I feel like I should write a follow-up post on my fairly week review of the Watchmen below. In hindsight, I feel like it would have been more effective to just go “Open Thread on Watchmen, what does everyone think?” as opposed to actually write anything at all. The point was to invite discussion, not really to come to any kind of conclusion (and thus all the “I’m not really sure what the author’s intent was” and “there’s a lot to chew on” and “what does everyone think?”). The scene that stuck in my head the most was the attempted rape scene, and that’s really where I wanted to focus the discussion.
However, either I failed, and/or people failed at reading comprehension (I KNOW that just because something is shown doesn’t make it good). But, there is something that I want to address and come to a conclusion on: that of “why are you complaining about the women’s costumes, all of the comic book heroines are like that”.
This phrase is normally in response to something perfectly normal like “Why the hell do they put women in armor-less, skin-tight latex and wear high heels? It’s completely impractical.” The phrase “all of the comic book heroines are like that” is supposed to deflect criticism, which to me is doubly-funny, because if anything it makes it worse that a creator is falling into sexist cliches of comics. I think the idea is that we can’t get mad at a singular creator for something is endemic in a particular genre, but I’m calling shenanigans on that as well. The author has the choice of what to do with his characters, and if I’m falling down on Moore in this particular instances it’s because this is his work (or a new manifestation of it). I clearly need to read the book, to see what his flat work was, because in the movie, it was depressing to me to hear them get so close and then just fall flat. When Laurie (SS II) goes “Oh, and those silly costumes we wore” to Daniel (Night Owl) I hoped that this was showing some sort of self-reflection, instead of just her trying to find the silver lining in giving up something that she clearly missed. But later, it’s the exact same costume she wore; the unprotected spandex with the thighs showing, and high heels. If it was some sort of self-reflection, why not put on a costume that has some sort of protection, or at the very least flats? Every one else’s costume is much more practical; the only two that don’t have any protection are Dr. Manhattan (who is functionally invulnerable) and Rorschach, who is wearing appropriate attire if you’re looking to blend in and sneak in shadows (which he does). It is only her that is vulnerable and looks like a sex object.
In the movie, you also see the original Silk Spectre, awash in makeup and getting dirty comics sent to her which she seems to treasure. Silk Spectre is supposed to be a heroine, but she seems to be remembered as a sex object and not as a crime-fighter. This movie does nothing to dispel that idea; there is no flashback of her kicking ass and taking names; just a brief shot of her after a fight, mugging for a camera, a picture of her pregnant and serving what looks to be a Thanksgiving dinner, her on the side of a plane, and in the superhero line up right before she gets raped. In fact, the most screen time she gets is of her almost getting raped by the Comedian, and as I said before, she gets in one off-balance punch before she gets taken out. We as an audience never get to see her as anything but a sex object either.
If anything, the fact that she gets raped ended up with my friend going (the one who didn’t read the comic) “Why was she a superhero, anyway?” In one way, it does kind of make it look like she shouldn’t have been. She had no superpowers, and neither did the Comedian, so if one of her compatriots could rape her, so could the criminals she was theoretically (but off-screen) taking down. I think that logic is somewhat stupid; you could say that none of them should have been off fighting crime because they were so vulnerable.
Something truly subverting sexism in comic books would have them be strong in their own right, not just eye candy. When SSII decides to flout the Keen act and go and rescue people, she would have had a costume that was less impractical. I appreciate that when Daniel and Laurie walked down the dark alley (perhaps looking for trouble? I kind of got that impression that they were looking for a rush) that she seemed to be taking out as many as Daniel was (what I could see through my fingers; I’m the first to admit I don’t like that kind of violence, which is why I don’t like Iron Age comics). Of course, she was in a mini-dress and heels in that scene, as well.
Just because “everyone does it” doesn’t make it okay when one person does it. When you have “heroines” in costumes that do nothing to protect them, and then heroes in more practical costumes, you have heroines for eye candy, and not ass-kicking. And finally, go read this post at “Girls Read Comics (and they’re pissed)” because she said what I said, only probably better.
I had issues with sexism in both the film and comic incarnations of Watchmen, but the costumes of the females characters was not one of them (though I certainly have issues with the costuming and physical representation of women in comics in general.) Watchmen works with comic genre cliches and tropes, the characters are comic genre cliches, fleshed out psychologically. The women have to wear sexist costumes because that’s a (fucked up) part of the genre, it would be out of keeping with the rest of the project to not include that hegemonic cliche.
