Saturday, February 27, 2010

STUART VS. DEVON: STEEL CAGE MATCH OVER HEALTH CARE!

I'll let them elaborate.

Background: if you click over to my Facebook profile here, you'll see that the fourth-most-recent item that I posted has sparked a rather lengthy discussion. I've offered this as a more appropriate forum.

As for my own opinion, I will no doubt write more but for now, it is worth saying that I am in two majorities; those who want health care reform, and those who disapprove of the current bill. I support its passage only because it remains better than nothing at all.

"To be sure, Americans seem close to evenly divided on the question of whether the proposal goes too far or not far enough. But the latter category outnumbers the former, suggesting that the desire that reform be more ambitious is a key factor driving dissatisfaction with Obama — even though that possibility is rarely discussed by the big news orgs or by top-shelf pundits."
-from here

Friday, February 19, 2010

Saturday Morning Watchmen


I had to post this in light of my last entry. A brilliant skewering of Watchmen itself and of every well-known cartoon of the '60s through the '80s.

Review of Watchmen: the Ultimate Cut

Review of Watchmen Ultimate Cut

It's difficult to overstate the impact that Watchmen had on the comics industry. Written as a deconstruction of the entire superhero genre, using slightly altered versions of classic Charlton Comics characters, the book has won a Hugo and been named one of the best 100 novels of the 20th century by Time magazine. It led to a period of "dark and edgy" in superhero comics that, 25 years later, shows no signs of stopping anytime soon.

The book starts as a simple mystery story and ends up tying together the histories and deepest secrets of at least a dozen characters, who populate a bizarre version of 1980s America. A costumed hero "fad" has given way to an era of stupefied terror as the emergence of an American godlike superhero sends the Cold War careening towards turning hot and nuclear. There are dozens of plotlines, most of which interweave and comment on each other through the narrative so densely that virtually every panel caption has two meanings, if not more.

It was insanity to make a movie out of it. It's mind-boggling that it's a good movie.

Fortunately, after years of development hell (scripts would periodically leak on the Internet to howls of justified rage) Warner Brothers found their man: Zach Snyder. The only other major motion picture credit to Snyder's name is 300, another graphic novel adaptation and a film that I found fairly dreadful. However, virtually all of what was wrong with it was the original writer's fault.

When I heard the news, I knew Snyder was the right man for the job. With 300, he showed the following traits:
1. A real knack for finding the right balance of adaptation: keeping the look and feel and words of the comic while changing and adding what was needed.
2. A talent for action scenes that borders on the hypnotic: brutality as poetry. In these days of post-Matrix backlash, Snyder is one of the few directors unapologetically using slow-motion, which, while agonizing if overused, does work for certain things. Namely, capturing the look and dynamism of a comics panel.
3. Extreme attention to detail.

What I learned about Snyder in the coming months is that he's also got brass balls...he took his one successful movie and told the studio that he alone was going to make Watchmen, and do it his way--set in the 1980s, chock full of historical references, with the novel's brutal ending, and NO SEQUEL HOOKS--or he would take a hike and they'd be left with the rubbish scripts they'd started with.

They gave him a big pile of money and stood back.

As adaptation, this work exceeds the standard set by Peter Jackson in The Lord of the Rings. Every main character's arc is present and faithful, and the look of the movie is just surpassingly so. Considering that this is a Hollywood comic book movie, anything else is nitpicking, right from square one.

However, I'm a geek, reviewing a geek movie, so I'm obliged.

As noted in the title, I'm actually reviewing the three-hour cut of the movie that was released on DVD. This version of the film includes the comic-within-a-comic that paralleled the main narrative in Watchmen: Tales of the Black Freighter. This element of the work was the FIRST thing cut out of every adaptation, including this one that made it to the big screen. However, Snyder went and made it anyway, as a hand-drawn animation of very good quality. It was sold as a DVD companion piece and now is incorporated into the film, with connecting segments. The extra scenes from the first "Director's Cut" of the film are also included, but as I have not seen that version I can only compare this version with the one I saw in the theater.

