I went and saw Watchmen yesterday. It was a pretty good film, if you like iron age comics (which I’m not a huge fan of). I haven’t read the comic books, but the gentleman I went with has and he claimed it was a mostly faithful representation of the comic book.
Technically, the film was very strong. There were scenes that were very comic-book-esque, without actually being comic shots like in 300 or Sin City, and to boot, they were some awesome shots. The casting was about perfect for the characters, although I think the characters weren’t terribly well-rounded (though that might be intentional). My only real quibble was the music; pick any over-done cliche war song from the 60′s that they like to stick in Vietnam movies and it was there. That, in and of itself wasn’t so terrible bad (again, it might have been intentional) but the fact that they engineered it so it was the loudest fucking thing ever was really annoying to me (particularily since I think that the movie theatres have the sound too loud in the first place).
Spoilers below the fold (and trigger warning for a rape scene)
The movie starts out highlighting some “Golden Age” comics, mostly through shots of them in the opening credit, and what ends up happening to most of them. We are then introduced to some old guy watching television, who is killed by an unknown assailant. A character named “Rorschach”, thus named becuase he has a mask that is always shifting into blobs of ink, investigates and finds out the person who was killed was really the Comedian; a retired superhero. Rorschach seems to think that someone is killing “masks”.
The plot just gets more twisted as one goes along, and most of it is flashbacks so I’ll try in hit the highlights; a new group of superheros formed a new Watchmen league in the 60′s and 70′s, formed of Silk Spectre II (daughter of Silk Spectre), Night Owl (think more original Batman rip-off), Dr. Manhattan (Atom rip-off), Rorschach (I think Punisher) the Comedian, and Ozymandias. This is after Dr. Manhattan and the Comedian win the Vietnam war (mainly by killing A LOT of people), and Richard Nixon is in his 3rd term. They fight crime, but anti-mask sentiment gets so high that Nixon passes the Keen act, banning crime fighting. In 1985 (the present of this movie), the Comedian is a spook for Nixon (before his untimely demise), Silk Spectre II is banging Dr. Manhattan, who is working with Ozymandias to create free energy. Ozymandias has publically come out, and now runs the largest business in the world, in part by trading his superhero past into money. The Night Owl is retired, and lives a life a quiet solitude (my friend told me that the description of the Night Owl was “a middle-aged Clark Kent” and in that I think they succeeded). Only Rorschach is still doing the vigilante thing, and this makes him the police’s number one most wanted.
The movie has a lot of stuff to chew on. For one, with the exception of Silk Spectre II and Night Owl, the characters are all assholes. The comedian is the biggest asshole of all, being fond of raping, killing (including a pregnant Vietnamese woman whom it was implied that he was responsible for) and murder. Rorschach has such a dim view of humanity, I don’t know why he bothers to be a “hero” at all. Dr. Manhattan gets less and less connected to the human race, and therefore gets less concerned about it.
The movie seems to be pretty harsh on “liberals” as well, though I don’t necessarily know what that says about the politics of the creator. At best, they are seen as ineffective and weak, derided as “Intellectual eggheads” and at worst they are seen as a force to destroy society (we see a hippy mob protesting the masks, for one, which the Comedian gleefully starts shooting with tear gas.) Nixon doesn’t come off looking good, but he doesn’t really come off looking bad either.
One scene, however, really stuck in my head. The origininal Silk Spectre, has just finished taking the superhero picture, and is going to change. The Comedian comes in, and starts to try to have sex with SS, who most definitely does not want to have sex with him
Comedian: Come on, dressed like that, I know you want it.
SS: NO.
Comedian: No spelled Y-E-S
SS: No, no spelled NO *punches him pretty hard across the face
(me, yay! Maybe one scene will actually show a female holding her own! Wouldn’t that be awesome?)
Comedian: punches her in the face, she crumbles, then he kicks out her legs and she ends up sprawled over a pool table and he slams her face into the table for good measure. He starts to unbuckle his belt and unlace her corset, and another superhero comes in to save her
(me: nope, apparently not).
This is also juxposed by a later scene, where the aging SS is having a fight with her (I’m guessing) husband about later having consensual sex with the Comedian, and that’s how she got pregnant with SSII.
There is a lot of sexism in this movie. The Comedian is a way over the top example, but Rorschack seems pretty fond of calling all sexual women whores, and Dr. Manhattan breaks up with his long-time girlfriend because she aged.
I don’t know if the movie condemns or condones their sexism, and conservatism. It just is; no one is really a hero, but you end up feeling somewhat sympathetic to the assholes nonetheless.
There are also a lot of themes of aging and dying, decadence and rot, and the value of life, but that would require a lot more detail into the plot that I feel like going into in a blog-post.
Who’s seen the movie? What does everyone think?
The creator, Alan Moore, is extremely left-wing and my favourite of his comic series (Promethea – very author-filibuster in a religious sense, it’s basically Esotericism For Dummies, Illustrated Edition) has a cast that’s almost all female. He was clearly still working through a few issues in the 1980s, though. Watchmen was poking at a lot of things in 80s comics, sexism being one of them, but…I’m not sure how well it critiques sexism by reproducing it, really. A few frames/lines about how ridiculous female superhero outfits/footware are, and how isolated they can get, does not a deconstruction make.
