The nipples on the Ozy costume made perfect sense to me as soon as I saw the design... for two reasons:
1. It's an acknowledgement/satire of conventions in superhero movies, in much the same way that WATCHMEN itself is an acknowledgement/satire of conventions in superhero comics. (The same goes, I would submit, with the film version of the Nite Owl costume.)
2. It evokes classical statuary, very much a theme in the design of Adrian Veidt's surroundings and in his identification with Alexander the Great.
3. On the other hand, maybe it was really cold in the makeup studio the day they took the body cast. I'm just sayin.
I think we can lay this one at the feet of Dave Gibbons. The original comic design isn't really that much less revealing or much more practical than the one in the film. (You'll find butt-cheekage in most drawings of Laurie if you look for it; not so much nipplage, owing to the fact that her undergarment is inked in large solid blacks... and that it doesn't strike me as the kind of thing Gibbons would do in any case. So, yay Dave, I guess?)
The main thing is that Gibbons' style isn't particularly cheesecakey, so that in the comic, Laurie doesn't come across as, shall we say, "hoochie queen" as Malin Ackerman does in three dimensions. But imagine if, say, Adam Hughes had been the artist: Good heavens.
Is the *poster* sexist? No. It is mildly sexualized, though.
Is the *character* sexist? Mmm. (Make that "Hurm".) The character (and her costume) are intended to play on sexist natures to heighten Laurie's ability to do her task. What is that, reverse-sexist?
At worst, the poster features the character in a way meant to heighten mild titillation, directly in line with the character herself. It could have been done differently, but that could arguably violate the character more by de-sexualizing the depiction on the poster.
It's a fetish outfit, plain and simple, taken into a much more modern context, where latex, PVC, and vinyl are the norms for fetish wear. It's sexist, yes, but there is the modern sensibility of what you expect girls in your sick fantasies to be wearing.
I don't know if I can find too much fault with it considering sexist issues were addressed in the comic itself. Still, if the movie is half as awesome as the trailers, they shouldn't need to resort to this. Most dudes will be titillated enough by the superpowers and special effects.
Certain people sensitive to "sexism" issues (i.e. PC people) would maybe read the caption on the poster and think that she is some kind of professional streetwalker.
Yea.. it is the words that make it kinda questionable. The costume is hot. This Pittsburgher loves the black and gold.
BradyDale, you rock! Rorschach WAS the best of the Watchmen mythos. (And, it isn't cuz I am a pretty big Question fan.)
Okay...uh...oh, right. Ya, coulda done without the tag. I've noticed in another promo, she has a terrible tag also. I don't think her image is too showy, but, IMO, her character isn't getting the best with the ads. Her long hair and outfit are attractive, but VERY tame. I think her part in the movie will redeem the poor ads. Also, alotta girls wanna see this film. As in, the girls who don't care much for comics, but go with friends/boyfriends. Weird...but not really.
Looks like Watchmen'll be like Rosario Dawson. Both: Hypnotically beautiful followed by skepticism on intelligence and coolness...then you find out they are both made of Fantastic & Awesome!
I'm more perplexed by that whole "3am" and "doing something stupid" thing. I don't get how that's supposed to be clever marketing. If they're trying to draw in a mainstream audience, then that's pretty much as dumb as you can get.
There's clearly a sexist slant (avalanche?) in comics-- perhaps even more than in movies. But when you combine the two, it seems to give you some sort of uber, Frankenstein Monster sexism.
The insane thing about everything I've seen coming from Synder's WATCHMEN is just how wrong it is. I know I'm waaaaay in the minority here, but he just doesn't seem to understand the source material at all.
Take a look at Silk Specter and Nite Owl as examples of this. First off-- this actress looks like she stepped right out of the pages of Maxim. That's not what Laurie was in the book at all.
She was sturdy. A heavy smoker. Cranky. Frustrated.
This woman looks like one of those under-fed fashion models on PROJECT RUNWAY.
And am I really supposed to think she knocked those punks halfway down the street with her little chicken wing arms? She looks like she could barely pick up a pencil.
So much for reality in this WATCHMEN.
