful. And any way what purpose is served by holding up the dark regions of the mind to such clinical scrutiny ? What a morose guy and what a depressing way to look at life (and death). What did I miss out?
Here's what I've appreciated about Roger Ebert's reviews, and why I take what he writes seriously: one can tell he loves movies. This isn't the case with most critics and the reason I hardly read film reviews. There nearly always seems to be some element of "look at me. Look how much smarter I am than the people who made this junk." And you never read a scribe saying he doesnt understand something without looking down his nose to examine it. I've never heard of one going to see a film twice. Generally it feels like they've half watched it, then hurriedly turned in their piece; on to the next criticism, "Yawn".
About WATCHMEN: it's a film; not a graphic novel. Ebert respects that; understands it and judges the film on its own merit. It is fine, dense, compelling, fantastical and satisfying. Being a comic reading knucklehead who loved Moore and Gibbon's original work (one who had to read it four times to understand it) WATCHMEN was as good as I hoped it would be.
Bravo, bravo, bravo for embedding the soliloquy from "Withnail and I," a movie vastly overdue for appreciation. Every performance, every line of dialogue in that movie is perfection. Will this be a future Great Movie review?
Ebert: Quite possibly.
Roger,
To answer your Superhero Sex Questions.
Lois Lane/Superman/Clark Kent was a love triangle similar what was found in The Scarlett Pimpernel. Clark was the man that Lois could get, Superman was the man she wanted. The early comics showed Clark/Superman laughing about her desperation and hypocrisy.
Batman and Robin were meant to be Father and Son. However, if you look at fiction at the time, plenty of cowboys, pulp heroes and serial action stars had their "boy" side kicks.
Wonder Woman had Air Force Pilot Steve Trevor-A guy who respected her.
So why is wearing a costume and being a Superhero considered sexually deviant? In a Superhero genre aren't theses things are just accepted as part of life? In reality-don't we have policemen who have uniforms? Priest and Nuns who are dressed in official clothing?
Sure Alan Moore realized a world where heroes would have impacted the history of the world- but after the first generation; wouldn't it be considered a valid way to live?
Roger,
Just wanted to give you some more thoughts if they were not explicit enough in the film. The character of Rorshcach in part is an extreme example Ayn Rand's rational objectivism. The character was patterned after Ditko's the Question who Ditko explicitly created to reflect his Randian philosophies. I loved that his costume was two fluids, one black, one white that never mixed between two membranes. Also, given the contrast between his worldview and that of Dr. Manahttan, I liked the little irony of the material for his costume being a by-product of the scientific contributions of Dr. Manhattan.
I am going to see this this weekend. Did they mention Kitty Genovese as being an early motivation for Kovacs to out on the Rorschach outfit?
"Existance is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose." - Rorschach
Mr. Ebert, you have no idea how relieved I am to see your two articles about Watchmen. I so love the graphic novel that I have been nervous and skeptical about the efforts to make it into a movie.
I don't know if you've read Mr. Alan Moore's work, but I'm a huge fan of his. All of the movies made of it so far (From Hell, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V for Vendetta, arguably parts of The Dark Knight) have been *very* hit and miss. The best parts of those movies were the bits that hewed most closely to the original material. The segment in V for Vendetta with the letters which most people cite as the most powerful portion of the movie were verbatim from the comic (it was everything else that was different, and suffered for it). I argued for years and years that to make Watchmen into a movie would be a crime against the source material.
Your meditation on Dr. Manhattan and quantum mechanics makes me hopeful that at least some of the spirit of the book has come across. I was going to wait, but I'm going to take a chance and see the film this weekend.
I have to agree with the commentator who mentioned that Rorshach is a dispicable character - yes, and he was supposed to be. He is a parody of the objectivist Steve Ditko heroes, Ann Randian nitwits who were so morally rigid and simpleminded as to be comical. In Watchmen the same character is insane and pitiful, not so much heroic. A lot of people don't get the point of that in the book, and I'm certain that most won't get that in the movie.
Roger -
Regarding the sire-ing of Laurie. The sequence of events is that the Comedian attempts to rape Sally at the 40's get together, but they later have a consentual tryst.
Laurie's flashback later in the film (while she is on Mars) has her seeing the arguement between her Mother (Sally) and her (non-biological) father, where he says,
"First he tries to rape you, then you let him come back and finish the job."
You hallucinated nothing.
Great review and journal entry, Roger.
Clay
By the way uyou want some laughs, you can check out the "Seduction of the Innocent" section at superdickery.com. Some of it is hilarious
Robert Anton Wilson explains Quantam Physics - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEZtw1yt8Kc&eurl=http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/were_all_puppets_laurie_im_jus.html
S M Rana Chandigarh says: >
With respect, I think the first sentence is hyperbole. Many great and not so great films have used current understandings of nature and the cosmos as a jumping off point for science fiction.
Hundreds of films have used concepts such relativity, black holes, wormhole, and time travel in a responsible and compelling way -- even if not coherent or consistent with current scientific understandings or reasonable extensions thereof. Indeed, I think some of these films promote a healthy curiosity. I was moved by Audrey Niffenegger's book "the Time Traveler's Wife," to tackle the subject of special relativity, and I'm glad I did. I can envision someone watching or reading the Watchman doing the same to learn whether an object really can be two places at once. Even if not, I (again respectfully) would not agree it's spoof.
Robert Anton Wilson explains Quantum Physics - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEZtw1yt8Kc&eurl=http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/were_all_puppets_laurie_im_jus.html
"When I moved from Los Angeles I moved into what I thought was Santa Cruz," Wilson told a European audience during footage included in Bauscher's film. "Then we had something stolen from our car and we called the police, and it turned out we didn't live in Santa Cruz, we lived in a town called Capitola. The post office thought we lived in Santa Cruz, the police thought we lived in Capitola. I started investigating this and a reporter at the local newspaper told me we didn't live in Santa Cruz or Capitola, we lived in a unincorporated area called Live Oak."
"Now quantum mechanics is just like that," Wilson continues, "except that in the case of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Live Oak, we don't get too confused because we remember we invented the lines on the map. But quantum physics seems confusing because a lot of people think we didn't invent the lines, so it seems hard to understand how a particle can be in three places at the same time and not be anywhere at all."
"How do you define these people as role models for others to aspire to? These are not super heroes; they're people who have dressed up in costumes to act as vigilantes."
That's pretty much the point of the novel, there's a reason these people don't exist. If they did they would be about the same as a police officer in a goofy costume or a fascist who thinks he can save the world by killing people.
Philip Wylie, the man who wrote "When World's Collide," wrote his own superhero novel in 1930, called "Gladiator," which wonderfully prefigures a lot of the 'dark age' superhero stuff that came after. It'd make a great film.
I was amazed at how many small touches from the graphic novel actually made it into the movie.
For those who haven't read it I'll give you a quick example.
In the opening sequence a man can be seen walking in front of the building that the Comedian has just been thrown out of. The man appears to be one of those "New York Crazies" and he's carrying a sign which reads "The End is Nigh!"
He's utterly unremarkable, you wouldn't notice him in a crowd, save for his red hair.
It's Rorschach without his mask.
He pops up throughout the film, always carrying his sign. You'll see him again outside the Comedian's funeral watching Moloch lay flowers at the grave.
This is one of those little things that I was 100% sure would be cut and yet it wasn't. It's actually quite remarkable how much of the book made it into the film and how little the removal of other sequences (Rorschach making his mask, the murder of Hollis Mason, the psychiatrist's dysfunctional home life) impacted the film.
Better Nixon than what we had the last 8 years!
An above poster mentioned the inconsistency in Rorschach's morality, approving of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but not Veidt's plan. The civilian deaths didn't bother Rorschach, it was the lie. If anything Rorschach bristles at sacrificing truth, not human lives.
Fascinating stuff. Although I am a Watchmen comic book fanboy and have doubts about seeing it in theaters when the 40 minute longer Director's Cut has already been announced for Blu-Ray, your thoughts persuaded me to go see it. I've always been intrigued by Dr. Manhattan, and I like your perspective on the character. I know I'll have to see this film more than once.
I'm glad people are mentioning Synecdoche, NY too, because I watched it last night and feel like I barely even saw it. I know I liked it, but man, I could barely wrap my mind around it with one viewing.
Bravo, Roger! For the first midnight IMAX showing of my "debut" (ahem) in The Dark Knight, my friends and I got to the Palms at about 11:00pm, and the five of us wound up in the front row. NOT the place to see an IMAX movie -- too much visual information to take in without your eyes scanning back and forth, thus losing info. I waited a month and saw it again from "the middle of the back row," as you so sagely suggest.
Mr. Ebert -- strange to be writing to you for the first time after reading and listening to your reviews for as long as I can remember (and I'm 53, brother!). This seems as appropriate a moment as any to say thank you -- somehow critics are so mesmerized by the fact of adaptation from the graphic novel that they don't seem to see the film. I've read the novel. I've seen the film. Your review and follow up are balm to my soul. Best of luck always,
LRA
I believe other people have explained it, but you are aware that the ultimate scheme was to save the world, not destroy it based upon the realization that taking out a few street criminals in the end accomplishes nothing.
I saw the movie 12:30am this morning.
Staggering.
Disturbing.
Compelling.
Epic.
Its not identical to the book but close enough to keep the fanboys happy. The Manhattan and Rorschach scene at the end of the movie in Antarctica is acting at its finest. Its no surprise Jackie Earle Haley was nominated for an oscar in 2006. Great performance.
So, the movie's great. That's a relief. Loved the book, liked the previews and now I have your blessing, Mr. E.
All I have to do now is wait A WHOLE $@%^*~& MONTH for the premiere in my country!
Pray for me.
I'm not going to tell you to read the comic... I'm just going to tell you that it explores all of the ideas from the film more thoroughly, is better written, and makes more sense.
Hey Rog. I saw the movie at last night's midnight screening. Visually, it is marvelous. The movie has a virtuoso opening; the credits (& pre-credits) sequence being mini-masterpieces. However, I cannot compare it to the book since I've never read it. On it own merits, however, the movie is ambitious and epic. It's great looking, but I didn't feel it was great on my initial viewing. I am planning on seeing it again, maybe on IMAX. I'd give it three stars. I actually was more entertained by Snyder's "300". The tasteless sex scene in "Men" was an unnecessary distraction.
"Perhaps this is why so many critics who are unfamiliar with the novel are giving the movie unfavorable reviews: because the material is not inspiring or heroic."
I think you've hit on the whole point of the story, ma'am. It's not meant to be anything like Iron Man, it's actually something of a counterpoint to the typical "heroes" of the genre. These characters are interesting because they're not just "human," some of them are downright bad people.
Have you seen "What the #$*! Do We Know?" Although a tad bit folk science.. It's like quantum mechanics for a high schooler. C'mon Roger , give yourself some credit..that is, if there is a you to give credit to.
Ebert: I'm glad you brought that up, because it's a review I rather like;
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040910/REVIEWS/409100306/1023
SPOILERS
Mr. Ebert commented that the plot to kill masks didn't make sense, because most would be unable to stop him, but it made perfect sense. There WASNT a plot to kill masks. The only 'plot' against any of the heros was Veidt's plot to discredit Doctor Manhattan in order to get him out of the way. Though he only mentions it in passing in the film, Veidt is somewhat forced into killing the Comedian because he was going to blow the whistle on his grand scheme and thus, to Veidt, he would be stopping world peace. Later, he does set up Rorschach as well, but again, only to maintain the secrecy of his plan. The 'mask killer' idea that the movie was marketed upon was merely an unintended consequence of a grander scheme.
I am glad you liked the movie. I will see it Sunday and I was disheartened by some of the other reviews. With your approval I have hope.
As somebody else mentioned, the chapter entirely about Manhattan on Mars is the high point of the comic book (oops, graphic novel). In this chapter you learn Manhattan's origin and his worldview and it changes your view of Manhattan from a weird, uninteresting freak to a tragic figure of epic proportions. There are so many scientific and cultural references that the chapter is a fascinating read (as a Little Boy, Manhattan's watch is accidentally crushed by a Fat Man -- everything relates to time), and it must be read multiple times to understand it all. It also presents the moral dilemma of Manhattan: How can a superhero with Godlike powers relate to his former equals, us mere humans? Answer: He can't.
The other characters represent different moral questions. Does the end justify the means? Is "good" and "bad" as cut and dry as "black" and "white"? In a world gone to hell, why shouldn't I just live an amoral life, free from any notion of right and wrong? Now that I have a costume and a bunch of gadgets, what am I supposed to do? Where did I come from and where am I going?
Well, Drieberg and Laurie Jupiter aren't nearly as interesting as Manhattan, Veidt, Rorschach, and Blake, but they are useful as plot devices.
Your title quote from the movie reminded me of a quote from Frank Herbert's Dune series:
"Any delusions of Free Will harbored now must be merely the prisoner rattling his cage."
Roger: excellent essay, and I have little to add to the thoughtful comments here except that -- if you do read the graphic novel, sort of absorb the background and get to know the characters, then go back and watch the movie, I think you'll find (like I did) the opening credits sequence to be genuinely moving. Between this and his underrated 2004 version of "Dawn of the Dead", Zack Snyder has made two of the best title sequences ever.
Dear Roger Ebert,
Watching the watchmen was a disappointing experience for me and most of my friends. Please read the comic. I found the movie too plastic too fake. Cinematic visual choices Snyder made resulted in a mise en scene that looked so artificial that it was distracting. you really bought that Nixon makeup?
There's something going on in the tone and execution of the comic that the film fails to achieve even though Snyder attempts a near panel to panel faithfulness from the comic to screen. Please read the comic. Did you know Moore credits Nicholas Roeg as an influence of the narrative structures within the comic?
It kind of saddens me that you write this beautiful love letter to one of the finest characters in science fiction, Doc Manhattan, without having read the actual source of this compromised movie.
"Looking at page grabs from the book, I can see Gibbons' drawing style is often essentially storyboarding." Well, from what I've learned and read, Moore believes that the panels his comics construct are NOT storyboards for movies. Comics have their own exclusive syntax, language and grammar even though they seem to the casual viewer as "storyboards". Moore has always argued that the panels of his comics are of a grammar that cannot and should not be rendered into cinema. If you read the entire comic you'll probably understand. Read more of Moore, Roger! Before you die, for god's sakes read the words that came from the same madness that created Doc Manhattan Rorshach, Ozymandius! read Promethea! READ FROM HELL!!! READ THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN!
Moore, the serious writer that he believes to be, has said that he has put so much of himself into every word, every beat of his characters that slight changes to the words are incredible insults to his writing. I don't blame him.
I wonder how often Shakespeare's text is changed for an adaptation of a film and when it's actually blasphemous. Why would anyone else's changes to the original text be better than the genius author's. It sounds stupid but when it comes to the text of moore i get cranky at seeing the cinematic mutations of his works. If you read his works, you might eventually agree.
I'm aware that adaptations never need be faithful to the original text. If I wasn't, then I wouldn't love Cronenberg like i do.
But at the end of the day the comic is far superior to this film. far far far superior. Do I believe this because I'm bias. yes i think so. But I also think I'm right. The movie is a compromise. I bet Snyder knows it.
I hope the movie, The Watchmen, will lead you to the actual literature of Alan Moore.
I sound like I worship moore as much as kubrick, or as much as olivier loved Shakespeare. well, i do.
BUT WHY I'M WRITING is because i love reading your reviews, your insight and your analysis. PLEASE READ ALAN MOORE COMICS! AND please write about them since you obviously find deep interest in HIS characters.
Then I will be satisfied.
Dear Mr. Ebert
I've been reading you for the past 13 years (I am now 25).
Long question short...I was wondering if you could share a few words of wisdom regarding how you approach reviewing material for which you have not read the source material.
Ebert: I usually haven't read the source material, but then again I'm not reviewing the source material. A movie has to work on its own.
That said, there are some sources, such as Shakespeare, that are the 500 pound gorilla in the room.
