Watchmen: Film Review

Movies are emotional and powerful because they present us not only with philosophical issues, but also with characters that have to deal with those issues. These components might be said to derive from Aristotle’s Rhetoric, particularly in regards to the concepts of logos (logical reasoning) and pathos (the utilization of human emotion). In order to hit the audience with a powerful experience, movies must balance between both; tipping the scale it too much in favor of pathos can cause the movie to feel silly and overly dramatic, while tipping it too far towards logos can cause the film to become too cerebral and emotionally detached. I felt that Warner Bros.' recently-released superhero film, Watchmen (2009), suffered from the latter scenario. As a result, it engaged my mind, but not my heart, and although I finished the movie feeling like I had seen something amazing, I still thought, “What’s the point?”

Watchmen echoes certain Postmodern trends that are not typically exhibited in the superhero genre. Films like Pulp Fiction (1994), Election (1998), and American Beauty (1999), all present the audience with multiple characters that we are meant to observe from a distance. There is no singular protagonist in any of these films, and very few characters (if any) are presented as heroes. They all seem to carry elements of black comedy, placing audiences at a distance from the characters so that we may view all of them objectively, comparing each of their struggles, goals, and traits. Each film communicates a darkly comedic tone by addressing the audience directly, employing phenomena such as voiceovers and freeze frames to consistently remind the audience that they are watching a movie. Through this point-blank style, the film “allows” audience members to laugh at the implications of statutory rape in Election, and to snicker at the sodomization scene in Pulp Fiction. We are given a privileged vantage point of the bigger picture, and through this we are able to analyze the situation objectively. These types of films typically finish with a morally ambiguous ending, prompting audience members to objectively derive meaning from the events that unfold before them. It is in this way that these films, as well as Watchmen, exhibit thought-provoking logos.

Watchmen was successful in this pursuit; it got me thinking. It is a film about superheroes – not a specific superhero, mind you, but all superheroes. It is about America’s fascination with superheroes. It is about the superhero myth and legacy, and what it says about our culture and national ideology. It is a film that raises questions about what heroism really is, and its climax is exceedingly more thought-provoking than most superhero films I have seen to date. Like the other aforementioned films, Watchmen allows the viewer to derive meaning objectively while the stories of multiple characters – each with his or her own view on the meaning of heroism – unfold on the screen. While the film is not a black comedy, its formal presentation somewhat resembles one: it addresses the audience directly with an over-the-top visual style akin to 300 (2006) and Sin City (2005), and creates a separation between the audience and the characters. Although this separation is not built to the extent of black comedies, it is present enough such that we are able to objectively judge the moral ambiguity of each character and of each event in the film. This intellectual experience is presented clearly; without a clear “good guy” or “bad guy,” the audience is left with no choice but to think about the implications of their actions.

Style is abundant in Watchmen.

Unfortunately, it is this very technique that brings me to my biggest problem with the film: its lack of emotion. While the central messages come across clearly, Watchmen spends so much time trying to objectively communicate theme that I was hardly given the chance to emotionally connect with any of the characters. Most of the pathos was lost on me, and thus, I inevitably had less stake in any of the dire moments in the film. After all, what good is philosophy without people to apply it to?

I give the film 3.5 out of 5 stars. While the movie held my mind, it never grabbed my heart. Always did I watch, but never did I see.