Nite Owl is equally wrong and absurd. Dan was downright fat. His costume was supposed to look silly in the light-- like it was made at home over the kitchen table. Because that's what it was! A home made costume.
Both Silk Specter and Nite Owl's uniforms look like two dozen Warner Brothers artists, sculptors and designers spent a huge amount of money to design a "cool" Batman-y and Catwoman-y look.
The problem is, that goes against the entire "superhero in real world" vibe that made WATCHMEN so interesting and unique.
Now it just feels like an Mtv video gone horribly wrong (don't get me started on that blood curdling Smashing Pumpkins music that dominates the boring and over produced trailer).
I'm not a hater or a naysayer. I understand that things must change in different mediums. JAWS the movie is drastically different than the book (for the better). CUCKOO'S NEST is a completely different story as a movie, yet somehow remains completely true to the source material.
But everything I see from this movie seems wrong wrong wrong.
And making Silk Specter some kind of coked out whore that would look more at home next to Paris Hilton at Hyde instead of fighting crime in New York just doesn't fit with the book's vision at all.
Look-- I know that Snyder's recreating scenes shot for shot. Who cares? I don't get why people don't understand this: just making a shot look EXACTLY like a panel from the book doesn't mean you're being honest to the source material. You may think you're showering Moore and Gibbons with love, but you're just pissing in their faces.
I think everything this Snyder joker has ever done has been absolute garbage. I don't think it's even come close to even mediocre (don't get me started DAWN OF THE DEAD disaster).
Nothing I've seen has changed my perspective on this.
So is the Silk Specter poster sexist? Hell yes. Is it boring and predictable? Still yes. Is it corporate and soul less? Couldn't be more so. Am I surprised? Not a bit.
I'm not gonna see this movie, because I love the book and I hate the filmmaker.
However, if you told me Alfonso Cuarón or Ridley Scott was producing a six hour mini-series of WATCHMEN on SciFi or HBO, I'd be sleeping in front of my TV until it aired.
But I'm weird that way.
Ted
Btw-- I've been gone working my butt off for a real long time, Val. But I'm back and really enjoying your writing. You seem to be on a tear. Love it.
I'm bothered by it. It's been ages since I read Watchmen, and I certainly didn't retain it all that much, but isn't this like the only female super-character? Hell of a representation of All Women Supers to have her essentially pantsless and shiny-bummed.
“I am used to going out at 3am and doing something stupid”. Combine that with the kinky sex suit, the coy over the shoulder glance, and the kind of dark deserted city street down which women are frequently told they should not walk (unless, of course, it’s their profession), and it’s hard not to read that sentence as “I am used to going out at 3am in the morning and engaging in potentially risky sexual activity, very likely with strangers, and tonight, sonny Jim, that stranger could be you”
Is it sexist? Arguably. Is that the point, considering the character? More than likely, yes. After all, one of the main issues with Silk Spectre II is that she feels she was pushed into the role of the "sexy female superheroine" by her mother, the adult comic equivalent of a stage mom.
And to be honest also, one of the tropes of "Watchmen" is tackling the harsh realisms of being a vigilante...going out in a weird outfit at 3 am to try to stop some methhead muggers with nothing to loose, on a nightly basis, isn't the best way to live your life. SS II is just the one who was most vocal about pointing out how stupid it was.
I'm going to go in a different direction and say, yes, it is sexist, but that's part of who the character was.
The Silk Spectre is both enabled and disabled by her objectification - in that it led to her mothers' rape, as well as her own objectification and fetishization - the kind that Maxim models endure for money.
I hope they go in a direction that makes sexist masogynists question that, especially with the route the Comedian, Nite-Owl, and Dr. Manhattan all take with both generations of the character.
I've always thought the portrayals of women in the Watchmen graphic novel were pretty sexist to begin with. SS 1 is a shallow, uneducated, fame-hungry woman who is more than happy to play off her sexuality as empowerment, and eventually falls in love with her rapist. I've looked for more depth, but I can't really find any. She's a consequence of her time, perhaps, but not a very thought-provoking one.
