Film, Literature, & the Human Condition

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. (continue reading…)

When I watched Superman Returns back in 2006, I kind of liked it. I thought Brandon Routh was perfect, able to maintain the essence of Christopher Reeve, but he wasn’t given too much to do. I liked Superman Returns, I felt it did a lot more right than it did wrong, but there were two major issues I had with the movie. One was the screenplay. A close second was Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, but primarily the screenplay. Everything else was okay to me. Bryan Singer’s direction very closely followed the style which was established by Richard Donner in the 1978 original, which added a warm welcomed dimension of nostalgia. Kevin Spacey’s performance as Lex Luthor paid tribute to Gene Hackman while staying unique itself. Like I said, the main flaw is the narrative ambitions of the screenwriters, which were a bit overreaching. While maintaining the philosophy of verisimilitude as emphasized by Donner, I felt maybe they took the material too seriously, thereby detracting from the magic of the first film. Towards the end, it began to adopt soap-operatic elements, introducing a paternity dispute to the whole mix. There’s nothing wrong with Superman having a son, but the Man of Steel is about a lot more than being envious of another person filling his gap with Lois Lane. The quiet romance between the two in the original was refreshing in its simplicity. The direction it took in the second film was only to show what would happen should Superman give into the banality of blind devotion to a single person over the rest of humanity. He has certain responsibilities to those weaker than him. Something else I thought the new script did wrong was emphasize a kind of Christ-like quality of Superman. Obviously Superman’s attributes naturally procures that sort of comparison, but it’s not supposed to be that serious, nor does Superman ever allow himself to recognize he is above everybody else because of his powers. He knows that he is special, but he strives to never place one human being over another. One of his conflicts does stem from his feelings for Lois Lane, but Superman Returns strays away from that discussion in place of melodrama. I didn’t think it was real interesting, or fun. (continue reading…)