Stolen Pixels #160: Rorschach Interview, Part 2

[skyfire_freckles]

Spoiler

That's why I like Veidt's plot in the comic more than the movie's. An apparently alien being teleports into New York and lets out some sort of "attack" that kills the entire population. That was good! If we thought that there was a race of aliens capable of destroying an entire city in their death throes we would sure as hell look at each other and realize that our survival as a species relies on each other.

I don't know why they changed it for the movie and, to me, it makes much less sense. Honestly, if Dr. Manhattan decided to blow up cities all over Earth what the hell could either side do about it. Did the we actually know some way to kill him? What would a U.S.-Soviet alliance do against a man who had that kind of power? Besides, I honestly think Veidt respected Dr. Manhattan too much to try and use him like that.

Spoiler

{The alien looked like a giant vagina... Also, the alien is tied into the pirate comic book a bit and the movie is already pretty long so I think the Dr. Manhattan fake attack is just easier and simpler to do for film. One thing I actually liked more about the movie than comic is that the attack was not just on New York in the movie but on multiple cities... I mean shouldn't there be suspicion maybe that it was some kind of Russian plot?

I agree totally with pretty much everything in the first spoiler. Now, while I agree with some of the things in the second spoiler, but I'd like to point this out:

Spoiler

The attack was just on New York in the movie, too.

Sacrificing quality for ease is, while understandable, certainly not the way to make a good movie.

What struck me, in the comic book, was the way he killed all those artists. This was part of his plot. It wasn't just to keep them from talking.

Edit: Oh, and Rorschach is about my favorite character, and I don't like him at all. The Batman debate is sort of moot. He and Nite Owl are like two sides of Batman, but Rorschach is much more of a fully realized character than any Batman story I've read/watched.

 

[toapat]

Hm, now that you mention it... Rorschach is my favorite in Watchmen, and a complete nutcase. But he has a trenchcoat, so it all works out in the end... right? Right?... Helloooo... anyone?

you also forgot he wears a fedora.

Rorschach fucking owns

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Hey Shamus... when you were making this comic, did you at all expect the comments to turn into a deconstruction of Rorshach's mental condition and his role in "Watchmen"? I betcha didn't.

I agree totally with pretty much everything in the first spoiler. Now, while I agree with some of the things in the second spoiler, but I'd like to point this out:

Spoiler

The attack was just on New York in the movie, too.

Sacrificing quality for ease is, while understandable, certainly not the way to make a good movie.

What struck me, in the comic book, was the way he killed all those artists. This was part of his plot. It wasn't just to keep them from talking.

Edit: Oh, and Rorschach is about my favorite character, and I don't like him at all. The Batman debate is sort of moot. He and Nite Owl are like two sides of Batman, but Rorschach is much more of a fully realized character than any Batman story I've read/watched.

Spoiler: Spoiler: Vlick to Ciew

I was pretty sure that in the movie, New York was only the last of several targets Veidt had destroyed. He told Nite Owl and Rorshach that he'd set the plan in motion 25 minutes ago and motioned to monitors that showed run-down countdown clocks for a number of other major cities.

 

[internetzealot1]

"...abusive, paranoid, homophobic, self-righteous, and exceptionally violent."
You say those as if they're bad things...

 

[JokerCrowe]

EDIT: though I think it's interesting, Moore tries very hard to make the characters relatable, giving them very human issues. But the one character that actually is a hero all the time (almost) and doesn't seem to have a social life, is being criticized for not having a solcial life, IE being too much of a hero. If Superman didn't have a life as Clark Kent he could probably save a lot more people... (If you disagree, please don't get caught up on my comparing Rorschach to Superman... please.)

I personally find Rorschach-Superman comparisons to be one of the most interesting things to do with the character. It's the inversion of that old peculiarity about Superman; that his false identity is Clark Kent, that his identity-concealing mask is his thick glasses and well-pressed suit. Rorschach, despite being human, is so psychologically broken, that he thinks of his superhero persona as his true identity, and becoming Kovaks is something he has to endure in order to make use of ordinary day-to-day conveniences. His mask is his face, in more ways than one.

Yeah... I felt something similar when I read the book. You could say Rorschach is the "inverse" Superman, being human but not acting like one, killing people...removing his mask to be in disguise... (there are probably more examples as well.)
I study psychology and he's a very interesting character to analyze, even though he's not a real person..

 

[RabbitDynamite]

Rorshach was intended by Alan Moore to be a sort of "Straw Objectivist", actually, as it's Moore's personal belief that "extreme" ideologies don't and can't work. He said (and you'll have to look up where yourself, I think there was an interview about it) that Rorshach was, in many ways, his response to the sort of writing that Steve Ditko did, Ditko being (sort of) an Objectivist.

Semi-Objectivist-ish characters get this sort of response all the time because just about everyone recognizes on some level that consistency, determination, focus, strong ethics, etc. are all *extremely valuable traits* and *necessary* if one is to accomplish goals instead of just accident-ing one's way through life. The homophobia, paranoia, etc. are incidental traits thrown on as an attempt to "kick the dog" and show that Rorshach is not *supposed* to be a real protagonist. However, this aspect of his characterization (particularly in the movie, where it's all tell, don't show) is completely unimportant and most people recognize it as such.

Authors with mixed or just outright bad philosophical premises (like Moore) often have this problem: those they intended to portray as villains wind up being much more engaging and interesting than the characters they intended to be heroes, or at least protagonists. Add in the fact that most people's philosophies are impossible to enact in real life and the heroes end up as wishy-washy inconsistent twerps while the villains are righteous badasses.

