Before Watchmen: somehow even worse than I imagined

[sadoeuphemist]

I haven't read Before Watchmen, because fuck that, but William Leung pointed this out over in his review:
http://hoodedutilitarian.com/2013/05/who-whitewashes-the-watchmen-part-2/






The article itself I feel is pretty iffy in a lot of places, but good lord just those images on their own. How could anyone possibly think this was a defensible creative decision?

Comments

[xammax]

You know I am fine with the idea that you don't want to read something and that you think it won't be for you.

However if you have decided to criticize something. Reading it might help.

[sadoeuphemist]

I'm criticizing these specific panels right here, and the decision to make Laurie's fight scene a visual callback to her mother's rape.

I criticize Before Watchmen as a whole on a moral basis, not an artistic one, although I have not seen or heard anything about it that was artistically compelling either.

[theflames]

The visual parallels to *me* read like Cooke juxtaposing the use of violence by 'heroes' and the paths they can lead to. The original Watchmen had a lot of its heroes follow a 'might makes right' approach to things (as does the entire superhero genre, only awkwardly pretending that they don't) and I see these panels as a dark way of looking into that. A heroes use of violence for 'justice' and a heroes use of violence for personal gain.

It's most definitely not glorifying the Comedians rape crimes.

[sadoeuphemist]

I dunno, how is taking out a weird pimp drug dealer in his sexy den a "dark way of looking into" superheroism?

[jlbarnett]

it's only awkward when they insist on matching heroes against each other. Put a conqueror or a murderer into it and it's not awkward at all.

[mrstatham]

The article raises some very, very good points, and it's almost put me off buying the eventual TPB of the Minutemen/Silk Spectre stories, but I'll still buy them just so I can actually say I did and not run into that slightly iffy 'whining about things I haven't read' syndrome, even if I just end up selling the book on ebay or whatever.

But I don't think the book entirely sets out to rehabilitate the Comedian's character - at least not in the panels presented. 'Caring and paternal', to me, doesn't entirely strike me as what he's doing in those panels, really, and in some messed up sense it's probably the same kind of duality - or just plain old complexity and depth - that leads him to point the finger at Manhattan when he murders the Vietnamese woman in cold blood; There's at least some twisted sense of responsibility in Blake, which is furthered with the almost jaw-dropping 'only once' panel in the original book, which speaks about his level of morality - as entirely fucked up as it is. Furthermore, when it comes to the idea of Sally 'using' Blake as some manner of 'secret weapon' to keep her daughter safe - the original book offers up an untold level of complexity in terms of their relationship to begin with - one that seems to go back and forth, almost, so I don't know it's out of place for Cooke to suggest this.

If anything, the miniseries directly dealing with Blake entirely destroys his character by actually making him chummy with Moloch before Blake suddenly turns up knowing what Veidt has done - from what I remember seeing on here - and not only that, but entirely removing any sense of ambiguity over whether or not the Comedian was responsible for JFK's assassination - which was ironically one of the things I hated about the film, too, because it went in entirely the opposite direction.

I *do* think the parallels betwen Blake raping Sally and Laurie fighting are interesting, given that is something of a subject Moore touches upon in the original book, but I think the idea could be executed far better, from the look of things. I also had to openly scoff, I'm afraid, at the comparisons between Cooke's work on these series and the Watchmen movie. They can defend the film all they like, but Laurie was even worse off in that film than she was in the book, given Snyder just had to ladle gratuitous slo-mo violence and pathetically fanservicey sex scenes all over the film. I also think it's blatantly unfair to write off Cooke as they do based on just these series; They can put Moore on a pedestal and champion his efforts all they look there, too, but even he's churned out some shit in his time. For every Watchmen, there's a Badrock/Violator miniseries. For every Parker adaptation from Cooke, there's apparently Before Watchmen.

[halloweenjack]

I can recommend Minutemen and Silk Spectre; it's debatable as to whether they're necessary to appreciating the original story more (I don't think so) or enjoyable purely as fanfic by professionals (I do think so), but at the very least they're leagues better than the other entries in the series.