I loved the movie, but very much in a fannish way, so it’s interesting to see what people who aren’t fans of the comic think of it.
Rorshach is more an analogue of what Batman might be if Batman were real. Not the Punisher since the punisher was all about the guns and such.
He was also extremely messed up from growing up in the shadow of his mother’s career as a prostitute. He essentially has become completely asexual and has no concept of loving relationships at all. His mention of Silhouette’s death is based on the fact that he’s pretty right wing. (The magazine that he drops his journal off at is like the John Birch Society in print.)
Manhattan’s leaving of Janey because she was getting old was, I believe something to do with his own increasing detachment with humanity. (I can’t remember, but it might also have something to do with his inability to age himself.) It’s stated more specifically in the books, but he sees every moment of his life pretty much from the moment he reappears after the accident. And because of this, he does not bother to do anything different about what he sees himself doing. Even if he knows what he will do is wrong. (Such as not stopping the execution of the Vietnamese woman.)
I think you may be reading a tad too much in the content of the film. The books aren’t much better, but they aren’t specifically endorsing the actions you describe. Merely more of a pseudo-chronicle of real people, who happen to be ‘super heroes’, and they do real people things. Even if they’re not pleasant.
The movie is a good adaptation and reasonably faithful where it needs to be. But there are some missing bits from the books that might have shed some more positive light (such as a sub-story about a lesbian couple (which might not be that much better in your eyes since one of them is the ‘man hating dyke’ type.)). And, for some reason, Veidt’s backstory wasn’t shown in even a truncated fashion.
Oh, and I suppose the complaints about the volume of the music are appropriate, but not so much about the choices themselves. It’s a movie. Sometimes they need to use shortcuts to put the viewer in the proper frame of mind. And considering the first of the ’60s tunes were used over montages that were there to bring the viewer up to speed on much of the pre-1985 history, it definitely needed to set the table. It’s just the way movies are: Historical Hits Radio.
Speaking as one who has yet to read the graphic novel, it was great. I really don’t get most of the criticisms here. Rorschack is the only one who comes down on liberals, and it is entirely appropriate to his character. Silk spectre had no chance of fighting off the Comedian, dude’s a fucking beast. As for the sexism, the Comedian is supposed to be the arch-asshole, Rorschack hates everyone, and Dr. Manhattan can barely remember what it’s like to be human. Part of the problem for DM was that his girlfriend aged and he didn’t, you have to remember.
I never read the comic but enjoyed the movie. The criticisms of sexism, fascism, and the idea of moral absolution were done in the same subtle way as Starship Troopers criticizing militarism. You’re presented with a world and it’s up to you to decide whether this is good or bad with only little clues that this is bad. If people actually decide that the alternate world is good or cool then it’s a joke on them.
The whole point is that the film doesn’t just sit you down and say “The lesson for today is…” or have a character named Evil McNasty so you know who to hate. Really people like you are the reason why Hollywood consistently make stupid movies.
You snot. You watched it without me.
Quick point, speaking to Rorschach’s resemblance of other comics characters: Watchmen (the original comic series/graphic novel) was originally supposed to feature the entire superhero A-list of Charlton Comics, a publishing house whose characters were mostly snapped up by DC Comics when Charlton went under. Decisions higher up the editorial chain made this impossible, so Alan Moore wrote “original” characters that were clearly evocative of the Charlton cast: Dr. Manhattan as Captain Atom, Nite Owl as Blue Beetle, etc.
Moore meant Rorschach to be recognizable as The Question through a glass darkly. The Question is skeptical where Rorschach is full-blown paranoid; The Question is an Objectivist, Rorschach is too arch-conservative even for the arguably Fascist state he lives in. Even the mask is like a too-ugly, too-weird riff on the original.
Actually the whole thing is a send-up of the idea of the superhero. Who would really become that type of figure, what would they really do with that power, thus removing the sort of benign superman glibertarian fantasy from the genre and placing it in our messy reality.
Furthermore the movie and book both come down harshly on the various isms presenting their human costs in brutal fashion. The opening title sequence really paints that out pretty clearly. And Rorsarch and Comedian are right wing lunatics, that’s the point of their characters. Their humanization and the human failures of the other characters are part of demonstrating the humanity of the so-called superpeople and DM’s presentation as a bona-fide “better than anyone” was in both works a demonstration of how that would corrupt any and all humanity.
I think the main thing though is that presenting the horror of an ism is not the same as agreeing with it and the liberal bashing is meant to be seen in a very specific light. The fact it comes from Rorsarch and Comedian is meant to discredit it, their biases clearly defining who they are. More importantly the rape, murders, assassinations are not presented at all sympathetically and the book devotes a huge amount of time exploring the issue of the victim blaming of rape victims especially if they do something non-victimy. I felt the movie treated that fairly.
It’s not escapism, that’s kind of the point.
Wow. I can’t believe the positive reviews, particularly coming from people who read the book. Sure they filmed something that followed the same story, but calling it a faithful adaptation misses the point completely.
As Antigone said, she had trouble determining the views of the author, and could only repeat what the various characters had to say about politics, crime, etc. This is a major failing of the movie. Snyder and crew never stopped once to think about what Moore was trying to say about the idea of masked heroes and vigilante justice. They just filmed things panel by panel.