SS 2 is a genuinely dumb woman (by far the least intellegent member of the primary cast, makes the worst decisions, is most frequently confused) and is practically a stereotype of the emotional, hysterical girlfriend (which makes sense, since she's paired up with the stone cold Doc Manhattan).
All I'm saying is you'd have to try hard to make the Spectres any less appealing from a feminist perspective than they were in the original book.
I love the Watchmen every time I read it, but I've just sort have got to do my best to ignore the ladies. Except for the Lesbian who gets killed, she's pretty neat for the three or so panels she's featured in.
Yes it's sexist. The text only adds to it. She is being used as bait to attract a cetain type of fan and a certain way of reading her part. If you ramdomly swapped the text pieces about on the pics you'll see just how they interact with the images and how hers is all about sexing her up rather than developing her as a complex character.
i had just about out grown comics when alan moore took over swampthing and pulled me right back in...what sgt pepper was to music, what monty python was for comedy, alan moore was for comics as far as i see it. i bought watchman as it came out and loved it and always worried that any attempt to make it into a movie would be dissapointing. This morning i went to a preview screening type thingy, three ten minute sections...followed by a live question and answer session with the director and dave gibbons. im not easily impressed but i was totally blown away...the title sequence alone is a superb bit of cinema. and i was very impressed by what Zak Synder had to say about the whole thing....i came away fully believing that not only is the film in totally safe hands but also that watchman will be quite something in terms of grown up cinema......
and to answer the question on everyones lips...it might be pixelated out in the trailers but in the film itself dr. manhattan's "wedding tackle" is there in all it blue glory
Hmmm... I think the guy lying on the street pretty much states that the "stupid things" means beating people up. However, it is unnecessarily sexualized. But so is the character itself. Well, maybe not the character, as she seemed to be a commentary on the female fantasy stereotype (or so I believe)... but I digress.
I just hope she mentions wanting to wear al leather outfit with a mask and a gun by the end...
Wow, i'm amazed at the responses. I don't think it's sexist. I think its kinda dumb... it's like most Hollywood tag-lines, mindlessly playing off mainstream (read: conservative) social norms, futiley hoping that it will be seen as an Oscar Wildian witticism.
I actually thought she was explicitly un-sexualised in the comic, anyway. I thought it was deliberate. The only sexual interactions she has with other characters seem pretty nerdy and human (i mean "nerdy" with affection).
Karterhol said "Nite Owl ... His costume was supposed to look silly in the light-- like it was made at home over the kitchen table. Because that's what it was! ... Both Silk Specter and Nite Owl's uniforms look like two dozen Warner Brothers artists, sculptors and designers spent a huge amount of money..."
Oh yeah - thats Movies for you. Have you noticed that the same thing happens whenever a character in an American film wears a Halloween costume (heck, whenever a character in a low-budget SITCOM wears a Halloween costume, for that matter)?
Does your average costume designer/director really believe that someone on a $AU50,000pa income is going to splash out on a specially tailored cybernetic-vinyl shapeshifting suit for the holidays?
How odd would it be if the first Spiderman movie ends up being seen as doing the Watchmen aesthetic better than Watchmen...
You have to take the actual quote in context - "I used to be a masked avenger too remember? I’m used to going out at 3 in the morning and doing something stupid." And it's in a conversation with another mask.
The funny thing is that the Silk Specter costume is downright conservative and practical by the standards of superheroine costumes.
ReplyDeleteif I were an acrobatic superheroine I probably would go with a very form fitting costume because I wouldn't want to risk nothin' snaggin on nothin.
I probably would not go with the whole lower butt cheek exposure thing, though.
Oh, and P.S. Rorshach is the best. Was that a non-sequiture.
P.P.S. Best character ever. Rorshach. I'm done now.
Yeah, not sure if I needed to see her nipples.
ReplyDeleteNot *bothered* by it, mind you...just wondered what was up with that. Same with Ozymandias.
The pose is, yeah. Who did costume design for this flick, Ed Benes?
ReplyDeleteShort answer: yes.
ReplyDeleteThey are trying to market it to outsiders and they choose THAT line?
