Watchmen (Zack Snyder, 2009)

[Svevan]

No one should have expected anything more after the atrocious 300 (the over-saturated visuals counterposed with the empty content makes them practically blinding).

I'm having trouble with the idea that 300 has "empty content" or does that mean "no content?" 300 is more talky than fighty, and presents such a terrifying worldview that I would say it subversively hides its "content" beneath a sheen, rather than replacing "all" or "any" content with visuals (and I'm not even sure that's possible to do, as if visuals are not in and of themselves "content." If you can't tell by now, I hate that word and the concept that style and content are separate things in art).

Minor visual criticisms: Apparently Ozymandias is twelve and his suit weighs more than he does. I don't think they got Dr. Manhattan right at all, he's far too glowy and fleshy. There's no way the slow-motion is done just for the trailer, its too smooth as if done in camera. Jackie Earle Haley was terrible in Little Children (comeback whatever, that was an acting class performance) and now we have to deal with him here as well. My complaints are just being racked up by the minute. I need another trailer that proves me wrong.

Side note: based on Snyder's previous work, do you think that when he read Watchmen he figured that Alan Moore was being critical of homosexuality as one of the "excesses" of the 80s? The text isn't explicitly pro-gay, but it is a major theme discussed in relation to the social milieu, with many homophobic and closet-gay characters. This is one way I'm sure Snyder will warp Moore's text and make it polemical rather than ambiguous.

[broadwayrock]

Side note: based on Snyder's previous work, do you think that when he read Watchmen he figured that Alan Moore was being critical of homosexuality as one of the "excesses" of the 80s? The text isn't explicitly pro-gay, but it is a major theme discussed in relation to the social milieu, with many homophobic and closet-gay characters. This is one way I'm sure Snyder will warp Moore's text and make it polemical rather than ambiguous.

That odd considering Moore's recent comments on 300:

Don't you have the slightest curiosity about what Watchmen director Zack Snyder is doing with your work?

ALAN MOORE: I would rather not know.

He's supposed to be a very nice guy.

He may very well be, but the thing is that he's also the person who made 300. I've not seen any recent comic book films, but I didn't particularly like the book 300. I had a lot of problems with it, and everything I heard or saw about the film tended to increase [those problems] rather than reduce them: [that] it was racist, it was homophobic, and above all it was sublimely stupid. I know that that's not what people going in to see a film like 300 are thinking about but...I wasn't impressed with that

[Schkura]

Side note: based on Snyder's previous work, do you think that when he read Watchmen he figured that Alan Moore was being critical of homosexuality as one of the "excesses" of the 80s? The text isn't explicitly pro-gay, but it is a major theme discussed in relation to the social milieu, with many homophobic and closet-gay characters. This is one way I'm sure Snyder will warp Moore's text and make it polemical rather than ambiguous.

I never even considered reading it this way (and when you referred to "previous work" I was only thinking of 300 and didn't realize there is something of a pattern here). It seemed pretty obvious to me that these issues furthered an overarching theme of "masks": the fear of difference and the need to hide ones identity from an unaccepting populous.

Moore speaks to themes of homosexuality in comics here

"Nobody really wants to be an oddball in any area of their lives," Moore said. "If people are different in terms of their sexuality, then they are suspect. If people are different in terms of their diet, they are suspect. Anything that can single you out form the herd, it is possible that it will make you a victim of the herd's displeasure. It comes from the way in which we see society, and the way in which we see ourselves, and I think that society perhaps feels threatened by any twigs that are the wrong shape or size, and that is probably the root of their unease with the concept of what they would see as an 'irregular' sexuality

[Svevan]

That odd considering Moore's recent comments on 300:

Don't you have the slightest curiosity about what Watchmen director Zack Snyder is doing with your work?

ALAN MOORE: I would rather not know.

He's supposed to be a very nice guy.

He may very well be, but the thing is that he's also the person who made 300. I've not seen any recent comic book films, but I didn't particularly like the book 300. I had a lot of problems with it, and everything I heard or saw about the film tended to increase [those problems] rather than reduce them: [that] it was racist, it was homophobic, and above all it was sublimely stupid. I know that that's not what people going in to see a film like 300 are thinking about but...I wasn't impressed with that

This is my point: Snyder's films have a streak of homophobia running through them, which is contrary to Moore's purposes. Another example is Dawn of the Dead.

