Et In Arcadia Ego

After a tipoff from Friend 4, I'm happily wasting the evening on one of my favouite hobbies - the British Board of Film Classifcation. They've just changed their guidelines, and as a geek, this makes me very happy. Little upset that I missed their polls, but then again they probably want unbiased votes from random suckers on the street, not opinionated geeks.


> Uc has been got rid of as a catagory
I don't think anyone will miss it aside from me - I'm fairly sure most people didn't know it existed. I rather liked having it about, but its absence won't make any impact.

> "The introduction of ‘discrimination’ as a key classification issue in each of the categories covering race, gender, religion, disability or sexuality."
"spaz", for example, is going to be treated like a proper swear word. I don't think anyone can argue with this, at least in principle.

>"74 per cent or respondents understood that the ‘12A’ category means that the film is not generally suitable for under 12s."
I'm getting increasingly weary with 12A as a catagory. If 12A probably means that the film is not suitable for under 12s, then why not get rid of it entirely? I've advocated before that 15A would be a more helpful catagory. There's less change in your teenage years (15-18) than in the transition from childhood to teenager-ness (10-14). I remember being 15 when I was itching to watch Reservoir Dogs and The Good the Bad and the Ugly.

>"Clearer and more detailed information about what the Board takes into account when classifying works and when interventions (such as cuts) will be made and on what grounds"
This makes me very happy, but mostly from a geeky perspective. I've often been frustrated when looking up their database of classifications at the lack of detail given. Purely because I want to nerd over the BBFC decision-making process, but it's still a development I'm really looking forward to. Pity they probably won't retro-update it. I'm dying to know who thought Attack of the Cybermen was a U rated episode...

(IMO there was a single moment I felt it was pushing 12, so was very shocked to discover it wasn't even a PG. Now, you could accuse me of just being very sensitive - it was mostly surprise at its level of violence being NOT AT ALL being what I expected from 80s Who. But then, isn't that what this system is about? Classifying things so they are in line with expectation.)

>"Clearer and more detailed information about how the tone and impact of a film is taken into account, as opposed to simply considering what is actually shown on screen"
Brilliant, fascinating development! This fine tunes the blunt instrument which is the classification system. One of the examples given is The Others, rated 12, which they claim would have been considered for a higher rating. Very scary film, but completely lacking in naughty bits.I've no idea how they'll police this, as it depends so much on instinct, but this is definitely a great step forward. And indeed...

>"At the ‘12A’/’12’ category a tightening of the horror criteria. This is in line with the introduction of tone and impact."
Oh, I'm so happy about the new guidelines! I was losing my faith in the system, until now. Job with the BBFC is basically my number one dream, if you discount unlikely things.

>"At ‘U’, the relaxation of the Guideline on references to drugs to allow for references which are both infrequent and innocuous. Under the old Guidelines a documentary which mentioned the Opium Wars between Britain and China had to be passed at ‘PG’ for this single reference alone"
A.K.A. Don't follow the rules just beacause there are rules. It's nice to have to have "don't be stupid" enshrined in the Guidelines.

>"At ‘12A’/’12’ there will be a presumption against the passing of frequent crude sexual references. This is in response to concerns expressed by the public about films such as Date Movie, Meet the Spartans and Norbit"
I express concern about the existance of Meet the Spartans full stop.

>"At ‘15’, solvent abuse is now specifically mentioned as a classification issue and depictions are unlikely to be passed. This is in response, not only to public concern, but expert opinion"
Interesting. I'm not sure I've ever seen a movie with solvent abuse in it, so it's not something I've ever considered. Nice to see the experts getting a look in. The BBFC blames its haphazard governing of video games to a lack of expert opinion on how harmful they are. I'm looking forward to a proper study on that too.

>"Trailers and advertisements which are on the borderline between two categories be given the more restrictive rating because of the fact that the public has not chosen which trailers and advertisements to watch and because the BBFC has no control over which trailers or advertisements are shown before a particular film (eg a horror trailer before a ‘rom-com’). The exception will be public information films and charity advertisements where stronger material is acceptable to the public when there is a ‘public good’ justification."
Again, it's marvellous they're thinking about this. It's an area I only ever considered "in the moment".