Roger,
The graphic novel the movie was based on is one of my very favorite things and had a huge influence on me when I first read it as a teenager (and as I continued to reread it throughout my life). I haven't seen the movie (and don't plan to because I think that Alan Moore has been treated unfairly), but from reading your review I think that you'll find everything you liked in the movie to be present in the original work, and a lot more besides. If you're interested in some of Moore's further-out ideas I'd recommend basically everything he's written, including the stuff like "From Hell" and "V for Vendetta" that didn't do well when they were adapted into film and his more obscure projects like the comic book series Promethea, the prose novel "Voice in the Fire", and his spoken word/poetry recordings like "The Highbury Working" and "Angel Passage". They all explore his ideas in greater depth and more explicitly.
It seems that alot of people are forgetting about the uncertainity principle. THere are only probabilites of an electron being at a certain place at this time or that. By making a measurement you are adding or taking away momentum from the particle. Why, because we use lasers to make these measurements and photons have momentum.
Mr. Ebert, Your understanding of the quantum world is better than some under-grads. Thanks for the review.
I will not question the why behind your choice to award four stars to this film, but which version of “Watchmen” did you see? Honestly, did you get an advance screening of the Director’s Cut (190 minutes)? I went to a Midnight IMAX show to see the Theatrical Cut (156 minutes) and felt that its fatal flaw was that it was too short and lacked the back story of the secondary characters (guys at the New Frontiersman, guys at the newsstand, the lesbian cabbie, the physiatrist, etc.) to give it the emotional weight that should have paid off during the climax of the film. Everything else was, in my opinion, spot on. I saw a film based off of a so-called “un-filmable” graphic novel, work…well, almost worked. From a financial standpoint, I won’t question why the director, Zack Snyder and the studio would opt for the animated direct-to-DVD release of “Tales of the Black Freighter”, the Director’s Cut as well as the “Complete or Ultimate” Cut (205 minutes) DVD and Blu-ray releases later this year (the length of the Theatrical Cut maximizes the number of daily showings, for example). But in doing so, I think they have cheated all fans with this rather incomplete Theatrical Cut, including you, sir.
Do I think Snyder created a masterpiece? Yes, but it’s just not the Theatrical Cut. That masterpiece is probably “his” Director’s Cut. And now because of a studio decision, we fans will have to pay twice just to see it once.
By Johnny on March 5, 2009 3:01 PM
Moon must have been one smart 5th grader.
Heehee. I was reading Aldous Huxley in 5th grade, so maybe.
Ebert: Tragically, every 5th grader should be able to, but some will graduate high school with that still far beyond them.
Ebert: Hey, Tootsies are made right here in Chicago. Sometimes late at night in the Loop you can smell the chocolate.
That's not the Tootsie Roll factory!!! The Tootsie Roll factory is at 76th and Cicero. That's more than 15 miles from the Loop.
Blommer Chocolates is what you are smelling in the Loop.
Ebert: Funny how you know two facts and assume they're connected.
Just got back from seeing the 11:30 AM IMAX showing -- from the dead middle of the back row! Some comments about the film, the graphic novel, and quantum mechanics:
-- The screenplay is absolutely brilliant in two aspects: its true grasp of the themes of the novel, which it underscores and emboldens with authority, and its ability to compress the story into 2 hr 40 min. It is a bit less successful at inventing new dialogue where necessary, but that's a very minor flaw.
-- It is the 4th, not 5th chapter of the novel (originally, issue of the comic) that is Dr. Manhattan's space-time reverie on Mars. I am not going to join the chorus and tell you to read the novel, which would take a lot of your time which might be better spent writing more terrific blog posts. I'm going to tell you to find a copy and read just that chapter, which might be the best thing ever to appear in a comic. Since you were particularly drawn to this character, I think it'll take the top of your skull right off (in that good way). The movie does an adequate job of capturing the brilliance, but nothing more (doing so was probably the biggest challenge the screenwriters faced, and it was the place where my bar of expectations was set the lowest).
-- As someone who read the comics as they appeared, I always thought the ending of the novel was a huge letdown, since it borrowed too heavily from the Outer Limits episode "The Architects of Fear" which in turn leaned heavily on the short story "Unite and Conquer" by the brilliant Theodore Sturgeon (whom I bet you read in your youth). The ending of the movie, which is to say, the replacement for the novel's giant telepathic mock-alien squid, is actually a huge improvement on numerous levels. Take that, slavish fanboys!
-- I can guarantee that anyone who doesn't think this movie is good (if not great) is going in with preconceptions about what the movie might or should be like or about, and is therefore simply missing it. If you find the movie emotionally distant, then you didn't get (for instance) the reason why Dr. Manhattan returns to Earth, because you weren't expecting something that sophisticated in a comic-book movie. I can guarantee you that all the heavily negative critics, at that point, had so tuned out the movie (as it failed to slide neatly into the slot they had prepared for it) that they listened to this speech without even processing the content, because by that point (well, actually, before they sat down) they'd become convinced that it would just be pseudo-scientific babble. Of course the reason why I, like many, read your reviews first is because you have the gift of seeing the movie that was actually made instead of the one you think should have been or the one you cynically think the moviemakers must have meant to (e.g., no, The Fall was not trying to be The Princess Bride with better scenery.).
-- What's the best book to read for someone with a sort of medium-level interest in quantum mechanics? The one that will be written in ten or twenty years when we finally replace it with a real theory. QM, as an attempt to describe the nature of reality (rather than a set of equations to predict the result of experiments) is now widely regarded as a failure -- I would say nearly universally so by those who have thought deeply about it. Most of the well-known interpretations of the mathematical formalism are just plain wrong (e.g, Everett's Many Worlds hypothesis). It seems increasingly clear that Einstein was correct when he asserted that "God does not play dice with the world" and that the replacement for QM will to a greater or lesser degree resemble the alternative theory devised by David Bohm. In Bohm's take on things, the appearance of randomness (and many of the other weird elements of QM behavior) are neatly explained as artifacts of the fact that every particle in the universe is connected to and influences every other particle simultaneously. Which of course is an idea that would cause any Buddhist to go "duh!" -- but it was rejected for years by the physics establishment because it violated the theory of relativity. (Speaking of which, Dr. Manhattan is probably more about relativity than he is QM.) But that relativity is violated is now backed up by a great deal of theoretical and experimental evidence. (The cover story of the latest Scientific American, by my former prof David Z. Albert, covers much of this territory nicely.)
(And if this starts a flame war here between champions of Bohm and Everett, well, in what other online blog would you find that?)
Ebert: "Connected to and influences," okay. But how?
Your first review had more insight relayed with economy than any I've seen. This is usually the case of course but 'discussions' about this movie in particular are ubiquitous on the internet at the moment. That you conjured it without relying on firsthand knowledge of the comics (they were released serially/monthly originally - all this high-minded 'graphic novel' talk is a bit overdone) should signal to most that the movie is much more than effective (or at least thoughtful) on its own merits...and not even simply because you say so.
I enjoyed this entry as well and have no doubt you would appreciate the density and layered construction of the source as well. The mental image of you reading the Mars segment based on your commentary here alone makes me smile.
Thanks again for your efforts Roger. I continue to be a faithful and appreciative reader.
"Why is there something instead of nothing?"
That's the question that has always bugged me. Why is there a universe at all? The answer so far: there just is.
Ebert: Ummm...strictly speaking, not an answer but an observation.
I've got a question for you, Roger:
Since you declared Spider-Man 2 as the greatest of all Superhero movies, you've gone on to award four-stars to a number of other film in the genre... Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Sin City, Iron Man, and now The Watchmen (what, no love for Catwoman?!?). I concur with your stellar reviews on all the films, and I'm particularly interesting in your discussion in your DK review that the bar has been raised in the genre now so that these can no longer be considered merely "superhero" movies--they're really starting to work on a new level, both intellectually and emotionally. In fact, rereading your Spider-Man 2 review, it almost seems archaic, a review from a more traditional time whem superhero movies were still...well, traditionally pulpy. So, in light of this new insight and these new films, would you be prepared to dethrone Spider-Man 2 from its status as the greatest superhero movie and select another from the list above?
Ebert: All reviews apply up to the time they are written.
Seth,
just for reference; in both film and comic, the 'Minutemen' were the 40's team the included the Hangman, Silk Spectre I, Nite Owl I, etc. In the comic, the 60/70's team is referred to as the "Crimebusters" - but in the film are renamed as the "Watchmen". Sensible choice, really.
For what it's worth, I thought it was fantastic, but felt that the director could have better signposted which time period most of the early scenes occurred in. I've read the book and was expecting the transitions, the missus was somewhat flumoxed until she realised that there were three distinct time periods (and two different teams) to keep track of. Wouldn't be a problem if viewed again, I suspect.
It's interesting that you're so fascinated by Dr. Manhattan, Mr. Ebert. The characters of Watchmen aren't, overall, particularly likeable, but most fans of the comic have latched on to one particular character as their favorite. It's a sort of Rorschach test (ha ha) to their personality, I think.
I agree with your reaction; you sound as enthralled as I was after I first read the book! Alan Moore has stated repeatedly that Watchmen is specifically a comic book, and that he views it as unfilmable, but there's something wonderful in seeing it and hearing it on screen. I almost cried during the movie at Dr. Manhattan's line which you quoted, the one about the miracle of life, and I don't remember almost crying while reading the book.
While discussing “snarking” elsewhere the Watchmen film came up; ie: the fact many in the media seemed poised to trash it etc. There was also a growing buzz about the attempted rape of Sally Jupiter by the Comedian. Director Zack Snyder wanted it to be “really” brutal, which led to a brief discussion about comics and Frank Miller and Feminist-minded comments on my part. Prompting Roger to ask:
“Don't you think most men, except the really damaged ones, grow out of that whole dominant/submissive thing (if they were into it in the first place) and find themselves seeking good company?” – Roger Ebert
Which is an interesting question and this will now mark the third time I’ve tried to answer it; for I’ve yet to see the post appear, leading me to conclude it’s getting lost in cyberspace. I did notice some freakiness on the server. So I’m going to hedge my bets and submit it in here. Besides, it’s comic book related and probably belongs in this thread anyway!
Answer: Yes I do think most grow out of it, if they were ever into it. But then a new crop simply takes their place. And why you can find or trace elements of sexism & misogyny as they appear in various comics dating back now for more than half a century. And because I’m a female artist who also reads graphics novels & comics, which informs my understanding of them, why I think it’s getting worse; ie: increasingly more accepted by giants like Marvel and DC. Most sex sells from the male point of view and mainstream comics are still predominantly a boys club and every generation pushes the envelope in regards to “how much” you can get away with.
It also hasn’t escaped my notice that although it’s an attempted rape in the comic, all the “Watchmen” articles addressing it in the film, sensationalize that moment by calling it “the rape scene”. There wasn’t a rape; it was a sexual assault stopped in progress. He wanted to, he was trying to, he’s guilty of that much – and actually worse in Vietnam but you don’t hear about that, eh? There’s no equivalent media buzz about the Comedian shooting and thus murdering a pregnant Vietnamese woman carrying his own child because she pestered him about it.
I just finished reading the Watchmen again last night. As always, I’m struck by how everything is told in context and behavior isn’t presented without it. You might not get a back story as deep as Rorschach’s but you still understand what messed-up the Comedian for being able to infer it, for example.
Anyhoo, point is what “sells” isn’t context or even truth; it’s hyped sensationalism and even more so now. And that’s not what the Watchmen is about; at least not what I took away from it. For me, it’s about deconstructing the superhero and getting to the truth underneath and what it ultimately leads to, which also includes exploring any sexual motive for wearing costumes while fighting crime. There’s a LOT of stuff going on, so many themes and why it's a rich piece of work.
“Moore has expressed dismay that "The gritty, deconstructionist postmodern superhero comic, as exemplified by Watchmen... became a genre". He said in 2003, "To some degree there has been, in the 15 years since Watchmen, an awful lot of the comics field devoted to these grim, pessimistic, nasty, violent stories which kind of use Watchmen to validate what are, in effect, often just some very nasty stories that don't have a lot to recommend them." – Wiki
Who’s watching the Watchmen? I got a better question: “Who’s watching what it never meant to inspire.”
Because I am anal this way--
Watchmen was originally a 12-issue comic book series. It was collected in a trade paperback edition, which makes it a book form, but it is/was not a graphic novel. By definition, a graphic novel is a complete book published all in one edition.
Now, others may argue this point, if they so choose. Alan Moore, the writer of the story, meant for it to be a comic book series, not a graphic novel.
I am, by the way, pleased that it has been collected so that many more people than comic book collectors can read it.
I, too, recommend reading the collected story. I re-read it last autumn. Took me about 9 hours. One will be amazed at how much was left out of the movie.
How come Dr Manhattan was easily manipulated by Veidt ( the smartest man on earth )? I thought he didn't have a kryptonite.
Ebert: Kryptonite is physical. Manipulation is mental. Manhattan may live outside of our world, but it doesn't make him any smarter than he was when he started out. He just has a lot more to think about.
"At least 23 readers have now told me to read the book. Where were you when I reviewed "Hamlet 2?"
Hahahahahaha
I have to respond to Paul, because while I wasn't quite the stereotype he mentioned (I was a high school student into Nietzsche, FYI) but I am a college student and did only pick up The Watchmen last summer and loved it. I would like to ask Paul, what exactly about the graphic novel was childish and amateurish about it?
While I agree that The Watchmen wasn't Dostoevsky, it at least was engaging on so many levels. There's the subtle allusions to determinism, to conflicting normative ethical theories, and themes are certainly timeless and still resonate with many people. You have to admit that it was a grand step forward for comics and graphic novels. Outside of the underground comics before that, no one tackled such subjects in mainstream comics. For what it is worth as a movie, I appreciate it as something my generation can get into and have philosophical discussions initiated by the movie without even realizing it. It's not even perfect, or I would say a candidate for Roger Ebert's Great Movie list, but it (hopefully) will open up the minds of my fellow generationites and something that sparks intellectual discourse to come.
Roger, you wrote:
That's very revealing and caused me to re-evaluate my thoughts on the comic (I haven't seen the movie, yet). You're an optimistic writer and you experience movies on their own terms—both critical values I greatly endorse.
So, I'm ambivalent about "Watchmen", just as I was about "The Matrix". As intellectual ruminations, as high literature, both are so appallingly sophomoric and middle-brow that it's painful. But the only people who will be aware of this are those who are erudite or educated enough to be know better. For everyone else, it's deep and important philosophizing.
This is also true with regard "Watchmen" in that it's a piece of literary self-criticism with a lot of important meta-narrative. It's a critique—a savage critique—of superhero comic books, the people who write them, and the fans who love them. Its tarring of all superheroes as emotionally maladjusted dangerous misfits is a critique of comic writers and fans, as well.
Yet, here again this is all very sophomorically realized. It's clumsy and far too self-aware in the negative sense: Moore thinks he's very clever, very deep, and his self-regard is ever-present. Even so, the challenge to the fandom is far too often over its head. Will the movie-going public be any more likely to be aware of this criticism? They are just as guilty of the fascist wish-fulfillment impulse in not only comic book movies, but all the escapist genre movies with vigilante violence, the fetishizing of violence as sexual, etc.
I read the comic only this week. I can't say I didn't like it; I thought it very good, as long as I graded on a curve. Is it wrong that I wish that anyone who wishes to wade into intellectually deep waters do so with true competence and not just good intentions?
Yet, on the other hand, you're right. If it's a question of the average person never once considering the nature of reality and the trustworthy of our senses (The Matrix) and no mainstream filmmakers taking on the subject...then earnest incompetence, sophomorism, and middle-brow profundity is better than nothing. Just so with the various issues Watchmen examines. And I'm glad that you're an optimistic critic who correctly allows movies to be what they are and judge them on the basis of how well they manage to be what they are.
But maybe you could point out that Watchmen's competency in the intellectual matter of quantum physics is just about exactly equivalent to its competency in all intellectual matters it examines; including psychology, politics, and literary criticism.
Ebert: Which is to say, a good deal more competent than most pop culture. And perhaps can inspire thinking deeper than itself.
