Hello all:
I have reached a crossroads in my life. After this Spring, nothing will ever be the same again. I know that I will not find the same happiness that I currently do with the simple things in life. A baby's smile...a dog's wagging tale...Namby's mocking laughter...no, there are things that will forever change for me after this Spring.
I have fought it for as long as I can. I have struggled not to have to go down this dark path of oblivion, but with my life being the way it is, I have no choice. As an attorney working the hours that I work and having the quality of life that I have, it is inevitable that I would be forced to make this most distasteful, life altering, and most likely foolhardy decision-the most foolhardy that I have ever made.
I know that my decision will haunt me for the rest of my days, that I will be consumed by the beast that I intend to unleash, and that my decisions today will, in all likelihood, cost me many of the friendships that I now enjoy. I know that, after this Spring, my parents will not recognize me, my brother will likely curse my name, and all others will wonder whatever happened to the sweet-natured guy who was so easy going-the guy who was always there for you.
As I said, I have fought against this decision for months. It has been a difficult time, but in the end, I give up and give in. I cannot fight it anymore. I must embark on this dark path, and I fear that will never return. Let my blog be a lasting memorial to the person that I was, and I hope that some of you will be able to help me through the hell that is to come. I liken this to Frodo's journey-though he survived, he never truly healed from the wound inflicted by the Nazgul on Weathertop. I know that that wound is soon in my future, and all I can do is suck it up and hope for the best.
So what is this dark path that I am taking? Why will I turn into an obsessed person who will soon be a cursing fool (where at present I loathe to curse)? What is the fundamental aspect of my nature that I will be changing for all time?
I am taking up golf. May God have mercy on my soul.
(Betcha thought I was going somewhere COMPLETELY different, didn't you? :-)
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Apparently, I am on The List...and it Feels Pretty Good...
People who know me know that I am a big goofball. I love my childish things, and I love toys (both big boy and small kid) to the point where I have waaaay too many action figures in my collection and a lot of electronics to boot. I love to cook and bake, I love excellent wine and wine tastings, but I am never above a rousing game of Rock Band or a viewing of Futurama. Things being what they are, it is no surprise that people who are my friends see me in a certain way, a persona that is veerrry different from that which is my face in the working world.
At work, I cease being Artful and I become DR. BLOGGER. I refrain from speaking in Yoda's voice and do everything with purpose and confidence. I write briefs, answer patent examiners questions, confer with inventors and in-house counsel on a daily basis, lunch with partners, and interact with the staff on a boss-employee level (but always with respect, as the Artful Mom taught me). Somewhere between my condo filled with plastic electronic drum kits and the 32nd floor of the high rise where my office sits, with a view of downtown Chicago towards the lake, I transform from Artful to Dr. Blogger. I don't know what it is, but Dr. Blogger gets a lot more respect from people where Artful would not even get a second glance. Doors open, people respond, and things that I ask for get done.
Of course, it is strange to think that all of this is true. I am always the same person. That is fundamental and does not change. What changes is the public face because unfortunately, in the working world, such a demeanor is necessary to be taken seriously. There are, however, people who view Dr. Blogger in ways that they would never view poor, hapless Artful, so neatly personified in my Opus icon.
What do I mean? Well, this weekend I was dining with a few work colleagues. I had judged a legal competition, and we had decided to grab some food afterward. I hardly ever hang out with coworkers, so this was a welcome treat for me. So there we were, a male coworker and a female coworker and I, sitting down to dinner and wine. After a couple of hours, a few courses and a LOT of wine, the conversations became a little more...a...open. I, of course, was pretty sober. My coworkers...not so much. We started talking about the office and the people therein, as many coworkers do when they are out and about. I wondered aloud how people thought of me and expressed my fervent hope that I was not viewed as some kind of a-hole. The female co-worker rapidly disavowed me of that notion and, simultaneously, made my year.
Female co-worker: "Artful, really, you have nothing to worried about. Everyone at the firm really likes you."
Artful: "I don't buy that. I don't know everyone at the firm."
FCW: "Well, they know you or at least, they know OF you."
Artful: "Ooookaay-what the heck does that mean?"
FCW (after 6 glasses of Riesling, mind you): "Well come ON, Artful. You KNOW that you are on THE LIST!!!"
Artful: ". . . . . "
FCW: "You KNOW-THE LIST!" (pause) "Oh....maybe I should not say anything else..."
Artful (thinking that it is something bad now): "No, no...I can take it. Am I on the list of office a-holes?"
FCW: "Hardly-see, sometimes the female attorneys and some of the female staff get together for drinks and we discuss things, and we made a list of..."
Artful (thinking the suspense unbearable): "OF WHAT???"
FCW: "of the male attorneys we want to get into bed with."
Silence around the table. FCW rapidly blushes and turns beet red. I, on the other hand, immediately get a giant grin on my face. Hot damn...maybe there IS something to the whole confidence thing after all. I mean, I would never act on it, but it is damn flattering to be objectified in THAT way after toiling way in the kingdom of the nerds for so long.
The silence was broken by male co-worker
MCW: "So how many people are on the list?"
FCW (now choosing her words carefully): "Ten"
MCW: "And where, exactly, is Artful?"
FCW: "Oh...umm...top 5." At this point, I was doing the Snoopy dance in my head-once again, not because I would ever act on it but because people considered me that attractive when I am in business mode.
