Movie vs. Film 03.10.09: Watchmen vs. The Dark Knight

Posted by Jonathan Bieda on 03.10.2009

More maladjusted people in costume than a furry convention...

DISCLAIMER: The following editorial is a comprehensive examination of two motion pictures. Significant plot spoilers may be revealed in order to convincingly flesh out arguments. Please read at your own risk.

Character motivation in the early days of comic books wasn't rocket science. If you were a superhero, you hated crime more than any other crimefighter and were determined to bring all criminals to justice. If you were a supervillain, the system failed you and your jilted feelings inevitably led you to embrace criminal activity.

As time went on, we yearned for a more grounded depiction of heroism and thus, the late 1980s gave birth to the highly profitable "brooding superhero" genre. Beginning with Alan Moore's "Watchmen" series and continuing with Frank Miller's "Batman" reboot, comic fans were treated to a cavalcade of morally bankrupt characters, each with their own complicated motivations and faults.

Both pictures in this week's showdown were inspired by the Golden Age of Brood. These pioneers of "super angst" dissect both the duality of human nature and our obsession with pristine, masked messiahs.

So, which one does it better?




Every motion picture can be defined as either a "movie" or a "film."

What's the difference? I'm glad you asked.

If the government is "in on it," every conflict is resolved within minutes, characters are always "running out of time, damn it!", things blow up without scientific cause and the world is one misplaced MacGuffin away from total destruction, you're watching a movie.

If the characters act as neurotically as you do, sex is a weapon instead of a chew toy, people live in angst and vacation in guilt and the lessons you learn are too complex to comprehend in one sitting, you're watching a film.

"Movies" are loud, dumb and not afraid to show it. They assault your eyes with stylistic action and pollute your ears with cringe-worthy dialogue. They are living, breathing, exploding cliches, designed to trigger visceral emotions and mimic the experience of a thrilling roller coaster. A "film" has something to say and uses every tool at its disposal to say it. "Movies" exist to provide us answers. "Films" remind us that there are no easy answers, only a multitude of questions.

Obviously, these are just generalizations and both types of pictures certainly have a place in the entertainment world. However, every now and then, both a "movie" and a "film" will try to communicate the same theme to an audience. When that happens, it's time for me to step in. Otherwise, how else would you know which one is worth your time?


TALE OF THE TAPE:

Watchmen (2009)
Director: Zack Snyder
Writers: David Hayter and Alex Tse
Characters: Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons
Starring: Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup, Matthew Goode, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Patrick Wilson

Synopsis: In an alternate 1985, during the most frigid days of the Cold War, Edward Blake, a retired amoral costumed crusader known as "The Comedian" (Morgan) is brutally beaten and thrown to his death by an unknown assailant. This event triggers an investigation by Rorschach (Haley), Blake's former crimefighting cohort, who suspects that masked vigilantes are being targeted by forces unknown. While attempting to rally other ex-superheroes to his cause, the U.S. crawls towards a cataclysmic event that will shape the fate of the planet and redefine traditional notions of right and wrong.

The Dark Knight (2008)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writers: Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer
Characters: Bob Kane
Starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman

Synopsis: After polarizing Gotham City by introducing his unique brand of vigilante justice, Bruce Wayne/Batman (Bale) enlists both Lieutenant James Gordon (Oldman) and District Attorney Harvey Dent (Eckhart) as foot soldiers in his war against the mob. Elsewhere, a quasi-psychotic lover of chaos known as "The Joker" (Ledger) begins testing the righteousness of Gotham's three golden boys while embarking on a sadistic crime spree.


IN THE RED CORNER: "It doesn't take a genius to see the world has problems..."

Before I get into this, I want to make one thing perfectly clear. Any details pertaining to the graphic novel are off limits. If I'm going to discuss the merits of a motion picture, it needs to stand on its own as a separate artistic work. I can't get too bogged down in the fine points of a previous incarnation. So, if you have concerns about mutated dialogue, inaccurate costumes or the fact that panel whatever on page whatever of issue whatever wasn't included or shot properly, consider this your disclaimer. Those issues are not relevant here.

The good news is that Zack Snyder is madly in love with this story. Technically, he does an admirable job of preserving its tone. Watchmen shines the most when it takes chances with unique presentation. Snyder knows how to establish mood though the use of brilliant visual polish and a quirky soundtrack. If somebody getting beat to death to the mellow sounds of "Unforgettable" doesn't grab your attention, then you're just no fun. This technique fills Watchmen to the brim with memorable scenes like the opening credits montage, Edward Blake's last stand and the "Archie" sex romp, which will undoubtedly become this nerd generation's "Princess Leia in a slave bikini" moment.

There are a few notable performances that keep the gears turning. Haley's Rorschach, looking like a demonic Danny Bonaduce, toggles between a grizzly comic cliche and a legitimate force of nature. Crudup infuses Dr. Manhattan with a quiet nobility and does a serviceable job of projecting his character's emotional detachment. Even Goode's Ozymandias is played with the right amount of self-importance. However, in my book, its Jeffrey Dean Morgan who steals the show. Morgan's Comedian embodies the entire "Watchmen" concept from balls to bone and his battle to check his animalistic nature is the highlight of the first act.

The bad news is that Zack Snyder is madly in love with this story. Watchmen is in desperate need of an editor that hasn't grown up with the source material. A plot with this many nuances needs to be taut and Watchmen is simply bloated. In fact, I've witnessed this kind of bloat before. Oliver Stone made the same mistake with Alexander back in 2004. When a director is this invested in the original mythos, filmmaking instincts tend to take a back seat.

