Religion, philosophy, and making sense of Watchmen
Before hearing about the movie, I’d read the Watchmen graphic novel and wasn’t impressed. It was included in Time Magazine’s list of 100 best novels of all time; whatever. I planned to stick with Frank Miller (Sin City, 300). But leaving the theater last weekend, I was blown away.
[Spoiler follows — go watch the film first. No spoiler review here.]
Watchmen brings up questions involving moral relativism and religion. It’s hard to miss that Jon is God-like in the movie. He is more powerful than Superman, he can be anywhere, see into the past and future, and change form. Less obvious are the historical figures Adrian is compared to, including Jesus Christ (the hand piercing). Adrian decimates cities, blames it on Jon, and unites the world under a common fear of Jon. The analogy is loose, but it’s definitely present and intentional. In the climactic ending, Jon and Adrian are united as creator and deity in this new world religion. See the comparison? Moral relativism is often considered an enemy by religious proponents of absolute truth, but here it is almost used to defend religion. More on this later.
There are three reactions to Adrian and Jon’s deceptive new world order by those in the know: breakdown (The Comedian), obedience (Nite Owl), and obstinance (Rorschach). The Comedian’s psychology deserves an entire essay in itself, but the Nite Owl and Rorschach are easier. While Rorschach’s catharsis is killing criminals, violence, and darkness, the Nite Owl’s is being a good, classical hero. His violence lacks viciousness and retribution. Sexuality tied to Rorschach is the most perverted kind (memories of his prostitute mother or killing a pedophile) while the Nite Owl’s sexuality is boyish and insecure. The Nite Owl must be in costume, fulfilling his heroic role before he can “hallelujah” with the Silk Spectre. The characters are opposite in their behavior and demeanor, but the same in their purpose, and confidence in their method of accomplishing this purpose. They are like yin and yang, two versions of the same idealistic absolutism that cannot understand Jon and Adrian’s grey perspective.
Back to moral relativism. If you take Jon and Adrian’s new world order built atop murder and destruction as representing religion as I suggest is intended, it is a rather critical perspective of the organized faiths. At the same time, the only competing alternative to this new and successful institution is a couple of out-of-date absolutists (Rorschach and the Nite Owl). Plus, all the survivors are happy in the end; the world really is safe and happy. So what is the movie saying? Is it really pushing moral relativity to a level by which even its traditional enemy, religion, is defensible for its uniting and benevolent qualities? I don’t think so.
The movie doesn’t end with the climactic Antarctic scene, but in a small house in Florida. Here the Silk Spectre does more than forgive her mother (the former Silk Spectre) for not telling who her father was, she truly understands how her mother could love a man who had, years before, tried to rape her. She sees how her mother’s memories of past wrongs blend with past rights into a beautiful cohesion. And here, with this story of forgiveness, is the only definite message I could find in Watchmen. It is what Jon realizes on Mars before he comes back to Earth and pardons Adrian.
He realizes that the world is complex, with a host of interconnected and opposing ideas (the many watchmen), but beauty can result from what seems like the worst of it. What matters more than which one of the many ideas is best, is being able to see the beauty and abandon past grudges that block the view.
UPDATE: I liked the following Facebook discussion regarding the article.
Robert March 17: It is a very interesting perspective that I had not considered.
I took the reason behind the altered ending to be Snyder trying to make the movie shorter and more accessible.
By making Jon the fake reason behind the explosions, Snyder could cut the island of artists and writers out altogether.
I am curious as to what leads you to believe that the analogy of Adrian being Jesus is intentional? I didn’t see that.
Tyler March 19: In the Watchmen you have Adrian compared to Ozymandias, the king of kings. You have focused shots on his pierced hands. Jon is viewed as a god. Adrian becomes the creator of the world’s perception of Jon (like Jesus). Adrian brings about a New Testament way of thinking, his opposition are the moral absolutists who live by black-white law.
I don’t think this story is a direct allegory, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m not trying to figure out Moore’s creation process, I’m trying to understand what the Watchmen is,and says now. I think it was written with a postmodern intuition that taps into the Moore’s subconscious and therefore the collective subconscious of the society and world that created him. I’m saying there is definitely something here even if it wasn’t created in a calculating A to B manner. To say there isn’t is a disservice to Moore and Snyder because it implies they’ve created bullshit art through ambiguous reference to philosophies and religious histories or, at the least, they’re too shallow to have shaped the ideas their art inspires.