[mrstatham]

Minutemen in particular looked particularly lovely, but then I'm drawn to stuff Cooke has illustrated - I think his Parker adaptations are stunning, honestly - and I've always liked Amanda Conner, anyway. As I say, I was planning on buying it and then selling it on if I didn't like it; I get the feeling I'll probably like it, but then I'm not expecting the second coming from it, I guess - which seems to be the problem with these stories being associated with the Watchmen brand and the esteem with which the original story is held.

[icon_uk]

Those were the two I got as well (I tried Nite-Owl and Oxymandius, but they didn't grab me), though I also enjoyed the Dollar Bill one shot, mostly for the Steve Rude art.

[darkknightjrk]

Actually, I think one of my favorite things about the Comedian mini was the fact that they didn't have him pull the trigger. It twists your expectations, and it continues a character trait that Moore established--that Eddie's whole goal in life is to gain as much power as he can, to be important; and what better way to do that in the time period the book was about then to be chummy with Camelot?

[mrstatham]

I just think I appreciated the sense of ambiguity about it during the scene where Laurie confronts him; If he did do it, then it's another mark against him and another indicator that he's entirely lost, having assassinated someone who could have made America so much better for everyone. If he didn't, then he's still morally lost and it's still a mark against him because he's joking and palling around with people who seem to be all too happy that Kennedy's gone. So.. I just appreciated that, and the mini and the film, with their contrasting answers, just kind-of spoiled that, for me.

[fahrbotdrusilla]

I liked her book but, dear god, when I read that part I was like "that's just too far with the parallels"

[protogarrett]

Yep.

[halloweenjack]

I don't think that it's either revisionist or patriarchy-friendly to assert that Laurie is as much her father's daughter as she is her mother's, and contrary to Leung's claim that Cooke's story is "a chest-thumping, pedantic valorization of men and fathers" (Leung certainly has no business labeling anyone else as pedantic), it's just following up on some of the things that Moore and Gibbons' original story put forth. The last thing that Laurie says in the book, right after the tearful reconciliation with her mother (funny how Leung left this bit out) is, to Dan, regarding their possible resumption of costumed crime-fighting: "'Silk Spectre's' too girly, y'know? Plus, I want a better costume, that protects me; maybe something leather, with a mask over my face... Also, maybe I oughtta carry a gun." Who does that sound like to you?

[icon_uk]

And given what a complete and utter bastard Comedian is shown to be, I don't see it as a "valorization of men and fathers", The closest thing to being a father than Comedian does is disapprove of her boyfriend (for something that's not actually his fault) and does so by kidnapping and threaten to murder him in cold blood.

The bit about Eddies treatment of Greg also misses the point completely. The letter that has the "make a man of me" bit is one that Eddie composed and forced Greg to write AT GUNPOINT. He doesn't give a shit about Greg, or want to see him become a better person, he sends an avowed pacifist to the frontlines of the freaking Vietnam war, if he wants anything for him, he wants him DEAD.

[sadoeuphemist]

I would argue that it is both inherently revisionist and patriarchy-friendly to say she is as much her father's daughter. In Watchmen, she did not view Edward Blake as a father, she thought that he was a terrible person, and the discovery that he was her biological father sent her into a miniature nervous breakdown. She is not her father's daughter and never was, in any way except biologically, and for the story to end with her wanting to emulate him even further is a radical departure from the original story.

I mean really, how is Laurie wanting to be more like the Comedian NOT patriarchy-friendly? Even if the point is that the man is a terrible person, it emphasizes that kids will follow in their father's footsteps rather than the mother's.

[ensiform]

Perhaps it's not that she WANTS to be more like her father; perhaps it's that she's her father's daughter, whether she likes it or not. She got into the game her parents did (dress-up violence), and their choices are recurring again in hers, even if she doesn't realize it.

I think the original book made it very clear that there is not a black-and-white yes-no decision to make here. Laurie found her mother embarrassing and some of her choices morally ambiguous, and hated the Comedian for reasons she didn't understand, but at the end found a great deal of good in her mother and even came to realize that her mother valued the Comedian for some of his actions, and that he had his good points too. I think approaching something as complex as Watchmen with the view that Comedian = bad! isn't going to help your understanding of it.

[darkknightjrk]

I think what both stories are trying to say is that while Laurie hates her biological father, she is a lot like him in a lot of ways. Sally was more of superhero in name only, only doing press stuff, whereas Eddie was a lot more violent and enjoyed it. Part of Laurie's story, along with Dan's, is that they never felt more alive than they were when they were dressing up in skin-tight costumes and beating the shit out of people.

