"Who are we saving them from?" asks NiteOwl in a moment of concern.

"From themselves." Answers the Comedian as he takes a drag from his cigar, grins like a fool and tosses a smoke bomb toward a young man. As the bomb explodes we see that he's been spraying 'Who Watches the Watchmen' on the darkened wall of an alley.

* * *

When viewing Watchmen in the Theater, I was struck by how dark their world truly was. One film critic remarked that it was the darkest, most serious superhero film ever made- one without "comic" appeal. There wasn't even a moment of jest or comic relief to break up the brooding tension. It was serious, slow, and violent.

I'd honestly be surprised if anyone outside of fans of the graphic novel could sit through it without being bored to tears or utterly confused. At 2:35 it's a long trip through the darkness of man's heart.

About halfway into the film (when I was sitting there thinking, "yup, it's pretty much the same as the book only trimmed down to the point where it's going to seem ridiculous to all the people who haven't bothered delving into the real version") I suddenly became really overwhelmed by the words Nietzsche put in the mouth of his Madman Character to mourn the loss of God. I firmly believe that although he was convinced that God did not exist that he was equally convinced that the idea of God was a good thing and that in killing the idea of God, the would would be worse off:

"Where is God?" [The Madman] cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us?"

Do you hear the sorrow in his prose?

This profound sense of loss that Nietzsche relates in his parable was also indicative of the film Watchmen. In it there is a heavy sadness. It's a world where men have usurped the law and enacted their own sense of justice. They're a cold bunch, full of flaws. They're practically criminals (some of them, like Rorschach are definitely criminals) and they rule the world around them- sometimes reluctantly- as it slips further into perversion and debauchery.

* * *

My own personal opinion is that this film is a great picture of what happens when men abandon God and set themselves up in His place. It becomes a terrible place where violence begets violence and the only way to find peace it through fear. Adrien knows this, and that's why he enacts his master stroke- blowing up the world to save the world.

The apostle Paul knew it too. In fact, much of the first chapter of his letter to the Romans seems to give a similar picture of darkness and fear. The world does become colder when its inhabitants try to play Ubermensch. That's just the way it works.

* * *

A few questions to wrap up WATCHMEN WEEK:

1. Whether or not you believe in God- do you believe that the idea of God is a good thing that should be mourned when it's missing from society?

2. Do you think that people respond better to fear or love?

3. Have you ever read a philosopher you disagreed with and found some truth there regardless?

* * *

* Those who avoid reading Nietzsche because he's associated with the phrase "God is Dead" miss out on a lot of his great contributions to Philosophy. It's true that he was an Atheist- but if we consider his teachings without condemning his beliefs, he's actually got a lot of interesting things to say about what life is like when people reject the idea of God.

One can reject the idea of God without debating whether or not God exists- for "killing God" in society or in your heart doesn't depend on His existence. Plenty of people who believe that God exists still reject Him. So talking through Nietzsche doesn't mean that we become Atheists, it means that we admit that we live in a culture who have in some ways "killed God" by ignoring or rejecting Him outright.

This is going to be a very short post today because my parents are on their way over to help us celebrate ONE YEAR with our little boy Ethan. Hopefully, tomorrow I'll be able to finish a post I've been working through in Nietzsche's superman and the dark nature of the Watchmen World. Until then, here's some brief thoughts on fear...

* * *

At the end of the film version (the ending is different than the book, in case you didn't know this), Lori wonders if peace will truly last. Dan answers by muttering a line that's stuck with me this past week: "As long as people think Jon's watching us, we'll be alright..."

Jon is blamed for the destruction of cities all over the world. So as long as he's still out there- an enemy waiting to strike- perhaps the world had better behave.

* * *

Or to put it another way: "as long as people are scared of some mutual enemy- we'll be alright."

* * *

Pluggedin-Online made the assumption that this was a subtle reference to God- the Old Testament version that many see as vindictive and fearful. Does Jon represent "god" for a lot of people? An omniscient being that dishes out punishment whenever we cross Him?

My friend Seth made another connection. The WTC towers (featured prominently at least 3 times in the film) allude to the fact that this film is about terrorism. Perhaps Jon represents Osama Bin Ladin and other terrorist cells? As long as we know he's out there, planning and plotting, are we liable to let the government do what they will with our lives?

"Evil, Evil Adrien Veidt.He's like Hitler, only a little less mustached."
That's what many people will say on their way out of the theater after viewing Watchmen. And anyone who skimmed through the book probably has a similar opinion- they've missed out on the subtle (and often not so subtle) hints that Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons dropped throughout the novel, pointing us to Hiroshima & Nagasaki rather than the Third Reich.

NOTE: These hints are practically missing from the film entirely- so don't bother looking for them.

The most telling hint is the logic that Adrien uses when revealing how important it is for him to perpetuate mass murder- in order to save humanity. His conversation is similar to what I imagine the American War Room was like when they were deciding to drop nuclear warheads on Japan during WWII.

* * *

Historical Fiction: President Truman and the War Room

General 1: "Mr. President, do you realize how hard our boys fought to secure Iwo Jima? We lost more soldiers capturing that island that the entire Allied Forces spent trying to invade Normandy!"

Truman: "Yes, General. I understand, but I don't see why this means that we need to destroy an entire city with nuclear weapons."

General 2: "Sir, we had to kill almost every Japanese Soldier! They wouldn't surrender. 21,000 Japanese soldiers were on that island when we landed and we only managed to save 1,000 of them. They wouldn't stop- they wouldn't surrender. Imagine what sort of battle we're in for if we try to take this to the mainland?"

General 1: "Mr. President, this bomb is going to SAVE lives. Not only American lives, sir- but Japanese lives as well. If they're willing to fight until it's hopeless, we're simply speeding up the process here and helping them see that they're outnumbered and outwitted."
Truman: "You men think that killing thousands of innocent people is the only way to ensure surrender?"

General 2: "I'm thinking about it in terms of acceptable loss. We could go in there, kill millions of Japanese and American soldiers in a ground war that could last years on end. Or, we could drop this bomb, sacrifice a few hundred thousand people and ensure their surrender within weeks."

General 1: "I think those are acceptable losses, Mr. President."

Truman: "Gentlemen, you make a compelling argument. I'll give you my decision in the morning."

* * *

OK, this isn't exactly the same conversation that Adrien Veidt has with the other Watchmen as he reveals his plan to blow up New York City (and a number of other cities, too, in the film)- but the logic is close enough to serve our purposes.

Adrien's really did want to save lives through violence and it was this same line of reasoning that allowed the United States to drop nuclear weapons on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. So when we finish reading (or watching) Watchmen, a question should be raised (and isn't whether or not Adrien is good or bad. He is fictional so ultimately it doesn't really matter. Instead, a better question to ask is whether or not our own decision to drop Little Boy and Fat Man on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was ethical and appropriate. After all, our decision cost hundreds of thousands of REAL lives, while Adrien's only represents fictional characters.

* * *

What do you think?

1. Was is a good decision to drop Nuclear Weapons on Japan?

2. If Yes, what do you think about Adrien's Decision?

3. Does the fact that Adrien is a single person making this decision rather than an entire country make any difference in how you answer?

Final Thought: Adrien is probably the biggest vigilante of them all because he doesn't simply limit himself to micro-justice, but fights for peace on a global level... interesting...

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?