The nipples on the Ozy costume made perfect sense to me as soon as I saw the design... for two reasons:
ReplyDelete1. It's an acknowledgement/satire of conventions in superhero movies, in much the same way that WATCHMEN itself is an acknowledgement/satire of conventions in superhero comics. (The same goes, I would submit, with the film version of the Nite Owl costume.)
2. It evokes classical statuary, very much a theme in the design of Adrian Veidt's surroundings and in his identification with Alexander the Great.
3. On the other hand, maybe it was really cold in the makeup studio the day they took the body cast. I'm just sayin.
Oh, right: the Silk Spectre outfit....
ReplyDeleteI think we can lay this one at the feet of Dave Gibbons. The original comic design isn't really that much less revealing or much more practical than the one in the film. (You'll find butt-cheekage in most drawings of Laurie if you look for it; not so much nipplage, owing to the fact that her undergarment is inked in large solid blacks... and that it doesn't strike me as the kind of thing Gibbons would do in any case. So, yay Dave, I guess?)
The main thing is that Gibbons' style isn't particularly cheesecakey, so that in the comic, Laurie doesn't come across as, shall we say, "hoochie queen" as Malin Ackerman does in three dimensions. But imagine if, say, Adam Hughes had been the artist: Good heavens.
Is the *poster* sexist? No. It is mildly sexualized, though.
ReplyDeleteIs the *character* sexist? Mmm. (Make that "Hurm".) The character (and her costume) are intended to play on sexist natures to heighten Laurie's ability to do her task. What is that, reverse-sexist?
At worst, the poster features the character in a way meant to heighten mild titillation, directly in line with the character herself. It could have been done differently, but that could arguably violate the character more by de-sexualizing the depiction on the poster.
It's a fetish outfit, plain and simple, taken into a much more modern context, where latex, PVC, and vinyl are the norms for fetish wear. It's sexist, yes, but there is the modern sensibility of what you expect girls in your sick fantasies to be wearing.
ReplyDeleteYes, of course, by definition. Next question.
ReplyDeleteYes.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I can find too much fault with it considering sexist issues were addressed in the comic itself. Still, if the movie is half as awesome as the trailers, they shouldn't need to resort to this. Most dudes will be titillated enough by the superpowers and special effects.
I think that whether or not the poster is sexist is a secondary concern to whether or not the poster is stupid.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is.
Certain people sensitive to "sexism" issues (i.e. PC people) would maybe read the caption on the poster and think that she is some kind of professional streetwalker.
ReplyDeleteYea.. it is the words that make it kinda questionable. The costume is hot. This Pittsburgher loves the black and gold.
BradyDale, you rock! Rorschach WAS the best of the Watchmen mythos. (And, it isn't cuz I am a pretty big Question fan.)
ReplyDeleteOkay...uh...oh, right. Ya, coulda done without the tag. I've noticed in another promo, she has a terrible tag also. I don't think her image is too showy, but, IMO, her character isn't getting the best with the ads. Her long hair and outfit are attractive, but VERY tame. I think her part in the movie will redeem the poor ads. Also, alotta girls wanna see this film. As in, the girls who don't care much for comics, but go with friends/boyfriends. Weird...but not really.
Looks like Watchmen'll be like Rosario Dawson. Both: Hypnotically beautiful followed by skepticism on intelligence and coolness...then you find out they are both made of Fantastic & Awesome!
I'm more perplexed by that whole "3am" and "doing something stupid" thing. I don't get how that's supposed to be clever marketing. If they're trying to draw in a mainstream audience, then that's pretty much as dumb as you can get.
ReplyDeleteThere's clearly a sexist slant (avalanche?) in comics-- perhaps even more than in movies. But when you combine the two, it seems to give you some sort of uber, Frankenstein Monster sexism.
ReplyDeleteThe insane thing about everything I've seen coming from Synder's WATCHMEN is just how wrong it is. I know I'm waaaaay in the minority here, but he just doesn't seem to understand the source material at all.
Take a look at Silk Specter and Nite Owl as examples of this. First off-- this actress looks like she stepped right out of the pages of Maxim. That's not what Laurie was in the book at all.
She was sturdy. A heavy smoker. Cranky. Frustrated.
This woman looks like one of those under-fed fashion models on PROJECT RUNWAY.