MCW: "Where am I on the list?"
FCW: "Oooo...ummm...you aren't."
Would it be wrong to say that that statement made me even happier? Yes, sometimes, I can be that shallow. In the end, I recognize it for what it was. The Artful who plays video games and sits around in jeans and a sweatshirt was not the object of affection; it was Dr. Blogger, the professional patent attorney who is strong and forceful and gets things done.
But which one is the real me?
At work, I cease being Artful and I become DR. BLOGGER. I refrain from speaking in Yoda's voice and do everything with purpose and confidence. I write briefs, answer patent examiners questions, confer with inventors and in-house counsel on a daily basis, lunch with partners, and interact with the staff on a boss-employee level (but always with respect, as the Artful Mom taught me). Somewhere between my condo filled with plastic electronic drum kits and the 32nd floor of the high rise where my office sits, with a view of downtown Chicago towards the lake, I transform from Artful to Dr. Blogger. I don't know what it is, but Dr. Blogger gets a lot more respect from people where Artful would not even get a second glance. Doors open, people respond, and things that I ask for get done.
Of course, it is strange to think that all of this is true. I am always the same person. That is fundamental and does not change. What changes is the public face because unfortunately, in the working world, such a demeanor is necessary to be taken seriously. There are, however, people who view Dr. Blogger in ways that they would never view poor, hapless Artful, so neatly personified in my Opus icon.
What do I mean? Well, this weekend I was dining with a few work colleagues. I had judged a legal competition, and we had decided to grab some food afterward. I hardly ever hang out with coworkers, so this was a welcome treat for me. So there we were, a male coworker and a female coworker and I, sitting down to dinner and wine. After a couple of hours, a few courses and a LOT of wine, the conversations became a little more...a...open. I, of course, was pretty sober. My coworkers...not so much. We started talking about the office and the people therein, as many coworkers do when they are out and about. I wondered aloud how people thought of me and expressed my fervent hope that I was not viewed as some kind of a-hole. The female co-worker rapidly disavowed me of that notion and, simultaneously, made my year.
Female co-worker: "Artful, really, you have nothing to worried about. Everyone at the firm really likes you."
Artful: "I don't buy that. I don't know everyone at the firm."
FCW: "Well, they know you or at least, they know OF you."
Artful: "Ooookaay-what the heck does that mean?"
FCW (after 6 glasses of Riesling, mind you): "Well come ON, Artful. You KNOW that you are on THE LIST!!!"
Artful: ". . . . . "
FCW: "You KNOW-THE LIST!" (pause) "Oh....maybe I should not say anything else..."
Artful (thinking that it is something bad now): "No, no...I can take it. Am I on the list of office a-holes?"
FCW: "Hardly-see, sometimes the female attorneys and some of the female staff get together for drinks and we discuss things, and we made a list of..."
Artful (thinking the suspense unbearable): "OF WHAT???"
FCW: "of the male attorneys we want to get into bed with."
Silence around the table. FCW rapidly blushes and turns beet red. I, on the other hand, immediately get a giant grin on my face. Hot damn...maybe there IS something to the whole confidence thing after all. I mean, I would never act on it, but it is damn flattering to be objectified in THAT way after toiling way in the kingdom of the nerds for so long.
The silence was broken by male co-worker
MCW: "So how many people are on the list?"
FCW (now choosing her words carefully): "Ten"
MCW: "And where, exactly, is Artful?"
FCW: "Oh...umm...top 5." At this point, I was doing the Snoopy dance in my head-once again, not because I would ever act on it but because people considered me that attractive when I am in business mode.
MCW: "Where am I on the list?"
FCW: "Oooo...ummm...you aren't."
Would it be wrong to say that that statement made me even happier? Yes, sometimes, I can be that shallow. In the end, I recognize it for what it was. The Artful who plays video games and sits around in jeans and a sweatshirt was not the object of affection; it was Dr. Blogger, the professional patent attorney who is strong and forceful and gets things done.
But which one is the real me?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Like the Finer Things Club, but Better
Last night was the first meeting of the Wednesday Night Club. In attendance were Daisy, PAG, the Alleged Lady, the Namby Pamby, and the Wayward Esquire. There will be many funny stories (I am sure) recounted in the blogs of my fellow bloggers, but this one story that I will recount requires a little background first.
Background Part I: The Esquire, Daisy, PAG and I attended the wedding of a friend of ours in the mecca of Rockford, IL last September. At the reception, our table was the most boisterous thanks to some hi jinks on the part of myself and the Esquire. Right as our 12 year-old level humor was cracking up the entire table (except for PAG and Daisy, who looked on in embarrassment), a gentleman named "Mr. Wizard" took center stage. He was a children's entertainer and told the story of the courtship of the wedded couple through a fairy tale complete with..props...Mr. Wizard proceed to tell the story of a man looking for a furry animal in the dense forest-and that was merely the first of many double entendres and phallic shaped instantly inflated balloon props that sent our table (already laughing over other things) over the edge. Our friends, the bride and groom, watched Mr. Wizard in stunned silence, but I must say it was the best entertainment I have ever witnessed at a wedding. I am still laughing at the memory as I type this.