Roger, admit it. You're a closet geek, aren't you? I suspected this when I first read your review of "Dark City," but this just clinches it. Furthermore, with the insight of your reviews, I find you give the geek movement its intellectual voice when it comes to matters of cinema. I think you could be to geek-kind (and I include myself in this category, just so no one's offended) what Barry Goldwater was to conservative thought, and I'm sorry if you, being the good liberal you are, shudder at this analogy--it was simply the first one that came to mind. In any rate, thank you for treating this, and other movies that many lesser critics would gladly laugh off as sophomoric dreck, their due respect and even-handed criticism. Keep it up, and one of these days, you may wind up sitting on a panel at Comic Con next to Leonard Nimoy and Bruce Campbell.
Also, speaking of Leonard Nimoy, I'm really hoping that you'll like the new Star Trek. I know that it's always pretty much hit-or-miss with Star Trek movies, and I'll probably wind up seeing it no matter what, but I'd love to see it work the way you believe that Watchmen works.
Ebert: I may be a closet geek, but sometimes I like to open the door and wave.
As I came out of the movie, three boys (age ~7) were looking at a display in the lobby. One said, "I want to see Watchmen." And I thought, I hope their parents know better.
(SPOILERS)
Things that pulled me out of the movie:
(1) I know Richard Nixon is unpopular, but a President of the United States discussing a Soviet nuclear attack wiping out the East Coast with a "Let's do it" and "It'll get rid of all those Ivy League intellectuals" attitude was wrong. It broke the "suspension of disbelief" rule.
(2) Same for the newsreel footage of Soviet troops moving through Afghanistan. If there was a supervillain who had invented and sold technology for briefcase-sized nuclear weapons to North Korea, Iraq and a dozen other smaller nations, that could scare everyone. It would have made the movie relevant. It would have inspired much better philosophical discussions.
(3) The over-the-top nature of The comedian, especially the pool table scene.
(4) If masked vigilantes had been killing bad guys in New York since 1940's, wouldn't the number of bad guys go down?
(5) Even if the Soviet Union had 51,000 warheads, that shouldn't be a problem for Dr. Manhattan, who can be in multiple places and take machinery apart in mid-air. All you have to do is render the warheads inoperable. Transmuting the uranium cores into lead should do it.
(6) The idea that Dr. Manhattan couldn't see his own future beyond a certain point was just too convenient. If you have a character who can see his own future, you've got to work his knowledge into the script.
I loved Archie, the Owl Ship. Thought Laurie (Silk Spectre II) was useless and insulting.
but... and here's a huge question... I also had a feeling that Snyder hit his target demongraphic right on the nose. People who don't understand the current world situation. People who admire a grunge hero who goes after pedophiles and child abductors and explains, "I realized I was making a mistake. I was letting them live."
There was a great movie... somewhere in the premise that people used to dress up in silly costumes to fight crime, and somehow they hooked up with a Dr. Manhattan, and maybe their approach could actually solve something. That our society could be flexible enough to allow them to operate. Or, the possibility that dozens of countries have nuclear weapons that can be driven around in a truck, and when the first one goes off, a lot more will go off. And that it's going to happen soon.
So, yes, Watchmen hit the target for a lot of fans... but it missed the mega-audience that Spider-Man and Star Wars connected with. It wasn't nearly as much fun, or as scary, as it could have been. Ambitious, but amateurish at the same time.
Mr. Ebert,
Once again, a wonderful review of a wonderful film. Zack Snyder really surprised me here, but at the same time I'm curious as to what kind of film you think would have resulted from the director originally attached to the project way back when, Terry Gilliam. Gilliam took on another property that was also seen as "unfilmable" with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and (even though reviews were mixed at the time) it has since become sort of a cult classic.
Ebert: It might have been...less ominous?
Thanks ebert for your wonderful review, sometimes I don't agree with what you have to say. But you hit everything right on the dot. This movie was truly amazing. And it does play a lot with today standards. What bugs me is that all the fans are bugging, for no reason. I am a fan and I have to say that this was the most faithful graphic novel EVER! Next to Sin City, and 300. Another two of my favorite films. Very well, my only grudge I have with this is the music it was outer place in some scenes. But other then that very well done movie. And it kick butt in IMAX.
Larry on March 6, 2009 12:47 PM says
With utmost regard, thanks for your response and perhaps you are right and I could have gone a little overboard in nitpicking a film I have not seen and whose subject matter seemed off my line.
But I do feel that films are there---or should be--- to entertain, to inform, to educate and elevate ones consciousness---to create a better world--why else would one wield the pen or the camera? In the present example it seems the film is pandering to ignorance and in the process vulgarising the subject matter.You might say atomic theory is something that doesn't touch our lives much and what we think about it doesn't matter much, but what if the subject matter was politics, law or medicine.
Me: "[according to David Bohm's alternative to Quantum Mechanics] every particle in the universe is connected to and influences every other particle simultaneously."
Roger: "Connected to and influences," okay. But how?
I dreamed Roger Ebert asked me to explain nonlocality to him . . no wait, that really happened!
[I give a talk about this at science fiction conventions. It generally takes an hour, but once I did it in 20 minutes because I wanted to talk about precognition in Minority Report. I'll see if there's a blog-comment-length version.]
The answer to your question is, if you know the answer (let's see a show of hands!), you win the Nobel Prize in Physics. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if this question is answered by one person rather than incrementally by divers hands, that person will be the most important physicist since Einstein.
Here are some buzzwords you may encounter that all relate to this phenomenon, which I and some others feel is just about the most interesting in all of science:
The EPR paradox (E = Einstein, P and R two collaborators)
"spooky action at a distance" (Einstein's phrase)
nonlocality
Bell's theorem a/k/a Bell's inequality
The EPR paradox: Einstein followed the logic of quantum mechanics to a very puzzling conclusion. In QM, two particles can become "entangled," so that they have properties as a system. For instance, the combined "spin" of the two particles can be known to be zero. Now, spin is one of those wacky QM properties that does not seem to exist until you measure it. We can measure the spin of a particle and 50% of the time it is spin "up" and 50% spin "down" and which result you get appears to be entirely random. What Einstein realized is that if you measured the spin of one particle in a system where the total spin was zero, the other particle must instantaneously assume the opposite spin ("up" + "down" = zero). Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance"; the technical term is "nonlocality." And what if the two particles were separated by a vast distance? It sure looks as if some signal is passing between them at a speed faster than the speed of light. Einstein argued that this couldn't possibly be the case and that therefore QM was either incomplete or wrong, since taking it at face value led to this conclusion.
Next on stage: David Bohm. Like Einstein, he didn't believe in the fundamental randomness of QM. He set out to rewrite the equations of QM in a way that would be deterministic like Newton's laws of motion. (This was thought to be impossible, according to a proof by John Von Neumann that everyone had accepted. If it weren't for Von Neumann's proof, the physics community would never have accepted randomness as fundamental.) Bohm discovered he could do this, by adding to the Schrodinger wave equation an extra term which he called "the quantum potential." This could be thought of (warning: gross oversimplification) as a force that would act between any two particles in a system and influence them both (and hence among all the particles in a system no matter how large). It was this unseen "quantum potential" that was giving the appearance of randomness (just like the unseen forces between molecules cause the apparent randomness in Brownian Motion).
Now, the funny thing is, the term for this "quantum potential" did not have distance in the denominator! It would act instantly among the particles regardless of how far apart they were. Wow, said Bohm, that's just like the EPR paradox -- it's nonlocality. (And it turns out that Von Neumann had assumed locality when he had proved that you couldn't come up with the sort of equation that Bohm did.)
Well, at the time (mid-1950's) people were still in denial about the problem of nonlocality. No one had ever thought through the question posed by Einstein and figured out whether it was really a part of QM or whether everyone was missing something somewhere -- but the money was fervidly on the latter. And so Bohm's theory was rejected on the grounds that nonlocality was verboten. Especially since Bohm had admitted that he saw no reason why the entire universe was not one quantum-mechanical system. His theory didn't just have nonlocality, it had it globally and massively!
Next, John S. Bell. Bell had read Bohm and become a believer. He started poking around with the equations, and he devised a simple and elegant proof that nonlocality was real. There couldn't possibly be anything that anyone was missing about QM. There really is spooky action at a distance, apparently instantaneous communication of information between widely separated particles. This was "Bell's Theorem" or "Bell's Inequality." Some people think it's the most important theory in physics in just about Forever, because it so completely challenges all our notions of the way things are put together.
Subsequently, the EPR thought experiment has actually been performed in the lab, by Alain Aspect and others. And now that nonlocality has been established as real, there is no longer any objection to some version of Bohm's theory being correct. And the physics community has embraced the notion; many top physicists are now adamant that QM will be replaced by some "hidden variable" theory (the generic term for Bohm-like theories, where you add something previously unrecognized to QM to get rid of the randomness and fix its other paradoxes and problems).
So, to answer the question: there may be a force which connects all particles instantaneously; it would have to be mediated by tachyons (particles that travel faster than the speed of light). Or perhaps space-time is nothing like what we think it is, and there is a layer of reality deeper than space-time in which widely separated points in space are actually next to each other. I actually think both of these things are true, to some extent. But whoever nails down the details will be a big-time physics hero (for one thing, I think there will be no progress in theoretical physics at all until this problem is solved, and that once it is solved, the floodgates open).
Ebert: Your writing has such clarity that I now understand the nature of my question, and I comprehend why no one can be expected to have the answer, although many are engaged in the search. I had an editor who said that if a journalist cannot explain something clearly, he doesn't understand it. You have taken that another step, by clearly explaining what it is that no one understands.
I have learned so much from these comments. One thing I learned is that QM existed in the first place as a series of mathematical equations. Now you tell me that the EPR thought experiment has been performed in the lab. I believe I read about that in the NYTimes.
I suppose it was too much to expect the universe to be Newtonian right down to the bottom, under all those turtles. Below things like atoms and their parts, something else lurks, and if the lurkers are what somehow constitutes matter , then they must not themselves be matter. What, then, is left but space and time--which, neither one being matter, do not number "location" among their attributes? So to describe them as being connected or not being connected is beside the point. Even though it seems they may be.
It works for me as an idea. A rather beautiful one. I am still completely in the dark, but now I have something to think about, to pass the time.
If Heath Ledger deserved an Oscar nomination, then I really believe Jackie Earle Haley deserves one as well. I thought he totally immersed himself in the character. Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Billy Crudup were also exceptional, but Haley really nailed it.
Also, I thought the film's ending worked very well, despite it not being 100 percent faithful to the book.
A point I've always found interesting is really how passive a personality is Dr.Manhatten. Even as Jon Osterman he's something of a spectator, and what actions he takes are determined by others. He becomes a physicist at his father's insistance, his relationship with Janey Slater is largely the result of his following her lead, etc. After he becomes Dr.Manhatten, he blithely goes along with whatever his handlers would have him do even though he occasionally questions their orders. One can write off his attitude post-transformation as god-like detachment, but it's really fairly consistant with his earlier character. He's willing to be lead, and to be what other people want him to be, and so becomes (at least until he gets fed up with us and goes to Mars) very much the god a lot of us would like to have, one who'll pretty much sit quietly until we want him to rain death on our enemies.
On an unrelated note, just 'cuz I like Superman:
I think Superman's vulnerabilty (at least as he's portrayed now -- in print, not film) is Clark Kent, rather than kryptonite. You can kill him with kryptonite, but if you want to hurt him, take Clark away from him (coincidentally, Alan Moore, the author or Watchmen, wrote a story in which that very thing happens).
One more thing. Thank you, Mr.Ebert, for consistantly treating superhero films with respect, and not dismissing out of hand the possibilty that a film featuring a superhero could be a good, or even a great, film. I don't know whether you are now or were ever a fan of superhero comics, or superheroes in general, but you seem to genuinely understand how some of us CAN be superhero fans, and don't see that fact of our character as a reason to mock or dismiss us. Oh, and you're a damned fine writer, too.
Mr. Ebert, I am such a big fan of yours. I have never posted on one of your blogs yet, but for the one I do post on, this one on the film adaptation of one of my favorite stories, I will go ahead and let you know that randomly clicking on your Great Movies essay on Ikiru prompted me to buy the film, which prompted me to get into film, which has been my passion for the last year or so. Even though it was a chance event, I deeply thank you for having it available on your website. You never know what one of your essays might inspire in a person!
I am just going to say that I thought much less of the film Watchmen than you did. But reading your review, you latched on to what was the best part of the film, the representation of Dr. Manhattan. What excites me about your review is that I simply know that, based on how fascinated you are by Manhattan and the ideas behind the story, you would absolutely love the graphic novel. Even though you have acknowledged that several posters have told you you need to read it, I honestly hope you get around to it.
Ebert: I will. "Ikiru" is more than ever a great film, isn't it? I think it worked for you the way "Citzien Kane" worked for me in high school: So THIS is what a movie can be!
If Dr. Manhattan is at every single moment in his and jon's life than based on what I read about quantum physics he is a being comprised entirely of photons clinging together through the conscienous of Jon. His own mental energy. I get it now. In the experiment he is turned into photons (basically he is turned into light, which would make him a being of light. And a being of light is godly in some religions.) However his mental energy(electricity, we all have electricity in our brains) fused into the photons because of the experiment. Because of this he was able to use the skills he learned as a watchmaker(random lessons making his existence even more chaotic) and his memories of what a human being should look like. It took some time to reassemable him beself at first because his photons were scattered about. The thing to understand is that the photons are like a photograph, however they cannot assume the form of jon because he is not made of light. so he must become the closest thing to his memories of him(and/or that only photograph that anybody has of him.) Unfortunately maybe for Jon is that He is slowing himself to the light(photons, himself operating at a quantum level) and light sees everything, and does nothing.(vietnam and everything else that happens that he is not asked to intervene with, he does nothing.)
there you go Roger that's my theory
Roger,
Just saw Watchmen and feel it is a near masterpiece, mostly flawed by some of the performances. I just looked at rottentomatoes and it looks like it is doing horrible with other major critics. This film is clearly not a bad one.. why do you think its getting slammed?
Ebert: There is no "reason." A lot of critics sincerely didn't admire it, for reasons that I do not share. Maybe I'm wrong. But of course I can never be wrong about what I feel.
Greetings from Mexico
Just came back from seeing the movie, and i have to say i really want to see it again, i think it did sort of leave me feeling the same way i did when i first read the book, if not for the fact that i already knew what happened, mostly.
But my friend who went with me said she thought it was awesome, but really needed to see it again.
I definitely want more people i know to see it so i can talk about it with them. Thats the best part about seeing a movie like this, discussing it with someone.
Anyways, really liked the review and this article and sorry if there were any mistakes.
"What is mind? No matter.
What is matter? Never mind."
-Homer Simpson
Mr. Ebert,
Was it 'cold'?
I've read several reviews now which have referred to 'Watchmen' as being 'cold'. What interests me is that each of those reviews held that aspect against the movie. Which got me wondering... should movies never be cold? I certainly remember the graphic novel as being somewhat cold--the intellectual aspect combined with a more realistic interpretation of superheroes living in an uncertain time (the 'Cold' War)...
Just wondered if you had the same impression of the movie. If so, you obviously didn't hold it against the movie, and therefore I imagine you've seen other 'cold' movies you admire.
Ebert: Yes, it was cold. A description is not a criticism if you stop there. Why shouldn't this material be cold?
I note at IMDb (8.5) and Metacritic (8.1) that "Watchmen" is scoring much higher with users than with critics. My guess is that Metacritic has fairly sophisticated users.
A post on Watchmen, and only 20-odd people asking you to read the graphic novel.
Fanboys bicker, but are always civil and courteous.
A great 'QM for dummies' piece in less than 1000 words.
This really is the best conducted blog in the WWW, sir.
Ebert: That post on QM by Eric M. Van was one of the most illuminating essays I've found on the web. A virtuoso performance.
Having sat in a crowded theater at midnight, thank goodness I hadn't read the Watchmen comic or watched the commercials or visited the website for exclusive insider tidbits. Its trailer before The Dark Knight immediately hooked me.
