Patrick Ballard - Watchmen

Well since I went to see it I suppose I should blog about Watchmen. It was a very entertaining film, but at times it felt as though it lacked focus. Oddly enough that sense of indecision matches many of the characters perfectly. Throughout the film there is a pervading sense of moral ambiguity, or perhaps something subtler. No, on second thought it isn't any sort of moral evolution, it is indeed static and indecisive. We are presented with the second generation of heroes, as the first generation have all died or retired. We are not given much information about the first generation but they are presented mostly in a good light. In the comic their backstory is slightly more revealing of their moral and ethical demeanors, but the film doesn't give it much time. The most get get from the film is when the Comedian makes disparaging remarks about Hooded Justice's sexuality. So we get to believe the first generation are more or less the good old days moral standard. The current generation of heroes by contrast is significantly more flexible. The one exception is Rorschach whose moral code is absolute. He is perhaps the only character in the entire film with any decisiveness to him. The Comedian takes pleasure in causing torment but is still grouped in with the rest of the heroes despite his twisted worldview. Jon, or Dr. Manhattan, has become so far removed from the human reality that his morality becomes difficult to classify. I suppose apathetic might work, but that's oversimplifying things a bit. At the very least his moral compass is crooked enough for him to get mixed up with Laurie while he's still in a relationship with Janey Slater. In a bit of poetic justice Laurie leaves Jon later in the film and almost immediately shacks up with Dan(the second generation Nite Owl). Laurie's relationship with her mother is an interesting point of conflict. It brings into question how much of Laurie's life is just following in her Mother's shadow instead of living her own life. Again, indecision. Dan by contrast has done just fine with his version 2.0 status, and even maintains weekly get-togethers with his predecessor. No, what eats away at Dan are his own doubts about retirement. He's never quite sure if he should have hung up his mask or not and eventually returns to action. Ozymandias, or Adrian Veidt, is a slightly more complex character. His moral code is probably the most flexible of all the characters. Even after being forced into retirement he doesn't stop trying to be the hero, he just alters his methods. Unfortunately these mehtods end with thousands if not millions of innocents dead. To his credit it does avert a nuclear Armageddon. I find it a bit paradoxical how a man trying to do good and save people ends up doing it with an elaborate scheme that destroys entire cities. Amidst all these chaotic personalities there is only one man who is steadfast: Rorschach. The irony of Rorschach being the one character with strong moral convictions is the brutality with which he acts upon them. For Rorschach things are simple: punish the wicked. He does it and does it with ruthless efficiency and enthusiasm. When the government tried to retire him he refused and continued to act as a vigilante. It would be easy to peg Rorschach as an “ends justify the means” kind of guy given his brutal information gathering tactics, but his behavior at the end of the film suggests otherwise. I think it makes more sense if approached with the understanding that Rorschach is so brutal because the majority of people are wicked. By the end of the film you really have to wonder what's wrong with the world. Heroes and saviors have crooked morals and destroy entire cities of innocent citizens. At the same time those with good morals who stand up for their beliefs end up being psychopaths who get killed by their closest friends. What does that say about the importance of being a moral person?