Mansur Ahmed

The film adaptation of what can be considered Alan Moore’s magnum opus, Watchmen, is just around the corner. Moore’s rich oeuvre has not just cemented his authority in the realm of comic books, but the themes and commentaries of his work have also established him a visionary with a very unique perspective about humanity. Watchmen will be the fourth adaptation of one of his graphic novels, and while it seems to be given the expensive treatment it deserves, I’m not sure how great it’s going to be. Moore himself has made a habit of distancing himself from the films of his books, understandably so. Two of them are good in their own right, whereas the one in the middle, the godawful League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, is nothing but a brutal assault on the imagination of Alan Moore. While From Hell and V for Vendetta were good films, I don’t understand why the filmmakers always stray so much from the source material as adhering to it may well have elevated the movies to a high degree of complexity and excellence. From Hell was so different that I felt it should have been marketed as a separate film about Jack the Ripper. V for Vendetta followed the basic narrative of Moore’s book, but made a completely different discussion than he did. Moore was discussing anarchy and fascism. The movie talks more about liberalism and neo-conservatism. It was still amazing and very relevant to our modern climate, but having read the graphic novel, I was a little disappointed in the drastic transformation of content. Nonetheless, most of the action remained accurate. I have a bad feeling the action might be the only aspect the filmmakers of Watchmen have set their focus on. At least with Vendetta, while departing from the source’s ideas, the screenwriters brought their own intriguing ideas to the table. The writers were the Wachowski Brothers so it’s no surprise. But the makers of Watchmen are the same bunch behind 300. I might be one of the few who wasn’t very fond of 300. I had no problem with the visual dazzle and focused direction. It was the writing. I have not read the source material by Frank Miller so I might be out of my element in criticizing the movie. I just felt it was turbocharged in gore and less in concept. If it’s any indication about what kinds of films Zack Snyder wants to make, I don’t think he’s the right director for Watchmen.

Of course, I can be very wrong. Snyder might have a few tricks up his sleeve some of us don’t have the capacity to anticipate. Nobody can deny he is a gifted filmmaker. His directorial debut was the remake of Dawn Of The Dead and although it wasn’t as good as the 1978 film, the original only surpasses the remake because of the depth of the writing. George Romero’s screenplay is no literary masterpiece, but it does contain some intelligent satirical humor which would have elevated Snyder’s version to the better film. Snyder is a technical master, but only if he would give more attention to story. I could conjecture that he seems primarily interested in cameras and effects, but that isn’t completely true as he manages to get decent performances from his actors. Just from the trailers and the few clips I’ve seen, I can tell everyone in Watchmen is good. I’m particularly intrigued by Oscar nominee Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. He’s invisible behind that mask with the morphing inkblot. Haley hasn’t done very many films outside of the Bad News Bears series from when he was little, but his disturbing take as a sex offender in the acclaimed 2006 movie Little Children certainly left an impression on me. As Rorschach, not only is his voice different, but so is his posture. Since Haley won’t be able to express this complex character with his face, and to distinguish the depth of his performance from the special effect of the morphing inkblot, posture and body movement will be extremely vital to the portrayal.

Acting has never been an issue with Alan Moore’s films. He’s attracted the likes of Johnny Depp, Sean Connery, and Natalie Portman. This is obviously because of the quality of his material. Despite that, the material is never completely fleshed out onscreen, even with pretty straightforward works as From Hell or League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen. They aren’t simple stories, but I think everything a director or screenwriter needs is in the panels of the graphic novels. The only daunting task is the technicality involved in bringing the stories to life, but the filmmakers have that down. It’s only the narratives that wind up distilled. Watchmen is Moore’s most ambitious and complex work. If his simpler tales are unable to retain all of Moore’s ideas, I wonder how Watchmen can fare better. Something that gives me doubt is its development history. The film has been in the hands of Paul Greengrass, Darren Aronofsky, and the great Terry Gilliam, who deemed Watchmen unfilmable. This comes from the man who dives headfirst into projects many consider futile, like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. And let’s not forget Don Quixote.

I feel that Gilliam’s sentiments are not far from the truth. After reading Watchmen, I get the impression a film adaptation should be a huge deal. It should be a lengthy epic, which Snyder confirmed his orginal cut is, but apparently the studio will make sure it’s cut down to two and half hours. That’s already a sign commercial value is given priority over artistic value. Alan Moore’s graphic novels are interesting in the conflict they engender within the Hollywood system. He creates stories that are rich in both intellect and spectacle. Unfortunately his intellect is not as accessible to the average person, while his spectacle would blow the average person’s mind even without any context. So the studios can either try and balance both parts, risking the loss of a broader audience, or go for broke and forego anything which will eat away at restless people too lazy to think. I wonder which scenario the studio will settle on for Watchmen? I guess all we have to do is look to 300.