"Watchmen" creator Alan Moore would probably disagree with my argument for taking superhero movies seriously. He vehemently distances himself from any movies based on his own work. In an interview with Wired, the 55-year-old comic-book veteran suggests that fans have been taking superhero pulp fiction too seriously for too long:
I have to say that I haven't seen a comic, much less a superhero comic, for a very, very long time now--years, probably almost a decade since I've really looked at one closely. But it seems to be that things that were meant satirically or critically in "Watchmen" now seem to be simply accepted as kind of what they appear to be on the surface. So yeah, I'm pretty jaundiced about the entire "caped crusader" concept at the moment. [...]
(Is he honestly saying he isn't commenting on the relentlessly un-ironic "The Dark Knight"?)
I was hoping naively for a great rash of individual comic books that were exploring different storytelling ideas and trying to break new ground.
That isn't really what happened. Instead it seemed that the existence of "Watchmen" [1986-87] had pretty much doomed the mainstream comic industry to about 20 years of very grim and often pretentious stories that seemed to be unable to get around the massive psychological stumbling block that "Watchmen" had turned out to be, although that had never been my intention with the work. [...]
When I found myself working, even remotely, under the auspices of DC, I had very different intentions. Well, maybe they were the same intentions: to do progressive comics that adults could enjoy. But by then I'd become very tired of the wave of grimness that seemed to have been unleashed by "Watchmen."
When I was working upon the ABC Books [America's Best Comics -- a satirical name if ever there was one], I wanted to show different ways that mainstream comics could viably have gone, that they didn't have to follow "Watchmen" and the other 1980s books down this relentlessly dark route. It was never my intention to start a trend for darkness. I'm not a particularly dark individual. I have my moments, it's true, but I do have a sense of humor. With the ABC books I was trying to do comics that would have perhaps appealed to an intelligent 13-year-old, such as I'd been, and would still satisfy the contemporary readership of 40-year-old men who probably should know better. But I wanted to sort of do comics that would be accessible to a much wider range of people, and would still be intelligent even if they were primarily children's adventure stories, such as the Tom Strong books. [...]
But it was a change of emphasis. I didn't want to spark off another wave of frankly miserable stories about psychotic vigilantes battling it out with equally psychotic villains. I wanted to do stuff that had a fresher feel to it, had a bit of a morning atmosphere. And I think, to a degree, we succeeded, but of course it all ended in tears.
I remember the comics of my childhood (and, apparently, Moore's -- since he's only four years older than me) being awesomely melodramatic and corny/campy/ironic at the same time. Although my memories of "Watchmen" are mostly grim, it serves one well to recall that the signature image is a blood-stained smiley face. And, yes, I've started re-reading it... and I don't know if I'm going to be able to stop. What's striking me so far is how wildly, satirically funny it is; how specifically rooted in the comics of the 1960s and the politics of the 1970s and 1980s; how clever and flamboyant the visual movie references are (from "Citizen Kane" to "Blade Runner" -- they explain the story long before the plot does); and how British some of the terminology is. I wonder if the bullies in the movie call young Walter Kovacs a "whoreson"... And I wonder what anyone unfamiliar with the Nixon and Reagan administrations (and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) makes of the "Watchmen" comics. How much of the original Cold War political context has been incorporated into the 2009 movie?
Moore explains his theories about the peculiarly American nature of superheroism at Total Film -- something explicitly reflected in the portrayal of "Watchmen"'s big blue Dr. Manhattan, America's superweapon:
I've recently come to the point where I think that basically most American superhero comics, and this is probably a sweeping generalisation, they're a lot like America's foreign policy.
America has an inordinate fondness for the unfair fight.
That's why I believe guns are so popular in America -- because you can ambush people, you can shoot them in the back, you can behave in a very cowardly fashion. Friendly fire, or as we call it everywhere else in the world, American fire. [...]
I believe that the whole thing about superheroes is they don't like it up them. They would prefer not to get involved in a fight if they don't have superior firepower, or they're invulnerable because they came from the planet Krypton when they were a baby.
I genuinely think it's this squeamishness that's behind the American superhero myth. It's the only country where it's really taken hold. As Brits, we'll go to see American superhero films, just like the rest of the world, but we never really created superheroes of our own.
And as Londoners, when we had that little bit of bother on the 7th July, 2005 - after America had two big buildings blown up... Terrible shame, but we had a lot more than two buildings blown up during the '40s when America was providing most of the munitions to Hitler...
But when it happened in England, what was the reaction of the American forces on the 8th of July, as soon as those bombs went off? They pulled the American servicemen outside of the M25, because London was too dangerous for the armed and trained American military men.
Then after a few days, they thought, actually, this does look kind of bad, even for America, let's creep back into London and pretend we've been here all the time....
37 Comments
I love Alan Moore, and I completely agree with his disapprobation of the way mainstream American comics (and many comic book movies) transformed into pseudo-dystopic, angst-ridden whoreproducts. I stopped reading comics in 1994, but I occasionally pick up a paperpack. Moore's Top Ten, about a group of superhero policemen in a city of superheroes, was a great read, I remember.
By the way, I am not sure how historically accurate it is to say that America was arming the Blitz. Actually, I am. It isn't accurate.
Moore's a bit of a crackpot, but never gives a dull interview.
