Why I Won’t Be Seeing Watchmen
Author: DavidJones // Category: Books, Ethics, Movies, Pop Culture, Youth Culture
Several weeks ago, I finally purchased Alan Moore’s graphic novel, Watchmen, after putting it on the back-burner for several months. The novel, credited by Time Magazine as one of the Top 100 novels of all time, has received much attention lately with the new Watchmen movie debuting this Friday, March 6, 2009. Within a couple hours of reading, I knew why. I started reading the novel on Friday night, and by Sunday afternoon I was halfway through the 400+ page comic book.
The novel, which takes place in the mid 1980s, is seemingly outdated. It talks of conflict with Afghanistan and Russia, problems with Nixon, the assassination of Kennedy, and other issues that were way before my time. However, Moore’s captivating writing is undeniable. After diving headfirst into the book, I was extremely excited about the movie. I even happened to have 2 sneak preview passes to see it early.
Things started to change for me as early reviews rolled in. I expected the movie to stir up a great amount of publicity, and it did and has, but not exactly for the reasons I was hoping.
Here’s what some critics and reviewers have been saying about the movie:
Anthony Lane, New Yorker: Nobody over twenty-five could take any joy from the savagery that is fleshed out onscreen, just as nobody under eighteen should be allowed to witness it. You want to see Rorschach swing a meat cleaver repeatedly into the skull of a pedophile, and two dogs wrestle over the leg bone of his young victim? Go ahead. You want to see the attempted rape of a superwoman, her bright latex costume cast aside and her head banged against the baize of a pool table?
Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel: Snyder fills the screen with eye candy. [There's] brutal murders, dismemberments, attempted rape. The sex is graphic, the violence more so.
Tom Huddleston, Time Out: Snyder’s biggest impact is felt in the action sequences, which are also the film’s weakest scenes: overstylised, repetitive and pornographically violent.
Snyder rides roughshod over such subtleties: ‘Watchmen’ may be the nastiest blockbuster ever devised. It luxuriates in snapping bones and literal explosions of gore. It’s here that the gulf between comic and movie becomes most clear: Gibbons’s drawings were often shocking, but they served a purpose. Snyder employs violence for the rush, and while this approach is sometimes brutally effective, it’s also deeply crass.
Joe Lozito, Big Picture Big Sound: To keep his audience interested, Mr. Snyder has made the film alternatively cheesy (the 80s dialogue, a gratuitous sex scene) and brutally violent (the opening fight, in particular, goes on far too long).
I could list many more reviews that say similar things, but I think you get the point. The movie inevitably uses extreme violence and extreme sex/nudity to bring in its audience. While some may argue the movie is only staying true to the book, those who have read the book know this isn’t quite the case. Zack Snyder took many liberties to make the movie as gory and sexual as possible.
Some might not see this as an issue, but there is a huge issue at hand. I had a recent discussion with my boss, Jonathan Yandell, about movies that use extreme violence and sex. He mentioned that movies used to only use one of the two elements, not a combination of both. However, as times have changed, people seek both elements when they go to movies. The scary thing is, a mindset that craves and enjoys graphic sex and graphic violence is the same mindset that is found in serial killers. The craving starts out small, but the desire keeps increasing and increasing until it reaches a level of absolute sex and violence.
No one would dare argue Watchmen is a wholesome movie, but how many people are actually thinking about how the movie affects them? How many people realize how the mind reacts to seeing extreme violence, sex, and nudity on screen?
For those who would say “It doesn’t affect me” I would say 1 of 2 things to you: 1) You’re lying or; 2) You’ve become so numb and desensitized by violence and sex that it doesn’t bother you anymore. That is a scary thing!
So who watches the Watchmen? Not this guy!