And am I really supposed to think she knocked those punks halfway down the street with her little chicken wing arms? She looks like she could barely pick up a pencil.
So much for reality in this WATCHMEN.
Nite Owl is equally wrong and absurd. Dan was downright fat. His costume was supposed to look silly in the light-- like it was made at home over the kitchen table. Because that's what it was! A home made costume.
Both Silk Specter and Nite Owl's uniforms look like two dozen Warner Brothers artists, sculptors and designers spent a huge amount of money to design a "cool" Batman-y and Catwoman-y look.
The problem is, that goes against the entire "superhero in real world" vibe that made WATCHMEN so interesting and unique.
Now it just feels like an Mtv video gone horribly wrong (don't get me started on that blood curdling Smashing Pumpkins music that dominates the boring and over produced trailer).
I'm not a hater or a naysayer. I understand that things must change in different mediums. JAWS the movie is drastically different than the book (for the better). CUCKOO'S NEST is a completely different story as a movie, yet somehow remains completely true to the source material.
But everything I see from this movie seems wrong wrong wrong.
And making Silk Specter some kind of coked out whore that would look more at home next to Paris Hilton at Hyde instead of fighting crime in New York just doesn't fit with the book's vision at all.
Look-- I know that Snyder's recreating scenes shot for shot. Who cares? I don't get why people don't understand this: just making a shot look EXACTLY like a panel from the book doesn't mean you're being honest to the source material. You may think you're showering Moore and Gibbons with love, but you're just pissing in their faces.
I think everything this Snyder joker has ever done has been absolute garbage. I don't think it's even come close to even mediocre (don't get me started DAWN OF THE DEAD disaster).
Nothing I've seen has changed my perspective on this.
So is the Silk Specter poster sexist? Hell yes. Is it boring and predictable? Still yes. Is it corporate and soul less? Couldn't be more so. Am I surprised? Not a bit.
I'm not gonna see this movie, because I love the book and I hate the filmmaker.
However, if you told me Alfonso Cuarón or Ridley Scott was producing a six hour mini-series of WATCHMEN on SciFi or HBO, I'd be sleeping in front of my TV until it aired.
But I'm weird that way.
Ted
Btw-- I've been gone working my butt off for a real long time, Val. But I'm back and really enjoying your writing. You seem to be on a tear. Love it.
I'm bothered by it. It's been ages since I read Watchmen, and I certainly didn't retain it all that much, but isn't this like the only female super-character? Hell of a representation of All Women Supers to have her essentially pantsless and shiny-bummed.
ReplyDeleteYES! All women should dress like Rorschach in a trench coat...
ReplyDeleteSeriously though, I imagine some woman may find this type of get-up empowering. Just depends on how an individual sees the female form, I guess.
It’s sexist.
ReplyDelete“I am used to going out at 3am and doing something stupid”. Combine that with the kinky sex suit, the coy over the shoulder glance, and the kind of dark deserted city street down which women are frequently told they should not walk (unless, of course, it’s their profession), and it’s hard not to read that sentence as “I am used to going out at 3am in the morning and engaging in potentially risky sexual activity, very likely with strangers, and tonight, sonny Jim, that stranger could be you”
Does anyone seriously want to dispute this?
Of course it's sexist, she's wearing skin tight leather thigh highs and showing off her butt.
ReplyDeleteIs it sexist? Arguably. Is that the point, considering the character? More than likely, yes. After all, one of the main issues with Silk Spectre II is that she feels she was pushed into the role of the "sexy female superheroine" by her mother, the adult comic equivalent of a stage mom.
ReplyDeleteAnd to be honest also, one of the tropes of "Watchmen" is tackling the harsh realisms of being a vigilante...going out in a weird outfit at 3 am to try to stop some methhead muggers with nothing to loose, on a nightly basis, isn't the best way to live your life. SS II is just the one who was most vocal about pointing out how stupid it was.
I'm going to go in a different direction and say, yes, it is sexist, but that's part of who the character was.
ReplyDeleteThe Silk Spectre is both enabled and disabled by her objectification - in that it led to her mothers' rape, as well as her own objectification and fetishization - the kind that Maxim models endure for money.
