Rogues Gallery #1: Dissecting Characters from "Watchmen"

I talk a great deal about heroes and super characters on this blog, and I have some amazing heroic characters I plan to discuss this year (2019). I'd like to spend some time discussing villains - the traditional evil characters who contrast heroic motives with their dark and selfish desires. They are often some of the most morally complex characters, and some even ARE heroes, as is the case with many characters I discuss with this first installment of "Rogues Gallery."

Next month, director Zack Snyder's  2009 film"Watchmen," based on the comic of the same name, will turn 10 years old. "Watchmen" features some insanely shady "heroic" characters that sacrifice a lot "for the greater good" and I thought it would be fun to take a closer look at some of the "heroes" from the story and discuss a topic the channel is built on - What makes a heroic character a hero?

Sure, there are the archetypal notes characters can play that allow them to be classified as a hero. Were they abandoned by their parents? Do they have a mentor figure or some type of magical assistance that lends them aid when it comes to overcoming their personal or otherwise significant adversities to their boons? Do they go on a quest, externally or internally? Do they achieve an apotheosis, a symbolic or metaphysical re-birthing after a trying opposition that takes them to their lowest possible point, often mirroring a metaphorical death? 

The previous questions are often the first ones asked to weed out the posers, and if a character does not have any of those questions answered in a way that matches that archetype, they are likely not the hero you are looking for. It also allows us to find heroic characters who don't wear capes or have any powers at all, because Dorothy goes on as much of a heroic journey as Luke Skywalker does, in terms of how her own narrative impact her growth, so too does Skywalker's journey impact his growth.

While I am definitely not qualified to talk about the political climate of 1985 in any significant way, from the perspective of someone who loves heroic characters in a modern era, I could see how every hero from Watchman fits into the archetype, while exhibiting traits that may declassify their hero status from what is otherwise suggested by simply looking at the film with a "do they fit the archetype" mentality. I've ranted and set-up this series and this single entry long enough. Potential spoilers ahead from everything that you love.

The Comedian & Silk Spectre I & II - Is there Meaning in Meaninglessness?

In a film that at face value appears to be about war and its effects on the human condition, Edward Blake, or the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is a character who thrives during wartime. While seeming out of place as a heroic character, he fits in perfectly as a dark character here. He kills with reckless abandon, laughs while gunning down adversaries on the battlefield, and he even willingly murders a woman he impregnated while oversees during war. In a way, the Comedian represents a super villain masquerading as a hero.

He is very much like Batman's primary villain, The Joker. In the film, The Comedian says "It's a joke. It's all a joke. Forgive me." Though he dies very early on in the film, we learn more about his character through flashbacks from the original Watchmen era. I was a touch confused about his age, if he was born in the early 1900s and it is 1985, he must age a lot more slowly when compared to normal people. But his character seems to be designed around anarchy. We don't really see him do anything traditionally good in the film at all (I could be mistaken, but his bad certainly outweighs his good).

His viewpoints of humanity are twisted and skewed, feeling that humans need to be saved from themselves. KC and the Sunshine Band's song "I'm Your Boogie Man" plays during a scene where the Comedian guns dun protesters who are powerless to defend themselves against his supernatural abilities. It is unclear who has powers and who does not, but it is apparent that the Comedian does have some sort of super strength.

The Comedian's twisted character actually creates a character who is one of the more morally righteous characters in regard to traditional standards. Laurie Jupiter, or The Silk Spectre II, (Malin Akerman) is revealed to be the Comedian's daughter. Earlier in the film, we witness The Comedian attempt to rape The Silk Spectre I (Carla Gugino), and although we don't see what happens between these two characters as a result of that interaction, we know that the Silk Spectre I (Carla Gugino) returns to him in some way and that is how Laurie is conceived. Spectre I tells Laurie that "things are tough all over, Cupcake. It rains on the just and the unjust alike."

The contrast between Laurie and The Comedian is a really meaningful one in regard to the conversation of what makes a hero. Both characters save people, but the Comedian does really horrible things, while we don't directly see Laurie do those same bad things. We also don't see her mother do terribly bad things and are not sure of her character morally. However, her comment about rain falling on everyone, whether they are good or bad, and whether she meant it literally or metaphorically (clearly she did not mean it literally) is a true statement because no matter how "good" or how we perceive Laurie's actions to be good, bad things still happen to her and the Comedian both. The Comedian is thinks that it is all a joke, but Laurie takes it seriously. 

So, that being said. Is the Comedian a villain, or a hero? He doesn't jump into any burning buildings as Laurie does, and we don't see him rescuing any kids who are in danger - in fact we only ever see him murder. But the world - people, other heroes, the government, mostly sees him as a hero (until people turn on all heroes with their campaign: who watches the watchmen?)

Adrian Veidt & Rorschach - What is a Hero & Does the End Justify the Means?

Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) forces us to evaluate what a hero truly is. The sum of his actions appear noble, but he serves as a contrast to Adrian Veidt's (Matthew Goode) character in regards to if the ends truly do justify the means. In Veidt's case, there is a large loss of life (the means) for the cancellation of a war that could exterminate everyone (the end). Veidt makes decisions that can be considered "evil" but have outcomes that are logically positive. In this way, can his terrorist attack be perceived externally as a "good" action that leads to a more successful future to all humanity, and if so, what implications emerge from his actions. Rorschach, on the other hand, is also willing to do some pretty bad things (he murders an insane man by dropping him down an elevator shaft just because the man asks to be punished), but he is not willing to make large scale sacrifices, even if it means that his failure to do so would result in the death of everyone. He is not willing to kill everyone in a city to save everyone in the world (though he is willing to kill, and he is willing to do so violently).

Rorschach is, however, willing to break the rules in more apparent ways when his antagonists' actions conflict with his own moral compass. Rorschach seeks to "punish" and his tactics, to say the least, are more anti-hero than anything else. He acts as a "punisher" archetype, one who seeks revenge. He takes every villain that acts outside of his own moral compass personally and exacts justice that often far exceeds the crime. During a flashback scene when he is a child, we see him bite a portion of another kids face off just because the kid was bullying him. Now, I am a fan of standing your ground and sticking up for yourself - but biting a kid's face off and beating another partially to death is a line crossed from the side of good to the side of bad, in my book.

Rorschach states that "Men get arrested. Dogs get put down." This line is meaningful throughout the film, but the current irony at the time he says this is that Rorschach has just been arrested (as if he is just a normal man, a life he would deny). In this way, subscribing to this philosophy, Rorschach is able to distance himself from his own violent actions. When he fights crime, he is not some red head named Walter, but he IS Rorschach.

Veidt is more subtle. He is responsible for some of the traditional villain behavior. He is even responsible for killing one of the primary heroes from the Watchmen (or the second-generation Watchmen, if they are not called by the same team name). That being said, killing the Comedian is arguably one of the most noble acts he could do, as even though the Comedian was a superhero, he was really more so a villainous character. In this way, is Veidt acting justly?

When I began writing this post, it was to discuss what makes a character a hero or a villain. I knew I was going to say that Veidt was the clear villain, but upon re-watching I can't say that I agree with that sentiment. He states, "If we make resources infinite, we make war obsolete," and this is a sentiment that I completely agree with. And while I don't agree with Veidt's methods, his methods do appear to stop a global war and nuclear crisis. He further states that "Humanities savage nature will inevitably lead to global annihilation. So in order to save this planet, I had to trick it... with the greatest practical joke in human history." He kills millions to save billions - a crime which is definitely evil in concept...but is it actually? If he didn't kill millions, billions would be dead and Earth destroyed.

Now, we know from our own historical context that this is not actually the case. Humanity seems to find a way to save itself, destroy itself, and then subsequently save itself all over again. Veidt is a villain if only because his motives contradict those of our heroes. He is also a villain simply for the cruel way he sacrifices his cool cat creature (noooooooo). But aside from his methods, his intents are good - and his methods end up coming up with a solution that stops the war and initiates an era of piece.

He tells Rorschach "I'm not a comic book villain," and to some extent his is correct (no literally) because he seemingly wins and does good for humanity.

Rorschach's methods are actually quiet selfish in nature. "Keep your own secrets...Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon. That's always been the difference between us, Daniel." He is willing to waste the loss of those millions of lives to do what he feels is the right thing to do - the just thing to do. Though he is personally my favorite character, his morals will erase all of the "good" (that is difficult to write) that Veidt's actions have accomplished. 

Finally, Rorschach's actions (leaving the journal with the press) will potentially ruin all of the peace brought on by the Veidt, and once the world discovers what has occurred, it is likely that human nature will take over again.

"I can change almost anything. But I can't change human nature." - Dr. Manhattan.

Nite Owl & Dr. Manhattan - Is it possible to care too much? Too Little? 

I should have a lot more to write about these two characters given their roles in the film. However, I am still unsure as to where I would class both of these characters in the grand scheme of things.

Dan Dreiberg, or Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) and Jon Osterman, or Dr. Manhattan, (Billy Crudup) somewhat represent two sides of the same coin. One has a hidden identity, and the other is so visible that he walks around naked and unafraid. They show what a hero must face if they care too much or too little.

Nite Owl represents one who cares too much. He is a slave to his role as a hero, and has a very difficult time making the tough decisions that other characters can make much easier. He is so bottled by his morals that he often commits to inaction, which harms those around him. Dr. Manhattan's caring too little often leads him to inaction. Rorschach tells Dr. Manhattan, "Suddenly you discover humanity? Convenient. If you'd have cared from the start none of this would have happened." This has a sting of truth to it, even though it is speculative. Dr. Manhattan grew so distant from humanity that his equal inaction ends up harming it.

Sticking to his morals, but again accepting inaction, Nite Owl tells Veidt that he has not "idealized mankind but you have deformed it. You have mutilated it." 