His linking of superhero comics to American foreign policy seems a bit stale, though, especially since Michael Chabon so thoroughly covered this ground in Kavalier and Clay (not that he was the first, either). The film version of that novel is in the works, and though I'm a little dubious (I wasn't all that impressed with it), Chabon's had good luck with adaptations so far: Wonder Boys. This despite having bad luck in Hollywood overall, heh.
I second Ali Arikan on "Top Ten" being a great read. Same goes for "Promethea" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promethea). I have yet to encounter a boring Alan Moore comic book.
But I think that at least an equal share of the blame for the dark and psychotic superhero (and anti-hero) trend that started in the 80's also belongs to Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" which predated "Watchmen" by a couple years.
Watchmen" creator Alan Moore would probably disagree with my argument for taking superhero movies seriously. He vehemently distances himself from any movies based on his own work. In an interview with Wired, the 55-year-old comic-book veteran suggests that fans have been taking superhero pulp fiction too seriously for too long:
Also meant to add: The couple interviews with Moore I've read suggest he takes his work very seriously indeed (even if the material isn't grimly serious) and the reason he's distanced himself from the movie adaptations of his work is because they've gotten it so terribly wrong. He comes across as a bit of a crank about it, but having seen "The League of Extraordinary Gentelmen", who can blame him?
While the early-90s boom and the variants and the 'let's collect!' (from investors) and 'let's let them collect!' (from comic companies) ruined the industry as an industry - Moore, and Miller, and to a lesser extent Gaiman ruined them as an art form. Comics never recovered from what these grown men did to them. Writing what they did would have been fine, expanding the possibilities of comic art would have been fine, but - why superhero comics? Because that's the genre they destroyed. It will never recover. It was one of the great, peculiarly American art forms, and now it's gone, because a few wankers who'd grown up reading it seemed not to realize it was for children. And so the readers (of which presumably there had always been many adults) decided they didn't have to be ashamed of reading kiddie books anymore, and in fact began demanding books that, like Moore's and Miller's, catered to the 'tastes' of man-children and comic-reading pseudo-intellectuals (same diff).
It's sad. I loved comics growing up. If I have a son I won't be able to buy him new comics in good conscience (if there even ARE comics anymore). He'll have to read the same ones I read, because the source of new stuff has long since been corrupted. And Moore is on the hook for that. He can bash America all he likes, and I'll join him in a lot of it, but he's the one killed our art form. For his next trick, watch him kill - Jazz! So yea his comments there strike me as particularly annoying.
Maybe in some interview or other he can explain why such a brilliant artist as himself has done the vast majority of his expanding and experimenting and boundary-testing in such a patently 'for children/adolescents' genre as superheroes. Me, I'd take Chris Claremont's old X-Men and New Mutants work over anything Moore has ever done. He at least wasn't ashamed of the genre he was working in, so that he lashed out at it, as Moore did. But frankly Moore should be ashamed, but not of the genre, rather of his seeming inability to do great work in any OTHER genre.
I am not sure if the obsession with superheroes stems completely from cowardice. I see a great deal of it coming from arrogance, especially the dark drivel that followed the breakthrough success of The Watchmen and The Dark Knight returns in the mid-80s. The late 80s and the 90s seemed to be a time that if a superhero drew blood or used foul language, it was mature. While it was certainly not kid-friendly, I hesitate to call the majority of books from that period—with distinct exceptions—mature.
Well there you go. You went and did it: got yourself involved in the atmosphere and world of the comic. Even seeking out the attitudes and opinions of Mr. Moore himself, who's always the last to promote any kind of faith in the Ho'wood machine.
How stupid do the trailers for Watchmen look now?
(sigh) Shoulda listened to everyone tellin' you not to go ahead and read the grumblegrumble ...
JE: I'm still trying to avoid the trailers and TV spots (though I imagine that will get much harder to do in the next week or so). But I'm glad I re-read "Watchmen" so that I could refresh my memory of the satirical humor (a comic book satirizing comic books, among other targets), and the '70s and '80s politics. I'm going to be seeing the movie at a screening with a lot of fans (and fanboys), so I'll be especially attuned to the movie's sense of humor (assuming it has one), and how the audience responds...
"And as Londoners, when we had that little bit of bother on the 7th July, 2005 - after America had two big buildings blown up... Terrible shame, but we had a lot more than two buildings blown up during the '40s when America was providing most of the munitions to Hitler..."
Anyone who believes this to be true needs to pick up a history book. Pronto.
JE: Perhaps he's still crafting alternate-historical fiction...
Jim, you've hit on one of the most important things about superhero comics (especially those from before the 90s). They are funny. "I remember the comics of my childhood (and, apparently, Moore's -- since he's only four years older than me) being awesomely melodramatic and corny/campy/ironic at the same time." Yes! That's what makes them so fantastic! Where else, other than comics, can a writer (and artist, who is essentially co-author) seemingly overshoot everything, yet land exactly where they should have landed? Those who don't like it seem to find the "camp" as being cheesy. When I try to explain what I find appealing about superhero comics, I compare them to genre writing, soap operas, and film noir. I guess It either resonates with you or it doesn't.
