Watchmen: A Philosophical look at a Post-Vietnam America

Image via Warner Bros.

Zack Snyder’s superhero film Watchmen (2009) is an exploration of philosophical politics, morality and the degradation of America. These ideas are constructed and explored through Snyder’s cinematic language, heavily focused through two of the defining disillusioned right-wing, fascist characters, The Comedian and Rorschach. The film acts a Snyder’s exploration into the ravaged undertones and ideas found in a manic America, posing the viewer with a philosophical and political question: Who Watches The Watchmen? In this essay, I will argue towards Astruc’s point written under Corrigan, White, and Mazaj and against Hanson.

A nasal Bob Dylan overlaps the title sequence, played as a traditional montage, illustrating the ever-degrading loss of innocence through the eyes of silly costumed figures. These heroes drenched in the political virginity of Eisenhower, Truman and the Kennedy Government all leading up unto the volatile Nixon administration where the majority of the film takes place. Snyder’s title sequence is an excellent use of montage, jumping through the decades with literal snapshots of alternate history to depict the indignity of Nixon’s administration we are left with. In doing so, Snyder’s anti-Nixon/Vietnam sentiment is administered via the opening montage up until the final credits. His viewpoints are not subtle, as Snyder homages Riboud's (1967) photograph The Ultimate Confrontation and Dr. Stranglove’s (1964) War Room scenes, as a reflection of his anti-Vietnam stance. Not much is known about Snyder’s personal political views but it’s clear to assess that Watchmen (2009) stands as a testament to the ruins of Nixon’s America.

This entire montage sequence (along with the entire film) intends to focus on these ideas, as Livingston (2019, pg. 87) states that film can act as a ‘useful contribution’ to ‘make unfamiliar philosophical lines of thought’ (2019, pg. 87) understood through ‘fictional events’ (2019, pg. 87) or ‘fictional characters’ (2019, pg. 88). This is where Snyder’s “Watchmen” characters come into play, in an exploration of right-wing themes told through the comic book genre to an audience mostly concerned with virtuous alien Gods in spandex.

The Comedian, perhaps the most defining character in the film is an example of this disgraced America. Removed is the 40’s era hero cheekily grinning with a fat cigar in his mouth as he poses with a cartoon thug, he’s now responsible for the murder of the 35th President and torment of protesting citizens. A disturbed rapist, incestuous pervert and mass murderer of women and children in Vietnam, hiding behind the mask of the American flag. He has lost that search for “American peace and security” in an attempt to find stability and order. When asked about the supposed American dream long forgotten, he responds with ‘you’re looking at it’ (Watchmen 2009) to a defaced American flag abused in the background. A graffitied tagline reads Who Watches the Watchmen?, Snyder providing the audience with what Livingston (2019, pg. 89) describes as a ‘framework’ in the form of a ’slogan’ (2019, pg. 89). This allows for his ideas to be set on a backbone of philosophical thought, similar to what Hanson (2006, pg. 392) discusses as a ’theorem’.

The question asks, perhaps breaking the fourth wall, to what Sinnerbrink (2019, pg. 187) describes as the cinema as exploring ‘ethical dimensions’ though ‘aesthetic means’ (2019, pg. 187). We are meant to observe the relations of control and power in this world, and see the futility in the question itself, America being immune to re-order.

That once proud Americana patriotism of saving kittens in trees is now overflowing with American carnage unable to be controlled. No longer are the Halloween garbed heroes smiling and posing with police, they’re being dismantled as a result of their indignities in the updated times. This idea allows for a protesting Bob Dylan (1964) shouting over the montage, ‘please get out of the new one if you can’t lend a hand’. The use of the opening title’s montage not only visualises Snyder’s ideas but expresses these political themes through the use of soundtrack in cinema, adding and layering his cinematic language beyond what silent films, let alone written papers could fully explore. No longer rendered to what Corrigan, White, and Mazaj (2011, pg. 353) state as the ’static conception’, the filmmaker can now ‘express his thoughts’ (2011, pg. 352) through this new cinematic ‘language’ (2011, pg. 352). The final result could not have been achieved pre-filmic sound. Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, and Jimi Hendrix all make up the soundtrack that connectively ties together the film as one single unit of philosophical thought in a political stance. This is why sound (music) excels here: groovy chords accompanied with darker lyrics hit home to the struggles of the Americana, all meant to “stick it to the man”.

The films mostly Vietnam-era protest songs being the highlight for Snyder’s political stance to emerge, an America still haunted and disfigured by Nixon’s fascistic warmongering in Vietnam. Snyder acts to what Corrigan, White, and Mazaj (2011, pg. 352) call the ‘camera-pen’, his filmmaking a formalist dreamscape of alternate history, where Snyder uses the camera to “illustrate” his deconstruction of the superhero alongside sentiments of a damaged America, all leading to one single idea. Snyder’s direction is substituted for writing, allowing for the film to act as to what Corrigan, White, and Mazaj would state as a ‘vehicle of thought’ (2011, pg. 353). We, as an audience, begin to understand Snyder’s language through the screen, the result of this being his intended meaning. This is why Corrigan, White and Mazaj (2011, pg. 352) state that ‘only the cinema can do justice’ to the ‘contemporary ideas and philosophies of life’ (2011, pg. 352). A written novel could not equate to the level of cinematic vision and visual flavour that authors might aim for. Corrigan, White and Mazaj (2011, pg. 352) state that film can explore ‘psychology’ and the ‘passions’ (2011, pg. 352) equated to strong political stances, Watchmen (2009) achieves this.