Most comic-book movies are exhibits from interstellar carnival sideshows, simple feats of strength or magical marvels.
I am one of the few fans of Ang Lee's HULK. And The Dark Knight was an awesome new benchmark. Watchmen joins the short list of "Comic Thinkers," movies based on comics that delve deep into the conscience and intelligence of man.
In today's world we do have to ask what constitutes a hero? We have soldiers who kill in wars around the world. Are they heroes? Are we to admire the motives of their handlers?A we to admire them? I am 27 years old and only now am I understanding how the world inspires questions in artists and that infuses their work.
Lastly, a quick thanks to Bernardo Bertolucci for the great seats. In The Dreamers, the character Matthew says "I was one of the insatiables. The ones you'd always find sitting closest to the screen." Sitting in the third row from the screen, Watchmen was an absolute wonder. I was among the first to get the images.
Ebert: I showed "Hulk" at Ebertfest and agree with you.
It was a truly amazing movie.
That's all it is. I was entertained at what was on screen and believe me, I cared more about King Leonidas and his men than anyone in The Watchmen. Both are instant classic films for me.
This is in reference to the "mask killer" plot.
Veidt never intended for Rorschach to get involved, though I'm sure he wasn't surprised. The mask killer plot soley exists inside Rorscach's head, and like the Comedian his involvment was "merely accidental." Veidt never gave Dan, Rorschach, or Laurie a second thought... the emphesis was placed upon exiling Dr. Manhattan and furthering his frustrations with humanity -- to make him seem spitefull.
When Dan comes to Adrian with Rorschach's information, it is only then that Veidt feels the need to cover his tracks and dispose of Rorschach.
The "Watchmen" know how insignifcant and dispensable their place in society is. It's inside Rorschach's black and white mind that exists the ability to stop armegeddon and pay retribution.
Those are my musings.
You're still my favorie film critic, Roger. I hope you're doing well.
Roger,
I like your review.
As someone who read the comic several times (and wrote a nice, boring philosophy paper about Osterman/Manhattan and identity theory!), I came into the theater biased. Of COURSE I'm not going to like it as much as the comic, but it was still good. It did a great job of condensing the most important details of a very intricate world and making it understandable (I can only assume) to the uninitiated.
As great as the movie was, Watchmen is an example of the medium being the message. The comic book is not only about morality and "What if superheroes were real? Wouldn't they be crazy or something?", but also about the medium of comics.
Dr. Manhattan can see his experience simultaneously through the past, present, and the future. This is the experience of reading a comic, unlike the experience of watching a movie, where we (as Alan Moore says) are dragged through at 24 frames per second. Interesting, huh?
The comic uses the language of the medium to tell the story. Moore makes use of the comic page and panels to vary pace, create tension, cause the reader to imagine the leftover details (like Rorschach's mask, completely different in every panel). There's also a little gimmick that Moore uses where the dialogue is carried on to the next page in a new scene, which adds a little commentary to the next scene from the previous scene. It sounds confusing (contrived?), but it's pretty cool.
I heard somebody describing producing a film version of Watchmen like producing a theatrical play of Citizen Kane.
Anyway, it was a good movie. It's a good comic, too. You can't find a better superhero comic.
Why is there something instead of nothing?
Has Roger Ebert proved the existence of a higher power?
Ebert: Nope. Sorry.
Roger, your experience of enjoying "Watchmen" without having read the highly acclaimed comic reminds me of my experience with Philip Kaufman's film version of Milan Kundera's "The Unbearable Lightness of Being". Both pieces of literature have been deemed "un-filmable", and the film versions of those novels courted great controversy & criticism of their fidelity, what they left out, etc.
I was very sheltered in high school, and when I reached college, the film version of "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" came out. I loved the film. I was blown away. I was eighteen and I had never been experienced a film like it, nor had seen anything so sensual, lyrical and erotic. My more mature college friends (who had read the novel first) all criticized the film as a pathetic attempt to render the a novel that was considered un-filmable. They all hammered on me to read Kundera's novel.
I read Kundera's novel later that summer and I quickly understood why the fans of the novel felt that any attempt to film "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" would never do the book justice. Kundera's novel had only a semblance of plot, a plot that was non-linear and revisited after diversions into philosophy and theology and musings on the concept of "kitsch". The novel is rich, multilayered, complex, and a masterpiece. Un-filmable? One could certainly make that argument.
However, in many ways, having read the novel *after* the film, I will say that the experience actually enriched my appreciation of Kaufman's effort. As a film, "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" is still lyrical, beautifully acted, and thought-provoking. With the experience of the novel under my belt, I could appreciate more the portrayals by Daniel Day-Lewis, Juliette Binoche, and Lena Olin and their motivations.
I'm pleased that you loved "Watchmen". A film version of some literary material deemed "un-filmable" should still be judged on the merits of the film itself. And I guarantee that the literary experience of the graphic novel will continue to enhance your appreciation of the film version.
And as I recall, Roger, you and Gene Siskel both gave Kaufman's "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" two thumbs up, and it appeared on your top ten list for that year?
I told myself I wasn't going to do anything like this but I guess I'm too much of a fanboy. A reader Bill Hays posted a few things that took him out of the movie and I just feel a need to respond to these particular points. I got almost all the way down the comments without doing this but here we go:
(spoilers)
(1) I know Richard Nixon is unpopular, but a President of the United States discussing a Soviet nuclear attack wiping out the East Coast with a "Let's do it" and "It'll get rid of all those Ivy League intellectuals" attitude was wrong. It broke the "suspension of disbelief" rule.
All I can say is you probably haven't heard any of the Nixon tapes...
(2) Same for the newsreel footage of Soviet troops moving through Afghanistan. If there was a supervillain who had invented and sold technology for briefcase-sized nuclear weapons to North Korea, Iraq and a dozen other smaller nations, that could scare everyone. It would have made the movie relevant. It would have inspired much better philosophical discussions.
I actually don't even understand what you're saying here. This movie takes place in the 80s during the cold war. Why woudl they want to contemperize it?
(3) The over-the-top nature of The comedian, especially the pool table scene.
I can't really argue here, but you do have to realize that the Comedian is living his life as being one great big parody of Humanity and his actions just really go to show what he thinks of humanity.
(4) If masked vigilantes had been killing bad guys in New York since 1940's, wouldn't the number of bad guys go down?
Only Rorschach kills bad guys and that's only after he snaps. The rest are sent to jail after being badly beaten. I realize the over the top violence of the film did really make it appear they were just randomly killing people, but they weren't supposed to.
(5) Even if the Soviet Union had 51,000 warheads, that shouldn't be a problem for Dr. Manhattan, who can be in multiple places and take machinery apart in mid-air. All you have to do is render the warheads inoperable. Transmuting the uranium cores into lead should do it.
Dr Manhattan's perception is limited to himself and his own timeline. He is still not actually a god. While he can be multiuple places at once he stillcan't be everywhere at once. He has no idea where the Soviets weapons are andwhen they are launched he will only be able to handle them as fast as he can personally be aware of them.
(6) The idea that Dr. Manhattan couldn't see his own future beyond a certain point was just too convenient. If you have a character who can see his own future, you've got to work his knowledge into the script.
Dr Manhattan not being able to see the future is part of Veidt's plot. The incident that Veidt creats is designed so it will block Manhattan's view of the future because he knows that Manhattan can stop him. He can usually see all fo his own timeline and Veidt knows this so he figures out a way to block that.
Ok...now exiting fanboy defensive mode.
Dr. Manhattan is a fascinating character, but I felt the ending of the movie and the implications surrounding it where much more interesting.
SPOILER ALERT
Two things could happen.
1. The people think that Dr. Manhattan was behind the whole thing, and thus the world is saved, but at the cost of Veidt's corporation basically turning the world into a Utopia and having complete control.
or
2. Rosarch's journal is printed, people find out the truth, and the world is destroyed because of Nuclear War.
Which is worse? The end of the world, or a big corporation controlling everyone? I'm not so sure.
Now that you enjoyed the film, I think there is so much more material in the graphic novel that you will also get a kick out of. I do recommend that you read it.
Mr. Ebert,
I saw your reply to one of the comments about the flashback that Laurie had when she witnesses someone abusing her mother. I haven't seen the movie yet but have read the novel enough times to be able to explain that the man abusing her Mother was Laurie's legal, but not biological father. It was definitely not The Comedian because their relationship ended after they had sex the second time. In the novel, the man says at one point during the argument that Laurie is probably not even his child. Maybe this was changed in the movie, I'm not sure, but I thought this might help bring light to the confusion.
This is still a good story. Dr. Manhattan's powers are a device of amusing stamina, fun in 1986 and fun now, as well. They do not complement or diminish the physics to which they allude. I think Moore invested the character with these properties to demonstrate more than one idea, stripping away the entrenchment thought, at the time, requisite to comic characters to build a character-device that would satisfy his vision.
In matching the scale of the adventure to the available materials, it would be necessary that Dr. Manhattan have skills appropriate to the tasks: successive one way teleport trips to Arizona, Mars, New York, Antarctica, reaching really high shelves, blowing people up, and having kinky sex. On the one hand Mr. Moore was writing a comic book: could have been formulaic; no-one would have blinked an eye. But on the other hand, his ideas for the arc had set up a collision course with what was known and commercially viable at the time. The later 2/3rds of the whole story rely heavily on the "what" of Dr M, and only a few key moments on the "who."
In comic books, whose powers do what are the whole ballgame. Usually, a sense of fairness, and understood rules of simplicity for sake of sales, limit superpowers to outlandish attributes that have a discrete origin and limit: that way, everyone involved (the characters and you, the reader) can comprehend the scorecard at the end. Mr. Moore appreciated this rule in two ways. First, he created the host of hero characters who had nothing but athleticism and technology as their modus: anyone not glowing, Comedian, Laurie, Night Owls, &c serve as a form of background. Second, he engineered Manhattan, knowing that if he set the full understanding of the character's limits off of the page he would find new territory, his to control, and in a cute way, his to demonstrate with his character who emphasized, above all, maximized control. Extra-neat in a tale whose crafting appreciates clocks and man's efforts to tame the curiousity of time.
Physics clearly rests on the mathematical skeleton that few people can ever properly understand. I don't and I don't care that I don't. Mr. Moore didn't need to either. Delete the displayed gear cogs and the brief use of theoretical nouns (tachyons), and the science of Watchmen can be described neatly in grade school text books: bombs explode, the sun is hot, chemistry is complicated.
I also think that this forum occasionally brings together some tinkering and enthusiastic contributors. Some are thoughtful and grouchy (see: Mr. Ellis) and some are thoughtful and highly informative (see: Mr. Van). I also appreciate that there is much implied respect for the ideas of Dr. Hawking and those in his school on display here. I suspect that his summaries, "Brief History of Time," and later works for the interested laymen, are the true incubator of the Dr M assembly we are allowed to casually probe today.
Ebert: I will. "Ikiru" is more than ever a great film, isn't it? I think it worked for you the way "Citzenn Kane" worked for me in high school: So THIS is what a movie can be!
For me, especially considering I was (and am still) in high school as well, Ikiru was a revelation that a relatively old film made on the other side of the world, never intended to be widely loved or known about, could resonate for a kid whose major hobbies were cartoons and comic books. Beforehand, I never thought that I could enjoy the old classics or what I thought of as obscure artsy films. Your essay was simplified in a way that cut right to the basic theme of living a meaningful life and it prompted me to order it.
And if you're interested in knowing the reason I randomly came upon that particular review: I had previously narrowed my horizons to the world of animation, which absolutely fascinated me (and still does), to the exclusion of live action film. I tended to browse your site a lot whenever I would see a movie, but I once searched for Grave of the Fireflies, which I had heard was a masterpiece of animated film. I was so surprised that a big film critic had the movie in his Great Movies list. I went through the list to see if maybe you had reviewed other animated films, and the name Ikiru struck me as something that could be anime. Of course the image proved me wrong, but such a wonderful image it is that I read the essay anyway, and that sealed the deal for me. So again, I really want you to know what a great thing those Great Movie essays are, and thank you again for having them readily available for such bizarre chance events like that.
But anyways, I am so thrilled that you are going to take the time to read the book. I greatly hope you enjoy it!
Ebert: You might also like Kurosawa's "Yojimbo." It's #128 in IMDb's all-time top 250. Here's my first sentence:
Almost the first thing the samurai sees when he arrives is a dog trotting down the main street with a human hand in its mouth.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050410/REVIEWS08/504100301/1023
I really did appreciate this post. Other critics have complained that Manhattan is too aloof and unrelatable, but that critique misses the point entirely--he's a character profoundly unlike any human, and that's the whole idea. Of course we can't relate to him. (This is one of the things which came through much more clearly--for me, at least--in the movie than it did in the original book.)
I'm reminded of something E. O. Wilson wrote:
Our thoughts, our higher drives, our aspirations--these all arise from our primary emotions, inextricably bound to our physical nature: fear, hunger, sex, and so on. In Dr. Manhattan, the primary emotions vanish along with his physical self. All that are left are the echoes, the memories of his humanity. As the review put it: "Does he remember how it felt to be human? No, but hum a few bars..." By the time the story takes place, the last of his humanity has evaporated. Of course he's not consigned to oblivion, because he still has senses; he's still connected to the world. But he's not connected to it in the same way that humans are, and that makes him fascinatingly alien.
I will decline Eric M. Van's invitation (or prediction) to commence a flame war concerning Copenhagen vs. MWI (or any other) quantum interpretation; however, I agree with the above poster that the existence of such a (friendly, civilized) debate on a film criticism blog is likely unique (not to mention fun).
What I will say is that Mr. Van's excellent synopsis of several of the central issues in quantum theory is flawed to the extent that he is, quite clearly, a partisan (not that this is a bad thing, I am one myself, but argument in favor of a given position should not be confused with objective discussion of the current state of the scientific debate). From this partisan's POV, the most objectionable claim Mr. Van makes is that MWI has been rejected out-of-hand by the broad scientific community. It has not. True, many reject the idea of a multiverse (not least on Occam's Razor grounds, i.e. postulating the existence of countless unseen universes violates scientific/philosophical parsimony).
However, MWI is, in fact, taken quite seriously by a number of influential members of the scientific community (particularly in the field of quantum community) and has been gaining, rather than decreasing, in popularity in recent years. For an excellent overview of the theory, including the main arguments for and against, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/
Part of this is likely due to the influence of David Deutsch's "pop science" book "The Fabric of Reality" (which is "pop" in the sense it is accessible to laypeople, although it is also rigorous and well-argued). As I already mentioned, MWI is also gaining adherents in the quantum computing field, which is one of the "growth industries" in quantum theory, and likely to be one of its most important practical applications in coming years.
MWI has a number of things going for it, not least being it does not have a "nonlocality problem," as Mr. Van well described, and it avoids such "spooky action at a distance" in violation of relativity. Moreover, MWI solves nonlocality without postulating an essentially arbitrary "quantum potential" (which is analogous to Einstein's mistaken "cosmological constant" in that it is an ad hoc element proposed solely to avoid undesired implications of the main theory, lacking any observational or theoretical rationale).
I also take issue with Mr. Van's conviction that experimental evidence confirms nonlocality in practice (if not the precise mechanism). The fact is that the experiments to which he refers are subject to differing interpretations, and there is no scientific consensus that, for example, relativity has been proved to be violated by the transmission of data at speeds faster that light. Some experimenters have claimed to have violated causality -- effect preceding cause -- but such experiments have been criticized and may be explained in ways that do not involve causality violations or transmission of information faster than light (see, for example, the discussion of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser ).
In the end, I agree that the next 10, 20, 50 years will resolve many of the present debates in quantum theory, although I do not share the belief that quantum theory itself will be displaced by a wholly different theory. Perhaps the Holy Grail of modern physics -- a quantum theory of gravity consistent with relativity and quantum mechanics -- will be achieved/discovered, and this "theory of everything" will supplant the different interpretations of quantum phenomena or conclusively favor one over the others. Again in my partisan hat, I would argue we should, in the meanwhile, take quantum mechanics seriously, as a description of reality and not merely a euphemism approximately mapping a mathematical system. As just one example, the experimental advances in quantum computing over the last decade-and-a-half demonstrate that quantum phenomena are real -- and highly useful -- descriptions of reality.
