“Wicked Cool!” I remember, was the adjective I employed to describe James McTeigue’s adaptation of V for Vendetta when I first saw it. I regarded it as a film on the same plane as Batman Begins then, and thought to myself, that I had finally witnessed 2 comic book adaptations I would fondly remember for a long time.
V for Vendetta had everything going for it, a mysterious protagonist, who wasn’t altogether too reliable in his motives, an oppressive government conspiring against its people, and a struggle for liberty wrapped in some great human drama.
But yet, in my last article, I said V for Vendetta was probably the most unholy adaptation of a comic book to film (A statement a lot of people did not agree with). And there is only one reason I made that statement.
Before Zack Snyder’s adaptation of Watchmen released, a friend strongly suggested I read the book before
watching the film. He was convinced the book was unfilmable. “The movie will rob you of the greatest comic book experience you can ever have”, or something along those lines, were his words.
And he was right. Compared to the book, the movie felt like a wet noodle.
It was then that I read V for Vendetta, to see if there would be a similar shift in my perception for its adaptation.
And boy! Did my high regard for the movie take a nosedive.
Vindication
Before I set about breaking down all of my concerns with the movie itself, I want to set up some context regarding how influential V for Vendetta has actually been.
“
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”-Oscar Wilde
Alan Moore and David Lloyd took up an idea based on what was considered an act of treason in 1605, molded it into a story that was to present itself as a not so subtle commentary against the Margaret Thatcher government. A story that has gone on to become the face of countries fighting oppressive regimes today. A mere prop has become the unifying factor for million as a call to rise against tyranny.
If I didn’t know better, I would have said Alan Moore and David Lloyd have literally created ‘The Mask’
We can argue as to which form has had the most cultural impact. Whether the movie catapulted the book’s message internationally, or if the message would have caught on eventually anyway, but the point is that in remains one of the most significantly influential work produced even 30 years from when it started first being published. And it has never seemed more relevant to the political scenario of current times. The only other literary work that could boast a greater relevance today would be George Orwell’s 1984 in my opinion.
The legacy of Moore’s source arguably catalyzed the revolution in Egypt, and has even lent a voice to people subjected to oppressive regimes. Guy Fawkes Day has become synonymous with the idea of free speech and is widely celebrated across cultural divides.
In Egypt, a short film titled ‘Khaled for Vendetta’ went as far as to draw parallels between the government portrayed in the film, and the Egyptian government, and the Guy Fawkes mask became the face of the revolution.
The internet group Anonymous that’s being given an identity in the form of the Guy Fawkes mask is almost a case of Life imitating art since the picks from the ideas in the book and advocates radical transparency online, and is often labeled as a cyber terrorist group.
A mask has given millions an identity.
Vicarious
I’ve always felt a film adapted from an existing source should add something more to it, rather than being a direct adaptation. Some of my favourite films have been adapted from books, and have added a new dimension to the existing source material, be it The Prestige, or Fight Club.
It's a slippery slope to add to an existing work, as it opens up room for a lot of criticism, a lot of films to fall the other way by means of adding unnecessary characters or subplots(Peter Jackson, anyone?), but I believe it is a risk worth taking, and can payoff in a big way.
V for Vendetta did that too, and added/ modified/ replaced many elements from the book to tell a coherent story in itself. Viewed as an independent entity, the movie comes across as a highly stylized and visually appealing story of oppression and freedom. Almost a surreal Mask of Zorro, if you will, and therein lies my gripe with the film:
It maintained the plot of the book to a large degree, but was unable to capture its spirit. And because of this, those who haven’t read the book seem to think of it as a far more conventional story than it actually is.
Victimize and Villainize
Like the film, the book spoke of an oppressive government too, but followed a protagonist who was an anarchist, not a freedom fighter. Think of Moore’s V as a less extreme version of the Joker, but the madness he’s trying imbibe in his surroundings has a morality to it. The premise of the book warrants that the citizens descend into chaos.
Obviously, these ideas were too far out for Hollywood when they produced the film, and they felt the necessity to considerably dumb down the premise to make it more conventional or dare I say, palatable. Oppression was turned to corruption, and anarchy was replaced with good ol’ freedom.