This was mediated a bit in the book by things like the “how I chose my costume” section and other more overt commentary on the fetishistic and ridiculous nature of superhero costumes, something I missed in the movie.
I do think the women got the short end of the stick in terms of character development in Watchmen the book, a flaw that was amplified in the movie, but I don’t see the costumes as being a problem.
Silk Spectre is supposed to be a heroine, but she seems to be remembered as a sex object and not as a crime-fighter.
Sadly, in the comic this is the whole point; her real goal is to promote a modelling career. As with so much else; I can see Moore was trying to poke at the less developed, ridiculously over-sexualised backstories given to female superheroes (Frank Miller’s Catwoman, anyone?) but I don’t think he’s doing a good job at flinging poop at it. The only salvation is that he later wrote Promethea. Curiously, in the book I felt Ozy was doing much the same thing – putting himself out there as a strong and sexy showman, and using his adventuring to promote a later career, but because he has a penis said career was more successful and substantial and he got to brag about his gigantic brain. Ozy was far less on-show in the film than the book :/ I’d argue that Doc Manhattan was sexualised past the point of absurdity in both, though, and your comment that only SS is a sex symbol is kinda odd when you’ve got four swaying blue cocks on screen at once.
One other tiny correction; I swear that Laurie was wearing a coat in the alleyway mugging scene.
Yeah… You really should read the original. The Silk Spectre II stuff is covered in better terms than the movie did.
I’ll just fall back on an excuse and say that Snyder simply didn’t have unlimited time to tell the main narrative of the Watchmen story and had to cut most things that didn’t directly feed into it.
Spoiler from the comic below–I don’t know yet how much made it into the movie.
Moore was very aware of all of these issues, and explored them in the side-stories. SS1 foresaw a costumed vigilante trend, and capitalized on that to enhance her modeling career. She set out to become a sex symbol because that was the best way for a woman to get ahead at the time (or so she thought). Kind of a Betty Page analog.
SS1 planned the same thing for her daughter. She designed Laurie’s costume, along with the rest of her life. SS2 just followed along. She had the same costume when she and Daniel went out because that’s what she had at the spur of the moment.
Now, Laurie does sort of end up going in the other direction. As Laurie and Daniel talk about going back to adventuring, she says: ” ‘Silk Spectre’s’ too girly, y’know? Plus I want a better costume, that protects me: maybe something leather, with a mask over my face… Also, maybe I oughtta carry a gun.” Of course, there’s a whole mess of other issues there.
She was wearing a coat, but there was a dress under it.
I am hard pressed to call Dr. Manhattan sexualized, and I mean that in all seriousness. Like I said in the other thread, I didn’t even NOTICE he was naked in the movie until someone pointed it out.
If he’s not sexualised, then I must just be some sort of cock-hungry perv.
Oh. Wait.
(perhaps of some slight relevance: this matchbook-size promotional giveaway. Buzz rather than canon, but it would be hard to more explicitly sexualise a male character. I can accept that there’s multiple ways of reading the film in this regard, though!)
Huh, I always read Silk Spectre as the criticism of those costumes. The point was that it was impractical and solely for titilation, a reflection of Silk Spectre’s lack of self-esteem and need for affirmation from others and I don’t remember if the movie covered it fully, but the book had a lot of battles with Silk Spectre II over the costume and it’s meaning and feminism and self-esteem.
The more practical female outfit was seen in Silhouette as contrast.
But yeah, again, I think you’re missing the point of a send-up versus support. Alan Moore and David Hayter’s translation both tried to present the twisting of the cliches of superhero movies to comment on them. Your post to the Girls Read Comics post is the point they were making. That those costumes aren’t practical and furthermore that in a woman’s reality, no position is safe enough from the threat of patriarchal men with chips on their shoulders. The point was rather strongly hinted at, with giant neon signs at the opening credits where the original Owl was dragged away and Silhouette and her lover were the victims of a horrific gay bashing. Being a costume didn’t make you better than humanity, and you were still just at much at risk from some hateful psychotic.
The point of the rape scene was to point out its ubiquity in our culture and how no one is ever safe (see rape threats against female politicians and the shrugging off of Rihanna’s brutal attack). It’s pointing out the rot in the culture not supporting it, nor is it holding the heroes up as any form of hero. They are all people, some well-meaning (Night Owl, Silk Spectre II), some BDSM perverts (Hanged Man), some sadistic or psychotic bastards (Comedian and Rorsarch) and subject to the same highs and lows in our general society, even worse by how power corrupts and dehumanizes one.