>" At ‘18’ the Board will continue to maintain the right of adults to choose their own entertainment unless material is in breach of the criminal law; or the treatment appears to the BBFC to risk harm to individuals or through their behaviour, to society; or where there are more explicit images of sexual activity which cannot be justified by context. As part of the research, respondents were specifically asked about explicit images of real sex in main stream films like 9 Songs and the clear message was that these images were acceptable at ‘18’ because of the context in which they appeared.

This is the chief reason why I love the BBFC. They have a heroic commitment to this principle, and are unwilling to ban things without a very good reason - when they do, it's for a very good reason. Usually, the big censorship hammer comes smacking down on nasty hardcore torture-porn, or weird stuff like real execution videos, or instructions for growing your own drugs. Now when art is involved, I am always on the side of the artist. To an extent that sometimes disturbs even me - my normal concepts of morality, justice and compassion tend to shoot straight out of the window. I'll be the first to admit I get it wrong when it comes to getting that balance right - have I told you the story about the dog? I'm not typing it up in a public place if not.

The BBFC do get it right, however, balancing concerns for safety with a determined respect for the artist's right to depict whatever he likes. Additionally, they follow up any apparent instances of child exploitation or animal cruelty, and insist on cuts if they don't like what they find. Unlike the American equivalent, the BBFC has its priorities correct. Or to put it a little more kindly, the BBFC is in sync with what the British believe to be acceptable, as the MPAA reflects the concerns of America. That doesn't mean they can't be wrong, of course - in general, American ratings are far stricter on nudity and sex than on violence. Incorrect in principle if nothing else - one of those activities is natural and positive, the other is, well, tragically just as natural. But it's obvious which of sex or violence is the lesser crime, because one of them isn't actually a crime at all. Several works rated 15 here for violence got away with PG-13s across the pond, which worries me. But then, it's all about judging films for this country, so my criticism isn't really fair. America is far stronger in religious faith, and far more open to ideas like gun posession. Nevertheless, the MPAA is far more of a blunt instrument than the BBFC - for example, nudity is allowed at U over here so long as it is in a non-sexual context, yet is almost instantly hammered over there. Similarly, the BBFC is committed to not noticing the difference between heterosexual and homosexual behavior - a kiss is just a kiss, no matter who is doing the kissing. Unsurprisingly, the MPAA tend to rate one higher than the other. Again, this does reflect the social beliefs in the country which it protects so I have a certain degree of sympathy. But in the long run, these things have to change. Read the wikipedia page for more controversy.

All in all, these guidelines enshrine the future of a great, great institution which, unfortunately, won't hold CVs. Additionally:

"Unfortunately, we are unable to offer any work experience or work placement schemes, despite popular demand. This is because of the amount of highly sensitive, unclassified and age restricted material found lurking in the building at any one time! Staff at the BBFC undergo extensive training to deal with such material, and are all over 18."

This is accompanied by an image of "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" on the typewriter. Emphasise that everyone who works there is crazy, or something. How DO you get a job there, then? It's only a life aim of mine, and yet it seems to be virtually impossible. Ugh. Maybe my constant bleetings on the topic will attract someone's attention? I sometimes wonder whether I'm maybe too sensitive for it, and yet sitting in a room all day and getting knotty about the correct ratings is - well, I already do that.

Finally, I'm happy to see they're getting some heat for Dark Knight. This local report reveals a fact I did not know: they were close to giving it a 15. When they submitted it to their internal review panel, their board was healthily split. They get quite defensive in their 2008 report:

