Watching Watchmen yesterday, and absolutely loving it (read my review), has brought about a question in my mind: when it comes to film adaptations of novels, is it better to have read the source material before seeing the film, or going into it completely unawares?
I have not read the graphic novel of Watchmen, by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Admittedly I have been vaguely familiar with it for some time and was aware of who most of the characters were (although I had no knowledge of their backstories, etc.), and have flicked through the book on various occasions. Nevertheless, beyond the very basic premise (retired superheroes, one gets bumped off) I did not have any real awareness of the plot.
The reviews have been decidedly mixed for the film. Currently on Rotten Tomatoes it has the "Fresh"-but-only-just rating of 65%, with most reviews apparently awarding it middle of the road scores like 3 out of 5. Reviewers familiar with the graphic novel mostly complain about the things it changed (while, at the same time, often absurdly criticising it for being 'too faithful'). For these critics it seems that their already-held opinions and passion for the source material precluded them from accepting the film on its own terms: the film seems extremely faithful overall, yet the film's occasional necessary alterations for the medium are torn to shreds. These views really sum up the impossible task that Zack Snyder was faced with when he chose to take on the unenviable task of directing the film.
Let me divert from Watchmen for a moment. Another work of literature that had been deemed impossible to adapt to film, The Lord of the Rings, turned out to be a triumph from any angle. When I first saw the first film in the trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring, I had not read Tolkien's seminal story, and I abosulutely adored the film. After this first instalment I devoured the books, and found that I much preferred the film of Fellowship to the book, which, without wishing to be sacrilegious, is rather (over-)long and self-indulgent at points.
Then I saw The Two Towers, which despite some gripes I felt was probably about as good as the book. I could not wait for Return of the King, which was certainly my favourite of the three original volumes. However, upon the final film's release, I found it very difficult to shift the book from my mind. Jackson's RotK omits several parts from the book, some of which I really missed in the film, and despite really enjoying the film on its own merits, I could never say that I was entirely satisfied. Yet it RotK is often cited as the best of the three films, and the Academy certainly agreed, showering it with 11 Oscars. I still maintain that the best film of the three is Fellowship, followed closely by Towers, with Return bringing up the rear.
I have often been curious as to whether my reactions would have been different had I not read the books at all. Did I love Fellowship most because at the time of my first viewing I had not read the book and therefore was not on the lookout for parts the filmmakers 'got wrong'? Do I find it hard to love Return for precisely the opposite reason, that I had read the book and was by this point a devotee of all things Tolkien? Or is it just the case that Fellowship is simply a more accomplished, better film in its own right than Return? It's a question I can never really answer. I have tended to think the latter, but now having seen Watchmen and experiencing similar feelings to that first viewing of Fellowship, I have begun to reassess that.
Without prior knowledge of the graphic novel, the film basically acted as my introduction to the wonderful world of Watchmen. Instead of noticing parts that had been altered and omitted, I was just able to sit back and absorb an extraordinary sensory feast as it unfolded for the first time before my eyes.
Maybe it's just the case that I'm one of the (apparently quite few) people for whom this film just works on pretty much every level.* Looking at the reviews again, the consensus amongst Watchmen virgins generally seems to be that you need to have read the book to grasp what's going on, and that the film is too long and slow (clearly both points I emphatically disagree with). Some suggest that the film has a similar lack of depth and overbearing feeling of artificiality that Snyder's previous film, 300, had.
Only a few really seem to have loved the film, as I did. Roger Ebert, who, like me, had not read the graphic novel, has showered it with praise and awarded it his top 4-star grade (I do think Ebert hands out the top accolade too willingly and too often but here I certainly agree with him). From the other end of the spectrum, Watchmen nuts Devin Faraci of CHUD.com and Drew McWeeny, formerly Moriarty at Ain't It Cool News, have both revealed their strongly positive opinions of the film. From these it seems like whether you have read the graphic novel or not is irrelevant. As with any film, it's an inherently subjective experience. I'm delighted to say that, from my entirely subjective standpoint, it's a stunning success.
* Similar to my feelings on Speed Racer - I loved all its hyperactive insanity, but not many did. However, I like Watchmen more.
.