Of course, Minutemen did give Sally a lot more bite in at least one respect, but I think the point stands.

[big_daddy_d]

Something that always bugged me is that after the attempted rape, why did the original Silk Spectre have an affair with the Comedian? Was this some sort of Luke and Laura thing?

[darkknightjrk]

I think what the book implied (and Before Watchmen helped further cement) was that despite the encounter, they found some sort of chemistry with each other later on in life. Like Sally says later on--the more time goes past, the more that past, even the worst parts of it, seem better than it was today.

That said, who's Luke and Laura?

[big_daddy_d]

A popular couple from a soap opera. Years ago Luke raped Laura, yet later she actually fell in love with him and the two married and have children.

[cyberghostface]

What issues dealt with that aspect? The Silk Spectre miniseries?

[jlroberson]

I agree with both of the posts. And the stuff by Cooke he targets even I didn't mind so much. In the first post he has a lot to say about the treatment of homosexuality in MINUTEMEN, something that had itched at me when I read it. Basically, that Cooke treats lesbianism as a fetish for straight men(and tragic to boot) and gayness as pathology or weakness. This is so.

Money quote:
"Just as lesbianism is treated as a straight romantic fetish, so male homosexuality is treated as an object of abomination. Bizarrely, Cooke appears to think that romanticizing lesbianism has earned him a license to gay bash with impunity. While Moore’s Nelson Gardner/Captain Metropolis and Hooded Justice were hardly paragons of virtue,[vii] nothing in Watchmen prepares one for the hatchet job done on them in Minutemen. Cooke has rehashed almost every negative gay stereotype in his jaundiced revision of these characters. Nelson is a nincompoop, a publicity whore, a drama queen, a pillow biter; Hooded Justice is a sadist, a murderer, a rapist, a suspected serial paedophile. Cooke has no interest in exploring or understanding these men’s history, relationship and psychology. Instead, every book puts forward sensational scenarios to consolidate their corruption, hypocrisy and monstrosity..."

He also points out the scene where Ursula begs Jesus for his love. When I read that originally, it made me sick, because it assumed Ursula was somehow ashamed of who she was. Thing is, everything else you know about her says that could not be the case. It's yet another example of a very old strategy in entertainment: sure, you could be gay, but your life will either be sad or horrifying, that you've seen in countless films and other media. THE CHILDREN'S HOUR comes to mind in this case, or SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.

PS

[jlroberson]

I'm rather surprised, in fact, that wasn't the post you drew people's attention to. As damning as the treatment of Laurie is, the treatment of homosexuality in MINUTEMEN, is even more so. And represents an almost direct inversion of Moore's treatment of the subject and its place in the original (real) narrative. That's, in fact, a subject I think is especially ripe for a Scans Daily dissection.
For those interested:
http://hoodedutilitarian.com/2013/05/who-whitewashes-the-watchmen-part-1/
And one thing too: throughout WATCHMEN the Comedian is not treated as at all a likeable or admirable character. Much as nobody would want to be Rorschach--the idea of him being that someone fighting an endless war on crime would end up a filthy, antisocial psycho with no friends--nobody would want to be the rapist war criminal bully assassin that is the Comedian. The whole point of him is a deconstructing of the Nick Fury type. At the end he's not so much tragic as simply broken, pathetic.
What happens throughout BEFORE WATCHMEN? The Comedian, treated as a badass. In his own part of the thing, Azzarello basically MAKES him Nick Fury, and makes him friends with the Kennedys, and a figure with a moral conscience. And give him tragic dimensions. ALSO undoing everything Moore did.
It tells you a lot about both the thinking behind this thing, and the way DC editorial thinks as well.

Re: PS

[sadoeuphemist]

Well like I said above, I haven't actually read Before Watchmen aside from a couple of pages here and there online. I was linked to that article by the very same image I posted. It's just so completely blatant that the sheer insanity of comparing a woman crime-fighting, to her mother being raped by her father, stands on its own. Regarding the treatment of homosexuality, that's much more dependent on context, and I don't feel comfortable making that argument without actually having read the books themselves.

Although yeah I do hope that everyone who appreciates the article reads part one too, it's linked right at the top of the second half.