Background Part II: When we gathered at the watering hole last night, Daisy joked that her mother had asked if her VERY SOUTHERN and old fashioned grandmother would be..OK...with me attending the wedding. You know, 'cause I am an Indian and all of that. We both laughed a little at that because Daisy has told her grandmother about me, and between my love of the novel "Chiefs" as well as through other things, I know that her grandmother would be fine with me (something that did not stop the Alleged Lady from wickedly suggesting that she and I share a deep and soulful interracial kiss right in front of Grandma Duke). Still, I took it for what it was-Daisy and I laughing about me not being allowed to enter the grounds because of my color. I joked that I could maybe park cars and that I might make some good tip money if people mistake me for a member of the wait staff.
Now we come to why you needed the background. As we were all discussing the wedding, I joked to Daisy "maybe you should invite Mr. Wizard." Predictably, Daisy, PAG, the Esquire, and myself started chortling as we all remembered the experience at the last wedding. UNPREDICTABLY, the largest laugh at my suggestion came from the Namby Pamby. As he recovered from his laughter, doubled over and all, I waited until he caught his breath.
Artful: "Wait, do you know the story of the wedding where there was that kids' entertainer Mr. Wizard?"
Namby: "Oh no! I thought you were suggesting that Daisy invite the KKK Wizard-you know, with it being the South and all."
Cue renewed laughter on all sides at the images of TWO visions in white at Daisy's wedding and a renewed discussion of the merits of "Blazing Saddles."
Background Part I: The Esquire, Daisy, PAG and I attended the wedding of a friend of ours in the mecca of Rockford, IL last September. At the reception, our table was the most boisterous thanks to some hi jinks on the part of myself and the Esquire. Right as our 12 year-old level humor was cracking up the entire table (except for PAG and Daisy, who looked on in embarrassment), a gentleman named "Mr. Wizard" took center stage. He was a children's entertainer and told the story of the courtship of the wedded couple through a fairy tale complete with..props...Mr. Wizard proceed to tell the story of a man looking for a furry animal in the dense forest-and that was merely the first of many double entendres and phallic shaped instantly inflated balloon props that sent our table (already laughing over other things) over the edge. Our friends, the bride and groom, watched Mr. Wizard in stunned silence, but I must say it was the best entertainment I have ever witnessed at a wedding. I am still laughing at the memory as I type this.
Background Part II: When we gathered at the watering hole last night, Daisy joked that her mother had asked if her VERY SOUTHERN and old fashioned grandmother would be..OK...with me attending the wedding. You know, 'cause I am an Indian and all of that. We both laughed a little at that because Daisy has told her grandmother about me, and between my love of the novel "Chiefs" as well as through other things, I know that her grandmother would be fine with me (something that did not stop the Alleged Lady from wickedly suggesting that she and I share a deep and soulful interracial kiss right in front of Grandma Duke). Still, I took it for what it was-Daisy and I laughing about me not being allowed to enter the grounds because of my color. I joked that I could maybe park cars and that I might make some good tip money if people mistake me for a member of the wait staff.
Now we come to why you needed the background. As we were all discussing the wedding, I joked to Daisy "maybe you should invite Mr. Wizard." Predictably, Daisy, PAG, the Esquire, and myself started chortling as we all remembered the experience at the last wedding. UNPREDICTABLY, the largest laugh at my suggestion came from the Namby Pamby. As he recovered from his laughter, doubled over and all, I waited until he caught his breath.
Artful: "Wait, do you know the story of the wedding where there was that kids' entertainer Mr. Wizard?"
Namby: "Oh no! I thought you were suggesting that Daisy invite the KKK Wizard-you know, with it being the South and all."
Cue renewed laughter on all sides at the images of TWO visions in white at Daisy's wedding and a renewed discussion of the merits of "Blazing Saddles."
Sunday, March 15, 2009
My Love-Hate Relationship With Facebook
It all started my first year of law school. I was sitting in class (paying attention), and I noticed that many of my fellow first years were fixated on this web page that had photos on it. I was able to pick up the name of the application-something called Facebook. Back then, one had to have a university-based e-mail address in order to sign on (translation-no old people), but since I was able to slip under this barrier as a 34 year old graduate student, I decided to see what the fuss was about. What I discovered was a true monument to...well..MONUMENTS. A place for people to have their space a la My Space but better organized. A site where people could indulge the hidden (and not-so-hidden) voyeurs that resided within and at the same time could brag about how great they looked, the relationships they were in, and how many people were their "friends." I remember waiting on pins and needles for some people to accept my friend requests (I know, lame, but remember that law school is, in the words of Ms. Sharpe, "like high school with alcohol"), and I remember the brief feeling of self worth when one was accepted. Of course, nothing was better than RECEIVING a friend request because that just meant that someone WANTED to be your friend to the point of SEEKING YOU OUT! Quite the ego stroke.
Now, over time, I started doing a few more things through Facebook. It was a great way to keep track of people's birthdays, so I made it a point to attempt to stay up and be the FIRST person to wish them Happy Birthday. I started using the Event application to set up movie viewings and invite people to the annual Halloween blow-out. I also LOVED writing on people's walls. It was a nice way to communicate and get communication back. And then...it started becoming the BEST way to procrastinate. I wasted untold hours on Facebook...checking every 5 minutes or so because SOMETHING had to have changed, right? My friends grew from 10 to 100 to over 200 quite quickly. Do I really KNOW all of these people? No. I had put up so many pictures from my various events that I never stopped to consider how much of my privacy I had willingly given up for the sake of feeling good about my ego. I started to realize that Facebook makes it TOO easy not to maintain personal contact. I have this theory that man only ventured from his cave because he needed to find food and companionship. With the advent of the internet, after millenia of evolution, man has finally reached the point where he need never leave his cave. We have Peapod for groceries and Amazon for everything else. Facebook covers the social needs of man quite well (as do MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft). While all of this technology makes keeping in touch with people "easier", is that necessarily a good thing? Are we losing the ability to personally interact?