The theatrical cut is probably slightly superior to this cut as a movie. The odd structure of the film (it is actually patterned closer to the novel's 12-issue structure than to the typical film's three-act structure) means that audiences are especially susceptible to feeling that the movie is too long and awkwardly paced. As a result, and of necessity, the theatrical experience is more focused. Snyder slips under the three hour mark by moving from scene to scene with almost cutthroat efficiency. This is an admirable achievement, especially considering all of the material he did successfully include verbatim from the novel. However, it is essentially the opposite of what the experience of reading Watchmen is like.

The actual plot of the movie and the book are actually extremely simple, if memorable. It's the motivations, revealed through the backstories, of all the characters that truly elevate the work. And so, in general, the scenes in the Ultimate Cut fulfill their purpose of creating a still truer adaptation of the book.

I did say in general. Some are more successful than others.

-The first added scene is a short bit where Rorschach beats up two cops, and Dan and Hollis hear about it on the news. This was apparently to establish that Rorschach isn't on the cops' side per se, but sees them as fellow travelers and won't kill them. It also establishes that Rorschach is the last active hero. If you've seen the theatrical cut, you know that this establishes nothing that we didn't find out later. It's not from the book, it's not needed in the movie, so it shouldn't be in. It's fat.

-The other "creative" added scene is one where Laurie feuds with government agents after Manhattan's departure. It captures a bit of the feel of a similar scene in the novel without slavishly adhering to it. Unfortunately, it both resolves a major plot hole...and adds a new one!

See, at the climax of the film, Laurie shoots Adrian. In the comic, Chekhov's Gun is established earlier in the same issue, when she takes it from a dead police officer. This had multiple meanings--she takes a weapon from one of Adrian's victims to use against him, and she is becoming more like her recently-revealed, gunslinging father, the Comedian.

In the theatrical cut, she pulls the gun out of nowhere. This is the biggest plot hole in the movie.

In this cut, she takes the gun from a government agent who's trying to detain her. The problem? Well, it makes little sense that she doesn't use it in a later scene when she is fighting for her life from muggers (this scene is particularly brutal in Snyder's interpretation, so...why not pull the gun?). It stays with her through a costume change (not a costume where you can conceal much, by the by). And, the gun she takes from the agent is an autoloader, while the one she uses at the end is a novel-accurate revolver.

So...yeah. Didn't help us much, wasn't necessary, nothing to see here.

-Scene with Laurie and the Comedian. The movie just barely got away with cutting this out in the first place. I think it's essential and am glad to see it back.

-The best added scene is the death of Hollis Mason. Being non-essential to the plot, it was a hated casualty of the editing process, despite being one of the most powerful and traumatic scenes of the book. There's nothing I can really say about the adaptation of this scene...it's beautiful, and it's back where it belongs. It also leads to a brilliant followup scene where Dan must be restrained from killing a suspect of the crime by Rorschach of all people. "Not in front of the civilians."

-I'll talk about Tales of the Black Freighter and the attendant connective tissue in one chunk. Tales is a comic in the universe of Watchmen, which saw a fall in interest in superhero comics once heroes became "real." Therefore, comics about other subjects, like pirates, became popular. The first cut to the Black Freighter world is very jarring, but in the rest of the scenes, as in the novel, it segues in and out with scenes at a New York newsstand. The story itself parallels many things in the main narrative, most notably Adrian's descent into blood-soaked guilt.

The animation and voice work is really cool. It feels very much like the B-17 segment of Heavy Metal, which is certainly an appropriate (and horrific) homage for the time period. Gerard Butler spends the whole time talking to himself, but he sells the difficult task of making very overwrought text of a spin into madness come alive without being hokey.

The only disappointment is that the central conceit of the Tale--that the entire attack was orchestrated to cause the main character to slip into madness and join the demon pirate crew--is less than clear, thanks to certain wording rearrangements and omissions in the last scene. It almost looks like they're going to kill the poor bastard instead. Also, the "MORE BLOOD" chant of the pirates comes off as silly.

The other thing is that because it's inserted into a movie that essentially already exists, it can't interact with the main story quite as extensively as it does in the book. I'm fine with this, as rapid intercutting would have been obnoxious and destroyed the flow of the story. However, it does weaken the connection of the comic to the main narrative, and some viewers might then deem it pointless.