It’s not saying, go buy Rorsarch figurines and Comedian shirts, they’re lovable Gary Stu anti-heroes, it’s saying look at these evil fucks, but even they have a humanity that guides their evil and twisted actions. The Comedian was right about the joke behind it all, but that doesn’t mean you are to agree with his open love of fascism and naked sadism and in fact you’re supposed to hate him to make it ironic that he was the one who was in on the joke. That’s the point.
He’s criticizing all the open racism and sexism and homophobia in the comic books of the Golden and Silver Ages as well as the real world culture they existed in and presenting that very real disconnect brutally. Again Silhouette in the opening credits is a big sock punch to the gut of a clue of what Alan Moore intended and David Hayter tried to portray.
I don’t see how a scene of Silhouette was supposed to be a send-up; considering that’s all we ever see of her (again, the woman doesn’t actually have a scene kicking ass and taking names) and the only other mention we get of her is Rorschach calling her “a victim of her decadent lifestyle”. I think these things are bad, but I’m just not seeing enough in the movies to go “this is bad”.
Oh, again, I haven’t read the comics. Is it possible that you’re remembering the comics and apply it to the movies? I looked for someone who had the comic, but no one did.
Almost all of the Minutemen background was cut out. Again, for the sake of pushing the major story arc. Silhouette does a little ‘better’ in print, but even there it’s mostly just table-setting for the present day heroes.
It would be pretty safe to say that most analysis of the themes and ideas surrounding the original Minutemen group is based entirely off of the print version. Though, given how close the movie essentially stayed to the source, it’s probably not far off to say that the analysis is also correct.
Well, it is true I’m talking about both. I can’t really experience the movie without understanding the framework of the book, so I probably did enter with all those preconceptions and thus minor or throwaway scenes had a lot more resonance than if I had lacked that background.
I suppose a case could be made that the movie didn’t care for neutrals nor did it care if they existed considering the monumental task of just translating the basic themes and plotlines into the medium.
Still, I would have expected that the three scenes did send as many chills down others spine as it did mine. I mean, Silhouette in the most patriotic iconic photo in a feeling of absolute joy of out expression, the nasty human cost of homophobia when you see her and her lover cut down for pure homophobia, and how much you want to punch Rorsarch when he sides with homophobia. At the very least, it should convey that no one likes Rorsarch for a very, very good reason.
But yeah, I suppose it was a lot different experience if you were a full neutral and trying to fit it into the narrative framework of every other superhero movie. The book was the anti-superhero book and the movie was the anti-superhero movie (not anti-hero), their point is to skewer the assumptions.
Sorry if I’m using this to ruminate about the comic… (also, spoilers.) I’m starting to wonder if maybe I should not see the movie. Especially as the comic was already violent enough to give me nightmares, and I hear the movie is worse.
From the comic:
Silhouette was murdered by a gaybasher, and the Minutemen shoved the whole thing under the carpet and distanced themselves from her because they were a bunch of a**holes.
Sally did the job her agent (and later, husband) thought she should do the way he thought she should do it. Laurie was set up by her mother to live her mother’s dream.
The male heroes all constructed themselves according to what was wrong with them (exception is Dollar Bill, who got killed by the costume others designed for him), the female ones (exception is Silhouette) got constructed by others according to what was wrong with those others.
All the costumed vigilantes are seriously broken. At best they are pathetic, at worst they are sociopaths. Which was, to the best of my knowledge, the basic idea. Portraying any of the vigilantes as heroic would have broken the whole set-up. (The most heroic action in the book, Rorschach stating that fiat iustitia et pereat mundus [though he does not put it that way] leads to him being killed by Manhatten.) I can imagine that this very negative view does not translate too well into a movie, unless maybe a 1970s German one. (Those have the most hopeless characters and the most f***ed up world I ever had the misfortune to see on screen. And now I wonder what the movie would have looked like had Fassbinder done it.)
In the fight scene in the alley, under their coats, Laurie wears a dress that ends just above the knee, and pumps (she’s wearing similar-length skirts whenever she’s dressed for going out), while Dan is wearing shirt and tie and a ratty cardigan. The skirt-length-plus-heels is very early 80s — Gibbons and Moore developed a lot of the everyday designs to be different from what was around at the time, but looking at it from a 1986 perspective, what Laurie is wearing when she’s not in costume is conservative.
