"The Times They are A- Changin:" Zack Snyder's "Watchmen" at 10

Zack Snyder's Watchmen, adapted by David Hayter from Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' seminal 1986 graphic novel of the same name, was released 10 years ago this month. It's often referred to as ahead of its time, just like  Moore and Gibbons' masterpiece, entirely different from anything before or after in the medium. And yes, I would say the same about Snyder's film, which stands out from any comic book movie before or since, even his own.

While the superhero genre had matured and deepened by 2009 with Spider-Man 2, and the one-two punch of Iron Man and The Dark Knight the year previously, the concept of adapting a dense and intricate work such as Watchmen was equivalent to adapting The Lord of the Rings- it was seen as impossible to do a successful film adaptation of Watchmen. I think this is because- as has been said in the past- Watchmen is a comic about the comic medium and uses the medium in a very specific way to tell its story. As such, any film version of Watchmen would have to be it's own thing. In his video on the film, "Iamthatroby" says the Watchmen film is a superhero movie about superhero movies. And I the film, while faithful to the overall plot of the graphic novel, has to be viewed in the proper context without judging it too much against the graphic novel. Having just re-watched it, I've come to love the film and think it's quite amazing. I never disliked it just that I needed a few watches for it to really click with me. And the fact it came out 10 years ago, when the idea of an Avengers or Batman/Superman movie was still a comic book fan's dream, is incredible.

The fact such an ambitious undertaking was only Snyder's third feature is also impressive, though his first two films weren't safe bets either. His first, Dawn of the Dead (2004), was a remake of a horror classic and 300 (2007) was a largely visual effects adaptation of Frank Miller's epic graphic novel 300. That which made Snyder's name synonymous with highly stylized visuals and fidelity to the comic book source material. Also, Miller, like Moore, is one of the most important comic book creators of his time (both also contributed to the Batman mythos with Miller writing The Dark Knight Returns, a big influence on Snyder's Batman v. Superman, and Moore writing The Killing Joke.) So, it's not a surprise Snyder got the job bringing Watchmen to screen.

Watchmen takes place in an alternate 1985 where Richard Nixon has been able to retain power and is still President of the United States. This is also a world where costumed vigilantes have and still exist, though costumed crime-fighting has been made illegal. Former Nite Owl (Stephen McHattie), Hollis Mason, tells his successor Dan Dreiberg (Patrick Wilson), also retired, that the earlier generation had it easier. Nixon pushed the younger generation out. I love when Mason calls Nixon a prick then adds "And to think I voted for that prick five times," to which Dan replies "Hey, it was him or the commies." This notion of voting for someone you don't like just to avoid someone who you like less can't help but remind of the attitude in the last American election.

Edward Blake, also known as The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), a government agent and former Minuteman/Watchmen, is killed, which kicks off the action of the story. While in the graphic novel, the Comedian's is shown is brief flashbacks, the film opens with a stylized fight sequence establishes the film's action. While I've had a problem with the seemingly normal people in the comic world having super strength in the movie, I think I've come to view the action in this film in the proper context of it being a heightened reality, as well as calling attention exaggerated superhero action. The contrasts stylization with real-world brutality quite effectively.

I think Morgan really nails the character. This is a guy who's a real bastard- he tries to rape Sally Jupiter/Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino), kills a Vietnamese woman he impregnated during the Vietnam War, and killed JFK. But he's charismatic and somewhat sympathetic when he experiences an existential crisis. Morgan captures both the humanity and inhumanity of this man, and we can kind of understand why Sally went back to him and eventually had had his child, Laurie (Malin Akerman), the second Silk Spectre. This is perhaps the powerful and poignant aspect of both the comic and movie, that a woman could love a man who attempted to rape her. This is a complex emotional territory and I love Sally telling Laurie that she couldn't hate Blake because "he gave me you."