A few weeks ago, when I was contemplating the cessation of my blog (not gonna happen, so you are all stuck with my rants), I actually removed my Facebook profile for a week. Just a week. See, Facebook had tried to change the terms of use to read that they owned ALL of the content that we put on their site. I relented however, as having a minimal profile on Facebook with no pictures and even less information proved to be less taxing than fielding e-mails from people wondering why I "de-friended" them when, in fact, I had not. I did, however, vow to not depend on Facebook for most social interaction. I abhor communication strictly via text or internet. I understand that sometimes, this is more convenient for both parties, but I feel that it should be done as a means of last resort as opposed to the first option. I will admit that I was flattered when so many people wrote on MY wall for my birthday, and I made it a point to individually contact each person in turn to thank them (none of this blanket "thanks to everyone for their birthday greetings!" status nonsense). However, I am not going to do it anymore myself: no more wishing anyone Happy Birthday on Facebook. It is my own thing, and I do not begrudge anyone who does it. Maybe I am just being old fashioned, but I need to take a stand. Technology is forcing me to withdraw more and more from social interaction.
Now, what is amusing about this post is what happened after I started writing it. You see, I went to work early this morning to get some work done. After 4 hours at the office, I (yup) checked Facebook and found that one of my friends from high school was in town for a wedding and was in my neighborhood to boot! Thanks to Facebook, I was able to meet up with my friend and we talked as if 20 years had NOT passed since the last time we saw each other (ouch-I am old). It also turned out to be a business write off, as the husband of the couple whose wedding my friend was in town for is founding a software company in Chicago and needs an IP attorney. Can you say "business lunch"? In truth, my afternoon was only made possible by Facebook, for it was via Facebook that I was able to find her and, eventually, meet in Chicago when she lives in Raleigh, NC. I now have an open invite to stay with her and her husband the next time I am in Raleigh, and I extended the same invitation to her and her husband the next time THEYare in Chicago.
Maybe Facebook is a good thing in moderation. I dunno. Do you have any thoughts?
Now, over time, I started doing a few more things through Facebook. It was a great way to keep track of people's birthdays, so I made it a point to attempt to stay up and be the FIRST person to wish them Happy Birthday. I started using the Event application to set up movie viewings and invite people to the annual Halloween blow-out. I also LOVED writing on people's walls. It was a nice way to communicate and get communication back. And then...it started becoming the BEST way to procrastinate. I wasted untold hours on Facebook...checking every 5 minutes or so because SOMETHING had to have changed, right? My friends grew from 10 to 100 to over 200 quite quickly. Do I really KNOW all of these people? No. I had put up so many pictures from my various events that I never stopped to consider how much of my privacy I had willingly given up for the sake of feeling good about my ego. I started to realize that Facebook makes it TOO easy not to maintain personal contact. I have this theory that man only ventured from his cave because he needed to find food and companionship. With the advent of the internet, after millenia of evolution, man has finally reached the point where he need never leave his cave. We have Peapod for groceries and Amazon for everything else. Facebook covers the social needs of man quite well (as do MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft). While all of this technology makes keeping in touch with people "easier", is that necessarily a good thing? Are we losing the ability to personally interact?
A few weeks ago, when I was contemplating the cessation of my blog (not gonna happen, so you are all stuck with my rants), I actually removed my Facebook profile for a week. Just a week. See, Facebook had tried to change the terms of use to read that they owned ALL of the content that we put on their site. I relented however, as having a minimal profile on Facebook with no pictures and even less information proved to be less taxing than fielding e-mails from people wondering why I "de-friended" them when, in fact, I had not. I did, however, vow to not depend on Facebook for most social interaction. I abhor communication strictly via text or internet. I understand that sometimes, this is more convenient for both parties, but I feel that it should be done as a means of last resort as opposed to the first option. I will admit that I was flattered when so many people wrote on MY wall for my birthday, and I made it a point to individually contact each person in turn to thank them (none of this blanket "thanks to everyone for their birthday greetings!" status nonsense). However, I am not going to do it anymore myself: no more wishing anyone Happy Birthday on Facebook. It is my own thing, and I do not begrudge anyone who does it. Maybe I am just being old fashioned, but I need to take a stand. Technology is forcing me to withdraw more and more from social interaction.
Now, what is amusing about this post is what happened after I started writing it. You see, I went to work early this morning to get some work done. After 4 hours at the office, I (yup) checked Facebook and found that one of my friends from high school was in town for a wedding and was in my neighborhood to boot! Thanks to Facebook, I was able to meet up with my friend and we talked as if 20 years had NOT passed since the last time we saw each other (ouch-I am old). It also turned out to be a business write off, as the husband of the couple whose wedding my friend was in town for is founding a software company in Chicago and needs an IP attorney. Can you say "business lunch"? In truth, my afternoon was only made possible by Facebook, for it was via Facebook that I was able to find her and, eventually, meet in Chicago when she lives in Raleigh, NC. I now have an open invite to stay with her and her husband the next time I am in Raleigh, and I extended the same invitation to her and her husband the next time THEYare in Chicago.
