Watchmen

Watchmen was on at the gym one day, and in hindsight it seems clearer why it might not have done so well.

There’s plenty to enjoy in it - the opening montage, with its pan across Dealy Plaza, showing the Comedian and his role in JFK’s death; the back story of Dr. Manhattan; Rorschach’s prison, uh, survival tactics. On the other hand, the blue guy is such a whiner, Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II have little in common besides being bundles of neuroses, and everything flows together into a depressing, hopeless, soulless mess.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, necessarily. And the movie is a faithful enough adaptation of the comic series, using the same character and story. Why are the comics considered a classic of literature, the film ... not so much?

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how all this works, and the terms being used.

One might imagine an alternate world where the film would have done better. In 1972, it might have given The Godfather a run for its money: Of COURSE the world is corrupt, the politicians on the take, everything we knew about history subsumed under a veneer - no, a heavy coat - of Keep The People Down By Any Means Necessary. These heroes, previously held up as Guardians of The American Way, turn out to be venal, imperfect, often vicious, occasionally corrupt, sometimes flat evil. And while there might be the hope of redemption - for our heroes, for the world, for anything - it is ultimately dashed.

Even going back to The Godfather, at least Michael Corleone’s success - bloody and evil though it is - is still a success. He protects his family, saves the family business, keeps his father's legacy alive. Perhaps that's the problem with Watchmen: It's not that it's morally ambiguous, but narratively so. At the end, is the audience sure where they are, where they are going? Or is it all SO unsettled and uncertain that we can’t accept the New World that has been drawn for us?

It definitely fits in the Four Stories framework, but not as a movie that people would want to see in 2009, a few months after the financial meltdown made a movie about corruption redundant.  It’s so completely an Artist movie, with the final choices really a matter of being Doomed (like Rorshach) or Damned (like, well, everyone else). Redemption is out, and there isn’t anything that equates to a victory in the end state. Maybe the tiniest bit of hope, sure, that Truth Will Come Out. And Ozymandias’ success - victory not being an appropriate term -at least suggests the possibility of change, that the current state of the world isn’t how it will always be, that things might just get better. (Using a sufficiently broad definition of "better," anyway.) That’s all you get, though, for a nearly three-hour movie, which isn’t going to be an experience people clamor for in these years after 9/11. Once we are through this Crisis, perhaps towards the end of the High, after a decade or so of being told that We Are The Best, people might want to see some reminders that, No, We Aren’t, Always. Until then, though, it’s going to be of rare interest - and it still has to be good enough for someone to want to watch.

Worth noting, also, that the thought of Nixon in charge in 1980 is intended to be an indication that this is The Darkest Timeline, the Worst Of All Possible Worlds. Which seems like the authors’ hearts being out on their sleeves: Thirty years later, Nixon isn’t seen in the same light as he was when the comic came out -  a few years after Watergate and a decade after Vietnam. Relentless history can mess with your story structures if you put too much political capital in a load-bearing role.

Is there a fix for this? Consider some other movies, particularly Doomed/Damned ones like this. Rosemary is Doomed but by the end of the movie we know the situation she is in. Michael Corleone is Damned but he will survive and thrive for the foreseeable future. Leaving people with a world that hasn’t definitely changed, though, leaves the audience similarly in an uncertain state. We can solve that by giving one of the characters a very certain situation - but it would have to be a character the audience can identify with. Not dead, that is, or excessively rich and smart, nor a mystical being of pure force. Make the lovers break up and you have a more personal and more real tragedy that contrasts yet points up the much larger tragedy of death and destruction. Push them together and Love Conquers All. Either way, though, we have a better window into the effects the film's events have on everyone.

Perhaps all it really needs is confirmation that someone -- even Ozymandias -- really is definitely Right. Dr. Manhattan is a smart guy, and the rest of the heroes are convinced: The audience should be as well. That's what happens with Michael Corleone, after all.  He is in a better world than if he had failed, even if his success is tragic in its own way.  

Jurassic World

Jurassic World has a lot to recommend it. It gives a feeling of wonder at the successful completion of John Hammond's dream, a place where people can see dinosaurs up close and in natural environments. Thematically, though, it's all over the place. Is it about Teamwork is Good, or Corporations are Bad, or Nature Cannot Be Overcome, or something else?

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how all this works, and the terms being used.