Making it look just like a comic book, is well, dumb. Snyder is a one trick pony. 300 was highly enjoyable film because it was full of epic, stylized violence, and a complete lack of understanding of subtext. Watchmen is godawful for the same reasons.
Actually, Alan Moore seems to be the standard sort of autodidact who becomes a glibertarian — hence his jabs at people who went to university. Rorschach is the prototype of V, and he is the hero, Moore’s stand-in (or Gary Sue) just as V. was in V for Vendetta. Not anti-hero, and not villain — hero, by Moore’s lights. He sees the direction the world is taking (towards a totalitarian nanny state which he sees as a dramatic step down from the totalitarian non-nanny state that jailed him), sees that he can’t stop it, and so goads Dr. Manhattan into zapping him so he doesn’t have to live in it.
It is a complex movie; Alan Moore does not condone everything he shows, rather, you’re meant to think about what he’s showing.
The Comedian and Rorschach are both very sexist, but are they role models? No. The comedian is the portrait of a fascist, a really unlikeable asshole. Rorschach is a psychopath and Moore clearly meant to say that his dislike of women is a childhood trauma, caused by his mother being a prostitute.
I’m amazed you say you’re feeling sympathetic towards these two characters.
The sexism makes the characters who are sexist look less sympathetic. In that sense, the movie isn’t sexist, but rather makes you think about sexism.
Btw, Rorschach is modelled after Ayn Rand’s ideas, and inspired by Steve Ditko’s The Question.
Contrary to Santa Claustrophobia, I think he has got a lot in common with Punisher: they both have a strong belief in their own ability to know what right and wrong and are convinced you’ve got carte blanche when you are one of the good guys.
But Silk Spectre was a fucking SUPERHERO! In every fucking comic strip, the women are not as strong as the men EVERY GODDAMNED TIME, and every time a comic strip artist wants to either take the women down a peg or give her some sort of dark tragedy in the past, they have her get raped. She didn’t even get to put up a fight; she got ONE hit in, right away, and that was the end of it.
At the very least, it’s so goddamned cliche it wants me to poke my eyes out (same with the “Greatest hits” soundtrack) and at the very best, it’s about as gender sensitive as showing a black guy eating chicken and watermelon.
These are comics; it’s fiction. In real life, people do not don costumes and fight crimes, and they aren’t super strong. But even this fiction, we still have to show girls in armor-less crap, and they have to get raped by the stronger men. That’s really all I need to know about the sexism of the creators.
See, I’m almost tempted to delete this just out of sheer stupidity. You don’t have a goddamned CLUE what people like me enjoy or watch. I’m not looking for Evil McNasty, or cookie-cutter plots and characters. I am looking for a movie that invites you to think about it, thus the “there’s a lot to chew on in this film”. But just because I wasn’t “Oh, this film is BRILLIANT, and there’s absolutely nothing about it sexist or anti-liberal, and if it is, it’s because that shit just isn’t as important” you think I want fucking Transformers.
Oh, and one more thing people: I am very much aware that just because something’s in a movie doesn’t mean that we-as-an-audience are supposed to condone it, nor is it the artist’s idea to think it’s all hunky-dory.
As far as the characters being sympathetic, we are calling them “superheros” after all. But beyond that, I think the audience is supposed to find the characters sympathetic. Even here we go “Oh, poor Rorschach, we should feel sorry for him, because he was the son of a prostitute, and that makes it okay for you to hate every one, especially women”. The Comedian is not only excused and forgiven for the attempted rape (did anyone see him get a punishment? I surely don’t remember him doing any jail time, or getting kicked out of the Watchmen, or being socially ostracized in any fashion), he gets a “the Comedian was right! It’s all a big joke” about five-hundred times.
All of the superheros had flaws, and I’m fine with that. Hell, I embrace that. But we were supposed to feel bad about these poor superheros and how the very people they protect turned against them, boo hoo, when I keep thinking “You know something? Rorschach does belong in jail; he’s a psychopath. And the Comedian sure as hell shouldn’t be getting props from the president and other superheroes. And the vigilantism is pretty wrong, even if you do it with the best intentions like Night Owl. And Ozymandias ends sure as hell didn’t justify the means.” These characters were assholes, no matter the reason that led them to that. And instead of going “hey, these characters are assholes, we should take that being a superhero doesn’t make you a good person, and maybe the phrase “superhero” is even a little ironic” you end up with an impression of House-ian “If you’re brilliant, you get to be a little bit of an asshole, and it’s okay.”
Interestingly, commenters over here think you’re a he.
Antigone, may I suggest you find a copy of the graphic novel and see first hand what Moore and Gibbons were trying to do? I’m not saying it because I think it’s the best thing ever (I thought it was just ‘okay’), but maybe the format will be able to deal with some questions/issues you have with the movie because it can provide more detail than a 10 second flashback offered up with little context.
In the movie’s defense, thoughtful and introspective sometimes need to be cut to make a movie that moves at a decent pace. In order to tell the main story they have to cut out the unneeded exposition. However, Snyder still has to include much of the character backgrounds to both satisfy long-time fans and get new viewers up to speed since these characters are essentially unknown. An ensemble movie about comic book heroes is easer to tell when all the heroes are already known.
Oh, and if you’re not totally aware (since the movie didn’t really make it clear and Snyder didn’t help with the choreographing of the final fight sequence), only Dr. Manhattan has any kind of powers. Everybody else is supposed to be a normal human (for a given value of ‘normal’).
‘Rorschach is the prototype of V, and he is the hero’
Um … five mistakes in eleven words, there.
1. Moore wrote V before Watchmen
2. V and Rorschach have the exact opposite political views.
3. Rorschach’s not the hero.
4. Neither is V.
5. Neither is a stand in for Moore.
Flamethorn, it most definitely not be the first time
. Does no one read their ancient Greek any more?
SC-
I will do that; and I am hoping it’s a problem with the medium and not the story. But, yeah, I did catch that they weren’t “Superheroes”; in the sense that they had superpowers.
I also find it very funny that people focus on the nudity so much. I was flinching at the violence, not the nudity or sex scenes. I didn’t even notice that Dr. Manhattan was naked until my friend pointed it out. It just seemed completely natural that he was.
“You know something? Rorschach does belong in jail; he’s a psychopath. And the Comedian sure as hell shouldn’t be getting props from the president and other superheroes. And the vigilantism is pretty wrong, even if you do it with the best intentions like Night Owl. And Ozymandias ends sure as hell didn’t justify the means.”
YES! You get it. This is exactly the point. This is what you are supposed to think. Don’t let your expectation for the “superhero” genre derail your understanding of the story. Watchmen is a commentary on the superhero genre; it’s supposed to destroy the expectations you have for superheros. The characters aren’t “super” (with one exception), neither are they “heroes”. Anti-heroes, perhaps, or maybe just straight up psychopaths and fascist assholes.
This is the second negative review I’ve seen where the reviewer keeps going on about “superheroes”. If you leave the theater thinking of the characters as heroes, either the movie failed (I’ve read the book, but haven’t seen the film yet), or you didn’t really think about what the story was trying to say. Does the film actually use the word “superheroes” at any point? The book doesn’t; “masks”, “adventurers”, etc.
Not gonna see it, myself…I don’t enjoy stories of assholes doing bad things. Even more pertinently, I don’t find assholes titillating. I’ve never understood the attraction. Assholes are just that…assholes, and they make the lives of anybody around them, especially anybody who cares at all for them, miserable. It ain’t hawwt. It isn’t interesting. It’s quite common, really, those people and the crap they offload on those around them. I don’t find it interesting when they do it in a visually spectacular way either…huh, maybe somebody on here can explain to me why jerks are interesting…can’t be cause they’ve never met any!
Now, I do like stories about good people who make bad choices and struggle with them, or people who know what it means to be good and strive for that but have flaws that cause them to fail at it. But it doesn’t sound like the Watchmen fall into that category.
“Now, I do like stories about good people who make bad choices and struggle with them, or people who know what it means to be good and strive for that but have flaws that cause them to fail at it. But it doesn’t sound like the Watchmen fall into that category.”
Lisa, I think some of the characters (both Silk Spectres, both Nite Owls) are good people struggling. This is a little clearer in the comic, where the level of violence is less and where there are clear differences among characters in what they’re willing to do, and from what motives. The movie was extraordinarily violent, and with way too much Matrix-y fighting.
I have not read the comic, but the impressions that the movie left me with were that in a group of superheroes loosely based in famous ones:
- The one more similar in character and in actions to a “real” superhero is the one that kills millions of people to save the world. I didn’t at any time have the impression that that glorifies killing millions of people, only that the character was really really crazy. I think that’s the trick of the story, that the “villain” is a hero that saves the world by doing a very immoral thing, and what is intended is not glorifying the murder of millions of people but the opposite, that being “good” does not justify doing whatever you feel like. Even if you are not sure on this, if you see that the other characters are also a critique on superhero models seems to imply that this one is, also, intended as a critique.
- The only one that has superhuman powers is not human, cannot be human, and only goes through the motions.
- I have no idea why you think that the comedian is ever justified in the movie. He comes out as a murderer, a rapist and a general asshole in everything he does. Everything, every time, he is not shown saving people even once. Why do we know he is a hero? Because they tell us. Uhm… And while it is not shown that he is punished by the rape, seeing that the group eventually dissolves and he is left completely alone, to the point that he went to talk with an enemy because the does not know anyone else, seems to imply that the author does not condone the actions of the character. The rape scene itself didn’t look glorifying to me (it’s obviously a rape, and obviously violent and degrading), but opinions may differ. I’m sure that the problem is not with the scene, but that later the woman is implied to have consensual sex with him. I’m not sure that it is a problem in the comic, but it is a problem in the movie because it never explains why. And seeing the kind of man the comedian was, no one in his right mind would want to have sex with him (or be with him, or talk to him…)
- Night Owl I&II do not have a life outside of the hero business, even if they try to feign it. Night Owl II comes as very naive. “I have a psychopath as a partner? Who cares? I’ll leave all the dirty business to him and I’ll watch from the sidelines. He is my partner, he is supposed to know what he is doing. Wasn’t I supposed to be against all that? Well, only if the villains do it”. He also seems to be in the hero business for the emotions, not because he really cares about justice, or saving people, or whatever.