Maybe Facebook is a good thing in moderation. I dunno. Do you have any thoughts?
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Watchmen
"We in this country, in this generation, are by destiny, rather than choice, the watchmen on the walls of world freedom."
John F. Kennedy (from the speech he intended to give in Dallas the day of his assassination, as quoted by Alan Moore in the graphic novel "Watchmen").
Adaptations are a tricky business. Whenever a film maker undertakes adapting an existing work, he is working to please 2 audiences: those who are familiar with the source material and want to see everything faithfully reproduced for the screen and those who are NOT familiar with the work yet want to see a good film if not a faithful cinematic adaptation. Hollywood in general has taken note, and their wholesale bastardization of books, a practice that had its inception during the early studio days, has given way to an effort to please the fans of the source materials. Of course, because so much more can go into a book than the average 2 hour movie (stemming from a 130 page screenplay), usually some things have to be sacrificed for the big screen. Witness Warner Brothers' handling of the "Harry Potter" series. There is a LOT missing from the adaptations, but whereas Chris Columbus' first two films were the most faithful, they also tended to be the most boring. It was only when Alphonso Cuaron, Mike Newell, and David Yates took the reins of the franchise that the Potter series rose above the written word and became wonderful cinematic adaptations. Of course we were missing Hermione's whole Society for the Promotion of Elf Welfare subplot...but did we really miss it? In fact, the most successful, up until now, adaptation of a beloved work has been Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Long thought to be unfilmable, Jackson took pains to satisfy the legions of fans reared on the written adventures of the Baggins family. Of course, he, too, took liberty with the story, but the excision of Tom Bombadill and the barrow wight actually helped the story move along. Film makers thus are forced to walk a very narrow line in terms of being faithful to the written word but not a slave to it to the point where the word shackles the film maker and removes his own creative energy from the work.
Of course, the rules are different when film makers adapt graphic novels. Here, the creators of the works in question have already provided the blueprint and storyboard of the film through the creation of panels of art holding the words of the script. The best of these adaptations embrace the vision of the creator by framing shots as depicted within the comic panels. The creativity for the film maker lies not in recreating a classic but in interpreting such scenes in a new medium. Robert Rodriguez successfully accomplished this with his adaptation of Frank Miller's "Sin City" and Zack Snyder did the same with his adaptation of Miller's "300." Both of these works, however, were below the radar of most comics readers. Only the die hards really knew of them before the movies came out, but this is not the case for all graphic novels. Some graphic novels have rabid followings of legions of fans, akin to the fans of the Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings series. To them, the creator's written words are gospel and the artist's panels are the only true visualization of the story. How could a director possibly satisfy this exacting group of people?
Now, before I get into my review of "Watchmen," let me share with you my own personal history with the story. The year was 1986. I was 15 years old and had been collecting comics for about two years. I had already started getting Frank Miller's groundbreaking miniseries "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" and, to this day, the original issues are in a special place in my collection. Another series caught my eye that year. The cover of the first issue was intriguing...a smiley face amidst what looked like blood.
I purchased the first issue and I was hooked...a story that started with the murder of a old super hero...one created just for the miniseries. Over the course of the next year, I was introduced to further pieces of the story, but nothing I had read in the previous 10 months prepared me for the climax of the story in issues 11 and 12. I was stunned. I was surprised. I am talking "The Usual Suspects" and "Se7en" levels of shock and surprise. I never even saw it coming. It stunned me and excited me. What a great WORK OF ART. Every year, I revisited "Watchmen" and re-read the story. Ever year, something new...some nuance or subtle symbolism that ran through the series-that had earlier escaped my notice would jump off the page and leave me with the same feeling as I had when I had first completed the miniseries. I still get that feeling every year when I read the complete work-it is THAT GOOD.
But how could something this creative...this amazing...this CINEMATIC in storytelling-so full of subtle nuance and compelling overlapping plotlines-be brought to the screen in any manner that would be even SORT of faithful to the source material. Word of an adaptation soon started circling after the success of Tim Burton's (now dated) adaptation of "Batman" in 1989. Sam Hamm was commissioned to write a script with Terry Gilliam attached to direct. Of course, this version, and many others like it, fell by the wayside. "Watchmen" writer Alan Moore went on record as saying that the graphic novel was unfilmable..that the whole reason of telling the story in the graphic novel format was because it could NOT be told via the medium of film. The times were also wrong for a film of this somber and adult material. After all, people wanted to see Jack Nicholson as the Joker and Michelle Pfieffer as Catwoman. This was before the highs of "Batman Begins", "X-Men", "The Dark Knight", "Spider-Man 2," and "Iron Man." This was before the lows of "Batman and Robin" and "Ghost Rider." So what changed everything?
The success of the adaptations of adult graphic novels such as "Sin City" and "300." In one fell swoop, these films caused Hollywood to sit up and take notice that faithful adaptations of adult graphic novels COULD be profitable. More importantly, the powers-that-be recognized that they did not have to "dumb down" the works for the mass audience. With the success of "300" behind him, Snyder made no secret that he wanted his next project to be "Watchmen." He even went so far as to include a single frame of a shot of Rorschach in a late trailer for "300."