The movie’s V is humanized at every turn, making him feel more relatable to the audience, toning down his insanity. Moore never did that in the book. His V reveled in the insanity, and the irony of being labeled a terrorist. Moore’s V is an embodiment of anarchy, and reflects the change he wants to bring about, and the movie disengages the audience by humanizing him.
Imagine if Fight Club humanized Tyler…
Evey too is a lot less anti government in the beginning of the book, and her progression almost has shades of being brainwashed by V into being his heir. The movie makes her progression seem more like an induced wake up call.
The book’s antagonist, Adam Susan is almost an Anti-Villain; awkward, disturbed, and arguably an objectophile. This actually does a great job of humanizing him. The film changes him to Adam Sutler and basically portrays him as a combination of all the dictators you can think of.
It was they greyness of the characters that created the magic in the book, the film dealt with absolutes. The characters stood at either end of the spectrum, the book explored the entire spectrum, all those greys between the blacks and whites.
Coming to the plot changes, the ending in the book isn’t as dramatic as the film's. While the film presents the notion of an uprising, reflecting the political landscape of quite a few countries over the past few years, the book stays clear of this. It reflects a slow descent of the state into anarchy, and Evey taking up the mantle as V’s successor, suggesting that V’s legacy will continue on. The climax to is played up in a big way in the film version. The books end is considerably toned down and more realistic in comparison.
These changes don’t do justice to the book at all. The movie is as much an adaptation of the book as ‘Elementary’ is an adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes work. You’re left with characters that have the same name, but the motivations, and a fair bit of plot complexities are lost, resulting in an adopted entity trying to pass itself off as a biological heir of the original.
“
The central question is, is this guy right? Or is he mad? What do you, the reader, think about this? Which struck me as a properly anarchist solution. I didn't want to tell people what to think, I just wanted to tell people to think and consider some of these admittedly extreme little elements, which nevertheless do recur fairly regularly throughout human history”-Alan Moore
The fans of the film argue that the changes were necessary to make the material more filmable, and that having a detached lead would not have done justice on film to Moore’s source. The plot changes too are regarded as an ‘update’ in order to be more ‘relevant’ to the current political scenario of the real world. Is anything more relevant than oppression and anarchy in today’s political landscape?
Vagaries
If Watchmen deconstructs the superhero, V for Vendetta takes it a step further and suggests a reexamination of vigilantism. It is a commentary on how crazy one would really need to be in order to take on the established order singlehandedly, and the inevitable end of such an endeavor. In the book, V holds on to the fact that his legacy will carry on in Evey, that his message, his idea was in fact bulletproof, and it was spreading. Were these ideas handled with the same complexity in the movie? Not even close.
There’s a scene in the book where V has a ‘conversation’ with the Statue of Madame Justice, playing both his and her parts, portraying her as a personification of justice. The dialogue talks about how V has been betrayed by her Infidelity, and how that drove him to another girl’s arms; Anarchy.
It’s a pivotal scene in the book that really casts light on V’s mental state. It separates him from the conventional hero, and even the Anti hero. It shows him in an altogether unique light
There are several nuances in the book that aren’t captured in the film. The above example is just one of them. Moore employs great dialogue to give the reader a deeper insight into the characters, and really etches them out as unique individuals. There are some lofty ideas in the book, but the almost surreal nature kind of fits with the premise. All of this is lost in the film.
Think of it this way; if you were a fan of Shakespeare’s work, would you welcome a dumbed down adaptation of Hamlet or Macbeth? So many adaptations of Shakespeare’s work change the backdrop of the story, but maintain the themes, respecting the source.
I will concede that my opinion on the subject may be biased, but the book stands as BY FAR(and I mean a mile) the best comic, and possibly one of the best fictional works I have read, which makes it impossible to regard the film as an independent entity.
V for Vendetta had the potential to be adapted into one of the finest films adapted from a comic, one that arguably could have been as great as The Dark Knight. The material was there. A few sub plots would have required altering (like the Fate computer, which the film thankfully did away with) but it really should have held on the spirit of Alan Moore’s book. There’s a reason it’s considered one of the finest comics ever written.
So while I do generally prefer a movie that doesn’t lift directly from its book, I believe that with some discretion, V for Vendetta would have been best served as a Ctrl+C, ctrl+V.