Kick the Anthill

OK, yes, that’s an awful take on the “Who Watches The Watchmen?” line that we all know and love, but it seemed appropriate at the time.  WARNING!  THIS POST WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS FOR THE WATCHMEN MOVIE!!!

Over the past few days, I’ve been reading reviews about the new movie Watchmen, and I must say… WOAH!  I haven’t seen this much rukus since The Golden Compass or DaVinci Code!

There are a great many blogs who are skipping the actual review almost altogether, and instead are blogging about one specific blog review–the one done by Debbie Schlussel.

Before I go any further, I must tell you–I have enormous admiration and respect for Debbie.  She is an amazing person, and often walks boldly where even angels fear to tread–all for the sake of exposing the Truth about what’s going on in this world.  I read her blog almost daily, because I want to know her thoughts and opinions on things that are going on around the world.  And since Detroit–as well as the rest of Michigan–is a hotbed for Islamic occurances/cover-ups, I want to stay informed about the goings-on.  There are times when what is happening up there has consequences for the rest of the nation and the world.

But that doesn’t mean that I always agree with her.

But then, I also don’t always agree with Rush Limbaugh, either.  And that man is, IMO, one of the best Republicans on the planet.  He–like Debbie–is unafraid to tell the world what they think.  And then they stand behind it, too.  Talk about fortitude!

After I read Debbie’s review of–as well as watched–the movie Watchmen, I agreed with her on several respects.  Not all of them, as she ripped the movie apart far more than I did in my review.  IMO, it’s pretty clear that she has never read the story, so was unaware of what was unfolding before her.  But having said that, she was absolutely correct in several statements that she made.

For example, she stated that:

There were so many disgusting, violent, morbid, grisly scenes and acts of killing, I had to start writing them down, lest I forget. And that’s in addition to the rape scene between superheroes (complete with violent beating of a female superhero) and an explicit sex scene between two other superheroes. Oh, and don’t forget another superhero’s swinging computer-generated penis frequently in your face on-screen.

There were a lot of disgusting, violent, morbid, grisly scenes and acts of killing. Far more than what I was prepared for, I might add. And I’ve read–and still thoroughly enjoy–the comic book. 

Aside–I know, I know, most people consider it a graphic novel.  Whatever.  It started out as a 12-issue mini series of comic books waaaaay back in the late ’80s before it was combined into one large graphic novel.  Semantics mean nothing to me in this case.

Some of the things that I was unprepared for were strictly because of how they managed to deviate from the original story–and most of them involved Rorschach.  For example, in the movie’s scene where Rorschach chopped off the hands, etc. of the kidnapper/murderer?  Didn’t happen in the book.  In the book, after he took out the dogs, he chained the kidnapper/murderer to the pipe, he laid a hacksaw beside the k/m, lit the house on fire, and told the guy that there wasn’t enough time for him to cut through the chains.  If he wanted out, he’d have to cut his own arm off.  Then he left the burning house, walked across the street, and watched it burn.  The k/m never emerged. 

So to watch him use the butcher knife to cut the guys hands off?  DEAR.  LORD.  I was unprepared for that.  It didn’t happen in the book, so I was unprepared for it.

The same holds true for the scene involving Big Figure’s goons and the power saw.  Oh, and the fry oil scene.  It still gives me the willies that I actually sat through that scene.  The guy who sat behind me exclaimed “OH $#*^!” at that one.  So, I was happy that I wasn’t the only one slightly unnerved by it.  If it didn’t happen in the book–or even if it did and it was toned down a bit–well, then I can truthfully say that I wasn’t prepared for several scenes.

However, it is clear that Ms. Schlussel isn’t aware of the story whenever she mentioned the rape scene and the explicit sex scene.  Not to mention the “computer-generated penis frequently in your face on-screen.”   If you’re not aware of the story, then you also might be a bit unnerved by it, too.  Fortunately, in the book, Dave Gibbons (the artist) specifically tried to understate the fact that Dr. Manhattan was naked most of the time.

The rape scene is absolutely central to the ultimate “redemption” of Dr. Manhattan.  To start with, the rape didn’t actually happen.  The Comedian attempted to rape Silk Spectre–the first one, Sally Jupiter–after a photo shoot.  He didn’t actually get the chance to go through with it, as I believe it was Hooded Justice who interviened.  He did succeed in beating the crap out of her, got her bent over the pool table, and unbuckled his belt.  But he did not actually rape her.  I make this statement not to excuse what he did, but to show how much weight is added to the importance of what happened later.   So for it to not be shown would be highly offensive to those of us who love this story.  To not show it would make the rest of what occurred seem hollow, if not down-right confusing.

When Dr. Manhattan takes Silk Spectre’s daughter, Silk Spectre II, to Mars, he was unaware of the truth behind her parentage.  But then, she, too, was unaware of it.  Yes, she remembered her mother and her mother’s husband furious fight when she was a child, but at the time, she didn’t understand what it was that they were talking about.  So Jon (Dr. Manhattan) takes her back to experience it again–even though he had no clue as to what the truth really was.  It’s this pivotal scene that we find out that, although the Comedian tried to rape Silk Spectre, she later consensually slept with him, resulting in her pregnancy with her daughter.  It comes as a shock to both Jon and Laurie (Silk Spectre II), but for very different reasons.  She’s upset, because she finally realizes why her mother does not hate the Comedian, and he’s shocked because he’s just realized that miracles do happen.  If two people as polar opposites–as Silk Spectre and the Comedian are–could actually get together and conceive Silk Spectre II, then anything is possible.  Which, until then, he was 100% unconvinced of.