Of course, the fanboys were nervous. Alan Moore refused to support the film in any way, but Snyder was able to enlist artist Dave Gibbons for help in creating the world of "Watchmen." When the first trailer came out, the fanboys (myself included) howled with glee, for we saw that Snyder had gone so far as to PERFECTLY TRANSLATE several scenes direct from the comics page onto the big screen. Still, the graphic novel was massive. How could Snyder possibly hope to create a faithful adaptation of such a dense work? What would be cut? Would the material cut include some of the most important aspects in search of a shorter run time?
Now, I was excited for the film, to the point where the minute that tickets went on sale for opening night at the Navy Pier IMAX, I purchased tickets for myself and a few other people...in JANUARY. As the time grew closer for the film's release, I started seeing 2 types of reviews-overwhelmingly positive and scathingly negative, with little few and far between. I also noticed something else...those who wrote the positive reviews "got" it. They were either fans of the source material or were sophisticated enough to follow the convoluted story, one that, to my understanding, never pandered to its audience or spoon fed it any exposition. The negative critics...well, I knew what to expect when reading their opinion of this "comic book" movie. I have a feeling that they were walking into the theater expecting to see "X-Men" or some other such nonsense. These are the people who did NOT get it. They did not want to get it. They saw Snyder's work as gratuitous in terms of the sex and violence depicted in a superhero movie. They missed the point that the film is NOT a superhero film. They also missed the point that Snyder did not create the controversial scenes in the film-he merely faithfully adapted them for a new medium.
Having now seen "Watchmen" in IMAX, all I am left with is a sense of awe. With the exception of an atrocious soundtrack (except for Dylan's "The Times They Are A'Changing" played over the opening credits), the entire film was a visual smorgasbord for this "Watchmen" fan. Repeatedly, I found myself smiling with glee as the images on the screen perfectly recreated the panels that are so ingrained in my memory. I saw an incredible performance by Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. I saw an amazing "acting" job by Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan. All of the performances were spot on, and the effects were well done as well. And people will NEVER see Jeffrey Dean Morgan (the beloved Denny Duquette from "Grey's Anatomy") in the same light again. He inhabited the skin of the morally corrupt Comedian, whose brutal murder begins the film.
So what is the film about? Ostensibly, the film is about a "hero killer", someone slowly taking out masked adventurers. But to what end? Along the way, we learn of the pasts of some of the heroes. We see them struggle with every day problems in realistic ways. We see "what could have been" if the American dream came true. We see the ugliest side of human nature and how that can drive even the most noblest of men to madness. This film provides an unflinching look into the human psyche, and it shrouds it within the garb of a "comic movie." Of course, there were some changes from the book, most notably the endgame. However, Snyder successfully retained the key elements of the story and blended them together to the point where this fanboy was shaking his head in incredulity by the end of the film. How did he do it?
Now, a warning. This film is NOT for everyone. It is VIOLENT. Extremely violent. Painfully violent. In spite of that, it works BECAUSE it feels real. This is not a Spider-Man film where the violence has no consequence. Here, the audience feels every punch and sees the realistic results.
This is a film about morally ambiguous costumed adventurers.-what I believe represent such adventurers if they existed in the real world. The film also creates a snapshot of the world in 1985. I remember the Cold War and the U.S.S.R. and the daily threat of nuclear war. Much as the graphic novel demands new visits every year, so too, I think, will this film. I cannot wait for the fully loaded ultimate blu-ray to be released in the fall (a lesser version is being released in the spring). Bravo, Zack Snyder. You filmed the unfilmable. Thank you for being faithful.
What an amazing experience.
Update: for a wonderful article on the source graphic novel click here.
John F. Kennedy (from the speech he intended to give in Dallas the day of his assassination, as quoted by Alan Moore in the graphic novel "Watchmen").
Adaptations are a tricky business. Whenever a film maker undertakes adapting an existing work, he is working to please 2 audiences: those who are familiar with the source material and want to see everything faithfully reproduced for the screen and those who are NOT familiar with the work yet want to see a good film if not a faithful cinematic adaptation. Hollywood in general has taken note, and their wholesale bastardization of books, a practice that had its inception during the early studio days, has given way to an effort to please the fans of the source materials. Of course, because so much more can go into a book than the average 2 hour movie (stemming from a 130 page screenplay), usually some things have to be sacrificed for the big screen. Witness Warner Brothers' handling of the "Harry Potter" series. There is a LOT missing from the adaptations, but whereas Chris Columbus' first two films were the most faithful, they also tended to be the most boring. It was only when Alphonso Cuaron, Mike Newell, and David Yates took the reins of the franchise that the Potter series rose above the written word and became wonderful cinematic adaptations. Of course we were missing Hermione's whole Society for the Promotion of Elf Welfare subplot...but did we really miss it? In fact, the most successful, up until now, adaptation of a beloved work has been Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Long thought to be unfilmable, Jackson took pains to satisfy the legions of fans reared on the written adventures of the Baggins family. Of course, he, too, took liberty with the story, but the excision of Tom Bombadill and the barrow wight actually helped the story move along. Film makers thus are forced to walk a very narrow line in terms of being faithful to the written word but not a slave to it to the point where the word shackles the film maker and removes his own creative energy from the work.
