Show Posts
26
General Chat / Re: Watchmen
« on: August 24, 2008, 04:05:23 AM »
So I finally read The Dark Knight Returns as recommended by ShyGuy (got it in the mail today and ate it up!) - I thought it was really good DRAMATICALLY, and I love having it on my shelf next to Watchmen (totally agree, Shy, about the connections between the two works), but I'm not sure I can get behind the implicit moralization of Batman in this story (similar to the film "The Dark Knight"). I think Miller's romanticization of the vigilante, and his moral equivocations about doing evil for the sake of doing good are all vaguely distasteful - is that what I'm supposed to feel? This is Batman after all, am I supposed to hate him as much as I did after reading this book? Sure I admire the guy (even love him), and can totally sympathize with his split personality, but in the end Batman seems to take a forgiving attitude towards The Sons of Batman and The Mutants, while completely dismissing the police and government for "failing" at their duty.
I recently watched a film that brought up similar thoughts called "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp." It's a British film about a General who feels satisfied when the British womp the Germans after WWI because the British used "good honest soldiering" in the face of Germany's underhanded tactics. Yet he is forced to rethink his ideals by the end of the film (as WWII begins and "good honest soldiering" just isn't cutting it anymore), and though I might agree that new kinds of enemies = new kinds of warfare, I don't think calling something "supremely evil," over and above every other thing, justifies any and all forms of force. After all, isn't that what Hitler did? It seems every Batman story (all the films, plus this and Year One) start with a depiction of Gotham City as the single most terrible place EVER. Like, Fallujah or Beirut or something. The evil there is so overwhelming that normal crime-fighting just can't help, and "desperate measures" are called for. I have a friend who says he sympathizes more with Jack Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men every time he watches it. Personally, I get sick to my stomach every time he says that.
Let's tie this back to Watchmen, where Rorschach is perhaps given the status of hero, yet he is Batman-esque in his willingness to do violence for the "greater good." (He's also 100% less appealing as a character.) Yet at the end he REJECTS Veidt's plan to do violence against New York because for him TRUTH is far more important than convenience. Similar to modern debates we have about "enhanced interrogation" (and I say this just for reference, not to make a moral claim about the current debates on "torture" or to begin a discussion. I'm just saying it's related*).
*and more than a little interesting that Frank Miller (who wrote DKR, not Watchmen) supported the War in Iraq as a retaliatory action for 9/11 (I'M JUST SAYING!).
Also, as a final note, the trailer for Watchmen looks like total suck. I'll probably go see it opening weekend, but mang, it's really too bad it looks like 300 + Superheroes.
Rechristening this the generic Comic Books thread. In a little while I may bring up Scott McCloud, Maurice Sendak, Tintin, and some others. I'm on a comics kick right now, taking suggestions! I just bought Maus, am looking to dive into Daniel Clowes, some Chester Brown, some Osamu Tezuka (probably Buddha), some Dave Sim, Eisner, Satrapi, etc.
Also, Shy, after reading DKR, I really really really want to read the sequel. Can I please have your permission?
I recently watched a film that brought up similar thoughts called "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp." It's a British film about a General who feels satisfied when the British womp the Germans after WWI because the British used "good honest soldiering" in the face of Germany's underhanded tactics. Yet he is forced to rethink his ideals by the end of the film (as WWII begins and "good honest soldiering" just isn't cutting it anymore), and though I might agree that new kinds of enemies = new kinds of warfare, I don't think calling something "supremely evil," over and above every other thing, justifies any and all forms of force. After all, isn't that what Hitler did? It seems every Batman story (all the films, plus this and Year One) start with a depiction of Gotham City as the single most terrible place EVER. Like, Fallujah or Beirut or something. The evil there is so overwhelming that normal crime-fighting just can't help, and "desperate measures" are called for. I have a friend who says he sympathizes more with Jack Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men every time he watches it. Personally, I get sick to my stomach every time he says that.
Let's tie this back to Watchmen, where Rorschach is perhaps given the status of hero, yet he is Batman-esque in his willingness to do violence for the "greater good." (He's also 100% less appealing as a character.) Yet at the end he REJECTS Veidt's plan to do violence against New York because for him TRUTH is far more important than convenience. Similar to modern debates we have about "enhanced interrogation" (and I say this just for reference, not to make a moral claim about the current debates on "torture" or to begin a discussion. I'm just saying it's related*).
*and more than a little interesting that Frank Miller (who wrote DKR, not Watchmen) supported the War in Iraq as a retaliatory action for 9/11 (I'M JUST SAYING!).
Also, as a final note, the trailer for Watchmen looks like total suck. I'll probably go see it opening weekend, but mang, it's really too bad it looks like 300 + Superheroes.
Rechristening this the generic Comic Books thread. In a little while I may bring up Scott McCloud, Maurice Sendak, Tintin, and some others. I'm on a comics kick right now, taking suggestions! I just bought Maus, am looking to dive into Daniel Clowes, some Chester Brown, some Osamu Tezuka (probably Buddha), some Dave Sim, Eisner, Satrapi, etc.
Also, Shy, after reading DKR, I really really really want to read the sequel. Can I please have your permission?