- Rorschach is not a hero. Everyone says that he is a psychopath. But I really think that your critique of him is right, and that the movie does not really show that. I don’t think that he is intended to be glorified, but that the way the character was written worked as a critique when it is was written, but not now. The problem is that now all heroes do what he does, so he doesn’t come as particularly violent, evil or callous. Maybe some updating of the character would have been in order. (someone more knowledgeable in comic history may confirm it or not, it is only my impression). Even now, he is not shown in a particularly favourable light. He is very violent, but most of the time there is very little justification for it. It is also implied that he kills particularly harmless people along with the really dangerous ones, so he does it because he wants, not because it is necessary.
On the female characters: In V for Vendetta the comic Alan Moore didn’t strike me as particularly sexist, but it is true that the female characters there have the same problems that in this movie, and that is that they are believable and somewhat sympathetic characters but they are too female. All of them. There is not a woman that has less-than-completely-female-related characteristics obviously shown.
- Mr Manhattan first girlfriend comes out as a devoted girlfriend that gets abandoned by not fault of her own. It is presented as tragedy and the character does not seem to be particularly unsympathetic. Yes, she is angry. In her position I would be angry too. She is not right, but not because she is an impulsive woman that does not think. It is because she has no way of knowing.
- Silk Spectre I comes out as a very problematic character. She is beaten and almost raped and then in theory has consensual sex with an asshole and does not really hate him. But she does not accept the life of a housewife and yearns to go back to being a heroine. It does not strike me a particularly mysoginistic character if you take the male character’s depictions into account, and the stereotypes are probably intentional.
- Silk Spectre II is the more heroic-in-a-good-way of all the characters shown in the movie with difference, but she is just too female-like. In general I like the character, but it could be seriously toned down and focus more in her inexperience and naivete and less in her femaleness.
So in recap: the female characters are somewhat right on their own, it’s the conjunction that is problematic. The sexism might be intentional (as a critique of the superhero genre), but it seems to be that it is a general problem in Moore’s writing. Even then, I’ve seen much worse.
It’s NOT about how the MALE ASSHOLE is depicted; it’s about how the FEMALE VICTIM is depicted. Why is this so hard to grasp? Why does nobody get why it’s problematic that a female that’s supposedly a superhero (and in a dangerous line of work) gets overpowered that easily?
Disclaimer: have not seen the film, but I have read the book a couple times.
To me, it looked like she was pretty much put into shock by the assault, coming as it did from one of “the good guys”. I thought that the choice to depict that shocked-betrayal-ness was an uncommonly realistic note.
In defense of Alan Moore, I highly suggest a broader reading of his work (i.e. other than just the high profile V for Vendetta and Watchmen). Series like Promethea and Top Ten are chock o block full of developed and interesting characters of both genders. Moore really does like exploring human nature.
Also – while there is a problem in comic books with sexism, rape as character development and women-in-refrigerator syndrome – keep in mind than in Moore’s case it isn’t quite as cliched. Watchmen was written 20 years ago before the sexual violence fall back really exploded into being a problem. With regards to rape, it seems like, as female characters gained more power and independence, male writers needed to find some major way to traumatize them and spur story lines. Used sparingly, it can explore the real threat and issues with rape and violence against women – unfortunately, this has rarely been the case in comics, especially superhero ones.
That said, Moore’s earlier works seem less sensitive and interested in exploring the female characters in his writing than later on: Watchmen, V for Vendetta, some of his regular comics work like The Killing Joke (which he is on the record as saying he regrets) versus Promethea, Top Ten, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and so forth. So there’s something to be said for how a writer changes over time.
Most movie versions of his work should not, in any way, be used to evaluate him as a writer. He didn’t write the screenplay or frame the shots or what have you, and these things can change meaning a lot.
Brief opinion of a girl geek who’s been reading comics for decades.
People keep saying “Superhero”. I don’t think that word means what you think it means, at least with regards to Watchmen.
During the movie, Night Owl I is talking about how the whole Watchmen group started. The gangs started wearing masks to not be identified. Eventually vigilantes started doing the same thing. They’re portrayed as abnormally strong, but there’s nothing “super” about them. The Comedian’s attempted rape scene is just a morally devoid man trying to rape a woman. What I particularly enjoyed (as much as one can be said to enjoy such a scene) is that it was in no way romanticized or sexualized. It was brutal, and obviously disgusting and wrong. That is something that tends to lack in Hollywood movies that portray rape.
It’s NOT about how the MALE ASSHOLE is depicted; it’s about how the FEMALE VICTIM is depicted. Why is this so hard to grasp? Why does nobody get why it’s problematic that a female that’s supposedly a superhero (and in a dangerous line of work) gets overpowered that easily?
It is not that I disagree with you, but it’s difficult for me to yearn for another five minutes of pointless slow-mo action. It would have detracted the shock of the scene and could have the effect of glamorizing the rape.
I was staying out of this, as I do think the depiction of the rape and SS’s response to it is intentionally unnerving and complicated, but…
this just really bothers me, coming from a feminist.
A lot of women are strong and powerful but still get assaulted. Hell, a lot of women find that the self-defense training they thought would save them doesn’t. It really bothers me to see this “But she was a badass! Badasses never get raped!” sentiment.