"What's striking me so far is how wildly, satirically funny [Watchmen] is." Again, yes! This is something that has been completely lost in the criticism of the book over the years as it has become considered more and more "great." And it's all set up from the first image - the cover of issue #1 with the bloody smiley face. What a fantastic juxtaposition of iconic imagery! If that doesn't tell the reader how to read the book, it shouldn't take more than the fantastic first page that ends with "that's quite a drop." What a bitterly hilarious line! And right there, on the first page, Moore shows us one of the great devices he will use throughout the book - disparate pieces of dialog commenting on one another, typically in very ironic, often funny ways. This humor is what is bound to be lost in the movie adaptation. But I'm not so sure that that is a problem. I mean, can that really be translated into another medium? It works as art on the page, as do the repeating visual motifs and the garish costumes, but do they translate to the real world with real people? The book Watchmen is able to juggle these different, opposing sensibilities. It's something that seems to be almost completely unique to the comic book medium. The only film I can think of that is comparable in its tone is Dr. Strangelove (with a little Memento thrown in) but even that isn't wholey accurate. Perhaps a filmmaker is wise to cast a smaller net when adapting a piece of work like Watchmen.
Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns is often given credit, along with Watchmen (they came out at roughly the same time), with turning comics to "grim and gritty." But people rarely cite the humor that can be found it TDK as well. Both TDK and Watchmen books are riddled with satire about numerous topics, including comic books and superheroes themselves. Both books are completely self-aware about the medium and genre they are in and the trappings that come with it but they were smart enough to both comment on it and build on it at the same time. The books deconstruct the superhero without being destructive. It's the lesser writers that followed that are to blame for only picking up on the "dark" aspects of those two works and using them ad naseum.
Then again, would Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight have worked better if it wasn't so serious? isn't he also going down the path of just using the dark elements of the great takes on Batman? Does that mean he's misinterpreted the source material or simply made a choice to narrow the focus? Maybe the best comparison is to Batman Returns - Burton got pretty damn close to the tone of Frank Miller's work. But I think the audience didn't understand how to read it. Selina Kile falls several stories and is then licked by a pack of cats - what a daring mix of a horrific situation and humor! But the audience has a hard time with it - they think the moment with the cats is cheesy, especially when it comes after such a dark moment. These things just work better in drawings and I'm not so sure that they can really be successful in live action. If the opening of the Watchmen film was identical to the comic - a long zoom out from the smiley button to the cops on the presipice with Rorschach's journal dialog playing and ending with the cops dialog, would it work? (Memento again - similar effect in the opening shot but without the humor to punctuate it).
This is very good timing with this post and the Spider-Man 2 Opening Shot piece. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films (and to some degree, his b-grade Dark Man) are really a rare beast in comic book films - they come extremely close to the source material by matching the feel, tone, humor, and melodramatic mode. What he accomplished, especially in SM2 is a minor miracle of adaptation. If Snyder is able to get any of Watchmen's humor on screen (and I don't mean one-liners, like Nolan gave us in his Batman films) I will be truly amazed.
JE: Right on, haggie. I'm finding "Watchmen" a mind-blowing experience (and Moore's LSD use probably contributes to this dimension) because he isn't just throwing in characters making Schwartzneggerean '80s action-movie wisecracks. It's the whole world that is mad, absurd, preposterous -- and that's what Moore and his collaborators are setting out to capture. The guy on the corner is just as wacko as the guy dressing up as an owl or President Nixon. The crazy, off-kilter tone is exhilarating -- giddily bleak one moment and poignantly goofy the next. It's gonna be tough to pull this off, to find these jarring off-key notes, in a movie. But I'm really glad I'm reading the comics first. Tone is everything in "Watchmen."
It ocurs to me that the tone of Sunset Boulevard also does a good job of making funny out of every serious moment as well. A lot of people don't know what to make of Norma's waltz down the steps at the end. They think it's hokey. But, this is what it looks like when you take a silent film star and place her in the real, talkie world. It's odd, creepy, and funny. Compare that to Watchmen's placing of superheros (and their superhero complexes) in the real world. Sunset Boulevard is filled with camp and irony and it is all fantastic. It's yet another film that could have been a great watch for somebody who wanted to make a Watchmen adaptation.
JE: Yes. I think of the monkey funeral: ghastly, grotesque, sad, ridiculous. You cringe and you don't know whether to laugh or cry or just be disgusted and horrified. Wonder what Billy Wilder would have made of "Watchmen"!
For those of you pining for a bit of the ludicrous in your super-heroes, try picking up Marvel's "The Age of The Sentry" I won't bother going into detail, but if you liked the silver age stuff (and Truman Capote--the actual person, not his writing...I mean...see this is why I didn't bother describing) give this a try.
Funny you should mention Schwarzenegger Jim considering that at one point Warner Brothers wanted him to play Doc Metropolis.
I also appreciate the irony of Alan Moore bemoaning the seriousness and faux grittiness of comics today. He wrote "The Killing Joke" in which (Spoiler Alert!) the Joker shoots Barbara Gordon in the spine, kidnaps Commissioner Gordon, strips him naked, gets him high on PCP, and then parades him naked through an abandoned carnival funhouse while being taunted by midgets. After that who among us could go back to the days of "Holy Toledo Batman!"?
And it's important to remember that comic books aren't the only medium to fall victim to grittiness and dark storylines. The most popular shows over the past decade have been programs like 24, Lost, Dexter, The Sopranos, the Shield, and The Wire. I don't think you could call any of these shows "fun" to watch in the traditional sense.
