V.good for Vendetta

Well, I have to say, despite Alan Moore publicly disassociating himself from the film at every opportunity, the producers of V for Vendetta have made a surprisingly good job of translating the original graphic novel on to the screen. It's not a perfect adaptation mind you, but considering the travesties that have been made of others of Moore's works (I shudder ever now to think of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen), it's nevertheless remarkably faithful. More comments in the extended bit, in case I spoil the plot.

V for Vendetta is a film that succeeds in the broad strokes, perhaps because that's where it renders the plot from the book most accurately. Our two protagonists, the masked V, and Evey, the girl with whom V's life so fatefully intersects, are instantly recognisable. Hugo Weaving's turn as V is far better than I expected, bringing life to a character forever hidden from the eyes of the audience by an expressionless mask. As Sam Raimi found when directing Spider-man conveying emotion behind a mask is a tricky business - scenes when Spider-man and the Green Goblin converse come across as awkward and stilted. V, on the other hand has little problem expressing himself, and easily wins the sympathies of the audience. The film also stays true to the emotional beats of the book, engaging the audience with both V's and Evey's respective journeys, however painful and raw.

However, beyond the central thrust of the story are a myriad of details which don't fit together quite so strongly. I have no qualms with the scriptwriters (the Wachowski brothers who previously assembled the Matrix trilogy) changing details in the plot - the compression of the source material is a necessity, but in doing so they've changed the flavour of the film. Though the story remains largely intact, the meaning is quite different.

The biggest change, and the most important, lies with the history of Britain presented by each. In the graphic novel, V fought against a fascist government not wildly different from that portrayed in the film. But the book's government was born out of a nuclear war which decimated the rest of the world and, however detestable the end product may have been, it was presented as a necessity. Without it, what would be left? Chaos? Anarchy? In the book Britain was a society poised at the edge of the abyss, and however bad the ruling system may have been, it was all that was preventing that final plunge. V alone seems willing to push the country into the brink.

The govenment we see in the film however, is a product of fear rather than necessity, and the circumstances which surround it's rise, although arguably more topical, make it difficult to view as anything other than a corrupt system, unwanted by it's people, and most importantly of all, far from essential for the survival of the country. It's in representing the goverment that film fails. It's rendered so starkly in black and white that the High Chanceller may as well have dressed in black, wore a top hat and twirled his waxed moustache at every opportunity. We're left in no doubt that the government is Evil, and that once it's gone, all will be well again, a very different conclusion from the book. It also represents a change in status for V himself. After all, the more corrupt and evil the goverment becomes - and the film goes to great pains to point out just how evil it is - the more heroic V appears. One of the central dichotomies of the book, that of V as terrorist and hero, all but vanishes as a consequence.

I also have to take the script to task for going to such incredible pains to point out the similarities between V and Gordon Deitrich, the father figure Evey turns to in V's absence. Subtely goes out the window as the script takes every available opportunity to beat us about the head with the fact that Gordon is nothing more than a poor V substitute in Evey's life. Look, he's <whack!> cooking Evey the same <whack!>breakfast that V <whack!> made <whack!> for <whack!>her.

Don't read too much into the fact that I've spent more time complaining about what's wrong with the film, rather than complimenting what's good. Considering that it's a Holywood production, I'm almost amazed that the film remains set in the same country. That it gets so much right beyond that is more than I could have hoped for. Yes, it simplifies some of the important moral ambiguities of the book, and I've no doubt there will be a great many who will decry it for that, but the end result is a still a product which arguably glorifies acts of terrorism, a brave stance in this day and age.

For me at least, it's virtues far outweight it's vices.