"As with recent years, there was one stand-out decision which generated the most number of complaints. Our decision to rate The Dark Knight ‘12A’ caused considerable media and public interest. Indeed, the two appeared to be very much entwined. We received 364 complaints about the rating for The Dark Knight, representing 42 per cent of all complaints received. The Dark Knight continued the trend for darker and grittier superhero movies, and dealt with themes such as vigilantism, summary justice and the compromise of civil liberties within its ‘comic book’ conventions. A number of viewers found this darker tone in sharp contrast to their previous experiences of the Batman franchise. However, the critical issue for many was that the weapon of choice for The Joker was the knife. Teenage knife crime was very much headline news throughout the year, and remains a strong public concern. The worry expressed by many of the complaints was that the ‘12A’ allowed very young children to watch this film, as long as they were accompanied by an adult. A few believed the film should have been an ‘18’; one or two wanted the film banned. The BBFC is always sensitive to concerns surrounding knife crime and youth violence, but it was clear that The Dark Knight did not condone or was likely to encourage violence or knife crime. In addition, many seem to have forgotten that ‘12A’ indicates that a film is suitable for those aged 12 and over. Parents or supervising adults minded to take under 12s to see The Dark Knight were directed to our robust Consumer Advice and Extended Classification Information for the film before doing so. The coverage of this decision gave considerable publicity for our content advice services. A later analysis of the public response to The Dark Knight revealed that less than 10 per cent of those who complained about the film's unsuitability for children actually accompanied children to screenings of the film. It was also clear from a number of letters and emails that the complainants were responding to press coverage of the decision and had not seen the film themselves. It may not be coincidental that most of the complaints were received in the same week that The Daily Mail ran their three day ‘campaign’ against the decision. Once media interest ceased, the complaints significantly declined although the film continued to be screened nationwide."

Oh, so the complaints weren't the BBFC's fault at all. It was the fault of people not understanding the BBFC catagories. And the rest - well, they were all reactionary Mail readers. I'd also challenge the piece I highlighted, that the film doesn't condone the Joker's behavior. It's the Mr Blonde factor - the Joker may be a baddie, but he's still cool. See those wearing T-Shirts with his face all over the place.

I'm gonna attempt to shut up about The Dark Knight now, because I sound like a record on repeat and because forgiveness is a gift and a virtue. They've got one wrong, time for me to move on. And plus, I do still adore the BBFC as an institution.

Reading the annual report is one of the little highlights of my year. It's always informative, witty, and has a tendency to belittle those who complain:

"An angry historian requested that we penalise films which were historically inaccurate by awarding a higher category. An amateur pornographer sought legal, practical and casting advice."

This also made me laugh:

"Almost every time Dame Judi swears in a film, regardless of its category, we can expect a number of complaints."

Aside from the fact any criticism is swiftly followed up by an excuse that the criticiser didn't actually see the film, is recieving medication, or simply didn't count, it's a good read, and I recommend you look it up on the SBBFC website if you have any interest in my pet subject. It contains details and justifications for their contested decisions and cuts. Where else could you learn that the Little Mermaid game once contained the line "I look like a spastic piece of kelp"? It offers an insight into the humanity of the reviewers too, when they point out that "bloody" harrumphed by an innocent old man in U-rated Dean Spanley is OK.

But oh, how do I get my dream job?

Interesting things to say about Strange Days. Remind me to say them. It's getting late, and the Flame is beginning to eat my brain again.

You're all probably aware that I'm a sucker for film classification system.

The BBFC have actually published an article about The Dark Knight's 12A rating. This is fascinating to me, because practically the first thing I said after coming out of the cinema was that "if this is a 12 then Ed Wood deserves an Oscar", dodging a 15 but for the grace of editing. I love and trust the BBFC, so I was suprised to see them do what I regard as a mis-step.

The BBFC are governed by rules, they have to be. But it's wrong to do that at the expense of the human hunch. They say:

Though these and other scenes in which characters were held hostage or
beaten had considerable psychological impact, they contained little in terms
of strong detail – thus presenting a dilemma, should the BBFC be classifying
what is actually seen, or what is imagined by the viewer?

I understand imagination is hard to police fairly, but it has to be taken into account. Ignoring content, The Dark Knight is, well, dark in terms of tone. What the Joker does is twisted and savage, and the film does not back off from it. In my first review, I noted it's been a long time since exploding buildings, bombs on public transport, terror campaigns or hostage taking was entertainment: long gone are the days of Die Hard (15). I'd even argue that it was one of the first mainstream movies to start doing this again, yet not with gleeful abandon, but a knowing nod to the audience "he's dressed up as a bat, but don't pretend you don't knows what this feels like". They don't say anything, but it's there in the room as it's written, performed, directed, viewed. We've all seen the hostage-tapes on the news, so while the fat-batman sequence is unpleasant and scary on its own merits, it has the added horror of personal experience for every member of the audience.