Of course, the rules are different when film makers adapt graphic novels. Here, the creators of the works in question have already provided the blueprint and storyboard of the film through the creation of panels of art holding the words of the script. The best of these adaptations embrace the vision of the creator by framing shots as depicted within the comic panels. The creativity for the film maker lies not in recreating a classic but in interpreting such scenes in a new medium. Robert Rodriguez successfully accomplished this with his adaptation of Frank Miller's "Sin City" and Zack Snyder did the same with his adaptation of Miller's "300." Both of these works, however, were below the radar of most comics readers. Only the die hards really knew of them before the movies came out, but this is not the case for all graphic novels. Some graphic novels have rabid followings of legions of fans, akin to the fans of the Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings series. To them, the creator's written words are gospel and the artist's panels are the only true visualization of the story. How could a director possibly satisfy this exacting group of people?
Now, before I get into my review of "Watchmen," let me share with you my own personal history with the story. The year was 1986. I was 15 years old and had been collecting comics for about two years. I had already started getting Frank Miller's groundbreaking miniseries "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" and, to this day, the original issues are in a special place in my collection. Another series caught my eye that year. The cover of the first issue was intriguing...a smiley face amidst what looked like blood.
I purchased the first issue and I was hooked...a story that started with the murder of a old super hero...one created just for the miniseries. Over the course of the next year, I was introduced to further pieces of the story, but nothing I had read in the previous 10 months prepared me for the climax of the story in issues 11 and 12. I was stunned. I was surprised. I am talking "The Usual Suspects" and "Se7en" levels of shock and surprise. I never even saw it coming. It stunned me and excited me. What a great WORK OF ART. Every year, I revisited "Watchmen" and re-read the story. Ever year, something new...some nuance or subtle symbolism that ran through the series-that had earlier escaped my notice would jump off the page and leave me with the same feeling as I had when I had first completed the miniseries. I still get that feeling every year when I read the complete work-it is THAT GOOD.
But how could something this creative...this amazing...this CINEMATIC in storytelling-so full of subtle nuance and compelling overlapping plotlines-be brought to the screen in any manner that would be even SORT of faithful to the source material. Word of an adaptation soon started circling after the success of Tim Burton's (now dated) adaptation of "Batman" in 1989. Sam Hamm was commissioned to write a script with Terry Gilliam attached to direct. Of course, this version, and many others like it, fell by the wayside. "Watchmen" writer Alan Moore went on record as saying that the graphic novel was unfilmable..that the whole reason of telling the story in the graphic novel format was because it could NOT be told via the medium of film. The times were also wrong for a film of this somber and adult material. After all, people wanted to see Jack Nicholson as the Joker and Michelle Pfieffer as Catwoman. This was before the highs of "Batman Begins", "X-Men", "The Dark Knight", "Spider-Man 2," and "Iron Man." This was before the lows of "Batman and Robin" and "Ghost Rider." So what changed everything?
The success of the adaptations of adult graphic novels such as "Sin City" and "300." In one fell swoop, these films caused Hollywood to sit up and take notice that faithful adaptations of adult graphic novels COULD be profitable. More importantly, the powers-that-be recognized that they did not have to "dumb down" the works for the mass audience. With the success of "300" behind him, Snyder made no secret that he wanted his next project to be "Watchmen." He even went so far as to include a single frame of a shot of Rorschach in a late trailer for "300."
Of course, the fanboys were nervous. Alan Moore refused to support the film in any way, but Snyder was able to enlist artist Dave Gibbons for help in creating the world of "Watchmen." When the first trailer came out, the fanboys (myself included) howled with glee, for we saw that Snyder had gone so far as to PERFECTLY TRANSLATE several scenes direct from the comics page onto the big screen. Still, the graphic novel was massive. How could Snyder possibly hope to create a faithful adaptation of such a dense work? What would be cut? Would the material cut include some of the most important aspects in search of a shorter run time?
Now, I was excited for the film, to the point where the minute that tickets went on sale for opening night at the Navy Pier IMAX, I purchased tickets for myself and a few other people...in JANUARY. As the time grew closer for the film's release, I started seeing 2 types of reviews-overwhelmingly positive and scathingly negative, with little few and far between. I also noticed something else...those who wrote the positive reviews "got" it. They were either fans of the source material or were sophisticated enough to follow the convoluted story, one that, to my understanding, never pandered to its audience or spoon fed it any exposition. The negative critics...well, I knew what to expect when reading their opinion of this "comic book" movie. I have a feeling that they were walking into the theater expecting to see "X-Men" or some other such nonsense. These are the people who did NOT get it. They did not want to get it. They saw Snyder's work as gratuitous in terms of the sex and violence depicted in a superhero movie. They missed the point that the film is NOT a superhero film. They also missed the point that Snyder did not create the controversial scenes in the film-he merely faithfully adapted them for a new medium.
Having now seen "Watchmen" in IMAX, all I am left with is a sense of awe. With the exception of an atrocious soundtrack (except for Dylan's "The Times They Are A'Changing" played over the opening credits), the entire film was a visual smorgasbord for this "Watchmen" fan. Repeatedly, I found myself smiling with glee as the images on the screen perfectly recreated the panels that are so ingrained in my memory. I saw an incredible performance by Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. I saw an amazing "acting" job by Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan. All of the performances were spot on, and the effects were well done as well. And people will NEVER see Jeffrey Dean Morgan (the beloved Denny Duquette from "Grey's Anatomy") in the same light again. He inhabited the skin of the morally corrupt Comedian, whose brutal murder begins the film.