If you are interested in learning more about my thoughts on Dr. Manhattan, check out my podcast "Heroically." I will discuss Dr. Manhattan, Secret Identities, and randomly the Grammy Awards on Episode 2, which premieres tomorrow February 12, 2019. For a first listen, check out the podcast over on the Anchor app. The podcast will also soon be available in most places you listen to podcasts.

Moloch

Moloch (Matt Frewer) is a villain presented in the film in a traditional sense. He is not an evil character during the story but has a past of being an antagonist to the Watchmen. The film uses him to contrast with our characters, particularly Rorschach and Veidt. I'm not sure we really know the extent of his former villainous crimes, however he is allowed to live outside of prison, so he must not have done anything too drastically bad that would have him locked away, even with his old age and frailty.

As we do not see him do anything morally wrong (the pills can be debated later, but I personally don't think his way of coping with an oncoming death is wrong) he is used as a device when compared to other characters. Rorschach is framed for his murder but would likely have harmed him in some way upon his second visit. This is speculation, of course, but the scenes that follow are a series of an angry Rorschach that is willing to hurt people in drastic ways to get what he wants - you know, the thing that all heroes do. 

Though we find out that Veidt is responsible for this framing, and the death of Moloch, is Moloch's death wrong when used to save humanity? After all, Rorschach's motives directly contradict Veidt's motives. Moloch was a criminal in the past, who just so happens to be terminally ill, and we don't know all of his crimes. But is his life worth the lives of all of those that Veidt could potentially save? Can Veidt be good through his evil actions, and can Veidt's framing of Rorschach be considered a heroic action as Rorschach, at the end of the day, is a vigilante, who acts outside of the law and commits murder for the sake of his self-prescribed since of justice? These are questions that break the walls of what is good and what is evil in this film.

The Government

This is not a holistically series section, however an observation I would be remiss if I did not make. Many a time in movies where characters are conflicted in their choices, where characters feel that age old internal struggle of good vs evil (you know, the two little angels that sit atop one's shoulders and try to convince the character to do things one holistically good way or one holistically bad way, but both ways have elements of good and bad, and the little angel and devil are simple musings of the characters own internal monologue...) what was I talking about? Oh, right. The perpetually devil-rested shoulders of the always-evil government. The government seems to always be clearly bad in these movies.

There is a scene (multiple actually, but I'll just refer to this one for now) in this film where the Government, headed by third-termed Richard Nixon (Robert Wisden) makes a complex moral decision in a matter of seconds. Now, given that they are an office during wartime, the timing of their decision is perfectly acceptable. But none of the officials present in the room, even Nixon, are depicted as having any remorse for the consequences of their actions, and they are discussing a major pre-preemptive strike in a war involving nuclear arms that could end as if Thanos snapped fingers from both hands (would that be 100% destruction, or just 50% and then 50% again, my joke is aiming for a more total end, one where there is no Avengers: Endgame). They speak about the death of millions of causalities with ease and are all smiles. Veidt may be a dark hero-villain-hero thing, but at least he has some sort of remorse for his actions, albeit slightly. He does what he thinks will save humanity. All that being said, a counterpoint can be made about the Government as it is depicted here as well - there choices are made coldly but appear to be logical to save the most life. 

Closing Remarks

In a genre that is now saturated with diverse films from "Glass," "Avengers: Infinity War," "The Incredibles 2,"etc. it is refreshing to revisit a film I didn't like in 2009 but love in 2019. As a young adult, I hated this movie. The heroes didn't have cool powers. I didn't care about the alternative history to the 1985 political climate, and I was coming down from the high brought on by the amazing 2008 hero films, "Iron Man," "The Dark Knight" "Hellboy II," heck I even liked "The Incredible Hulk." Back then, I didn't see what this brought to the table, but upon re-watching this movie a few times as an older, wiser, more ma-tewer adult, especially viewing during the 2018-2019 political climate, I can see that 18 year-old-me was a dang fool. The scene where The Comedian is assassinated is a powerful way to open the film, and the seamless transition and passing of time while Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A Changin' " plays in the background is powerful, then and now.

All of the fight scenes are brutal. When Nite Owl and Silk Spectre brawl the thugs in the alley, when Rorschach makes a home-brew flamethrower and uses the police swat team as target practice, or when all three of them team up and escape the prison. They keep the movie, which is otherwise a fantastically done slow burn, exciting with physical action. The tension is present in these scenes and more, but that is not to say that the dialogue or more story driven moments of the film are not tense in their own way.

But, I've subjected you to enough randomly off-the-head opinions. Thank you all so much for reading. If you like this blog and you like what I do here, please support me on Patreon. Check the about the author page for a link! 

My final decisions are purely emotional. They represent where I am at right now, and tomorrow I could have all this completely reversed in my head. 

The Comedian - Villain

Silk Spectre II - Hero

Veidt - Hero (Get your pitchforks)

The Nite Owl - Hero

Rorschach - Villain

Dr. Manhattan - Villain

If you like this analysis and want to support me further in the future, consider becoming one of my first patrons on Patreon: HERE