March 4th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I’m disturbed by your comparing people who enjoy watching R rated movies to be being serial killers. That’s quite extreme comparison.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I didn’t make that comparison. You misinterpreted what I said. Studies show serial killers (Ted Bundy for one) have a mindset that craves extreme violence and extreme sex. Movies like Watchmen that include both of these elements help facilitate that motion of thought in peoples’ minds. It’s a dangerous thing for all people.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
I think you need to remember all that you’ve said is based on personal convictions about cinema/ arts/ and literature.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
i love catcher in the rye. does that mean i’m going to kill people?
March 4th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Would you argue that the sex and violence you have seen in movies has had no effect on you at all?
March 4th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
I really don’t think its had that big of an impact on me. i don’t sit around all day thinking about naked women or men being cut up in tiny pieces. you know i love screwing with you.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
At least you’re willing to discuss it and not just cry about it like some do.
March 4th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
First off, kudos to you David. For someone who has been waiting for this movie for months, I’m sure this was a bummer.
Jared, you’re kind of taking something that holds truth and twisting it to say something extreme that neither one of you really believe. David has a conviction and has shared that conviction through his blog. He was in no way calling anyone who sees this movie a criminal. But he is right, our society has become so intrigued in witnessing people being blown up, stabbed, crushed, and destroyed. We know they’re not “real.” But is still so barbaric.
I learned a valuable lesson one day when I was watching a movie with my cousin. It came to a scene where a girl was supposedly about to be raped. The movie never showed anything, but it was implied. (It was an older movie.) He turned it saying we shouldn’t watch this. I spoke quickly saying it wasn’t going to show anything. He looked at me and said, but if it makes me think of things that aren’t holy, or true, or pure, or just, or lovely then it doesn’t matter whether it shows me scenes of a woman being raped, the idea is bad also. And when he said that, I felt very small and a little angry at first. But, he was right.
And yes, we know we’re double standard, we pick and choose movies based on what bad words and number of bad words, and how much of what is too much, but whether we’re doing a poor job or not, we can’t be bitter at each other for trying.
And as far as the criminal ideas, I completely agree. A lot of violent people trace their problems back to porn. Sin, big or small, is related. As a whole it is a cancer. One sin leaves us wanting another. Jared, if you see this movie, it doesn’t mean you’re going to kill somebody. But don’t be so quick to laugh off the absurdity that sin controls us and will leave us hungry for more. You cannot unsee what you have seen.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
David I must say that I have been waiting to see this movie since I saw the preview back in June or July when I went and saw the Dark Knight. I even went out and bought the graphic novel the next week. I am a huge fan of comics. I buy them weekly, so any thing that has to do with Watchmen I have been anticipating. I have been buying all of the action figures; I even bought the reprinted first issue of Watchmen back in November or December. I have been looking forward to this highly anticipated weekend for months. After having read the reviews you posted, your personal thoughts and the comments left by others I am seriously reconsidering going to see this film. I agree with one of the reviews that said Moore’s writings and Gibbons drawings “were often shocking, but they served a purpose.” That statement is totally true. Seeing these things acted out with a flashy stylized manner with little to no regard to what the source material was trying to convey is awful, plain and simple. I guess what I’m trying to say is that now I may not go see the film, but I also may not go. Your article was good and I liked Hannah’s comments, and Jared needs to stop screwing with you and grow up.
March 5th, 2009 at 7:15 am
Hannah- Wow! To put it in Batman terms, “WHAM!” I really don’t think anyone can argue against anything you said.
John- Excellent comment! I shared your same excitement when I saw the first trailer for “Watchmen” during “The Dark Knight.” I had been aware of the novel, but really got into it once I heard a movie was finally being made. You made a comment that could serve along with the best of reviewers:
“I agree with one of the reviews that said Moore’s writings and Gibbons drawings “were often shocking, but they served a purpose.” That statement is totally true. Seeing these things acted out with a flashy stylized manner with little to no regard to what the source material was trying to convey is awful, plain and simple.”
I think we share that same disappointment that Zack Snyder would take something and purposely demoralize it to bring in a few extra dollars. I wonder if that will backfire on him.