However, he is right in saying that the trend towards brooding storylines has gone way too far in the comic book world. I never realized just how big a problem it was until I heard a warner brothers executive say that the next Superman movie was going to be "dark" and "gritty". What a brilliant idea! The Dark Knight made lots of money and was dark and gritty therefore every comic book movie we make should be dark and gritty. How about we make Wonder Woman a prostitute? Box office gold I tells ya!
Finally his pop-psychology analysis of our fascination with superheroes leaves much to be desired. I'm not arguing that Americans don't love an unfair fight, they do (just so long as they get to act like it's fair). But honestly who among us wants to see Superman or Batman just beat up ordinary run of the criminals and bad guys all the time? We like to see Superman and Batman go head to head with supervillains like Brainiac or The Joker or Lex Luthor, their rough equals or doppelgangers. If anything I think superheroes tie in more to religion, our fear or death and our desire to have a constant protector watch over us and keep us safe.
JE: "Lost" this season (much of which is being co-written by co-creator Damon Lindelof, who is quoted on new editions of "Watchmen" calling it "the greatest piece of popular fiction ever produced") is going for broad farcical comedy in nearly every episode. "The Sopranos" and "Dexter" are laugh-out-loud funny much of the time, and so is anything to do with Chloe in "24." The most inspired concept behind the latter show is that petty workplace rivalries and hurt feelings among low-level functionaries and high-level bureaucrats are the most significant things standing between security and catastrophe. That's a step beyond "Strangelove." (I haven't seen "The Shield," so I can't comment.) It worries me that the essential humor -- the absurdity that makes some of the physical and psychological violence of these shows extra-terrifying -- might be missed.
The Governator as Dr. Manhattan would be a joke, but in entirely the wrong way. "Watchmen" is about men playing god -- and one (former) man who actually has godlike abilities. But the whole point, as some news announcer says, is that the Superman is real... and he's American! (That is so funny my eyes well up.) As such, he single-handedly settles the Cold War arms race. He can't have an Austrian accent!
Also, because I got so mad at the comics part I forgot to mention the political part -
England is, historically, one of the nastiest, most violent, most imperialist countries in the world. As recently as the seventeenth century the "fair fight-loving" English Moore seems to believe in (at least in comparison to us) were attempting to wipe the Irish off the face of the earth, one family at a time. More Irish slaves were sent to the Caribbean in the 1600s than African slaves. History books don't mention it. But yes England is historically a very nasty country with nasty leaders (Cromwell's name should be like Hitler's) and a complicit populace - just as much as, if not more than, the US. Apparently because he's lived in a time when England's too weak to bully people as it has in the past, Moore thinks the English have suddenly lost their taste for an unfair fight. I doubt it. But as mentioned he isn't exactly a history buff.
Alan Moore is one of those guys who needs (absolutely needs) to shut up. He tends to be an embarrassment to the artistic community - what with his "brilliant genius" and his penchant for multi-million dollar options while critically deriding anything he didn't have a personal hand in; Hell, Don Murphy called him out for trashing the movies based on his work before release. If I had to work with Moore, I'd probably punch him in the face if I thought it did any good.
Jim your exactly right how satirically funny Watchmen is. The great thing about it as you have already mentioned in previous posts is how everyone within the comic is crazy. It reminded me of Catch 22 except for there is no Yossarian to play the sain main in a mad world. The idea of costumed vigalantes running around fighting crime is laugh out loud funny, but also very poignant and sad. The thing that Watchman does so well just as Scorsese's Taxi Driver did was to to create characters that are that are on one level very sick and off putting, and yet on another level are extremly funny. Its hard not to laugh in Taxi Driver when Travis is spying on Betsy while drinking coke, or when he shows how backwards he is in social situations when he takes Bettsy to a porno, but these scenes are also very funny in the darkest of ways.
Haggie:
Thanks for your comments concerning "Batman Returns". I had the opportunity to see it again recently (for the first time since maybe sixth grade), and I was astonished. I think you're dead right about the tone of that film, which is far removed from Burtons first Batman effort. "Batman Returns" isn't really about Batman Vs. The Penguin, it's about sex. Every single move that these characters make revolves around their attitudes toward sex and gender, and every second of it is wild. Perhaps the reason that people don't often take it seriously is that it's too much fun. If you want to be taken seriously as a comic book film, you have to demand it as TDK did.
I totally agree with you Jim when it comes to the hilarity of Chloe on 24. Pretty much anytime Chloe makes a face or says anything hilarity ensues. And of course the interagency rivalry on the show was best lampooned by South Park in which one group after another would take control of "the command center" (Kyle's Room)by simply saying to whoever claimed to be in charge "Not anymore you're not!"
JE: Her greeting to Jack at the beginning of this season: "You looked good, though..."
I think Alan Moore is just bitter that Peter Mayhew beat him out for the role of Chewbacca.
I like Moore though I don't worship at the altar as some fans/critics do. One of the things that has always annoyed me about critical reception of comic books is that it's only the exceptions that ever get taken seriously... mostly because they're serious. Watchmen, its satirical elements aside, was rightly viewed as a bleak and nihilistic work by the comic book standards of the day - it wasn't the first to earn that label, but it earned it. And because of that it was then "legitimate" art. Likewise, it's Art Spiegelman's "Maus" that wins a Pulitzer because, dare I say it, it's about the Holocaust.