I'm not criticising it, as it was tastefully, brilliantly done. Yet, see the BBFC's response:

In the case of The Dark Knight several factors were noted which supported a
‘12A’ certificate. These included the film’s comic book style, the appeal of
the work to 12 –15 year olds, the clear fantasy context and the lack of
strong detail, blood or gore.

I strongly disagree with this. What comic book style? What fantasy context? The film knowingly draws on the personal experience of the audience, and is far closer to Heat (15) than it is to Batman Forever (12). And praised as such, for its realism. Even Watchmen(18) is more clearly comic-booky, both in tone and content. Yes it was based on a comic book*, but it was as far from four-colour fantasy as it could get. Admittedly, there was very little gore at all - but that's pure artifice on behalf of the editors, and behind them the production company keen to sell lunchboxes. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Disguising the claws and shielding the teeth can't hide the dark core of a 15 rated film.

*Imdb tells me the specific comic books included "The Killing Joke". It's clear there are no Batman fans at the BBFC, because that is one sick graphic novel....

My point is, this film did not disguise it's darkness for an instant. A comparison would be Last of the Timelords, in which the Master rules Earth for a whole year. The show, quite correctly, brushes straight over it: "oh, well he was a bad guy, so he was doing bad stuff". If you pay attention to the dialogue, give it five moment's thought, and suddenly your brain goes to some unbearably dark places about what he was actually up to for that whole time. And if you think my imagination is sick, that's nothing compared to the Master's genius for inventive destruction. One word: Brigadier.

That's how you do darkness for children. Don't ignore it, but don't dwell either. Dark Knight dwells. Even if you assume that contemporary parallels will be missed by the kiddies, there's something very unrelenting and cruel at the heart of the film.

OK, that's enough on themes. What, about what we actually see. Let's talk about the knife. Here's a quote from Malcassairo, discussing one of my candidates for most shocking Doctor Who moment of all time:

The BBFC don't like it because its a household object - that much closer and
copyable. But they're also scarier to watch - because imagining a gunshot is
abstract, most of us don't have a comparable experience; but we all know what it
is to catch our finger on a knife, the flesh, the blood, the moment before the
pain hits. Now imagine that, but bigger, and you have some very graphic detail
running through the minds of the kiddies at home. Watching him prowl around Peri
and Jamie with a massive shiny blade was terribly unsettling. Stabbing Oscar may
just be the most violent piece of violence in the show ever.

You'll note, at the time, I had faith in the BBFC's avowed knife policy. Let's talk about the guy who the Joker cuts a smile for. You get to see the blade go into the mouth as he's speaking. Unlike being threatened with a gun, which mercifully few of us will ever have to go through, we know the feel of a knife blade. Couple that with scary music and that performance - well, I know that I, gleeful Tarantino fan, swore under my breath and prepared to hide behind my fingers.

The fact the film cuts away to a falling body means nothing, because the audience know, see, feel exactly what happened. The BBFC, ironically, compare it to the Reservoir Dogs (18) ear slicing, at which I say EXACTLY. It's been noted before that not-seeing is often worse than seeing, and a majority of people remember the ear coming off - when in actual fact, the camera coldly averts it's gaze to a different part of the room. Any horror fan can tell you that the quantity of gore means nothing when it comes to the disturbing quality of a film. Things get in you brain and they stay there. What shocked me about the Doctor Who episode above is the moment Shockeye whacks the Doctor in the leg with a huge meat cleaver. It didn't matter that the BBC restrained themselves from soaking the set with an anatomically correct anime-spurt. Because I knew it was there.

They then drop the ball again for claiming "There are many examples of films at ‘12A’ which contain scenes which imply violence far stronger than seen onscreen (such as the torture scene in Casino Royale)". Casino Royale is the only other film on which I've ever strongly disagreed with the BBFC rating. Just because there is a precedent, it doesn't mean the precedent can't be fundimentally flawed.