Whether you see the movie or not, I’m glad you’re looking at the issue through the eyes of discernment. The world would be a much better place if more people did that.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Not to beat a dead horse, but USA Today posted their review of Watchmen today, and here’s a few of the things they said:
“Only one member, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), actually has superpowers, acquired after a science experiment went horribly wrong. He struts around buck naked, bathed in a startling shade of indigo from head to toe, resembling a radioactive and NC-17-rated member of the Blue Man Group.”
“Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson) is a techno-geek who eventually teams up with Silk, who had been Dr. Manhattan’s girl. A sex scene meant to be steamy comically recalls a Showgirls moment that is best forgotten.”
“Most disturbing is the almost sadistic quality to some of the film’s violence, especially in scenes involving the killing of a little girl.”
This from Pop Candy on USAToday.com
“It’s brutally violent. Watchmen isn’t a feel-good superhero story, and Zack Snyder’s version is definitely not for kids. It’s bloody, bullet-riddled and raw. Violence is inflicted upon everyone, including women, children and animals. Several scenes are difficult to watch. Despite the latex costumes and Matrix-like action sequences, the bodily harm appears disturbingly real. Sensitive viewers should keep this in mind before buying a ticket. Horror-movie lovers, on the other hand, might be persuaded to check out the gore.”
“The cameras linger over severed limbs and broken bones, but the closest thing we get to an intense emotional moment is a softcore sex scene set to (*rolls eyes*) Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah.”
March 5th, 2009 at 10:11 am
I won’t be seeing Watchmen because Jared Austin seems like he’d like it. Any movie that Jared Austin supports, usually means it’s horribly boring and lacks anything worth watching.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
instead of pointing out all the violent stuff about the watchmen, how about pointing out good elements of it?
March 6th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Would you watch porn and try to find good elements in the plot? I love you Jared but sometimes you just sound like an idiot.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am
David,
I think your conclusion, specifically, “a mindset that craves and enjoys graphic sex and graphic violence is the same mindset that is found in serial killers,” is true, but I don’t think that should preclude intelligent individuals, such as yourself, from seeing films that may provoke intellectually weak individuals into potentially mimicking their scenes..
You admit to possessing an interest in the graphic novel, but appear to want to avoid the film because of its graphic violence and, arguably, gratuitous sex. For a person who fears they, themselves, might be emotionally disturbed by the images on screen, I would suggest they avoid the film. But I don’t sense that you, personally, would experience this kind of emotional disturbance.
Is your aversion to viewing the film based on a desire to not promote the kind of film that may provoke the aforementioned intellectually feeble?
March 6th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Tyrone, first of all, for a crackhead, you use really big words! (Most people aren’t going to get that).
While I don’t think Watchmen, or films like it will turn me into a serial killer, I do think it can have smaller, maybe even unnoticeable, yet extremely dangerous effects on my mind. For example, as a guy who is very visual, I do not want to lend my mind to seeing graphic sex on screen. The reasoning is very simple. I, like 99% of men, battle lust. Seeing graphic sexual images on screen only increases that problem. The consequences that ensue are not worth it. Seeing those images lowers our view of women, degrades God’s purpose and idea of sex, causes us to view sex as something purely physical and not emotional, and causes us to crave it even more.
By letting my mind take in those images, I am handicapping my mind. While I may not see its consequences now, it could very well hurt my marriage later on. I’m willing to bet most guys that are addicted to pornography did not just start by opening up a dirty magazine. It was a gradual process. Some may say “Well I’m not addicted” but I think we would be naive to say those images did not affect us now and will not affect us later. The truth is, we have no idea how much affect they have on us. Many of us are so desensitized to sex and nudity that we have completely stripped away the beauty of sex and the beauty of purity.
I could go into an argument on violence, but I think it lends itself to the same thing.
If we reach the point where nothing on screen can shock us, we have fallen into a state of numbness from which we will never recover.