Not that Maus isn't good (though I don't think it's great) but it's only because it tackled "serious subject matter" (and the most award-friendly subject matter of all) that it broke out of the comics ghetto.
I wonder why a sensational run on a comic book like, say, Walt Simonson's re-defining second run on Thor (issues 337-382) isn't a candidate to receive major plaudits. Oh I know why it won't break through to the mainstream press, but there still seems to be some kind of shyness even in the comic book community to treat with respect the regular old super-hero comic books, those bread and butter monthly issues that just happen to be extremely well written even if they're not "ground breaking."
Dark Knight can win awards (though not enough to keep fanboys happy) because it is perceived as not "just" a comic book movie. But Iron Man, for all the positive reviews it generated, simply isn't award material because it apparently IS "just" a comic book movie. And also it wasn't dark enough, it was "just" entertaining.
I guess this would be true of any genre. By only focusing on works that allegedly "transcend" the genre, aren't you showing some contempt for the genre itself?
By venturing into the dark side, comic book writers were trying to get their work perceived as something more than just kids' material. The problem is that they succeeded. I spend a good deal of time at a friends' comic book store. The average age of a customer in there is around 35 or 40. There are a handful of teenagers, but an entire day will pass without anyone under the age o 20 stepping through that door. If it wasn't for movies, comic books would be dead.
JE: Her greeting to Jack at the beginning of this season: "You looked good, though..."
I liked her "Whoever set up this network didn't know what he was doing."
I got out of comics a while (30 years) back. I can't see myself paying $5 for something that's going to take me about 5 minutes to read, and maybe as long to appreciate the artwork. In the last 15 years, I've been a big fan of the Batman TAS and its offspring. I always felt they did a fantastic job of capturing the personalities of the characters.
Robin: C'mon Batman, let's go home and watch "Its a Wonderful Life."
Batman: I've never seen it. I could never get past the title.
There was often humour showing up in the episodes, with things like a Bat-Mite cameo or a robot doppleganger of Jim Gordon having it's head rotate around 360 degrees. Two-Face having a cup of coffee...with half-and-half cream.
nathan m., I still remember when I saw Batman Returns in the theater. I must have been 16 and it was on opening night. There's that great moment where the Penguin first meets Catwoman (and he's chowing on a raw fish!) and he declares, "Just he pussy I've been looking for." I let out a loud, unexpected guffaw in a completely silent theater. The rest of the audience was not only silent after the best joke in the film but you could actually feel the tension in the room.
Christopher Long:
I don't think saying something is "just" a comic book movie, as opposed to films which theoretically transcend the genre, is actually deriding the genre itself. The fact is, when we talk about "comic book movies", we're generally talking about superhero movies (after all, virtually no one claimed Road to Perdition, Ghost World, or American Splendor had to transcend anything), and when we talk about superhero movies we're talking about *content*. As with almost any genre, the superhero movie is defined in part by what's actually in it--a superhero. Just like mysteries are defined by the plot being a mystery and romances are defined by the plot involving romance and horror movies are defined by having horrific elements.
When we say something is "just" an anything, we're saying that it fulfills the obligations of its genre and does little else. When something transcends a genre, though, it attempts to do something more, something that isn't part of the normal definition of its genre. That doesn't mean that the genre is unworthy in some way, it just means that the genre has certain requirements, and this movie accomplished them and then some.
The Godfather isn't just a gangster movie--but when I say that, I'm not saying gangster movies suck, what I'm doing, in fact, is saying that clearly gangster movies aren't confined to merely being movies about gangsters.
Could the same thing be said about the Barber Shop scene in 'Gran Torino,' in terms of picking up on the fact that it's inauthenticity is actually the POINT of the scene?
I'll admit, I didn't really pick up on the satirical tones placed in Watchmen, but I did notice the significance in the image of the bloodstained smiley face. Also, there's something to be said about the sort of duality of the Comedian's character.
But, with all this talk about misinterpreting the satirical nature of a story or an article (as I've done with Jim before ever so humiliatingly) could the same be said for the barbershop scene in Clint Eastwood's 'Gran Torino?'
After seeing the film with my father, he walked out with the thought of the scene being very unrealistic, and too bizarre for the actual world. Then, when I read Ebert's review on the film, he mentioned that the point of the scene is to explore how Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) doesn't know that the talk is ridiculous?
And ... just to throw it in there, do you think this may be the nature of the MTV channel? Think about it. MTV is a channel riddled with shallow "reality" television shows that don't explore the subjects much farther than social acceptance, and shoddy relationship practices. Is MTV really trying to explore the nature of the society our country is destined to become? Are they trying to shine a light on the idiocy harbored by those who have almost everything handed to them without working for it?
Or is it all just wishful thinking?
"They don't like it up them" - Moore was referencing a British sit com, "Dad's Army". There was a British butcher who was fighting in the British Home guard, Corporal Jones, who, in reference to the enemy whether it was the bosh, or even various un-named African's in the (I'm guessing) 2nd Boer War, who, well, didn't like it up 'em. The wooses.
A lot of talk about comics here, not much expertise, and I'm including Alan Moore in that: he's a great writer of superhero comics, a poor reader of them.
The dark, brooding superhero with psychological problems was something that had been building steadily for decades. In the 1960s, Stan Lee and his collaborators on the first Marvel Comics found that you could make superheroes a lot more interesting to readers by making them angry, sad, or guilt-ridden. I once heard Moore refer to this in an interview on BBC radio as the birth of the 2-dimensional superhero (or something like that). By the late 70s, Frank Miller's Daredevil was referencing film noir visually and thematically, the X-Men's most popular character was given to fits of violent rage, both of those titles killed off major characters and left them dead... these were the bestselling titles just before Watchmen hit. DC had tried unsuccessfully to get in on the act by adding tragedy to formerly one-dimensional characters like The Flash (dead wife) and Aquaman (dead son), or taking Batman back to his noir roots. Had that trend not already been in motion, DC Comics never would have gotten behind a project like Watchmen. Moore’s concept (and Frank Miller’s "Dark Knight Returns," two pitches that DC’s then-EIC Dick Giordano says he read on the very same day) gave DC a chance to become the edgier, grittier comics company. But the only reason they wanted to be grittier was because the people who bought comics (in the 70s, mostly still teens and younger) were instructing them to do so. The un-fun superheroes that Alan Moore seems to think were inspired by Watchmen were coming regardless. Yes, they’re mostly dark and morose to no purpose. But if they’d been bright and cheery to no purpose (as they had been for decades), I don’t see how that would improve anything.
Comics have not been "ruined" at all. They were mostly crap, they still are … this is the truth of almost any entertainment medium. When people remember entertainment from decades ago, they remember only their favorite things … this tendency is something nicely analyzed by Steven Berlin Johnson in his book "Everything Bad Is Good For You." By allowing themselves to lose touch with everything that’s currently available, they trick themselves into seeing a decline where there’s actually been improvement.
What we see here from both Alan Moore and his detractors in the other comments are people falling into this false belief that comics were better decades ago simply because there are bad comics now. American comics are vastly improved. Partly because, yes, there are comics for grownups out there. But there are also a lot of great comics for young readers. Jeff Smith did the series "Bone," which is a very interesting blend of Disney and Tolkien that's perfect for tweens, and also did a Shazam comic that my 4-year-old daughter loved. Grant Morrison, who's also written dark (and still fun) superhero comics for grown-ups, did a terrific Superman series (All-Star Superman) that captures a lot of what made Superman cool without resorting to overt camp, and it's probably ideal for a 12-year old. It’s true that you can’t just set your kid loose in the comic book store nowadays and let them read anything … but that was only ever a good idea if quality never mattered.
I'd like to second JMW's love of the Batman cartoon from the early 90s. That creative team really got it. By far the best movie or TV version of that character and world. Maybe the best version, period.
Also, Taxi Driver is not funny. I've read people calling it darkly humorous or whatever and I think that shows that those people are either simply bad people (in the sense that they lack empathy) or are dishonest (with themselves, and then for consistency's sake, with others when discussing the film). If you've got empathy and are a sincere person, ie not someone who relies on ironic detachment to shield him from facing what is actually going on, there's remarkably little humor in the movie.
Jim--
I'm glad to hear you are enjoying Moore's Watchmen so much. It does bear repeated readings. Have you noticed the tiniest details, like Drierberg's teapot being manufactured by Veidt Industries? I once read the first page of Moore's script for the book--it was more like Finnegan's Wake than a film script.
You're a smart guy. I suggest you borrow Ebert's copy of Promethea and also check out From Hell, Tom Strong, Top Ten, and V for Vendetta and then you too can bow down at the altar of Alan Moore. He's really one of a kind.
JE: I've been getting a kick out of all the Veidt Industries products and advertising that seem to dominate the world of "Watchmen." And the quotes from popular standards used in the ads for the Nostalgia fragrance, like "These Foolish Things": "Oh, how the ghost of you clings..." (The Gunga Diner cracks me up, too -- and the radioactive title of the "Burlesk" show: "Enola Gay and the Little Boys.")...
I know this isn't supposed to be about "Taxi Driver", but I have to mention something here.
"Taxi Driver" isn't funny "ha ha", no, but it is funny in that it's so bizarre, strange, puzzling, and freighting.
However, there is one scene that will always make me laugh out loud because it really is funny. Travis and Betsy are standing outside of the porno theater Travis has taken her to for their first date. He's explaining to her that these are the kinds of movies that he knows about, and that he doesn't know about other movies but he's willing to take her to them. This is funny enough, but to top things off, in big bright signs we can see that Clint Eastwood's "The Eiger Sanction" is playing across the street. I don't care how crazy or isolated Travis is supposed to be, that's funny.
Oh, and when Travis gives his name as Henry Krinkle to the secret service agent, telling him that he lives on Hopper ave, you know like a bunny...hip hop.
"Taxi Driver" should never be put in the comedy section at a video store, but there are elements of that film that are truly hilarious. Those moments stand next to other moments that are truly mortifying.
My thanks to Youngman for injecting some comic book opinion into these discussions that I can agree with 100%. Spot on. And to Lawler, I don't think you know very much of Moore's history in comics/movies. He has turned away cold hard cash (as well as credit which also means cash) to keep his integrity intact. If you'd like to posit that it's all myth, I'd love to see evidence to the contrary.