So to recap, The Dark Knight is a film based on 9/11, in the style of Heat, with elements of Reservoir Dogs. Any other influences a concerned parent should be aware of? Yes. Saw (18). The Joker's nasty little traps, the Boat Scene, or giving Batman the choice between saving Harvey or Rachel. Or the mobile phone being sewn inside someone's stomach.

I went to a great talk by one of their film reviewers, and she said she could usually just feel what a rating is, even before noting down reasons. There's a reason I haven't compared The Dark Knight to a low rated movie yet. The first 12A movie was Spiderman, and it was introduced more or less because the company would have been in trouble if it didn't appeal to the kid audience. Even if you compare cute Peter Parker with his Mary Jane, to psychologically screwed up Bruce Wayne, everything from imagery to tone screams that these are two different animals.

It's about brand awareness. I knew, as did all the movie-buffs, that this was going to be dark. Can yout trust the average parent to not think "comic book movie!". This is why I got so cross about Casino Royale, because for many parents Bond means Roger Moore dashing about. Even the Pierce Brosnan Bond was basically light hearted. Casino Royale was a major departure for the series, just as Batman Begins was a departure for the super hero genre. They say:

The BBFC was also careful to ensure that additional advice was available to
parents and other moviegoers through the websites pbbfc and bbfc.co.uk. Both
sites included extended information about the film detailing how and why it was
classified ‘12A’ and urging parents to think carefully before taking youngsters
to see it.

This trusts your average parent to understand the system, to know 12A involves a choice, and do their own research. I saw no such urging, and as a censorship nut I would have noticed instantly. Your average parent thought "golly gazooks Batman", saw the number "12" and shrugged. 12A is a loophole, which allows kids of any age to get in, and is a betrayal of the BBFC's role. Their job is to make the decision. They freely acnowledge that the catagory is misunderstood by parents, so why is it still there?

Furthermore, this leaves the film languishing as a 12 for DVD release.

If anything, the rating to change is 18. When I was 12, I did not constantly gripe about not being able to watch high rated movies. But from 15 onwards, my life was a constant torment of 18-ratings I was mature enough to appreciate. Teens do have that right, that tension where some age quicker than others. There should be a leap between 12 and 15 rated films. One is for old kids, the other young adults. Between that there is the border between "child" and "adult", and thus suggesting it is by far the wrong floodgate to open. One final quote from the BBFC:

But it is important to set the complaints in the context of the number of people
who saw the film. In the case of The Dark Knight the 200 plus complaints
are a tiny proportion of the five million people plus who saw it in the
first two weeks after it opened.

Incorrect. 200 people actually wrote in. What of the others, who couldn't be bothered, who
forgot, who just aren't the writing in type? I almost wrote in. Batman Begins I will admit deserves its 12A rating. But The Dark Knight? That was not a film for 10 year olds. Any 10 year olds. I'm suprised it wasn't pushing 18.

Also, it's bloody brilliant and I need to see it again. Soon.

So, at seven in the evening a film studies friend, obviously having spotted the bloody-smiley I've been sporting all week, asked "Watchmen's been out all day, have you seen it yet?" No, but I was just on the way to the IMAX. He wasn't a big fan of 300 (Jesu, is it only me?), and commented "if it doesn't amount more to a pretty picture, then at least you want to see it on IMAX so it's a really pretty picture."

Fair assessment, but I knew like I've never had faith in anything before, that it had to be good.

The following review contains spoilers, please don't read it. Please scroll down past the red text to continue.

Quid dicam? This film could not have been better. That's not to say it's the best film I've ever seen, far from it. But as an adaptation of Watchmen, it is everything I hoped.

Every character inhabits their part perfectly, except maybe Ozymandeus and we'll come to that in a minute. Dr Manhattan is brilliantly realised - the little twitches of emotion on an emotionless face is just brilliant. Comedian and Rorschach, who I can only define as my two favourite things in the comic, are spot-on perfect. I mean, there's nothing more to say than that - they could have walked off the page. Ach, hell - everyone's good.

