I just saw it today, and loved it. It raises many interesting questions in moral philosophy so I quickly wrote a little something considering the competing moral philosophies of:
Comedian vs. Nite OwlNihilism vs. Belief in the Good
Silk Spectre vs. Dr. ManhattanAnthrocentrism vs. “Scientific” Humility
Rorschach vs. OzymandiasNatural Right vs. Utilitarianism
If you already know the story (or don't mind spoilers), please check it out.
Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle in 9 steps (Soliciting comments)
Nite Owl wins his fight, and Rorschach pwns every character.
Not so sure about Silk Spectre v.s Dr. Manhattan though.
I just got done watching it myself, and made a post about it. As a comic book lover, I bought it as a teenager and loved it. I saw it today almost 10 years after reading it, great movie.
Alan Moore the author said it was anti-Reaganism. While I hate Reagan, I find that an odd statement because I think Reagens presidency may have been the combanation of most peaceful/ prosperous/ least paranoid since maybe Coolidge (I may be wrong, but off hand I think that is a fairly accurat). Don't get me wrong though, Reagen most certainly has blood on his hands.
It is odd how Reagen is seen as warlike, paranoid, unsophisticated, and fascist while Kennedy seems wise, peaceful, and just. I think they are both 2 sides of the same coin.
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
Dondoolee:I just got done watching it myself, and made a post about it.
I'd like to read that post. Do you have a link?
It's not really about the watchmen in particular, just how it kind of was one of the things I noticed that really took the fun out of Republican bashing.
I think the thread is called "life sucks when I find myself sympathizing with republicans"
As far as Alan Moore calling it an Anti Reagen peice just look up the Watchmen (comic book) on wikipedia.
Reading this thread, it occurs to me that Dr. Manhattan is like C. S. Lewis' Abolition of Man (a really great book if anyone hasn't read it). As you say, Dr Manhattan represents the progress of 'disinterested' science, which aims at 'seeing through' everything and at its logical conclusion would end up seeing nothing at all. He becomes a man "without a chest," and therefore ceases to be a man at all. His conquest of nature is really nature's conquest of him.
some other important issues:
SPOILERS
1) The main thrust of the book: superheroes serve as a microcosm of the relationship between government and governed. most people wish superheros were real, why do we desire to have these superhumans put above us?
this leads to some other points
2) the audience tends to sympathize more with rorschach than with ozymandias. ozy is "the villain". What does this say about us and how we wish to be governed? Rorschach can, like most vigilante characters, be viewed as a fascist.
3) Dr. Manhattan is the catalyst for the crisis that will lead to the nuclear war. He tipped the precarious nuclear balance. So first we've created a problem by creating this superhuman (government), and then cry for it to save us when it causes problems. This makes no sense.
I think it is safe to say that Alan Moore's point is that humans don't really know what they want, and so we pass the responsibility off on someone else. But this is futile because we only ever pass it on to superhumans (or governments) who are just as flawed as we are. governments try to rape people and laugh it off (the comedian), government is blase about its enormous power (Dr. M), government gets off on enforcing the laws it makes (Nite Owl), government can kill millions without ever knowing if it will really save billions (ozy). And lastly government can be fascist (ror).
"who watches the watchers?" one rioter spraypaints on a wall, right before the comedian hits him with tear gas.
lastly...this doesn't have any supporting evidence really...so I hesitate to post it. But I think Alan Moore said the book was anti-reagan because he was drawing attention to the fact that "small government politician" is an oxymoron. If you read V for Vendetta it is clear that Alan is not much of a statist.
2)surely ozy is the fascist and rorschach believes in 'justice though the heavens fall'. he is a randroid after all.
3)the genius of alan moore's watchmen, is it has a bunch of 'corrupted' superheroes at the end, agree that some violent injustice is necessary 'for the greater good;' because how else will they avoid a total nuclear war and the end of all man kind! hence a common enemy 'manhattan' must be found to stop human war. yet the universe in which Alan Moore lives in, and writes watchmen, doesnt have a dr manhattan, and exists, and has not suffered a nuclear holocaust (post hiroshima), so the superdudes were just wrong. and are just plain guilty of conspiracy to mass murder.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nazgulnarsil: lastly...this doesn't have any supporting evidence really...so I hesitate to post it. But I think Alan Moore said the book was anti-reagan because he was drawing attention to the fact that "small government politician" is an oxymoron. If you read V for Vendetta it is clear that Alan is not much of a statist.
I forgot about V for Vendetta, most certainly anti-state and a great read, but still doesn't he take another punch at "right wing" religious fascists instead of state socialists.
That being said, in a way Ozy in the watchmen may be symbolic of left wing type thinking
Spoilers!!:Ozymondias is indeed a liberal, i think it is more clear in the book (I could be mistaken).(He is also a single living with a cat and, in the movie, has a folder called "boys", watch out social conservatives!! )What I like about him that he makes clear whats wrong about utilitarianism. And I think the black freighter story gives a clear statement what Alam Moore thinks about his plan.Ozymondias: "I need to stop the killer! I need to stop him!"Voice from the off:"No, YOU are the killer. You were it all along."
PS: I think the Comedian is the fascist in this story, Rorschach is a deontologist gone bad(ass).