Moore reminds me of Robert Fripp, the iconic rock/fusion guitarist. He's prone to saying all sorts of outrageous things, but the man's output is so genius that you excuse his rantings. Moore's theory on comic book appreciation is a little out there, though I think some of it can be convincingly argued (America is a country by definition made up of immigrants; people that escape their motherland for one of opportunity and freedom - is it a stretch to imagine we collectively want the deck stacked in our favor?), but regardless if you read his work Promethea, there is such an effort to go to the ultimate meta - existence, the meaning of life, etc., it's a journey that is exhilarating IMHO.
I could be clever and say Moore acts just like Rorschach, principle is the be all and end all. I have no idea if he smells that bad though. And besides, he did lend his voice to a Simpsons episode last season that mocked comic book conventions. So the man can poke fun at himself.
When we say something is "just" an anything, we're saying that it fulfills the obligations of its genre and does little else. When something transcends a genre, though, it attempts to do something more, something that isn't part of the normal definition of its genre. That doesn't mean that the genre is unworthy in some way, it just means that the genre has certain requirements, and this movie accomplished them and then some.
Talking about comics/superhero comics, and not superhero movies, I would vehemently disagree with this. What I mean is, I would take a really good run in a superhero comic over a 'genre-transcending' Alan Moore-penned book dealing with the possible ethical implications of a world in which superheroes really existed. I just think a good superhero book straightup has more value than Moore's genre-transcending work, which fails to offer what a great superhero comic does (thereby failing to be 'everything the genre requires and then some'), while also failing to offer what a good novel would. Superheroes are modern myth. Myths are made to last. Is a near-contemporary 'deconstruction' of the myth in the same form as the myth as likely to last? I have my doubts. I suspect the next high culture to emerge - wherever it may be - will find much more value in our sincere superhero comics than in the grim and gritty, self-important work of Moore and Miller. Prove me right, China!
I would like to second Paul Youngman opinion here, that in giving Moore and Miller credit for the actual state of superheroes in comics its at least naive. Comic books were coming to this point as early as the mid 70's, with Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adams taking Batman to his noirish more violent roots or making Green Arrow a left wing activist and his sidekick a junky, and let's not forget that in the pages of happy-go-lucky Spiderman, that everyone loves, Stan Lee killed his girlfriend. Superheroes became flawed characters so the audiences could relate more with them, because they had problems just like any of us that were beyond the villain of the week or cosmic invasions. Its simply a zeitgeist thing, I mean, the campy characters of the fifties and sixties were suited for America's well... campy outlook of life in those days, just think about the TV shows or movies of those days.
I am a fan of Moore's work but i find his sayings pretty nostalgic. Comics like any other medium has evolved in hopes of demanding more from its audiences, to think that the 60's comics, a lot more cheery and campy and absurd, will fit with kids today means that you really dont know very well your kids. Lets just look the animated movies of today, they are a long way from the Looney Toons or Tom and Jerry, and they please both kids and adults alike.
I read Batman year one and the Dark Knight when i was 13 or 14 years old, and I never looked comics again in the same way. They were smart and entertaining like nothing I had ever read before. They were dark, but still funny and bizarre. I mean in TDK Batman kicks Superman's ass and then convinces everyone he is dead, that's pretty cool.
So, I find very weird and annoying for people complainig about the state of comics. They generalize thinking that all comics out there are dark and morbid, or worst that because today comics aren't like the comics that you read when you were a kid, they are bad.
And as for Mr. Moore, cheer up dude, you sound bitter and ungrateful for a medium that made you be where you are.
"It's gonna be tough to pull this off, to find these jarring off-key notes, in a movie. But I'm really glad I'm reading the comics first. Tone is everything in "Watchmen."
Jim, that's why Terry Gilliam should have made it back in the 80's. Have you seen "Brazil". The wonderful shifts in tone from dark satire to tragi-comic elements were brilliant and well suited for "Watchmen". I think he would have gotten it. The one thing that has me hoping for the movie is something Zack Snyder said in an interview when he brought up how everyone was complaining that Ozymandias wasn't in the colorful tights. Zack said something like, he isn't because the perception of superheros has changed from bright colors to tight black leather and if you're going to satirize superheroes then you have to do it from the perception we hold now. It was something like that. But it means he's going on the right track.
The trailers...just the choice of music alone are really quite brilliant. The color tone, the visual representation of images from the book. He's truly does seem to be on the right track.
Me? I started reading comics again recently, but before I did I was disgusted by the fact that Batman was STILL fighting Joker, and Wolverine was STILL fighting Sabertooth. 10 years after I stopped no one was doing anything different.
Which is why I like writers like Garth Ennis and Warren Ellis. You should check out "The Boys" (current series) or "Transmetropolitan" (a series that ran 8 or 9 years ago) or "Preacher" (8 or 9 years ago). Every now and then there's some stuff that pops up that's good, otherwise it's mostly derivative these days. Doesn't matter whose trying to be subversive. Though I hear Neil Gaiman just did a run on Batman. Might be worth checking out.
JE: In some alternative universe I would love to see Terry Gilliam's take on "Watchmen." No question, though, it would be a Terry Gilliam Movie -- a mutant hybrid of his sensibility and the comics. One thing about Snyder and collaborators: they've got cinematic imagination to spare (as I wrote earlier, even if they used the comics as "storyboards," it couldn't -- and shouldn't -- have made it more "faithful"), but they're really trying to capture and serve the sensibility of the comics as best they can, not impose their own auteurist vision on the material. (I guess the less complimentary way of putting that would be: Snyder doesn't have as developed a directorial sensibility/signature as Gilliam, so perhaps he can deliver something that's more "like" the work of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons.)
Paul--
I think you're misinterpreting my words. Watchmen isn't genre-transcending because it deconstructs the genre, it's genre-transcending because it does more than what the genre requires. And yes, it does fulfill the requirements of the genre--you can criticize it for failing to be mythic enough for you (which I think is ridiculous, because Rorschach, Manhattan, Veidt, etc. have become archetypal in their own right), but that's a very subjective opinion--what myths and themes have resonance to individuals varies from person to person and culture to culture. But in terms of the basic criteria of the genre--individuals with distinctive costumes and abilities defend the world--it meets it handily. Maybe you'd rather read a really good run of a standard superhero comic, so what? There are plenty of good runs of superhero comics that transcend the genre. I'd happily argue that Stan Lee did it with Spider-Man by creating a character with personal problems, a character who was more than just a superhero, and so created a book about more than just super-heroics.
I think JMW is right about the animated series. It captures just the right tone and i like the humor it incorporates right along with the "dark" stylized atmosphere.
My favorite episode would be "Mad Love", Harley Quinn's origin story. While it is, in its structure, another great action/thriller episode (and supervillian origin story to boot), it is just hilarious in the way it handles a completely bizarre love story between Joker and Harley who is such a lovable character in that she should know better, but just can't help herself fromn loving the creep. All this makes sense thanks to a tight plot (with the right elements of satire towards romance, superheroes and even origin stories themselves) full of original touches. See how, by the end, Batman has esencially become the villian, without breaking who the character is. I highly recomend that one to anyone who thinks a great superhero tale can't be funny.
On Watchmen, i have to say that while it never has been my favorite comic book (that would be Grant Morrison bizarre, weird, and unique Batman:Arkham Asylum), it is perhaps the one i've revisited the most, simply perhaps there is so much to look at, and because it's story is so great it takes several times to absorb it. If the movies has some of that density, then it will be quite worthwhile.
And no, i hadn't noticed the Veidt trademark on the Teapot, though i had everywhere else. Or the Blade Runner/Citizen Kane references. Do you mean the floating Gunga Diner elephants?
If you do, then i totally understand why that would be funny. If not, any pointers?
Anyhow, i'll be sure to check this stuff out next time i bring out my copy.
@Pauls: I think Stephen's definition of genre transcending is good, but it gets slightly complicated when you add satire into the mix. Watchmen doesn't "work" as a superhero series in the same way that, say, All-Star Superman does, because it works by deliberately not fulfilling the expectations we have of the genre, for example that the villains will be defeated.
But Moore has made plenty of comics which do everything a superhero comic should and more. I don't mean the nostalgic ABC stuff here but things like Miracleman, which is to my mind about as perfect and mythical a superhero story as you can get, while also being an incredibly chilling scifi/cosmic horror story.
I think it's telling that the people criticising Moore here aren't fans of Elliot S! Maggin's Superman run or Ditko's Dr Strange or any other stereotypically fun, quirky children's comics but rather dark wordy ones like Claremont's X-Men and Simonson's Thor. To me that just confirms what Moore is saying about his critics being the ones who take superhero comics too seriously. God Loves Man Kills is far more complicit in the Grim'n'Gritty trend than DKR or Watchmen, and far more po-faced.
I have to agree with some of the other comments and say that Moore's analogy of American history and comics books is EXTREMELY flimsy.
As an avid comic fan, it seems to me that Moore is flattering himself by saying that Watchmen was responsible for the psychological gritty element that has become a fixture of modern comics. By making such a statement, he's completely discounting the works of his peers during the same period, most importantly Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns." At the same time, this progression to makes comics more serious was bound to happen, Watchmen or no Watchmen, largely because DC felt pressure from the more popular and conflicted Marvel superheros.
Lastly, I really question how much of his own words Alan Moore buys into. I love the guys writing, and of course love Watchmen, but Moore is a bit of an eccentric to put it lightly. He has been known to make certain statements only to say the opposite later on. Maybe it's just something great writers do. F. Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway, and Mark Twain were known for doing the same.
Alan Moore: "And as Londoners, when we had that little bit of bother on the 7th July, 2005,,,"
A little bit of bother? Ask the families of those who were killed if they would describe it as a "little bit of bother".
I adore Mr. Moore's writing in almost every comic he does. LXG is a particular favorite. Watchmen has been with me for 20+ years.
But damn if he isn't an unlikeable nutter when he says things like that.
I keep seeing Paul's comments on posts like these, and they're increasingly ridiculous, for reasons that have been written about by his namesake, the other Paul. Since the sixties, a large - large - portion of the market were college age, or even older, and Stan Lee mentions this pretty often (but, he is pretty dotty, so take it as you will). The genre was never really geared at youngsters exclusively except for a small bracket of time in the late forties and into the early sixties, and that by mandate. They've always been a part of the audience, but to say that they were the only ones that the writers were working for is more than a little disingenuous. Shades of C.S. Lewis, here.
As far as Miller's concerned, and as I said before, he's become a caricature of himself, in recent years. He used to be a genuinely good writer, deserving of the "Dashiell Hammitt of comic" label he'd been affixed with. But, now - it's just continually monotonous juvenile fantasies, "300" being the best example.
Leave a comment