It probably should be a Heroic story, with the main characters working together to take care of the crisis on Isla Nublar, perhaps even returning it to a state where it is a working tourist destination, or something better. That would have had the additional advantage of being a different sort of story from the previous films in the franchise. It might have worked as Redemption - Claire has some issues she needs to work out - but the circumstances of her salvation appear to be a) getting the kids to safety and b) getting romantically involved with her co-worker.  It's not a Prophet story - nobody is seeking (or achieving, for that matter) a better state of being. It does work adequately (not well) as an Artist story:  The pinnacle of achievement that was the Jurassic World dinosaur theme park  is destroyed by the hubris and bad planning of those in charge, with even those who get away scarred by the experience. The state of the characters at the end isn't that hopeless, though. Even the "triumph" of the Tyrannosaurus Rex at the end - telling us, perhaps, that nature will overcome - is weak, since she's not a character with which  the audience had any emotional involvement.

The setting appears intended as today or the near tomorrow. There's no war or spiritual awakening in progress. Perhaps it's a First Turning, with people excited about this grand technological future they are in, and everyone belongs to their company. (Unless I missed it, every adult we meet is an Ingen employee...) Owen and Claire are played by GenX actors, though, and seem to have associated Nomad characteristics - Owen, in particular, has some Indiana Jones in his DNA.

The original novel of Jurassic Park can be seen as an Artist story - it's a cautionary tale of the events on Isla Nublar, which hardly anyone survives, and the invocation of chaos theory seems shorthand for "you can't fix anything." (Michael Crichton, Silent Generation, b. 1942 often wrote stories where the hero barely survives in a world that is flawed and likely doomed.) The movie of Jurassic Park, as is typical for Spielberg (Boomer, b. 1946), puts a focus on the main character ( played by Sam Neill) as a father figure who needs to become the father figure he was meant to be, saving the children under his care. (Even that one had weaknesses, apart from the spectacle of watching lifelike dinosaurs on the screen).

Certainly there may be little point in nitpicking a film that was one of the most financially successful ever. However, it didn't earn that all on its own - as the latest entry in a franchise 30 years in the making, it did well enough. It might have done better. It was not successful in awards, and not much of a critical success, probably for reasons such as these. Could a generational analysis have helped?

•  To make it a Hero story, the teamwork of the main characters could have been accentuated. A meaningful sacrifice - perhaps by Claire or Owen, but even by Masrani or Hopkins - would have shown that there was something important worth saving.
• A Redemption story would have required a focus on a single character, which probably would not have worked. A future that encompasses Isla Nublar's Jurassic World is too large a canvas for such focus.  Claire's redemption could have been done more effectively, though.
• A Prophet story would probably have focused on Owen, finding out that he needs to be more than an Alpha to the Raptors, perhaps becoming a savior that was able to resolve all the issues by setting up a perfect Eden for the dinosaurs there. (A Guardian of the Dinosaurs?)
• An Artist story would have required that someone be truly blamed for the issues with the park - better still if that person was able to survive and thrive. An end-credits scene with Dr. Wu being shown as the mastermind of all this, a man who wants nothing more than to create dinosaurs, and willing to sacrifice anyone to do it, might have worked.

Winter is Coming

The television series Game of Thrones is based on an epic fantasy series by George R.R. Martin, A Song of Ice and Fire. The series' name comes from the first book, A Game of Thrones, and its first episode is called "Winter is Coming." This is an allusion to the long "seasons" found on the world where it is set.

Anyone who has read The Fourth Turning may notice a coincidence: By way of comparison between seasons of the year and the different Turnings, that book's first chapter is called "Winter Comes Again."

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how all this works, and the terms being used.

A Game of Thrones was published in 1996, a year before the fourth Turning. Martin began writing it about 1991, which was the same year that Generations was published. It might be possible that the authors influenced each other, but seems more likely that similar events inspired similar allusions.

Unlike previous assessments of known stories, this is the unusual case of a narrative that is not yet finished. The novels have a few more books to come, the series at least another season. It's also a massive ensemble of characters,  making it a daunting task to confirm the generations throughout it all.  The possibility that different regions are on different turnings would have to be considered as well: Generational cycles assume at least some communications between generations,  and in this world large areas never talk to each other. Dorne and Westeros, to name only two, could easily be in different Turnings. It may be best to start with a smaller target - something more manageable.