I hope they go in a direction that makes sexist masogynists question that, especially with the route the Comedian, Nite-Owl, and Dr. Manhattan all take with both generations of the character.
I've always thought the portrayals of women in the Watchmen graphic novel were pretty sexist to begin with. SS 1 is a shallow, uneducated, fame-hungry woman who is more than happy to play off her sexuality as empowerment, and eventually falls in love with her rapist. I've looked for more depth, but I can't really find any. She's a consequence of her time, perhaps, but not a very thought-provoking one.
ReplyDeleteSS 2 is a genuinely dumb woman (by far the least intellegent member of the primary cast, makes the worst decisions, is most frequently confused) and is practically a stereotype of the emotional, hysterical girlfriend (which makes sense, since she's paired up with the stone cold Doc Manhattan).
All I'm saying is you'd have to try hard to make the Spectres any less appealing from a feminist perspective than they were in the original book.
I love the Watchmen every time I read it, but I've just sort have got to do my best to ignore the ladies. Except for the Lesbian who gets killed, she's pretty neat for the three or so panels she's featured in.
Yes it's sexist. The text only adds to it. She is being used as bait to attract a cetain type of fan and a certain way of reading her part. If you ramdomly swapped the text pieces about on the pics you'll see just how they interact with the images and how hers is all about sexing her up rather than developing her as a complex character.
ReplyDeletei had just about out grown comics when alan moore took over swampthing and pulled me right back in...what sgt pepper was to music, what monty python was for comedy, alan moore was for comics as far as i see it. i bought watchman as it came out and loved it and always worried that any attempt to make it into a movie would be dissapointing. This morning i went to a preview screening type thingy, three ten minute sections...followed by a live question and answer session with the director and dave gibbons. im not easily impressed but i was totally blown away...the title sequence alone is a superb bit of cinema. and i was very impressed by what Zak Synder had to say about the whole thing....i came away fully believing that not only is the film in totally safe hands but also that watchman will be quite something in terms of grown up cinema......
ReplyDeleteand to answer the question on everyones lips...it might be pixelated out in the trailers but in the film itself dr. manhattan's "wedding tackle" is there in all it blue glory
3 am? Is she going to answer Hillary's phone?
ReplyDeleteHmmm... I think the guy lying on the street pretty much states that the "stupid things" means beating people up. However, it is unnecessarily sexualized. But so is the character itself. Well, maybe not the character, as she seemed to be a commentary on the female fantasy stereotype (or so I believe)... but I digress.
ReplyDeleteI just hope she mentions wanting to wear al leather outfit with a mask and a gun by the end...
Wow, i'm amazed at the responses. I don't think it's sexist. I think its kinda dumb... it's like most Hollywood tag-lines, mindlessly playing off mainstream (read: conservative) social norms, futiley hoping that it will be seen as an Oscar Wildian witticism.
ReplyDeleteI actually thought she was explicitly un-sexualised in the comic, anyway. I thought it was deliberate. The only sexual interactions she has with other characters seem pretty nerdy and human (i mean "nerdy" with affection).
Karterhol said "Nite Owl ... His costume was supposed to look silly in the light-- like it was made at home over the kitchen table. Because that's what it was! ... Both Silk Specter and Nite Owl's uniforms look like two dozen Warner Brothers artists, sculptors and designers spent a huge amount of money..."
Oh yeah - thats Movies for you. Have you noticed that the same thing happens whenever a character in an American film wears a Halloween costume (heck, whenever a character in a low-budget SITCOM wears a Halloween costume, for that matter)?
Does your average costume designer/director really believe that someone on a $AU50,000pa income is going to splash out on a specially tailored cybernetic-vinyl shapeshifting suit for the holidays?
How odd would it be if the first Spiderman movie ends up being seen as doing the Watchmen aesthetic better than Watchmen...
You have to take the actual quote in context - "I used to be a masked avenger too remember? I’m used to going out at 3 in the morning and doing something stupid." And it's in a conversation with another mask.
ReplyDeleteNo... but that term doesn't mean much to me anyway. The term was created by frumpy women.
ReplyDelete