I don't even have a hand wave to show how this post is connected to "Watchmen," except to say that any movie that provokes such an interesting discussion is a valuable film indeed.
Ebert: I sense a flame war inevitably coming on, no matter what.
Roger:
Thanks for the reply. I also contend that there really isn't a reason for the film not being reviewed as well with other top critics. It does seem that the majority of them have read the novel and that is a cause for them not liking the film as much. Another question, if I may? What limitations do the SunTimes put on what you review? Are you only allowed to review films that screen theatrically? The reason I ask is due to the fact that "Tales from the Black Freighter" which is a part of Watchmen will me released direct to DVD later this month. Also Zack Snyder has stated that his preferred directors cut will about 30 additional minutes of film plus the black freighter will be available in a 5 hour plus cut later this year. This version may drastically change the film for better or worse. What are the chances we will hear your take on these two versions?
Ebert: With new movies and everything else, I've got my hands full.
I really need to know, Roger, if and when you read the book, what you think of the movie's ending vs the book's. I'm completely satisfied with the movie's substitute, while at the same time longing for what might have been if the squid had've made the film's ending. It certainly would have created a darker dynamic (if you can imagine that) and perhaps more poignant view on the aftermath of the happening.
@ S M Rana Chandigarh:
I really appreciate where you are coming from.
Simple observation reveals recent generations have taken to embracing fantasy as genre while rejecting science fiction.
Probably because science is real and limited and so hard to understand for most - I mean, you have to actually work at it and seriously think about it in a productive and purposeful manner to get anywhere with it - whereas, with fantasy, one may `understand` it so quickly and, well, there are no limitations in imagination land.
It seems that lately the best fordist culture can produce in `science fiction` is a type of fetishizing of science. People go ga-ga over such mind blowing things as parallel universes and quantumwatchamacallit because it is much sexier than thinking about what science actually does enable us to do, how it affects our lives, and our responsibilities.
This is why, for example, a very original film like Herzog`s The Wild Blue Yonder, which does not fetishize/fantasize science (I particularly enjoyed Herzog`s interview on the dvd in which he puzzles over the absurdity of the pseudo-science in such hits as Star Trek in which traveling to solar systems is made out to be an experience like driving from Boston to Phoenix - not something you can do in an afternoon, but....) is not popular and, well, you see what is.
The best science fiction, like, as you point out, the best cinema, is that which a person may engage in intellectually and emotionally, and take with them to highlight equally engaging discussions of broader, but related, themes. Olaf Stapledon comes to mind, perhaps Le Guin.
Case in point. In this thread, there have very few posts commenting on the actual science of quantum theory. Im sure geeky discussions gravitate towards technical points - ie quality of presentation/special fx; trueness to original plotline, characterization, personal favourite scenes etc. Not to be unkind, but basically the type of discussion one would expect to occur between pre-teens discussing the same thing.
Why the rejection of science as a serious setting worthy of merit by recent generations? Likely, as I suggested, its too hard and provides no escape. While IQ may have generally risen (as has been suggested scientifically) I bet attention spans have significantly decreased.
Not to be polemic, I think fantasy can be quite worth reading. Tolkein`s The Hobbit and LOTR are two stories I enjoyed tremendously when I was younger. I believe certain examples of this type of writing, when it gets to that rare level, clearly deserves to be in the canon. Those are the only examples I can think of in that genre.
Roger et al, thanks so much for the praise. I do think it's a bit disingenuous to say that you "found" the piece on the web when you essentially commissioned it! But that's what makes this blog great.
I have one more really cool idea from contemporary physics to share, the frosting for the cake I baked yesterday. But in less than an hour a dozen people will be arriving from all over New England to watch a double bill of If ... and O Lucky Man!, movies we bonded over while prep school classmates.
(And if you're wondering what kind of prep school would lead people to films that good and that obscure, it's Northfield Mt. Hermon, which has a long tradition of outstanding student theater which eventually spawned alumnae Laura Linney, Uma Thurman, and Elizabeth Perkins among others. I'm proud to say that tradition started while I was there: "my high school class play was Marat/Sade" sounds like a Stephen Wright joke, but in this case not only is it true, but the production was better than half the professional theater I see. Sadly, the director of that play, our friend Joshua Spahn, passed from this level of reality last year. Causality is hard to pin down, but without Josh there may be no Laura, Uma, or Elizabeth quite as we know them.)
So, I'll be back tomorrow afternoon (by which time I'm sure there will also be lots more interesting stuff about that movie, you know, the one with the big blue guy, to respond too as well.)
Ebert: I loved "If..." Tell me how well it holds up.
A.O.Scott's article is a beautifully written contrarian view.
I've found it fascinating to see the positive responses to the film, as it is only the plot of the graphic novel, and I'd always assumed the plot of Watchmen to be its least interesting part. The novel's layout, self-commentary, symbolism, and satire -- both the subtle and the explicit -- were what I always thought made it a masterpiece. One is impressed by it as Dr. Manhattan is impressed by DNA, on an intellectual level, marveling at each fresh device Moore and Gibbons find to deliver their story. There's an entire chapter that is a mirror, each half being identical in terms panel layout and content, but so elegantly done that few people notice on their first or second reading -- this is unbelievably banal, but an easy example without spoiling anything.
After seeing the film, I found myself more appreciative of the plot, perhaps I'd become jaded after years of knowing it by heart and needed a new medium to relive it; Snyder did a wonderful job translating the story to film. Though now I'm left waiting for the director's cut, as the second half of the film felt like a cliff notes version of the story -- moments of poignancy in the novel seemed to fall flat due to their being little time to buildup to them, what with having to flesh out a myriad of characters. Characters like Ozymandias also came off under developed, the only hint of his back story seemed to come during his addressing of the business leaders -- also, his homosexuality was kind of blatant in the film, but I'll chalk that up to the story changes they made. (Side Note: The graphic novel has a small essay dealing with homosexual members of the minutemen that I hope is added to the DVD in some way, we got a small glimpse of it with the lesbian Victory Day kiss and subsequent murder.)
I suppose my question is whether or not you got this feeling, that the characterizations were lacking due to time contraints, or if this comes from my knowledge of the source material.
Also, how did you react to Ozymandias' weird cat? There's a reason for it to exist in the novel, but in the movie it seemed to just appear without explanation. I can imagine a lot of people were left scratching their heads over that.
Ebert: Or their cats.
Regarding your comment, Mr. Ebert, that "The Watchmen assassination plot makes no sense...", I would disagree, unless your meaning is that it does not make sense to kill someone to keep them from stopping the global-spanning conspiracy-of-one, when that person is incapable of stopping it anyway; in which case you're absolutely right, because that's not at all why Comedian was killed.
At least, according to the novel. I haven't seen the movie yet, but in the novel, it was yet another strenuously-calculated act by the story's quasi-antagonist (not spoiling too much, for those who don't know) to get the proverbial ball rolling in those directions he felt necessary to further accomplish his self-ordained mission. I.e., in the novel, it is made explicitly clear that said antagonist never felt any emotional aggression against his target; "It was never personal," in a way that echoes, if not exactly mimics, the manner in which Manhattan (or "John", as the former tellingly calls the latter even after matters are revealed) views humanity, thus setting up yet more ambiguous questions, such as whether the antagonist is monstrous for what he does and how he acts, and if he is, does that make Manhattan a monster as well; whether one needs to exist on Manhattan's quantum level to think and operate in a manner SO dissociated from the rest of the human race (with the answer being, in my reading, a pronounced NO, not only as regards the antagonist but also Rorschach); and of course, in the final analysis, whether the erstwhile villain is the only Hero, in the classic sense, throughout the entire affair.
In any case...if the assassination plot actually DOES fail to be explained in the movie, then it is a failing of the translation from print to screen, not a failure of what legitimately earns its title, for odd-20 years now, of the greatest graphic novel ever put to pen.
As a longtime fan of the comic who was, at first, unsure of the adaptability of the story to film, I think the tie breaker to me actually going to see it is that Snyder uses Leonard Cohen in an interesting way within the film.
Ever since I discovered Martin Scorsese, perhaps my favorite thing a director can do is use a piece of popular music in a counter-intuitive manner. I forgive every flaw contained within Gangs of New York because of the electric guitar-heavy Peter Gabriel piece used anachronistically in the opening battle (though I still feel Scorsese should've followed his heart and found a place for The Rolling Stones in there somewhere).
While Dr. Manhattan is an interesting character, I found myself more interested with Rosarch. His staunch refusal to compromise, even at the cost of the entire human race really is one of the more profound aspect to the entire movie. He is the only character to leave the movie as he entered it, true to his (tortured) self to the end. I also found his entire story was better told on the screen, and I say that as a fan of the book. The pivotal moment of the prison sequence where Rosarch enters the bathroom where his old enemy is hiding, was excellently told on page. But on the screen, where the door swings open and close and we see Rosarch's archrival crawling into the corner with a look of certain terror, was excellent.
I was born only a few years before Watchmen was first published, but as any child of the 80s, I grew up on graphic novels and latter discovered Watchmen's pivotal impact on the entire format and the superhero genre. While movies like 300, Sin City, Iron Man and Dark Knight all did great justice to the their books, Watchmen really felt like the first to improve on the origin work. The cinematography was excellent, the opening sequence simply phenomenal and the use of motion was put to excellent use in many sequences in the film. Although it's not an uplifting movie, I really hope this movie continues to get the credit it really deserves.
Dr. Manhattan seems to have his head in the clouds. Some of the things he says are not as profound as they may sound. What is the "discernible" difference between a living body and a deady body?
Obviously the one is alive and the other is not. The number of particles is largely beside the point. It's more of a question of how the particles are interacting in the organism as a whole. At the very least, a living organism is a dynamical whole made of much biochemical activity while a dead body is just an inert sack of chemicals that has lost it's wholeness. To the readers of this blog: do not confuse quantum mechanics with philosophical reductionism. Just because a sensible object is built up from billions of tiny particles doesn't mean that that the object is an illusion or unreal. The reality of the particles is subsumed by the reality of the object.
Dr. Manhattan seems to have his head in the clouds. Some of the things he says are not as profound as they may sound. What is the "discernible" difference between a living body and a deady body?
Obviously the one is alive and the other is not. The number of particles is largely beside the point. It's more of a question of how the particles are interacting in the organism as a whole. At the very least, a living organism is a dynamical whole made of much biochemical activity while a dead body is just an inert sack of chemicals that has lost it's wholeness. To the readers of this blog: do not confuse quantum mechanics with philosophical reductionism. Just because a sensible object is built up from billions of tiny particles doesn't mean that that the object is an illusion or unreal. The reality of the particles is subsumed by the reality of the object.
Mr. Ebert, I have been a fan of yours for many years. I have read hundreds of your reviews, many of your books, and all of your blog entries. As an aside, you and I share a certain love of the works of Scorsese, and do so for identical reasons. I have always felt you to be a kindred spirit.
By and large, the concepts that you take from the films you review and discuss in your reviews and blog entries are exactly what I seem to focus on. This blog entry has proven no different. Like you, I focused on Dr. Manhattan, which I suspect is not so uncommon, as the character was the key to the entire picture (I have not read the comic, nor do I have any inclination to do so; I just cannot immerse myself in comics for some reason).
I was surprised, however, that you didn't mention the brilliant way in which the picture creates its alternate universe. The "history" of the film and it's subversive tone were the best part for me. I suppose it is presumptuous of me, but I suspect you enjoyed these things as well, seeing as though our tastes have proven to be very similar over the years. I assume you got a kick out of Dylan's "The Times Are A'changin'" just as I did. I suspect that the scene of the Kennedy assasination was very moving to you (more than others such as the two friends I saw the picture with), as it was to me. My question is, then, what did you feel about these things? I know this blog focuses on another topic altogether, but I am interested in your opinion.
I find it oddly appropriate that your link to Quantum mechanics : "You and I do not exist" is no longer available.
Since I cannot see it I am happy to know that I do indeed exist.
Ebert: It seems to be existing again.
Mr. Ebert:
Long time fan - from back when you and Mr. Siskel had a local show on in Chicago.
I actually did a little science consulting for the Watchmen film. They were interested in learning quantum mechanics, as it relates to Dr. Manhattan's powers. My university put together a short video, where I demonstrate the central feature of QM (wave like nature of matter) as it relates to Dr. Manhattan. You might find it interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmj1rpzDRZ0
Anyway - I also greatly enjoyed the film, as did my family and friends - whether they had read the graphic novel previously or were seeing it fresh.
Cheers,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Physics Professor,
Jim
Ebert: I not only enjoyed your video, I've attached it to the end of the blog, even though you've already had more than 900,000 viewers.
I will join the chorus of those encouraging you to read the book. However, I am going to go one step farther and give you some tips as to *how* to read the book.
Look at the pictures, and compare what you see in them to the words that accompany them. Alan Moore is *the* comic book writer because, perhaps more than anyone, he knows how to combine, or contrast, the words you are reading with the pictures you are seeing. Often times what you see takes on an entirely new meaning when compared to the words you're reading, or vice versa. It's pretty fascinating stuff.
Watchmen is considered among the best, or the best, comic book for three reasons, so far as I can tell.
1. It's a good story. A good mystery, and lots of various stories and plots converging into one heck of a twist. However, I think this is actually the "weakest" of the reasons for which it is considered a classic.
2. Deconstruction of superheroes. Watchmen was cutting edge in making heroes, and the world they lived in, more real. A lot of this came through in the movie, and I think it's one of the big reasons people who like it, like it.
3. Mastery of the medium. The one thing Watchmen the movie could not do was show you what the medium of comics was capable of. There are things you can do with static pictured narrated by text that you simply can't do with any other medium. And in Watchmen, Moore shows off many of them in ways I never saw before or since. For instance, when Dr. Manhattan enters Karnak, he appears on the front and back side of page, in the exact same position, saying the exact same things, only it's two different conversations he's having with two different people. The effect essentially shows us what it's like to be Manhattan being outside of time. Those two panels may be the most incredible use of the comic format I've ever seen. And most people never even notice them. The book is rich with similar examples (the most famous of which is the Manhattan on Mars chapter which mirrors itself, front to back).
In any event, like many others I'm glad to see you enjoyed the movie for the reasons you did. I wasn't sure if the book could translate to movie form and still work, but your review tells me that it could and did.
There's an interesting alternative that wasn't used.
The "smartest man in the world" identifies 200 Soviet political and military leaders who are considered "hard-liners." During the Cold War, the generals who seriously lobbied for the use of nuclear weapons.
Dr. Manhattan teleports them, one at a time, to a detention area in a remote location. Possibly Antarctia.
They are allowed an opportunity to explain their actions.
However, eventually they are put on trial for war crimes. On the theory that the fallout from nuclear weapons will kill as many people in neutral countries, or countries not involved in "war." and thus their use cannot be excused as "an act of war."
In other words, if they're dumb enough to destroy the entire world, execute them as criminals. Take away their legal justification.
Or, at some point, abandon the idea of a trial. But while these 200 hardliners were away from the Kremlin, more sensible people stepped in to take over the government.
The theme of the movie, after all, was vigilante justice. People without badges, wearing masks, who fight evil.
Now that you've seen the movie, maybe you should continue to stay away from the graphic novel. In this way you will preserve your impressions of the movie, and never be any the wiser about omitted scenes, details, characters, etc. etc.
I'd like to request that "Paul" provide his last name, so that we can rush over to our local "Barnes & Noble" and pick up his collected works. After all, a man who would have been embarrassed to have authored "Watchmen" at 18 years old must surely have published some amazing work by now.
It's been sometime since I've read such smug condescension. Paul, I'll take a a "full-spectrum" literary world any day over the dry-as-stale-toast one I imagine you favour. You must be a riot at parties.
I've been a fan of the graphic novel and all I've been hearing about this movie is in comparison to the graphic novel. Little to nothing about the film itself.