Robert March 19: Well…I dunno…Moore had nothing to do with the changes to the story. In fact when asked about the movie he said “I’ll never see that piece of shit” and in the book, Jon is not framed for the explosions. They are attributed to an alien force.
So while the movie may reveal some things about Snyder, I don’t think any of the significant alterations have anything to do with Moore.
Andrew March 19: I see your point, though I will say the only character that I could even remotely relate to was Rorschach. Not saying I am a complete criminal killing bad ass, but he was the only one to see that peace by any other means is not peace at all. After all humanities intentions were to unite to kill Jon, and you know that when the memory of the pain fades, we will just go back to fighting all the harder.
Tyler March 19: Andrew, explain “peace by any other means is not peace at all”. Peace is peace regardless of the means and will only ever be temporary.
I don’t necessarily agree with Adrian, but Rorschach is a likable fool, too miserable and pitiful to make any meaningful change to the things he hated about the world.
Tyler March 19: Robert, I think you’re right about the Snyder/Moore thing. That’s why I liked the movie more and didn’t see as much in the book.
Andrew March 20: My meaning is that when you use violence to achieve peace, the natural foundation of this “peace” is not one of peace. Humanity was not at peace, it was at a temporary armistice, only to go to war with Jon. Humanity is no less hatefilled. It has only shifted it’s hate. Only a change of heart can bring out peace. Therefore “peace by any other means is not peace at all.” Rorschach, being the “likable fool” that he is, sees this and has the fortitude to go against it even when he knows the consequences. As to being too miserable and pitiful to make a change, he does. He sets the world on the only path that leads to peace. Sure everyone will know about the sham that Adrian and Jon have now set up and go back to fighting, but humanity can only be at peace when it learns for itself to change it’s heart. I now have to feed and change the kid so the rest can wait.
Tyler March 20: You’re right to define peace as more than just the absence of fighting/war/aggression. It can also be defined as a type of calm and serenity. Just as the word staple can refer to a small attaching piece of metal, or a commodity. But these two definitions of peace, though often related, shouldn’t be confused. I was referring to the first definition (the absence of fighting). By this definitive, a “temporary armistice” is a temporary peace, and any peace will only ever be temporary.
Regarding the other definition, yes “a change of heart” is the only way to bring about “peace of the heart”, you are, after all, referring to the unpeaceful condition of “the heart” needing to change. But this doesn’t say anything more than “a change of diaper can only be brought about by replacing the old diaper”. Do you really think that Rorschach, a character consumed by hate and violence, that murders people by his faulty human discretion understands that it takes more than this type of behavior to bring about peace? To bring about this second type of peace someone with a peace about them, someone above the hate and violence (or someone good at pretending) is needed: Gandhi, biblical Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr, maybe even John Lennon. If Rorschach understands this, why is he too pitiful to change even himself and his own actions?
Latest posts by Tyler Samien (Posts)
- Vegetarianism: The journey to improve more than just diet - May 18, 2013
- Dallas valet: Excessive and out of control - May 14, 2013
- Should vegetarians eat fast-food? - March 24, 2013
- Should vegetarians allow themselves to eat meat from the plates of others? - March 10, 2013
- Crazy Christmas Photo Competition 2012: Vote now! - December 25, 2012
Print This Post
delightful read! i don’t particularly care how low brow this comes off; that movie was stinking badass. i liked the different themes you derived from the film, i have yet to read the book and compare.
There is certainly a lot one could review after having seen the film.
It’s good you’re onto Rorschach, the id, the injured little boy character. However I’m not certain he wants to bring about piece. The piece he wants is to go on. He a powder keg of pure death drive. Chop him up into pieces and he’ll go and go. Rorschach had to be neutralized at the end. In the Watchmen world as a psychological model: Id and superego were fighting for control over a malfunctioning ego. Rorschach knew what they were doing, perhaps understood, but as he said, you go to the abyss and you keep going.
Im sorry but your nuts, the comics were amazing. The story,art,plot everything just came together so nicely. I loved ’em