When Laurie (SS II) goes “Oh, and those silly costumes we wore” to Daniel (Night Owl) I hoped that this was showing some sort of self-reflection,
My reading is that they are like two aged hippies who very hard try to pretend that being twenty, smoking pot and believing in “mystic crystal revalation and the mind’s true liberation” was not the best time of their lives, and that they are so much better off being fourty, working in cubicles and paying off their mortgages. They can’t reflect beyond a fake “we were so young and silly” because it would hurt too much. They can’t even look at each other when they say it. When they look at each other again, they are telling “do you remember when…” stories.
Constintina: I do think the women got the short end of the stick in terms of character development in Watchmen the book, a flaw that was amplified in the movie.
Yes, they are given are far smaller range of motivations to chose from, and far fewer shapes to grow into. And this hasn’t got any better, but don’t get me started on “Rising Stars”. Moore, at least, can argue that a deconstruction has to tear down an existing structure, not an imaginary one, but Straczynski does not set out to deconstruct.
It would have been nonsensical for the authors of the Watchmen not to put the women in those costumes. The book is a classic post-modern text—it’s more about other superhero books than about its particular story. If you are writing what is essentially a dark satire, and you refuse to portray the things being satirized, it makes no sense at all. If I were you, I’d read the book. It makes a lot more sense. There’s even some winking at the fact that half-naked female superheroes sell better.
I’m going to see the movie tonight and try to make note if they really do make it that hard to see that it’s a satire and not a straight film. I get that many people don’t recognize satire unless it’s ha-ha satire, and Watchmen is not ha-ha. Kicking ass was never the point—we’re supposed to view the Minutemen as wannabes on a certain level.
It seems to me you went into the movie expecting it to be a straight superhero movie and read it that way. Again, this is a common problem with dark satire that doesn’t have a lot of gags to indicate that this isn’t supposed to be read straight. But unfunny satires do exist. “No Country For Old Men” comes to mind. “The Watchmen” is another one.
I did come into this movie thinking “Iron Age superhero movie”. I thought Rorschach was way over-the-top, but I’ve always thought Iron Age stuff is over the top, and that was the only indication that this might be a satire (seriously, I kept giggling at his introduction about the filth and stuff in the streets. I did like his touch about how his grappling hook shot straight through the police tape; nice visual).
But no; I didn’t get satire off of this (just like I didn’t get out of “No Country for Old Men” either. I got the fact that the title was ironic, but I didn’t catch the satire.
Well, it’s not satire as we commonly understand it, no. But I can’t think of a better word. I’m going to post on this issue, since it’s fascinating. Your “Iron Age” comments are educational—I think a lot of comic strip stuff is “dark” without actually questioning the basic values put forward in older comics.
Antigone: I did come into this movie thinking “Iron Age superhero movie”.
I have the impression that it’s marketed that way.
If remember my comics history correctly, “Watchmen”, together with “The Dark Knight Returns” marked the turn from the bronze age into the iron age — or even caused it by adding commentary to the genre that could not be ignored.
Amanda: Well, it’s not satire as we commonly understand it, no.
Which is why I prefer “deconstruction”, even though it sounds pretentious. Moore wasn’t mocking the genre, he was attacking it.
Rorschach is a lot LESS over-the-top in the movie than in the book.
Amanda is right – the original Minutemen were in the 40s, when SS was a pin-up model and retired when she got married. She passed that on to her daughter, who thought the whole costume was goofy – but when she and Night Owl II came out of retirement they pulled out the old costumes. She didn’t stop to whip up something more practical. And, unlike her mother, she was actually trained to be a very deadly hero; she beats the crap out of plenty of bad guys, and she actually takes down Ozymandias (however briefly). In the comic, unlike her mom, we actually see references to her doing heavy physical exercise and learning combat skills.
Curiously, in the book I felt Ozy was doing much the same thing
He’s a lot more sexualized in the book, as well – there are repeated references to him being a pop sex idol, and it’s more than hinted that he’s gay but celibate, in the sort of classical Greek ideal.
It amuses me greatly that there’s a lot of commenting on the Internet about OMG DR. MANHATTAN’S PENIS! (Aw, izzums fanboys having to deal with male nudity? Suck it up, you losers.)
Amanda said: Well, it’s not satire as we commonly understand it, no. But I can’t think of a better word.
I think the word you’re looking for is ‘deconstruction’. It’s not quite the same sense as the approach to literary criticism, but it’s a common term in fandom (see http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Deconstruction for some discussion). ‘Satire’ probably should be kept for humorous works. A satire is funny because it takes a source and points out how ridiculous it can be by playing it more expansively; a deconstruction works by taking down our suspension of disbelief and showing how something wouldn’t work if it were played seriously.