But Ozymandeus...Adrian Veidt of the books is such an all-American hero. He needs to be played by someone charasmatic, someone you know would jump out of a helicopter for you without even thinking. A young Robert Redford would be perfect. Now, Matthew Goode's intepretation was widely different to mine, incorrect if you ask me. Yet he did what he was trying to do very well, even if we disagree on characterisation, and I give him permission to play Dorian Gray whenever he likes.


The pacing was what I really worried about, and it's fine. The narrative constructs itself as a series of flashbacks, which is initially a little jarring, until you realise that's what it's doing. There are probably about 8 or 9 flashback sequences in the film, and they're there to colour the main narrative. And do so wonderfully. It's so deliberately episodic that it might have benefited from Tarantino style headings: "Mr White" and all.

As such, it's not so much a story constructed through plot but connections and symbols. Take the knowingly cliched soundtrack: Vietnam is scored to, what else, Ride of the Valykiries. President Nixon and his cabal plot nuclear war on the set of Dr Strangelove. We're operating in a parallel timeline, but the music instantly takes us back to our folk memory of our equivalent era - Sounds of Silence, Bob Dylan, 99 Luftballoons. And that's combined with things like Pat Buchanan and Andy Warhol, even more cultural icons, to let us know where we are. Just don't try and excuse the use of Hallejulah in a scene which was already pretty poor.

You don't even miss the squid. The concept of alien invasion works in the comic, because it's a comic about comics, and comics were always keen into their outer-space stories. It would have felt odd in the film. As an adaptation, this is how it's done, because it's so detail-rich and you know there was more. They lose half Rorschach's origin story, cut my favourite line, snip all over the shop - but the film still feels like a complete entity. I can't wait for the director's cut - apparently, there's going to be three ultimately: the two hours and forty minutes theatrical cut, the three hours and twenty minutes director's cut, and the four hours and thirty minutes ultimate cut, which has pretty much everything in there, including Tales of the Black Freighter.

But they did get some things wrong. I missed Hollis' death. I love both Nite Owls, and it's an important scene. The film could have easily been ten minutes longer to fit that in. With Hollis having been introduced, it's almost certainly been shot. They cut some of my favourite lines: I particularly missed Rorschach scolding Moloch for having a gun without a license. It cements the fact he sees all crime as equally wicked. Rorschach with the hacksaw? It was an awesome scene up until then, but it's not quite as twisted as what he does in the graphic novel (covers him in petrol, hands him a hacksaw, and advises him he probably shouldn't bother trying to cut through the handcuffs before pulling out a match). And the last fifteen minutes dropped the ball, horribly. They get to Karnak and...the ending has to be a kick in the gut. When I read Adrian use the phrase "half an hour ago" I dropped the book and burst into tears, justlikethat, in a way no comic has ever done, and very very few books. The film loses the impact, and I don't know why. And then you turn the page, and there's this full-page panel of a street filled with bodies and death. Then another, and another, and you just keep turning pages and there's nothing but death and silence. It's an awesomely powerful sequence, and an obvious candidate to keep - but they cut it. I don't understand why.

And they managed to make that whole bit at the end into one of those superhero endings which just keep fizzling in little events. It almost worked - particularly a key character claiming not to be a villain from a superhero comic. You could feel an indrawn breath across the whole audience, and this was an audience of fans, most likely all of whom had read the comic at least twice. But then they let the tension go again. The final scene of Laurie and Dan even lacked impact, and they needed about an extra 30 seconds to allow the true horror, genius and even meaning of Ozy's actions. In addition, I think the film was a little too overt in its condemnation of said actions. He's not a bad guy. I think it's telling that the last fifteen minutes were also those containing the most changes. It just lacks meaning, and it didn't feel real. Too rushed, I think.

A lot of people criticised it for a lack of depth. I understand them, to an extent - but it's only a film, and it did its best. And there were good changes too. It made sense for Ozymandeus to do the speaking at the meeting when Comedian burns the map. Although I missed Kitty's half of Rorschach's backstory, I appreciate it had to go - at that point in the film, the emphasis has to be on moving forward.