So I really appreciate your (outsider) view on this, and that you watched the movie twice. As a relatively new movie fan, I've been discouraged from watching movies twice just for the sheer enjoyment of it. That's what FANS do, not educated people.
Ebert: Depends on the movie.
"Bravo, bravo, bravo for embedding the soliloquy from "Withnail and I," a movie vastly overdue for appreciation. Every performance, every line of dialogue in that movie is perfection. Will this be a future Great Movie review?"
Ebert: Quite possibly.
If so, you may wanna hold off until you get a look at Bruce Robinson's adaption of Hunter S. Thompson's "The Rum Diary". Robinson also directs. Johnny Depp (produces and) stars, along with Aaron Eckhart, Richard Jenkins and Amber Heard.
Anyway, just dropped into say "Watchmen" was brutal but brilliant and, finally, against all odds, strangely beautiful.
Though, I think it suffers from "Synecdoche" syndrome in that it will take me a few viewings to master. So, I'm not sure why I say 'suffers' because I enjoy films that aren't so simple that I'm smart enough to hold onto every idea the first time through.
And here's an interesting thing: I have never read the GN. I knew next to nothing about The Watchmen universe before seeing the film. Yet, I loved the movie. There goes those critics' theories that the reverence was supposed to alienate me...
Shame on me for writing off Zack Snyder after "300" when I told my friends rather snarkily that he'd be more comfortable in a room full of fratboys than, say, having tea with Kubrick. "Watchmen" is one of the most intellectually provocative films I've seen in the last few years.
But Roger, I do want to note that, after "Watchmen", a few of the people I saw it with, who did not like it, told me “I think if we’re having to look into it and talk about it this much, then it was a failure.” People said the same after “2001” premiered and was declared ‘a failure’. And people booed “Citizen Kane” at the Oscars. How many great works of art have been deemed failures by people too lazy, cynical and small-minded to actually contemplate what is before them? No, “Watchmen” is not the new “2001” or “Kane” but how many have made an intelligent argument against the ideas proposed by the film? The crowd I was with mocked the film after for throwing so many ideas at them, not giving them any conclusive answers... I'm not sure what world they live in but in mine a film that leaves you with questions and conflicting ideas is not automatically bad.
I know people also have issues taking the ideas of an action-movie seriously. But the violence is built into the ideas. And some of the ideas are satirical. The movie does not want to be taken completely seriously...
Ebert: No film based on a work of fiction should require that you must read the work before seeing the film.
As a reader of the graphic novel and not a viewer of the movie, my best guess as to the reason behind Manhattan's relationship with first, the research assistant Janie Slater, and then Laurie Juspeczyk (Silk Spectre II), is an attempt to return his vision of normality.
Moore alludes in one of the early issues that Laurie has to continue shagging Manhattan "to keep him happy", but really, Manhattan seems to be knocking boots with mere humans in an attachment to the life of Jon Osterman, an almost nostalgic pull. Whether he feels strongly about the present or not, if he can see the past, he can still regret it.
Reply to: I actually don't even understand what you're saying here. This movie takes place in the 80s during the cold war. Why woudl they want to contemperize it?
They could have made an Owl Ship using the technology of 1985, but it wouldn't have been cool or awesome. Rent "Blue Thunder" to see what an advanced helicopter from 1983 looks like.
The goal is to make a movie that speaks to the audience.
It's fun to walk out of the theater saying, "What they should have done was..." But you've got to map out all the details, admit the flaws with YOUR version, and then decide whether it would actually be better than the movie that you saw. Sometimes, there are even larger problems with Plan B. You can't see them until you work out both arcs, the plot and the inner emotional struggle.
Maybe you don't want to give the heroes a simple, obvious way to solve the conflict. Maybe you want every effort to run into a dead end, until despair sets in. And then, the moment of inspiration: Eureka! All movies don't have to be the same.
If the world is teetering on the edge of a nuclear war, and even Dr. Manhattan announces that he has evidence the world won't survive very much longer... it's time for a regime change. Arrest the war mongers and execute them publically. Dismantle all the nuclear weapons. Take the dangerous toys away from the children who haven't grown up yet.
Reply to: Dr Manhattan's perception is limited to himself and his own timeline. While he can be multiuple places at once he still can't be everywhere at once. He has no idea where the Soviets weapons are
What I'm saying is, disable the warheads in a way that the Soviets couldn't detect without taking the things apart. Don't wait for an attack. Neutralize the threat, and then punish the Bad Guys. Change the definitions. If your government is about to destroy the world, you're a Bad Guy.
When you make "the smartest man in the world" one of your characters, then his plan should be judged by that standard.
"The Watchmen" had great intentions, but the primary theme is whether Vigilante Justice is worth the price. Wasn't that the theme of The Godfather? That government isn't able to right all the wrongs, and sometimes you need to ask The Godfather for a favor?
Roger,
Saw WATCHMEN yesterday (your 4-star review clinched my desire to see it theatrically after the so-so but increasingly intriguing trailers)... It's a masterpiece. Visually stunning and slyly satirical, yes, but also insightful, dark and thought-provoking. I actually cared on some level more about the characters and plot in this film than THE DARK KNIGHT.
A confession: I am not a comic book reader (anymore, not since I was maybe 10) and I have never read a graphic novel (not WATCHMEN, SIN CITY, 300 or any others)... That being said, this film blew me away.
Cheers,
Eric.
Roger your blog here at the Sun times
provides intellectual and cinematic
sustenance as the real "Sun" does life.
For that--Thank you.
This movie, however, seems to be a tool
of the super 'villain' sucking the life
from me with each half-pursued theme.
While visually chilling and cleverly
cynical, the "story telling" about the
past was the image equivalent of a
giant "voice over".
Additionally the criticism (or lack
thereof) which may have been a result
of implied narration by Rorschach, a
character described as sociopathic or
some "unquestioned" advance of biased
thinking of the 40's to the 80's in
this parallel but alternative history...
...no matter, the criticism seemed to
me to be odd and limited.
For example, The lesbian
heroes were described as "degenerates"
and as if extending the celluloid closet
to the 4-colour comic, they are killed.
And killed so soon and so plotlessly, if
I may make up a word, as to seem to offer
some kind of scintillation for the hyper
hetro-normative viewer.)
Similarly, the all too unchallenging and
uninspiring clever kill of a murdering
pederast. Please, if we're to wonder
about Rorschach's state and grasp on
ethics -- why pick such an easy target?
The same happened in Hannibal when he
has the child abuser character cut and
feed his own fact to dogs...
Finally, as at least one other commenter
said, the clash of Communism and Capitalism
or the US and the Russians seems quaint.
The prevention of nuclear escalation by
Dr. Manhattan bears little or no light on
the current threats we face from religious
extremists possessing such weapons.
In fact, if there is any irony, it is the
ideas of questions raised by the film in
it's conclusion (peace can be the product
of Armageddon and the death of millions...)
is one of the very disgusting beliefs held
by far too many "believers" in a fair
number of primitive faiths.
In total, I left the film with the same
reaction and feeling when exposed for far
too long to someone's vacation pictures...
...and a vacation to a most unpleasant
and grossly violent place.
Warmly,
Paulie Sabol
Eric M. Van wrote:
I really hate to wade into the waters of attempted pithy lay explanations of QM concepts, but I really feel like I should put a stop to what is the all-too-common interpretation of the nonlocality of the EPR "paradox". That is to say:
Information cannot be transmitted faster than light because of quantum entanglement.
Einstein rightly worries about violating local causality because local causality is absolutely fundamental to Relativity Theory. Local causality cannot be violated and Relativity to still be true.
Yet QM implied quantum entanglement (which Van described earlier).
A little backstory on this... You've probably heard the famous Einstein quote "God does not play dice with the universe". This was his essential criticism of quantum mechanics. He was never comfortable with QM because it was most essentially says that the universe we experience is entirely probabilistic at the most fundamental level. Einstein still thought in terms of classical Newtonian "billiard ball" physics, which quantum mechanics denies. Thus, his "dice" comment.
His (with Podolosky and Rosen) thought experiment involving the apparent violation of local causality because of quantum entanglement was basically a reductio ad absurdum attempting to refute QM by way of showing it was incompatible with Relativity (and, whether or not contemporary physicists held Relativity to be irrefutable, they certainly felt local causality to be fundamental).
However, it took a few years, but eventually there was a definitive answer to the EPR paradox that showed that local causality isn't really violated.
In short, you can say that changing say, the spin of an entangled particle here will change, instantly, the spin of its entangled particle some distance away (any distance would violate causality, but for clarity, think a light year or something—many science fiction writers use quantum entanglement vis a vis the EPR Paradox as their rationale for faster-than-light communication across space), but there's a problem: because of other aspects of QM, particularly Heisenberg Uncertainty (which I'll deal with in a minute), when you're observing a particle, there's a built-in uncertainty about, say, the spin of that particle on a moment-to-moment basis. In short, if you were watching an entangled particle and observing its spin, you'd see it constantly changing, whether its entangled partner was being changed by experiments, or not. The changes would be random. The experimenters, a light year away, would be making changes in the spin of the entangled particle that will be masked by the random changes that will happen anyway.
The only way to extract information out of the paired particle will be to compare observations of both particles, at which point you could identify how the experimenters changed the spin and the other particle echoed that change. And there's the rub: to compare the observations, you'd need to transmit that information across that distance by some other method...that is equal to or less than the speed of light and obeys local causality.
At this point, whether local causality has been violated becomes a philosophical question. You can't ever claim that local causality has been "violated" except after-the-fact, by virtue of acting in the world in ways which don't violate local causality. Arguably, only when you compare the observations does the experienced reality come into being where local causality seems to have been violated.
Dangit, there's so much here to be explained...
Okay, look: the reason local causality was so important to Einstein and fundamental to Relativity is that violating it—in fact, actually postulating instantaneous "action at a distance"—is a violation the very basic premise of Relativity. Relativity in its most basic sense says that there's no such thing as absolute space or absolute time. That is to say, you can't say that a point in space is exactly somewhere and you can't say that a moment in time is the same for the entire universe. With regard to time, in other words, there is no such thing as a universal "now". You can't say that "two things happen at the same time" in an absolute sense. You can say that they happen at the same time, relative to each other. You can say that two points in space have some distance, relative to each other. And that's it. There is no absolute space or absolute time. This is what makes relativity so fundamentally counter-intuitive, contrary to our everyday experience of reality.
Einstein didn't just randomly make this up and then see what it might mean. He came up with this because there had been a number of disturbing experiments, one in particular, that seemed to call deeply into question our notion of absolute space. He came up with relativity as he tried to understand how to interpret these weird experimental results.
So, this is the problem: quantum entanglement, when it is said to violate local causality, implicitly violates the relativity of time. If you can "instantly" change one thing a distance away by changing something here, then you have a way of defining an absolute instant moment in time that's true for the entire universe. If EPR worked, then Special and General Relativity would be proven false.
And while it's true that quantum mechanics is the first most successful physical theory in history, Relativity is second. Toppling Relativity today would be the equivalent of Einstein toppling Newtonian physics in his time. It's a big deal. You can see why Einstein would personally have some trouble with the implications of his thought experiment. That's why he thought that it proved QM false. But my explanation of what would actually happen explains why both Relativity and QM survive the EPR Paradox.
And the way in which EPR doesn't violate local causality, not really, is extremely familiar to particle physicists: it's exactly the sort of thing they dealt with right at the very beginning of the development of QM and in the experiments they performed.
The foundational experiment in quantum physics is the famous "two slit experiment". It's pretty easy to explain, and if you really want to have a lay understanding of what the weirdness of QM is, then you need to understand the two slit experiment.
Imagine a very sophisticated emitter of light that can emit as little as one photon at a time. Photons are the particles of light. This emitter is a "gun", pointed at something like, say, photographic paper. A single photon isn't really enough to expose the paper, but bear with me.
Okay, so you have that gun pointed at the paper. Now, photons, like all these quantum elementary particles, don't move in exactly straight lines like billiard balls. If you point your photon gun, the photons that come out average in something close to a straight line, but because of Heisenberg Uncertainty (remember I mentioned it?), it's only an average. Individual particles vary probabilistically.
HU is simple, and fundamental. It says that we can't know both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. In fact, it says that the more we know of one, the less of the other. (This wades into deeper waters, but the usual explanation of this is the commonsensical "you can't measure something without changing it" idea. However, this is a practical way to interpret HU, but it's not exactly true. HU is stronger than that. It's epistemological. It's saying exactly what it's saying: you can't know both at the same time. Or, it's saying that both don't exist at the same time in the sense that they both have definite values. It's a mistake to think that HU is a statement of a measurement problem. It's more than that.)
So, photon aimed with out gun "scatter" probabilistically. You fire the gun at the film a lot, you get a nice dark, exposed spot.
So, now we place a lead plate between the gun and the film. The plate has a small hole in it. We fire the gun for a while. What do we see? We see an exposed circle of film behind the hole in the plate. Now we put two holes in the plate, side by side, and fire the gun for a while. What happens?
Well, this is the rub. It took a very long time for anyone to think of light as being made up of particles (well, actually, if you go back to the Greeks, you find the Greek atomists did think of light as being made of particles, like everything else, but that's only a historical curiosity). Why? Because light actually seems to be made up of waves, like water waves. Light "flows" around corners. That's diffraction. Light does all sorts of things that waves do. It's why we have rainbows.
If you imagine our photon gun as a water gun pushing water waves in a tank, and you think of the steel plate; then you can imagine the little waves that will come through the single hole in the plate. It may be hard to visualize this, but if those waves "exposed" something like our film, they'd make a circle, just like the photon and the single hole did.
Now think about having two holes. With waves, the water wave will go through both holes at the same time, and the pattern they will make on the other side of the steel plate will be two waves, which will interfere with each other (where one has peaks and the others have troughs). Again, if you has something like film to record how those two waves impact it, you'd see a classic "interference pattern". Not two circles. That's the important thing, here.
And if you have your photon gun, two holes in the lead plate, and film behind the plate, you'll see that interference pattern after you fire your photon gun for a bit.
But remember that I said you could fire a single photon with the gun? That implies that this is a particle, the photon. Didn't we say that light acted like a wave? Yep. Which is weird.
Here's where it gets weirder.
Since we can fire only one photon at a time, then we can build a little device to attach to each of the two holes in the lead plate so that we can tell which hole each photon goes through when one goes through the lead plate. Now we fire lots of photons.
What shows up on our film? Not the interference pattern we had before when we didn't know which hole the photons each went through. Now, while we're checking to see which hole each photon goes through, the whole thing changes. We see two circles on the film, and not an interference pattern.
This is the essential weirdness of the two-slit experiment and the essential weirdness of quantum physics:
When we force light to act like it's made up of particles—by checking to see which hole each particle goes through—it acts like it's made up of particles. When we don't, it acts like a wave. In acting like a wave, a single particle emitted from the gun will go through both holes at the same time (because it's a wave).
When the gun emits a particle, that photon doesn't "know" whether we have a detector on the hole in the plate, or not. It leaves the gun, and...is it a wave or a particle?
You might say that when it gets to the plate, and there's a detector there, then it "decides" that it's a particle. That's one way of thinking about it. Except that what happens is that if you can tell that it's a particle, it will always have been a particle.
I've read about some interesting thought experiments that make this point much more viscerally. For example, you can imagine light leaving a very distant galaxy that is partly occluded from our view by, say, a black hole. Because of "gravitational lensing", the light will bend around the black hole the same way that light waves bend in a lens. And this is true for each individual photon. So, you say that a particular photon actually went around the black hole like a wave would...all around it. Now imagine a device that can detect a single photon here on Earth detecting on of those photons from that distant galaxy. Now, because we force it to be a particle, by looking for it in a way that presupposes particles, then we've forced it to have acted like a particle. In that case, it's always been a particle...meaning that it now went to the side of the black hole. If we don't look for a particle, it the light will act like a wave. Just like our photon gun...that distant galaxy is exactly the same thing, doing the same thing; and the black hole is acting sort of like that lead plate.