It’s a really creepy thing to say. Women of all sorts are assaulted. Watchmen is aiming to make the vigilantes’ lives realistic. Powerful women being assaulted *is* realistic. As is powerful women being assaulted and being stunned and shocked by such a thing coming from people they are close with (and maybe, though I couldn’t tell, attracted to.)
Don’t get me wrong, that bit is unnerving. There are things I’m not sure about myself. But the idea that we must not portray women getting overpowered, despite that IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY just… no. No. No.
Maybe it happens every day just a little bit BECAUSE every. single. powerful. woman. ever GETS RAPED in media that are sold as entertainment? Because that’s what movies are. The masses DON’T go to movie theaters to partake in high art or to think deep philosophical thoughts. They go to be entertained. They get hardons in rape scenes and they think that must be okay because it’s right there on the screen.
Thanks, Trinity. That comment reeked of victim blaming. I like fantasies where heroines ok k off would-be rapists, but they are fantasies. To assume that being unable to stop a rape means you are not a badass is simply untrue. Strong awesome women get raped all the time.
SS is not a badass either. She’s a pin up model mainly.
“A lot of women are strong and powerful but still get assaulted. Hell, a lot of women find that the self-defense training they thought would save them doesn’t. It really bothers me to see this “But she was a badass! Badasses never get raped!” sentiment.
It’s a really creepy thing to say. Women of all sorts are assaulted. Watchmen is aiming to make the vigilantes’ lives realistic. Powerful women being assaulted *is* realistic.”
I don’t think that the person to whom you’re responding was complaining that powerful women getting assaulted successfully is unrealistic and that women like that should always be able to fight off the attack, therefore implying that those that don’t are somehow at fault for being successfully attacked. I think the commenter was just saying that it would be nice to see a meme other than “No matter how badass any woman is, a man can always take her down.” I really doubt the commenter was engaging in any victim-blaming whatsoever. In real life…believe it or not…women get assaulted by men and do actually manage to fight them off sometimes, as well as also failing to fight them off sometimes–both happen, and I agree, it would be nice to see both represented in the superhero versions of the genders as well.
Lisa, who did in fact one time physically fight off a man who was trying to forcibly sexually assault her, all by herself, and he was bigger and stronger, and she wasn’t even a superhero.
I don’t like that rape is THE way to take a woman down. In real life, men get sexually assaulted too. That doesn’t happen in the comic books. And yeah, some one do fight off attackers, and that would be nice to show in these comic books.
The only thing “good” about this rape scene is it did show that it wasn’t the “bad” guy who took SS down; it was another supposed hero, showing that even “nice guys” can rape. But even this failed, because it was supposed to establish that he was a jerk.
Maybe Watchman can get a pass because it was supposed to be a dark satire, but I’d love to see superheroines actually be super. That would be awesome.
Yeah, but Watchmen’s not a fantasy, but a critique of fantasies. “Buffy” is a long term fantasy of fighting off sexual violence. And yes, men get raped, but it’s certainly not contextualized as mass gender oppression like male-on-female rape is. As a survivor, I think I’m happier having rape recognized as real, as common, as gendered, and basically for what it is rather than something that is either invisible, glorified, or portrayed as not having anything to do with the patriarchy. Portraying it as a crime that exists in isolation of male dominance is a form of rape apology, the “bad apple” excuse. “Watchmen” actually deals with the issue responsibly, or at least the book does. I think that’s why it’s so uncomfortable. It doesn’t give us a fantasy to hang onto, but instead shows it exactly for what it is: A gendered hate crime that’s tolerated in our culture because we don’t really think that women are fully human.
In real life…believe it or not…women get assaulted by men and do actually manage to fight them off sometimes,
Maybe, but onscreen that comes across as a fantasy and also as hardcore victim-blaming. Worthy women don’t get raped is the implication of that fantasy. There’s exactly zero reason to think that Silk Spectre could fight off the Comedian, too. He had the element of surprise and is like twice her size. Feeding messages to women about the routine nature of fighting off men, even those with massive advantages, just adds to the shame of those of us who didn’t successfully fight off a rapist.
Good grief, Amanda.
“Maybe,”
No, not “maybe.” As I said, I have first-hand experience.
In real life…believe it or not…women get assaulted by men and do actually manage to fight them off sometimes,
“but onscreen that comes across as a fantasy and also as hardcore victim-blaming.”
I can’t imagine why it would come across as a fantasy if it were portrayed realistically, and I have an even harder time imagining why portraying a woman fighting off an attacker is “victim-blaming.” Frankly, it’s gross and a little bizarre to be so firmly obsessed with the idea that only one woman out of every billion successfully fights off an attack and even worse, to appear to resent the holy hell out of the ones who do for doing so, since by her actions she’s “proving” that all women who don’t COULD have if they really wanted to..? How does, for instance, defending Battlestar Galactica’s Kara Thrace shown physically holding her own against other men, then, not totally undermine all victims of female domestic violence, since clearly they should be able to fight off men too..? Apparently you and Vox agree about the ridiculous and distasteful element of such a fantasy?
On the note of realistic portrayal, I was able to fight off my larger, stronger male attacker by snatching up a heavy object that happened to be nearby and cracking him upside the head with it. I have even seen children best adults using this method–it’s not incredibly unusual or unrealistic a scenario.
“…but I’d love to see superheroines actually be super. That would be awesome.”
For real.