The picture is full of extraneous scenes that hammer home the same concept. It's tedious, like a guy at an office party explaining why a joke is funny after already telling the punchline. Yes, "humanity is inherently violent." I get it. I also get that "Watchmen" virgins would've connected more with the story if Snyder had effectively trimmed the fat. When you adapt a literary work for the big screen, editing is key.

Snyder needed to carefully streamline the ideas he wanted to execute. Instead, he went the fanboy route and ended up crippling Watchmen's thematic relevance. He alienated audiences that were hungry for their first "Watchmen" experience, all so he wouldn't get nitpicked by the ravenous Alan Moore elitists.

CLASS: Movie


IN THE BLUE CORNER: "Do I really look like a guy with a plan?"

Remember my slap on the wrist to the "Watchmen" fan army a few paragraphs back? Same thing goes for you, Batkids. If some part of "The Killing Joke" would've made this picture better, I don't want to hear it. Accept it for what it is and we'll all live happier, fuller lives.

Christopher Nolan goes to great lengths to instill The Dark Knight with a cold, understated tone. Gotham City is presented as an imposing, unforgiving metropolis, shooting for realism right out of the gate. I did mourn the passing of Batman's more traditional Gothic setting, but I understand the need to ground viewers in a relatable location. Nolan makes this compromise to connect with a casual audience, which is the first indication that he's a better adapter than Snyder.

Like Batman Begins, the cast was meticulously selected. Bale, Oldman, Cane, Eckhart and Freeman all bring much-needed gravitas to the Batman universe. Nevertheless, the picture's ace in the hole is Ledger, who fully embodies an antagonist who worships both the honor and horror of chaos. Nolan also respects the complexity of the characters, which is evident by the strength of the script. Bruce Wayne is written with equal doses of tragedy and narcissism. The Joker is both a chaotic windstorm and a manipulative savant. Both Alfred and Lucius Fox are two sides of the same father figure coin: one provides emotional discipline for Wayne while the other safeguards Batman's ethical conscience.

Of course, the quotable lines and iconic moments turn up in droves. Scenes like the riotous opening bank robbery, Dent's nauseating transformation into Two-Face and the two-way interrogation are already the stuff of legend. C'mon, how many of you didn't try to perform a non-lethal version of The Joker's "magic trick" on somebody after your first viewing? In this regard, both Snyder and Nolan prove to be equals. Each director knows how to leave a lasting visual impression with an audience.

However, with The Dark Knight, Nolan brings both a passion for the story and a plan to make it work for cinema. The Joker's sadistic social experiments and their juxtaposition with Bruce Wayne's internal struggle not only drive the plot but continuously support the theme of human light and dark. Unlike Watchmen, nothing in this picture feels tacked on in order to placate the fan base. Everything serves a purpose and every purpose serves the theme, elevating the picture to true "film" status.

CLASS: Film


OVERLAP:

The symmetry that exists between cop and criminal is a tasty subject to explore. If you don't believe me, just tune into a modern police drama. If there isn't at least one character that "walks the fine line" between criminal and lawman, it's probably hurting in the ratings. Characters like that appeal to us on a primal level. Who didn't want to be Han Solo when they grew up, wasting that leech bastard, Greedo, at the first (and I do mean first) chance they were given?

The "heroes" in these pictures often walk controversial lines to justify their heroism. They have made sacrifices, in their own lives and the lives of others, for the greater good. Which begs the question: How can they be guardians of the system when they purposefully rise above the system to guard it?

In The Dark Knight, Nolan analyzes human duality through the machinations of The Joker. In him, Batman confronts an enemy with no illusions about humanity or order. After all, if he is capable of such atrocity, everyone must be. The Joker believes the only difference between himself and the law abiding is self-awareness. The recognition and acceptance of his nature make him "ahead of the curve." He's even offended by Gotham's more tenured criminals because they're not as "evolved" as he is.

The Joker senses a similar level of "evolution" in others; first in Batman and then Harvey Dent, both of whom have stepped outside the lines to see justice delivered. Like a shark to blood, he can't resist testing the mettle of Gotham's "knights." He pushes them to their breaking points by attempting to sever their only connections with humanity. When he finally succeeds in turning Dent against the system, he justifies his position that people are "only as good as the world allows them to be."

In Watchmen, this philosophy manifests itself in the end game of Ozymandias. With the threat of nuclear war sitting on the doorstep, a superhero orchestrates a global mass murder under the guise of brokering peace. Adrian Veidt was once driven by aspirations of making the world a better place. In the end, he embraces that real change is born out of sacrifice and his egocentric view convinces him that only he is capable of initiating it.

Ozymandias slaughtered millions of innocent people in search of a more permanent harmony. Harvey Dent cast aside his moral code when his emotional turmoil became too much to bear. These men were perceived as heroes in their respective times and both proved to be corruptible.


RING THE BELL:

Zack Snyder's Watchmen was not shot for cinema. It was shot to be a love letter to the graphic novel. While it may satisfy the purists, it alienates the general movie-going populous from an engaging and poignant story about the human condition. The message gets muffled under all the bells and whistles, making Watchmen the clear cut "movie" in this match up. This picture needed to be all things to all people, both fanboy and newbie alike, and it isn't. It sounds unfair, but that's the burden of adapting a groundbreaking work.

With The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan didn't allow his love for the source material to overshadow his instincts as a filmmaker. When a picture clocks in at 152 minutes and still feels tightly-woven, it speaks volumes. Nolan followed his plan to near-perfection and designed an impactful "film" that resonates with a broad audience.

WINNER: The Dark Knight


Have a "Movie vs. Film" match up you want to see duke it out? Post a comment below or drop me a line at [e-mail].