Slight correction, Moore never intended Rorschach to be an objectivist in any meaningful sense, since he did not and probably still doesn't know what Objectivism is, it being a predominantly American thing in my experience. He was very much a direct response to Ditko's comics.

I'm not sure that it's fair at all to say that Rorschach is a "bad" character who overshadows the goodies because Objectivism is awesome. For one thing they're all screwed up (the Night are unambiguously moral, but they're pretty pitiful) and it the story has a protagonist, he's it. Moore's disenchantment with Rorschach is less to do with people agreeing with him philosophically and more to do with the appropriation of "OMG AWESOME VIOLENCE" by other writers without the analysis of how this comes about (why yes, I am an unambiguous Moore fanboy, how can you tell?)

Spoilery stuff:

Spoiler

And of course, there's the issue that Rorschach isn't even the most determined character in the novel. Although he doesn't put himself at personal risk like Rorschach does, he goes to lengths to achieve his goals that are repulsive to absolutely everyone, although only Rorschach is principled enough to die rather than go along with it. Ultimately, I think Rorschach comes across as more pitiful than repulsive. His beliefs may be incoherent, but he sacrifices everything for them and achieves nothing but a few small time crooks' deaths and his own demise. Of course, its strongly implied Adrian doesn't achieve anything either, but that's another thing.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Rorshach was intended by Alan Moore to be a sort of "Straw Objectivist", actually, as it's Moore's personal belief that "extreme" ideologies don't and can't work. He said (and you'll have to look up where yourself, I think there was an interview about it) that Rorshach was, in many ways, his response to the sort of writing that Steve Ditko did, Ditko being (sort of) an Objectivist.

Slight correction, Moore never intended Rorschach to be an objectivist in any meaningful sense, since he did not and probably still doesn't know what Objectivism is, it being a predominantly American thing in my experience. He was very much a direct response to Ditko's comics.

Yes, sorry, I meant that he meant it to be a "straw Objectivist" to the extent that he was contra-Ditko and Ditko is (sort of) an Objectivist. I doubt Moore himself would use that term to describe his own work.

And I know quite a few European and Indian Objectivists, but we're more prevalent in the U.S. (to the extent that we're prevalent anywhere).

 

[Sedweiler]

Spoiler

{The alien looked like a giant vagina... Also, the alien is tied into the pirate comic book a bit and the movie is already pretty long so I think the Dr. Manhattan fake attack is just easier and simpler to do for film. One thing I actually liked more about the movie than comic is that the attack was not just on New York in the movie but on multiple cities... I mean shouldn't there be suspicion maybe that it was some kind of Russian plot?

I agree with this spoiler.


On other note, I sympathise a lot with the Nite Owl. He was the only boyscout moral hero of Watchmen. Unfortunately, he wasn't in a typical superhero comic -world, where he would have prevailed despite his weaknesses.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Rorschach is abusive, paranoid, homophobic, self-righteous, and exceptionally violent.

I'm confused about this.

Abusive seems already covered in violent. Paranoid, for a vigilante working under the Keene Law seems quite justified. Homophobic I can't remember evidence of, as he could be said to be heterophobic as well (Yeh, he's far right but apart from the occasional diary entry (and given how he first saw sex...)), self-righteous really needs charisma and exceptionally violent makes it sound like a ballet.

Sorry, that line just stuck out as describing someone else. I'd just use the word psychopath.

And psychopaths that keep going have always become love figures (Michael Myers, Jason Vorheez, Leatherface, Ash, Freddie Krueger, Jack Torrance, Alex DeLarge)

 

[Dectilon]

Didn't Moore say in an interview that he was reprehensible for starting the "dark era" of comics, and that he wished he hadn't, because most dark comics don't bother asking any questions; they're just dark and violent for their own sake.

 

[Kazturkey]

Rorschach is the best simply because he never wavers.

Spoiler

He's unwilling to compromise even when he knows for a fact it will mean his death.

 

[YoUnG205]

This one was not one of the best that has been done,
Having said that it was by no means bad but there are many more that I have found funnier.

 

[WaderiAAA]

So he needs to take a break to make an inner monologue. Nice!

 

[MercenaryCanary]

I think people liked Rorschach so much because he was extremely violent.
And people really do like their violence.

That said, I like Rorschach for entirely different reasons.

 

[Primus1985]

No one sticking up for Rorschach?

He's easily the most popular of the Watchmen, but at the same time he's the most reprehensible.

Surely "The Comedian" is more reprehensible? After all, he is attempted rapist, women and children killing, surrendering soldier killing, pregnant woman killing bastard...

Rorschach, on the other hand, just seems to be extremely violent with the criminals, and has a low tolerance for 'intellectuals'.

Thank Buddha

Shamus Young must have skipped over every scene with The Comedian. I have to admit its very hard for me to overlook Comedians atrocites, but Rorschach? Whats the worst he ever did, chop or burn up a kidnapping, baby killing/dismembering asshole?

 

[samsonguy920]

For the last time Rorschach isn't BATMAN, he's nothing like Batman, he's THE QUESTION taken to the ultimate extreme, not Batman. Granted to two characters have a lot in common, but the Question has always been more Hard Boiled Private Eye less Sherlock Holmes + Cape. He's also a crazy conspiracy theorist nutter, you know, like Rorschach!

Actually I like to think Rorschach is the Batman who broke his one rule. And it isn't about monologuing, Bats has done that a few issues.

 

[Spinwhiz]

This is one of my favorites Shamus! hahaha Thanks for the laughs.