![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
V for Vendetta thoughts
Apr. 9th, 2006 11:44 amIt's been a while since I updated the live journal - so if I have anything remotely like regular readers, forgive the old news - but a few weeks ago, I went to see the V for Vendetta movie. I thought it was fairly mediocre, but I surprised myself by actually taking notes on the film.
I didn't dislike it the way I dislike Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves or that silly King Arthur movie from a year or two ago. I didn't want to tear my ears off and gouge my eyes out, like I did when I saw Catwoman and What the Bleep Do We Know?
But well, the V for Vendetta comic book (or graphic novel, if you prefer) is a classic in the genre. I was certain the film wouldn't be great or brilliant, but I was hoping for a bit more than "well, it's all right".
I like comics, as a medium. Some of it is undoubtedly stubborn refusal to outgrow childhood favourites. But I think my love of comics also has something to do with the potential of the medium. It still bothers me that the phrase "comic book" is used as a term of derision, when movie versions of comics: like V for Vendetta, From Hell and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen are all severely dumbed down from the original source material.
Alan Moore wrote the comics that all those films were based on (and also created the character Constantine in his groundbreaking Swamp Thing run).
Now, adaptations always mean that some things will be changed. I absolutely understand why the destruction of Parliament was moved to the climax, rather than at the opening. V for Vendetta was a long, sprawling serialized narrative. So, of course characters like Rosemary Almond are going to be dropped.
But there were some problems beyond that - ones of both style and structure. The comic book had a distinct mood. Somewhat theatrical, somewhat retro - a bit of the post-war Britain feel with dreary days, food rationing and the like. The film seemed to have no clear style. Characters like Evey could afford plasma TVs. V's Shadow Gallery was supposed to contain banned elements of culture, but Evey's able to watch V's favourite movie on normal TV. Is it a dystopian future or is it supposed to be like life now? I don't think the filmmakers ever decided. And it shows.
I also miss some of the comics more theatrical elements - like V's recreation of the Larkhill camp to torture Prothero. It's to the Voice of Fate is replaced by a shock jock. But those changes are understandable, if regrettable. I miss the Scouring of the Shire in the Lord of the Rings films, but I can still appreciate those movies for what they are.
In terms of structure, I thought the biggest problem had to do with Evey. I can understand them changing some details. Evey's background as a failed prostitute - an obsession for quite a few 1980s comic books - wouldn't really fly. But I'm not convinced that by giving the character a career, they made her any more of a feminist role model.
In the comic, Evey grows, changes and learns. She never embraces V's murderous ways. (He's meant to tear down society. It's her job to rebuild.) But she certainly takes a more active role in events than the film Evey does. When Evey is tortured and has her big transformative moment in the rain, in the comic, she dedicates herself to a cause.
In the film, Evey leaves, goes home, and watches TV. It's what she did at the start of the film. And at the middle. So, how does this count as a transformation?
And as silly as I find the "I'm Spartacus" (Or "I'm Brian, and so's my wife" for you Python fans) moment - backed up by digitally-created crowds, it's clear that the average Londoner seems to take a more active role in the revolution than Evey.
And yet, a friend of a friend finds the film Evey inspirational. I guess it helps in the delusion that if you just sit at home and watch the Daily Show, you're somehow a great hero fighting corrupt and conservative elements of society.
Stephen Fry's character - more-or-less an invention of the film - is one of the most charming parts of the movie. But his Benny Hill-referencing act of rebellion does play into the idea that the left-wing have a monopoly on humour. It sustains the impression that things like South Park, Avenue Q and the like will somehow change the world. (Ignoring that many of those shows are actually created by conservatives.) The cabaret scenes and the Dixon of Dock Green reference in the comic show that Alan Moore was aware that the forces of conservatism and the status quo are just as liable to use humour and retro TV shows as the left-wing rebels.
I'm very interested in the politics of the film. As I've said elsewhere on this blog, I'm a student of the Robin Hood legend. (Check out my site http://www.boldoutlaw.com ) The ways in which V is softened in the movie is very similar to what has happened to the Robin Hood legend. It's why Robin has gone from an outlaw who will decapitate corrupt but lawful authority figures to being a defender of mom, dad and apple pie.
In the comic, V is an anarchist. In his video address to the nation (from the comic), he makes it plain that all governments everywhere, have been bad. Even reluctant Evey embraces this philosophy. The film V is not an anarchist. He's fighting one particularly corrupt government that has hijacked a normally-functioning democracy. That change makes V a hell of a lot safer. The comic book V, well, I think most readers might at least question the idea of anarchy.
In the comic, the crappy state of Britain and the world allows a right-wing group of fascists to take over. But in the film, the fascists have secret plots to engineer the bad events that allow them to get elected. The public ... despite a few token lines by V in the movie ... have little culpability in Norsefire coming to power. The evil government is like Prince John, usurping King Richard's throne.
Any right-thinking individual would rebel in the movie world. Again, this makes things a lot safer.
And other character changes support this. Any hint of non-hetero/mainstream sexuality is given only to the good guys. Certainly the comic book points out that the extermination of gays was wrong. There's even a strong implication that V may be gay. But the bad guys aren't some homogeneous group. The leader has a strange fixation with his computer. Prothero has a doll fetish. Other bad guys have ambiguous sexuality. Just as in real life, the odious and homophobic Republican Party actually has major players who are gay. (And seemingly are only concerned for their personal power, not for gay rights.)It's only one example of greater character shading that appears in the comic.
Finch, in the film, objects to the society. He has to be totally sympathetic. In the comic, his commitment to policework trumps any concerns of conscience. In the comic, it is the identifiable character of Finch who kills V, not some ultra evil bad guy...
Okay, maybe I'm starting to ramble here. And I have to sign off and do stuff.
But the film tagline claims that the movie is an uncompromising vision of the future. It's really seriously compromised.
Hmmmm... movie PR lies. Hardly news, I guess.
It is bizarre though that Warner Bros. (who owns DC/Vertigo comics) is capable of publishing a comic with an anarchist hero, but balks at making a movie about such a figure.
Which medium is the truly childish one?
Allen
I didn't dislike it the way I dislike Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves or that silly King Arthur movie from a year or two ago. I didn't want to tear my ears off and gouge my eyes out, like I did when I saw Catwoman and What the Bleep Do We Know?
But well, the V for Vendetta comic book (or graphic novel, if you prefer) is a classic in the genre. I was certain the film wouldn't be great or brilliant, but I was hoping for a bit more than "well, it's all right".
I like comics, as a medium. Some of it is undoubtedly stubborn refusal to outgrow childhood favourites. But I think my love of comics also has something to do with the potential of the medium. It still bothers me that the phrase "comic book" is used as a term of derision, when movie versions of comics: like V for Vendetta, From Hell and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen are all severely dumbed down from the original source material.
Alan Moore wrote the comics that all those films were based on (and also created the character Constantine in his groundbreaking Swamp Thing run).
Now, adaptations always mean that some things will be changed. I absolutely understand why the destruction of Parliament was moved to the climax, rather than at the opening. V for Vendetta was a long, sprawling serialized narrative. So, of course characters like Rosemary Almond are going to be dropped.
But there were some problems beyond that - ones of both style and structure. The comic book had a distinct mood. Somewhat theatrical, somewhat retro - a bit of the post-war Britain feel with dreary days, food rationing and the like. The film seemed to have no clear style. Characters like Evey could afford plasma TVs. V's Shadow Gallery was supposed to contain banned elements of culture, but Evey's able to watch V's favourite movie on normal TV. Is it a dystopian future or is it supposed to be like life now? I don't think the filmmakers ever decided. And it shows.
I also miss some of the comics more theatrical elements - like V's recreation of the Larkhill camp to torture Prothero. It's to the Voice of Fate is replaced by a shock jock. But those changes are understandable, if regrettable. I miss the Scouring of the Shire in the Lord of the Rings films, but I can still appreciate those movies for what they are.
