With Watchmen due for DVD release in the not too distant future (and my not being here when the film hit theatres), I’ll take that as an excuse to bring up my biggest issue with Snyder’s interpretation of the source material.

Relax.  This isn’t another lengthy diatribe about the squid.

I can almost hear the collective global sigh from here…

No, my issue with Snyder’s film is far more pressing.  Because Watchmen was always a story relying heavily on Moore’s ability to extrapolate great depth from a character rather than straight-up action, that makes this cause for concern far more pressing.  Rorschach.

Now before I get a whole heap of people pissed off with me, praising Jackie Earl Haley and coming to my door with pitchforks and fedoras, hear me out and understand that I’m not slinging shit on JEH.  No, this wouldn’t have been his call, and I think for the most part Jackie Earl Haley did a nice job.  That said, I do believe making a character as badass as Rorschach is by nature come across as cool is hardly a grand achievement, and his role was clearly going to be the most envied in the film.  But that’s nothing to do with this.

No, I’m pointing the finger at the putz (whoever it was, writer or director – ultimately it comes down to Snyder) who decided that it was an acceptable idea to change up a key moment in the character’s psyche which sees him bisect a criminal offender’s head with a cleaver.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those conservative anti-violence whack jobs who don’t seem to understand that not every family is out there trying to sneak underage kids into restricted movies.  (Hell, I’m from Australia, where we’ve just seen the Attorney General piss off myself and the majority of gamers out there by refusing to have an “R” rating.)  But I will fight like hell to maintain logic and reason in movie plots where possible, especially in a case as blatant as this one, where it impacts the evolution of the character’s psyche so drastically.

First we’ll have to talk about the character himself, Alan Moore created Rorschach to be that Questionesque character (admittedly one of the characters he based Rorschach on, as well as the A), a conservative, faceless crimefighter with a strong drive.  In order to do that, though, Moore had to discover what drives his character.  In the case of the Question, it’s curiosity (as reflected in his blank mask).  In Rorschach, however, it’s a complete refusal to compromise, an extension of his fascist, right-leaning beliefs.  He has a strong moral code, as you can tell from journal entries and dialogue, and when originally chosen to be Rorschach (to fight crime) he was imposing this moral code on his immediate environment by his strength of will.  Like the Question his drive is also displayed in his mask (black and white, can be in flux, but never mixing).  If the mask is to be believed, we can see that these values can be changed, but never compromised.

So essentially, we see that Rorschach is a very hard-wired character.  He has his own set of rules and up until the investigation of the kidnapper there was a very heavy one: “Rorschach does not kill.”  Now it was great foresight on Moore’s part to realise that in order for this to change it was not going to be an asserted decision on Rorschach’s end.  “Even in the face of death…”

So how does Moore have this character evolve into one which is willing to kill?  It can be one of only two ways: The first would be an accident; the second is the path Moore went down.   Rorschach surveys the situation, lays down strict ground rules, leaves the man’s fate up to himself and the man doesn’t survive.  Due to Rorschach’s strong conservative leanings and his own psychological hard-wiring Rorschach would take responsibility for his own actions and the rule would change to suit.

Rorschach discovers despised kidnapper; kidnapper agitates Rorschach; Rorschach sees immediate surroundings as one in which the kidnapper is in peril; Rorschach establishes ground rules: “You can live, but you’ll have to be willing to lose a limb”; Rorschach leaves; Rorschach sees that kidnapper was not willing to make sacrifice; Rorschach’s own political beliefs force him to take responsibility for his actions; Rorschach paradigm shift; Rorschach no longer “lets them live”.

Now the path that Snyder went down: criminal agitates Rorschach to “breaking point”; Rorschach “snaps” and hacks the crap out of the crook; Rorschach changes own personal philosophy.  It betrays the character’s very nature, and belies his “never compromise” stance towards the world.

It’s hard to say you truly live to the “never compromise” mantra when you completely go against your own moral code and claim a crook’s head in the name of the Nation of Hatchet, purely because he pisses you off by representing all that’s wrong with the world…

Next to contradicting the most popular character in the graphic novel medium’s greatest character piece, scrapping squiddy is nothing…

There’s only one thing to say to that…

“Hnhh.”