Rorschach is a parody/ homage of Steve Ditko's (co-creator of Spider Man and an objectivist) superhero creations the Question and Mr. A. Rorschach according to Moore was NOT supposed to be a well liked or sympathetic charecter, but a psychotic fascist (while I am certainly not an objectivist, Moore saw Ayn Rand as a white supremesit fascist which I think is off the mark). It is odd though, while way too violent, I think he comes off the most sympathetic of all of them (Night Owl or the female charecter may too, but the rest I find unforgivable). I don't know if the Comedian was more of a Fascist or a Nihilist. And yes the comic book most certainly plays Ozy as more of a liberal (an elitist limosine liberal to boot). I do know Alan Moore calls himself an anarchist, but with todays definitions that could mean anything.
i just got home from watching this movie and there was definitely some greater good garbage in there. What I really thought while I waas watching though was man does this movie suck! i know your post isn't a critique of the movie itself so much as to draw some parallels, but i want my 3 hrs back
Dondoolee:most certainly anti-state and a great read, but still doesn't he take another punch at "right wing" religious fascists instead of state socialists.
I read that the dystopia of "V" was Moore's vision of what Thatcherism would eventually produce.
I was under the impression that the film made the exact opposite point. Sympathetic characters like Nite Owl and Rorschach stand for humanity and for the most part, against utilitarianism. Characters that are less sympathetic, and are show to be villians are the ones who embrace the "greater good" philosophy. Also, Rorschach won in the end, his journal was found, signifying a final triumph of good over evil.
Dondoolee:Rorschach according to Moore was NOT supposed to be a well liked or sympathetic charecter, but a psychotic fascist
In the comic, he does have somewhat of an "America, wrong or right" nationalist attitude (he justifies the Comedian's "excesses" because of all he did for his country. But I think on balance, Rorschach is the most libertarian character of them all.
Dondoolee:It is odd though, while way too violent, I think he comes off the most sympathetic of all of them
Because we, unlike Moore, believe in right and wrong beyond utility calculations. And while breaking a two-bit criminal's fingers to question him is indeed wrong, his brutal killing of brutal murderers is entirely just. And, to differ with another poster, I don't see how vigilantism can be associated with fascism. I think vigilantism is a key part of libertarianism, because it is a recognition that justice is not to be monopolized by any one "super-moral" agency. Justice is justice, no matter who executes it.
Dondoolee:Ozy as more of a liberal
Ozy definitely has a more liberal-type personality. But his "kill millions to save billions" philosophy is also very much in line with warmongering right-wingers. Also he is much more of a true fascist than any other character, because, as Mussollini himself characterized it, fascism is more specifically about national corporatism (aka state capitalism) than simple nationalism and statism.
Mlee: I was under the impression that the film made the exact opposite point. Sympathetic characters like Nite Owl and Rorschach stand for humanity and for the most part, against utilitarianism. Characters that are less sympathetic, and are show to be villians are the ones who embrace the "greater good" philosophy. Also, Rorschach won in the end, his journal was found, signifying a final triumph of good over evil.
The thing about the Rorschach diary though, Moore made sure to tell people in the comics (and it was strongly hinted in the movie) that the newspaper was a right wing newspaper company. So I guess that suggests that a left wing news company wouldn't print it. It also suggests that right wing newspapers are common, another "kick the right some more" and ignore the left for no good reason.
He insinuated Nixon was behind the Kennedy assassination, he ignores LBJ's draft and escalation completley, and squarely blames everything on Nixon. He also makes a point to say the left never would have allowed super heroes to enter the war (they would however build atom bombs and drop them on civilian populations, twice). The other thing I don't get isn't sending invincible super heroes to war kind of the same philosophy as Ozy had? If Moore is trying to justify Ozy's plan (which I don't know if he is) but criticize Nixon for sending in superheroes in Vietnam, is he being intellectually honest?
Here's an interesting open letter by the screenwriter.
Rorschach is definitely not meant to be a sympathetic character. He's often characterized as an Objectivist*, because he was based on an Objectivist character, but he's more of an all-around right-wing nutjob. The comic is more explicit about this than the movie, as it shows the editor of The New Frontiersman (the newspaper Rorschach corresponds with) being broadly xenophobic and anti-communist. All the same, I don't get the sense that Ozymandias is treated more sympathetically. I personally love the fact that Moore leaves the reader with a moral dilemma : would you tell the truth, or let it be?
*Alan Moore's problem with Objectivists apparently (wikipedia) centers on his perception that they believe themselves to be übermensch. I personally haven't read Rand, so I'll refrain from commenting.
Anyway, I loved the comic and loved the movie as well. Haley was brillant as Rorschach - the cafeteria scene gave me goosebumps.
Dondoolee: If Moore is trying to justify Ozy's plan (which I don't know if he is) but criticize Nixon for sending in superheroes in Vietnam, is he being intellectually honest?
If Moore is trying to justify Ozy's plan (which I don't know if he is) but criticize Nixon for sending in superheroes in Vietnam, is he being intellectually honest?
*Spoilers*
I don't think Moore is supporting Ozy. In the novel Ozy says he "walked over dead men" to bring the world together, with incidentally a far better method than in the film- a giant squid. These are the same words as the protagonist in the Black Freighter comic uses and in that the actions of the protagonist are clearly shown to be wrong. He became what he most hated. In the same way Ozy did. Further giant squid is associated with a nuclear bomb. When Shea, the author on the Black Freighter, lifts up the tarpouline on the boat he sees a bomb which explodes and destroys the ship. Frames ealier we see the squid peak out from under a large tarpouline. Now when it destroys New York it is clear that teh squid is a metaphor for a nuclear bomb. It took me a second reading to understand this as the ending in the novel is quite ambiguous unlike in the film in which Ozy is obviously evil from the outset.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
I should clarify that I haven't seen the movie and that from the sound of it it sounds like an adolescent boy's intepretation of the novel.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap