V for Vendetta & Alan Moore

[jburneko]

Hello,

This might be a fun topic for the Birthday Forum!  This last weekend I managed to both see the movie and read the book, V for Vendetta.  To be specific I read the first third of the book, then saw the movie, then read the last two thirds of the book over about a 72 hour period.  I have also read both volumes of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and From Hell.  I have not read Watchmen.

Maybe I'm traveling into heresy but I think I prefered the film.  As I was reading the book I could almost see the big red circles the writers put around certain sections that made it into the film.  The bigest changes from book to film (despite reording and rewriting the sections that were largely intact) come in the last third.  I really didn't like the last third of the book.  The focus was almost entirely on secondary characters and V and Evey kind of got pushed to the background.

But despite the crazy focus I felt like the writing was trying to serve two masters.  I felt like on one hand we had the idea that corruption will inevitably self implode (Such as Almond's wife shooting The Leader) and on the other hand we had the idea that V was still pulling the strings of corruption (such as sending the video tape of Heyers' wife and the gangster to the Eye guy).  There was a lot of weirdness too I just couldn't get behind such as the detective taking LSD at the concentration camp.  And this is why the major revisions in the last third of the film didn't bother me.  It refocused everything on V and his passions and visions instead of a messy smattering of secondary characters.

I could also tell that the writers of the film truly loved their source material and went to great lengths to preserve elements of the story they didn't have to, such as the girl with the bottle glasses or the association the comic makes between Gordon and a Evey's parent figure.

I've come to realize that I think almost all of Alan Moore's writing lacks, a certain something.  From Hell was all over the place.  The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen has some cool moments and elements but also goes to some weird places.  I feel like Moore's strength is in his character portrayal and situation setup but that he gets lost in his own verbiage as a project goes on.

Thoughts?

Jesse

[TonyLB]

Maybe I'm traveling into heresy but I think I prefered the film.

There are things I liked better in the film, and I am such an afficianado of the book that our household has extra copies specifically earmarked for lending to people.

[jburneko]

There are things I liked better in the film, and I am such an afficianado of the book that our household has extra copies specifically earmarked for lending to people.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who owns multiple copies of things for lending purposes.

Since, you're such an afficianado of the book maybe you can explain something to me that I missed.  What does Gordon in the book do?  Is he somekind of blackmarketeer?  Why do gangsters kill him?  And if that's so, how does that tie in with V's anti-government thing?  I have a kind of comic ephasia.  I have trouble tracking characters from panel to panel unless they are really really distinctive looking and I found that section confusing.

Jesse

[Emily Care]

I could also tell that the writers of the film truly loved their source material and went to great lengths to preserve elements of the story they didn't have to, such as the girl with the bottle glasses or the association the comic makes between Gordon and a Evey's parent figure.

On my second viewing, I caught V telling the Bishop to stick out his tongue. You can barely hear it, but it seems like they kept in that he was killed with a communion wafer. I was suitably impressed.

It was probably wise to make it veeeery subtle. Nothing like that to really give fodder to religious boycotting. It's controversial enough.

[Joel P. Shempert]

The Three Unforgivable Changes, in my opinion:

1: Cutting V's speech to Lady Justice

2: Altering (or rather, destrying) the content of V's pirate broadcast

3: Cutting Evey's assumption of the V mantle.

All of these serve to undercut the basic philosophy of the story, which is the contrast and tension between Susan's Facism and V's Anarchism. There are some other alterations which also feed into that watering-down effect, like the omission of much of the Leader's personal characterization, and making V so damn apologetic ad over-explainy to Evey. "I wish there were another way, really I do," "Don't you think I agonized over doing those terrible things to you?" Bah! Rubbish. The real V don't apologize for nothin'. he just does what he does, for the reasons he has, and if he's amonster for it, then yeah, he's a monster. I'm reminded of my favorite line (not, alas, in the film) "But killing's wrong. . .isn't it?" "Why are you asking me?" Exactly. Don't ask me to hold your hand, kid. Make up your own mind.

But I digress. The point is, without the conceptual framework of those three scenes and others, all you get is a shallow, Rah-Rah, "fight for freedom!" feel-good revolution-lite flick that doesn't really challenge anything. Especially #3 above: without that clear transition from Destroyer to Builder, representing the two faces of Anarchy, all you've got is a more lethal Batman with a "rally the people" theme tacked on. Not that you'd even know the film was about Anarchy as such; the only play the A-word get is in it's colloquial, pejorative sense as a synonym for chaos, not in its precise political sense. Even V distinguishes between chaos and anarchy.

Anyway. There are a lot of cool things about the film; I'm grateful that Valerie's letter made it in mostly intact, the action scenes were awesome, there were a lot of excellent performances all around. And a lot of the changes or omissions may bug me, but in the end they're relatively minor, understandable in tyerms of redacting characters/plotlines, or even on occasion an improvement. But without that core outlined above, it just ain't V for Vendetta.

It is too bad they didn't work in "This Vicious Cabaret." :)

Peace,

[jburneko]

Hello There,

1) Yes, I missed this too.  That scene was probably my favorite in the whole book.  Totally awesome.

2) Eh, it didn't really strike me either way.  I prefered the 1 year challenge in the movie over the vague, "I give you two years to clean up your act" stuff in the book.  Reading that, I was like, "So.... what does V want the poeple to actually DO...?"

3) I wondered why this wasn't in the movie.  Perhaps the writers thought the whole citizenry doning the mask was a substitute for it but while other substitutes worked I don't think that one did.  In fact, when I told my wife (who has not read the book) how the book ended she commented, "I was waiting for that to happen in the movie and was surprised when it didn't."

As for the whole Anarchy vs. Chaos thing that was something I didn't like about the book anyway.  I guess it's because I personally think Anarchy, as V believes in it is rediculous.  There are about 8 billion problems with Anarchy that V totally fails to address in the book.  So, I much prefer the more realistically achievable and functional tone of "FREEDOM!" of the film.  Less radical, true, but radical without practicality is pointless.

V's whole Chaos vs. Anarchy speech in the book totally contradicts the opening part of the book.  They HAD Chaos before with the war and the flooding and that's what lead to Facisim.  Why didn't things settle down into Anarchy then?  What has V done that will make the Chaos turn out differently this time?  Again, what does V want the people to *DO*?

Jesse

[John Harper]

Those changes made for a better film, given the goals of the filmmakers.

We already have the book, which is wonderful -- one of my favorite created objects on Earth. We don't need a carbon-copy in movie form. That book cannot be filmed as is. I'll even go one step further: Books shouldn't be filmed as is. They must be interpreted, and yes, sometimes they must be changed. The filmmakers decided to focus their lens in a certain way, and they did a fine job of it.

It's a very good movie, IMO. The book is its own entity, with its own standards and goals as a work.

[John Harper]

Also: Who else noticed the dead people at the end, during the unmasking of the crowd? Such a wonderful flourish.

[jburneko]

Also: Who else noticed the dead people at the end, during the unmasking of the crowd? Such a wonderful flourish.

Yes, I noticed that.  It's one of those "substitutes" and "elements the writers didn't have to include" things I mentioned since in the book Evey imagines unmasking V a few times and seeing those in her life who have died.

As for book-to-film I agree with your points.  To me bringing a book to film is about capturing the conflicts and the theme even if you have to restructure the plot and cut others corners to get that across.  I felt V the film did that.  In fact, I felt V the film did it more succinctly than V the book which felt ill focused and wild for me.

Jesse

[TonyLB]

Since, you're such an afficianado of the book maybe you can explain something to me that I missed.  What does Gordon in the book do?  Is he somekind of blackmarketeer?  Why do gangsters kill him?

As best I can tell, yeah.  He's holding contraband materials.  He and his partner(s) have a falling out about how they'll split profits and responsibilities.  His partners apply non-consensus conflict resolution techniques.

The replacement of Gordon is one of the things I liked better.  It is, as you point out, one of the things that doesn't tie very tightly with the rest of the story.

I'm very torn on the "unforgivable changes."  They do remove much of Moore's original message.  But the bits they remove are the bits that tell you that V is a good guy, and that what he's doing is justified.  With that stuff cut, and Evey educated up (from a largely clueless victim in the book to a confused but opinionated protagonist in the movie) the movie does a credible job of asking the question rather than telling you the answer.

I prefer the book as a piece of fiction, but I'm quite sure I'd prefer the screenwriter(s) of the movie as GMs.  They leave room for me to contribute my own thoughts.

[jburneko]

But the bits they remove are the bits that tell you that V is a good guy, and that what he's doing is justified.  With that stuff cut, and Evey educated up (from a largely clueless victim in the book to a confused but opinionated protagonist in the movie) the movie does a credible job of asking the question rather than telling you the answer.

AH HA!  And there you have it.  What you're talking about is when I find a story getting "preachy."  When the point of the book isn't expressed through conflict, character action and resolution but is at some point yattered at you through demonstration or out and out lecturing.  And this is what I think is "off" about all of Moore's stuff.  He starts out telling a story but at some point inevitably gets lazy and just starts demonstrating and preaching.

Jesse

[jerry]

I'm very torn on the "unforgivable changes."  They do remove much of Moore's original message.  But the bits they remove are the bits that tell you that V is a good guy, and that what he's doing is justified.

See, I disagree with that; for me, it was exactly the opposite. In the book, it is not at all clear that V is a good guy; in the movie, it is.

In the book, V was a terrorist taking down a government that was, for the most part, supported by the people that the government opppressed. It was the government that the majority in England wanted to have. In the movie, they add in a conspiracy that makes it not really the people's choice of government; they were tricked into choosing this government. That was a huge change, and it turns the whole movie around.

In the book, there was no clear-cut victory. Have V's mass murders been a good trade? Is oppressive government gone in England? Or has he merely killed a whole lot of people in order to install a new monarchy with his successor at the head?

Is it right to kill large numbers of the majority in order to end the murders of minorities? Can good come of violent interventions? That's the question that the book asks us to answer. The book is not at all outdated in that respect; it's a good question to ask today. The movie doesn't really ask any questions. It just says that if you blow up some empty buildings the people will realize the wrongs of the government they voted for and flock to your support. Natalie Portman will kiss your mask. And the entire high school will realize how cool you really are.

That said, I enjoyed the movie; I just thought it could have been much more; and I don't see that it compares to the book at all. It would have been less disappointing if it had been named something else.

Jerry

[Joel P. Shempert]

I've heard complaints before that Alan Moore gets too "preachy." I have to ask, "Preachy about what?" Leaving aside V for a moment, Watchmen asks a pretty brutal question in the end about the ends justifying the means, and doesn't really give much of an answer, aside from basically "well, there wasn't much we could do tochange what happened, so we're making the best of it now." And From Hell is pretty all over the place, yes, but doesn't ever seem to offer any sort of "moral," unless you take "cutting up women's entrails to achieve a higher state of consciousness is A-OK" to be Moore's own viewpoint. And League of Extroardinary Gentlemen is really just a suspense-thriller Victorian pastiche. Fun, but no real "message."

Now, if when people say "preachy," theymean "Alan Moore sure talks a lot in his stories," then, yeah, I guess he does. And I can see why not everyone would want to slog through the billions of tiny panels and dense text of From Hell, though I found it fascinating. But that's not the same thing as hitting you over the head with some kind of "point." V for Vendetta, is, certainly, by far the most preachy of his stories that I've read (which includes all of the preceeding plus "the Killing Joke"), but I don't see it as forcing you to accept the author's conclusion. As Jerry says, the book askes a lot more questions than it answers. When I read it I found it whet my appetite for just this reason. . .it said, for example, "Anarchy brings peace through voluntary order" without telling you how that "voluntary order" thing actually works. And the "victory" of Anarchy at the end is by no means clear. A solution to falling back into Facism in the chaos is presented, in Evey's assuming of V''s role, but that raises its own question, in that you're using Facist demagoguery to herd people toward Anarchy. . .a paradox.

The really brilliant thing about V, the comic, is that it presents the best and worse cases, for both Facisn and Anarchy. . .frex Susan's monologue at the beginning is like a love letter to the people he oppresses. And V represents Anarchy at its most idealistic, yet tortures his intended successor to make her see the light. Nothing is clear, nothing is certain, and nothing is intended to be.

Oh, and good point, Jerry, about the government conspiracy thing mucking things up.

Jburneko, I guess I prefer the the original broadcast, because A) there's something exquisitely creepy about phrasing V's declaration as essentially a message from God, such that changing it just feels like wussing out in the name of mass market appeal, and B) the overemphasis of Guy Fawks (necessitated in part because we Yanks don't know who the hell he was), serves to further shift attention away from the big "A".

You're right, though, that the time limit thing is rather muddier in the book. However, I think the vagueness of the message itself is justifiable ecause it's only one domino in V's Big Picture.

I agree that "bringing a book to film is about capturing the conflicts and the theme even if you have to restructure the plot and cut others corners to get that across." But I submit that "V for Vendetta" did not adequately "capture the conflicts and theme" on many levels. There are a lot of cuts thatI can live with, like Almond's widow, Finch's LSD trip, even the FATE computer (though that one pains me, for on thing even in terms of mere plot causality it's necessary to explain V's success in subversion). But I singled out the points I did (though in retrospect (2) isn't as strong as the others) because it is those omissions that gut the themes of the book.

I did love the new Gordon, though I think the point of the original was to show just how misierable things are on the "mean streets" even in this paradise of order and safety. And yes, John, the dead characters in the crowd was a brilliant and beautiful stroke.

Peace,

[Bankuei]

See, I disagree with that; for me, it was exactly the opposite. In the book, it is not at all clear that V is a good guy; in the movie, it is.

That's pretty much my opinion as well.  In fact, V doesn't even set up for Evey to be his monarch- he's setting up for anarchy, which is pretty much the general philosophy pushed throughout the book by V.  And, V being less a real character and more of an ideal, the focus of the story is on the other characters in the face of the war of ideologies.  In the movie it is compassion that drives V's manipulation of Evey, in the book, it's sociopathic obsession- a worldview that accepts no other possibilities.

Chris