[Mr Sausage]

I'm having trouble with the idea that 300 has "empty content" or does that mean "no content?" 300 is more talky than fighty, and presents such a terrifying worldview that I would say it subversively hides its "content" beneath a sheen, rather than replacing "all" or "any" content with visuals (and I'm not even sure that's possible to do, as if visuals are not in and of themselves "content." If you can't tell by now, I hate that word and the concept that style and content are separate things in art).

Far from being empty, 300 is to its core an embodiment of the Spartan ethos. Since the film is actually told by a Spartan to rouse the other Spartans, one can see all of the disturbing implications (to modern eyes) and the historical innaccuracies concerning events as being the result of the speaker and the context in which he's speaking (except for the bit of homphobia: the Spartan's like boys so much they institutionalized homosexuality), so that the film need not be embracing these things as viable. Historically, the film is probably how the Spartans would have seen themselves and the battle.

Personally, I think the filmmakers were so concerned about make a "cool" movie that they overlooked how disturbing the content could be (it's less disturbing if you know the historical Sparta, but how many do?). The movie silly and dumb, but not empty.

[Cde.]

Frank Miller is a man who believes that the Iraq war is part of the global fight against 'barbarism' which is as urgent as was World War II. He has compared attacking Germany in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor with attacking Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11.

I think he can be considered at least to an extent to have been aware of the messages he was selling.

[Cold Bishop]

Frank Miller is a man who believes that the Iraq war is part of the global fight against 'barbarism' which is as urgent as was World War II. He has compared attacking Germany in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor with attacking Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11.

I think he can be considered at least to an extent to have been aware of the messages he was selling.

The comic was written in 1998. Miller is no stranger to bigotry and ultra-machismo, and I'm sure he already developed his feelings towards the Middle East by then, but it has little to do with 9/11. Either Zack Snyder, noticing that it had become more timely, seized it as a chance to make right-wing propaganda, or he was dumb enough to make the film, completely oblivious to its social connotations. While I believe Snyder is the kind of guy who could do the latter, I'm sure it falls somewhere between those two poles.

[Cde.]

The comic was written in 1998. Miller is no stranger to bigotry and ultra-machismo, and I'm sure he already developed his feelings towards the Middle East by then, but it has little to do with 9/11. Either Zack Snyder, noticing that it had become more timely, seized it as a chance to make right-wing propaganda, or he was dumb enough to make the film, completely oblivious to its social connotations. While I believe Snyder is the kind of guy who could do the latter, I'm sure it falls somewhere between those two poles.

Neither would surprise me. When doing promotional duties for 300 Snyder often wore a 'Major League Infidel' t-shirt.

The shirt is manufactured by Crye Precision ("Serving those who protect our freedom™"). Check them out; among their other products is the 'Dirka-Dirkastan Patch'.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

New poster

EW article

EW Q&A with Snyder

[blindside8zao]

Snyder's films have a streak of homophobia running through them, which is contrary to Moore's purposes. Another example is Dawn of the Dead.

Can you remind me of the offending aspects of the film? I've not seen it in a long time and don't want to go back through just for these (though I enjoyed Dawn of the Dead a great deal more than 300).

[Antoine Doinel]

Carla Gugino illustrated as Sally Jupiter.

I also really like that this thread brings up "Real Jock" banner ads.

[Svevan]

Snyder's films have a streak of homophobia running through them, which is contrary to Moore's purposes. Another example is Dawn of the Dead.

Can you remind me of the offending aspects of the film? I've not seen it in a long time and don't want to go back through just for these (though I enjoyed Dawn of the Dead a great deal more than 300).

This was touched on a bit in the 300 thread and I'm sure in the Dawn of the Dead thread as well. In 300 there's a derogatory reference to the Persians as "boy lovers" (which, as mentioned, doesn't make any sense since the Spartans loved the gay sex; not sure if this is in Frank Miller's novel) and Xerxes is presented as overly feminine (exotic piercings and thin body) in contrast with the Spartans bulk. In Dawn of the Dead (and this may have just been the director's cut) there's a scene where a televangelist says that the apocalypse is the result of, among other things, "man-on-man relations."