The connecting scenes are great though because we see the bond between the newsstand guy and the comics-loving kid. It's even got another little twist in this version because the kid is bullied. This adds a much more personal punch in the gut when New York is destroyed right under these two characters' feet. We also get foreshadowing of Rorschach's love of the "New Frontiersman" magazine. These little touches were sorely missed in the theatrical cut, which had to sacrifice emotional impact and clarity for time.

Final verdict on the DVD set: buy it if you're a fan. It's worth $40 to have absolutely everything that was released for this film except for the Director's Cut, which IMO is pointless between the concise cut and the most complete cut. It's a five disc set, but two of them are just the "motion comic" which I don't particularly care about. Still, one of the other discs has "Under the Hood," which is a fake "60 Minutes"-style TV news report that is a great way to adapt the Hollis Mason autobiography segments that were part of the original novel. The complicated relationships of the original heroes are simplified slightly, and an odd romantic dimension is added between Hollis and Sally, but it's still great to watch and very fun to see the old heroes in action. If you liked the opening sequence of the movie (which is hands-down beautiful) then you should like this.

Some brief thoughts on the movie in general (these apply equally to both cuts):

-The change in the ending: fine. And you can tell, because it's debated whether it's a better ending PERIOD, not a better ending for the film. It's the ONLY ending for the film, and it's less of an intellectual "you'll never see THIS coming" exercise. It does not one tiny bit of damage to Adrian or his motives, and the mechanism for the people of Earth's continued compliance with peace is much more believable.

-Laurie. In some ways, 25 more years of feminism has made her a stronger character in demeanor. She fights just as hard as Dan and she doesn't carry a FUCKING PURSE around. However, she suffered the most of any character as far as cut scenes (see above) and her utter hatred of the Comedian and Rorschach is virtually absent. This inevitably weakens the big reveal later, which should be a MASSIVE moment. It's not really as believable in the film that this brings her whole world crashing down, and since it's a pivotal scene...yeah. We could have used a few more minutes of Laurie.

-Matthew Goode, you were a great Adrian. Stop kicking yourself. I'm not sure he needed to be so obviously gay, as his sexuality is totally ambiguous in the book, but that's certainly Snyder's decision instead of yours. You can decide for yourself the implications of having the gay guy be the smartest and strongest man in the world, who is also a bazillionaire, who is also a liberal, who is also a mass-murderer and opportunist.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Some Thoughts on Valentine's Day

Unlike many of you, I don't hate Valentine's Day.

I don't have a particularly burning reason to like it, either. I don't believe in saints, for one, and Mr. Valentine did nothing particularly notable either. The cynicism and commercialism with which this holiday was created do nothing to endear me to it, either.

Certainly, I would further agree that one needs no excuse to make your partner's day as special as you can.

And yes, some couples are really annoying on Valentine's Day, especially when one is single.

However...

As an atheist, I don't celebrate any holidays for religious reasons. Though, I do celebrate some religious holidays for secular reasons. I.e., I don't believe they are "holy days." However, I see no burning reason to sacrifice my cultural background on the altar of rationality either. Like it or not, I grew up with Valentine's Day as a special day, so I'll always remember it.

And yes, it can have meaning for you and your partner. That doesn't mean that you somehow leech romance out of other days and "save it up" for Valentine's Day. You don't use up an allotment of love during the year. However, you can't be buying flowers and doing special things on every last day, either, once you and your partner settle into a routine. They aren't "special" things if you are trying to top yourself 24/7.

I think many people benefit from having a few more-or-less arbitrary days during the year to reflect on their relationship, and break out of their routine. Like anniversaries, birthdays, celebrations of a loved one's accomplishments, and why not, throw in Valentine's Day. Just as Mother's Day and Father's Day inspire us to remember our parents, Valentine's Day is set aside for lovers, or friends, or whoever you decide your Valentines are.

Saying that Valentine's Day cheapens love is like saying that Christmas cheapens giving.

It's just an arbitrary THING humans do. We like our yearly cycles. Recognize whichever ones you prefer. It's certainly fair to think they are commercial and crass...but just be nice to people who disagree.

Anyway, me and my Valentine are passing our first Feb. 14 quietly, connected by the magic of the Internet. I sent a card, which was eaten by the snowstorm (it will get there eventually!). Since she's awesomer then me, she sent me a teddy bear, hot chocolate, Zombieland, and a wonderful card. But we don't love each other any more, or any less, on this day. It's just a day.

A GOOD day.