Hello, Folks!
Last night, I finished reading Alan Moore’s “V for Vendetta.” Frankly, I’m a bit unsure what to think. The thing is, I saw the movie first, and I enjoyed it. The movie and the graphic novel begin very similarly, and then the move takes tremendous liberties with the source material. I enjoyed the movie, but now I see it as a variation on the graphic novel.
So, now I feel a little guilty. The graphic novel was intriguing, yet I enjoyed the movie more, and I should be angry at the Wachowski Bro.s for their treatment of it. There is good reason why Alan Moore wanted to have his name removed from the movie. If I had read the original novel first, then of course I would have treasured it as the “real” “V for Vendetta,” and perhaps hated the movie that followed it.
(“Watchmen” is a different case. Alan Moore say’s he’ll never watch it, and I believe him, but I think that he secretly would be pleased with it. The same cannot be said for “V.”)
The “V for Vendetta” movie, in some ways, made more sense, and Hugo Weaving was brilliant as V. This wonderful actor had to act through a completely static, unmoving mask, and we couldn’t even see his eyes! Yet, because of Weaving’s tremendous talent, it worked, and it worked well. Natalie Portman was also quite good as Evey Hammond. In some ways, the movie filled out Evey’s character more, made her tougher and more independent, but in other ways it robbed here of what she became in the novel.
From what I’ve heard, the primary reason Alan Moore wanted nothing to do with the movie is that it celebrated democracy, when the novel it was based on celebrated anarchy. In the novel, Moore explained the anarchist philosophy well, separating it from the simpler nihilism that it has come to represent to most people.
Well, if I can draw anything from this, it is this: Read the book first, watch the movie second.
Scott
