Not A Review: Film: Watchmen

Give me smallest finger on man's hand. I'll produce information. Computer unnecessary. ~Rorshach~

Despite the fact that I begin this discussion with a quote from the graphic novel which does not, as I recall, appear in the movie, I'm not at all interested in comparing the book and the movie. I'm really only concerned with evaluating the movie as a piece of cinema. In my experience, very little is gained by making a comparison of a particular narrative in different formats. And what is gained in the case of films based on comic books is usually polarizing fan boy drivel. If you are looking for a well written and accessible review of Watchmen, look here.

Watchmen seems to play with some fairly standard archetypes of philosophy. These archetypes appear as the principle characters in the film. The overall plot of Watchmen is determined wholly by the characters. Therefore, I have decided to focus my comments and questions on the characters alone.

Dr. Manhattan is, for lack of my desire to disregard my own interpretation, God. He is a God created by science and a God of science. He is master of the forces which generated him. In other words, Dr. Manhattan is a completely potentiated entity. I can't actually think of a better definition of God. As the film progresses, he is further and further divorced from the human perspective. He becomes less and less able to maintain relationships or understand human emotional states. However, humans are still capable of influencing him. This brings me to the first question I'd like to discuss. Given that the standard vision of God is that of an entity who can be influenced or persuaded through prayer, does that make Dr. Manhattan more godlike? More specifically, is the journey of Dr. Manhattan's character that of a man who is made godlike and eventually becomes God?

The Night Owl, on the other hand, is the Everyman. My interpretation is that even though he undergoes a radical, perspective altering change, and gains a sort of ultimate knowledge, he is almost as impotent at the end of the film as at the beginning. The movement of the character from a state of sexual bumbling to seemingly extreme sexual prowess establishes this change for the viewer in very certain and extravagant terms. That's the best aesthetic argument for the pornographic proportions of the Night Owl/Silk Spectre II sex scene I can come to. It's a physical epiphany. The soundtrack in the scene would seem to support that assertion. The Night Owl is unable to render the greater truth he witnesses into any meaningful expression. Additionally, despite his transformation, he is powerless to prevent a single death, including that of his friend who is not only able to communicate the truth but compelled to do so. Is the film whispering to us that the ordinary man's greatest achievement is that though he may witness world shaping events, he must carry the significance of those events alone? Is truth with a capital T something which can only be experienced and never conveyed by language?

Silk Spectre II communes with the God figure (Dr. Manhattan), but ultimately chooses to couple with the Everyman. Why? Seemingly because an emotionally nourishing relationship with the God figure is impossible. However, she is the only one capable of persuading Dr. Manhattan to intervene. Even though he has a unique temporal perspective and can see both the future and the past simultaneously he is still persuaded by Silk Spectre II. Is the film positing that the feminine language, or in terms of the film, the emotional language, is the only way to speak to God? Would this mean that organized religion is unnecessarily complex and decisively inadequate?

Rorshach's greatest power, it would seem, is his will. It is his will alone which initially drives the plot forward. It is his will alone which overcomes devastating and insurmountable circumstances. For the purposes of this discussion, Rorschach is human will. And free will at that. Rorschach perseveres along his chosen path unchecked by anyone no matter if they make, enforce, or break the law. One could mistakenly contend that Rorshach's capture and imprisonment represents a containment and defeat of free will. I humbly refute this with Rorshach's own words, “I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me.” The film proclaims without equivocation that Rorschach is a result of his own woefully tragic back story. Is the point then that human will is galvanized by suffering? Is God the only being capable of alleviating that suffering and arresting the power of human will? Is the only real way to cope with a dreadful past to ceaselessly move forward until one can no longer move at all?

The Comedian's perspective remains unique and even though he does not appear in the present time line of the narrative, he has great impact on each of the principle characters. Despite the presence of God, he is the character to whom physical creation is attributable. Despite the presence of human will, the Comedian is almost totally unencumbered by moral boundaries. Finally, despite the appalling manner in which he conducts himself, his actions alter the perception of God. The Comedian is brutal, savage, and demonstrably evil. But ultimately, for both God and the Everyman, he is necessary. Does the Comedian represent the baser more animal side of human nature? Can the evil that comes from that only truly be neutralized by intellect?

Ozymandias is a renaissance superman. He, unlike Dr. Manhattan, does not possess knowledge inherently. He must seek it out and process it the way any other person would. He must cultivate his intellect. That intellect grows so powerful that he is able to negate, not only the actions of every other character, but the actions of God as well. He remains wholly unaffected by the others, yet his actions mete out consequences for everyone. He does not have Dr. Manhattan's innate near omniscient understanding of the universe, but unlike Dr. Manhattan, he is not divorced from the human perspective. Ozymandias fully grasps human psychology. Does the success of Ozymandias indicate that the human intellect is the most powerful force in existence? More powerful than God? Does Ozymandias represent the limit of human potential if one is to remain human?

It is my sincere hope that people will, at some point, come to this and gain some new perspective on this movie. Many whom I've encountered virtually and in real life have less than kind things to say about this film. A slew of professional and amateur reviews notwithstanding, I still think that the film has artistic merit and raises interesting questions in me. Granted, some of the questions were eluded to when I read the graphic novel, but now those questions are available to wider audience. I believe there is always something to be gleaned from the examination of artistic expression.

See the film. Talk about it.