Like Hannah said, you cannot unsee what you have seen.
As for me, the battle that wages in my mind is much safer if I never see it.
March 6th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Ok, first of all, Katie: you clearly haven’t seen much porn. It almost never has a plot and if it does it’s always something like some handyman coming over to fix the toilet with some hot chick home alone.
Secondly, this whole conversation is stupid; if you don’t want to watch it, don’t watch it. if you do, then please, by all means, do.
March 6th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
First of all, thank you for informing us about what porn really is. That’s much appreciated.
Second, this conversation is anything but stupid. Clearly Jared and I don’t agree about these things, but discussing them is beneficial. It’s important to discuss the tough issues and wrestle with them. Too many people just accept things at face value. I think John Davis’ comment shows why these conversations are important. No matter what side of the issue you’re on, these conversations cause people to think and discern different issues.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
David– Your a hypocrite. You watch family guy and other shows of that nature. Yet… you condemn others with who watch a movie with a little violence and nudity… GO CHRISTIANS!
The epitome of being two faced? No? Or do you not condemn others for having a splinter while you have a 2×4 board?
March 7th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Wow. Well first of all, that’s pretty direct. Calling someone a “hypocrite” is no laughing matter.
Second, yes, I used to watch “Family Guy.” But awhile back I got very convicted about watching it. I realized it was not beneficial for me to watch at all and so I quit. As for other shows of that nature, you are very mistaken. I do not know what you speak of, nor have any idea how you would know what I watch.
Also, I did not condemn anyone for seeing “Watchmen.” I said it affects people probably in ways more than they know. But I never condemned anyone for seeing it.
If you want to discuss this issue, I am open to that. But I think you need to refrain from making accusations and calling me a “hypocrite.” I was writing an article to inform people of the potential dangers of the movie. I wanted people to know the facts of the movie, and not walk into it uninformed and later walking out with regret.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
From everyone at the UPS store on saturday,
We feel that one cannot pick and choose what one watches from a braod perspective. What makes a movie “sinful or bad”? Because it has two curse words as opposed to two hundred curse words? if a movie has one curse word, isn’t it already depraved?
If a movie makes a sexual innuendo isn’t it just as wrong as showing people having sex? What’s the difference?
It has to be all or nothing. And if one watches movies or reads books and focuses primarily on the presence of violence, languge or sex, then one should not watch or read anything. But, if one sees these things as secondary things to the overall value or worth of the movie or book, then one can have a greater appreciation for what is being watched or read. Watching or reading something is not wrong in of itself.
The christian today has to be mature enough to decide if he wants to watch movies or read books with the right motive or worldview in mind. Otherwise, he needs to be content with accepting complete avoidance with the art produced in the culture in which he lives. To pick and choose leaves one open to be called a hypocrite and thus destroys any chance he has with impacting the culture in a popular light for God.
And by the way, people should avoid watchmen not because of the nudity or violence, but the fact that it just plain sucks.
“The true HYPOCRITE is one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity”
Andre Gide
March 7th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I could write an elaborate response, but all I can say is to read the title of this post: “Why I Won’t Be Seeing Watchmen.” It’s not “Why You Shouldn’t See Watchmen.” The movie deals with my convictions.
I am NOT seeing the movie because I know I am depraved and I struggle with lust and my thought life.
I respect your opinion, but I don’t think that was the main point of the blog. I was posting why I wasn’t going to see it. Anyone else who reads it is welcome to accept my opinion or reject my opinion. The post was more for me than anyone else.
If you guys want to comment, that’s fine. But let’s not do it in a hurtful manner. We don’t need to damage friendships over this.
March 7th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
GREAT DEFLECTION
March 7th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
You’re right. we don’t need to do any damage to friendships. we are sorry for any immflammatory remarks.
we are only trying to get a fair outlook from a different perspective.
March 7th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
We love you.reamer
March 7th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
We love you
March 8th, 2009 at 5:44 am
Might as well join in on the fun.