I want to talk about John Osterman/Dr. Manhattan because in many ways I find him the most fascinating character in the film. Osterman is a atomic physicist who due to a freak science accident is transformed in to a super-powered being named Dr. Manhattan after the Manhattan project. Dr. Manhattan isn't human but he's not quite a god either. Janey Slater (Laura Mennell), Osterman's former lover and fellow scientist, says Manhattan is a god to which says he doesn't believe in God and if he's real, he's nothing like him. Thinking about the character brought to mind the oft-quoted idea that God can't be both all powerful and all good; and if neither why call him God. Manhattan doesn't seem to be either all powerful or all good, eventually having a detached view of humanity and retreating to Mars.

When Blake kills the Vietnamese woman he blames Manhattan for not stopping it and says Manhattan is losing his touch with humanity, adding "God help us all," underscoring how Manhattan isn't God. Manhattan's purpose in the story is to explore how people would react to a super-powered being in the real world. Snyder would also explore this idea in Man of Steel and BvS, in which Lex Luthor does bring up the Problem of Evil (God can't be both all powerful and all good). And like Manhattan, Superman in BvS begins to lose faith in humanity.

But  there's something terrifying about Manhattan, he's not the hopeful figure Superman is. He's a deterrent to Russia starting a Nuclear War with the US but he also creates a kind of fear that would start a war. Manhattan is not all powerful, as Laurie tells him later, he's just going through the motions like a puppet. Nor is he all good- he doesn't prevent Blake's gunning down of a pregnant woman.

I think my favourite sequence in the film is  Manhattan's origin, beautifully edited by William Hoy, Snyder's editor on 300 and his follow-up to Watchmen, Sucker Punch (2011). Hoy  creates a nostalgic, dream-like feel that soon turns in to a nightmare when Osterman becomes Manhattan. I love how the flashback stars out with a warm look at the fair with Osterman and Janey. The scene cuts from Osterman's friend  Wally Weaver looking lively to Weaver dead in a hospital; this shot has a cold look. The scene in the science lab is also shot to look a little colder, foreshadowing Manhattan's personality and look. 

One of the major changes in the film is Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode) making the world think Manhattan attacked New York City, preventing any nuclear conflict and bringing the world together in an Utopia. In the comic, it's a giant squid but I think-at least in the movie- Manhattan being the scapegoat works really well, tying everything back to the fear surrounding Manhattan. People are willing to accept Manhattan did turn on them. Veidt understands what will unite the world is the fear of something outside of humanity.

What I like about Watchmen's ending is it's not about whether Veidt's actions are morally justifiable but what do the characters do in the aftermath of destruction? Do they preserve the lie that has brought peace or reveal the truth, which would mean all those people died in vain if the world went back to the brink of war. It's a no win scenario. Walter Kovacs/Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) doesn't compromise and I think it's incredibly appropriate he tells Manhattan to kill him; that's the only way he won't reveal the truth.

Rorschach reminds me of the Marvel Comics character The Punisher, in that he is committed to warring on crime and killing criminals without mercy. When he's arrested and interviewed by a psychiatrist, he tells of how he used to let criminals live until he found the killer of a young girl, brutally murdering with a meat cleaver. This is where- as Rorschach tells it- Walter Kovacs truly died and Rorschach was born. When his mask is taken off by the police, he screams for them to give him back his face. It's part of him, it is him. Rorschach's narration is reminiscent of Travis Bickle, the character portrayed by Robert De Niro in Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver (1976), due to his narration about the scum on the New York streets. My favourite shot in the film is when Rorschach goes in to the bathroom to kill Big Figure (Danny Woodburn). The door swings eerily and unusually back and forth as we see Rorschach move in for the kill- until we can only see Rorschach before the door closes. For a film with such brutal and explicit violence, this is an effective example of leaving it to the audience's imagination what happens.

Haley has to do a lot of acting with just his voice and body language. I think he absolutely embodies the character. When we see him without his mask, we see a man cold and detached but with much anger underneath the surface. It's only at the end when he tells Manhattan to kill him that we see him actually break down emotionally and cry. For me it's the most affecting emotional moment in the film.     