Even though the whole Story has not been revealed, we have clues enough on where it is going. The series title is one big one. Fire shows up many times - the sacrifices to the Lord of Light, in the secret weapon used by Tyrion at the Battle of Blackwater - but the real fire that  underlies it all, that was the source of power before the story opens,  is breathed by dragons.



Ice is seem more rarely, especially at the start when winter is coming, but not yet arrived.  It is nonetheless ubiquitous upon arrival at The Wall. It's north of that, though, that the real ice is found, in the form of the White Walkers, who dominate the ever-winter lands with power over life and death.

The Song is clearly going to lead to a battle between the two, one that will change the world, perhaps for hundreds of years. While some character arcs are already redemptive or tragic, the overall Story is clearly leading to a Heroic resolution, with teamwork and sacrifice and ultimate success. 

The conflagration that was the War of the Five Kings was sufficient to consider the events as happening during a Fourth Turning. If the story continues along the path suggested, that Fourth Turning will be continuing at least through that expected final battle between Fire and Ice.

How about the Characters themselves? For some of the major ones, the answers seem straightforward: 

• Ned Stark; the Head Sparrow: Principled and resolute - Prophets
• Cersei, Jaime, and Tyrion Lannister:  Practical, amoral, uncultured - Nomads
• Stark's children (Arya, Sansa, Robb, at least), Daenyres Targaryan: Insensitive and unreflective, selfless and overbold - Heroes

Even if this is too much making events fit into a box, and subjective in any case, the ease with the Characters fit the inferred Setting and expected Story is impressive. 

Network

To start, an economic joke that is so subtle I'm not sure it was intended. Nonetheless:

Classical economics sees the market as involving landlords - who get paid rent for the use of space; capitalists - who get paid in profits for the use of money;  and labor - paid in wages for effort. In television, this can be seen as the broadcast networks who own the airwaves; production companies who use money to produce content; and the workers who do the actual work. Laureen Hobbs,who is investing the Party's money to create a television show with the Great Ahmed Khan and transfer the content to the network, is the production company.

Which means, that "badass commie" has been twisted by television into becoming.... A capitalist. 

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how all this works, and the terms being used.

 The film Network was released in 1976, and it ended up in competition for the Best Picture Academy Award against Rocky, All the President's Men, Taxi Driver, and Bound for Glory - all classic films of the New Hollywood era. And while it sometimes seems to be a drama, it's also very funny, in its bleak satirical way. Laureen Hobbs fighting with The Great Ahmed Khan over distribution rights. Newscaster Howard Beale suggesting that his planned on-air suicide should get a "50 share, easy". The head of the network using it to send a message, that message mostly being "will do anything for ratings." The radical steps taken to handle the resulting problems, and the classic last line.  It certainly reiterates that change is futile, that there are only perpetrators and victims.

While billed as the "Mad Prophet of the Airwaves," Howard Beale is obviously not a Baby Boomer. His marriage ended with his wife's death in 1970, and he says that he was married for thirty-three years, making him about 60 when the movie opens. Max Schumacher mentions being 26 when working with Edward R. Murrow in 1950, so he was born around 1924. Both of them are from the G.I. Generation, those with birthdates 1901-1924, old enough to have been adults during World War II. Max refers to Diana Christensen as being from a different generation, including once as being part of the "TV Generation." Her traits and apparent age suggest she is part of the Silent Generation (born 1925-1942). The actors themselves match these generations, although William Holden was actually only about two years younger than Peter Finch.

Screenwriter Paddy Chayevsky, whom we can assume is speaking through Howard Beale's prophecies of doom and danger, was born in 1923, making him G.I. Generation as well. With such predominance of G.I. influence, it's worth considering whether it fits better as Hero story, or an inversion of it. It can quickly be seen, however, that there is very limited teamwork among the characters. They are all pursuing their own inner-focused goals, based on abstract concepts such as truth, honor, and responsibility. Beale's fate is little changed by his actions, or by the virtues or vices of the Hero archetype. While a member of a Prophet generation would use his platform to tear down society in favor of something better, Beale's pronouncements lament the changes that are happening and suggests that it was the old days that were better. Mostly, though, he's really just going slowly mad, abetted by the large and then larger corrupt corporation that employs him.