Nathan Key

Husband, Father, Thinker.

 

 
 

This week, I'm going to delve into the movie Watchmen. If you haven't seen the movie or read the comic then you'll probably want to avoid my blog for a few days- especially since I'm not going to do the *Spoiler Alert* thing- save this disclaimer. We're dealing with source material that's a quarter century old. It's open game as far as I'm concerned...

* * *

I had a friend walk out of the movie Watchmen during the scene where The Comedian attempts to rape the Silk Spectre. Another friend of mine sent me a text message moments before I went to see the film, warning me that the movie was one long depiction of violence against women (based on that scene and a few others where women are hurt, killed, or beaten).

Having read the graphic novel prior to viewing the film, I knew that these particular scenes would be in the story, so I went anyway, because I wanted to write about it this week.

As it turned out, however, the film version was a bit more intense (and less meaningful) than the novel and so I'm not really sure how I feel about the choice to include these scenes.

In the book, violence against women (by one character) was an important piece of the story- not because of the actual acts of violence- but rather because these acts spoke volumes about the man who was doing them. The man who attempts to rape a fellow vigilante, later kills a pregnant woman in Vietnam (pregnant with HIS child), and also seems to enjoy lobbing smoke grenades into a crowd of protesters. He's depicted as a monster who is trying to save the world from monsters.

It's ironic (or at least strange coincidence).

This entire character description is there so that we can delve into the way that another character, Lori (the Silk Spectre 2), is dealing with her own emotions about this monster of a man. She is the daughter of the woman he tried to rape and she knows about the violence he perpetuated against her mother. She knows this man is a horrible wretch of a person and in the wake of his death there's anger simmering within her toward him and confusion over why her own mother doesn't seem to hate him any longer.

When she discovers that he is actually her father (not by the rape, but through a different encounter with her mother), it's a twist almost as grand as Darth Vader's revelation that he is, in fact, Luke's father. We feel the despair set it and the absolute hatred that she must feel toward this man- and also the miracle that out of such a brutal man could come such a wonderful woman.

The film, however, didn't do a very good job dealing with these conflicting emotions. It didn't dwell on Lori's story enough for us to really understand how The Comedian's life (and death) were bothering her. Thus, the violence perpetuated against women and the revelation scene that this monster was, in fact, Lori's father seemed pretty cheap and contrived (especially to anyone who hadn't read the book before going to see the film).

Rather than irony, the violence was reduced to the insertion of some action into the plodding narrative. Not meaningful or useful as far as I'm concerned.

* * *

This morning, I read a stunning article by Mary Mackey about women, violence, and film. You can read it here.

If you don't feel like reading it, here's a short summary: Mackey makes the argument that Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a symbol of how men view women; as meat, meant to be slaughtered and tormented so that the males of our human race can feel powerful and strong.

* * *

I wonder if that's how my friend felt when she saw the violence perpetuated against women in the film Watchmen?

I believe that in the graphic novel this violence had a point. I'll get into it later in the week, but a lot big theme of Watchmen is picturing the sorrow that Nietzsche felt over "the death of God." The fact that these "gods" have fatal flaws that make them violent and gruesome was practically the point.

But in the film version, this explanation seems flimsy.

Why, then, included any of these scenes at all? Couldn't Zach Snyder figure out a way to vilify The Comedian in some other way if he wasn't planning on making these acts of violence mean anything? Or was that his point- to create a world of meaningless violence?

* * *

Hopefully you took the time to read Mary Mackey's article. After digesting her assessment of violence against women and the (unintentionally) meaningless violence against women in Watchmen:

1. Do you feel that it was a poor choice to include these scenes in the film version of Watchmen?

2. What could Director Zach Snyder have done differently to either eliminate or redeem his use of violence against women?

3. Do you feel like this is an overreaction? Why or why not?

 


Comments

Geoffrey Radden

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:56:26

1. My problem with these scenes applies to my same problem with the movie in general it is way too underdeveloped in comparison to the novel. I walked out with my friend and his girlfriend and I looked at him(he also read the novel) and said I bet people who haven't read the graphic novel have no clue what was going on. At this point his girlfriend chimed in. "I didn't read it and I have no clue what was going on"
Now I believe the director really was trying to express just how wrong the comedian is. But as in everything else his movie got edited down. I will really have an opinion on how I think he treated the source material when I see the unedited version that is guaranteed to happen.
2. I think he could have redeemed it more by having more of the flashbacks dealing with the "Under the Hood" material. People having not read Watchmen do not realize that the Comedian is but a small piece in the history. And everything else is just glossed over. I think he really wanted to emphasize Lori's story but missed out on the realization on mars.
3. I am not sure on how I view it. I think Snyder over emphasized the violence in the movie in general. Action was never a big part in the novel but he had to add the action to sell the movie as a superhero fair. I think the fight scene in the prison was over emphasized as in every other fight scene in the movie.

Just my thoughts I suppose

 

Seth Wright

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:26:20

I'm still trying to gather my thoughts enough to compile a review of sorts.

Quickly though, a couple of thoughts about the Comedian:

1) I agree completely about the Lori revelation you pointed out in this post. It's a shame her story was trimmed down/portrayed by such a poor actress. If she were given more time in the film and played by a better actress the scene MAY have meant a bit more.

2) The life (read: living) of the comedian was bullet point as it was flash back. The more important implications were on the aftermath of his death. Therefore, these flashbacks already carried less meaning. The audience is always more concerned with the present.

3) Synder had four scenes of (that I counted) of the comedian doing particularly heinous things

a) the JFK assanation
b) the attempted rape
c) the gunning down of a pregnant woman.
d) taking pleasure in taking out in angry mob.

the time given to these scenes was at the very least short by comparison to the length of the rest of the scenes in the movie. Synder COULD have been more over the top in his violence (e.g. Sin City, Kill Bill). In my opinion these scenes were hard to watch but tolerable; this of course is subjective. If for nothing else these scenes established "the fatal flaw" of these "heroes" in a very attention grabbing way.

more to come...

 

Emily

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:44:27

Let's think about 300. There was only one respectable female character in this film, and there were scenes of her being overpowered and potentially seduced or raped by a male character (if my memory serves me correctly). Also about half of her time onscreen was the sex scene between her and her husband which was a bit over-erotic I think, and again if I remember correctly, I valued this scene because it was the some of the only real development of their relationship within the film, but then again I also laughed outloud at it because the nudity and eroticism was so blatant and unnecessary.

I think we see the same thing in Watchmen. Women are not portrayed as respectable forces but rather as objects of sex and violence with little redeeming content.

I liked 300, but these two films make me wonder what kind of man Snyder is. There were so many moments in 300 where the Spartans looked like frat boys ("dude bros") chanting mindlessly... and from what I saw of the Watchmen (again, I walked out) he somehow made amazing, valuable female superhero characters seem a little trashy and the Comedian seem a bit justified? I could be wrong, I did walk out. But Snyder sounds like an asshole.

 



Leave a Reply