And the point here is that the photon passed that black hole millions of years ago. Yet, we only just now check to see if it's a particle or a wave. What we do now, makes it true a million years ago.
Doesn't that violate local causality? Well, no, no more than EPR does. Because there's no way to check.
Now we have the famous Schroedinger's Cat. That was another attempt at a reductio. I won't explain it, it's just the same sort of thing except it takes this to a seemingly absurd degree—you have a cat that lives or dies on the basis of observing whether something acts like a particle. The thought experiment implies that you can't say that the cat lives or dies until someone opens the box and checks...until that point, the particle has acted like a wave, and so the cat exists in a wavelike both dead and alive until the box is opened. QM theorists said, before that thought experiment (and still do, mostly) that the probabilistic weirdness of QM only exists at the microcosmic level, that the probabilities of macrocosmic things, like cats and people, involve so many particles that the probabilities work out to be so close to certainty that everything is solid and things are exactly in one place (and not spread out in many places at once) and so forth. The Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment is an example showing that this sort of QM weirdness can "invade" the world we live in.
In a very contrived circumstance, of course.
So, anyway. Dealing with seemingly paradoxical things began at the very beginning of QM. QM always threatened things like local causality because of the kinds of weirdness I've described. However, and importantly, in all the history of modern physics, all of these weird things have been reconciled. And they usually come down to, well, observation. You can't observe things, or compare observations of things, in ways that violate local causality and the speed of light and whatnot. Since QM basically says that things exist in an indeterminate state until you observe them, it avoids trying to say what is happen "at the same time" of two entangled particles at a distance.
I don't think that M. Van understands that the EPR paradox doesn't actually violate local causality, because pretty much all lay people, notoriously including science-fiction writers, don't understand this.
I don't recall the name of the commenter who said this, but it is the best thing to keep in mind when trying to understand quantum physics: it's math. All narrative descriptions of QM are inadequate attempts to talk about something that only can be talked about with anything approaching real comprehension by using math. Words don't suffice, words are misleading. QM goes so far outside our intuitive experience of reality, that our words are not only insufficient, they are misleading.
Don't trust non-physicists' explanations of QM. Including mine. If you care to understand it at all, then read a source that has that primary, reliable, mathematical comprehension who will then, at least, mangle it minimally when he/she describes it to you. When you trust people like me, you're two degrees of separation from comprehension using a tool, language, that is inherently misleading on the topic.
That said, I believe that it's a pity that the philosophical implications of QM have languished for so many years, now. At it's birth, there was a huge burst of enthusiasm in grappling with what it means, by physicists and knowledgeable non-physicists, alike. That was the period of Schroedinger's Cat and other famous thought experiments. That period lapsed. The implications are too weird and it wasn't proving to be very fruitful to grapple with this with language and the usual tools of philosophers. It led to lots of badly-informed popular misunderstandings, too, which continue to litter bookstores everywhere. But there are a few physicists who still work on the philosophical questions inherent in QM. I asked one that I met what kind of response he gets from his fellow physicists for this work. He told me that it's slightly disreputable, but they tolerate it because he does other, more respectable, particle physics work.
As someone with an education in both the history and philosophy of science, I do think that some of the issues inherent in contemporary physics are worth thinking about by the non-physicist. Particularly, I believe that both Relativity and QM point right at epistemology. I don't think it's an accident that the two basic physical theories we have developed over the history of physics—both of which are fantastically successful at describing the universe we live—are built upon the foundation of marking out the essential limits of knowledge. Relativity demolishes the "God's Eye" view of the universe that we intuitively believe—that there is a "now" for the universe, that everything exists in exact relationships with everything else (in space), that theoretically we could know the exact state of the universe in a given moment. Relativity demolishes this for things like spaceships traveling very quickly, planets, and other macroscopic things. But QM takes this limiting of knowledge down into the fundamental particles; where, here too, we see that mostly we can't know much at all, and very little with certainty.
If you want something to spend late nights considering, in amateur philosophizing, then consider that the history of western science is that we started with some fundamental assumptions, built from those for thousands of years, and the elaborate structure we've built has turned on itself, ouroboros-like, and called into question (or radically redefined) those very basic assumptions upon which we founded this whole process. The most basic things we thought we knew, we learned, after assuming them, we either didn't know or radically misunderstood. What does that mean? What does that tell us about our comprehension and experience of the universe?
That's the question I'd like to ask Dr. Manhattan. If he existed.
Sorry for the length. I hope you read it. :)
Ebert: I'm going to post it now and read it bright and early. I feel like I've returned to college. It's a good feeling.
I see everyone else is encouraging you to read the comic; I want to encourage you to read the Alan Moore works that WEREN'T adapted as faithfully! (Especially FROM HELL and LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN!)
With all due respect, after reading your review I was thinking that all of the fascinating ideas courtesy of Alan Moore that were present in Snyder's film were the dominating influence on your positive review of the film,instead of the quality of the film itself. And this was a concern of mine with general audiences as well who were not familiar with the graphic novel. Would they be able to see the film on it's own merits and not simply be enraptured with the overwhelming quality of Moore's characters and themes?
I suppose that if Snyder was able to channel many of these themes and ideas across to someone who had not read the novel beforehand, some measure of success in his filmmaking must of happened. However, having read the graphic novel well before seeing the film myself, I felt far too many moments were left hollow, and did not carry the same emotional impact that I felt when reading the book.
This may seem strange, but the characters in the book felt more "real" to me than the real life actors up on the screen. Maybe this is a phenomenon only understandable, not necessarily universal, after having strong familiarity with the original source material. As for moments that simply lost impact, the moment of Veidt's doomsday stands out. In the novel(if you are careful enough not to skip to end and spoil it for yourself) reeks of a horrific bizarreness that feels like a superpowered suckerpunch to the gut and mind. It truly is the "world's greatest practical joke". Something was lost in the film during this moment, regardless of the changes made to the means of doomsday.
I hope you get the chance to read Watchmen, (it's well worth the time), and even revisit it frequently. I think this is something I will continue to do for some time, but unfortunately I cannot say the same for the film.
(Note:The following paragraph is not intended to stir up a debate about the nature of God. It is just a way of prefacing my reaction to the film and Roger Ebert's posting. I know it is kind of a turn off to see someone come out of the corner swinging with "this is the way I think God is")
It was mentioned in the second comment on this entry that Milton used Gods ability to see past, present and future simultaneously as a way to allow for both human free will and Gods omniscience to coexist. I argue (although I'm not the first) that because of Gods role as the Creator, human free will cannot coexist with His Omniscience. This is not to say that I don't think determinism and free will cannot coexist. I am a compatibilist myself, although I think compatibilism is dependent upon God not existing.
I enjoyed Watchmen for many reasons, but by far one of the most intriguing parts of the film was its way of dealing with the compatibilist alternative. Clearly Dr. Manhattan was godlike, but he was not [I]our[/I] God, and as a result his omniscience did not effect [I]our[/I] will. It was interesting to see him think about existence, discover the beauty of life, and become inspired by free will. As Ebert pointed out above, this inspiration seems to be leading him towards the creation of life. Unfortunately, I cant help but think that if he becomes the Creator (and will be able to see the past, present and future) he will be let down and bored by his creation. doesn't creation coupled with omniscience just lead to cause and effect without the mystery and beauty of free will? Is Dr. Manhattan predetermined to feel less for his creation than he does for humanity? Maybe someone is watching the watchmen after all, or perhaps They got bored with Their creation and stopped watching years ago.
Roger, I have a question regarding your interpretation of Manhattan’s epiphany regarding the "miracle" that is Laurie, or more specifically, the miracle of an individual's distillation from all the random factors involved in conception......
Is it possible Manhattan isn't referring to Laurie's birth at all when describing the "miracle" he's finally witnessed, but is obliquely referring to a possible conception within Laurie as a result of her earlier tryst with the Night-Owl? Is it possible Manhattan is witnessing that miracle literally within Laurie, but explaining the epiphany without telling her so?
And isn't it obvious Manhattan isn't disconnected from human consciousness in the way he thinks, due to his interests in young female companions and choice of "godlike" appearance? Don't both imply a vanity at odds with his self-proclaimed trans-human consciousness?
- Todd Fluhr
- Todd
Just a few points.
Rorschach created the Watchmen assassination plot as a theory.
Manhatten makes love to Laurie for nostalgic reasons (as he probably misses being human in some ways) as well as, because she's his last real link with his humanity and he'll do what is necessary to preserve that.
I think Rorschach was insane, but not mad.
Personally, I would have thought killing Ozymandias and not Rorschach would have been a better final solution. Ozymandias would have been punished, and Rorschach would have probably been okay with keeping quiet after that, though I understand that they were probably following the graphic novel.
Finally, in a less related note, M-theory will end up clearing alot of the problems with string theory, just as soon as they figure out what all the dimensions represent. Don't feel bad, most people will still not understand it in any form.
"Why is there something instead of nothing?"
That's the question that has always bugged me. Why is there a universe at all? The answer so far: there just is.
Ebert: Ummm...strictly speaking, not an answer but an observation.
Denmark exists to enable Hamlet to play out his destiny. But why Hamlet and why Me? Awesome! No wonder Newton compares himself to a child playing on the seashore. Perhaps the first thing one needs to know is the feeling of awe, admiration, humility and reverence. And the most important....what is the right way to live.....what is my relation to all that surrounds me?
Mr. Ebert, this is my first time posting. To think you might be reading this is such an honor and very exciting for me. I have been reading your reviews since 1995 and I am now 27 years old. You have always been a hero of mine. With that said, your review of Watchmen is spot-on. I read the book a few years ago, and was very anxious to see how the movie would turn out. It seemed like an impossible task to coherently transfer the story to the big screen. Dr. Manhattan is one of the most intriguing characters in the history of comic books, and they really captured his enigmatic presence. It delighted me to no end.
I feel the violence in this film, as graphic as it is, was quite necessary. This is not a children's tale. For some reason I have been wasting my time on Debbie Schlussel's site, defending this film and it's fans. If you haven't read her pathetic excuse for a review, she trashed the film (which is fine, she is entitled to her opinion), but then proceeded to eviscerate the fans. She called us morons, sick, depraved, etc. I just can't stand for that kind of hate.
But that's neither here nor there. I'm glad you are still here for us.
We're all puppets, Laurie
Are we? A puppet by definition is one who thinks he/she is one.
Ebert: You can be one and not see the strings.
I'm glad you liked 'The Watchmen,' since you are one of the few movie reviewers I trust. I would like to direct you to another movie professional, John Scalzi, and see what you think of his latest column? It's not a review, exactly...it asks the question that was asked about 'The Watchmen': what work do you think is 'unfilmable'?
*hugs*
The graphic novel (or as my mother the librarian calls it, "comic book"), was very rich, truly a masterpiece as these other commentators are suggesting. I think I was expecting too much out of the movie, or at least different things. I'm glad I read your review because it puts it into a better perspective now -- it was both enjoyable and unique, and I'm certain it will grow on me.
You did the sort of the same thing for me in the past... you reminded me that Snakes on a Plane was, in fact, garbage. Thank you.
long-time fan, and so pleased for you (and us) that your voice continues to ring loudly and clearly despite many things, not the least of which is the awful abomination that At the Movies has become.
Have loved (and gifted) Watchmen for years, and gave a yeoman effort to keeping my expectations of the movie low. As a result, though I was underwhelmed, I am thrilled that you loved it, as that will inspire others to see it (and best of all, to read the original). I would rather they continue to make movies that try to be about something, and this movie addresses very serious issues.
That said, I think the biggest reason the movie fails many is that it does not shatter paradigms as it did when it came out -- nihilism in movies is almost common now, for example. I have actually theorized that we cannot have a successful movie today where the super hero is straightforward, true blue and *heroic* without some distancing mechanism like animation (e.g., the Incredibles). Iron Man comes close, but still has the irony in the character, and in Downey as its portrayer, to provide just enough of a wink that people can say it's not taking itself too seriously.
This will seem a bizarre comparison, but bear with me. I recently introduced a 15 year old friend to ZAZ movies. She loves comedies, and I was disdainful of many of the ones she watches now, and wanted to show her some of the classic (in my memory) comedies. Though Airplane held up brilliantly, neither she (nor I) found Kentucky Fried Movie as funny as I remembered. With the exception of the brilliant Enter the Dragon send-up, much of its humor came simply from the fact that people did not curse so often and so freely then as now. Similarly, nihilism and existentialism are far more common today in movies/books/tv-- even if it's not always done well, it abounds...
I think I will stop there. Thanks for everything, and I hope you know how sincerely you are loved and respected.
I'd like to second the recommendation someone made earlier for you to read Alan Moore (and Eddie Campbell's) From Hell. Like yourself, I enjoyed the movie of that but it was only when i came to read the graphic novel later that I understood why many fans were so upset with the Hughes brothers adaptation. It really is a complete bastardization of the material. As someone who obviously enjoys the architecture and history of London I think you would find the book very interesting.
Ebert: I enjoyed the film. I think my job is to review the film, not the success of the adaptation.
very nice article, although is unusual that Dr Manhattan is what you found more worthy of further analisis
regarding Watchmen, the nerverending quesion (as it has been for years with the book) is where do you stand regarding what Veidt did? was the real hero of the story? was he a monster?
whom whould side with at the end? Laurie, Dan and Manhattan about letting Veidt get away with it for peace? or Roschach and thus destroying Veidt's utupia based on lies?
I always thought Veidt's plan would be a temporary solution at best and after a few years when people realise that it's not happening again not matter how they act, things would go back to the way they were
you should right another article about that
I've never read the graphic novel and approached the film with reasonably low expectations. It gripped me right from the sensational opening scene to the final frame. What a blast, and so beautifully made too. The cast was fabulous with standout performances by Jackie Earle Haley, Patrick Wilson and Billy Crudup. I also loved the cameo by Stephen McHattie. For me, "Watchmen" was an absolute blast. Great entertainment and one of the best pieces of pure pulp fiction I've seen in ages. And the music was right on too. From the use of the Nat King Cole number at the beginning, to Simon and Garfunkel to Jimi Hendrix doing Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower". Even some Leonard Cohen. Wow.
In my humble opinion, this glorious superhero flick was way, way more enjoyable than "The Dark Knight".
Zack Snyder rocked my world with his remake of Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" and now he's done it again. You rule dude, thanks for "Watchmen", it was sooooo fucking cool. You made an old man very happy.
PS. Mr Ebert, your reviews rock too. I loved your first review of "Watchmen" and I also like your review of "The Secret Life of Bees".
You say things in ways other critics do not.
I was dreading seeing "The Secret Life of Bees" until I saw what you wrote ("I've learnt to trust my heart"), then I knew there was a good possibility I'd like it. And I did. Keep up the great work. Your passion for cinema is truly inspiring.
It's hard to catch the first time you experience the story (either the film or the novel), but Dr. Manhattan's story is similar to another one of my favorite novels... Slaughter-House Five. Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in Time. The big difference between Dr. Manhattan and Billy Pilgrim is that Billy still is very much human and connects with those moments in time as a human being.
I also have to comment on how effective the opening credits were. Not all the little scenes were directly from the book (there were some new things added), but considering how much content is in the novel, the beginning really did a great job of giving you a good amount of exposition just in images.
Ebert: "The Watchmen assassination plot makes no sense, because the only Watchman who could possibly save the planet is Dr. Manhattan, and his disinterest is cosmic."
*spoiler*
But the Comedian could very well have impeded Veidt's plans by telling everyone what Veidt was up to. I gathered from Comedian's visit to Moloch that Veidt tried to recruit Comedian for the plan to save the world and Comedian was having doubts. There was no plan to kill off the other Watchmen, and Veidt managed to neutralize Dr. Manhattan's precognitive abilities in regards to things/events not himself (but then again, shouldn't Dr. M have been able to foresee the events that occur in the Antarctic since they involve him? Oh well...an excellent film nonetheless.)
Regarding "Schroedinger's Cat."