So what is the film about? Ostensibly, the film is about a "hero killer", someone slowly taking out masked adventurers. But to what end? Along the way, we learn of the pasts of some of the heroes. We see them struggle with every day problems in realistic ways. We see "what could have been" if the American dream came true. We see the ugliest side of human nature and how that can drive even the most noblest of men to madness. This film provides an unflinching look into the human psyche, and it shrouds it within the garb of a "comic movie." Of course, there were some changes from the book, most notably the endgame. However, Snyder successfully retained the key elements of the story and blended them together to the point where this fanboy was shaking his head in incredulity by the end of the film. How did he do it?
Now, a warning. This film is NOT for everyone. It is VIOLENT. Extremely violent. Painfully violent. In spite of that, it works BECAUSE it feels real. This is not a Spider-Man film where the violence has no consequence. Here, the audience feels every punch and sees the realistic results.
This is a film about morally ambiguous costumed adventurers.-what I believe represent such adventurers if they existed in the real world. The film also creates a snapshot of the world in 1985. I remember the Cold War and the U.S.S.R. and the daily threat of nuclear war. Much as the graphic novel demands new visits every year, so too, I think, will this film. I cannot wait for the fully loaded ultimate blu-ray to be released in the fall (a lesser version is being released in the spring). Bravo, Zack Snyder. You filmed the unfilmable. Thank you for being faithful.
What an amazing experience.
Update: for a wonderful article on the source graphic novel click here.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Thank You! Come Again!
Note: I love reading the Namby Pamby's call logs so much that I thought I would steal his idea and recount one of my own.
The phone rings in the Artful's office.
Artful: "Hello?"
Caller: "Is this Mr. Blogger?"
Artful (already irritated because, by the sound of the thick Indian accent on the other end, he knows what is coming): "Actually, it's DR. Blogger."
Caller: "Mr. Blogger (seriously??), I am calling from (generic Indian IP company) to tell you that we do a lot of consulting work for IP. We were wondering if you wanted to outsource your work to us."
Side note. I have been a bit worried as of late, for patent prosecution for biotech in our firm has nosedived within the last few months. I am on a lot of litigations, but still..what is going on? Now I have this Indian joker trying to take MORE work away in THIS economy? Riiiiight....
Back to the call...
Blogger: " I am a freaking first year associate. I have no power when it comes to making these decisions. "
Caller: "Mr. Blogger (again, really?), could you tell me who, in your firm, does have the power to make these decisions?"
Blogger (extremely irritated at this point): "No, and in the future, might I suggest that you pay more attention to whom you are calling? Dr. Blogger is now hanging up the phone. Thank you. Come again."
This was the 4th such call I have received recently. The only thing that I can figure is that the Indian patent firms think they have an "in" with my firm just because I am Indian. Sorry, it does not work that way. I was more pissed off than anything. I mean, why would you try to take my work away from me?
AND???? I know that it is pissy and snooty of me, but professionally, I am Dr. Blogger (though sometimes friends call me that just to poke fun and I feel embarrassed). If you are trying to get business, use the proper titles and let the other person tell you that the titles are unnecessary.
Yes, I really did say "Thank you, come again." And yes, I slipped into the heaviest Indian accent I could muster.
On second thought, maybe I should not have invited them to "come again." Crap...more calls are headed my way, aren't they?
The phone rings in the Artful's office.
Artful: "Hello?"
Caller: "Is this Mr. Blogger?"
Artful (already irritated because, by the sound of the thick Indian accent on the other end, he knows what is coming): "Actually, it's DR. Blogger."
Caller: "Mr. Blogger (seriously??), I am calling from (generic Indian IP company) to tell you that we do a lot of consulting work for IP. We were wondering if you wanted to outsource your work to us."
Side note. I have been a bit worried as of late, for patent prosecution for biotech in our firm has nosedived within the last few months. I am on a lot of litigations, but still..what is going on? Now I have this Indian joker trying to take MORE work away in THIS economy? Riiiiight....
Back to the call...
Blogger: " I am a freaking first year associate. I have no power when it comes to making these decisions. "
Caller: "Mr. Blogger (again, really?), could you tell me who, in your firm, does have the power to make these decisions?"
Blogger (extremely irritated at this point): "No, and in the future, might I suggest that you pay more attention to whom you are calling? Dr. Blogger is now hanging up the phone. Thank you. Come again."
This was the 4th such call I have received recently. The only thing that I can figure is that the Indian patent firms think they have an "in" with my firm just because I am Indian. Sorry, it does not work that way. I was more pissed off than anything. I mean, why would you try to take my work away from me?
AND???? I know that it is pissy and snooty of me, but professionally, I am Dr. Blogger (though sometimes friends call me that just to poke fun and I feel embarrassed). If you are trying to get business, use the proper titles and let the other person tell you that the titles are unnecessary.
Yes, I really did say "Thank you, come again." And yes, I slipped into the heaviest Indian accent I could muster.
On second thought, maybe I should not have invited them to "come again." Crap...more calls are headed my way, aren't they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
