A Prelude to Watchmen: To Read or Not to Read

This weekend marks the release of a much anticipated and controversial graphic novel adaptation of "Watchmen." This is a film that is based on what is apparently the Holy Grail of graphic novels, has gone through the hands of many studios and directors and was threatened to not even be released due to legal battles between studios. Needless to say it is under a lot of scrutiny. I am going to see it tonight and my review will be posted over the weekend, however, before my review I wanted to delve into the long standing argument of film adaptation; should the film be reviewed based on the fact that it is an adaption or should it stand alone?

When you really break everything down and simplify, the answer is very clear. The fact that it is even an ongoing issue in the world of film seems silly. They are two completely different mediums and different experiences. The film should be judged and viewed on the basis of film, and the book should be judged and read on the basis of literature. Case closed, end of story. However, based on the reviews of "Watchmen" I have been skimming through, this is still a big issue. The following is a breakdown of what has been bothering me about the reviews I have seen for "Watchmen" and reasons for writing this blog entry:

1. Finally a group of filmmakers agree with fanboys, commit to making an adaptation as faithful as possible to the graphic novel, create what seems to be an epic film and apparently the film is "too faithful" to the original material which effects the film negatively.

2. Many critics are writing reviews as if they have read the graphic novel in full. Many of these critics don't seem like the graphic novel type. I just don't believe that all of them were fans of "Watchmen" before its release or fans of graphic novels in general.

3. The narrative structure is said to be too complicated.

I can't even imagine the frustration Zack Snyder must feel when reading a review that says the films faithfulness to the source material is actually a negative thing. After all of the hisses and boos towards past films that didn't stay true enough to their source material, we find out that it's also bad to stay true to the source material. This is why I think you can't take that into account. Is the film good and why? That's all I want from a critic. Tell me why or why not you liked the film, not why or why not you didn't think it was adapted well.

I get the feeling many critics picked up a copy of the graphic novel "Watchmen" prior to their screening of the film. It is also probably safe to say that many of them aren't fans of the medium. So I have to ask, why? You're not a graphic novel critic, you're a film critic. I say watch the film first and tell me how you felt about the film. If you liked it enough to find out where it came from, then go buy the novel and read it. There was one review I found that had no mention of the films adaptation and reviewed it simply has a super hero film. Roger Ebert gave "Watchmen" four stars and says, "it’s a compelling visceral film — sound, images and characters combined into a decidedly odd visual experience that evokes the feel of a graphic novel."

This leads to a question that must be asked of critics who say the film isn't as strong as it could be due to its dedication to the novel or narrative structure, did you like the graphic novel in the first place and were you bothered by the novel's narrative structure? If you were, then there is no reason to mention the adaptation, because if it's a faithful adaptation then your dislike would go without saying. If you liked the graphic novel and weren't bothered by it's narrative structure, then tell me WHY a faithful adaptation didn't work on film. You don't even have to bring up the point that it's an adaptation to do so because the film is the film, tell me why you think it doesn't work.

I think it's the responsibility of both critics and moviegoers alike to separate the two. I know it is hard, especially if you read the source material first, but you have to go in assuming that it's going to be different. You can't expect a word for word adaptation to film because in most cases it just would never work. It is completely understandable and warranted if you leave a viewing stating, "I liked the book better." However, how did you like the film? You are allowed to like both, and for different reasons and on different levels. Maybe that's something people forget. If you didn't like the film, I'd like to hear a reason that is cinema based, not based on it's adaptation of the source material.

Novels allow our mind to wander and construct the words into images. Reading can be a very personal and detailed process. Films take care of that process for us and are for the most part viewed as an escape, and a way to shut off our minds. However, they can be just as personal and imagination sparking as novels; its up to the viewers to allow that to happen. I think it's important to make that point, even though this entry isn't bout books vs. movies, because if you go into a film and allow yourself to be wrapped up in it instead of trying to find parts that weren't in the novel, maybe you'll find yourself surprised.

Using "Watchmen" as the example for this entry may not have been the best idea, but it is the most prevalent at this time. Many of the films imaged above weren't faithful at all to the source material and got great reviews, or were very faithful to the original material and got great reviews as well. I think the reason "Watchmen" is so interesting is that people who aren't fans of graphic novels or who wouldn't have liked this type of movie in the first place are trying to say why or why not the adaptation worked. "Watchmen" is a very genre specific film and has a very specific demographic. I think it's very difficult for people to judge movies based on its goal and what the film is meant to be instead of personal biases and opinions. Add the task of analyzing the adaptation and the review gets even more convoluted. I guess what I'm asking for is straightforward honesty and clarity. To critics and moviegoers alike: tell me why you like the film, tell me if its something you would normally be drawn to, and then tell me why or why not. Then we can talk about the book.