One of the twentieth century's most celebrated pieces of literature is about to hit the silver screen.
It's been pegged as genius, a masterpiece, trailblazing and groundbreaking. It's been hailed by TIME Magazine as one of the 100 greatest novels since 1923. It's a novel with more accolades on its covers than there are words on the Rosetta Stone.
It's Watchmen.
It's been pegged as genius, a masterpiece, trailblazing and groundbreaking. It's been hailed by TIME Magazine as one of the 100 greatest novels since 1923. It's a novel with more accolades on its covers than there are words on the Rosetta Stone.
It's Watchmen.
Written in 1986 as the brainchild of visionary graphic novelist Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons, Watchmen serves up one of the medium's most profound and grown-up stories, exploring the role of vigilante superheroes in a dystopian America of the 80's engulfed by the paranoia of nuclear armageddon.
Watchmen is by no means "standard" comic book fare and should not be treated as such. There's no rooftop swinging, villains with tentacles (well, scratch that), heroes gone emo, or slutty blonde damsels-in-distress waiting for the next costumed paladin to fly by for a make-out session (I'm looking at you, Spiderman). That's not Watchmen.
Moore's chef d'oeuvre probes further beyond the superficial stuff of today's cinematic comic-based drivel (apart from THE DARK KNIGHT, of course), exposing the conflict that a group of morally ambiguous vigilantes faces by combating the underbellies of the world without a speck of public support. Think of Watchmen as an account of what superhero life would be like if superheroes actually did exist in the real world, complete with angry mobs, a big blue naked guy, and lots of grit.
So why see the film?
Early reviews pit WATCHMEN as one of the most faithful film adaptations of a literary work ever put together. With source material as expertly crafted as Watchmen's, there's no glaring downside in that regard, though the sheer mention of the world "squid" might be enough to divide those with previous knowledge of the novel. But at this point, less than a week before release, it seems as if Watchmen might be one of the few pieces of literature to get the faithful, respectable cinematic treatment that it deserves.
But it all sounds too good to be true, doesn't it? Could a truly great novel transcend media and become a legitimate artistic triumph on both the page and screen? Director Zack Snyder says hold the phones.
Snyder's directorial rèsumè is unsettlingly sparse. Despite remaking DAWN OF THE DEAD in 2004, the only other mainstream film to Snyder's credit is fellow graphic novel adaptation (and a film accepted and supported by countless posters and universal DVD ownership in fraternities across America) 300. While 300 was certainly a romp; a film that had no problem telling audiences that it was more about flash (and flesh) than brains, it didn't possess nearly the same depth that Watchmen does - a sense of depth necessary to tell this particular story with justice. Can Snyder put the cheesy slow-mo, overblown fantasy aethestic, and general disinterest for plot aside and deliver a film that has no qualms exploring rich psychological issues and social commentaries in the same vein that the source material does?
You'll have to watch the Watchmen to find out.
Watchmen is by no means "standard" comic book fare and should not be treated as such. There's no rooftop swinging, villains with tentacles (well, scratch that), heroes gone emo, or slutty blonde damsels-in-distress waiting for the next costumed paladin to fly by for a make-out session (I'm looking at you, Spiderman). That's not Watchmen.
Moore's chef d'oeuvre probes further beyond the superficial stuff of today's cinematic comic-based drivel (apart from THE DARK KNIGHT, of course), exposing the conflict that a group of morally ambiguous vigilantes faces by combating the underbellies of the world without a speck of public support. Think of Watchmen as an account of what superhero life would be like if superheroes actually did exist in the real world, complete with angry mobs, a big blue naked guy, and lots of grit.
So why see the film?
Early reviews pit WATCHMEN as one of the most faithful film adaptations of a literary work ever put together. With source material as expertly crafted as Watchmen's, there's no glaring downside in that regard, though the sheer mention of the world "squid" might be enough to divide those with previous knowledge of the novel. But at this point, less than a week before release, it seems as if Watchmen might be one of the few pieces of literature to get the faithful, respectable cinematic treatment that it deserves.
But it all sounds too good to be true, doesn't it? Could a truly great novel transcend media and become a legitimate artistic triumph on both the page and screen? Director Zack Snyder says hold the phones.
Snyder's directorial rèsumè is unsettlingly sparse. Despite remaking DAWN OF THE DEAD in 2004, the only other mainstream film to Snyder's credit is fellow graphic novel adaptation (and a film accepted and supported by countless posters and universal DVD ownership in fraternities across America) 300. While 300 was certainly a romp; a film that had no problem telling audiences that it was more about flash (and flesh) than brains, it didn't possess nearly the same depth that Watchmen does - a sense of depth necessary to tell this particular story with justice. Can Snyder put the cheesy slow-mo, overblown fantasy aethestic, and general disinterest for plot aside and deliver a film that has no qualms exploring rich psychological issues and social commentaries in the same vein that the source material does?
You'll have to watch the Watchmen to find out.
This is one film I can't wait for. I'm glad you made a post about it. Quite a long film, with over 2.5 hours run time, but should be worth it. I'll make sure I report back what I thought of it.
ReplyDelete