Watchmen (Warning! SPOILERS! Just in case). I have no clue how to classify it, or how to begin to respond to it. It raises a ton of questions for me, not the least of which is who I'm supposed to root for. I mean, how am I supposed to enjoy a book/movie if I don't know who to cheer for (although I was always biased towards Rorschach and the Comedian. Pray for me?) What about Veidt (Ozymandias, the jerk that blows up NYC)? Was he right or wrong? The questions are related. I started rereading it the other day, and think I finally have a total answer (but would LOVE to hear other views on this, as I am rather biased)
Short response: Veidt's a knave, and Shach was ... "right". Loosely. I guess he was right in not caving in to Veidt's plan.
Long response: Veidt, the smartest man in the world, is also the biggest fool. He sacrificed millions for his dream of world peace (Note: I'm assuming that had he not acted, we would have kicked the commie's tails in a long, drawn out nuclear war), a dream that I feel is foolhardy. If you'll forgive me for quoting a robot from the future, Arnold says in T2 "it's in your natures to destroy yourselves. You cannot win." Sorry, I had to. But I think you'll also find a biblical basis for that (see Revelation). So, yeah. I think Veidt just postponed the war, or stopped the one. Regan stopped our cold war without nuking us (punny, huh? U.S.). If Veidt hadn't nuked NYC, I'd say he was the hero. But, as it is, he killed millions, to unite the world against the alien threat. But for how long? "Nothing ever ends." In that case, the Watchmen were cowards, excepting Rorschach, who did the right thing in attempting to give the world the truth.
That's kinda scary, putting that in writing. Rorschach as the hero. Or the most-kind-of-right-acting character. That's what I'm looking for this time through. I'll see if I agree after I finish.
Part 2 of tonight's post! Bastards. They're everywhere. Get used to it. Humph. Work's been a bit of a struggle. Moral dilemmas and all that. Here's one that presented itself to me today. Let us assume that a male, among other... colorful comments... he repeatedly and vulgarly appraises a woman, who, based on the way she dresses, acts, talks, and parties, would not mind said vulgaraties. Is the gentleman who witnesses this a coward for ignoring it? Should he have stopped it? Should he have hit him? Or prehaps thrown him into a conveniently placed cardboard crusher? What is his duty? The "dilemma" before was much simpler. "Do I go to the under-aged drinking party with a group of guys from work that I don't trust or particularly like?" Huzza for family being over to provide a ready excuse.
Anyway, that's that. It's 1:30, and I have to be up for bible at 8:30. So I can actually sleep tonight! Woot! Even with an annoying day at work, the evening was good. Watched Shawshanke Redemption (which made me homesick - last time I watched it in much better company. And the movie wasn't stopped every few minutes to rewind and hear a part again, and there was no commentary on it.) All the relatives are gone, so tomorrow shouldn't be that stressful.
- Why does Rorschach take his "face" off before he dies???
- Should a knight run over a foe who trips before his charge?
- How would you explain to your boss that you ran over his son with a pallet jack?
- When should one compromise?
"The way to love anything is to realize that it may be lost." - Chesterton
[SaD] Fool
No comments:
Post a Comment