In terms of structure, I thought the biggest problem had to do with Evey. I can understand them changing some details. Evey's background as a failed prostitute - an obsession for quite a few 1980s comic books - wouldn't really fly. But I'm not convinced that by giving the character a career, they made her any more of a feminist role model.
In the comic, Evey grows, changes and learns. She never embraces V's murderous ways. (He's meant to tear down society. It's her job to rebuild.) But she certainly takes a more active role in events than the film Evey does. When Evey is tortured and has her big transformative moment in the rain, in the comic, she dedicates herself to a cause.
In the film, Evey leaves, goes home, and watches TV. It's what she did at the start of the film. And at the middle. So, how does this count as a transformation?
And as silly as I find the "I'm Spartacus" (Or "I'm Brian, and so's my wife" for you Python fans) moment - backed up by digitally-created crowds, it's clear that the average Londoner seems to take a more active role in the revolution than Evey.
And yet, a friend of a friend finds the film Evey inspirational. I guess it helps in the delusion that if you just sit at home and watch the Daily Show, you're somehow a great hero fighting corrupt and conservative elements of society.
Stephen Fry's character - more-or-less an invention of the film - is one of the most charming parts of the movie. But his Benny Hill-referencing act of rebellion does play into the idea that the left-wing have a monopoly on humour. It sustains the impression that things like South Park, Avenue Q and the like will somehow change the world. (Ignoring that many of those shows are actually created by conservatives.) The cabaret scenes and the Dixon of Dock Green reference in the comic show that Alan Moore was aware that the forces of conservatism and the status quo are just as liable to use humour and retro TV shows as the left-wing rebels.
I'm very interested in the politics of the film. As I've said elsewhere on this blog, I'm a student of the Robin Hood legend. (Check out my site http://www.boldoutlaw.com ) The ways in which V is softened in the movie is very similar to what has happened to the Robin Hood legend. It's why Robin has gone from an outlaw who will decapitate corrupt but lawful authority figures to being a defender of mom, dad and apple pie.
In the comic, V is an anarchist. In his video address to the nation (from the comic), he makes it plain that all governments everywhere, have been bad. Even reluctant Evey embraces this philosophy. The film V is not an anarchist. He's fighting one particularly corrupt government that has hijacked a normally-functioning democracy. That change makes V a hell of a lot safer. The comic book V, well, I think most readers might at least question the idea of anarchy.
In the comic, the crappy state of Britain and the world allows a right-wing group of fascists to take over. But in the film, the fascists have secret plots to engineer the bad events that allow them to get elected. The public ... despite a few token lines by V in the movie ... have little culpability in Norsefire coming to power. The evil government is like Prince John, usurping King Richard's throne.
Any right-thinking individual would rebel in the movie world. Again, this makes things a lot safer.
And other character changes support this. Any hint of non-hetero/mainstream sexuality is given only to the good guys. Certainly the comic book points out that the extermination of gays was wrong. There's even a strong implication that V may be gay. But the bad guys aren't some homogeneous group. The leader has a strange fixation with his computer. Prothero has a doll fetish. Other bad guys have ambiguous sexuality. Just as in real life, the odious and homophobic Republican Party actually has major players who are gay. (And seemingly are only concerned for their personal power, not for gay rights.)It's only one example of greater character shading that appears in the comic.
Finch, in the film, objects to the society. He has to be totally sympathetic. In the comic, his commitment to policework trumps any concerns of conscience. In the comic, it is the identifiable character of Finch who kills V, not some ultra evil bad guy...
Okay, maybe I'm starting to ramble here. And I have to sign off and do stuff.
But the film tagline claims that the movie is an uncompromising vision of the future. It's really seriously compromised.
Hmmmm... movie PR lies. Hardly news, I guess.
It is bizarre though that Warner Bros. (who owns DC/Vertigo comics) is capable of publishing a comic with an anarchist hero, but balks at making a movie about such a figure.
Which medium is the truly childish one?
Allen