Bully for you. But that doesn’t mean that has to be the only representation of rape onscreen. Those of us who weren’t strong enough, fast enough, or good enough to avoid rape but maintain that we still don’t deserve it would like to see our experiences validated, too, you know. The notion that a story as dark as “The Watchmen” should suddenly have some off-key triumph of the Woman Worthier Than You who kicks off the evil rapist strikes me as a little silly. It’s a movie about the darker, cynical aspects of life. The parts where not every woman is perfect and amazing enough to fight off someone twice her size. The parts where women who are assaulted by trusted friends are too confused to react quickly.
And yes, it is victim-blaming to suggest that the more realistic portrayals of rape, where women are not routinely heroic, should be scrubbed from story-telling to make people more comfortable. I want rape to make people uncomfortable.
I feel blamed by your comment, honestly. I’m sorry I didn’t grab a blunt object and beat him off. I’m sorry I was weak. Well, kind of. I’m not really sorry—I’m not superhuman, and I don’t deserve my safety any less because I’m not as capable as you or as lucky as you. So, yes, I say it may be unintentional victim-blaming, but the whole “take self-defense” thing shades pretty quickly into “you have no one to blame but yourself if you didn’t kickbox someone off who was twice your size”.
You were lucky. The implicit expectation in your beilef that beating a rapist is just as, if not more realistic, is offensive. The idea that the screen should only show women who are deserving of safety, who earn it through self-defense bothers me tremendously. It’s not impossible to beat a man bigger than you, but odds are stacked against you. To suggest that a woman should assume that she can take anyone at any time is setting a standard way too high, and will of course mean that rape victims will not get justice, because the expectation is in place that if you didn’t fight him off, you consented.
In fact, that’s a favorite rape apologist line. You often see men say that women should get self-defense classes or buy guns or pepper spray or somehow earn our right not to be raped. Anything, apparently, rather than focusing on the rapist’s obligation not to rape.
If we can, just for a moment, get off second-guessing a victim’s response (even a fictional victim’s response) to an assault and please, for the love of god, look at the attacker’s choices, then the whole story makes more sense. The Comedian tries to rape a friend for a specific reason, an ugly, dark reason. It’s a commentary on male entitlement. It’s actually pretty interesting, if we can get off second-guessing and being angry because the victim didn’t do what we wanted her to.
“Bully for you. But that doesn’t mean that has to be the only representation of rape onscreen.”
Before I read any further, Amanda, I think you need to go back and reread what I actually said further up. In case you can’t find it, here it is: “In real life…believe it or not…women get assaulted by men and do actually manage to fight them off sometimes, as well as also failing to fight them off sometimes–both happen, and I agree, it would be nice to see both represented in the superhero versions of the genders as well.”
BOTH, I said. Not one or the other exclusively. Please let’s keep on track by responding to what was actually put forth, okay?
“Those of us who weren’t strong enough, fast enough, or good enough to avoid rape but maintain that we still don’t deserve it would like to see our experiences validated, too, you know.”
And those of us who were lucky enough to avoid it on one particular occasion would also like to see ours validated–and not the exclusion of yours being validated, either. Though it is starting to sound like you want only yours validated and not anybody else’s…tell me I’m wrong, please?
“The parts where not every woman is perfect and amazing enough to fight off someone twice her size.”
You know, the endless and hammerlike sneering you are engaging in towards women who do happen to fight off an attacker isn’t something you would ever tolerate towards a woman who was not. The hypocrisy, it’s burning here.
“I feel blamed by your comment, honestly. I’m sorry I didn’t grab a blunt object and beat him off. I’m sorry I was weak. Well, kind of. I’m not really sorry—I’m not superhuman, and I don’t deserve my safety any less because I’m not as capable as you or as lucky as you. So, yes, I say it may be unintentional victim-blaming, but the whole “take self-defense” thing shades pretty quickly into “you have no one to blame but yourself if you didn’t kickbox someone off who was twice your size”.”
So you’re saying that the ONLY WAY I can prevent you personally from feeling “blamed” is if I either (a) lie about what happened to me or (b) never dare mention in your hearing what happened to me?? omg!!
Sorry, Amanda. Find anywhere…anywhere at ALL…that I have ever, EVER stated that a woman is at fault for her own rape–rather than always, consistently and emphatically stating the OPPOSITE. If you can find this, I will certainly apologize profusely to you. But as it stands, I’m more of the mindset that you owe one to me, given the outspoken writing I have consistently and always done in unquestioning and unhesitating defense of any woman who has been sexually assaulted in any way.
Uh…you do? Seriously?
It’s sort of the point of the movie that the “heroes” who get appointed to watch over us, even at their best, do terrible, ugly things. When Silk Spectre II and Night Owl II beat up a bunch of thugs, even though we are 100% on their side, the violence is ugly, repulsive and horrible. Yes, they are nice people, and their job is to inflict terrible suffering.
What does this tell us about “heroes”? That’s the point of the movie.
As for the (attempted) rape scene, I get what you’re saying about how rape is traditionally portrayed in movies, but I really didn’t see it here. The rape scene isn’t pretty or sanitized at all. It’s not a woman putting up a token resistance but then having a sexy, sexy nude scene getting it on with the hero. Blake brutally and viciously beats her, and we see up close how ugly and unconscionable that is; there’s no Scarlett/Rhett romanticism, no suggestion that she could possibly be enjoying or deserving this, no close-up on her boobs so the audience can get aroused watching her rape. And we already know Blake’s a vicious, evil asshole.