I think the homophobia in 300 is pretty well established (odd since the movie is so gay), but Dawn of the Dead is a toss-up. It's a Falwell-esque parody, for sure, but the man is never rebuked (by the characters or otherwise) for his apocalyptic version of homophobia. Of course, I don't believe we're living under the Hays code where every bad deed must be punished by the end of the film, so who knows (and really who cares) what Snyder intended. It's just curious that both films brought it up (one explicitly negative, the other perhaps implicitly), and now he's on to Watchmen, which discusses homosexuality quite a bit but never declares itself "pro or anti" because that's not the point. Lots of the novel's characters speak negatively about homosexuality or other "signs of the times," there are scenes of a homosexual breakup, and one hero was closeted his whole life (it being the 50s when he was working) but the narrative never breaks into criticism or endorsement. Homosexuality is used thematically, as stated above by Schkura, as part of the "masks" theme. My problem is that since the work is ambiguous (ambiguity having not yet entered Snyder's ouevre), Snyder may think it says something that it simply doesn't say. (I think it's rather obvious how Moore feels about the subject based on his lack of polemic rather than the presence of it, and based on the quote posted by Schkura above.)

[davebert]

Carla Gugino illustrated as Sally Jupiter.

I also really like that this thread brings up "Real Jock" banner ads.

Thanks to the 300 discussion I'm now seeing banners advertising that Chemistry.com accepts gays!

The trailer wasn't quite the disaster in my eyes that others saw, but I admit that I may be hoping that the effects we're used to seeing in trailers (like the egregious slow-mo) will not feature prominently in the actual film. Given Snyder's history, that's probably a stupid assumption to make.

[Antoine Doinel]

Am I the only who found 300 homoerotic?

[Cobalt60]

Am I the only who found 300 homoerotic?

Nope, your not. But Miller luvs the beefcake, he packs his books with it cover to cover.

[flyonthewall2983]

Aren't all sandal-and-sword movies in some way homoerotic, even some overtly so?

[Andre Jurieu]

In 300 there's a derogatory reference to the Persians as "boy lovers" (which, as mentioned, doesn't make any sense since the Spartans loved the gay sex; not sure if this is in Frank Miller's novel) and Xerxes is presented as overly feminine (exotic piercings and thin body) in contrast with the Spartans bulk.

If there is any apparent homophobia in the movie (and I agree there certainly is – the antagonist Xerxes character is obviously implied to be gay) it's likely derived from the source material. I haven't actually read Miller's 300 (I did skim through it at a friend's house a few years ago), but I also can't recall reading anything by Miller that didn't include some form of homophobia. Not that excuses Synder for including the same homophobia within his film, but he would also have to contend with all the fan-boys complaining about improper adaptation of Miller's material.

The example of homophobia in Dawn is a bit more problematic. I can't see the inclusion of a homophobic televangelist as signalling that the filmmaker shares the same opinions as a caricature that he briefly pauses upon within his movie, especially since I'm pretty sure this a somewhat realistic depiction of how the majority of the evangelical community would react to these circumstances.

I guess this is just a way of saying that I’m not confident in stating conclusively that Synder is a homophobe. Of course, based upon his films, I’m confident in saying that I don’t see much intelligence or nuance in his filmmaking.

[starmanof51]

since the Spartans loved the gay sex; not sure if this is in Frank Miller's novel

Yep, it's pointedly in the Miller comic - all Spartan soldiers are required to do the business with their fellows as prerequisite to membership.

[Mr Sausage]

In 300 there's a derogatory reference to the Persians as "boy lovers"

Leonidas actually calls the Athenians "boy-lovers," which they were (the Greeks were less homosexuals than they were pederasts).

If there is any apparent homophobia in the movie (and I agree there certainly is – the antagonist Xerxes character is obviously implied to be gay) it's likely derived from the source material.

I don't know that Xerxes is necessarily gay. Historically, the Greeks (including the "boy-lovers") viewed Persia and the Persians as effeminant and indulgent, and I think the movie is trying to represent that 'reality.' This view of the Persians doesn't require a corresponding negative view of homosexuality. On the other hand, the very homophobic "boy-lovers" comment does make you wonder.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Snyder spills on some songs that will be in the film and, big surprise, the Pumpkins song in the trailer will not be in the film.