Rorschach does get the last laugh, so to speak, since his journal will be discovered by a newspaper employee. The film ends with the question of not only will the truth be revealed but what are the consequences? Will humanity go back to the brink of or will it enter a new status quo? It's also a question of personal responsibility and what choice an individual feels he/she should make. Is a world of peace more important than our own feelings of morality? And how do we deal with knowing a dark truth, what does it do to our conscience?

I know one criticism of the film is Veidt being too sinister, telegraphing he's the villain, as opposed to his depiction in the comic. I believe Veidt is intentionally being played up as the villain because the surprise of the film is his plan not be rooted in villainy. He's attempting to make the world a better place. His villainous demeanour is a red herring. Veidt is set up as an archetype, an archetype that's subverted by film's end.

I also want to mention Larry Fong, who I think is a fantastic cinematographer. He creates a diverse palette for this, as I mentioned when I talked about the Manhattan origin scene. Some scenes have a warmer look, others colder. There are scenes and shots that reflect an "old-timey" representation of the past, and more urban, gritty scenes. We also  have cosmic stuff with Manhattan on Mars. What's impressive is it all blends together, forming a cohesive world.

The title sequence is a great example of this, as we travel through history, showing us the Minutemen's origin in the 40s, to Manhattan meeting JFK in the early 60s and the emergence of the new Watchmen. There's both happiness and tragedy in this sequence. It's  a brilliant piece of visual storytelling.

Another sequence I think is wonderful is Mason's death. After Nite Owl and Silk Spectre break Rorschach out of prison, some goons think it was the former Nite Owl who did it. They attack Mason who fights back and from his POV we see him imaging the attackers as his former enemies from his time as Nite Owl. The music is stirring until it cuts out when Mason is killed with a trophy, signifying the emergence of brutal reality in to the scene.

Snyder is one of those rare blockbuster auteurs, filmmakers who are making personal and artistic films on a large budget. Instead of relying so much on a formula, movies like Watchmen operate outside of the box. I've come to appreciate Snyder as a filmmaker more since Man of Steel. I'd go as far as listing him as one of my favourite working directors. Watchmen foreshadowed similar themes Snyder would explore later on in MoS and BvS, including the idea of a super-powered, God like being among us.

It's appropriate that Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin" plays over the opening credits since Watchmen is about the past and nostalgia. And the perception of superhero cinema has changed over the years. With the deluge of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, Watchmen shines a little brighter because it's so distinct from other superhero films. Like BvS, it's a grower, and one now I would rank amongst my favourite comic book films.

A Haunting in Enfield: "The Conjuring 2"

Warning: Mild Spoilers

James Wan knows how to make a horror movie. Some may shrug their shoulders at that claim, thinking "So what?" But only a genuine film-maker who understands how to engage and manipulate his or her audience can work in the archetypal haunted house sub-genre- as Wan did in the first two Insidious films and the original The Conjuring (2013)-and make the cliches and familiar beats feel fresh and genuinely intense. He isn't interested in subverting your expectations of the genre; he's more concerned in reminding us of the pure thrill of being frightened by ''what goes bump in the night."

The Conjuring 2 begins with a prologue re-introducing us to Lorraine and Ed Warren (Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson), the ghost-busting couple of the original film-and dramatised versions of the real life Warrens. The Warrens are investigating the notorious Amityville murders of the DeFeo family, committed by the oldest son, Ronald DeFeo. During a seance, Lorraine enacts the murders- and in one shot, instead of Lorraine's reflection, DeFeo is seen in a mirror. In her vision, Lorraine encounters a demon dressed as a nun. After being shaken out of the vision, Lorraine no longer wants to investigate hauntings-especially when later she begins to see visions of Ed's death.

We then jump to the film's main plot, which is the 1977 haunting of the Hodgson residence in Enfield, England. As with the first film, the Enfield haunting does have basis in fact though there is scepticism regarding whether there was a supernatural presence in the house. The England setting provides an interesting contrast with the original film, which focused on a quintessentially American ghost story- the haunting of the Perron family at their farmhouse in Harrisville. 