My biggest problem is Hanson’s (2006, pg. 393) account that film cannot produce insightful ideas because it only lives ‘in motion’, therefore it is not equated to the level of written papers. In the case of this film, case, perhaps the “superhero” genre does not have the capability nor insight to address complex issues. Expressed through what Hanson (2006, pg. 392) describes as the ‘communicative capacities’ of a film being colour tone, genre and dialogues/characters in that produced filmic world. Superheroes, or beings with power like the Greek Gods or mythic legends, have always existed to be explored by the arts in an attempt to understand our mortal (human) values. Why can’t Snyder deconstruct them through film and use these characters to address his own philosophical and political views? Corrigan, White and Mazaj (2011, pg. 352) state that film, previously, was nothing more than a ‘show’ unable to gather the support of the intellectual crowd like Hanson. This hand-in-hand relationship between film and philosophy does not respect the capacities of film and only allows for Hanson’s archaic support of what “was” to exist, not what could be.

I do not agree with Hanson’s idea of a ‘reciprocal’ (2006, 396) nature. To me, this is an example of Hanson wanting the ‘traditional activities of philosophy’ (pg. 396) to remain the ever same, whereas Corrigan, White, and Mazaj (2011, pg. 354) become slightly radical in philosophical cinema, looking ‘to the future’ in the pursuit for exploration. Snyder, also looking to the future (at the time) insofar as Watchmen (2009) being the only “deconstructed” superhero film at the time. The only similar result being The Dark Knight (2008).

After the Comedian suffers a violent death, we are met with a grizzled Rorschach monologuing his disdain for the times like a detective from a hard-boiled film noir or Travis from Taxi Driver (1976). The right-wing costumed killer sleuthing in a mask as disordered as he is, gritting his teeth at the ‘liberals, intellectuals and smooth talkers’ (Watchmen 2009), the streets overflowing like ‘extended gutters’ (Watchmen 2009) full of ‘whores and politicians’ (Watchmen 2009). He is a fascistic lunatic willing to break societal rules to achieve his own idealised goal of fighting the perverted order and hierarchy (born out of childhood abuse). Demeaning to all those he looks down upon, going so far as equating perverts as ‘dogs who get put down’ (Watchmen 2009). This is another character who believes he’s setting examples for citizens with his lunacy, but his need for tyrannical and violent order only results in him exploding into meat pieces at the end of the film. A character unwilling to move on is left to die in the “new world” of Nixon’s America. In a weird sense, Rorschach is what Livingston (2019, pg. 88) describes as a philosophical ‘spokesperson’ for Snyder’s thought to be manifested in the form of the post-Vietnam male.

The audience is inherently complicit in Rorschach’s disturbed monologues through the film’s use of diegetic sound. Following along with his perceptions of the “rotting” and changing times of the ’80s, Snyder doesn't present Rorschach in a good light, nor does he present him as our likeable lead or centre of moral reasoning. He is a violent, manic loner representing the populous fed up with the world at that time, post-Vietnam that is. Nowadays, in 2019’s internet, there’s a chance he would be a violent extremist plotting hate crimes. Snyder attempts to explore his demented thoughts through sound rather than visualising them on screen through action, movement, and narrative, or even through intertitles like the early filmmakers might have done in the silent film. I will go even further to say that Rorschach’s dialogue works better in a film than on paper as the actor’s performance allows us to feel and experience his genuine emotions more than written word ever could.

In my concluding point, I must emphasise that Watchmen (2009) proves filmic philosophy can be achieved, that political and philosophical ideas can be explored to the screen through disturbed characters and broken countries in the eyes of the filmmaker.

Bibliography:

Watchmen 2009, film, Warner Bros/Paramount Pictures, Vancouver

Riboud, M 1967, The Ultimate Confrontation, photograph, Marc Riboud, retrieved 7 August 2019, http://marcriboud.com/en/portfolio-4/

Dr. Strangelove 1964, film, Colombia Pictures, London

Livingston, P 2019, Philosophy and Film: Bringing Divides, Routledge, retrieved 9 August 2019, E-Book Library Database

Sinnerbrink, R 2019, Philosophy and Film: Bringing Divides, Routledge, retrieved 10 August 2019, E-Book Library Database

Dylan, B. (1964). The Times They Are-A Changin'. (Spotify) New York: Columbia Studios. Available at: https://open.spotify.com/track/2HQWTyTz7VRJ8g0wbXcf7A?si=qX-auR8VS4iUupUWf6U_ig (retrieved 8 August 2019)

Corrigan, T, White, P & Mazaj, M 2011, Alexandre Astruc: "The Birth of a New Avant-Garde: La Caméra-Stylo, Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston, retrieved 12 August 2019, E-Book Library Database

Hanson, K 2006, Minerva in the movies: relations between philosophy and film, Blackwell Publishing, retrieved 13 August 2019, E-Book Library Database

The Dark Knight 2008, film, Warner Bros/Legendary Entertainment, Chicago

Taxi Driver 1976, film, Colombia Pictures/Bill/Phillips, New York