So, there were times that I felt that, upon reading Debbie’s column, she was wrong.  But only because she wasn’t informed about what it was she was watching.  But that doesn’t mean she was always wrong in it.  There were times when she was absolutely correct!

Take, for example, her statements about it being marketed to children. 

At the time, I thought she was wrong.  Until I read John Nolte’s column on the Big Hollywood website.

I wasn’t shocked that there were toys made of the characters in this movie, but I was shocked at where they’ve been made available!  Yes, I knew about the “Action Figures” (if you could call them that) and the Movie Busts, but I had no clue about the Kubricks.  Kubricks are made specifically for kids, so it was shocking to find that they were available.  The movie busts are made of cold-cast porcelain, and run in the neighborhood of $60-$75.  Probably not something your child will pick up.  The “Action Figures” are more like small statues with limited movement at the joints, and running around $20 each, they’ll most likely be bought by collectors and kept in their boxes in the hopes that they’ll someday be able to sell them for hundreds–if not thousands–of dollars each.  Until I read John’s column, I had thought that you could only get them at specialty stores, like your local comic shop or online stores like Entertainment Earth.  It never occurred to me that a store like Toys R Us or Warner Bros’ online store would carry these items.  I mean, this is NOT a movie for children to see.  In any way, shape, or form.  So, yes, I completely agree with both John and Debbie about that this movie has been marketed to children.  And I urge you to not buy these items for your children.  It will only spark their interest in this movie/story.  And it’s not a movie/story for them.  AT ALL.

Another point that I disagreed with Debbie on is her over-all tone in the column.  While I’m not 100% in agreement with The Twisted Spinster in her column, she does make a good point when she said:

If she had left this sort of thing out she would have had a standard rant on the violence in the movie (about which I am neither here nor there as I haven’t seen the film), but unfortunately she makes the “they’ve changed all the times and events around just to be artistic and cool” theme the centerpiece of the rest of her review. And it just makes her look like someone completely ignorant of the genre she is reviewing, and no one is going to take her seriously. And since she is supposed to be some sort of conservative spokesperson, she makes all other conservatives look like fools who know nothing about popular culture, and therefore any objections we make to anything in popular culture can be laughed off the way we laugh off those people who made them film Elvis from the waist up for tv because his pelvis-movements were too sexually explicit….But as Miss Schlussel’s example shows, many of these cultural watchdogs don’t know anything about what they are criticising….As long as we tell ourselves “this stuff isn’t worth understanding” our condemnation of any of it will mean nothing.

No, I’m not suggesting that she is making all other conservatives look like fools who know nothing about popular culture. On the other hand, have you read Patrick Goldstein’s column about what Debbie wrote?  He does a good job of making that point all on his own.  Of course, he basically tries to verbally fillet her, her personal views, and column, almost like he has a personal vendetta against her, but that’s almost beside the point.  It’s almost too easy to see that she’s just an easy target for everyone to pick, because she represents all conservatives when he starts off the column by saying:

In the seemingly endless parade of crazed right-wing culture critics always eager to lambaste liberal Hollywood and kill a mosquito with an AK-47 (yes, we’re thinking Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly and Rush “I’m Rooting for Obama to Fail” Limbaugh), no one quite matches the inspired lunacy of Debbie Schlussel.

“Crazed right-wing culture critics always eager to lambaste liberal Hollywood” yadda yadda yadda?  So she’s uninformed about this movie.  Yes, I 100% agree with everyone that she crossed a line when she stated that “you’re a moron if you see this movie.”  However, that’s her opinion.  I’m not a moron.  At least, I don’t believe I’m a moron.  A moron, in my opinion, would be someone like Roseanne Barr.  Especially when she’s stated things like “Israel is a NAZI state” and “Israel’s firing missiles at itself!“  THAT’S moronic.  But to lump all conservatives into one group saying that we are always eager to lambaste liberal Hollywood?  Well, it all depends on what’s being lambasted.  If they’re promoting liberal beliefs like Cher saying that she “just doesn’t understand how anyone would want to be a Republican” and Janeane Garofalo saying that “the reason a person is a conservative Republican (sic) is because something is wrong with them” then, yes, we’re eager to lambaste liberal Hollywood.  But only whenever liberal Hollywood appears to have cranial-rectal inversion syndrome.

But what The Twisted Spinster said about “as long as we tell ourselves ‘this stuff isn’t worth understanding’ our condemnation of any of it will mean nothing.”  This is absolutely correct.  Much like when my old pastor told us to not read The DaVinci Code due to its lack of any truth to Christianity, I instead went out and borrowed it specifically to know what it is that Christians were so angry about.  I mean, if you’re not informed about the subject matter, then there’s no possible way you can defend your stance on it.  No, I’m not saying that we need to watch porn just so we can say that we don’t like it, that we think it’s helping to degrade our culture, etc.  But I am saying that, if we keep ourselves uneducated, or tell ourselves that what popular culture is currently leaning toward, then it becomes impossible to say “that’s not right!” and have informed reasons behind it. 

There is a way to tell someone that something’s not morally correct, and a way not to do it.  Calling them a moron if they want to watch a movie, as Debbie did in her column, is not the way to do it, IMO.  Telling them that you wouldn’t recommend it because of such-and-such reasons?  That’s the correct way.  But, I’m not Debbie.  I will continue to support her, as she’s doing awesome work.  But as liberals are now finding out for themselves, what with Obama’s new tax codes, etc., it’s possible to disagree with someone who has the same basic ideologies and still be part of the same group.  Fortunately, when it comes to disagreements, we conservatives respectfully disagree.  Unlike a few liberals I know…