The Conjuring 2 follows a similar formula to its predecessor as the Warrens are introduced at the beginning and confined to the background while we spend time with the family being haunted. Peggy Hodgson (Frances O'Connor) is a single mother raising her two daughters Janet (Madison Wolfe), Margaret (Lauren Esposito), Billy (Benjamin Haigh), and Johnny (Patrick McAuley). Wan always wants to make the audience feel the experience of actually living in a haunted house- before our protagonists come to save the day. He does the same thing with the original Insidious- where Elise (Lin Shaye) comes in to help the Lambert family. 

It takes a little too long for the Warrens' story to meet up with the Hodgson's. And the whole movie can't help but feel too long in general. In his other horror films Wan uses a loose narrative framework on which to hang his set-pieces- and The Conjuring 2 feels like this approach taken to its logical extreme- in both good and bad ways. Wan doesn't seem interested in making a tight or lean film but The Conjuring 2 still works due to Wan's relish in scaring you. The film is arguably too unrelenting and I don't know how the film will play on re-watch- but it's the rare horror movie which gives too much rather than too little. 

This is also a horror film which demands to be viewed on a theatre screen. Wan uses the frame to great effect and there are several wonderfully staged sequences in this film. One of the best- if not the best- doesn't even include every camera movement or editing. There's a close-up on Ed talking to the spirit of Bill Wilkins behind him (who communicates through Janet but won't speak while everyone is looking). The background is out of focus but we can see the image of Bill as he take over Janet. At first I didn't notice the effect but when I did it added a subtle creepiness of the scene.   

There's another sequence earlier where Wan places the camera at angle so we're in one of the boys' room but can see out in the hallway. Wan loves making us wonder what's in the shadows of a house at night- one of the purest fears we can have. 

Cinematographer Don Burgess (replacing the original film's John R. Leonetti) invokes the feeling of 1970s Northern London. The look of the film is blends stylization and naturalism. His camera-work- including a tracking shot through the Hodgson household- is fluid and unnerving. 

Regarding the performances, Farmiga and Wilson provide warmth to an unsettling story. They make you believe in Ed and Lorraine's bond. In both films are like a light in the darkness. When they arrive at the Hodgson, it does feel that's there finally hope for the family. There's a charming scene where Ed plays the guitar and sings Elvis' "Can't Help Falling in Love With You." It's a scene which gives the audience and the characters some relief. 

Janet and Lorraine have a conversation where we finally see how Janet is affected by the haunting. It's also the first of two scenes where each of the Warrens recount to Janet how they felt different, unable to open up and put their faith in anyone until they met one another.

I was impressed with Wolfe's performance as Janet. She's no doubt the breakout actor of the film. Wolfe plays Janet with an authentic maturity while retaining a child-like quality. You feel the weight the haunting is taking on her even though her innocence is still intact. I also liked O'Connor's portrayal of a working-class mother, which was sympathetic without overdoing anything. The always reliable character actor Simon McBurney also does fine work as Maurice Grosse, the paranormal investigator who precedes and then assists the Warrens. He has nice scene with Lorraine where he tells her the death of his daughter makes him hope there is some kind of afterlife. It's a lovely scene that adds dimension to the character of Grosse. 

It also underlines Wan's optimistic side. Unsettling as the Conjuring and Insidious films are, Wan believes that good can overcome evil and life can move on after unspeakable horror. Whether you believe in the supernatural or not, moving on and being able to heal is an idea that speaks to everyone. And Wan also believes its the family bond that can get us through emotional and physical trauma. This not only applies to the families the Warrens aid but to the Warrens themselves. What I loved most about The Conjuring 2 is it ends not with a jump scare or a sequel tease but with two people in love dancing. Its such a perfect summation of these two films and Wan's horror output these past five years that I feel a Conjuring 3 isn't necessary. But with the world a continuingly dark place, we may need Farmiga and Wilson to continue being that light in the darkness.