"Schroedinger's Cat" is Erwin Schroedinger's most famous thought experiment. It describes a situation that would be completely absurd in reality. This is intentional, as the thought experiment was designed to give some idea of the strangeness of quantum mechanics.
Essentially, the thought experiment consists of a cat in a sealed, soundproof box that also contains a small flask of poison and a mechanical hammer. Additionally, a Geiger counter containing a small amount of radioactive material is sealed in the box with the cat. The box is left for one hour. During that time, no one looks inside or interferes with the box in any way. If at any point during this time an atom of the radioactive material decays, the Geiger counter will detect it and trigger the hammer to smash the flask of poison, which will in turn kill the cat. If, during the one hour, no radioactive decay occurs, the Geiger counter will not trigger the hammer, and the cat will remain alive.
The point is that, during the one hour that the system in the box is left undisturbed, any observer outside the box has no way of knowing whether the cat is alive or dead. Therefore, the cat must be regarded as being potentially alive AND dead. At the end of the hour, the box may be opened, and the outside observer will see either a dead cat or a living cat. If the box is opened and the cat is dead, at what point did the cat die? The observer has no way of knowing this, because from the observer's point of view the cat was both alive and dead during the hour it spent in the box.
This is one way of highlighting the inherent strangeness posed by the look/no look double slit experiment and other experiments in quantum mechanics. When does a photon stop being both a particle and a wave? When does something stop being two things and become only one thing? Was it always only one thing, or did the act of observing make it that one thing? Mathematics has a knack for explaining apparent paradoxes, but only in mathematical terms. On a conceptual level it still makes no sense at all.
"The Watchmen assassination plot makes no sense,"
That's because, originally, there was no plot. In the novel, Ozymandias just killed the Comedian because he'd caught on to what Ozy was up to. Rorschach, paranoid that he is, came up with the idea of a cape-killer.
Ozymandias then ran with it to distract the others from looking at *him* or at what the Comedian might have discovered to lead to his killing.
More questions from Schroedinger and the cat.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If the act of observing the photon changes it into a particle, does that mean it was always only a particle? If a photon that exists right now is observed 100 years from now, and that observer records that the photon is a particle, is the photon a particle right now, 100 years before it is observed? If no one ever observes it, will it remain both a wave AND a particle?
And speaking of puppets and strings, is Pinocchio still a puppet even after his strings are gone? Is he alive AND a puppet at the same time? After the Blue Fairy visits that first time, perhaps Pinocchio's strings are both gone and not gone until he becomes a real boy, at which point they are observed to be gone. Does the act of becoming a real boy change the existence of the strings in the past?
And does Figaro find Schroedinger's Cat an offensive thought experiment?
Ebert: And was Nixon's nose always that long?
Just to take things in a different direction, and to share one of the many conversations my wife and I had about Watchmen:
I wonder how Richard Nixon feels about the movie?
Ebert: He thinks that after saying, "Go to DefCon One," he should have paused and added, "But that would be wrong."
Ebert: You can be one and not see the strings.
A very Indian viewpoint. I've heard it from a zillion karma theorists.
Ebert: I'm going to post it now and read it bright and early. I feel like I've returned to college. It's a good feeling.
If you are really keen to have a reliable, mathless..... almost... and lucid account of QM, you couldn't do better than the opening chapter of Volume 3 of Nobel laureate Richard Feynman's famous undergraduate level text(1960ish): Lectures on Physics. Ofcourse it wont take you as far as EPR--for that the roller coaster seems better.
A word of thanks for recommending Stephen King's On Writing---it's a gem.
Fandom renders judgment difficult. To judge this movie, based on a work I admire so much, on it's own merits is impossible. In all honestly, I don't imagine a better job could have been done adapting the movie. There were parts that were literally breathtaking.
Comic books are, traditionally, a childish medium. The super heroes of the golden and silver age represent adolescent wish fulfillment at its most unrestrained. (One of the reasons they are so much fun to read as one). In the 70s and 80s, the adolescents started to grow up. The moral certainties of childhood disappear inside the labyrinthine complexities of adult life. Knowledge and power are paralytic. The deeper your understanding of the consequences of your own actions, the harder it becomes to act. The Watchmen is a coming of age. It's the story where comics first made a transition from adolescence into adulthood. It's about what it means to accept responsibility. It tells us how to know and also to act. It shows us the beauty of absolute integrity, while showing us the folly of absolutism. It condemns the inaction of the powerful, while questioning the right of the powerful to affect their will on the rest of us.
Childish? Too strong a word. A story by a man fresh out of adolescence? Perhaps. Maybe you have to be fresh out of it to appreciate it. (Or at least remember what it was like). These characters represent modern archetypes fused to familiar people. These are not the themes of a childish work. I thought it stopped being cool to snobbishly dismiss comics when Gaiman won the world fantasy award? How many Hugo's does he have to win before he can be taken seriously?
Part of the key to what makes the Watchmen so great isn't just the depth of its themes, or the quality of it's narrative, but the delivery. Moore's marriage of visuals and the printed word, with the strange pacing of comics makes for a unique experience. To see details crammed into the corner of every frame that fortify the story's own consistency at every turn creates a profoundly complete feeling when that last page is turned. You finish Watchmen, and you turn back a few chapters, to take a second look at a couple of panels that you don't seem to get, you catch a detail that makes you remember maybe something else from one of the side additions. (Every chapter ends with some documents from the context of the story, like a chapter from Hollis' book, pieces of Kovac's psychiatric file, an Ornithology paper written by Dan.)
And if you like the Watchmen, I think you will LOVE the Sandman. Gaiman still hasn't quite gotten it just right in his novels or movies, but the Sandman is a perfect work of art. (I don't say that lightly. I would only call maybe a dozen works I've experienced in any medium perfect.)
“ People are always asking for the latest developments in the unification of this theory with that theory, and they don't give us a chance to tell them anything about what we know pretty well. They always want to know the things we don't know. — Richard P Feynman ”
As I wrote in my MySpace blog, there's a brief scene in the movie where Dan and Laurie walk by a newsstand. For a brief moment in the background, we see a large woman unload a bundle of papers from a truck, then we never see her again. In the comic book, we get to know THAT WOMAN better than the movie even lets us get to know Dan and Laurie.
It was a brilliant adaptation of many of the best scenes from the comic, but the emotional center is almost gone. Dr. Manhattan was the most interesting character in the movie, but in the comic book he was actually the LEAST interesting of the heroes. I'm not saying he was a weaker character; I'm saying all the other characters were stronger.
I had a blast seeing Watchmen in IMAX, but I think I would have enjoyed it much less had I come at it not already in love with the characters.
Sir,
it is news to me, that a greek tragedy has no proper exposition and therefore starts every five minutes anew, has characters that are total losers and that are constantly complaining in the most idiotic of ways, have no imagination whatsoever, no sense of humour, except continously and unwillingly, have a bad hair day throughout, mix up hustler and hitler for their own fascist reasons, kill whenever they want to, produce monologue after monologue that (i am guessing here) should be seen as dialogue and listen to nena and 99 luftballons.
talking about strings, help me, what is the greek word for 'embedded'?
Ebert: κομμάτι. I was not defining Greek tragedy but superheroes.
Mr. Ebert-
You were right on with your review(s) of this film, absolutely amazing. I've read the novel many times through, and I thought Snyder did well translating the main points from the novel onto the screen. There were a few sub-plots that were omitted, but we still were left with one great film. I personally can't wait to see the director's cut with the 40+ extra minutes that ended up on the editing room floor. I highly recommend picking up a copy of Watchmen and reading it, even if it's after a couple more viewings of the film.
to those who've suggested that watchmen is irrelevant because it's little more than a self-conscious deconstruction of a genre mainly marketed to adolescent males (superhero comics), i'd argue that superhero comics are a modern manifestation of a much longer tradition of hero mythology which goes back at least as far as ancient greece. hero mythology is a large part of what constitutes western culture, it's highly relevant, and watchmen offers some decently provocative commentary on it.
to the poster who suggested that watchmen is a show of disdain and contempt for the superhero genre: i don't believe it is. i think it is the work of an author who clearly has spent much time immersed in hero mythology and much time appreciating the superhero genre, one who cares for it enough to have learned the rules (to degrees that include both the obvious and the esoteric) of the genre before breaking them by combining such fantastic & outlandish situations with such very naturalistic emotions & motivations.
as for whether watchmen is juvenile and immature: that's all relative, isn't it? as a genre, superhero comics are mainly designed to appeal to children. however watchmen contains a higher number and variety of references (both overt and subtle) to philosophy, politics & psychology than you'll find in nearly any mainstream superhero comic or mainstream movie. yet it's not exactly a lecture on those topics, either. what's the perfect balance between simple entertainment and discussion of profound, complex ideas? that's the tricky thing, i reckon.
I for one want to thank you Roger because you get it! This is more than a Super Hero movie and after reading peoples reviews giving it an F rating I was mad because now we live in a society where if there is no movement and fighting every 5 seconds people hate it, People have become so brain dead when going to the movies that when faced with any kind of intelligent dialogue they hate it right off. Sure action movies are good but action movies with actual meaning are great. People keep saying don't waist your time seeing this because they are not really doing the super hero norm and what they fail to even grasp is that this is a reality that is set in a more realistic setting if real people were being super hero's flaws and all. Sure its violent but you think in real life if someone was doing that they would become cold and jaded after awhile and cross the line more and more. People keep saying there's no story! What? its all story but some people just don't get it. Anyway thanks for a great review and actually understanding every aspect of this movie. :)
Ebert: I sense a flame war inevitably coming on, no matter what.
naw, flame wars are for "Star Trek" vs. "Star Wars" or Britney vs. Cristina partisans; what we have going here is an excellent, intelligent discussion. bravo!
Eric M. Van: "my high school class play was Marat/Sade" sounds like a Stephen Wright joke...
that is brilliant & explains quite a lot! ;) seriously, if only all young people were immersed in great art and encouraged to take it seriously. but, yeah, it does sound like a S. Wright joke...
To Keith M. Ellis: excellent post, very lucid (if lengthy) explanation of several important issues, not least being why the imposition of "classical" observation (and communication of measurement/results) means that nonlocality & faster-than-light communication are not implicated by quantum phenomena. kudos.
Re: the "Watchmen" film, which I saw last night (at an IMAX theatre, though unfortunately from the 2nd row, as I "only" arrived 30 minutes before showtime...): visually stunning, without a doubt. I found the treatment of violence as both extremely brutal (sound F/X and snapping bones, etc) and extremely beautiful (in cinematography terms) to be quite disturbing, but I take that to be the point, so I wasn't troubled by it.
[SPOILERS]: I was not terribly troubled by the film's deviations from the book, except to the extent that Manhattan became the center of Veidt's plot, rather than simply a complicit accomplice after-the-fact (as in the book). Although this change nicely explains why Manhattan leaves the Earth (indeed, the galaxy) at the story's end -- better, in fact, than the book does -- I remain bothered by the fact that one of the "good guys" is now branded as the ultimate bad guy, even if for a supposedly altruistic purpose. To me, one of the messages of the book is that Veidt's plot is, whatever its outcome, truly evil (whatever you think of Rorschach's black-and-white morality) because "noble" ends can never justify immoral means. "Saving" the world by annihilating millions is no different from any Hitler or would-be Hitler seeking to remake the world through the spilling of innocent blood. Treating individual human lives as expendable in pursuit of a "higher" purpose is, for me, the essence of immorality -- the refusal to take seriously the moral value and agency of individual human lives. And, as I said, it bothers me that Manhattan is deeply implicated in such a scheme in the film version, even if he does implicitly accept the utilitarian reasoning in favor of not exposing Veidt's scheme in the book. But, hey, I'm probably just a fanboy upset that one of his favorite comics characters is being besmirched! [END SPOILERS]
The other fundamental criticism I have of the film is that Malin Ackerman's performance was not nearly up to the calibre of her fellow actors in the film, and her wooden line readings pulled me out of the story time after time (rather than staying immersed in the characters and story, I kept thinking "jeez, couldn't they find someone better than this to play Laurie?"). By contrast, Jackie Earle Haley was uniformly excellent and believable as Rorschach.
Still, these issues were not enough for me to dislike the film in any way, only to make me feel it was very good rather than excellent. Snyder et al certainly deserve praise for making a very good -- and exquisitely beautiful -- film out of "unfilmable" source material.
I’m writing from Bangkok, Thailand where I watched Watchman. My wife and I saw it at the Paragon Theatre in a luxury booth where you sit in your own ‘honeymoon suite’ and they serve food and drinks while you enjoy the movie. If you ever come to Bangkok, I recommend it. The lounge is a plush sofa, air-conditioned, comes with blankets, and feels like your own home theatre with the massive, screen you get at a multiplex. One brief caveat, they do edit the movie. So the scene with the pedophile’s head got hacked is being pixeled and a big blur covers Dr. Manhattan’s privates like a fig leaf so I will have to see it again unedited if I want to satisfy my curiosity of what I missed.
Anyway, my wife, who is Thai found Dr. Manhattan’s logic to be similar to Buddhism. Dr Manhattan achieving quantum physics is very similar to achieving Nirvana. If you can’t understand the definition of quantum physics, (like most of us) research Buddhism and use that to grasp the perception of what Dr. Manhattan is feeling. I know it’s not science but the elements of some human feelings seem to find similarities to help you at least fathom his reality.
Ebert: Actually, all you missed is what's under every fig leaf.
One of the readers from India also made the reference to Buddhism, which may provide an easier conceptual idea than the math.
Mr. Ebert, thank you for your review. It is most introspective for someone who has only seen the film twice. I have read the graphic novel dozens of times and find myself discovering nuances about it still.
Over the years, I find myself infatuated with different characters. Currently, I wonder about Ozymandias (king of kings) as Neitzche's übermensch (or superman) who, because he is the embodiment of the perfect man, has the moral authority to enact his scheme.
Or Doctor Manhanttan, the deist god who sets the world in motion and observes the fate of man, uninvolved with the fate of his creation - much like the watchmaker.
Or Rorschach, the outdated enforcer of morality through sheer violence.
Or the Comedian, the nihilistic everyman, who wonders why god will not save him from his own immorality, and finds the entire situation to be one giant joke.
Good art entertains. Great art makes us reflect. Brilliant art will cause us to return to the well for years to come.
responding to Keith M Ellis
I have to admit I have no reason to believe your description, like any other found here, of QM is accurate or useful (This is not a slight. You certainly sound as though you understand an aspect of its debate).
However, I appreciate your honesty and integrity in admitting your descriptions (nor any other) should not be trusted at face value. Although physics was not my area of study what I was exposed to leads me to suspect that math is essential to being conversant.
But, what would happen if a person at a book store were to reach out for a cover promising to reveal the mysteries and debates surrounding QM (or anything else), then, flipping through the pages, found that algebra plays a significant role in the discussion? My hunch is that 99% of the time that book would be returned to the shelf.
In imagination land one does not need critical faculty.
Wading through the comments, I was put in mind of an old Outer Limits episode, about a strange (even for The Outer Limits) fellow who is conducting time experiments. I seem to recall a nice line about him, that he doesn't tinker with time, but that time tinkers with him. I could be wrong; suppose I'll have to Netflix it. Anyway, I was caught unawares this morning by Daylight Savings Time, so I can appreciate time-tinkering.
When I Googled for more, I was pleased to discover the title of the episode was "The Forms of Things Unknown," which sounded like Shakespeare--and Google once more to the rescue: It's from A Midsummer Night's Dream:
The poet’s eye, in a fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven;
And, as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen
Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.
And while D.S.T. does not constitute a quantum tinker, it seems we all have a little Dr. Manhattan in us.
veidt executes a xanatos gambit--he tricks the heroes into willingly following his plan. his computer's password was on a book on his desk, do you think a genius would do that by accident?
I'd rather not add to the "read the comic" choir, even though it would be absolutely wonderful if you did so and wrote a blog entry as a response. Instead, can you recommend some recent fiction and non-fiction material that you've enjoyed? They don't have to necessarily pertain to cinema, comic books, or quantum mechanics.
Ebert: If you like comic books, have you read "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay?"