On liberals, even setting aside Moore, the movie portrays a world where the conservative views are mouthed by power-hungry thugs. Peaceful protesters are shot to death. Lee Iacocca attempts to cow Ozymandias by threatening to subject him to a Commie witch hunt.
How can you not? Comedian’s sitting there crying to his arch-enemy of all people, drunk and destroyed. Everyone in the movie forgives him for him being an asshole.
Looking around in the theatre I saw many a wet eye when they describe the “death” of Walter.
Ozymandias still comes off as “I really want to save the world” though I think the actor could have upped the remorse.
Dr. Manhattan’s realization that life is valuable on Mars is quite moving.
So, yeah, I think there’s plenty to give the idea of sympathy on these character.
Okay, really not disagreeing that people see different things in the same movie but….they do? Ozymandias doesn’t care, Night Owl II says he was practically a Nazi, Dr. Manhattan doesn’t think much about him at all. Silk Spectre doesn’t forgive him, she says that “he gave me you” (her daughter) – who she never allows near him. Her daughter doesn’t forgive him, either, she forgives her mom for later getting pregnant by him.
(In the book, which portrays Blake as somewhat less of an asshole, Silk Spectre says that the reason she slept with him later is that he genuinely didn’t understand that what he had done was wrong. The movie doesn’t explain this and kind of leaves the impression that SS had a weak moment where the asshole took advantage of her being drunk or lonely.)
Of course they’re complex characters. But they’re not Batman or Iron Man or somebody you cheer on because they’re The Heroes and everything they do is awesome and good. The movie certainly doesn’t paint them as always doing awesome, good things. When they’re sexist or assholes, bad things happen to them; Blake’s reward for his evil life is to realize that he’s so alone and hated that the closest thing he has to a friend is Moloch, and when he’s finally killed in a brutal, painful manner, he’s not even surprised. You can pity that without identifying or forgiving him.
Silk Spectre I goes “poor Eddie” when he learns of his death, and everyone else does go to his funeral. So, there’s also that.
Being able to say “poor him” after someone’s death, and being willing to go to his funeral, isn’t a very high standard of forgiveness, Antigone. As you might remember from the original Sophocles…
Well, he WAS brutally beaten and then flung out a window. You don’t have to think much of somebody to say “wow, bad way to go”.
“and everyone else does go to his funeral. So, there’s also that.”
Everyone meaning a little more than a half-dozen people. Most of whom probably felt a responsibility to attend because he was a former co-worker, not because they liked him. That’s a pretty pathetic turnout for a funeral.
And, of course, when she goes “poor Eddie” she is also calls him “a little bit of both” meaning, both just and unjust. So, to me this was intended to be incredibly humanizing to Eddie Blake; he wasn’t just a flat asshole.
And, yes, they did call themselves “superheroes”. Laurie goes to Daniel and says “the only people I know are goddamned superheroes”.
(and, sidenote, I haven’t had to do this much defense of a movie interpretation since film class)
Why couldn’t we have had this much deconstruction of a movie I actually enjoyed? Anyone want to talk about Firefly?
No way! I learned my lesson months and months ago with “Iron Man.”
PhoenixWoman: Rorschach is the prototype of V, and he is the hero, Moore’s stand-in (or Gary Sue)
I feel that this point would be hard to prove from the source text. If there’s a parallel, I would draw it between V and Veidt: both borderline superhuman chessmasters, both ruthlessly attempting to save humanity from itself, Veidt killing millions, V setting up a situation that is likely to kill tens or hundreds of thousands. Also, both implied to be gay.
For an early Moore (not so familiar with his later work) author self-insert, I’d nominate John Constantine. British, poor, anarchist, magician, artist, curmudgeon, low opinion on superheros and characters from christian mythology.
Antigone: Why couldn’t we have had this much deconstruction of a movie I actually enjoyed?
That would be nice, but I’m unimpressed lately by fans’ ability to actually rave about something on the internet. It’s alwas three quarters of the posts putting the source material down, and those who even dare to admit they liked it putting themselves down for liking it, as if their mothers and literature teachers were standing behind them, disapproving of frivolous pasttimes.
My main gripe about character portrayal/sexism was the lesbian hero shown at the start, murdered for being gay (the word “whore” scrawled in blood above her and her partner’s body), and then later Rorscharch informs us that it was because of her ‘indecent lifestyle’ or words to similar effect. And sure, Rorscharch is hardly a good judge of character, but they could have shown that a different way, without choosing to malign an entire group of people who are already in danger from such opinions and treatment.
It was a fun movie, but it had some real problems, not least of which was an incoherent plot. I thought it was a lot of fun, but I probably wouldn’t see it again.
You and me both, Antigone. Over at Pandagon I’ve had to endure my poor afflicted little self being called an uneducated rube for not IMMEDIATELY NOTICING that I should have watched the movie with a book I have never read firmly in my mind, grasping all of the oh-so-ironic themes that the movie is OBVIOUSLY drawing forth. Fortunately I have a thick skin and a stubborn willingness to carry forward flamewars to their ridiculous end, but whatever.