[Antoine Doinel]

It sounds like Snyder decided to use the soundtrack to Forrest Gump instead.

EDIT: LOL! I hadn't even read down to where MTV says the same thing until after I posted.

[Svevan]

The example of homophobia in Dawn is a bit more problematic. I can't see the inclusion of a homophobic televangelist as signalling that the filmmaker shares the same opinions as a caricature that he briefly pauses upon within his movie, especially since I'm pretty sure this a somewhat realistic depiction of how the majority of the evangelical community would react to these circumstances.

I guess this is just a way of saying that I’m not confident in stating conclusively that Synder is a homophobe. Of course, based upon his films, I’m confident in saying that I don’t see much intelligence or nuance in his filmmaking.

Perhaps some evangelicals, but not the majority: when Falwell and Robertson made those comments post-9/11, they were not embraced by the majority of evangelicals (unless we're defining that group differently). Either way, you are correct that this caricature is accurate to certain evangelical beliefs, and its inclusion in the film doesn't say anything about Snyder's intentions, nor should we try to make any hypothesis about his intentions* (and I almost regret bringing up the topic since trying to label a directors' social opinion based on their work is something I've argued against in the Kubrick thread). Instead I want to identify which parts of the work(s) play as homophobic or place machismo in contrast to effeminacy; under this lens, I would invert my previous statements and say 300's contradiction of implicit homoeroticism and explicit heterosexual sex and masculinity are sexually confused while Dawn of the Dead is plainly masculine without ever raising the question of sexuality. (edit: wait, isn't there a gay character in the director's cut?)

since the Spartans loved the gay sex; not sure if this is in Frank Miller's novel

Yep, it's pointedly in the Miller comic - all Spartan soldiers are required to do the business with their fellows as prerequisite to membership.

Sorry, I mispoke: I was wondering if the "boy lovers" comment was in the Miller comic. However I'm surprised to hear you say that the homosexuality of the Spartan corps is mentioned in the novel. If it is, the question of 300's sexual allegiance is much more serious - how can the comic include both homosexual acts and the derogatory "boy lovers" accusation?

In 300 there's a derogatory reference to the Persians as "boy lovers"

Leonidas actually calls the Athenians "boy-lovers," which they were (the Greeks were less homosexuals than they were pederasts).

This kind of inverts the whole thing, doesn't it?

*you may not have to hypothesize though: in the audio commentary on Dawn of the Dead, Snyder makes it a point to mention how much he wanted to include the televangelist, sounding (to my ears a year ago when I listened to it) oddly sympathetic. I'll re-listen to that bit soon.

side note: Before this topic gets tiresome, it might be right to clarify that I really ultimately don't care about Snyder's work, Watchmen included, but I'm always fascinated by popular treatment of homosexuality, especially in the action films we're discussing. I'm also incredibly sensitive to any misreading of Watchmen! So that's that.

[filmnoir1]

The real problem with this project is that Snyder is someone who drinks from the goblets of the neo-cons as was overtly apparent with his connection to Frank Miller ( a huge supporter of Bush and the regressive social policies that his administration has endorsed) and the film 300. Moreoever, the beauty and power of Moore's book was that it attempted to dig beneath the psyches of the "heroes" and expose them for what they are- which is another form of human with the same foibles and desires that many other people possess.
In addition the book was absloutely critical of conservative politics couched in nationalist/patriotic rhetoric. It spoke out against Reaganomics and Thatcherism and the growing forces of corporate capital to fashion a world wherein people are nothing more than sheep to sell products to or to slaughter in an effort to make even more money. This film could have been a powerful statement about the current mythical crisis we constantly live with- the war on terror- but instead in Snyder's hands it will become an example of neo-con propaganda wrapped in the shiny capes of heroes like Christmas candy.

[rs98762001]

...and with an atrociously cliched soundtrack to boot.

[Schkura]

In defense of those soundtrack choices, they are all in the original series. Some of the songs actually provided titles for a couple of the issues.