I mean, I'm only nitpicking because on the whole it was wonderful. Jesu, people! It's stayed true to the book's filthy darkness. Stylistically it's deliberately taken beats from the comic. The score is excellent - on the way to the IMAX, I kept thinking "I'm looking forward to the music", because I knew it had to ditch broad orchestrals in favour of electronica and ambient moodiness. Which it did, most of the time, to great effect. I'm listening to "Edward Blake - Comedian" at present, and it's taken obvious inspiration from Blade Runner. It's detail rich - you need several watches to take in the visuals, never mind the plot. Rorschach's mask - it's just so watchable. I particularly love it when it goes nuts. The hacksaw scene, the shapes just fly all over it. And when he gets thrown across the room, the shapes fly into chaos until he rights himself. The highlight of the film? Rorschach's escape from the apartment block. You're just rooting for him so, so, so much. Even those of us who know he's not going to make it.

Actually, I cried most of the way through. I kinda expected to, I intended to bring my Kleenex. This was more from enjoying it than anything else - I did that for Return of the King too - although it was occasionally because of what was on screen. I can't explain my love for the Comedian. I mean, he's obviously an irredeemable scumbag, but there's something about him. I like his psychology, treating the world as the joke. And his breakdown on Moloch makes me choke up in the comic, so no great suprise there. I didn't handle the ending well, I never do.
One of the first things J. said was "we're going to have to watch..." and yeh, that had crossed my mind too. We ALL know I take my fiction way, way to seriously, and when things go badly I always fall into a melancholy resembling genuine bereavement. It always happens. it sucks, but it happens, and I'm suggesting no one even tries contacting me for the first 48 hours after David Tennant's last episode airs, because I will be incoherent with grief and not all that much fun. It's ridiculous, really - because I know I'm going to overreact, yet can't prevent it from happening. Even more ridiculous, because I tend to take real-life bad news philosophically, when it's obviously easier to rationalise the necessity of fictional evil in tune to advancing the plot.

Things to look out for? In the comic, Rorschach muses that Adrian is possibly homosexual (with a distinctly disapproving tone) - if you keep your eyes peeled when Dan checks the floppy disk, one of the folders on it is labelled "boys". That made me chuckle. IMDB claims the graphic novel suggests Rorschach is gay, but that strikes me as very unlikely considering the distaste he regards sex with full stop, and also a pointless line of investigation: can you imagine Rorschach with a date? No, thought not. Rorschach also uses a Vedit aerosol when breaking out of Moloch's house. In the prison break, someone uses a wilhelm scream when they are dropped off a balcony. Finally, when Laurie and Dan are at the Gunga Diner, you can see pink triangles on the wall - surely they're the Gay Women Against Rape posters from the comic?


Interestingly, the Aint it Cool review has virtually identical things to say to me:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40339
And it's helped me to understand what was missing at the end. I am looking forward to


"Oh, and that when you go to see the movie this weekend, you won't be watching Jackie Earl Haley -- Jackie Earl Haley will be watching you."



Back for people unfamiliar with the plot - hello guys! Today I had a day off. I was still tired from the movie, and to be honest, a little emotionally drained too. In a bad place, where the only thing I could do was think about the film, and only sensible course of action to see it again. This happens with all my obsessions at least once, passing time until I can reasonably rewatch. To take my mind off the damn thing, I went for a long walk.

Last night, while ingesting large quantities of milk and getting morose about the movie, I suggested to Vapilla that I might make a cuddly Rorschach toy. Partly because I love R. and want to give him a hug. Partly because I'm aware of the adorable incongruity of him, being at once so sweet and lonely, and at the rest a sadistic, paranoid psychopath. This morning I went on a quest for felt squares - the internet found me a haberdashery in Camden, so I set off for a long walk. A lot of fun. I've made two legs and a body, and it's OK but not great. I'm enjoying creating it, that's what counts. It's very hard to make a character who is by definition wiry plump enough to be cuddly. Luckily, I think Vapilla wants one as well, so when I've finished mine I can excise all the mistakes I made first time around. The problem is, do I make him with a pink head of ginger hair and a removeable mask, or do I just make the mask into the head? And if I do a head, then what expression? I could try and replicate his...not sure what you'd call it. But the idea of giving him an incongrous smile is also appealing.