I’ve always noticed one thing:
People who get ridiculously upset over issues such as someone sharing personal convictions and recommending that Christians not partake in something, are usually trying to justify something they realize is wrong. I’ve never had a single conversation like this with people that didn’t resort to anger on behalf of the person who really wanted to see it, even though a completely different attitude came from the other side.
The personal attacks, anonymity, and anger that some of you guys have shown, in my opinion, shows a lot.
I think the way that this entire conversation has been handled on behalf of those who are in support of watching this movie is completely out of hand. Kudos to David on keeping a cool head through it all. Shame on those who have resorted to low blows and flaming. You might be able to watch a movie and it not be a sin, but the attitudes and comments made in some areas of this blog clearly cross the line.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
I was unaware that my name was going to be used on the blog. I have explained to David my ‘role’ in this mini-controversy. In some ways it is like a Lifetime movie special
.
In a very real sense David is absolutely correct. As David says, there are those who will say “it doesn’t affect me.” We are studying the book of Colossians on Sunday morning and my pastor is doing a wonderful job! (Selfish plug). We were in Col. 3 today when Paul says that we have died to the old man and are now a NEW creature. He admonishes believers to kill (put to death) sexual immorality, impurity, greed (wanting more and more sensual pleasure) and it goes on and on.
There are two dictums to remember, Don’t do it (outside of marriage) and Don’t view it.
Then there is the idea of one being a hypocrite for believing that there is Truth. There is a set way we should live. It is given to us by the Bible and that is not a Sunday School answer. The Bible is clear and plain in these areas. In fact, Paul talks about sensual sins more than any other in his letters.
Perhaps it is clear that, at least to this observer, that one thing can be taken and blown out of proportion. We must live by the dictates of the heart. A new heart that is converted and redecorated and holds the Holy Spirit as our guide.
Those are my opinions on the matter…
March 8th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
I seriously didnt mean to offend anybody. i was just having fun. i didnt mean to upset anybody. i was bored at work and i just like to argue.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:49 am
I think excommunication is in order.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:09 am
David I’d like to comment on one portion of your post.
“For those who would say “It doesn’t affect me” I would say 1 of 2 things to you: 1) You’re lying or; 2) You’ve become so numb and desensitized by violence and sex that it doesn’t bother you anymore.”
I wonder if it’s possible for someone who is not tempted sexually to actually watch a movie like Watchmen and it not have the same impact as it might have on you or me.
I’m not that person, but I suppose there might be someone.
Just a thought.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:18 am
I think there are people in this world (a very small majority) that are not tempted or affected by sexual images. But is it possible for a person to see something like that and not be affected by the sexual content, the violent content, or the cussing? Just because we think we’re not affected does not mean we aren’t.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Yeah that’s a good point. Ken Myers mentions this issue in “All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes.” The literal physical images that we see impact us in a different way than if we were reading it in a book or experiencing it in real life. There’s something about watching something on a screen that makes you sort of disconnect from reality for a bit.
For example, I went to a college basketball game recently. The dance team came out at half time to do the show. They were all girls and had “shorts” that were really not any bigger than granny panties (yes, I just said that–don’t act like you don’t know what that is). They had a windbreaker type jacket on too. The music started, and they started dancing in a manner I’m just not comfortable viewing. However, when i looked up at the jumbo-tron, I noticed that for some reason, it was easier for me to watch the dance on screen than it was when I would just watch it right in front of me. I could hardly watch them in person, but on the jumbo-tron, it was easier.
Why is that?
I think there’s a lot more that goes into viewing images than people realize. Unfortunately, there aren’t a lot of stats to back that kind of thing up. Hence the argument I guess.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I had a big long post typed out, and suddenly, I wiped it out because something hit me.
In regards to sex in movies, if someone is a Christian, I don’t care if they’re not effected by it in their own mind, they should not watch it.
Recently, with my youth group we talked about how Christians should think and use their minds. For me, it boils down to this: As a Christian, I take the name of Christ. Everything that I do should reflect the life of Christ. I should strive to live a life just as He would live it. Therefore, I need to think, “Would Christ watch this movie that is full of sex?” I then kick myself in the forehead because the answer is obvious.
I don’t mean to “Christian-ize” my answer and sound all holier than thou, but that’s really what has happened in my life as of late.
For violence, I think that is a harder issue to spell out. Violence is considered a fist fight, all the way to full out war. Sex is clearly discussed in the Bible as being wrong outside of marriage. Thus, I think it is easier to squash that when it comes to media.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Kudos to all of you who were actually able to read the Watchmen graphic novel in its entirety. I tried to read it twenty years ago, and just couldn’t get through it. I don’t know maybe it was too intellectual for me. I found The Dark Knight Returns much more enjoyable. If I was younger, I would probably give the film a try, but these days I just don’t make it to films that I can’t take my wife and/or kids to.
But all this conversation has made me curious: I gather that the film has made some “embellishments” in the sex and violence category, but I’m assuming it’s otherwise faithful to the graphic novel? Tell me, then ( and I mean this respectfully) what’s the difference between reading and enjoying Watchmen in comic book form and viewing and enjoying Watchmen in motion picture form? Is the comic book free of objectionable content? Is there no sex, implied or otherwise? Are the female characters not illustrated in ways that accent their curviest features? Are there no blood splatters in vivid four-color process ink? Are sex and violence less harmful in a comic book than in a film? What if it’s only in text form?
Do you think there’s a difference?
March 10th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Wow…there are so many things that could be said, but here are just a few:
1) Christians are called to live holy lives not lives that are as close to unholy as we can get without feeling like we’re still “okay”
2) There is a difference in thinking about murdering someone and actually doing it. Are both actions sin? Yes. Are both equally damaging? No. We should not say that a little bad is the same as a lot bad. (Pardon my simplicity)
3) Cursing is a whole other animal. Can anyone say “cultural relevance”?
4) And, finally, I am becoming more convinced that, although we do need to be educated and “relevant,” many Christians are tricking themselves into thinking that knowing/seeing/accepting everything the world knows/sees/accepts is a great way to evangelize.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Ryan,
If I am understanding you correctly, then you’re saying that Christ wouldn’t watch something that was unacceptable in any way.
If you follow that line of reasoning, then you’re saying a Christian shouldn’t watch any movie. Because ultimately, nothing is acceptable in the sight of Christ. Whether it’s pre-marital sex, violence, anger, physical defects in humans, the fact that our bodies are falling apart, etc. Nothing can stand before the sight of Christ save His atonement be on that person.
To use the line of reasoning you have presented is inconsistent. Either you can’t make the statements you did, or you’ll have to be Amish to be a good Christian (according to your claims). Because ultimately, nothing is holy in the sight of Christ.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:04 am
By your line of reasoning, Christ wouldn’t have become a human in the flesh.
We can get into the fact that “Christ wouldn’t watch a movie, etc etc.” but I think regarding sex, we’ve been given enough of a direction to know it’s always wrong to take part in that. I don’t see how this could be an issue.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I sent Ryan an email.
No offense to all the onlookers.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Just to make an even 40, I’d like to say that Sour Starburst Jellybeans are AMAZING…but if you eat 5 bags in 1 week (hypothetically of course) your stomach gets confused and starts making really weird noises. Maybe that’s why you can only buy them at Easter. 12 months of them would probably kill me.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I don’t like even numbers.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:40 am
To all: I can guarantee that not seeing Watchmen or any other movie will not hurt you. But if you see it, it may. So when there’s a question why even take a chance? It’s stupid for me to submit myself to anything that will hurt my relationship with God. It’s just not worth it.
Jacob: maybe being Amish wouldn’t be so bad. Living in a community. Relying on each other. No internet. It certainly would help me with my walk.