It took twenty years, but this week finally sees Watchmen adapted for the big screen. To most of you reading this, it might not be a big deal – yet another big-budget superhero film cashing in on old properties instead of creating new stories. Well, yes and no.
Watchmen aficionados would hasten to point out that Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon’s magnum opus is a lot more than merely another superhero story. After all, if Time Magazine listed it in their top 100 novels of the Twentieth Century, one realises there must be a little more substance and depth going on here. To steal an incredibly overused description popularised by the media in an attempt to pigeon-hole something that doesn’t need to be, it ‘transcends’ the superhero genre (God, I hate that word – apologies).
Overshadowing the book?
As Alan Moore continually likes to point out, there is no need for a film adaptation. Famously dismissive of Hollywood’s constant desire to piggy-back on the successes of other storytelling mediums, Moore believes the book is the book is the book and should remain so. In a recent interview for Wired magazine, he explained both his revulsion of the adaptation industry as well as his faith in the source material to survive.
"My books are still the same books as they were before they were made into films. The books haven't changed. I'm reminded of the remark by, I think it was Raymond Chandler, where he was asked about what he felt about having his books "ruined" by Hollywood. And he led the questioner into his study and showed him all the books there on the bookshelf, and said, Look—there they all are. They're all fine. They're fine. They're not ruined. They're still there. And I think that's pretty much the attitude I take. If the books are as good as I think they are, then they are the things that will endure. And if the films are as bad as I think they are, then they are the things that will not endure. So, I suppose we'll see at the end of the day, whenever that is."
There is no doubt he is right, and that Watchmen will continue to sell copies for decades to come. Yet I worry that the majority of the audience leaving the cinema after three hours of CGI and spandex excess won’t ever read the novel and won’t ever see beyond the confines of 160 minutes of celluloid. I shudder thinking of audiences judging Moore's work based on this film. It would be like assessing the merits of a Van Gogh based on viewing a photocopy.
A mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma
For most viewers, the film will remain their only experience of Moore’s vision, which diminishes the original scope of the work. Having just finished rereading the novel in preparation for my Gold Class tickets to luxury and spectacle next weekend, I am reminded of the sheer wealth of material that will never make it onto the screen. The myriad subplots, a host of background characters and the additional prose supplemental material that rounded out each issue / chapter are part of what makes the Watchmen experience so rich.
Way back when Terry Gilliam was tapped to direct - by Joel (The Matrix) Silver, no less - I remember reading an interview where he admitted adapting the book was like trying to solve a chinese puzzle; take one layer away and another level of complexity lies underneath. The complexity and depth was a major part of why Watchmen was such an immersive experience as a book. Compromising and simplifying that could be like taking the front wheel off a bicycle and expecting to be able to ride it.
Adapting the unadaptable
Now we have Zach (300) Snyder's completed version and early reports seem to confirm that it has stayed as close as a film dares to the source material and probably closer than may be advisable. Dialogue and visuals are taken panel-for-frame from the book and certainly what I have seen seems to be the book suddenly given movement. But will that be enough?
Moore has suffered some terrible adaptations of his work before - From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen were desperately poor attempts that ended up bearing little similarity to the source material and partially explain Moore's hatred of the industry. But V For Vendetta showed what can be done to take Moore's talent for weaving highly intelligent and original stories with genuine power and emotional depth.
What V For Vendetta did so well was avoid any attempt to change Moore's original vision while at the same time understanding that short cuts needed to be made. In adapting the novel, Larry and Andy Wachowski understood exactly which elements of the book were essential to keep exact - such as Valerie's letter - and which could be truncated or completely excised for brevity's sale - such as the nightclub subplot. V For Vendetta walked the line between the necessary changes and slavish adherence to the source. They produced something that completely captured the tone and atmosphere of those original black and white pages while working as a film in its own right. I had tears in my eyes when I read the instalment containing Valerie's letter in Warrior Magazine in 1983 and two years ago I sat in the cinema welling up again. V Showed it can be done.
Messing with perfection
I worry that, faced with the pressure of adapting the most revered and awarded comic book of all time, any film maker would have felt pressured against making essential changes to make it work as a film - change would be sacrilege. It could turn out that Watchmen becomes hog-tied by its own reputation from achieving the adaptation it deserves. I know the film can never live up to the book, but the vast majority of cinema goers won't. I worry that so many people will leave the theatres wondering what all the fuss was about, unable to see the intricate layers of plot and character and world-building beneath the Hollywood veneer and gloss and flashiness because most of those layers can never hope to make it before a camera.
Any adaptation requires compromise to fit it within the limitations of the medium. Will a highly literal and exacting translation of the major plotline of Watchmen work as a film? Will some of the dialogue sound hokey when finally given voice? Will some of the ideas that worked so well on the page feel crushed and in need of space to breathe when crammed into under three hours of screen time? In a few days time I will find out. I am in no doubt I will enjoy the film on its own Hollywood level but will that be enough to accurately depict to an eager audience exactly what Moore and Gibbons originally intended? The Lord of the Rings got the film treatment it deserved, capturing Tolkein's book in a way fans never expected was possible. Harry Potter arguably didn't, being far too reliant on the audience to be overly familiar with the books to work as true standalone scripts. Many who saw LoTR at the movies fell in love with Middle Earth and discovered the wonderful books. Yet I have encountered many people whose only experience of the Potterverse is through the films and have therefore shown a distinct refusal to believe the books are the masterpieces they are. Watchmen could very easily repeat the same mistake. After twenty years of waiting, the disappointment will be no less crushing for being expected.