And I've settled down to what I believe is the most jarring aspect of the Watchmen movie, it's not in the spoilerific section because it's of general interest. Me back on my personal hobbyhorse: Too. Violent.

There are three types of movie violence, broadly speaking.

There's Type 1 "gore" - not very realistic, completely excessive, and designed to produce a football-supporter-style "phwoar!!" reaction. Planet Terror, 300 and Street Fighter are perfect examples. You are meant to visibly wince, and after the film it's appropriate to go "ah, you remember the bit where the guy's head went into the wood-cutter? That was gross, man!"

There's what we'll call Type 2 "kung-fu", although obviously it encompasses all sorts of fights - exciting, viceral, borderline video game, encompassing Star Wars, James Bond and The Matrix. This violence is meant to impress the skill of the fighters on you. Wounds tend to be shrugged off, as are natural reactions: you can be kicked six times in the gut and still be smiling in a Type 2 movie. And so can the audience.

And there's Type 3, "realistic". It's debateable whether Type 3 movies are meant to entertain or not - I believe that the vicarious enjoyment of cinema can be extended to very, very unpleasant scenarios as much as happy ones. But this third type sets out to disturb, not in a childish way like Type 1, but in a very real and horrible way.

And there are overlaps, of course - the jury is out on whether Reservoir Dogs is a type 3 "realistic" or a type 1 "gore". And I'll be interested if you can provide any films which don't fit into those three, random catagories I just plucked out of the blue, so I can refine my explanation.
Edit: The New Number Two has suggested a fourth type in the comments, and it is true I had restricted my three catagories to movies of the last twenty years. Daft, really, as my own example in the next paragraph wouldn't really fit into any of those catagories cosily.


It's all a problem of semantics, because I'd only actually call Type 3 violent. The most violent scene I've ever seen is in a PG. Our heroes have been kidnapped and lined up against a wall by Character A - except Character B, who's broken his leg, who is lying on a table next along. Character A wants information, but our heroes are naturally too hardass to say anything. So he saunters over the Character B, and just waits. Then he gently rolls the barrel of his gun up the broken leg - obviously intensely painful - and that's it. But it is _violence_ in it's purest form. No excitement, no blood. It's just such a threatening gesture.

Incidentally, The Departed is my favourite depiction of film violence of all time, because it is everything it can be, and I believe it expresses the experience better than any other film. It's thrilling, set to a pumping rock soundtrack - and I think there must be something of a thrill in real violence too, otherwise why would it happen, if it wasn't on some level fun? Yet it's also firmly type 3, because it's hard to watch. You want to join in, but you can't look. And every piece of violence in the film tumbles through this contradiction. It's very effective, and I like it a lot.

The point of this digression is to bitch about the violence in Watchmen. It's a nasty little book, and the world it's set in is just horrible. True, you're seeing it through the eyes of Rorschach who is undeniably paranoid, and regards humanity as crooked and flawed. I was cheered, then, that it was going to be an 18 because this film needs to be nasty.

Bit of a disappointment, because the violence was defiantly Type 1. Cartoonish, bloody and totally OTT. Every time soemthing nasty happened, there was an audible wince from the audience. It jolted you out of the film because type 1 gore is dehumanising. J. said to me afterwards, the worst part was the knife going through the woman's leg.I replied that it wasn't that at all - it was the knife going through a leg, not the woman's leg. The fact it was her as opposed to anyone else was irrelevant.

Yes, it was unpleasant but Zack Snyder had never sat back and considered why he was using this violence, what was the purpose. Why, in a film otherwise so grounded in reality, was everything so luridly vicious? Why couldn't it have been a nasty 18, instead of just a splatterific one? From the bone-crunching way the fights were filmed, to the actual colour of the blood, there was something just wrong. Hyper-real, and wrong. It was this aspect, more than anything else (and the fact they cut out my favourite bit), which disappointed me.